Vol. 80 Wednesday, 

No. 160 August 19, 2015 

Part II 

Environmental Protection Agency 

40 CFR Parts 60 and 63 

Phosphoric Acid Manufacturing and Phosphate Fertilizer Production RTR 

and Standards of Performance for Phosphate Processing; Final Rule 


rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
50386 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 160 / Wednesday, August 19, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Parts 60 and 63 

[EPA–HQ–OAR–2012–0522; FRL–9931–01– 

OAR] 

RIN 2060–AQ20 

Phosphoric Acid Manufacturing and 

Phosphate Fertilizer Production RTR 

and Standards of Performance for 

Phosphate Processing 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: This action finalizes the 

residual risk and technology review 

conducted for the Phosphoric Acid 

Manufacturing and Phosphate Fertilizer 

Production source categories regulated 

under national emission standards for 

hazardous air pollutants (NESHAP). In 

addition, this action finalizes an 8-year 

review of the current new source 

performance standards (NSPS) for five 

source categories. We are also taking 

final action addressing Clean Air Act 

(CAA) provisions related to emission 

standards for hazardous air pollutants, 

review and revision of emission 

standards, and work practice standards. 

The final amendments to the 

Phosphoric Acid Manufacturing 

NESHAP include: Numeric emission 

limits for previously unregulated 

mercury (Hg) and total fluoride 

emissions from calciners; work practice 

standards for hydrogen fluoride (HF) 

emissions from previously unregulated 

gypsum dewatering stacks and cooling 

ponds; clarifications to the applicability 

and monitoring requirements to 

accommodate process equipment and 

technology changes; removal of the 

exemptions for startup, shutdown, and 

malfunction (SSM); adoption of work 

practice standards for periods of startup 

and shutdown; and revised 

recordkeeping and reporting 

requirements for periods of SSM. The 

final amendments to the Phosphate 

Fertilizer Production NESHAP include: 

Clarifications to the applicability and 

monitoring requirements to 

accommodate process equipment and 

technology changes; removal of the 

exemptions for SSM; adoption of work 

practice standards for periods of startup 

and shutdown; and revised 

recordkeeping and reporting 

requirements for periods of SSM. The 

revised NESHAP for Phosphoric Acid 

Manufacturing facilities will mitigate 

future increases of Hg emissions from 

phosphate rock calciners by requiring 

pollution prevention measures. Further, 

based on the 8-year review of the 

current NSPS for these source 

categories, the EPA determined that no 

revisions to the numeric emission limits 

in those rules are warranted. 

DATES: This final action is effective on 

August 19, 2015. The incorporation by 

reference of certain publications listed 

in the rule is approved by the Director 

of the Federal Register as of August 19, 

2015. 

ADDRESSES: The Environmental 

Protection Agency (EPA) has established 

a docket for this action under Docket ID 

No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2012–0522. All 

documents in the docket are listed on 

the www.regulations.gov Web site. 

Although listed in the index, some 

information is not publicly available, 

e.g., confidential business information 

(CBI) or other information whose 

disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Certain other material, such as 

copyrighted material, is not placed on 

the Internet and will be publicly 

available only in hard copy form. 

Publicly available docket materials are 

available either electronically through 

http://www.regulations.gov, or in hard 

copy at the EPA Docket Center, EPA 

WJC West Building, Room Number 

3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., 

Washington, DC. The Public Reading 

Room hours of operation are 8:30 a.m. 

to 4:30 p.m. Eastern Standard Time 

(EST), Monday through Friday. The 

telephone number for the Public 

Reading Room is (202) 566–1744, and 

the telephone number for the Air Docket 

is (202) 566–1742. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

questions about this final action, contact 

Dr. Tina Ndoh, Sector Policies and 

Programs Division (D243–02), Office of 

Air Quality Planning and Standards, 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, 

27711; telephone number: (919) 541– 

2750; fax number: (919) 541–5450; and 

email address: Ndoh.Tina@epa.gov. For 

specific information regarding the risk 

modeling methodology, contact James 

Hirtz, Health and Environmental 

Impacts Division (C539–02), Office of 

Air Quality Planning and Standards, 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 

27711; telephone number: (919) 541– 

0881; fax number: (919) 541–0359; and 

email address: Hirtz.James@epa.gov. For 

information about the applicability of 

the NESHAP or NSPS to a particular 

entity, contact Scott Throwe, Office of 

Enforcement and Compliance 

Assurance, U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, EPA WJC, 1200 

Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, 

DC 20460; telephone number: (202) 

562–7013; and email address: 

Throwe.Scott@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Preamble 

Acronyms and Abbreviations. We use 

multiple acronyms and terms in this 

preamble. While this list may not be 

exhaustive, to ease the reading of this 

preamble and for reference purposes, 

the EPA defines the following terms and 

acronyms here: 

ACI Activated carbon injection 

AEGL Acute exposure guideline levels 

AFPC Association of Fertilizer and 

Phosphate Chemists 

AOAC Association of Official Analytical 

Chemists 

BACT Best available control technology 

BSER Best System of Emissions Reduction 

BTF Beyond the floor 

CAA Clean Air Act 

CBI Confidential Business Information 

CDX Central Data Exchange 

CEDRI Compliance and Emissions Data 

Reporting Interface 

CEMS Continuous emissions monitoring 

system 

CFR Code of Federal Regulations 

CMS Continuous monitoring system 

CPMS Continuous parameter monitoring 

system 

DAP Diammonium phosphate 

DOE Department of Energy 

EPA Environmental Protection Agency 

ERT Electronic Reporting Tool 

FR Federal Register 

FTIR Fourier transform infrared 

spectroscopy 

GMCS Gore Mercury Control System 

GTSP Granular triple superphosphate 

HAP Hazardous air pollutants 

HF Hydrogen fluoride 

Hg Mercury 

HI Hazard index 

HQ Hazard quotient 

ICR Information Collection Request 

LAER Lowest achievable emissions rate 

lb/MMBtu Pounds per million Btu 

LOAEL Lowest-observed-adverse-effect 

level 

MACT Maximum achievable control 

technology 

MAP Monoammonium phosphate 

mg/dscm Milligrams per dry standard cubic 

meter 

MIBK Methyl isobutyl ketone 

MIR Maximum individual risk 

NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality 

Standards 

NAICS North American Industry 

Classification System 

NAS National Academy of Sciences 

NESHAP National Emissions Standards for 

Hazardous Air Pollutants 

NETL National Energy Technology 

Laboratory 

NOAEL No-observed-adverse-effect level 

NSPS New source performance standard 

NTTAA National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act 

OAQPS Office of Air Quality Planning and 

Standards 

OMB Office of Management and Budget 

P2O5 Phosphorus pentoxide 

PAC Powdered activated carbon 


rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 160 / Wednesday, August 19, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 50387 

PB–HAP Hazardous air pollutants known to 

be persistent and bio-accumulative in the 

environment 

PM Particulate matter 

POM Polycyclic organic matter 

PPA Purified phosphoric acid 

ppm Parts per million 

RACT Reasonably available control 

technology 

RBLC RACT/BACT/LAER Clearinghouse 

REL Reference exposure level 

RFA Regulatory Flexibility Act 

RTR Residual risk and technology review 

SBA Small Business Administration 

SiF4 Silicon tetrafluoride 

SPA Superphosphoric acid 

SSM Startup, shutdown, and malfunction 

TOSHI Target organ-specific hazard index 

tpy Tons per year 

TRIM Total Risk Integrated Modeling 

System 

TRIM.FaTE Total Risk Integrated 

Methodology.Fate, Transport, and 

Ecological Exposure model 

TSP Triple superphosphates 

TTN Technology Transfer Network 

UMRA Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

UPL Upper prediction limit 

VCS Voluntary consensus standards 

WESP Wet electrostatic precipitator 

WPPA Wet-process phosphoric acid 

WWW World Wide Web 

Background Information. On 

November 7, 2014 (79 FR 66511), the 

EPA proposed revisions to the 

Phosphoric Acid Manufacturing and 

Phosphate Fertilizer Production 

national emission standards for 

hazardous air pollutants (NESHAP) in 

conjunction with the residual risk and 

technology review (RTR) for those 

NESHAP, 40 CFR part 63, subparts AA 

and BB, and required 8-year review of 

the Standards of Performance for the 

Phosphate Fertilizer Industry new 

source performance standards (NSPS) 

for 40 CFR part 60, subparts T, U, V, W 

and X. In this action, we are finalizing 

decisions and revisions for the rules. We 

summarize some of the more significant 

comments we received regarding the 

proposed rule and provide our 

responses in this preamble. A summary 

of all other public comments on the 

proposal and the EPA’s responses to 

those comments is available in 

‘‘Phosphoric Acid Manufacturing and 

Phosphate Fertilizer Production RTR 

and Standards of Performance for 

Phosphate Processing—Summary of 

Public Comments and Responses’’ 

which is available in Docket ID No. 

EPA–HQ–OAR–2012–0522. A ‘‘track 

changes’’ version of the regulatory 

language that incorporates the changes 

in this action for each NSPS is available 

in the docket. The NESHAP were 

replaced in their entirety to assist in 

readability of the language and to ensure 

that citations were accurate. 

Organization of this Document. The 

information in this preamble is 

organized as follows: 

I. General Information 

A. Does this action apply to me? 

B. Where can I get a copy of this document 

and other related information? 

C. Judicial Review and Administrative 

Reconsideration 

II. Background 

A. What is the statutory authority for this 

action? 

B. What are the Phosphoric Acid 

Manufacturing and Phosphate Fertilizer 

Production source categories and how do 

the NESHAP and NSPS regulate 

emissions from these source categories? 

C. What changes did we propose for the 

Phosphoric Acid Manufacturing and 

Phosphate Fertilizer Production source 

categories in our November 7, 2014 

proposal? 

III. What is included in this final rule for the 

Phosphoric Acid Manufacturing source 

category? 

A. What are the final rule amendments 

based on the NESHAP residual risk 

review for the Phosphoric Acid 

Manufacturing source category? 

B. What are the final rule amendments 

based on the NESHAP technology review 

for the Phosphoric Acid Manufacturing 

source category? 

C. What are the final rule amendments 

pursuant to CAA sections 112(d)(2), 

112(d)(3), and 112(h) for the Phosphoric 

Acid Manufacturing source category? 

D. What are the final rule amendments 

based on the NSPS review for the 

Phosphoric Acid Manufacturing source 

category? 

E. What are the final rule amendments 

addressing emissions during periods of 

startup, shutdown, and malfunction for 

the Phosphoric Acid Manufacturing 

source category? 

F. What other changes are we making to 

the NESHAP and NSPS for the 

Phosphoric Acid Manufacturing source 

category? 

G. What are the effective and compliance 

dates of the standards for the Phosphoric 

Acid Manufacturing source category? 

H. What are the requirements for 

submission of performance test data to 

the EPA for the Phosphoric Acid 

Manufacturing source category? 

IV. What is included in this final rule for the 

Phosphate Fertilizer Production source 

category? 

A. What are the final rule amendments 

based on the NESHAP risk review for the 

Phosphate Fertilizer Production source 

category? 

B. What are the final rule amendments 

based on the NESHAP technology review 

for the Phosphate Fertilizer Production 

source category? 

C. What are the final rule amendments 

based on the NSPS review for the 

Phosphate Fertilizer Production source 

category? 

D. What are the final rule amendments 

addressing emissions during periods of 

startup, shutdown, and malfunction for 

the Phosphate Fertilizer Production 

source category? 

E. What other changes are we making to 

the NESHAP and NSPS for the 

Phosphate Fertilizer Production source 

category? 

F. What are the effective and compliance 

dates of the standards for the Phosphate 

Fertilizer Production source category? 

G. What are the requirements for 

submission of performance test data to 

the EPA for the Phosphate Fertilizer 

Production source category? 

V. What is the rationale for our final 

decisions and amendments for the 

Phosphoric Acid Manufacturing source 

category? 

A. Residual Risk Review for the 

Phosphoric Acid Manufacturing Source 

Category 

B. Technology Review for the Phosphoric 

Acid Manufacturing Source Category 

C. CAA Sections 112(d)(2), 112(d)(3), and 

112(h) for the Phosphoric Acid 

Manufacturing Source Category 

D. NSPS Review for the Phosphoric Acid 

Manufacturing Source Category 

E. Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunction 

Provisions for the Phosphoric Acid 

Manufacturing Source Category 

F. Other Changes Made to the Phosphoric 

Acid Manufacturing NESHAP and NSPS 

VI. What is the rationale for our final 

decisions and amendments for the 

Phosphate Fertilizer Production source 

category? 

A. Residual Risk Review for the Phosphate 

Fertilizer Production Source Category 

B. Technology Review for the Phosphate 

Fertilizer Production Source Category 

C. NSPS Review for the Phosphate 

Fertilizer Production Source Category 

D. Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunction 

Provisions for the Phosphate Fertilizer 

Production Source Category 

E. Other Changes Made to the Phosphate 

Fertilizer Production NESHAP and NSPS 

VII. Summary of Cost, Environmental, and 

Economic Impacts and Additional 

Analyses Conducted 

A. What are the affected facilities? 

B. What are the air quality impacts? 

C. What are the cost impacts? 

D. What are the economic impacts? 

E. What are the benefits? 

F. What analysis of environmental justice 

did we conduct? 

G. What analysis of children’s 

environmental health did we conduct? 

VIII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

A. Executive Orders 12866: Regulatory 

Planning and Review and Executive 

Order 13563: Improving Regulation and 

Regulatory Review 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

(UMRA) 

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism 

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation 

and Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments 

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

Risks and Safety Risks 

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions 

Concerning Regulations That 


rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
50388 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 160 / Wednesday, August 19, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution or Use 

I. National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act (NTTAA) and 1 CFR 

Part 51 

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions 

To Address Environmental Justice in 

Minority Populations and Low-Income 

Populations 

K. Congressional Review Act 

I. General Information 

A. Does this action apply to me? 

Regulated Entities. Categories and 

entities potentially regulated by this 

action are shown in Table 1 of this 

preamble. 

TABLE 1—NESHAP AND INDUSTRIAL

SOURCE CATEGORIES AFFECTED BY

THIS FINAL ACTION

NESHAP and source 

category NAICSa code 

Phosphoric Acid Manufacturing Phosphate Fertilizer 

Production ......................... 325312 

a North American Industry Classification 

System. 

Table 1 of this preamble is not 

intended to be exhaustive, but rather to 

provide a guide for readers regarding 

entities likely to be affected by the final 

action for the source category listed. To 

determine whether your facility is 

affected, you should examine the 

applicability criteria in the appropriate 

NESHAP. If you have any questions 

regarding the applicability of any aspect 

of this NESHAP, please contact the 

appropriate person listed in the 

preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT section of this preamble. 

B. Where can I get a copy of this 

document and other related 

information? 

In addition to being available in the 

docket, an electronic copy of this final 

action will also be available on the 

Internet through the Technology 

Transfer Network (TTN) Web site, a 

forum for information and technology 

exchange in various areas of air 

pollution control. Following signature 

by the EPA Administrator, the EPA will 

post a copy of this final action at http:// 

www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/phosph/

phosphpg.html. Following publication 

in the Federal Register, the EPA will 

post the Federal Register version and 

key technical documents at this same 

Web site. 

Additional information is available on 

the RTR Web site at http://www.epa.

gov/ttn/atw/rrisk/rtrpg.html. This 

information includes an overview of the 

RTR program, links to project Web sites 

for the RTR source categories and 

detailed emissions and other data we 

used as inputs to the risk assessments. 

C. Judicial Review and Administrative 

Reconsideration 

Under CAA section 307(b)(1), judicial 

review of this final action is available 

only by filing a petition for review in 

the United States (U.S.) Court of 

Appeals for the District of Columbia 

Circuit by October 19, 2015. Under CAA 

section 307(b)(2), the requirements 

established by this final rule may not be 

challenged separately in any civil or 

criminal proceedings brought by the 

EPA to enforce the requirements. 

Section 307(d)(7)(B) of the CAA 

further provides that ‘‘[o]nly an 

objection to a rule or procedure which 

was raised with reasonable specificity 

during the period for public comment 

(including any public hearing) may be 

raised during judicial review.’’ This 

section also provides a mechanism for 

the EPA to reconsider the rule ‘‘[i]f the 

person raising an objection can 

demonstrate to the Administrator that it 

was impracticable to raise such 

objection within [the period for public 

comment] or if the grounds for such 

objection arose after the period for 

public comment (but within the time 

specified for judicial review) and if such 

objection is of central relevance to the 

outcome of the rule.’’ Any person 

seeking to make such a demonstration 

should submit a Petition for 

Reconsideration to the Office of the 

Administrator, U.S. EPA, Room 3000, 

EPA WJC Building, 1200 Pennsylvania 

Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460, with 

a copy to both the person(s) listed in the 

preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT section, and the Associate 

General Counsel for the Air and 

Radiation Law Office, Office of General 

Counsel (Mail Code 2344A), U.S. EPA, 

1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., 

Washington, DC 20460. 

II. Background 

A. What is the statutory authority for 

this action? 

1. NESHAP Authority 

Section 112 of the CAA establishes a 

two-stage regulatory process to address 

emissions of hazardous air pollutants 

(HAP) from stationary sources. In the 

first stage, we must identify categories 

of sources emitting one or more of the 

HAP listed in CAA section 112(b) and 

then promulgate technology-based 

NESHAP for those sources. ‘‘Major 

sources’’ are those that emit, or have the 

potential to emit, any single HAP at a 

rate of 10 tons per year (tpy) or more, 

or 25 tpy or more of any combination of 

HAP. For major sources, these standards 

are commonly referred to as maximum 

achievable control technology (MACT) 

standards and must reflect the 

maximum degree of emission reductions 

of HAP achievable (after considering 

cost, energy requirements, and non-air 

quality health and environmental 

impacts). In developing MACT 

standards, CAA section 112(d)(2) directs 

the EPA to consider the application of 

measures, processes, methods, systems 

or techniques, including, but not limited 

to those that reduce the volume of or 

eliminate HAP emissions through 

process changes, substitution of 

materials, or other modifications; 

enclose systems or processes to 

eliminate emissions; collect, capture, or 

treat HAP when released from a process, 

stack, storage, or fugitive emissions 

point; are design, equipment, work 

practice, or operational standards; or 

any combination of the above. 

For these MACT standards, the statute 

specifies certain minimum stringency 

requirements, which are referred to as 

MACT floor requirements, and which 

may not be based on cost 

considerations. See CAA section 

112(d)(3). For new sources, the MACT 

floor cannot be less stringent than the 

emission control achieved in practice by 

the best-controlled similar source. The 

MACT standards for existing sources 

can be less stringent than floors for new 

sources, but they cannot be less 

stringent than the average emission 

limitation achieved by the bestperforming 12 percent of existing 

sources in the category or subcategory 

(or the best-performing five sources for 

categories or subcategories with fewer 

than 30 sources). In developing MACT 

standards, we must also consider 

control options that are more stringent 

than the floor, under CAA section 

112(d)(2). We may establish standards 

more stringent than the floor, based on 

the consideration of the cost of 

achieving the emissions reductions, any 

non-air quality health and 

environmental impacts, and energy 

requirements. 

In the second stage of the regulatory 

process, the CAA requires the EPA to 

undertake two different analyses, which 

we refer to as the technology review and 

the residual risk review. Under the 

technology review, we must review the 

technology-based standards and revise 

them ‘‘as necessary (taking into account 

developments in practices, processes, 

and control technologies)’’ no less 

frequently than every 8 years, pursuant 

to CAA section 112(d)(6). Under the 

residual risk review, we must evaluate 

the risk to public health remaining after 

application of the technology-based 


rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 160 / Wednesday, August 19, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 50389 

1The U.S. Court of Appeals has affirmed this 

approach of implementing CAA section 

112(f)(2)(A): NRDC v. EPA, 529 F.3d 1077, 1083 

(D.C. Cir. 2008) (‘‘If EPA determines that the 

existing technology-based standards provide an 

’ample margin of safety,’ then the Agency is free to 

readopt those standards during the residual risk 

rulemaking.’’). 

standards and revise the standards, if 

necessary, to provide an ample margin 

of safety to protect public health or to 

prevent, taking into consideration costs, 

energy, safety, and other relevant 

factors, an adverse environmental effect. 

The residual risk review is required 

within 8 years after promulgation of the 

technology-based standards, pursuant to 

CAA section 112(f). In conducting the 

residual risk review, if the EPA 

determines that the current standards 

provide an ample margin of safety to 

protect public health, it is not necessary 

to revise the MACT standards pursuant 

to CAA section 112(f).1 For more 

information on the statutory authority 

for this rule, see 79 FR 66512 

(November 7, 2014). 

2. NSPS Authority 

NSPS implement CAA section 111, 

which requires that each NSPS reflect 

the degree of emission limitation 

achievable through the application of 

the best system of emission reduction 

(BSER) which (taking into consideration 

the cost of achieving such emission 

reductions, any non-air quality health 

and environmental impact and energy 

requirements) the Administrator 

determines has been adequately 

demonstrated. 

Existing affected facilities that are 

modified or reconstructed are also 

subject to NSPS. Under CAA section 

111(a)(4), ‘‘modification’’ means any 

physical change in, or change in the 

method of operation of, a stationary 

source which increases the amount of 

any air pollutant emitted by such source 

or which results in the emission of any 

air pollutant not previously emitted. 

Changes to an existing facility that do 

not result in an increase in emissions 

are not considered modifications. 

Rebuilt emission units would become 

subject to the NSPS under the 

reconstruction provisions in 40 CFR 

60.15, regardless of changes in emission 

rate. Reconstruction means the 

replacement of components of an 

existing facility such that: (1) The fixed 

capital cost of the new components 

exceeds 50 percent of the fixed capital 

cost that would be required to construct 

a comparable entirely new facility; and 

(2) it is technologically and 

economically feasible to meet the 

applicable standards (40 CFR 60.15). 

Section 111(b)(1)(B) of the CAA 

requires the EPA to periodically review 

and, if appropriate, revise the standards 

of performance as necessary to reflect 

improvements in methods for reducing 

emissions. The EPA need not review an 

NSPS if the Agency determines that 

such review is not appropriate in light 

of readily available information on the 

efficacy of the standard. When 

conducting the review under CAA 

section 111(b)(1)(B), the EPA considers 

both: (1) Whether developments in 

technology or other factors support the 

conclusion that a different system of 

emissions reduction has become the 

BSER and (2) whether emissions 

limitations and percent reductions 

beyond those required by the current 

standards are achieved in practice. 

B. What are the Phosphoric Acid 

Manufacturing and Phosphate Fertilizer 

Production source categories and how 

do the NESHAP and NSPS regulate 

emissions from these source categories? 

1. Description of Phosphoric Acid 

Manufacturing Source Category 

In 2014, 12 facilities in the U.S. 

manufactured phosphoric acid. The 

basic step for producing phosphoric 

acid is acidulation of phosphate rock. 

Typically, sulfuric acid, phosphate rock, 

and water are combined together and 

allowed to react to produce phosphoric 

acid and gypsum. When phosphate rock 

is acidulated to manufacture wetprocess phosphoric acid (WPPA), 

fluorine contained in the rock is 

released. Fluoride compounds, 

predominately HF, are produced as 

particulates and gases that are emitted 

to the atmosphere unless removed from 

the exhaust stream. Some of these same 

fluoride compounds also remain in the 

product acid and are released as air 

pollutants during subsequent processing 

of the acid. Gypsum is pumped as a 

slurry to ponds atop stacks of waste 

gypsum where the liquids separate from 

the slurry and are decanted for return to 

the process. The gypsum, which is 

discarded on the stack, is a solid waste 

stream produced in this process. Five 

facilities concentrate WPPA to make 

superphosphoric acid (SPA), typically 

using the vacuum evaporation process. 

While one manufacturer is permitted to 

use a submerged combustion process for 

the production of SPA, that process was 

indefinitely shutdown on June 1, 2006. 

The majority of WPPA is used to 

produce phosphate fertilizers. 

Additional processes may also be 

used to further refine phosphoric acid. 

At least two facilities have a 

defluorination process to remove 

fluorides from the phosphoric acid 

product, and one company uses a 

solvent extraction process to remove 

metals and organics and to further refine 

WPPA into purified phosphoric acid 

(PPA) for use in food manufacturing or 

specialized chemical processes. In 

addition, four facilities have oxidation 

processes to remove organics from the 

acid (i.e., the green acid process). One 

of these facilities also calcines the ore 

prior to the acidulation process to help 

achieve the desired organic content 

reduction for the final acid product. 

Sources of HF emissions from 

phosphoric acid plants include gypsum 

dewatering stacks, cooling ponds, 

cooling towers, calciners, reactors, 

filters, evaporators and other process 

equipment. 

2. Federal Air Emission Standards 

Applicable to the Phosphoric Acid 

Manufacturing Source Category 

The following federal air emission 

standards are associated with the 

Phosphoric Acid Manufacturing source 

category and are the subject of this final 

action: 

• National Emission Standards for 

Hazardous Air Pollutants from Phosphoric 

Acid Manufacturing Plants (40 CFR part 63, 

subpart AA); 

• Standards of Performance for the 

Phosphate Fertilizer Industry: Wet-Process 

Phosphoric Acid Plants (40 CFR part 60, 

subpart T); and 

• Standards of Performance for the 

Phosphate Fertilizer Industry: 

Superphosphoric Acid Plants (40 CFR part 

60, subpart U). 

a. Phosphoric Acid Manufacturing 

NESHAP Emission Regulations. The 

EPA promulgated 40 CFR part 63, 

subpart AA for the Phosphoric Acid 

Manufacturing source category on June 

10, 1999 (64 FR 31358). The NESHAP 

established standards for major sources 

to control HAP emissions from 

phosphoric acid facilities. Total fluoride 

emission limits, as a surrogate for the 

HAP HF, were set for WPPA process 

lines and SPA process lines. The 

NESHAP established emission limits for 

particulate matter (PM) from phosphate 

rock dryers and phosphate rock 

calciners as a surrogate for metal HAP. 

Also, the NESHAP established an 

emission limit for methyl isobutyl 

ketone (MIBK) for PPA process lines 

and work practices for cooling towers. 

For more information on this NESHAP, 

see 79 FR 66512. 

b. Phosphoric Acid Manufacturing 

NSPS Emission Regulations. The EPA 

promulgated 40 CFR part 60, subpart T 

for WPPA Plants on August 6, 1975 (40 

FR 33154). The NSPS established 

standards to control total fluoride 

emissions from WPPA plants, including 


rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
50390 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 160 / Wednesday, August 19, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

2According to 2014 production and trade 

statistics issued by International Fertilizer Industry 

Association (IFA). 

reactors, filters, evaporators, and hot 

wells. 

The EPA promulgated 40 CFR part 60, 

subpart U for SPA Plants on August 6, 

1975 (40 FR 33155). The NSPS 

established standards to control total 

fluoride emissions from SPA plants, 

including evaporators, hot wells, acid 

sumps, and cooling tanks. 

For more information on these NSPS, 

see 79 FR 66512. 

3. Description of Phosphate Fertilizer 

Production Source Category 

There are 11 operating facilities that 

produce phosphate fertilizers, and most 

facilities have the ability to produce 

either monoammonium phosphates 

(MAP) or diammonium phosphates 

(DAP) in the same process train. 

However, approximately 80 percent of 

all ammonium phosphates are produced 

as MAP. MAP and DAP plants are 

generally collocated with WPPA plants 

since both are manufactured from 

phosphoric acid and ammonia. The 

MAP and DAP manufacturing process 

consists of three basic steps: Reaction, 

granulation, and finishing operations 

such as drying, cooling, and screening. 

Sources of fluoride emissions from MAP 

and DAP plants include the reactor, 

granulator, dryer, cooler, screens, and 

mills. Some of the fluoride is liberated 

as HF and silicon tetrafluoride (SiF4), 

but the majority is emitted as HF. 

Triple superphosphates (TSP) are 

made as run-of-pile TSP (ROP–TSP) and 

granular TSP (GTSP) by reacting WPPA 

with ground phosphate rock. The 

phosphoric acid used in the GTSP 

process is appreciably lower in 

concentration (40-percent phosphorus 

pentoxide (P2O5)) than that used to 

manufacture ROP–TSP product (50 to 

55-percent P2O5). The GTSP process 

yields larger, more uniform particles 

with improved storage and handling 

properties than the ROP–TSP process. 

Currently, no facilities produce ROP– 

TSP or GTSP,2 although one facility 

retains an operating permit to store 

GTSP. 

4. Federal Air Emission Standards 

Applicable to the Phosphate Fertilizer 

Production Source Category 

The following federal air emission 

standards are associated with the 

Phosphate Fertilizer Production source 

category and are subject of this final 

action: 

• National Emission Standards for 

Hazardous Air Pollutants from Phosphate 

Fertilizers Production Plants (40 CFR part 63, 

subpart BB); 

• Standards of Performance for the 

Phosphate Fertilizer Industry: Diammonium 

Phosphate Plants (40 CFR part 60, subpart V); 

• Standards of Performance for the 

Phosphate Fertilizer Industry: Triple 

Superphosphate Plants (40 CFR part 60, 

subpart W); and 

• Standards of Performance for the 

Phosphate Fertilizer Industry: Granular 

Triple Superphosphate Storage Facilities (40 

CFR part 60, subpart X). 

a. Phosphate Fertilizer Production 

NESHAP Emission Regulations. The 

EPA promulgated 40 CFR part 63, 

subpart BB for the Phosphate Fertilizer 

Production source category on June 10, 

1999 (64 FR 31358). The NESHAP 

established standards for major sources 

to control HAP emissions from 

phosphate fertilizer facilities. As a 

surrogate for HF, the NESHAP set total 

fluoride emission limits for DAP and/or 

MAP process lines and GTSP process 

lines and storage buildings. The 

NESHAP also established work 

practices for GTSP production. For more 

information on this NESHAP, see 79 FR 

66512. 

b. Phosphate Fertilizer Production 

NSPS Emission Regulations. The EPA 

promulgated 40 CFR part 60, subpart V 

for Diammonium Phosphate Plants on 

July 25, 1977 (42 FR 37938). The NSPS 

established standards to control total 

fluoride emissions from granular DAP 

plants, including reactors, granulators, 

dryers, coolers, screens, and mills. 

The EPA promulgated 40 CFR part 60, 

subpart W for TSP plants on July 25, 

1977 (42 FR 37938). The NSPS 

established standards to control total 

fluoride emissions from the production 

of ROP–TSP and GTSP, and the storage 

of ROP–TSP. 

The EPA promulgated 40 CFR part 60, 

subpart X for GTSP storage facilities on 

July 25, 1977 (42 FR 37938). The NSPS 

established standards to control total 

fluoride emissions from the storage of 

GTSP, including storage or curing 

buildings (noted as ‘‘piles’’ in subpart 

X), conveyors, elevators, screens, and 

mills. 

For more information on these NSPS, 

see 79 FR 66512. 

C. What changes did we propose for the 

Phosphoric Acid Manufacturing and 

Phosphate Fertilizer Production source 

categories in our November 7, 2014 

proposal? 

On November 7, 2014 (79 FR 66512), 

the EPA published a proposed rule in 

the Federal Register for both the 

Phosphoric Acid Manufacturing 

NESHAP, 40 CFR part 63, subpart AA, 

and Phosphate Fertilizer Production 

NESHAP, 40 CFR part 63, subpart BB 

that took into consideration the RTR 

analyses. We also proposed other 

revisions to these NESHAP. In the 

proposed rule, we proposed: 

For Phosphoric Acid Manufacturers: 

• Numeric emission limits for Hg and 

work practice standards for HF from 

calciners; and 

• Work practice standards for HF 

emissions from gypsum dewatering stacks 

and cooling ponds. 

For both Phosphoric Acid 

Manufacturers and Phosphate Fertilizer 

Producers: 

• Emission limits regulating HF emissions 

as the target HAP (HF), instead of the longstanding surrogate for HF, total F; 

• Clarifications to applicability and certain 

definitions; 

• Revisions to requirements related to 

emissions during periods of SSM; 

• Revisions to monitoring requirements for 

absorbers; 

• Requirements for reporting of 

performance testing through the electronic 

reporting tool (ERT); 

• Modification to the format to reference 

tables for emissions limits and monitoring 

requirements; and 

• Several minor clarifications and 

corrections. 

In addition, we proposed revisions to 

the NSPS subparts T, U, V, W, and X, 

including clarifications to applicability 

and certain definitions, and revisions to 

monitoring and recordkeeping 

requirements for absorbers. 

III. What is included in this final rule 

for the Phosphoric Acid Manufacturing 

source category? 

This action finalizes the EPA’s 

determinations pursuant to the RTR 

provisions of CAA section 112 and the 

8-year review provisions of CAA section 

111 for the Phosphoric Acid 

Manufacturing source category. Today’s 

action also finalizes several of the 

proposed changes to the NESHAP 

subpart AA and the NSPS subparts T 

and U that are described in section II.C. 

of this preamble. This action also 

finalizes other changes to the NESHAP 

subpart AA in consideration of 

comments on issues raised in the 

proposed rulemaking, as described in 

section V of this preamble. 

A. What are the final rule amendments 

based on the NESHAP residual risk 

review for the Phosphoric Acid 

Manufacturing source category? 

The residual risk review for the 

Phosphoric Acid Manufacturing source 

category did not change since proposal; 

we found that the current standards 

provide an ample margin of safety to 

protect public health (79 FR 66512) and 

prevent an adverse environmental 

effect. We are, therefore, not tightening 

the standards under section 112(f)(2) 


rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 160 / Wednesday, August 19, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 50391 

(for NESHAP subpart AA) based on the 

residual risk review, and are thus 

readopting the existing standards under 

section 112(f)(2). See sections V.A.3 and 

V.A.4 of this preamble for discussion on 

key comments and responses regarding 

the residual risk review. 

B. What are the final rule amendments 

based on the NESHAP technology 

review for the Phosphoric Acid 

Manufacturing source category? 

The technology review for the 

Phosphoric Acid Manufacturing source 

category did not change since proposal 

(79 FR 66512). We determined that there 

are no cost-effective developments in 

practices, processes, and control 

technologies that warrant revisions to 

the MACT standards for this source 

category (79 FR 66512). Therefore, we 

are not amending the MACT standards 

under CAA section 112(d)(6). See 

sections V.B.3 and V.B.4 of this 

preamble for discussion on key 

comments and responses regarding the 

technology review. 

C. What are the final rule amendments 

pursuant to CAA sections 112(d)(2), 

112(d)(3), and 112(h) for the Phosphoric 

Acid Manufacturing source category? 

We are finalizing MACT standards for 

HF and Hg pursuant to CAA sections 

112(d)(2) and 112(d)(3) for phosphate 

rock calciners, an emissions source that 

was initially regulated for HAP metals 

using PM as a surrogate. Specifically, 

we are finalizing, as proposed, the 

elimination of the use of PM as a 

surrogate for Hg; however, we are 

making changes to the proposed Hg 

emission limit for phosphate rock 

calciners in NESHAP subpart AA to 

reflect MACT floor level emission 

standards for existing sources. We are 

finalizing the proposed beyond-the-floor 

(BTF) emission standard for Hg 

emissions from new phosphate rock 

calciners. We discuss the changes to the 

Hg emission limit in section V.C.3.a.i of 

this preamble. In addition, we are 

finalizing, as proposed, to retain the PM 

standard as a surrogate for other HAP 

metal emissions from phosphate rock 

calciners. However, in consideration of 

comments received during the public 

comment period for the proposed 

rulemaking, we are not finalizing work 

practice standards for HF from 

phosphate rock calciners, as proposed. 

Instead, as discussed in section 

V.C.3.a.ii of this preamble, we are 

including a total fluoride emission limit 

for phosphate rock calciners in NESHAP 

subpart AA. 

Also, in consideration of comments 

received (see section V.C.3.b.i of this 

preamble for details), we are not 

adopting the proposed work practice in 

NESHAP subpart AA that would limit 

the size of active gypsum dewatering 

stacks (which would have been 

applicable to facilities when new 

gypsum dewatering stacks are 

constructed). Lastly, we are finalizing 

work practice standards pursuant to 

CAA section 112(h) for gypsum 

dewatering stacks and cooling ponds— 

emissions sources that were not 

regulated under the initial MACT 

standard. Specifically, we are finalizing 

in NESHAP subpart AA, as proposed, 

the work practice standard that requires 

owners or operators to prepare and 

operate in accordance with a gypsum 

dewatering stack and cooling pond 

management plan. However, based on 

analysis of public comments, we are 

making several changes to the specific 

control techniques that we proposed as 

options in the plan for controlling 

fugitive HF emissions (see section 

V.C.3.b.ii of this preamble for details on 

these changes). In the final rule, the 

Agency is using the terminology 

‘‘control measures’’ in lieu of the 

proposed terminology ‘‘control 

techniques’’ because we feel this more 

accurately describes the list of options 

in the rule and avoids confusion with 

other CAA programs. 

D. What are the final rule amendments 

based on the NSPS review for the 

Phosphoric Acid Manufacturing source 

category? 

We are finalizing our determination 

that revisions to NSPS subpart T and 

subpart U standards are not appropriate 

pursuant to CAA section 111(b)(1)(B). 

All Phosphoric Acid Manufacturing 

NSPS (under subpart T and subpart U) 

emission sources, and the control 

technologies that would be employed, 

are the same as those for the NESHAP 

regulating phosphoric acid plants, such 

that we reached the same determination 

that there are no identified cost-effective 

practices or technologies that would 

provide additional emission reductions. 

Additionally, there were no identified 

technologies that have been adequately 

demonstrated to achieve in practice 

emission controls that would result in 

more stringent total fluoride limits for 

these NSPS. See section V.D of this 

preamble for discussion on key 

comments and responses regarding the 

NSPS review. 

E. What are the final rule amendments 

addressing emissions during periods of 

startup, shutdown, and malfunction for 

the Phosphoric Acid Manufacturing 

source category? 

We are finalizing, as proposed, 

changes to the Phosphoric Acid 

Manufacturing NESHAP, subpart AA to 

eliminate the SSM exemption. 

Consistent with Sierra Club v. EPA 551 

F. 3d 1019 (D.C. Cir. 2008), the EPA has 

established standards in this rule that 

apply at all times. Appendix A of 

subpart AA (the General Provisions 

Applicability Table) is being revised to 

change several references related to 

requirements that apply during periods 

of SSM. We also eliminated or revised 

certain recordkeeping and reporting 

requirements related to the eliminated 

SSM exemption. The EPA also made 

changes to the rule to remove or modify 

inappropriate, unnecessary, or 

redundant language in the absence of 

the SSM exemption. For this source 

category, we determined that work 

practice standards for periods of startup 

and shutdown are appropriate in lieu of 

numeric emission limits due to the short 

duration of startup and shutdown, and 

control devices used on the various 

process lines in this source category are 

effective at achieving desired emission 

reductions immediately upon startup 

(79 FR 66541). Therefore, we are 

finalizing in NESHAP subpart AA the 

proposed work practice standards for 

periods of startup and shutdown. 

However, in consideration of comments 

received during the public comment 

period, we are making changes to the 

work practice standards in order to 

clarify that the standard applies in lieu 

of numeric emission limits and how 

compliance with the standard is 

demonstrated. In order to comply with 

the work practice standard, facilities 

must monitor the same control device 

operating parameters and comply with 

the same operating limits that are 

established to otherwise comply with 

the emission limits. Additionally, we 

added a definition of ‘‘startup’’ and 

‘‘shutdown’’ in the definitions section of 

the final rule to specify when startup 

begins and ends, and when shutdown 

begins and ends. See section V.E.3 of 

this preamble for details on these 

changes. 

F. What other changes are we making to 

the NESHAP and NSPS for the 

Phosphoric Acid Manufacturing source 

category? 

Today’s rule also finalizes, as 

proposed, revisions to several other 

Phosphoric Acid Manufacturing 

NESHAP and NSPS requirements. We 

are finalizing, as proposed, several 

miscellaneous changes to clarify 

applicability and certain definitions, as 

follows: 

• Adopting the proposed SPA process line 

definition in NESHAP subpart AA to include 

oxidation reactors; 


rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
50392 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 160 / Wednesday, August 19, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

• Adopting the proposed SPA plant 

definition in NSPS subpart U to include 

oxidation reactors; 

• Finalizing the proposed revisions to 

rename ‘‘gypsum stack’’ to ‘‘gypsum 

dewatering stack’’ in NESHAP subpart AA; 

and 

• Finalizing the proposed definitions for 

‘‘cooling pond’’ and ‘‘raffinate stream’’ in 

NESHAP subpart AA. 

We are finalizing, as proposed, several 

changes to testing, monitoring, 

recordkeeping and reporting 

requirements to provide consistency, 

clarification and flexibility, as follows: 

• Finalizing the proposed revisions to 

NESHAP subpart AA that require a minimum 

pressure drop of 5 inches of water column for 

facilities that use pressure differential in 

parametric monitoring; 

• Finalizing the proposal to remove the 

requirement in NESHAP subpart AA that 

facilities must request and obtain approval of 

the Administrator for changing operating 

limits; 

• Adopting the proposed addition of a sitespecific monitoring plan and calibration 

requirements for a continuous monitoring 

system (CMS) in NESHAP subpart AA; 

• Adopting the proposed term ‘‘absorber’’ 

in lieu of ‘‘scrubber’’ in NESHAP subpart AA; 

• Adopting the proposed format of 

NESHAP subpart AA to reference tables for 

emissions limits and monitoring 

requirements; 

• Adopting the proposed provisions in 

NSPS subpart T and NSPS subpart U that 

require the owner or operator to establish an 

allowable range for the pressure drop through 

the process scrubbing system, keep records of 

the daily average pressure drop through the 

process scrubbing system, and keep records 

of deviations; and 

• Adopting the proposed term ‘‘absorber’’ 

in lieu of ‘‘process scrubbing system’’ in 

NSPS subpart T and NSPS subpart U. 

We are also finalizing changes to the 

NESHAP and NSPS for the Phosphoric 

Acid Manufacturing source category on 

issues raised in response to the 

proposed rulemaking, as follows (refer 

to section V.F.2 of this preamble for 

further details): 

• Revising the definition of oxidation 

reactor in the final rule for NESHAP subpart 

AA and NSPS subpart U; 

• Finalizing liquid-to-gas ratio monitoring 

in NESHAP subpart AA for low-energy 

absorbers (i.e., absorbers that are designed to 

operate with pressure drops of 5 inches of 

water column or less) in lieu of monitoring 

influent liquid flow and pressure drop 

through the absorber; 

• Clarifying in NESHAP subpart AA that 

during the most recent performance test, if 

owners or operators demonstrate compliance 

with the emission limit while operating their 

control device outside the previously 

established operating limit, owners or 

operators must establish a new operating 

limit based on that most recent performance 

test and notify the Administrator that the 

operating limit changed based on data 

collected during the most recent performance 

test; and 

• Clarifying in NESHAP subpart AA that 

facilities not be required to obtain approval, 

and, instead, immediately comply with a 

new operating limit when it is developed and 

submitted to the Administrator. 

G. What are the effective and 

compliance dates of the standards for 

the Phosphoric Acid Manufacturing 

source category? 

The revisions to the NSPS and 

NESHAP standards we promulgate in 

this action for the Phosphoric Acid 

Manufacturing source category are 

effective on August 19, 2015. 

The compliance date for the Hg limit 

in NESHAP subpart AA for existing 

phosphate rock calciners is August 19, 

2015. Based on the data that the EPA 

has received, all existing phosphate rock 

calciners are meeting the Hg limit; 

therefore, no additional time would be 

required to achieve compliance with 

this standard. 

The compliance date for the Hg limit 

in NESHAP subpart AA for new 

phosphate rock calciners is August 19, 

2015, or upon startup, whichever is 

later. We are not aware of any new 

phosphate rock calciners operating 

today. New phosphate rock calciners 

that commence construction or 

reconstruction after the effective date of 

this rule would be required to comply 

with the Hg limits immediately upon 

startup. 

The compliance date for the total 

fluoride limits in NESHAP subpart AA 

for all (existing and new) phosphate 

rock calciners is August 19, 2015, or 

upon startup, whichever is later. Based 

on the data that the EPA has received, 

all phosphate rock calciners are meeting 

the total fluoride limit; therefore, no 

additional time would be required to 

achieve compliance with this standard. 

The compliance date in NESHAP 

subpart AA for preparing and operating 

in accordance with a gypsum 

dewatering stack and cooling pond 

management plan is August 19, 2016. A 

1-year compliance lead-time will 

provide facilities adequate time to 

prepare and submit their plan for 

approval to the Administrator. 

The compliance date for when 

facilities must include oxidation 

reactors in determining compliance 

with the total fluoride limit in NESHAP 

subpart AA for SPA process lines is 

August 19, 2016. We believe that 1 year 

is necessary because a facility may need 

to install additional control technology. 

A 1-year compliance period will 

provide the facility adequate time to 

design and install controls. 

The compliance date in NESHAP 

subpart AA for when to install, 

calibrate, and maintain a bag leak 

detection system on a fabric filter is 

August 19, 2016. We believe that 1 year 

is necessary because some facilities that 

currently operate a fabric filter do not 

have a bag leak detection system and 

will need time to purchase and install 

this compliance monitoring equipment 

and implement quality assurance 

measures. 

The compliance date in NESHAP 

subpart AA for the revised startup and 

shutdown requirements is August 19, 

2015. We determined that the feasibility 

of operating the control devices used to 

control HAP emissions from phosphoric 

acid manufacturing is not limited by 

specific process operating conditions. 

Finally, to ensure continuous 

compliance with the standard, the 

compliance date for the monitoring and 

recordkeeping requirements in NSPS 

subparts T and U for all new WPPA 

plants and SPA plants is August 19, 

2015, or upon startup, whichever is 

later. 

H. What are the requirements for 

submission of performance test data to 

the EPA for the Phosphoric Acid 

Manufacturing source category? 

As stated in the preamble to the 

proposed rule, the EPA is taking a step 

to increase the ease and efficiency of 

data submittal and data accessibility. 

Specifically, the EPA is requiring 

owners and operators of phosphoric 

acid facilities to submit electronic 

copies of certain required performance 

test reports. 

As mentioned in the preamble of the 

proposal, data will be collected by 

direct computer-to-computer electronic 

transfer using EPA-provided software. 

As discussed in the proposal, the EPAprovided software is an electronic 

performance test report tool called the 

ERT. The ERT will generate an 

electronic report package which will be 

submitted to the Compliance and 

Emissions Data Reporting Interface 

(CEDRI) and then archived to the EPA’s 

Central Data Exchange (CDX). A 

description and instructions for use of 

the ERT can be found at http://www.

epa.gov/ttn/chief/ert/index.html, and 

CEDRI can be accessed through the CDX 

Web site at www.epa.gov/cdx. 

The requirement to submit 

performance test data electronically to 

the EPA does not create any additional 

performance testing and will apply only 

to those performance tests conducted 

using test methods that are supported by 

the ERT. A listing of the pollutants and 

test methods supported by the ERT is 

available at the ERT Web site. The EPA 

believes, through this approach, 

industry will save time in the 


rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 160 / Wednesday, August 19, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 50393 

performance test submittal process. 

Additionally, this rulemaking benefits 

industry by cutting back on 

recordkeeping costs as the performance 

test reports that are submitted to the 

EPA using CEDRI are no longer required 

to be kept in hard copy. 

As mentioned in the proposed 

preamble, state, local, and tribal 

agencies will benefit from more 

streamlined and accurate review of 

performance test data that will be 

available on the EPA WebFIRE database. 

The public will also benefit. Having 

these data publicly available enhances 

transparency and accountability. For a 

more thorough discussion of electronic 

reporting of performance tests using 

direct computer-to-computer electronic 

transfer and using EPA-provided 

software, see the discussion in the 

preamble of the proposal. 

In summary, in addition to supporting 

regulation development, control strategy 

development, and other air pollution 

control activities, having an electronic 

database populated with performance 

test data will save industry, state, local, 

and tribal agencies, and the EPA 

significant time, money, and effort, 

while improving the quality of emission 

inventories, air quality regulations, and 

enhancing the public’s access to this 

important information. 

IV. What is included in this final rule 

for the Phosphate Fertilizer Production 

source category? 

This action finalizes the EPA’s 

determinations pursuant to the RTR 

provisions of CAA section 112 and the 

8-year review provisions of CAA section 

111 for the Phosphate Fertilizer 

Production source category. Today’s 

action also finalizes several of the 

proposed changes to the NESHAP 

subpart BB and the NSPS subparts V, W, 

and X that are described in section II.C 

of this preamble. This action also 

finalizes other changes to the NESHAP 

subpart BB in consideration of 

comments on issues raised in the 

proposed rulemaking, as described in 

section VI of this preamble. 

A. What are the final rule amendments 

based on the NESHAP risk review for 

the Phosphate Fertilizer Production 

source category? 

The residual risk review for the 

Phosphate Fertilizer Production source 

category did not change since proposal; 

we found that the current standards 

provide an ample margin of safety to 

protect public health (79 FR 66512) and 

prevent an adverse environmental 

effect. We are, therefore, not tightening 

the standards under section 112(f)(2) 

(for NESHAP subpart BB) based on the 

residual risk review, and are thus 

readopting the existing standards under 

section 112(f)(2). 

B. What are the final rule amendments 

based on the NESHAP technology 

review for the Phosphate Fertilizer 

Production source category? 

The technology review for the 

Phosphate Fertilizer Production source 

category did not change since proposal 

(79 FR 66512). We determined that there 

are no cost-effective developments in 

practices, processes, and control 

technologies that warrant revisions to 

the MACT standards for this source 

category (79 FR 66512). Therefore, we 

are not amending the MACT standards 

under CAA section 112(d)(6). 

C. What are the final rule amendments 

based on the NSPS review for the 

Phosphate Fertilizer Production source 

category? 

We are finalizing our determination 

that revisions to NSPS subpart V, 

subpart W, and subpart X standards are 

not appropriate pursuant to CAA 

section 111(b)(1)(B). All Phosphate 

Fertilizer Production NSPS (under 

subpart V, subpart W, and subpart X) 

emission sources, and the control 

technologies that would be employed, 

are the same as those for the NESHAP 

regulating phosphate fertilizer plants, 

such that we reached the same 

determination that there are no 

identified cost-effective practices or 

technologies that would provide 

additional emission reductions. 

Additionally, there were no identified 

technologies that have been adequately 

demonstrated to achieve in practice 

emission controls that would result in 

more stringent total fluoride limits for 

these NSPS. 

D. What are the final rule amendments 

addressing emissions during periods of 

startup, shutdown, and malfunction for 

the Phosphate Fertilizer Production 

source category? 

We are finalizing, as proposed, 

changes to the Phosphate Fertilizer 

Production NESHAP, subpart BB to 

eliminate the SSM exemption. 

Consistent with Sierra Club v. EPA 551 

F. 3d 1019 (D.C. Cir. 2008), the EPA has 

established standards in this rule that 

apply at all times. Appendix A of 

subpart BB (the General Provisions 

Applicability Table) is being revised to 

change several references related to 

requirements that apply during periods 

of SSM. We also eliminated or revised 

certain recordkeeping and reporting 

requirements related to the eliminated 

SSM exemption. The EPA also made 

changes to the rule to remove or modify 

inappropriate, unnecessary, or 

redundant language in the absence of 

the SSM exemption. For this source 

category, we determined that work 

practice standards for periods of startup 

and shutdown are appropriate in lieu of 

numeric emission limits due to the short 

duration of startup and shutdown, and 

control devices used on the various 

process lines in this source category are 

effective at achieving desired emission 

reductions immediately upon startup 

(79 FR 66551). Therefore, we are 

finalizing in NESHAP subpart BB the 

proposed work practice standards for 

periods of startup and shutdown. 

However, in consideration of comments 

received during the public comment 

period, we are making changes to the 

work practice standards in order to 

clarify that the standard applies in lieu 

of numeric emission limits and how 

compliance with the standard is 

demonstrated. In order to comply with 

the work practice standard, facilities 

must monitor the same control device 

operating parameters and comply with 

the same operating limits that are 

established to otherwise comply with 

the emission limits. Additionally, we 

added a definition of ‘‘startup’’ and 

‘‘shutdown’’ in the definitions section of 

the final rule to specify when startup 

begins and ends, and when shutdown 

begins and ends. See section VI.D.3 of 

this preamble for details on these 

changes. 

E. What other changes are we making to 

the NESHAP and NSPS for the 

Phosphate Fertilizer Production source 

category? 

Today’s rule also finalizes, as 

proposed, revisions to several other 

Phosphate Fertilizer Production 

NESHAP and NSPS requirements. We 

are finalizing, as proposed, changes to 

clarify applicability and certain 

definitions, as follows: 

• Adopting the proposed conditions in 

NESHAP subpart BB that exclude the use of 

evaporative cooling towers for any liquid 

effluent from any wet scrubbing device 

installed to control HF emissions from 

process equipment; and 

• Finalizing the proposed revisions 

changing the word ‘‘cookers’’ in NSPS 

subpart W to ‘‘coolers.’’ 

We are finalizing, as proposed, several 

changes to testing, monitoring, 

recordkeeping, and reporting to provide 

consistency, clarification, and 

flexibility, as follows: 

• Finalizing the proposed revisions to 

NESHAP subpart BB that require a minimum 

pressure drop of 5 inches of water column for 

facilities that use pressure differential in 

parametric monitoring; 


rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
50394 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 160 / Wednesday, August 19, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

• Finalizing the proposal to remove the 

requirement in NESHAP subpart BB that 

facilities must request and obtain approval of 

the Administrator for changing operating 

limits; 

• Adopting the proposed monitoring 

requirements for fabric filters in NESHAP 

subpart BB; 

• Adopting the proposed addition of a sitespecific monitoring plan and calibration 

requirements for CMS in NESHAP subpart 

BB; 

• Adopting the proposed term ‘‘absorber’’ 

in lieu of ‘‘scrubber’’ in NESHAP subpart BB; 

• Adopting the proposed format of 

NESHAP subpart BB to reference tables for 

emissions limits and monitoring 

requirements; 

• Adopting the proposed provisions in 

NSPS subpart V, NSPS subpart W, and NSPS 

subpart X that require the owner or operator 

to establish an allowable range for the 

pressure drop through the process scrubbing 

system, keep records of the daily average 

pressure drop through the process scrubbing 

system, and keep records of deviations; 

• Adopting the proposed term ‘‘absorber’’ 

in lieu of ‘‘scrubbing system’’ in NSPS 

subpart V; and 

• Adopting the proposed term ‘‘absorber’’ 

in lieu of ‘‘process scrubbing system’’ in 

NSPS subpart W and NSPS subpart X. 

We are also finalizing changes to the 

NESHAP and NSPS for the Phosphate 

Fertilizer Production source category on 

issues raised in response to the 

proposed rulemaking, as follows (refer 

to section VI.E.2 of this preamble for 

further details): 

• Revising the definitions of ‘‘phosphate 

fertilizer process line’’ and ‘‘phosphate 

fertilizer production plant’’ in NESHAP 

subpart BB to reference granular phosphate 

fertilizer; 

• Finalizing liquid-to-gas ratio monitoring 

in NESHAP subpart BB for low-energy 

absorbers (i.e., absorbers that are designed to 

operate with pressure drops of 5 inches of 

water column or less) in lieu of monitoring 

influent liquid flow and pressure drop 

through the absorber; 

• Clarifying in NESHAP subpart BB that 

during the most recent performance test, if 

owners or operators demonstrate compliance 

with the emission limit while operating their 

control device outside the previously 

established operating limit, owners or 

operators must establish a new operating 

limit based on that most recent performance 

test and notify the Administrator that the 

operating limit changed based on data 

collected during the most recent performance 

test; and 

• Clarifying in NESHAP subpart BB that 

facilities not be required to obtain approval, 

and, instead, immediately comply with a 

new operating limit when it is developed and 

submitted to the Administrator. 

F. What are the effective and 

compliance dates of the standards for 

the Phosphate Fertilizer Production 

source category? 

The revisions to the NSPS and 

NESHAP standards being promulgated 

in this action for the Phosphate 

Fertilizer Production source category are 

effective on August 19, 2015. 

The compliance date in NESHAP 

subpart BB for when to install, calibrate, 

and maintain a bag leak detection 

system on a fabric filter is August 19, 

2016. We believe that 1 year is 

necessary because some facilities that 

currently operate a fabric filter do not 

have a bag leak detection system and 

will need time to purchase and install 

this compliance monitoring equipment 

and implement quality assurance 

measures. 

The compliance date in NESHAP 

subpart BB for the revised startup and 

shutdown requirements is August 19, 

2015. We determined that the feasibility 

of operating the control devices used to 

control HAP emissions from phosphate 

fertilizer production is not limited by 

specific process operating conditions. 

Finally, to ensure continuous 

compliance with the standard, the 

compliance date for the monitoring and 

recordkeeping requirements in NSPS 

subparts V, W, and X for all new 

granular DAP plants, TSP plants, and 

GTSP storage facilities is August 19, 

2015, or upon startup, whichever is 

later. 

G. What are the requirements for 

submission of performance test data to 

the EPA for the Phosphate Fertilizer 

Production source category? 

As stated in the preamble to the 

proposed rule, the EPA is taking a step 

to increase the ease and efficiency of 

data submittal and data accessibility. 

Specifically, the EPA is requiring 

owners and operators of phosphate 

fertilizer facilities to submit electronic 

copies of certain required performance 

test reports. 

As mentioned in the preamble of the 

proposal, data will be collected by 

direct computer-to-computer electronic 

transfer using EPA-provided software. 

As discussed in the proposal, the EPAprovided software is an electronic 

performance test report tool called the 

Electronic Reporting Tool (ERT). The 

ERT will generate an electronic report 

package which will be submitted to the 

Compliance and Emissions Data 

Reporting Interface (CEDRI) and then 

archived to the EPA’s Central Data 

Exchange (CDX). A description and 

instructions for use of the ERT can be 

found at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/

ert/index.html, and CEDRI can be 

accessed through the CDX Web site at 

www.epa.gov/cdx. 

The requirement to submit 

performance test data electronically to 

the EPA does not create any additional 

performance testing and will apply only 

to those performance tests conducted 

using test methods that are supported by 

the ERT. A listing of the pollutants and 

test methods supported by the ERT is 

available at the ERT Web site. The EPA 

believes, through this approach, 

industry will save time in the 

performance test submittal process. 

Additionally, this rulemaking benefits 

industry by cutting back on 

recordkeeping costs as the performance 

test reports that are submitted to the 

EPA using CEDRI are no longer required 

to be kept in hard copy. 

As mentioned in the proposed 

preamble, state, local, and tribal 

agencies will benefit from more 

streamlined and accurate review of 

performance test data that will be 

available on the EPA WebFIRE database. 

The public will also benefit. Having 

these data publicly available enhances 

transparency and accountability. For a 

more thorough discussion of electronic 

reporting of performance tests using 

direct computer-to-computer electronic 

transfer and using EPA-provided 

software, see the discussion in the 

preamble of the proposal. 

In summary, in addition to supporting 

regulation development, control strategy 

development, and other air pollution 

control activities, having an electronic 

database populated with performance 

test data will save industry, state, local, 

and tribal agencies, and the EPA 

significant time, money, and effort 

while improving the quality of emission 

inventories, air quality regulations, and 

enhancing the public’s access to this 

important information. 

V. What is the rationale for our final 

decisions and amendments for the 

Phosphoric Acid Manufacturing source 

category? 

For each issue related to the 

Phosphoric Acid Manufacturing source 

category, this section provides a 

description of what we proposed and 

what we are finalizing for the issue, the 

EPA’s rationale for the final decisions 

and amendments, and a summary of key 

comments and responses. For all 

comments not discussed in this 

preamble, comment summaries and the 

EPA’s responses can be found in the 

Comment Summary and Response 

document available in the docket. 


rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 160 / Wednesday, August 19, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 50395 

A. Residual Risk Review for the 

Phosphoric Acid Manufacturing Source 

Category 

1. What did we propose pursuant to 

CAA section 112(f) for the Phosphoric 

Acid Manufacturing source category? 

Pursuant to CAA section 112(f), we 

conducted a residual risk review and 

presented the results of this review, 

along with our proposed decisions 

regarding risk acceptability and ample 

margin of safety, in the November 7, 

2014, proposed rule for the Phosphoric 

Acid Manufacturing NESHAP (79 FR 

66512). The results of the risk 

assessment are presented briefly below 

in Table 2 of this preamble, and in more 

detail in the residual risk document, 

‘‘Residual Risk Assessment for 

Phosphate Fertilizer Production and 

Phosphoric Acid Manufacturing Source 

Categories in support of the July 2015 

Risk and Technology Review Final 

Rule,’’ which is available in the docket 

for this rulemaking. 

TABLE 2—HUMAN HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT FOR PHOSPHORIC ACID MANUFACTURING

Category & number 

of facilities modeled 

Cancer MIR 

(in 1 million) Cancer 

incidence 

(cases per 

year) 

Population 

with risks 

of 1-in-1 

million or 

more 

Population 

with risks 

of 10-in-1 

million 

or more 

Max chronic non-cancer 

HI Worst-case max acute 

non-cancer 

HQ Based on 

actual 

emissions 

Based on 

allowable 

emissions 

Based on 

actual 

emissions 

Based on 

allowable 

emissions 

Phosphoric Acid (12 facilities).0.09 0.09 0.0002 0 0 0.2 0.3 HQREL = 2 (hydrofluoric 

acid) 

HQAEGL ¥ 1 = 0.6 

(hydrofluoric acid). 

Facility-wide (12 facilities).0.5 .................. 0.001 0 0 0.2 

Based on actual emissions for the 

Phosphoric Acid Manufacturing source 

category, the maximum individual risk 

(MIR) was estimated to be less than 1- 

in-1 million, the maximum chronic noncancer target organ-specific hazard 

index (TOSHI) value was estimated to 

be up to 0.2, and the maximum off-site 

acute hazard quotient (HQ) value was 

estimated to be up to 2. The total 

estimated national cancer incidence 

from this source category, based on 

actual emission levels, was 0.0002 

excess cancer cases per year, or one case 

in every 5,000 years. Based on MACTallowable emissions for the Phosphoric 

Acid Manufacturing source category, the 

MIR was estimated to be less than 1-in1 million, and the maximum chronic 

non-cancer TOSHI value was estimated 

to be up to 0.3. We also found there 

were emissions of several persistent and 

bio-accumulative HAP (PB–HAP) with 

an available RTR multipathway 

screening value, and with the exception 

of Hg and cadmium compounds, the 

reported emissions of these HAP (i.e., 

lead compounds, dioxin/furan 

compounds, and polycyclic organic 

matter (POM) compounds), were below 

the multipathway screening value for 

each compound. One facility emitted 

divalent Hg (Hg2+) above the Tier I 

screening threshold level, exceeding the 

screening threshold by a factor of 7 and 

the cadmium emissions exceeded the 

cadmium screening threshold by a 

factor of 2. Consequently, we conducted 

a Tier II screening assessment, in which 

both pollutants of concern were below 

the Tier II screening threshold, 

indicating no potential for 

multipathway impacts of concern from 

this facility. The maximum facility-wide 

MIR was less than or equal to 1-in-1 

million and the maximum facility-wide 

TOSHI was 0.2. We weighed all health 

risk factors in our risk acceptability 

determination, and we proposed that 

the residual risks from the Phosphoric 

Acid Manufacturing source category are 

acceptable. 

We then considered whether the 

Phosphoric Acid Manufacturing 

NESHAP provides an ample margin of 

safety to protect public health and 

prevents, taking into consideration 

costs, energy, safety, and other relevant 

factors, an adverse environmental effect. 

In considering whether the standards 

should be tightened to provide an ample 

margin of safety to protect public health, 

we considered the same risk factors that 

we considered for our acceptability 

determination and also considered the 

costs, technological feasibility, and 

other relevant factors related to 

emissions control options that might 

reduce risk associated with emissions 

from the source category. We proposed 

that the current standards provided an 

ample margin of safety to protect public 

health. With respect to adverse 

environmental effects, none of the 

individual modeled concentrations for 

any facility in the source category 

exceeded any of the ecological 

benchmarks (either the lowest-observedadverse-effect level (LOAEL) or noobserved-adverse-effect level (NOAEL)). 

Based on the results of our screening 

analysis for risks to the environment, we 

also proposed that the current standards 

prevent an adverse environmental 

effect. 

2. How did the risk review change for 

the Phosphoric Acid Manufacturing 

source category? 

The residual risk review for the 

Phosphoric Acid Manufacturing source 

category did not change since proposal 

(79 FR 66512). Accordingly, we are not 

tightening the standards under section 

112(f)(2) based on the residual risk 

review, and are thus readopting the 

existing standards under section 

112(f)(2). 

3. What key comments did we receive 

on the risk review, and what are our 

responses? 

The comments received on the 

proposed residual risk review were 

generally supportive of our 

determination of risk acceptability and 

ample margin of safety analysis. 

However, we received several comments 

requesting we make changes to the 

residual risk review, including: 

• Update the residual risk review with the 

recommendations and information from the 

National Academy of Sciences (NAS); 

• Incorporate the best currently available 

information on children’s exposure to lead, 

and go beyond using the 2008 Lead National 

Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS); 

• Reevaluate whether the residual risk 

review is consistent with the key 

recommendations made by the Science 

Advisory Board (SAB); 

• Clarify in the rulemaking docket that 

data received by industry were 

commensurate with the relevant statutory 

obligations; 

• Revise HF emission data because they 

are not representative of actual HF emissions, 

but rather overestimate emissions causing the 

residual risk review to have an overtly 

conservative bias; 


rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
50396 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 160 / Wednesday, August 19, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

• Reconsider the assumption used in the 

NESHAP residual risk assessment that all 

chromium is hexavalent chromium; 

• Revise certain stack parameters used in 

the analysis; 

• Clarify meteorological data used in the 

analysis; 

• Adequately explain rationale for the 

maximum 1-hour emission rate used for 

determining potential acute exposures; 

• Clarify the selection of ecological 

assessment endpoints; and 

• Provide some quantitative or qualitative 

rationale for the characterization of the 

exposure modeling uncertainty. 

We evaluated the comments and 

determined that no changes were 

needed. Since none of these comments 

had an effect on the final rule, their 

summaries and corresponding EPA 

responses are not included in this 

preamble. A summary of these 

comments and our responses can be 

found in the Comment Summary and 

Response document available in the 

docket for this action (EPA–HQ–OAR– 

2012–0522). 

4. What is the rationale for our final 

approach and final decisions for the risk 

review? 

For the reasons explained in the 

proposed rule, we determined that the 

risks from the Phosphoric Acid 

Manufacturing source category are 

acceptable, the current standards 

provide an ample margin of safety to 

protect public health, and prevent an 

adverse environmental effect. Since 

proposal, neither the risk assessment 

nor our determinations regarding risk 

acceptability, ample margin of safety or 

adverse environmental effects have 

changed. Therefore, pursuant to CAA 

section 112(f)(2), we are finalizing our 

residual risk review as proposed. 

B. Technology Review for the 

Phosphoric Acid Manufacturing Source 

Category 

1. What did we propose pursuant to 

CAA section 112(d)(6) for the 

Phosphoric Acid Manufacturing source 

category? 

Pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(6), we 

conducted a technology review, which 

focused on identifying and evaluating 

developments in practices, processes, 

and control technologies for the 

emission sources in the Phosphoric 

Acid Manufacturing source category. At 

proposal, we did not identify costeffective developments in practices, 

processes, or control technologies that 

warrant revisions to the NESHAP for 

this source category. More information 

concerning our technology review can 

be found in the memorandum, ‘‘CAA 

Section 111(b)(1)(B) and 112(d)(6) 

Reviews for the Phosphoric Acid 

Manufacturing and Phosphate Fertilizer 

Production Source Categories,’’ which is 

available in the docket, and in the 

preamble to the proposed rule, 79 FR 

66538–66539. 

2. How did the technology review 

change for the Phosphoric Acid 

Manufacturing source category? 

The technology review for the 

Phosphoric Acid Manufacturing source 

category did not change since proposal 

(79 FR 66512). Therefore, we are not 

revising NESHAP subpart AA based on 

the technology review. 

3. What key comments did we receive 

on the technology review, and what are 

our responses? 

Commenters agreed with our 

conclusion that there are no new costeffective developments in practices, 

processes, or control technologies that 

can be applied to the Phosphoric Acid 

Manufacturing source category that 

would reduce HAP emissions below 

current levels. 

4. What is the rationale for our final 

approach for the technology review? 

For the reasons explained in the 

proposed rule, we concluded that 

additional standards are not necessary 

pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(6); 

therefore, we are not finalizing changes 

to NESHAP subpart AA as part of our 

technology review. 

C. CAA Sections 112(d)(2), 112(d)(3), 

and 112(h) for the Phosphoric Acid 

Manufacturing Source Category 

1. What did we propose pursuant to 

CAA sections 112(d)(2), 112(d)(3), and 

112(h) for the Phosphoric Acid 

Manufacturing source category? 

We proposed MACT standards for HF 

and Hg pursuant to CAA sections 

112(d)(2) and 112(d)(3), and work 

practice standards pursuant to CAA 

section 112(h), for phosphate rock 

calciners, an emissions source that was 

initially regulated for HAP metals using 

PM as a surrogate. We proposed 

regulating two pollutants, Hg and HF, 

which were not directly regulated under 

the initial NESHAP subpart AA. We 

proposed eliminating the use of PM as 

a surrogate for Hg and proposed a Hg 

emission limit for phosphate rock 

calciners. Because control devices may 

be necessary to meet the proposed Hg 

limits for phosphate rock calciners, we 

proposed monitoring and testing 

requirements in NESHAP subpart AA 

for the two types of control systems 

evaluated as alternatives for control of 

Hg: Adsorbers (typically fixed bed 

carbon), and sorbent injection (i.e., 

activated carbon injection (ACI)) 

followed by a wet electrostatic 

precipitator (WESP) or followed by 

fabric filtration. We also proposed the 

addition of methods to monitor 

emissions of Hg using continuous 

emissions monitoring systems (CEMS). 

We also proposed a maximum 

calcination temperature of less than 

1,600 degrees Fahrenheit for phosphate 

rock calciners as a work practice 

standard to control HF emissions. In 

addition to proposing a maximum 

calcination temperature, we proposed to 

require that emissions from phosphate 

rock calciners be routed to an absorber 

to limit emissions of HF from phosphate 

rock calciners. 

Also, we did not propose revised 

emissions limits for rock dryers because 

this process is no longer used in the 

NESHAP regulated source categories for 

phosphoric acid or phosphate fertilizer 

(i.e., the rock dryers that were 

previously used in this industry are no 

longer in operation). 

Finally, we proposed a work practice 

applicable to facilities when new 

gypsum dewatering stacks are 

constructed that would limit the size of 

active gypsum dewatering stacks and 

control fugitive HF emissions. When 

new gypsum dewatering stacks are 

constructed, we proposed that the ratio 

of total active gypsum dewatering stacks 

area (i.e., sum of the footprint acreage of 

all existing and new active gypsum 

dewatering stacks combined) to annual 

phosphoric acid manufacturing capacity 

must not be greater than 80 acres per 

100,000 tons of annual phosphoric acid 

manufacturing capacity (equivalent 

P2O5 feed). As we stated in the preamble 

to the proposed rule, limiting the size of 

gypsum dewatering stacks would 

minimize emissions by creating an 

upper bound on emissions. We also 

proposed work practice standards to 

control HF emissions from gypsum 

dewatering stacks and cooling ponds. 

We proposed a list of control techniques 

for facilities to use in development of a 

site-specific gypsum dewatering stack 

and cooling pond management plan to 

control fugitive HF emissions. Unless 

the active gypsum dewatering stack or 

cooling pond commenced construction 

or reconstruction after the date of 

publication of the final rule, we 

proposed that each facility use at least 

one of these control techniques. For 

each active gypsum dewatering stack or 

cooling pond that commenced 

construction or reconstruction after the 

date of publication of the final rule, we 

proposed that each facility use two of 

the listed control techniques. 


rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 160 / Wednesday, August 19, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 50397 

2. How did our final rule change from 

what we proposed pursuant to CAA 

sections 112(d)(2), 112(d)(3), and 112(h) 

for the Phosphoric Acid Manufacturing 

source category? 

In consideration of comments 

received during the public comment 

period for the proposed rulemaking, we 

are finalizing the proposed BTF Hg limit 

in NESHAP subpart AA for new 

phosphate rock calciners. We are not 

finalizing the proposed BTF Hg limit in 

NESHAP subpart AA for existing 

phosphate rock calciners. Instead, we 

are finalizing a MACT floor Hg limit for 

existing phosphate rock calciners based 

on the results of the MACT floor 

calculations for Hg that are discussed in 

the preamble of the proposed rule (79 

FR 66533). We are also revising our 

estimated costs in the final rule as 

discussed in section V.C.3.a.i of this 

preamble. In addition, we are not 

finalizing work practice standards for 

HF from phosphate rock calciners, as 

proposed. Instead, as discussed in 

section V.C.3.a.ii of this preamble, we 

are including a total fluoride emission 

limit for phosphate rock calciners in 

NESHAP subpart AA. 

Also, in consideration of comments 

received (see section V.C.3.b.i of this 

preamble for details), we are not 

adopting the proposed work practice in 

NESHAP subpart AA that limits the size 

of active gypsum dewatering stacks 

(which would have been applicable to 

facilities when new gypsum dewatering 

stacks are constructed). Lastly, we are 

finalizing in NESHAP subpart AA the 

work practice standard as proposed that 

requires owners or operators to prepare 

and operate in accordance with a 

gypsum dewatering stack and cooling 

pond management plan. However, based 

on analysis of public comments, we are 

making several changes to the specific 

control techniques that we proposed as 

options in the plan for controlling 

fugitive HF emissions (see section 

V.C.3.b.ii of this preamble for details on 

these changes). 

3. What key comments did we receive 

on what we proposed pursuant to CAA 

sections 112(d)(2), 112(d)(3), and 112(h), 

and what are our responses? 

We received several comments 

regarding the proposed addition of 

numeric emission limits for Hg and 

work practice standards for HF 

emissions from phosphate rock 

calciners, and the addition of gypsum 

dewatering stack and cooling pond work 

practices for the Phosphoric Acid 

Manufacturing source category. The 

following is a summary of the 

significant comments we received 

regarding these topics and our responses 

to them. Other comments received and 

our responses to those comments can be 

found in the Comment Summary and 

Response document available in the 

docket for this action (EPA–HQ–OAR– 

2012–0522). 

a. MACT and Work Practice 

Standards for Phosphate Rock 

Calciners—i. Hg Emission Limits for 

Phosphate Rock Calciners—Comment. 

Some commenters did not support the 

EPA’s decision to set a BTF limit for Hg 

from phosphate rock calciners because 

the emissions do not present 

unacceptable risks nor do the emission 

limits yield any benefits. The 

commenters stated that the EPA fails to 

show that the proposed BTF Hg limit 

would produce health or environmental 

benefits that justify the costs of 

achieving the standard as they assert is 

required by CAA section 112(d)(2). 

Commenters further claimed that the 

EPA’s own risk assessment shows that 

the BTF limit is not necessary from a 

risk standpoint because the NESHAP 

regulation, prior to implementation of 

the proposed Hg BTF limits, provides an 

ample margin of safety to protect public 

health and prevents, taking into 

consideration costs, energy, safety, and 

other relevant factors, an adverse 

environmental effect. The commenters 

maintained that under CAA section 

112(d)(2), the EPA may set an emission 

limit that is more stringent than the 

MACT floor only if the Agency 

determines that the BTF limit is 

‘‘achievable’’ based on a consideration 

of the relative costs and benefits. One 

commenter cited regulations where the 

EPA did not set BTF limits for a 

particular pollutant because the benefits 

were minimal and the risk would not be 

appreciably reduced. Commenters 

supported setting the MACT floor as the 

Hg limit. 

Commenters stated the Hg control 

devices that the EPA evaluated for the 

phosphate rock calciner BTF limit were 

not technically feasible, but did note 

two potential solutions. Specifically, the 

commenters stated that use of ACI just 

prior to the existing WESP or after the 

WESP with a fabric filter is not 

technically feasible. The commenters 

explained the exhaust gas downstream 

of the WESP is completely saturated and 

contains entrained water droplets; this 

would plug the fabric filter, result in 

performance degradation of the 

activated carbon, and could lead to 

plugging of the injection lances and 

formation of deposits on the ducts. The 

commenters further explained that it 

would not be feasible to install heating 

systems or design engineering control to 

avoid these problems, due to high costs 

and the technical complexity. The 

commenters noted that installing the 

ACI just prior to the WESP was also not 

feasible, again due to performance 

degradation of the activated carbon, but 

also due to the fact that the existing 

WESPs could not capture the additional 

particulate load. The commenters 

reported that installing the ACI 

upstream of the existing venturi 

scrubber is technically feasible, because 

the gas upstream of the scrubber is not 

completely saturated. However, the 

commenters noted several design and 

operational modifications that would be 

necessary; these modifications focused 

on reducing the temperature of the 

exhaust gas streams to less than 375 

degrees Fahrenheit. When installing ACI 

upstream of the existing venturi 

scrubber, the ACI vendor used by the 

commenter recommended the use of 

treated (e.g., halogenated) carbon at an 

injection rate of 30 lb/MMacf, in order 

to meet the BTF Hg limit. The 

commenter said that the carbon 

injection rate may need to be as much 

as 30 lb/MMacf based on site-specific 

conditions, such as temperature, Hg 

concentration, moisture, and sulfur 

content of the phosphate rock calciner 

exhaust stream. In support of a high 

injection rate, the commenter also cited 

a reference from 1994 that observed an 

increased injection rate was necessary 

due to temperature of the exhaust gas 

stream. 

Regarding fixed-bed carbon 

adsorption, commenters stated a 

traditional fixed-bed carbon adsorption 

system would not be feasible due to the 

presence of entrained water droplets 

that would severely degrade sorbent 

performance and cause plugging within 

the bed. The commenters indicated that 

new Gore Mercury Control System 

(GMCS) technology might be technically 

feasible because it uses a fixed sorbent 

structure with a sorbent polymer 

composite material to adsorb Hg; the 

GMCS polymer composite material 

might protect the sorbent from entrained 

water droplets and other contaminants 

in the flue gas. The commenters stated 

that to use a GMCS fixed-bed carbon 

adsorption system, several adjustments 

to the calciners would be necessary, as 

well as a pilot study to confirm the 

feasibility. Another commenter also 

reported they were evaluating the use of 

the GMCS system, but were only in 

preliminary stages as their phosphate 

rock calciner is not yet operating. A 

commenter also explained that each 

phosphate rock calciner would need its 

own controls and a single control 

system for all phosphate rock calciners 


rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
50398 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 160 / Wednesday, August 19, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

3Refer to Figures 2 and 3 of ‘‘DOE NETL Hg Field 

Testing Update_2008’’ which is available in Docket 

ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2012–0522. 

would not be feasible due to safety and 

operational concerns. 

Several commenters argued that ACI 

and fixed-bed carbon adsorption were 

not cost effective for controlling Hg 

emissions from phosphate rock 

calciners. Two commenters reported a 

site-specific cost estimate for installing 

GMCS fixed-bed carbon adsorption 

downstream of the existing WESP, with 

capital costs of $32 million and annual 

costs of $5.8 million; the resulting costeffectiveness was approximately 

$40,000 per pound of Hg. The 

commenters noted the GMCS costeffectiveness ($40,000/lb Hg) was much 

higher than the cost-effectiveness the 

EPA presented in the proposed rule 

($8,000/lb Hg) for a traditional fixed-bed 

carbon adsorption system. Commenters 

also reported a site-specific cost 

estimate for installing ACI upstream of 

the existing venturi scrubbers, with 

capital costs of $21.1 million and 

annual costs of $9.1 million; this 

resulted in a cost-effectiveness of 

approximately $63,000 per pound of Hg. 

The commenters noted this ACI costeffectiveness ($63,000/lb Hg) was much 

higher than the cost-effectiveness the 

EPA presented in the proposed rule 

($12,100/lb Hg) for ACI. The 

commenters stated that because their 

costs for ACI and GMCS fixed-bed 

carbon adsorption were site-specific, 

they are much more representative than 

the costs developed by the EPA for the 

proposed rule. Finally, one commenter 

stressed that the site-specific Hg control 

cost-effectiveness numbers were well 

above the cost-effectiveness for other 

rules where the EPA implemented BTF 

Hg controls. Another commenter noted 

that preliminary information for 

installing Hg controls resulted in 

estimates of $17.5 million in capital 

costs and $10 million for annual costs. 

Response. Based on these comments, 

the Agency revised the BTF costs 

analysis and determined that setting a 

BTF Hg emission limit for existing 

phosphate rock calciners would impose 

a significant economic impact to 

PotashCorp (PCS) Aurora, the only 

facility that we are aware of with 

phosphate rock calciners; therefore, we 

are not finalizing the BTF Hg limit for 

existing phosphate rock calciners. The 

annualized control costs for this 

company would be approximately 0.9 

percent to 5.3 percent of revenues (see 

‘‘PCS Phosphate Response to USEPA 

Request for Aurora Plant Financial 

Information, May 8, 2015,’’ which is 

available in the docket for this 

rulemaking). While these costs are small 

for the industry, they may be significant 

for the company and particularly 

significant for the facility. For the 

company, there may be a negative 

impact on profitability. If the company 

is unable to pass on the increase in the 

cost of manufacturing the product by 

raising prices, the facility will either 

face a potentially significant reduction 

in profitability or have to close a process 

or facility. Therefore, the Agency is 

finalizing a MACT floor Hg limit of 0.14 

milligrams (mg) Hg per dry standard 

cubic meter (dscm) at 3-percent O2 for 

existing phosphate rock calciners and 

does not anticipate that any facilities 

will need to install a new control device 

to meet the existing phosphate rock 

calciner Hg limit. Also, we are finalizing 

the proposed BTF Hg limit (i.e., 0.014 

mg Hg/dscm at 3-percent O2) for new 

phosphate rock calciners, as facilities 

should be better able to plan for the 

costs of controls for new sources. The 

following discussion provides the 

details of these decisions. 

The results of the residual risk 

analyses are not part of the BTF MACT 

determination, and, accordingly, the 

commenters’ concern about not 

considering risk results is not 

appropriate. See Sierra Club v. EPA, 353 

F.3d 976, 981 (D.C. Cir. 2004). 

Analyzing the risk would not be a 

practical requirement, as, typically, 

MACT standards are set in advance of 

a residual risk or technology review of 

the standard. Additionally, the statutory 

language excerpt cited by the 

commenter does not accurately reflect 

the CAA language, which requires the 

Agency to consider costs associated 

with the emission reductions, but does 

not require a demonstration of benefits. 

The Agency appropriately met its 

requirements under CAA section 112(c) 

and (d) by first evaluating a MACT floor 

level of control for Hg emissions from 

phosphate rock calciner units and then 

evaluating cost-effective controls for 

further reducing emissions BTF level. 

The Agency appreciates the 

commenters’ site-specific review of Hg 

control device technologies and agrees 

with the commenters’ revisions to 

certain aspects of the technical 

feasibility of ACI and fixed-bed carbon 

adsorption. At proposal, we noted that 

high moisture streams may result in 

plugging of the fabric filter, as it relates 

to ACI use. However, we did not 

consider that entrained water droplets 

in the high moisture streams would 

degrade carbon sorbent performance for 

both ACI and fixed-bed carbon 

adsorption, or lead to plugging within a 

fixed-bed. As a result of the additional 

information provided by the 

commenters, we agree that it is not 

technically feasible to use ACI just prior 

to the existing WESP or after the WESP 

with a fabric filter to control Hg 

emissions from phosphate rock 

calciners, based on current operations. 

Based on information available at this 

time, we also agree that a traditional 

fixed-bed carbon adsorption system is 

not technically feasible to control Hg 

emissions from phosphate rock 

calciners. 

The commenters also stated, and the 

EPA agrees, that use of ACI (specifically 

halogenated carbon) is technically 

feasible to control Hg emissions from 

phosphate rock calciners if ACI is 

installed upstream of the existing 

venturi scrubber, where the moisture 

content is lower. However, we disagree 

with the commenters’ assessment that a 

carbon injection rate of 30 lb/MMacf 

would be necessary to achieve a 90 

percent reduction in Hg emissions from 

phosphate rock calciners. The 

commenters’ carbon injection rate 

estimate is much higher than ACI 

installations at coal power plants and 

cement kilns, and while phosphate rock 

calciners may have unique exhaust gas 

properties, these properties do not 

warrant such an extreme carbon feed 

rate. 

To provide additional context on 

carbon injection rates, we reviewed 

numerous ACI Hg reduction studies 

conducted through a National Energy 

Technology Laboratory (NETL) research 

program under the Department of 

Energy (DOE), as well as other studies, 

which are available in Docket ID No. 

EPA–HQ–OAR–2012–0522. In our 

review, we considered the impact on 

carbon injection rates due to 

temperature, moisture content, Hg 

concentration, sulfur content (i.e., sulfur 

trioxide (SO3) concentration), and 

carbon sorbent type. Considering the 

information in these studies, we found 

it common for carbon injection rates of 

5 lb/MMacf or less to result in 90 

percent Hg removal, although higher 

injection rates are warranted in some 

instances. We also found that at certain 

facilities, high injection rates do not 

result in 90 percent Hg removal; 

however, in several of these cases those 

data are for standard powdered 

activated carbon (PAC), i.e., activated 

carbon that has not been treated with 

halogens, or exhaust gases containing 

high SO3 concentrations. Specifically, 

we identified a 2008 document 3 that 

combines results from several studies 

demonstrating the relationship between 

PAC injection rate (lb/MMacf) and 

percent Hg removal. While Figure 2 in 

this 2008 document shows injection 

rates up to 20 lb/MMacf using standard 


rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 160 / Wednesday, August 19, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 50399 

PAC (e.g., not halogenated carbon), data 

for halogenated PAC, in Figure 3 of the 

2008 document, shows a maximum of 

approximately 9 lb/MMacf in order to 

achieve 90 percent Hg removal from the 

gas stream. It accords with our general 

knowledge that standard PAC can have 

a high control efficiency if halogens are 

present in the flue gas to oxidize 

elemental Hg so that it can be adsorbed 

on the particles injected and 

subsequently captured in the particle 

control device. Thus, if halogens are not 

present in sufficient quantities to 

oxidize the elemental Hg present, the 

unoxidized Hg present will continue to 

be emitted, since it would not be 

adsorbed on the particles and captured 

in the particle control device. This 

situation can be remedied through the 

use of halogenated PAC, which will 

oxidize the elemental Hg present so that 

it can be adsorbed on the particles and 

later captured. Thus, while we agree 

with the vendor’s recommendation that 

halogenated PAC is most likely to result 

in better Hg removal efficiencies for the 

phosphate rock calciners, we disagree 

with the relevance of the commenter’s 

cited 1994 document. The ACI vendor 

used by the commenter recommended 

treated (e.g., halogenated) PAC as the 

most likely sorbent type for phosphate 

rock calciner Hg treatment and the cited 

1994 document evaluated standard 

PAC. In addition, as noted above, there 

have been more recent studies and 

significant progress in PAC design since 

1994, and as such we do not believe the 

PAC evaluated in the 1994 document 

would result in the Hg reductions that 

today’s PAC can achieve. Therefore, we 

determined that PAC type is a critical 

factor for Hg removal efficiencies for 

this source category. 

The commenter also noted that 

modifications focused on reducing the 

temperature of the exhaust gas streams 

would be necessary in order for ACI to 

be effective when installed prior to the 

existing venturi scrubber. This reduced 

operating temperature for the phosphate 

rock calciner exhaust would be in a 

similar range as coal utility boilers; it is 

common for coal utility boilers to have 

exhaust gases at temperatures exceeding 

300 degrees Fahrenheit (see the 

documents ‘‘Coal Plant Hg Controls 

Update_EPA_2005’’ and ‘‘DOE NETL Hg 

Field Testing Update_2008,’’ which are 

available in Docket ID No. EPA–HQ– 

OAR–2012–0522). Therefore, the cited 

coal utility boiler studies are 

appropriate and show that ACI is 

effective in the new temperature range. 

This further refutes the commenter’s 

citation of the 1994 document regarding 

temperature concerns and the necessity 

of an injection rate as high as 30 lb/

MMacf. 

Data are available demonstrating that 

increased SO3 levels are detrimental to 

sorbent performance. We found that 

higher carbon injection rates are typical 

for plants with higher SO3 concentration 

in the exhaust stream; for coal utility 

boilers, this can occur when the fuel is 

high-sulfur bituminous coal. The 

concentration of SO3 in emissions from 

coal utility boilers is also increased by 

certain control devices (e.g., selective 

catalytic reduction) that do not exist at 

the phosphate rock calciners. For 

information on SO3 impacts, see the 

documents ‘‘DOE NETL Hg Field 

Testing Update_2008’’ and ‘‘ADA ACI 

Overview_2010,’’ which are available in 

Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2012– 

0522. Of note, certain PAC sorbents are 

designed to work in high-sulfur 

environments (see the document 

‘‘Calgon Fluepac ST brochure,’’ 

available in Docket ID No. EPA–HQ– 

OAR–2012–0522). Based on this 

available information, we do not believe 

SO3 concentration in the phosphate rock 

calciner exhaust gas stream will 

severely impact ACI performance to a 

level requiring a carbon injection rate of 

30 lb/MMacf. 

Additionally, we identified a pilot 

study that was conducted in 2007 on a 

cement kiln at the Ash Grove Durkee 

facility that resulted in more than 90 

percent Hg removal efficiencies using 

carbon injection rates of only 3 lb/

MMacf. Of note, the Hg concentration in 

the cement kiln exhaust gas was more 

than 10 times higher than the Hg 

concentration in the phosphate rock 

calciner exhaust gas. This study is 

presented in the document ‘‘Carbon 

Injection Pilot Test Durkee OR_2007,’’ 

available in Docket ID No. EPA–HQ– 

OAR–2012–0522. 

While we acknowledge that 

phosphate rock calciner exhaust streams 

may have certain unique characteristics, 

we do not agree with a PAC injection 

rate of 30 lb/MMacf based on the data 

available, as discussed above. We 

believe a halogenated PAC injection rate 

of 10 lb/MMacf or lower (for ACI 

installed upstream of the existing 

venturi scrubbers) is sufficient for 

meeting the BTF Hg limit for phosphate 

rock calciners. 

Commenters also noted, and the EPA 

agrees, that GMCS technology would be 

technically feasible to control Hg 

emissions from phosphate rock 

calciners. We also agree that individual 

GMCS fixed-bed carbon adsorption 

systems would be necessary for each of 

the six phosphate rock calciners. The 

commenters noted that two full-scale 

operations are actively using GMCS 

fixed-bed carbon adsorption systems to 

control Hg. Furthermore, based on 

additional discussion with industry (see 

‘‘EPA Meeting Minutes for PCS Aurora 

Hg Discussion, March 12, 2015,’’ which 

is available in Docket ID No. EPA–HQ– 

OAR–2012–0522), we now know that 

three full-scale operations use GMCS to 

control Hg, with two additional 

operations to come online soon. These 

full-scale operations are located at coal 

power plants, not phosphoric acid 

manufacturing processes. Based on the 

vendor-provided information and the 

fact that GMCS technology is currently 

used at coal power plants to comply 

with Hg emission limits, we believe 

GMCS technology is technically 

feasible. In regards to the need for a 

pilot study, facilities would have time to 

design, construct, and test the system. 

Although we have determined that 

two control technologies are technically 

feasible to control Hg emissions from 

phosphate rock calciners, we evaluated 

costs for the BTF Hg limit based on the 

estimated lower cost technology, 

installation of halogenated ACI 

upstream of the existing venturi 

scrubber. We used the ACI cost data 

provided by the commenter to estimate 

the costs for complying with the BTF Hg 

limit. However, instead of basing the 

annual carbon cost on an injection rate 

of 30 lb/MMacf, we applied injection 

rates of 5 and 10 lb/MMacf of 

halogenated carbon for reasons stated 

above. As provided by the commenter, 

the capital cost for installing six ACI 

units on each existing phosphate rock 

calciner is approximately $21,150,000. 

The annual cost ranges from 

approximately $4,320,000 (when a 

carbon injection rate of 5 lb/MMacf is 

used) to approximately $5,280,000 

(when a carbon injection rate of 10 lb/ 

MMacf is used); this results in Hg 

reductions of 145 pounds of Hg per 

year. As previously stated, these annual 

costs imposed a significant economic 

burden and we are not finalizing the 

BTF Hg limit for existing phosphate 

rock calciners. 

Existing phosphate rock calciners 

must comply with a Hg emission limit 

that equals the MACT floor at 0.14 mg 

Hg/dscm at 3-percent O2. The MACT 

floor was calculated using the upper 

prediction limit (UPL) methodology, 

which was discussed in the preamble of 

the proposed rule (see 79 FR 66533) and 

is also discussed in the memorandums 

‘‘Maximum Achievable Control 

Technology (MACT) Floor Analysis for 

Phosphate Rock Calciners at Phosphoric 

Acid Manufacturing Plants—Final 

Rule’’ and ‘‘Use of the Upper Prediction 

Limit for Calculating MACT Floors,’’ 

which are available in the docket for 


rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
50400 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 160 / Wednesday, August 19, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

4National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air 

Pollutants: Mercury Emissions from Mercury Cell 

Chlor-Alkali Plants (76 FR 13852); National 

Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: 

Coal- and Oil-Fired Electric Utility Steam 

Generating Units (76 FR 24976 and 77 FR 9304); 

and National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air 

Pollutants: Gold Mine Ore Processing and 

Production Area Source Category (75 FR 22470). 

this action. Based on the available data, 

the existing phosphate rock calciners 

would be able to comply with this limit 

without installing additional Hg 

controls. 

We evaluated application of the BTF 

Hg limit for new phosphate rock 

calciners. Facilities would have time to 

plan for and consider the costs when 

determining whether to construct a new 

phosphate rock calciner. Additionally, 

sources may choose to only add one 

new calciner unit at a time, which 

would have considerably less impact 

than the costs associated with 

retrofitting all units at an existing site. 

Therefore, we evaluated the costeffectiveness for installing Hg controls 

on a new phosphate rock calciner. Using 

the same cost data provided by the 

commenter, installing a single ACI 

would have capital costs of 

approximately $3,500,000. The annual 

cost ranges from approximately 

$720,000 (when a carbon injection rate 

of 5 lb/MMacf is used) to approximately 

$880,000 (when a carbon injection rate 

of 10 lb/MMacf is used). This results in 

Hg reductions of 24 pounds of Hg per 

year for a single calciner unit, assuming 

the new phosphate rock calciner has 

similar emissions as the existing 

phosphate rock calciners at PCS Aurora. 

The resulting cost-effectiveness is 

estimated to be $29,800 to $36,400 per 

pound of Hg reduced, which we 

consider cost effective for new sources. 

This facility-level cost-effectiveness for 

Hg for new sources is comparable to 

values the EPA found to be cost 

effective for removal of Hg at the 

facility-level in other air toxics rules.4

Consequently, new phosphate-rock 

calciners must comply with the BTF Hg 

emission limit of 0.014 mg Hg/dscm at 

3-percent O2. 

ii. HF Work Practices for Phosphate 

Rock Calciners—Comment. We received 

comment regarding HF work practices 

for phosphate rock calciners. One 

commenter supported the HF work 

practices and stated they are consistent 

with their current phosphate rock 

calciner operations. Another commenter 

does not support the implementation of 

HF work practices for phosphate rock 

calciners. This commenter, which is 

considering installation of a calciner in 

the future, noted that preliminary 

results indicate a calcination 

temperature of at least 2,000 degrees 

Fahrenheit is necessary for their 

phosphate rock calciner. This 

commenter also explained they are 

evaluating a flash calciner, which 

operates with a much shorter retention 

time than the fluidized bed calciners 

currently in operation. The commenter 

argued that wet scrubbers should not be 

a requirement of the HF work practice 

because their phosphate rock calciner 

will be located in a remote area where 

treatment and disposal options for 

scrubber liquors may not be feasible. 

The commenter recommended the EPA 

allow for other control technologies 

with equivalent efficiencies. 

Another commenter does not support 

the use of work practices for HF, and 

declared the EPA should set numeric 

emission limits for HF from phosphate 

rock calciners. The commenter 

maintained that the EPA failed to satisfy 

the CAA section 112(h) test it must meet 

to promulgate work practice standards 

‘‘in lieu of’’ numerical emission 

standards. The commenter stated that 

not using the available emissions data to 

set a floor limit is unlawful and 

arbitrary, even if the data are below the 

detection limit. 

Response. We are not adopting the 

proposed HF work practice standard for 

phosphate rock calciners in NESHAP 

subpart AA. Instead, we are adopting an 

emission limit for total fluoride from 

phosphate rock calciners. In proposing 

the HF work practices, we concluded 

that it was not feasible to prescribe or 

enforce an emission limit for HF due to 

limitations in the available EPA Method 

320 HF test results (i.e., most of the 

emissions data were below the method 

detection limit). We now have 

concluded, based on analysis of public 

comments, that it is not feasible to 

accurately measure HF emissions from 

phosphoric acid manufacturing 

processes using EPA Method 320 (see 

section V.F.3.c of this preamble for 

further details). However, data are 

available to establish an emission limit 

for total fluoride from phosphate rock 

calciners. In 2015 only one facility 

operates phosphate rock calciners, 

which are controlled by a venturi-type 

scrubber. In response to the April 2010 

CAA section 114 request, the facility 

provided EPA Method 13B total fluoride 

emission testing results for one of their 

six identical phosphate rock calciners. 

We conclude that the total fluoride 

emission rate achieved by this 

phosphate rock calciner characterizes 

the emissions from all six calciners and 

thus this emission rate was used to 

determine the MACT floor for total F 

emissions. Therefore, for phosphate 

rock calciners, we are setting total F 

emission limits. We are also setting a 

work practice standard for periods of 

startup and shutdown in lieu of this 

numeric emission limit (see section 

V.E.3 of this preamble for further 

details). The use of total fluoride as a 

surrogate for the HAP HF is consistent 

with WPPA, SPA, and DAP/MAP 

process lines, which also have total 

fluoride emission limits in lieu of HF 

emission limits. 

For the Phosphoric Acid 

Manufacturing source category, we have 

a limited dataset for the pollutant total 

fluoride from phosphate rock calciners. 

Therefore, we evaluated this specific 

dataset to determine whether it is 

appropriate to make any modifications 

to the UPL approach used to calculate 

the MACT floor. For the phosphate rock 

calciner dataset, we performed the 

following steps: We selected the data 

distribution that best represents the 

dataset; ensured that the correct 

equation for the distribution was then 

applied to the data; and compared 

individual components of the limited 

dataset to determine if the total fluoride 

standard based on the limited dataset 

reasonably represents the performance 

of the units included in the dataset. The 

results of this analysis are presented 

below. 

The MACT floor dataset for total 

fluoride from new and existing 

phosphate rock calciners includes 3 test 

runs from 1 phosphate rock calciner. 

After determining that the dataset is best 

represented by a normal distribution 

and ensuring that we used the correct 

equation for the distribution, we 

considered the selection of a lower 

confidence level for determining the 

emission limit by evaluating whether 

the calculated limit reasonably 

represents the performance of the unit 

upon which it is based. In this case, the 

calculated emission limit is about twice 

the short-term average emissions from 

the best performing source, indicating 

that the emission limit is not 

unreasonable compared to the actual 

performance of the unit upon which the 

limit is based and is within the range 

that we see when we evaluate larger 

datasets using our MACT floor 

calculation procedures. Therefore, we 

determined that no changes to our 

standard UPL floor calculation 

procedure are warranted for this 

pollutant and subcategory. We are 

applying the same method of calculating 

a total fluoride limit as we did for the 

Hg MACT floor calculation, for which 

we gave notice in the preamble to the 

proposed rule. Additional details and 

background on the MACT floor 

calculation are provided in the 

memorandums, ‘‘Maximum Achievable 


rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 160 / Wednesday, August 19, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 50401 

Control Technology (MACT) Floor 

Analysis for Phosphate Rock Calciners 

at Phosphoric Acid Manufacturing 

Plants—Final Rule,’’ ‘‘Approach for 

Applying the Upper Prediction Limit to 

Limited Datasets,’’ and ‘‘Use of the 

Upper Prediction Limit for Calculating 

MACT Floors,’’ which are available in 

the docket for this action. We also 

evaluated BTF options for total F, but 

were unable to identify any costeffective BTF technologies. Table 3 of 

this preamble provides the results of the 

new and existing phosphate rock 

calciner MACT floor calculations 

(considering variability) for total F. 

TABLE 3—RESULTS OF THE NEW AND EXISTING MACT FLOOR CALCULATIONS FOR TOTAL FLUORIDE FROM PHOSPHATE

ROCK CALCINERS AT PHOSPHORIC ACID MANUFACTURING FACILITIES

Pollutant Results Units 

Total fluoride (for new and existing sources) .............................................................................. 9.0E–04 lb/ton of rock feed. 

b. Gypsum Dewatering Stack and 

Cooling Pond Work Practices—i. Ratio 

of Gypsum Dewatering Stack Area to 

Phosphoric Acid Manufacturing 

Capacity—Comment. Several 

commenters requested that the EPA 

either reconsider, withdraw, or 

eliminate the proposed gypsum 

dewatering stack area limitation of 80 

acres per 100,000 tpy capacity (in 

equivalent P2O5 feed). Commenters 

claimed the use of flawed data and 

assumptions in the EPA’s analysis in the 

following areas: (1) Ambiguous 

definitions of a ‘‘gypsum dewatering 

stack,’’ and ‘‘new’’ and ‘‘existing’’ 

stacks; (2) inaccurate or outdated data 

on acreage of existing stacks and 

production capacity, stack closures, and 

plans for new stacks; (3) flawed or 

missing rationale and correlation 

between the gypsum dewatering stack 

area and phosphoric acid manufacturing 

capacity; (4) no technical or legal basis 

for the selection of the 80-acre cutoff; (5) 

no consideration given to site-specific 

variables that influence the acreage of 

gypsum dewatering stacks; and (6) 

failure to consider impacts from closing 

an existing stack prior to commissioning 

a new stack. 

These commenters claimed the term 

‘‘gypsum dewatering stack’’ is so 

broadly and ambiguously defined they 

are unable to determine the scope and 

impact of the proposed area limitation 

of 80 acres per 100,000 tpy capacity, or 

how the proposed limitation would be 

applied to facilities. They claimed the 

EPA’s definition includes a wide array 

of features that have never before been 

considered part of the gypsum 

dewatering stack (e.g., pumps, piping, 

all collection and conveyance systems 

associated with gypsum to the stack and 

process wastewater return to the plant). 

Commenters argued that the EPA 

underestimated stack acreage used in 

the analysis and that the estimates 

should be much larger when the ‘‘total 

system’’ acreage is used. These 

commenters stated that using the ‘‘total 

system’’ acreage in the analysis 

demonstrates that the EPA significantly 

underestimated the number of acres at 

each facility that would need to be 

closed. One of these commenters asked 

whether a vertical expansion of an 

existing stack would be considered a 

‘‘new’’ facility, and how the proposed 

work practice might be evaluated for 

compliance when surfaces of a ‘‘closed’’ 

facility might be overlapped by an 

immediately-adjacent ‘‘new’’ facility. 

Additionally, commenters argued that 

the EPA’s technical rationale for 

limiting stack area was based on an 

arbitrary correlation with production 

capacity. One of these commenters said 

there is no relationship between gypsum 

dewatering stack area and phosphoric 

acid manufacturing capacity, and that 

outliers were removed from the analysis 

further confirming no quantitative 

relationship between stack area and 

facility capacity. This commenter also 

asserted that limiting the size of the 

gypsum dewatering stacks is not proven 

to limit HF emissions. 

Furthermore, two commenters 

claimed the 80-acre limit does not 

consider an evaluation of water balance 

and process water cooling needs for 

individual facilities. These commenters 

pointed out that a flat area does not 

require as large of a footprint for its 

gypsum dewatering stacks as compared 

to an area with large topographic relief. 

One of these commenters provided 

examples of two gypsum dewatering 

stacks located in mountainous areas that 

require larger footprints to construct 

ponds due to longer runs of pipe, roads, 

and dike. 

Finally, one commenter claimed that 

an updated acreage-based analysis 

would need to account for the transition 

period between a stack becoming 

‘‘inactive’’ and the point in time of 

‘‘closure’’ so as not to exceed the 

acreage limit while constructing a new 

stack. Another commenter stated that 

the startup of a gypsum dewatering 

stack is a lengthy process that may take 

more than a year, and that the ‘‘ratio’’ 

requirement inaccurately assumes 

simultaneous closure of an old stack 

with the opening (i.e., new 

construction) of a new stack. Another 

commenter also contended that 

construction and closure take years to 

complete and occur simultaneously, and 

that closing a gypsum dewatering stack 

before beginning construction on a new 

stack would require an entire 

companion production facility to be 

idled for an extended period and 

impose ‘‘enormous direct and lost 

opportunity costs . . . such costs and 

plant idling are not justified.’’ 

Response. We agree with commenters 

that the proposed definition of ‘‘gypsum 

dewatering stack’’ is too broad. As we 

stated in the preamble to the proposed 

rule, we intended the proposed ratio 

limit to apply to only the ‘‘footprint 

acreage’’ of the gypsum dewatering 

stacks, which was deliberately meant to 

exclude the areas where many 

supplementary processes (such as 

pumps, piping, ditches, drainage 

conveyances, water control structures, 

collection pools, cooling ponds, surge 

ponds, auxiliary holding ponds, and any 

other collection or conveyance system) 

are located. Therefore, we did not 

underestimate stack acreage used in the 

gypsum dewatering stack area limitation 

analysis, nor did we underestimate the 

number of acres at each facility that 

would need to be closed. However, in 

an effort to clarify the specific emission 

source that we are regulating in the final 

rule (NESHAP subpart AA), we have 

included a new term, ‘‘gypsum 

dewatering stack system,’’ and revised 

the definition of ‘‘gypsum dewatering 

stack’’ in the final rule. We are 

finalizing ‘‘gypsum dewatering stack 

system’’ to mean ‘‘the gypsum 

dewatering stack, together with all 

pumps, piping, ditches, drainage 

conveyances, water control structures, 

collection pools, cooling ponds, surge 

ponds, auxiliary holding ponds, 

regional holding ponds and any other 

collection or conveyance system 

associated with the transport of gypsum 

from the plant to the gypsum 

dewatering stack, its management at the 


rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
50402 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 160 / Wednesday, August 19, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

gypsum dewatering stack, and the 

process wastewater return to the 

phosphoric acid production or other 

process.’’ We are finalizing ‘‘gypsum 

dewatering stack’’ to mean ‘‘any defined 

geographic area associated with a 

phosphoric acid manufacturing plant in 

which gypsum is disposed of or stored, 

other than within a fully enclosed 

building, container, or tank.’’ This 

revised definition of ‘‘gypsum 

dewatering stack’’ is based on Florida 

Administrative Rule 62–273.200 which 

regulates phosphogypsum management, 

and clearly includes any gypsum 

disposal pile, as well as the associated 

gypsum pond (which is also known as 

a settling pond, used to deposit the 

gypsum slurry, and is often located in 

the middle of the gypsum disposal pile), 

but does not include separate cooling 

ponds (for which we have retained the 

proposed definition of ‘‘cooling pond’’ 

in the NESHAP subpart AA final rule). 

Nevertheless, in light of other 

concerns raised by commenters, we are 

not adopting the proposed work practice 

that limits the size of active gypsum 

dewatering stacks, which would have 

been applicable to facilities when new 

gypsum dewatering stacks are 

constructed. 

As we stated in the preamble to the 

proposed rule, we did not detect a 

correlation between gypsum stack 

dewatering area and phosphoric acid 

manufacturing capacity; however, we 

proposed the size limit because we 

believe that reducing the gypsum 

dewatering stack area is directly related 

to reducing HF emissions. We also 

believed that phosphoric acid 

manufacturing capacity was related to 

the size of gypsum dewatering stacks 

and that it was operationally 

appropriate to allow large facilities to 

build larger gypsum dewatering stacks, 

while limiting smaller facilities to 

building a proportionally smaller 

gypsum dewatering stack. However, we 

have now concluded, based on analysis 

of public comments and other 

supplemental information provided, 

that it is not feasible to require facilities 

to close gypsum dewatering stacks 

based on a ratio of total active gypsum 

dewatering stack area (i.e., sum of the 

footprint acreage of all active gypsum 

dewatering stacks combined) to annual 

phosphoric acid manufacturing 

capacity. As commenters stated, the 

gypsum dewatering stack acreage does 

not relate to production capacity and, 

importantly, gypsum dewatering stack 

development must be considered in 

light of the operations of the entire 

facility. Factors that affect the size and 

development of gypsum dewatering 

stacks include: (1) The availability and 

topography of land near the facility; (2) 

facilities generate a substantial amount 

of gypsum waste in the phosphoric acid 

manufacturing process; (3) managing the 

gypsum waste that is generated is an 

important operating principle for all 

facilities (regardless of phosphoric acid 

production capacity); and (4) limiting 

the gypsum dewatering stack acreage or 

changing the way facilities build 

gypsum dewatering stacks could have a 

detrimental impact on a facility’s 

operations. Additionally, we agree with 

commenters that closure of a gypsum 

dewatering stack does not happen 

immediately, but rather requires a 

transitional period that can take years to 

complete. During this transitional 

period, a new stack is begun, but it may 

be years before it is fully operational 

and can receive all gypsum and slurry 

from the facility. This transitional 

period would make it difficult, if not 

impossible, for a facility to comply with 

the proposed work practice that limits 

the size of active gypsum dewatering 

stacks because the proposed size limit 

assumed immediate closure. Since 

closure does not happen immediately, 

and there is no correlation between 

dewatering stack acreage and 

phosphoric acid production, we are not 

adopting the proposed work practice 

that limits the size of active gypsum 

dewatering stacks. 

We are removing the definition of 

‘‘closed gypsum dewatering stack,’’ and 

revising the definition of ‘‘active 

gypsum dewatering stack,’’ as well as 

the definitions for when a gypsum 

dewatering stack is considered ‘‘new’’ or 

‘‘existing’’ (see sections V.C.3.b.ii and 

V.C.3.b.iii of this preamble for further 

details). 

ii. Necessity or Justification of Work 

Practice Standards for Fugitive HF 

Emissions—Comment. Numerous 

commenters claimed that there is 

insufficient technical analysis as to the 

feasibility and effectiveness of the 

control techniques that were proposed 

as options (as part of a work practice 

standard in the form of a management 

plan) for controlling fugitive HF 

emissions from gypsum dewatering 

stacks and cooling ponds. One of these 

commenters supported the EPA’s claim 

that emissions from gypsum dewatering 

stacks and cooling ponds would 

inherently constitute fugitive emissions, 

and that conceptually, a work practice 

standard is a reasonable approach to 

emissions control; however, they 

challenged the technical basis for the 

specific control techniques listed in the 

proposed management plan. 

Commenters contended that the 

proposed control techniques have not 

been demonstrated to have an effect on 

fugitive HF emissions, and stated the 

EPA did not quantify the expected 

reductions in HF emissions resulting 

from the proposed work practice 

standard for gypsum dewatering stacks 

and cooling ponds. A commenter noted 

that some of the control techniques were 

derived from their facility’s title V 

permit and that the EPA needed to 

recognize that (a) it is not clear (with a 

couple of exceptions) that these control 

techniques provide any significant 

emission reductions; (b) recent 

information may not support these 

control techniques providing emission 

reductions; and (c) there is considerable 

uncertainty in the emissions associated 

with cooling ponds and gypsum 

dewatering stacks. Another commenter 

argued that the EPA must justify the 

control techniques and show that they 

are not only technically effective, but 

also cost-effective and achievable within 

the industry. Commenters asserted that 

only two sources of information were 

used by the EPA in its determination of 

the control techniques that were 

proposed as options for controlling 

fugitive HF emissions in the proposed 

gypsum dewatering stack and cooling 

pond management plan. Commenters 

also noted that there is a large amount 

of uncertainty related to which specific 

control techniques are feasible and 

effective in reducing fugitive HF 

emissions. The following paragraphs 

provide a summary of the comments 

that the Agency received on each 

specific control technique. 

Three commenters opposed the use of 

submerged discharge pipes and siphon 

breaks below the surface of the cooling 

pond as a fugitive HF emissions control 

technique. They claimed that 

submerging cooling pond discharge 

lines for above-grade ponds would 

create a significant risk for a siphon 

effect to occur when a pumping system 

is shutdown, causing backpressure on 

the pump seals back down the line, and, 

thus, defeating the purpose of the 

siphon break. One of these commenters 

added that submerging siphon breaks 

will impede the ability of these devices 

to prevent backflow because submersion 

may interfere with the atmospheric 

connection needed to make siphon 

breaks operate properly. 

One commenter stated that although 

they use a rim ditch (cell) building 

technique, it is not an appropriate work 

practice for reducing HF emissions, and 

mentioned that the EPA does not 

provide data or an explanation of the 

linkage between minimizing the gypsum 

dewatering stack surface area and 

reducing emissions. This commenter 

suggested that the EPA define the 

technique as ‘‘a gypsum stack building 


rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 160 / Wednesday, August 19, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 50403 

5See the following documents which are all 

available in Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2012– 

0522): ‘‘USEPA Meeting with The Fertilizer 

Institute, July 24, 2013’’; ‘‘TFI meeting with USEPA 

to discuss RTR for Phosphoric Acid and Phosphate 

Fertilizer NESHAPs, September 11, 2014’’; ‘‘EPA 

Meeting Minutes for TFI Discussion March 12, 

2015’’; ‘‘Summary of Potential Costs for 

Implementing Phosphate NESHAPs/

Recommendations for Phosphogypsum Stack Work 

Practices, May 5, 2015’’; ‘‘Notes from Meeting with 

Florida DEP Regarding Gypsum Dewatering Stack 

and Cooling Pond Management Plan, March 4, 

2015’’; and ‘‘Site Visits to Mosaic Plant City and 

Mosaic New Wales, March 4, 2015.’’ 

technique where gypsum slurry is 

deposited along the stack perimeter 

with flow directed along a ditch before 

the liquid flow is conveyed to the 

settling compartments.’’ Another 

commenter stated that minimizing the 

gypsum pond surface areas is not 

feasible in Florida, North Carolina, and 

Louisiana because gypsum pond surface 

areas are optimized to provide annual 

evaporative water losses necessary to 

maintain zero water discharge. 

Several commenters also objected to 

the wetting of the active gypsum 

dewatering stack as a fugitive HF 

emissions control technique because the 

technique may be infeasible and 

counter-productive due to water balance 

issues at nearly every affected facility. 

One commenter argued that applying 

fresh water is not feasible (i.e., water 

trucks are not feasible or safe; irrigation 

in the West is not feasible; pipes are at 

risk of freezing) and another commenter 

stated that using recycled water may 

actually increase fugitive emissions 

because HF resides primarily in residual 

and make-up waters used to transport 

the gypsum slurry to the gypsum 

dewatering stack. One commenter 

contended that determining hot or dry 

periods is too subjective; therefore, it 

would be difficult to know when the 

control technique would apply. Another 

commenter illustrated the uncertainty of 

wetting of the active gypsum dewatering 

stack as a fugitive HF emissions control 

technique by identifying two studies 

with contradicting conclusions (one 

concluded that most HF is emitted from 

aqueous surfaces and trends with solar 

radiation, and the other study 

concluded that drying gypsum is a 

major source of ambient fluoride 

emissions from gypsum storage areas). 

One commenter challenged the EPA’s 

lack of evidence on the effectiveness of 

applying slaked lime to gypsum 

dewatering stacks as a fugitive HF 

emissions control technique, and 

claimed that it would not be feasible, 

referring to rain as threat to eliminate 

the potential for effectiveness. On the 

contrary, another commenter described 

how they apply a lime solution on top 

of reachable drying gypsum stack areas, 

and that the reaction of fluoride with 

slaked lime does result in the ‘‘tie-up’’ 

of volatile F, although they are not 

aware of any studies that have measured 

or quantified reductions. 

In addition, commenters also claimed 

that enormous costs would be 

associated with the fugitive HF 

emissions control technique requiring 

facilities to apply soil caps and 

vegetation to all side slopes of the active 

gypsum dewatering stack up to 50 feet 

below the stack top. Some of these 

commenters mentioned that there are 

state rules that require soil caps and 

side vegetation on side slopes for 

erosion/water impact control, but not 

for the purpose of fugitive HF emissions 

control. 

Furthermore, commenters requested 

that the closure of a gypsum dewatering 

stack not be considered a fugitive HF 

emissions control technique. One 

commenter contended that the EPA 

should allow the final cover on a closed 

stack to consist of a synthetic liner, as 

this would achieve the same purpose as 

a vegetative liner and may be more 

appropriate in some instances. Another 

commenter explained that some states 

and the EPA have closure requirements 

under Resource Conservation and 

Recovery Act (RCRA), including, for 

example, requirements for long term 

care practices (beyond 20–50 years); 

shaping and configuration of gypsum 

dewatering stacks; site security. They 

suggested that due to these detailed 

requirements, it would be best to defer 

to stack closure requirements within 

other regulations and not have NESHAP 

requirements that involve or require 

stack closure. 

Finally, commenters requested that if 

the EPA proceeds with a final rule that 

includes work practices for reducing 

fugitive HF emissions from gypsum 

dewatering stacks or cooling ponds, the 

work practices should include a 

flexibility mechanism for facilities to 

use additional practices not codified 

during this rulemaking. One commenter 

asserted that work practice standards 

that might commonly be practicable for 

other industries are not universally 

practicable (or legally permissible) 

throughout the phosphoric acid and 

phosphate fertilizer industries, and 

some practices might be appropriate for 

some facilities, but not others 

(depending on location, climate, etc.). 

Response. We are adopting the 

proposed work practice standard that 

requires owners or operators to prepare, 

and operate in accordance with a 

gypsum dewatering stack and cooling 

pond management plan; however, based 

on analysis of public comments, we are 

making some changes to the specific 

control measures that we proposed as 

options in the plan for controlling 

fugitive HF emissions. In the final rule, 

the Agency is using the terminology 

‘‘control measures’’ in lieu of the 

proposed terminology ‘‘control 

techniques’’ because it more accurately 

describes the list of options in the rule 

and avoids confusion with other CAA 

programs. We are finalizing standards 

that will reduce HAP emissions from 

gypsum dewatering stacks and cooling 

ponds because, as explained in the 

preamble to the proposed rule, the 1999 

Phosphoric Acid Manufacturing 

NESHAP (i.e., NESHAP subpart AA) did 

not regulate fugitive HF emissions from 

gypsum dewatering stacks or cooling 

ponds. As explained in the preamble to 

the proposed rule, we are adopting a 

work practice standard instead of 

numeric emission limits because it is 

‘‘not feasible to prescribe or enforce an 

emission standard’’ for these emissions 

because they ‘‘cannot be emitted 

through a conveyance designed and 

constructed to emit or capture such 

pollutant’’ (see CAA section 

112(h)(2)(A)) as the several hundred 

acres average size of these emission 

sources makes conveyance impractical. 

The size of these emission sources also 

makes it difficult to quantify the 

emission reductions that any control 

measure employed will achieve. 

However, in the paragraphs below, we 

explain how each control measure is 

feasible and effective in reducing 

fugitive HF emissions. We also provide 

details on the changes we have made to 

the gypsum dewatering stack and 

cooling pond management plan since 

proposal. Even after these changes, the 

measures are consistent with CAA 

section 112(d) controls and reflect a 

level of performance analogous to a 

MACT floor. 

We noted in the preamble to the 

proposed rule that we believe that it is 

most effective for sources to determine 

the best practices that are to be 

incorporated into their site-specific 

gypsum dewatering stack and cooling 

pond management plan. We also stated 

in the preamble to the proposed rule 

that sources would be required to 

incorporate control measures from the 

list of options being proposed, and we 

solicited comment on the proposed sitespecific gypsum dewatering stack and 

cooling pond management plan. In 

addition, we made considerable effort 5

before and after proposal in identifying 

a list of control measure options that 

encompass enough variety that at least 

one control measure option is feasible 

for at least one of each facility’s existing 

gypsum dewatering stacks and/or 

cooling ponds. In fact, we are not aware 


rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
50404 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 160 / Wednesday, August 19, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

of any facility that does not use a rim 

ditch (cell) building technique. 

Therefore, we disagree with commenters 

that the options we have listed for the 

gypsum dewatering stack and cooling 

pond management plan are not 

technically feasible. 

Additionally, personnel from the 

Florida Department of Environmental 

Protection (DEP) had concerns regarding 

how the plan would be implemented, as 

well as how a facility would show 

compliance with the control measure it 

chooses (see ‘‘Notes from Meeting with 

Florida DEP Regarding Gypsum 

Dewatering Stack and Cooling Pond 

Management Plan, March 4, 2015,’’ 

which is available in Docket ID No. 

EPA–HQ–OAR–2012–0522). Therefore, 

in an effort to improve compliance 

demonstration with a facility’s sitespecific gypsum dewatering stack and 

cooling pond management plan, we are 

including a condition in the final 

NESHAP subpart AA rule that requires 

facilities to submit their plan for 

approval to the Administrator. Facilities 

will be required to provide details on 

how they plan to implement and show 

compliance with the control measure(s) 

that they choose. The Administrator 

will approve or disapprove the facility’s 

site-specific gypsum dewatering stack 

and cooling pond management plan 

within 90 days after it is received. There 

may be a benefit to facilities and 

permitting authorities for the gypsum 

dewatering stack and cooling pond 

management plan and the title V major 

modification application to be 

submitted and reviewed at the same 

time. To change any of the information 

submitted in the plan, the facility must 

submit a revised plan 60 days before the 

change is to be implemented in order to 

allow time for review and approval by 

the Administrator before the change is 

implemented. 

We are not including an option in the 

NESHAP subpart AA final rule, as 

commenters requested, that would 

provide a flexibility mechanism for 

facilities to use additional practices not 

codified during this rulemaking. This 

type of flexibility does not provide 

regulatory certainty that is needed for 

both industry and the EPA. 

Although some commenters opposed 

using a submerged discharge pipe (with 

necessary siphon breaks to a level below 

the surface of the pond) as a fugitive HF 

emissions control measure, we believe 

submerging a discharge pipe can be 

appropriate and effective for reducing 

emissions from process water discharges 

into a cooling pond, although some 

facilities may not choose this option. 

Moreover, we agree with commenters 

that submerging siphon breaks could 

impede the ability of these devices to 

prevent backflow; therefore, we are 

removing this requirement from the 

final rule. On a recent site visit (see 

‘‘Site Visits to Mosaic Plant City and 

Mosaic New Wales, March 4, 2015,’’ 

which is available in Docket ID No. 

EPA–HQ–OAR–2012–0522), we noted 

strong vapor odors coming from splash 

operations occurring at a nonsubmerged pipe that was discharging 

process water into a cooling pond. 

According to AP–42, Chapter 5.2— 

Transportation and Marketing of 

Petroleum Liquids (01/95), significant 

turbulence and vapor/liquid contact that 

occur during splash discharge 

operations will result in higher levels of 

vapor generation and emissions loss 

compared to using a submerged 

discharge operation. Liquid turbulence 

is controlled significantly during 

submerged discharge operations, 

resulting in much lower vapor 

generation than encountered during 

splash discharge operations. We believe 

this demonstrates that submerging the 

pipe is an effective technique for 

mitigating HF emissions, and we are 

therefore retaining this option for 

cooling ponds. 

However, we are removing the option 

of submerging a discharge pipe that is 

associated with the gypsum pond 

because it is not a feasible option due 

to high solids volume in the slurry. (A 

gypsum pond, also called a settling 

pond, often is located in the middle of 

a gypsum disposal pile and receives 

waste gypsum slurry.) Based on 

information received from industry after 

the public comment period ended for 

the proposal (see Docket ID No. EPA– 

HQ–OAR–2012–0522–0048), it is much 

more likely for this particular pipe to 

become clogged, creating backpressure 

on pump seals. Submerging the 

discharge pipe under water in the 

gypsum pond creates a potential 

restriction against the discharging slurry 

that could get worse as solids build up 

around and against the end of the pipe. 

The discharge pipe for the gypsum pond 

is also routinely moved, which 

complicates submersing it. 

As we stated earlier in our response, 

we are not aware of any facility that 

uses a gypsum dewatering stack 

building technique that is different from 

rim ditch (cell) building. With regard to 

commenters’ assertions that the EPA did 

not provide data or explain the link 

between minimizing the gypsum 

dewatering stack surface area and 

reducing fugitive HF emissions, we 

believe that using the rim ditch 

technique over the lifespan of a gypsum 

dewatering stack will reduce the surface 

area of the gypsum pond and thereby 

reduce fugitive HF emissions. Fugitive 

HF emissions are calculated using an 

emission factor that is directly related to 

the total acreage from the gypsum 

dewatering stack, which includes the 

pond surface area (tons HF per acre per 

year); therefore, minimizing the pond 

surface area would minimize HF 

emissions. The rim ditch (cell) building 

technique is mainly used for gypsum 

dewatering stack stability since inner 

and outer dikes are used to create a rim 

ditch that provides better protection 

against overflow of the gypsum pond. 

However, as rim ditches are filled with 

slurry, the gypsum pond area will 

gradually decrease within each cell, 

thereby shrinking the amount of surface 

area of the pond that is exposed to the 

atmosphere (reducing the amount of 

fugitive HF emissions). An alternative to 

the rim ditch technique is to simply 

discharge gypsum slurry into the 

gypsum pond. With this technique, 

there is no inner dike to control slurry 

flow and the pond surface area would 

not be reduced as quickly or 

consistently. This increased surface area 

would allow greater potential for 

fugitive HF emissions due to the larger 

amount of surface water exposed to the 

atmosphere. We are revising this control 

measure option in the NESHAP subpart 

AA final rule to clarify that owners or 

operators must minimize the surface 

area of the gypsum pond associated 

with the active gypsum dewatering 

stack (and not the surface area of the 

active gypsum dewatering stack as we 

had proposed) by using a rim ditch 

(cell) building technique or other 

building technique. This clarification 

also addresses industry’s suggestion to 

reword the control measure in response 

to a meeting that occurred after the 

public comment period closed (see 

‘‘EPA Meeting Minutes for TFI 

Discussion March 12, 2015,’’ and 

‘‘Summary of Potential Costs for 

Implementing Phosphate NESHAPs/

Recommendations for Phosphogypsum 

Stack Work Practices, May 5, 2015,’’ 

which are both available in Docket ID 

No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2012–0522). 

Moreover, in this same correspondence 

that occurred after the public comment 

period closed, industry provided a 

suggestion for the definition of ‘‘rim 

ditch.’’ We agree with industry’s 

suggested definition; however, we 

believe the definition more 

appropriately covers the meaning of 

‘‘rim ditch (cell) building technique’’ 

and not just ‘‘rim ditch.’’ We are 

including this definition in the final 

rule for ‘‘rim ditch (cell) building 

technique’’ in an effort to clarify what 

we mean by this control measure. The 


rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 160 / Wednesday, August 19, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 50405 

6See ‘‘EPA Meeting Minutes for TFI Discussion 

March 12, 2015,’’ and ‘‘Summary of Potential Costs 

for Implementing Phosphate NESHAPs/

Recommendations for Phosphogypsum Stack Work 

Practices, May 5, 2015,’’ which are both available 

in Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2012–0522. 

final rule defines ‘‘rim ditch (cell) 

building technique’’ as a gypsum 

dewatering stack construction technique 

that utilizes inner and outer dikes to 

direct gypsum slurry flow around the 

perimeter of the stack before directing 

the flow and allowing settling of finer 

materials into the settling compartment. 

For the purpose of this definition, the 

rim ditch (cell) building technique 

includes the compartment startup phase 

when gypsum is deposited directly into 

the settling compartment in preparation 

for ditch construction, as well as the 

step-in or terminal phases when most 

solids must be directed to the settling 

compartment prior to stack closure. 

Decant return ditches are not rim 

ditches. 

Based on commenters’ objection to 

wetting active gypsum dewatering 

stacks as a fugitive HF emissions control 

measure, and additional discussion with 

industry (see ‘‘EPA Meeting Minutes for 

Simplot Discussion April 1, 2015,’’ 

which is available in Docket ID No. 

EPA–HQ–OAR–2012–0522), we 

determined that the proposed rule was 

not clear on how this control measure 

would be used. This control measure is 

not applied to the side slopes of the 

gypsum dewatering stacks, and instead 

is used on certain gypsum areas within 

cells of a gypsum dewatering stack. 

According to one facility located in arid 

climate (see ‘‘EPA Meeting Minutes for 

Simplot Discussion April 1, 2015,’’ 

which is available in Docket ID No. 

EPA–HQ–OAR–2012–0522), these areas 

may be more susceptible to drying out 

in warmer months due to higher surface 

temperatures of the gypsum dewatering 

stack; therefore, a system of weirs can be 

used to help direct gypsum pond water 

(not fresh water) to these areas to keep 

them wet. We agree with the commenter 

who pointed out that that applying 

water to a gypsum stack may actually 

increase fugitive emissions because HF 

resides primarily in the water used to 

transport the gypsum slurry to the 

gypsum dewatering stack. We realize 

that this option might increase the 

surface area of the gypsum pond water 

which conflicts with our understanding 

that minimizing surface area of the 

gypsum pond will minimize HF 

emissions. Therefore, we are not 

adopting this proposed control measure 

in the NESHAP subpart AA final rule. 

In response to a commenter’s 

assertion that there is lack of evidence 

of the effectiveness of applying slaked 

lime to gypsum dewatering stacks as a 

fugitive HF emissions control measure, 

we received information after the public 

comment period ended (see Docket ID 

No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2012–0522–0048) 

that at least one facility uses this 

technique to help meet its state ambient 

air standard for F. This commenter 

stated that, based on data from their 

site-specific ambient air monitoring, 

they apply a lime solution to their 

gypsum dewatering stack areas during 

periods where they are close to violating 

their 30-day state ambient air standard 

for F, measured as HF, in order to stay 

below the standard. Slaked lime can 

precipitate fluorides from gypsum 

dewatering stacks and cooling ponds, 

thus reducing the availability of 

fluorides in solution that could then be 

released into the air during evaporation. 

This is an example of the type of detail 

that the Administrator may require be 

included in the facility’s site-specific 

plan (in addition to how compliance 

would be demonstrated) before it could 

be approved. We have clarified in the 

final rule that if this control measure is 

chosen, then the plan must include the 

method used to determine the specific 

locations slaked lime is applied. The 

plan must also include the methods 

used to determine the quantity of, and 

when to apply, slaked lime (e.g., slaked 

lime may be applied to achieve a state 

ambient air standard for F, measured as 

HF). 

With respect to the measure involving 

application of soil caps and vegetation 

to side slopes of a gypsum dewatering 

stack, on recent site, visits personnel 

from Mosaic and the Florida DEP had 

concerns that this control measure was 

too specific in that it could be difficult 

for facilities to demonstrate compliance 

with the ‘‘50 feet below the stack top’’ 

requirement as well as the requirement 

to apply soil caps and vegetation to all 

side slopes (see ‘‘Site Visits to Mosaic 

Plant City and Mosaic New Wales, 

March 4, 2015,’’ and ‘‘Notes from 

Meeting with Florida DEP Regarding 

Gypsum Dewatering Stack and Cooling 

Pond Management Plan, March 4, 

2015,’’ which are available in Docket ID 

No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2012–0522). We 

recognize that applying soil caps and 

vegetation to side slopes of a gypsum 

dewatering stack is an ongoing process 

that continuously changes over time 

based on facility-specific operations. 

Therefore, we have revised this control 

measure option in the NESHAP subpart 

AA final rule to acknowledge that this 

technique will only be applied to 

portions of the side slopes that are no 

longer active on a gypsum dewatering 

stack instead of all side slopes up to 50 

feet below the top of the gypsum 

dewatering stack. We also have revised 

this option to allow the use of a 

synthetic cover in lieu of soil caps and 

vegetation. Furthermore, we expect that 

if a facility chose to use this specific 

control measure in their plan, the 

Administrator may require details on 

schedule, and how the portion of side 

slopes that received soil caps and 

vegetation, or a synthetic cover, is 

determined (in addition to how 

compliance would be demonstrated), 

before the plan could be approved. 

Therefore, we have clarified in the final 

rule that the plan must include the 

method used to determine the specific 

locations of soil caps and vegetation, or 

synthetic cover, and specify the acreage 

and locations where soil caps and 

vegetation, or synthetic cover, is 

applied. The plan must also include a 

schedule describing when soil caps and 

vegetation, or synthetic cover, is to be 

applied. 

Additionally, we believe that this 

control measure creates a barrier on the 

surface of the gypsum dewatering stack 

side slopes that reduces HF emissions; 

therefore, we disagree with commenters’ 

assertion that applying soil caps and 

vegetation may not be an effective 

option for fugitive HF emissions control. 

The Florida DEP has used this control 

measure as part of its overall 

management of fluorides from gypsum 

dewatering stacks; and Wyoming has 

approved this control measure in a 

facility’s title V permit as an optional 

method for reducing fugitive fluoride 

emissions. We also disagree with a 

request 6 to reword this control measure 

to require a gypsum dewatering stack 

construction and operation plan because 

the commenter did not provide any 

justification on how this activity 

reduces fugitive HF emissions from 

gypsum dewatering stacks. 

We disagree with commenters’ 

requests to exclude closure from the list 

of measures for controlling fugitive HF 

emissions from gypsum dewatering 

stacks. We believe that closing a gypsum 

dewatering stack is one of the best 

solutions for reducing fugitive HF 

emissions because it permanently 

reduces the emissions from the greatest 

contributing source. However, we are 

revising this control measure option in 

the NESHAP subpart AA final rule to 

allow a facility to design its own closure 

requirement plan, provided that the 

closure requirements, at a minimum, 

contain: (1) A specific trigger 

mechanism for when owners or 

operators must begin the closure process 

on the gypsum dewatering stack, and (2) 

a requirement to install a final cover. As 

with all gypsum dewatering stack and 


rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
50406 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 160 / Wednesday, August 19, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

cooling pond management plans, this 

closure requirement must be submitted 

to the Agency for approval. Although 

we are not identifying a specific trigger 

mechanism in the final rule, one 

example of a trigger mechanism is a 

facility-specified length of time where 

the gypsum dewatering stack is inactive 

and no longer receives gypsum (i.e., 

once the gypsum dewatering stack stops 

receiving gypsum for a period of time, 

the facility must begin closing it). Also, 

we are clarifying that a final cover 

means the materials used to cover the 

top and sides of a gypsum dewatering 

stack upon closure. This addresses 

commenters request that the EPA 

should allow the final cover on a closed 

stack to consist of a synthetic liner. 

Finally, in light of our decision to revise 

the control measure option for closing a 

gypsum dewatering stack, we are also 

removing the definition of a ‘‘closed 

gypsum dewatering stack’’ from the 

NESHAP subpart AA final rule. Since 

the revised language relies on a specific 

trigger mechanism for when owners or 

operators must begin the closure process 

on the gypsum dewatering stack, the 

definition of a ‘‘closed gypsum 

dewatering stack’’ is no longer necessary 

in the final rule. Because we are 

removing the definition of a ‘‘closed 

gypsum dewatering stack’’ from the 

final rule, we are revising the definition 

of an ‘‘active gypsum dewatering stack.’’ 

In the NESHAP subpart AA final rule, 

an ‘‘active gypsum dewatering stack’’ 

means a gypsum dewatering stack that 

is currently receiving gypsum, received 

gypsum within the last year, or is part 

of the facility’s water management 

system. A gypsum dewatering stack that 

is considered closed by a state authority 

is not considered an active gypsum 

dewatering stack. 

As we have stated before, the final list 

of NESHAP subpart AA control 

measures is exhaustive enough that a 

facility has a number of options for 

selecting a control measure that would 

be feasible for their particular 

operations. We assume that facilities 

would choose the lowest cost option, 

and that all facilities are using at least 

one of the control measure options 

already (e.g., we are not aware of any 

facilities that do not use a rim ditch 

(cell) building technique). Therefore, we 

disagree with the commenters’ claim 

that enormous costs would be incurred 

if they were required to apply soil caps 

and vegetation to all side slopes of the 

active gypsum dewatering stack up to 50 

feet below the stack top. We are not 

requiring that facilities implement this 

control measure since this specific 

control technique is not a requirement, 

but instead an option for how a facility 

may demonstrate compliance with the 

work practice standards for fugitive HF 

emissions from the gypsum 

management system. 

iii. Requirement to Use At Least Two 

of the Fugitive HF Emissions Control 

Measures—Comment. One commenter 

requested that the EPA eliminate the 

‘‘dual practice’’ approach for new 

sources. Two commenters declared that 

the requirement to implement ‘‘at least 

two of the control techniques’’ listed for 

‘‘each regulated gypsum dewatering 

stack and cooling pond’’ is not possible 

without a broader list that includes at 

least two practices for cooling ponds. 

Additionally, with regard to closing an 

active gypsum dewatering stack as a 

control technique option, the 

commenter contended that giving an 

owner of a new gypsum dewatering 

stack the option of closing it in tandem 

with a mandatory second control 

technique is ‘‘nonsensical’’ because the 

‘‘new stack would immediately have to 

be closed to implement the practice.’’ 

Another commenter wanted 

clarification as to whether the lateral 

expansion of an existing gypsum 

dewatering stack is considered a new 

stack, and thus would trigger the 

proposed work practice standards 

related to the size of active gypsum 

dewatering stacks and production ratio. 

The commenter also sought clarification 

as to whether at least two of the control 

techniques be used in the gypsum 

dewatering stack and cooling pond 

management plan for controlling 

fugitive HF emissions would be 

required. 

Response. We agree with the 

commenter that the proposed 

requirement for new gypsum dewatering 

stacks and cooling ponds to implement 

‘‘at least two of the control techniques’’ 

listed for ‘‘each’’ regulated ‘‘gypsum 

dewatering stack and cooling pond,’’ 

would make compliance for cooling 

ponds impossible for new sources 

without a broader list with at least two 

control measures for cooling ponds. In 

the final rule, the Agency is using the 

terminology ‘‘control measures’’ in lieu 

of the proposed terminology ‘‘control 

techniques’’ because it more accurately 

describes the list of options in the rule 

and avoids confusion with other CAA 

programs. As stated in a previous 

response, in an effort to clarify the 

specific emission source that we are 

regulating in the final rule (NESHAP 

subpart AA), we have included a new 

term, ‘‘gypsum dewatering stack 

system,’’ (see sections V.C.3.b.i of this 

preamble for further details) in the final 

rule. This revision also clarifies our 

original intent that the two control 

measure options that a facility selects 

can be for any combination of gypsum 

dewatering stacks and/or cooling ponds 

in the gypsum dewatering stack system. 

For example, if a facility operates a 

cooling pond considered a new source, 

the facility may choose to not 

implement the control measure option 

requiring a submerged discharge pipe 

for the new cooling pond, and instead 

implement two control measures at one 

or more gypsum dewatering stacks no 

matter whether they be considered a 

new or existing source. Furthermore, we 

have revised the control measure option 

for closing a gypsum dewatering stack 

(see section V.C.3.b.ii of this preamble 

for further details). Because of this 

change to the NESHAP subpart AA final 

rule, there is no longer a requirement to 

immediately close the active gypsum 

dewatering stack in tandem with a 

mandatory second control measure 

option. 

Lastly, the Agency has revised the 

definitions in the NESHAP subpart AA 

final rule for when a gypsum dewatering 

stack is considered ‘‘new’’ or ‘‘existing’’ 

in order to address whether a lateral 

expansion of an existing gypsum 

dewatering stack is considered a new 

gypsum dewatering stack. The revised 

definitions in the final rule also deal 

with a concern one commenter raised 

during the comment period about 

triggering the proposed regulation for a 

‘‘new’’ source each time they rotate the 

functionality of their three gypsum 

dewatering stack sites at their facility 

(this topic was also discussed after the 

comment period closed, see ‘‘USEPA 

Meeting Minutes for PCS Aurora 

Discussion (2.2.2015),’’ which is 

available in Docket ID No. EPA–HQ– 

OAR–2012–0522). We are revising the 

NESHAP subpart AA final rule such 

that a gypsum dewatering stack or 

cooling pond is considered ‘‘new’’ if it 

meets two criteria: (1) It was constructed 

or reconstructed after August 19, 2015, 

and (2) it was required to obtain a 

permit by a state authority for the 

construction or reconstruction. Some 

lateral expansions may build beyond a 

facility’s existing permitted capacity 

(and design dimensions of the gypsum 

dewatering stack); therefore, these 

lateral expansions would be considered 

‘‘new’’ in the final rule because the 

facility would be required to obtain (or 

revise) their existing permitted capacity 

(and design dimensions). Because of 

this change in the NESHAP subpart AA 

final rule, we are also revising the 

criteria for when a gypsum dewatering 

stack or cooling pond is considered 

‘‘existing.’’ Specifically, a gypsum 

dewatering stack or cooling pond is 


rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 160 / Wednesday, August 19, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 50407 

7http://www.cdc.gov/fluoridation/factsheets/

engineering/wfadditives.htm. 

considered ‘‘existing’’ if it meets one of 

two criteria: (1) It was constructed or 

reconstructed on or before August 19, 

2015, or (2) it was constructed or 

reconstructed after August 19, 2015 and 

it was not required to obtain a permit by 

a state authority for the construction or 

reconstruction. 

iv. Fugitive HF Emissions Control 

Measure Considerations for Cooling 

Ponds—Comment. One commenter 

referenced a 1978 EPA document: 

‘‘Evaluation of Emissions and Control 

Techniques for Reducing Fluoride 

Emissions from Gypsum Ponds in the 

Phosphoric Acid Industry’’ and 

questioned why the EPA proposed work 

practice standards focused solely on 

gypsum dewatering stacks, while the 

EPA has in the past studied and 

documented more work practices for 

controls of cooling pond emissions, 

which are not discussed as alternatives 

to the proposed rule. Another 

commenter requested that if EPA keeps 

cooling ponds as part of the gypsum 

dewatering stack and cooling pond 

management plan, then EPA should 

provide more than one work practice 

that could be implemented at a cooling 

pond. They suggested that EPA add a 

control measure option (for cooling 

ponds) that would require developing a 

plan to optimize the size of cooling 

ponds to address fugitive HF emissions 

(as appropriate based on the conditions 

at the facility). 

In addition, another commenter 

suggested additional control measure 

options for reducing fugitive HF 

emissions from cooling ponds. This 

commenter suggested EPA include an 

option to develop and implement a plan 

for dredging cooling ponds which helps 

maintain cooling capacity, and, 

therefore, can reduce fugitive emissions 

by reducing the vapor pressure of 

fluoride in the pond water. This 

commenter also suggested EPA include 

an option to implement a system for the 

recovery of fluoride for water that is 

directed to cooling ponds. The 

commenter pointed out that one of its 

facilities has the capability to recover 

fluoride as hydrofluorosilicic acid 

during the phosphoric acid evaporation 

process. The commenter stated that this 

recovery process is operated as needed 

to meet the market demand for 

hydrofluorosilicic acid. Finally, the 

commenter suggested EPA include an 

option to implement a system for the 

removal of fluoride for water that is 

directed to cooling ponds (for example, 

by adding lime to increase the pH). 

Response. We are aware of the 1978 

EPA document, ‘‘Evaluation of 

Emissions and Control Techniques for 

Reducing Fluoride Emissions from 

Gypsum Ponds in the Phosphoric Acid 

Industry,’’ and the six potential control 

techniques it examines for reducing 

fluoride emissions from gypsum ponds. 

These six potential control techniques 

include: (1) Use of the ‘‘Kidde’’ process; 

(2) use of the ‘‘Swift’’ process; (3) use of 

lime to raise pH; (4) dry conveyance of 

gypsum, (5) pretreatment of ore by 

calcining; and (6) changing the entire 

phosphoric acid production process to a 

‘‘hemi/dehydrate’’ process. The 1978 

EPA document clarifies that the first 

four of these potential control 

techniques could also reduce fluoride 

emissions from cooling ponds. The 

‘‘Swift,’’ ‘‘Kidde,’’ and ‘‘hemi/

dehydrate’’ processes each use 

byproduct fluoride in the WPPA to 

produce hydrofluorosilicic acid (an acid 

generally used in fluoridation of 

drinking water, but also has other 

industry uses) or ammonium 

silicofluoride. We are aware of at least 

two facilities that are equipped and 

capable of making hydrofluorosilicic 

acid; however, it is not clear which 

process they use, nor is it clear if either 

facility is actively making 

hydrofluorosilicic acid. However, 

facilities have expressed that production 

of hydrofluorosilicic acid for the 

primary purpose of controlling HF 

emissions is not practical. Facilities that 

produce hydrofluorosilicic acid seek to 

sell the product for use in water 

fluoridation.7 In fact, one commenter 

stated that their recovery process is 

operated as needed to meet the market 

demand for hydrofluorosilicic acid. 

Facilities would not produce this 

product in the absence of a market 

demand, as the hydrofluorosilicic acid 

would be another waste stream that 

would need to be disposed of. 

Therefore, we do not believe this to be 

a reasonable control technique option 

for fugitive HF emissions from these 

sources. 

We have determined that using lime 

(or any other caustic substance) to raise 

the pH of liquid discharged into the 

cooling pond could be a feasible control 

measure option for reducing fluoride 

emissions from cooling ponds; 

therefore, we are including this option 

in the NESHAP subpart AA final rule. 

The control measure option 

simultaneously raises the pH of the 

cooling pond water and lowers the 

concentration of soluble F, and, thus 

reducing the concentration of fluoride 

(including HF) that could be potentially 

evaporated into the atmosphere. Based 

on information provided in the 1978 

EPA document, a greater than 90 

percent emission reduction in fluoride 

can be achieved by raising the pond 

water from pH 1.4 to pH 3.9. In the final 

rule, if this control measure is chosen, 

then the plan must include: the method 

used to raise the pH of the liquid 

discharged into the cooling pond, the 

target pH value (of the liquid discharged 

into the cooling pond) expected to be 

achieved by using the method, and the 

analyses used to determine and support 

the raise in pH. Moreover, this control 

measure is similar to an option that 

industry suggested in response to a 

meeting that occurred after the public 

comment period closed (see ‘‘EPA 

Meeting Minutes for TFI Discussion 

March 12, 2015,’’ and ‘‘Summary of 

Potential Costs for Implementing 

Phosphate NESHAPs/Recommendations 

for Phosphogypsum Stack Work 

Practices, May 5, 2015,’’ which are both 

available in Docket ID No. EPA–HQ– 

OAR–2012–0522). Industry suggested 

including an option that would require 

providing inputs to the gypsum 

dewatering stack system to react with 

and precipitate fluoride compounds to 

insoluble forms. 

With regard to the remaining potential 

control techniques identified in the 

1978 EPA document (i.e., dry 

conveyance of gypsum and pretreatment 

of ore by calcining), we have 

determined that these control 

techniques are not likely to be used by 

industry because significant process 

changes would be required. 

Furthermore, with regard to 

pretreatment of ore by calcining, the 

1978 EPA document states that off-gases 

from pretreating ore would still need to 

be scrubbed to remove F, and the 

scrubbing liquid from this process 

would likely be disposed of in a cooling 

pond (which would defeat the purpose 

of this technique). Therefore, we are not 

finalizing the NESHAP subpart AA final 

rule to include these two control 

measure options for controlling fugitive 

HF emissions from cooling ponds. 

Lastly, we agree with a commenter’s 

request to add a control measure option 

(for cooling ponds) that would require 

developing a plan to optimize the size 

of cooling ponds to address fugitive HF 

emissions (as appropriate based on the 

conditions at the facility); therefore, we 

are including this option in the 

NESHAP subpart AA final rule. 

However, in order for a facility to be 

able to use this control measure option, 

its cooling pond evaluation must result 

in a reduction in overall cooling pond 

surface area. Fugitive HF emissions are 

calculated using an emission factor that 

is directly related to gypsum dewatering 

stack and pond surface area (tons HF 

per acre per year); therefore, minimizing 


rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
50408 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 160 / Wednesday, August 19, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

8 Industry also suggested this control measure as 

an option to reducing fugitive HF emissions from 

cooling ponds in response to a meeting that 

occurred after the public comment period closed 

(see ‘‘EPA Meeting Minutes for TFI Discussion 

March 12, 2015,’’ and ‘‘Summary of Potential Costs 

for Implementing Phosphate NESHAPs/

Recommendations for Phosphogypsum Stack Work 

Practices, May 5, 2015,’’ which are both available 

in Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2012–0522). 

the surface area of the cooling pond(s) 

would minimize HF emissions. On a 

recent site visit (see ‘‘Site Visits to 

Mosaic Plant City and Mosaic New 

Wales, March 4, 2015,’’ which is 

available in Docket ID No. EPA–HQ– 

OAR–2012–0522), we noticed that one 

company evaluated whether a reduction 

in the size of its cooling ponds could 

still support additional water due to 

rainfall and plant process water needs. 

However, the result of these evaluations 

did not lead to a change in size of its 

cooling ponds, and thus did not lead to 

a reduction in fugitive HF emissions 

from the cooling ponds. In the final rule, 

if this control measure is chosen, then 

the facility-specific evaluation plan 

must be certified by an independent 

licensed professional engineer or 

similarly qualified individual, and 

include the method used to reduce the 

total cooling pond footprint, the 

analyses used to determine and support 

the reduction in the total cooling pond 

surface area, and the amount of total 

cooling pond surface area that was 

reduced due to the facility-specific 

evaluation plan. Furthermore, we agree 

with the commenter who stated 

dredging cooling ponds is a good 

practice for maintaining cooling 

capacity. With regard to the 

commenter’s request to include this 

activity (i.e., dredging cooling ponds) as 

a specific control measure option,8 we 

determined that this activity could be 

considered in the cooling pond 

evaluation; however, the evaluation 

would still need to lead to a change in 

size of the surface area of the cooling 

pond for it to qualify as a control 

measure in the final rule. 

We also evaluated an additional 

control measure option suggested by 

industry in response to a meeting that 

occurred after the public comment 

period closed (see ‘‘EPA Meeting 

Minutes for TFI Discussion March 12, 

2015,’’ and ‘‘Summary of Potential Costs 

for Implementing Phosphate NESHAPs/ 

Recommendations for Phosphogypsum 

Stack Work Practices, May 5, 2015,’’ 

which are both available in Docket ID 

No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2012–0522). 

Industry suggested including the option 

to ‘‘operate the cooling pond systems to 

adjust the active cooling surface area to 

address weather conditions, seasonal 

cooling needs and associated 

production changes. Cooling circuit 

adjustments may be accomplished 

through utilization of either fixed or 

floating flow diversion devices or by 

changing flows such that some of the 

heated water is diverted away from 

portions of the ponded area.’’ However, 

we are not including this option in the 

final rule because it is not clear how the 

option reduces fugitive HF emissions 

from cooling ponds. 

v. Excluding Cooling Ponds from 

Management Plan—Comment. One 

commenter requests that the EPA revise 

the regulatory language in proposed 40 

CFR 63.602 (d) through (f) that refers to 

each ‘‘gypsum dewatering stack and 

cooling pond’’ to instead refer only to 

each ‘‘gypsum dewatering stack.’’ The 

commenter stated that the regulatory 

direction seems to encompass ponds 

that are not part of a ‘‘gypsum 

dewatering stack.’’ Another commenter 

claimed the rule implies that control 

measure options apply to cooling ponds 

distinctly from gypsum dewatering 

stacks. An additional commenter 

alleged that work practice standards 

should not apply to cooling ponds that 

are physically separate from gypsum 

stacks. This commenter pointed out that 

only one practice (submerging the 

discharge pipe) relates to cooling ponds, 

and because of the requirement to 

implement at least one practice for each 

‘‘gypsum dewatering stack and cooling 

pond,’’ then cooling ponds that fall 

within the proposed definition of a 

gypsum dewatering stack seemingly 

could choose to submerge the discharge 

pipe at the pond, or they could 

implement other techniques from the 

list. 

Response. The NESHAP subpart AA 

final rule clarifies that the gypsum 

dewatering stack and cooling pond 

management plan is intended to cover 

both gypsum dewatering stacks and 

cooling ponds. In response to a previous 

comment, we have included a new term 

‘‘gypsum dewatering stack system,’’ 

revised the definition of ‘‘gypsum 

dewatering stack’’ to exclude cooling 

ponds, and have retained the proposed 

definition of ‘‘cooling pond’’ in the final 

rule (see section V.C.3.b.i of this 

preamble for further details). 

4. What is the rationale for our final 

approach pursuant to CAA sections 

112(d)(2), 112(d)(3), and 112(h)? 

For the reasons provided above and in 

the preamble for the proposed rule, we 

are finalizing our proposal to eliminate 

the use of PM as a surrogate for Hg and 

are adding Hg and total fluoride 

emission limits for phosphate rock 

calciners to the NESHAP subpart AA 

final rule. 

For the reasons provided above, we 

are making the revisions, clarifications, 

and corrections noted in section V.C.2 

in the NESHAP subpart AA final rule. 

D. NSPS Review for the Phosphoric Acid 

Manufacturing Source Category 

The NSPS review focused on the 

emission limitations that have been 

adequately demonstrated to be achieved 

in practice, taking into account the cost 

of achieving such reduction and any 

non-air quality health and 

environmental impact and energy 

requirements. Determining the BSER 

that has been adequately demonstrated 

and the emission limitations achieved 

in practice necessarily involves 

consideration of emission reduction 

methods in use at existing phosphoric 

acid manufacturing plants. To 

determine the BSER, the EPA performed 

an extensive review of several recent 

sources of information, including a 

thorough search of the RACT/BACT/

LAER Clearinghouse (RBLC), section 

114 data received from industry, and 

other relevant sources. 

Our review considered the emission 

limitations that are currently achieved 

in practice, and found that more 

stringent standards are not achievable 

for this source category. When 

evaluating the emissions from various 

process lines, we observed differences 

in emissions levels, but did not identify 

any patterns in emission reductions 

based on control technology 

configuration. More information 

concerning our NSPS review can be 

found in the memorandum, ‘‘CAA 

Section 111(b)(1)(B) and 112(d)(6) 

Reviews for the Phosphoric Acid 

Manufacturing and Phosphate Fertilizer 

Production Source Categories.’’ Though 

some of the sources are emitting at 

levels well below the current NSPS, 

other sources are not. We evaluated 

emissions based on control technologies 

and practices used by facilities, and 

found that the same technologies and 

practices yielded different results for 

different facilities. Therefore, we 

determined that we cannot conclude 

that new and modified sources would 

be able to achieve a more stringent 

NSPS. As explained in the proposed 

rule, all Phosphoric Acid Manufacturing 

NSPS (under subpart T and subpart U) 

emission sources, and the control 

technologies that would be employed, 

are the same as those for the NESHAP 

regulating phosphoric acid plants, such 

that we reached the same conclusion 

that there are no identified 

developments in technology or practices 

that results in cost-effective emission 


rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 160 / Wednesday, August 19, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 50409 

reductions strategies. Therefore, we are 

finalizing our determination that 

revisions to NSPS subpart T and subpart 

U standards are not appropriate 

pursuant to CAA section 111(b)(1)(B). 

E. Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunction 

Provisions for the Phosphoric Acid 

Manufacturing Source Category 

1. What SSM provisions did we propose 

for the Phosphoric Acid Manufacturing 

source category? 

In its 2008 decision in Sierra Club v. 

EPA, 551 F.3d 1019 (D.C. Cir. 2008), the 

U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of 

Columbia Circuit vacated portions of 

two provisions in the EPA’s CAA 

section 112 regulations governing the 

emissions of HAP during periods of 

SSM. Specifically, the Court vacated the 

SSM exemption contained in 40 CFR 

63.6(f)(1) and 40 CFR 63.6(h)(1), holding 

that under section 302(k) of the CAA, 

emissions standards or limitations must 

be continuous in nature and that the 

SSM exemption violates the CAA’s 

requirement that some CAA section 112 

standards apply continuously. 

We proposed to eliminate the SSM 

exemption in NESHAP subpart AA. 

Consistent with Sierra Club v. EPA, the 

EPA proposed standards in this rule that 

apply at all times. We also proposed to 

revise appendix A of subpart AA (the 

General Provisions Applicability Table) 

in several respects as is explained in 

more detail below. For example, we 

proposed to eliminate the incorporation 

of the General Provisions’ requirement 

that the source develop an SSM plan. 

We also proposed to eliminate and 

revise certain recordkeeping and 

reporting related to the SSM exemption 

as described in detail in the proposed 

rule and summarized again here. 

In proposing the standards in this 

rule, the EPA took into account startup 

and shutdown periods and, for the 

reasons explained below, proposed 

work practice standards for periods of 

startup and shutdown in lieu of numeric 

emission limits. CAA section 112(h)(1) 

states that the Administrator may 

promulgate a design, equipment or 

operational work practice standard in 

those cases where, in the judgment of 

the Administrator, it is not feasible to 

prescribe or enforce an emission 

standard. CAA section 112(h)(2)(B) 

further defines the term ‘‘not feasible’’ 

in this context to apply when ‘‘the 

application of measurement technology 

to a particular class of sources is not 

practicable due to technological and 

economic limitations.’’ 

Startup and shutdown periods at 

phosphoric acid manufacturing facilities 

generally only last between 30 minutes 

and 6 hours. Because of the variability 

and the relatively short duration, 

compared to the time needed to conduct 

a performance test, which typically 

requires a full working day, the EPA has 

determined that it is not feasible to 

prescribe a numeric emission standard 

for these periods. Furthermore, 

according to information provided by 

industry, it is possible that the feed rate 

(i.e., equivalent P2O5 feed, or rock feed) 

can be zero during startup and 

shutdown periods. During these 

periods, it is not feasible to consistently 

enforce the emission standards that are 

expressed in terms of lb of pollutant/ton 

of feed. 

Although we requested information 

on emissions and the operation of 

control devices during startup and 

shutdown periods in the CAA section 

114 survey issued to the Phosphoric 

Acid Manufacturing source category, we 

did not receive any emissions data 

collected during a startup and shutdown 

period (nor did we receive data during 

public comment of the proposed rule), 

and we do not expect that these data 

exist. However, based on the 

information for control device operation 

received in the survey, we concluded 

that the control devices could be 

operated normally during periods of 

startup or shutdown. Also, we believe 

that the emissions generated during 

startup and shutdown periods are lower 

than during steady-state conditions 

because the amount of feed materials 

introduced to the process during those 

periods is lower compared to normal 

operations. Therefore, if the emission 

control devices are operated during 

startup and shutdown, then HAP 

emissions will be the same or lower 

than during steady-state operating 

conditions. 

Consequently, we proposed a work 

practice standard rather than an 

emissions limit for periods of startup or 

shutdown. We proposed that control 

devices used on the various process 

lines in this source category are effective 

at achieving desired emission 

reductions immediately upon startup; 

therefore, during startup and shutdown 

periods, we proposed that sources begin 

operation of any control device(s) in the 

production unit prior to introducing any 

feed into the production unit. We also 

proposed that sources must continue 

operation of the control device(s) 

through the shutdown period until all 

feed material has been processed 

through the production unit. 

Periods of startup, normal operations 

and shutdown are all predictable and 

routine aspects of a source’s operations. 

Malfunctions, in contrast, are neither 

predictable nor routine. Instead, they 

are, by definition, sudden, infrequent 

and not reasonably preventable failures 

of emissions control, process or 

monitoring equipment (40 CFR 63.2) 

(definition of malfunction). The EPA 

interprets CAA section 112 as not 

requiring emissions that occur during 

periods of malfunction to be factored 

into development of CAA section 112 

standards. Under CAA section 112, 

emission standards for new sources 

must be no less stringent than the level 

‘‘achieved’’ by the best controlled 

similar source and for existing sources 

generally must be no less stringent than 

the average emission limitation 

‘‘achieved’’ by the best performing 12 

percent of sources in the category. There 

is nothing in CAA section 112 that 

directs the EPA to consider 

malfunctions in determining the level 

‘‘achieved’’ by the best performing 

sources when setting emission 

standards. As the U.S. Court of Appeals 

for the District of Columbia Circuit has 

recognized, the phrase ‘‘average 

emissions limitation achieved by the 

best performing 12 percent of’’ sources 

‘‘says nothing about how the 

performance of the best units is to be 

calculated.’’ Nat’l Ass’n of Clean Water 

Agencies v. EPA, 734 F.3d 1115, 1141 

(D.C. Cir. 2013). While the EPA 

accounts for variability in setting 

emission standards, nothing in CAA 

section 112 requires the Agency to 

consider malfunctions as part of that 

analysis. A malfunction should not be 

treated in the same manner as the type 

of variation in performance that occurs 

during routine operations of a source. A 

malfunction is a failure of the source to 

perform in a ‘‘normal or usual manner’’ 

and no statutory language compels EPA 

to consider such events in setting CAA 

section 112 standards. 

Further, accounting for malfunctions 

in setting emission standards would be 

difficult, if not impossible, given the 

myriad different types of malfunctions 

that can occur across all sources in the 

category and given the difficulties 

associated with predicting or accounting 

for the frequency, degree and duration 

of various malfunctions that might 

occur. As such, the performance of units 

that are malfunctioning is not 

‘‘reasonably’’ foreseeable. See, e.g., 

Sierra Club v. EPA, 167 F.3d 658, 662 

(D.C. Cir. 1999) (‘‘The EPA typically has 

wide latitude in determining the extent 

of data-gathering necessary to solve a 

problem. We generally defer to an 

agency’s decision to proceed on the 

basis of imperfect scientific information, 

rather than to ‘invest the resources to 

conduct the perfect study.’ ’’). See also 

Weyerhaeuser v. Costle, 590 F.2d 1011, 


rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
50410 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 160 / Wednesday, August 19, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

1058 (D.C. Cir. 1978) (‘‘In the nature of 

things, no general limit, individual 

permit, or even any upset provision can 

anticipate all upset situations. After a 

certain point, the transgression of 

regulatory limits caused by 

‘uncontrollable acts of third parties,’ 

such as strikes, sabotage, operator 

intoxication or insanity, and a variety of 

other eventualities, must be a matter for 

the administrative exercise of case-bycase enforcement discretion, not for 

specification in advance by 

regulation.’’). In addition, emissions 

during a malfunction event can be 

significantly higher than emissions at 

any other time of source operation. For 

example, if an air pollution control 

device with 99 percent removal goes offline as a result of a malfunction (as 

might happen if, for example, the bags 

in a baghouse catch fire) and the 

emission unit is a steady-state type unit 

that would take days to shutdown, the 

source would go from 99 percent control 

to zero control until the control device 

was repaired. The source’s emissions 

during the malfunction would be 100 

times higher than during normal 

operations, and the emissions over a 4- 

day malfunction period would exceed 

the annual emissions of the source 

during normal operations. As this 

example illustrates, accounting for 

malfunctions could lead to standards 

that are not reflective of (and 

significantly less stringent than) levels 

that are achieved by a well-performing 

non-malfunctioning source. It is 

reasonable to interpret CAA section 112 

to avoid such a result. The EPA’s 

approach to malfunctions is consistent 

with CAA section 112 and is a 

reasonable interpretation of the statute. 

In the event that a source fails to 

comply with the applicable CAA section 

112(d) standards as a result of a 

malfunction event, the EPA would 

determine an appropriate response 

based on, among other things, the good 

faith efforts of the source to minimize 

emissions during malfunction periods, 

including preventative and corrective 

actions, as well as root cause analyses 

to ascertain and rectify excess 

emissions. The EPA would also 

consider whether the source’s failure to 

comply with the CAA section 112(d) 

standard was, in fact, sudden, 

infrequent, not reasonably preventable 

and was not instead caused in part by 

poor maintenance or careless operation 

40 CFR 63.2 (definition of malfunction). 

If the EPA determines in a particular 

case that an enforcement action against 

a source for violation of an emission 

standard is warranted, the source can 

raise any and all defenses in that 

enforcement action, and the federal 

district court will determine what, if 

any, relief is appropriate. The same is 

true for citizen enforcement actions. 

Similarly, the presiding officer in an 

administrative proceeding can consider 

any defense raised and determine 

whether administrative penalties are 

appropriate. 

In summary, the EPA interpretation of 

the CAA and, in particular, CAA section 

112 is reasonable and encourages 

practices that will avoid malfunctions. 

Administrative and judicial procedures 

for addressing exceedances of the 

standards fully recognize that violations 

may occur despite good faith efforts to 

comply and can accommodate those 

situations. 

To address the U.S. Court of Appeals 

for the District of Columbia Circuit 

vacatur of portions of the EPA’s CAA 

section 112 regulations governing the 

emissions of HAP during periods of 

SSM, Sierra Club v. EPA, 551 F.3d 1019 

(D.C. Cir. 2008), we proposed to revise 

and add certain provisions to the 

Phosphoric Acid Manufacturing rule. As 

described in detail below, we proposed 

to revise the General Provisions table 

(appendix A) to change several 

references related to requirements that 

apply during periods of SSM. We also 

proposed to add other provisions to the 

Phosphoric Acid Manufacturing rule as 

described below. 

a. 40 CFR 63.608(b) General Duty. We 

proposed to revise the entry for 40 CFR 

63.6(e)(1)(i) and (e)(1)(ii) in the General 

Provisions table (appendix A) by 

changing the ‘‘yes’’ in column three to 

‘‘no.’’ Section 63.6(e)(1)(i) describes the 

general duty to minimize emissions. 

Some of the language in that section is 

no longer necessary or appropriate in 

light of the elimination of the SSM 

exemption. We proposed instead to add 

general duty regulatory text at 40 CFR 

63.608(b) that reflects the general duty 

to minimize emissions while 

eliminating the reference to periods 

covered by an SSM exemption. The 

current language in 40 CFR 63.6(e)(1)(i) 

characterizes what the general duty 

entails during periods of SSM. With the 

elimination of the SSM exemption, 

there is no need to differentiate between 

normal operations, startup and 

shutdown and malfunction events in 

describing the general duty. Therefore, 

the language the EPA proposed does not 

include that language from 40 CFR 

63.6(e)(1). We also proposed to revise 

the entry for 40 CFR 63.6(e)(1)(ii) in the 

General Provisions table (appendix A) 

by changing the ‘‘yes’’ in column three 

to ‘‘no.’’ Section 63.6(e)(1)(ii) imposes 

requirements that are not necessary with 

the elimination of the SSM exemption 

or are redundant of the general duty 

requirement being added at 40 CFR 

63.608(b). 

b. SSM Plan. We proposed to revise 

the entry for 40 CFR 63.6(e)(3) in the 

General Provisions table (appendix A) 

by changing the ‘‘yes’’ in column three 

to ‘‘no.’’ Generally, these paragraphs 

require development of an SSM plan 

and specify SSM recordkeeping and 

reporting requirements related to the 

SSM plan. As noted, the EPA proposed 

to remove the SSM exemptions. 

Therefore, affected units will be subject 

to an emission standard during such 

events. The applicability of a standard 

during such events will ensure that 

sources have ample incentive to plan for 

and achieve compliance and thus the 

SSM plan requirements are no longer 

necessary. 

c. Compliance with Standards. We 

proposed to revise the entry for 40 CFR 

63.6(f) in the General Provisions table 

(appendix A) by changing the ‘‘yes’’ in 

column three to ‘‘no.’’ The current 

language of 40 CFR 63.6(f)(1) exempts 

sources from non-opacity standards 

during periods of SSM. As discussed 

above, the Court in Sierra Club v. EPA 

vacated the exemptions contained in 

this provision and held that the CAA 

requires that some CAA section 112 

standard apply continuously. Consistent 

with Sierra Club v. EPA, the EPA 

proposed to revise standards in this rule 

to apply at all times. 

d. 40 CFR 63.606 Performance 

Testing. We proposed to revise the entry 

for 40 CFR 63.7(e)(1) in the General 

Provisions table (appendix A) by 

changing the ‘‘yes’’ in column three to 

‘‘no.’’ Section 63.7(e)(1) describes 

performance testing requirements. The 

EPA instead proposed to add a 

performance testing requirement at 40 

CFR 63.606(d). The performance testing 

requirements that were proposed differ 

from the General Provisions 

performance testing provisions in 

several respects. The proposed 

regulatory text does not allow testing 

during startup, shutdown, or 

malfunction. The proposed regulatory 

text does not include the language in 40 

CFR 63.7(e)(1) that restated the SSM 

exemption and language that precluded 

startup and shutdown periods from 

being considered ‘‘representative’’ for 

purposes of performance testing. 

Furthermore, as in 40 CFR 63.7(e)(1), 

performance tests conducted under this 

subpart should not be conducted during 

malfunctions because conditions during 

malfunctions are often not 

representative of operating conditions. 

e. Monitoring. We proposed to revise 

the entry for 40 CFR 63.8(c)(1)(i) and 

(iii) in the General Provisions table by 

changing the ‘‘yes’’ in column three to 


rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 160 / Wednesday, August 19, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 50411 

‘‘no.’’ The cross-references to the 

general duty and SSM plan 

requirements in those subparagraphs are 

not necessary in light of other 

requirements of 40 CFR 63.8 that require 

good air pollution control practices (40 

CFR 63.8(c)(1)) and that set out the 

requirements of a quality control 

program for monitoring equipment (40 

CFR 63.8(d)). 

We proposed to revise the entry for 40 

CFR 63.8(d)(3) in the General Provisions 

table (appendix A) by changing the 

‘‘yes’’ in column three to ‘‘no.’’ The final 

sentence in 40 CFR 63.8(d)(3) refers to 

the General Provisions’ SSM plan 

requirement, which is no longer 

applicable. The EPA proposed to add to 

the rule at 40 CFR 63.608(c)(3) text that 

is identical to 40 CFR 63.8(d)(3), except 

that the final sentence is replaced with 

the following sentence: ‘‘You must 

include the program of corrective action 

required under § 63.8(d)(2) in the plan.’’ 

f. 40 CFR 63.607 Recordkeeping. We 

proposed to revise the entry for 40 CFR 

63.10(b)(2)(i) in the General Provisions 

table (appendix A) by changing the 

‘‘yes’’ in column three to ‘‘no.’’ Section 

63.10(b)(2)(i) describes the 

recordkeeping requirements during 

startup and shutdown. These recording 

provisions are no longer necessary 

because the EPA proposed that 

recordkeeping and reporting applicable 

to normal operations will apply to 

startup and shutdown. In the absence of 

special provisions applicable to startup 

and shutdown, such as a startup and 

shutdown plan, there is no reason to 

retain additional recordkeeping for 

startup and shutdown periods. 

We proposed to revise the entry for 40 

CFR 63.10(b)(2)(ii) in the General 

Provisions table (appendix A) by 

changing the ‘‘yes’’ in column three to 

‘‘no.’’ Section 63.10(b)(2)(ii) describes 

the recordkeeping requirements during 

a malfunction. The EPA proposed to 

add such requirements to 40 CFR 

63.607(b). The regulatory text we 

proposed to add differs from the General 

Provisions it is replacing in that the 

General Provisions requires the creation 

and retention of a record of the 

occurrence and duration of each 

malfunction of process, air pollution 

control and monitoring equipment. The 

EPA proposed that this requirement 

apply to any failure to meet an 

applicable standard and that the source 

record the date, time and duration of the 

failure rather than the ‘‘occurrence.’’ 

The EPA also proposed to add to 40 CFR 

63.607(b) a requirement that sources 

keep records that include a list of the 

affected source or equipment and 

actions taken to minimize emissions, an 

estimate of the volume of each regulated 

pollutant emitted over the applicable 

standard and a description of the 

method used to estimate the emissions. 

Examples of such methods would 

include product-loss calculations, mass 

balance calculations, measurements 

when available or engineering judgment 

based on known process parameters. 

The EPA proposed requiring that 

sources keep records of this information 

to ensure that there is adequate 

information to allow the EPA to 

determine the severity of any failure to 

meet a standard, and to provide data 

that may document how the source met 

the general duty to minimize emissions 

when the source has failed to meet an 

applicable standard. 

We proposed to revise the entry for 40 

CFR 63.10(b)(2)(iv) in the General 

Provisions table (appendix A) by 

changing the ‘‘yes’’ in column three to 

‘‘no.’’ When applicable, the provision 

requires sources to record actions taken 

during SSM events when actions were 

inconsistent with their SSM plan. The 

requirement is no longer appropriate 

because SSM plans will no longer be 

required. The requirement previously 

applicable under 40 CFR 

63.10(b)(2)(iv)(B) to record actions to 

minimize emissions and record 

corrective actions is now applicable by 

reference to 40 CFR 63.607. 

We proposed to revise the entry for 40 

CFR 63.10(b)(2)(v) in the General 

Provisions table (appendix A) by 

changing the ‘‘yes’’ in column three to 

‘‘no.’’ When applicable, the provision 

requires sources to record actions taken 

during SSM events to show that actions 

taken were consistent with their SSM 

plan. The requirement is no longer 

appropriate because SSM plans will no 

longer be required. 

We proposed to revise the entry for 40 

CFR 63.10(c)(15) in the General 

Provisions table (appendix A) by 

changing the ‘‘yes’’ in column three to 

‘‘no.’’ The EPA proposed that 40 CFR 

63.10(c)(15) no longer apply. When 

applicable, the provision allows an 

owner or operator to use the affected 

source’s SSM plan or records kept to 

satisfy the recordkeeping requirements 

of the SSM plan, specified in 40 CFR 

63.6(e), to also satisfy the requirements 

of 40 CFR 63.10(c)(10) through (12). The 

EPA proposed to eliminate this 

requirement because SSM plans would 

no longer be required, and, therefore, 40 

CFR 63.10(c)(15) no longer serves any 

useful purpose for affected units. 

g. 40 CFR 63.607 Reporting. We 

proposed to revise the entry for 40 CFR 

63.10(d)(5) in the General Provisions 

table (appendix A) by changing the 

‘‘yes’’ in column three to ‘‘no.’’ Section 

63.10(d)(5) describes the reporting 

requirements for startups, shutdowns 

and malfunctions. To replace the 

General Provisions reporting 

requirement, the EPA proposed to add 

reporting requirements to 40 CFR 

63.607. The replacement language 

differs from the General Provisions 

requirement in that it eliminates 

periodic SSM reports as a stand-alone 

report. We proposed language that 

requires sources that fail to meet an 

applicable standard at any time to report 

the information concerning such events 

in the excess emission report already 

required under this rule. We proposed 

that the report must contain the number, 

date, time, duration and the cause of 

such events (including unknown cause, 

if applicable), a list of the affected 

source or equipment, an estimate of the 

volume of each regulated pollutant 

emitted over any emission limit, and a 

description of the method used to 

estimate the emissions (e.g., productloss calculations, mass balance 

calculations, direct measurements or 

engineering judgment based on known 

process parameters). The EPA proposed 

this requirement to ensure that adequate 

information is available to determine 

compliance, to allow the EPA to 

determine the severity of the failure to 

meet an applicable standard, and to 

provide data that may document how 

the source met the general duty to 

minimize emissions during a failure to 

meet an applicable standard. 

The proposed rule eliminates the 

cross reference to 40 CFR 63.10(d)(5)(i) 

that contains the description of the 

previously-required SSM report format 

and submittal schedule from this 

section. We proposed that these 

specifications would no longer be 

necessary because the events will be 

reported in otherwise required reports 

with similar format and submittal 

requirements. We proposed that owners 

or operators no longer be required to 

determine whether actions taken to 

correct a malfunction are consistent 

with an SSM plan because the plans 

would no longer be required. 

We proposed to revise the entry for 40 

CFR 63.10(d)(5)(ii) in the General 

Provisions table (appendix A) by 

changing the ‘‘yes’’ in column three to 

‘‘no.’’ Section 63.10(d)(5)(ii) describes 

an immediate report for SSM when a 

source failed to meet an applicable 

standard but did not follow the SSM 

plan. We proposed that we would no 

longer require owners and operators to 

report when actions taken during a 

startup, shutdown, or malfunction were 

not consistent with an SSM plan 

because the plans would no longer be 

required. 


rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
50412 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 160 / Wednesday, August 19, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

2. How did the SSM provisions change 

for the Phosphoric Acid Manufacturing 

source category? 

We are finalizing the proposed work 

practice standards for periods of startup 

and shutdown; however, in 

consideration of comments received 

during the public comment period for 

the proposed rulemaking (as discussed 

in sections V.E.3.a and V.E.3.b of this 

preamble), we are making changes to 

this work practice in order to clarify the 

standard applies in lieu of numeric 

emission limits and to clarify how 

compliance with the standard is 

demonstrated. Additionally, as 

discussed in section V.E.3.c of this 

preamble, we added a definition of 

‘‘startup’’ and ‘‘shutdown’’ in the final 

rule to specify when startup begins and 

ends, and when shutdown begins and 

ends. 

3. What key comments did we receive 

on the SSM provisions, and what are 

our responses? 

We received comments regarding the 

proposed revisions to remove the SSM 

exemptions for the Phosphoric Acid 

Manufacturing source category, and the 

proposed work practice standards for 

periods of startup and shutdown. The 

following is a summary of some of the 

comments specific to the proposed work 

practice standards and our response to 

those comments. Other comments and 

our specific responses to those 

comments can be found in the Comment 

Summary and Response document 

available in the docket for this action 

(EPA–HQ–OAR–2012–0522). 

a. Work Practice Standard In Place Of 

Emission Limits—Comment. One 

commenter argued that the EPA should 

specify that the proposed work practices 

for plant startup and shutdown periods 

apply ‘‘in lieu of’’ any other emission 

standards, and that such periods should 

not be counted for testing, monitoring, 

or operating parameter requirements. 

The commenter noted that the proposed 

rule at 40 CFR 63.602(h) requires the 

use of work practices ‘‘to demonstrate 

compliance with any emission limits’’ 

during periods of startup and shutdown. 

The commenter agrees with the EPA’s 

conclusion that it is not feasible to 

apply numeric limits to startup and 

shutdown because certain variables 

required to calculate emissions would 

be zero during such periods. The 

commenter also agreed with the EPA 

that existing emission control devices 

would still be effective during periods 

of startup or shutdown, if activated. 

However, the commenter recommended 

that the rule should clarify that startup 

and shutdown events should not be 

required to comply with the monitoring 

and operating parameter requirements 

because startup and shutdown events 

generally are not representative of 

operating conditions for other 

compliance purposes, such as emissions 

testing. Instead, the commenter, as well 

as a second commenter, recommended 

that, because the startup and shutdown 

periods are not representative, the rule 

should only require that (1) all emission 

control devices be kept active, and (2) 

owners and operators follow the general 

duty to control emissions, and owners 

and operators should not be required to 

monitor operating parameters during 

startup and shutdown periods. 

The commenter argued that the 

approach in the proposed rule at 40 CFR 

63.602(h) to require the use of work 

practices ‘‘to demonstrate compliance 

with any emission limits’’ during 

periods of startup and shutdown is 

‘‘directly inconsistent’’ with the 

approach that the EPA has applied to 

other source categories, where such 

practices clearly were prescribed ‘‘in 

lieu of’’ numeric emission limits that 

would otherwise apply. (The 

commenter cites, for example, 78 FR 

10015, February 12, 2013.) According to 

the commenter, the EPA made it clear 

in other industries’ rules that such work 

practice standards apply ‘‘in place of’’ 

or ‘‘in lieu of’’ numeric standards, 

including with respect to monitoring 

and recordkeeping requirements. (See 

id. at 10013 and 10015.) The commenter 

argues that according to the preamble 

language cited for those other 

industries, ‘‘there will no longer be a 

numeric emission standard applicable 

during startup and shutdown,’’ and the 

EPA recognizes that ‘‘the recordkeeping 

requirement must change to reflect the 

content of the work practice 

standard’’(Id. at 10014). 

Therefore, the commenter 

recommended that the EPA should 

clearly explain that work practices are 

not applied to ‘‘demonstrate 

compliance’’ with numeric limits under 

subpart AA, which the EPA 

acknowledges are ‘‘not feasible’’ for 

startup and shutdown periods, and, 

instead, the work practices should be 

written to apply ‘‘in lieu of’’ the 

numeric limits during those periods. 

The commenter argues that without this 

clarification, it will appear that both the 

numeric standards and the work 

practice standards would apply during 

startup and shutdown. The commenter 

suggests that this can be corrected in the 

rule by using the ‘‘in lieu of’’ language 

used for other industries. 

Response. The commenter is correct 

that our intention at proposal was that 

the numeric emission limits would not 

apply during periods of startup and 

shutdown, but that facilities would 

comply with the work practice instead. 

We did not intend for the work practice 

to be a method to demonstrate 

compliance with the emission limit. We 

are replacing the phrasing ‘‘to 

demonstrate compliance’’ with ‘‘in lieu 

of’’ as this language is more consistent 

with our original intent. Accordingly, in 

the final rule, 40 CFR 63.602(f) specifies 

that the emission limits of 40 CFR 

63.602(a) do not apply during periods of 

startup and shutdown. Instead, owners 

and operators must follow the work 

practice specified in 40 CFR 63.602(f). 

See section V.E.3.b of this preamble for 

our response to commenters’ argument 

that owners and operators should not be 

required to monitor operating 

parameters during startup and 

shutdown periods. 

b. Applicability Of Operating Limits— 

Comment. Two commenters 

recommended that the EPA amend the 

rule to make clear that the work practice 

standards for startup and shutdown also 

apply in lieu of the parametric 

monitoring requirements set forth in 

subpart AA and make explicit that 

parametric operating requirements do 

not apply during times of startup and 

shutdown. 

One commenter argued that when the 

EPA established the flow rate and 

pressure drop parametric monitoring 

requirements in its 1999 final rule, the 

EPA concluded that requiring 

continuous monitoring of these 

parameters ‘‘help[ed] assure continuous 

compliance with the emission limit’’ (64 

FR 31365, June 10, 1999). The 

commenter also asserted that the rules 

specify that ‘‘[t]he emission limitations 

and operating parameter requirements 

of this subpart do not apply during 

periods of startup, shutdown, or 

malfunction . . .’’ (40 CFR 63.600(e)). 

The commenter argued that this was a 

reasonable action because the operating 

parameter ranges are established during 

annual performance tests, and these 

tests cannot be performed during startup 

and shutdown conditions. 

The commenter suggested that in the 

proposed rule, the EPA exempted 

compliance with the emission limits 

during startup and shutdown periods, 

imposed work practice standards in lieu 

thereof, and retained the prohibition on 

conducting a performance test during 

periods of startup or shutdown (79 FR 

66570 (proposed 40 CFR 63.606(d)). The 

commenter suggested that the proposed 

rule is silent on the applicability of the 

parametric monitoring requirements 

during startup and shutdown. The 

commenter asserted that because the 

parametric monitoring provisions 


rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 160 / Wednesday, August 19, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 50413 

provide an inference of compliance with 

the emission limits (64 FR 31365, June 

10, 1999), and these emission limits do 

not apply during startup and shutdown, 

the commenter concluded that the 

parametric monitoring provisions 

similarly should not apply during 

startups and shutdowns. 

The commenters pointed to two 

recent EPA NESHAP rulemakings to 

support their conclusion. First, the 

commenters argued that in its 

industrial, commercial and institutional 

boilers and process heaters NESHAP 

reconsideration proposal (hereinafter, 

the ‘‘Boiler NESHAP’’), the EPA, 

responding to a comment soliciting 

clarification ‘‘that the operating limits 

and opacity limits do not apply during 

periods of startup and shutdown,’’ 

stated that with the finalization of work 

practice standards, ‘‘EPA agrees that the 

requested clarification is what was 

intended in the final rule’’ (76 FR 80598 

and 80615, December 23, 2011). The 

commenters asserted that to this end, in 

its response to the reconsideration, the 

EPA made clear that affected sources 

must comply with ‘‘all applicable 

emissions and operating limits at all 

times the unit is operating except for 

periods that meet the definitions of 

startup and shutdown in this subpart, 

during which times you must comply 

with these work practices’’ (78 FR 7138 

and 7142, January 31, 2013). The 

commenters noted that in the Boiler 

NESHAP regulations, the EPA required 

the implementation of work practice 

standards in lieu of compliance with the 

operating parameter requirements 

during startup and shutdown by (1) 

Excluding periods of startup and 

shutdown from the averaging period (Id. 

at 7187, 40 CFR 63.7575, the definition 

of a 30-day rolling average’’ excludes 

‘‘hours during startup and shutdown’’), 

and (2) expressly stating that the 

‘‘standards’’ (the emission limits and 

operating requirements) do not apply 

during periods of startup or shutdown. 

(Id. at 7163, 40 CFR 63.7500(f), titled 

‘‘What emission limitations, work 

practice standards, and operating limits 

must I meet?’’ applies ‘‘at all times the 

affected unit is operating, except during 

periods of startup and shutdown during 

which time you must comply only with 

Table 3 of this subpart.’’) 

Second, the commenters argued that 

in its Portland Cement NESHAP, the 

EPA specified an operating limit for 

kilns, identified as a temperature limit 

established during a performance test, 

and that the temperature limit applied 

at all times the raw mill is operating, 

‘‘except during periods of startup and 

shutdown’’ (78 FR 10039, February 12, 

2013, 40 CFR 63.1346(a)(1)). Further, for 

the continuous monitoring 

requirements, including operating 

limits, the Portland Cement NESHAP 

required operating of the monitoring 

system at all times the affected source 

is operating, ‘‘[e]xcept for periods of 

startup and shutdown’’ (Id. at 10041, 40 

CFR 63.1348(b)(1)(ii)). 

The commenters argued that given the 

EPA’s conclusion in the proposed rule 

that the emission limits should not 

apply during startup and shutdown, and 

because the parametric monitoring 

requirements are established during a 

performance test (which cannot be 

performed during a startup or a 

shutdown) and used to infer compliance 

with the emission limits, the EPA 

should make clear in the final rule that 

the operating parameters requirements 

do not apply during startup or 

shutdown. The commenter 

recommended that the EPA should 

make this explicit: (1) In the operating 

and monitoring requirement section of 

subpart AA (proposed 40 CFR 63.605), 

and (2) by defining the averaging period 

(currently daily) as excluding periods of 

startup and shutdown (proposed 40 CFR 

part 63, subpart AA, Table 4.) As an 

alternative, the commenters 

recommended that if the EPA continues 

to require compliance with the 

parametric monitoring requirements 

during startup and shutdown periods, 

then the EPA should adopt a longer 

averaging period, from daily to 30 days, 

to allow for the effects of startups and 

shutdowns to be reduced by a longer 

period of steady-state operations. The 

commenter noted that the Boiler 

NESHAP has a 30-day averaging period 

for pressure drop and liquid flow rate, 

and excludes periods of startup and 

shutdown from the averaging period (40 

CFR 63.7575, definition of ‘‘30-day 

rolling average’’ and 40 CFR part 63, 

subpart DDDDD, Table 4.) The 

commenter stated that a 30-day 

averaging period would be substantially 

more stringent than the Boiler NESHAP 

approach since it would include periods 

of startup and shutdown, while at the 

same time avoid misleading 

‘‘exceedances’’ caused by the inclusion 

of periods of startup and shutdown 

compared to daily average parametric 

limits. 

Response. We disagree with the 

commenters about the applicability of 

the operating limits. Based on these 

comments, we have clarified in the final 

rule at 40 CFR 63.602(f) that to comply 

with the work practice during periods of 

startup and shutdown, facilities must 

monitor the operating parameters 

specified in Table 3 to subpart AA and 

comply with the operating limits 

specified in Table 4 of subpart AA. The 

purpose of the work practice is to 

ensure that the air pollution control 

equipment that is used to comply with 

the emission limit during normal 

operations is operated during periods of 

startup and shutdown. Monitoring of 

control device operating parameters is 

necessary to demonstrate compliance 

with the work practice. We have 

concluded that it is reasonable for the 

control device at phosphoric acid 

processes to meet the same operating 

limits during startup and shutdown that 

apply during normal operation, and that 

it is not necessary to specify different 

averaging times for periods of startup 

and shutdown. Meeting the operating 

limits of Table 4 of subpart AA will 

ensure that owners and operators meet 

the General Duty requirement to operate 

and maintain the affected source and 

associated air pollution control 

equipment in a manner consistent with 

safety and good air pollution control 

practices for minimizing emissions. 

The analogies that the commenters 

made to the Industrial Boiler NESHAP 

and the Portland Cement NESHAP are 

not relevant to this rulemaking. In each 

rulemaking, we consider the feasibility 

of applying standards during startup 

and shutdown based on relevant process 

considerations for each source category, 

the pollutants regulated, and control 

devices on which the rule is based. In 

developing this rule, we obtained 

information on the operation of control 

devices during startup and shutdown 

periods in the CAA section 114 survey 

issued to the phosphoric acid 

manufacturing industry. Based on 

survey results, we concluded that for 

this source category, control devices 

(i.e., absorbers and WESP) could be 

operated during periods of startup and 

shutdown. We found no indication that 

process operations during startup and 

shutdown would interfere with the 

ability to operate the relevant control 

devices according to good engineering 

practice. Moreover, the commenters 

provided no technical justification as to 

why a different operating limit is 

needed during startup and shutdown. 

Regarding the comparison to the 

Industrial Boiler NESHAP, the operation 

of boilers and their associated control 

devices are different than phosphoric 

acid plants. While boiler control devices 

do not have to comply with specific 

operating limits during startup or 

shutdown, they must meet a work 

practice that includes firing clean fuels, 

operating relevant control devices (e.g., 

absorbers) as expeditiously as possible, 

and monitoring the applicable operating 

parameters (e.g., flow rate) to 

demonstrate that the control devices are 

being operated properly. The EPA 


rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
50414 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 160 / Wednesday, August 19, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

currently is reconsidering the control 

requirements for industrial boilers 

during startup and shutdown (80 FR 

3090, January 21, 2015). In the proposed 

action on reconsideration, we pointed 

out that some of the control devices 

used for boilers cannot be operated 

during the full duration of startup and 

shutdown because of safety concerns 

and the possibility of control equipment 

degradation due to fouling and 

corrosion. The control devices used for 

phosphoric acid production do not pose 

these same risks. Likewise, the fact the 

Portland Cement NESHAP does not 

require monitoring of kiln temperature 

during startup and shutdown is not 

relevant. The Portland Cement NESHAP 

requires maintaining a kiln temperature 

as part of the MACT operating limit. 

The operating limit for the Portland 

Cement NESHAP does not apply during 

startup and shutdown because it is not 

physically possible to maintain a 

constant temperature during startup and 

shutdown of a kiln. In contrast, the 

feasibility of operating the control 

devices used to control HAP emissions 

from phosphoric acid manufacturing is 

not limited by specific process operating 

conditions. Therefore, it is feasible to 

operate the devices during startup and 

shutdown, and we have determined that 

it is reasonable to do so considering 

cost, nonair health and environmental 

impacts, and energy requirements. 

c. Definition Of Startup And 

Shutdown—Comment. Several 

commenters argued that the EPA’s 

proposed work practice standard for 

periods of startup and shutdown failed 

to account for how equipment in the 

phosphoric acid industry works. In 

order to comply with the proposed 

startup and shutdown requirements, the 

operator must begin operation of any 

control device(s) being used at the 

affected source prior to introducing any 

feed into the affected source and 

continue operation of the control 

device(s) through the shutdown period 

until all feed material has been 

processed through the affected source. 

The commenters noted that it is not 

feasible to process all feed material from 

a process prior to shutting down most 

equipment at a facility. For example, the 

phosphoric acid reactors and beds in the 

calciners may not be able to process all 

the feed material in them prior to 

shutdown and there would always still 

be feed material left in the equipment 

even after it is shutdown. The same 

would be true for nearly all process 

units in the industry. The commenters 

requested that the EPA revise 40 CFR 

63.602(h) to require compliance with 

the work practice standard only up to 

the point in time when no more feed or 

in-process materials are being 

introduced into the production unit. 

Two commenters agreed with other 

commenters that it is not feasible to base 

the conclusion of a ‘‘shutdown’’ on the 

point at which all feed has ‘‘been 

processed.’’ Instead, they suggested that 

the EPA should clarify the work practice 

standard of keeping all emission control 

equipment active during shutdowns. 

The commenters reported that facilities 

in the industry consider the 

commencement of ‘‘shutdown’’ as the 

moment at which the plant ceases 

adding feed to the affected process, 

rather than basing shutdown on when 

all feed materials have been processed 

through the process. The commenters 

recommended that the EPA should 

define ‘‘shutdown’’ to begin when the 

facility ceases adding feed to an affected 

process line, and to conclude when the 

affected process line equipment is 

deactivated, even though some feed or 

residues may still be present within 

particular parts of the process. 

One of the commenters also noted 

that it is common practice to have shortterm shutdown of process inputs for 

temporary maintenance work (including 

work on emission control equipment) 

where the entire system is not emptied. 

In these cases, feed of phosphoric acid 

and ammonia to the process is 

suspended as is flow from the reactor to 

the granulator. The commenter argued 

that because the source of fluoride to the 

system has ceased and dust generating 

material flows are suspended, there 

should be no significant source of 

emissions to control, and it is not 

necessary to require the use of control 

devices until all feed material has been 

processed. Instead, the commenter 

recommended that an affected entity 

should be allowed to turn off control 

devices when reactor and granulator 

feeds have been stopped, unless the 

system is being emptied, in which case 

control devices should be required as 

long as the material handling system is 

in operation. 

Response. We agree with the 

commenters that the rule needs to have 

a more precise definition of startup and 

shutdown that more clearly and 

reasonably establishes the times when 

the work practice applies and when the 

emission limits apply. Accordingly, we 

added a definition of ‘‘startup’’ and 

‘‘shutdown’’ in the definitions section of 

the final rule to specify when startup 

begins and ends, and when shutdown 

begins and ends. 

Based on additional information 

provided by industry (see ‘‘Email 

Correspondence Received After 

Comment Period re Startup Shutdown 

(May 5, 2015),’’ which is available in 

Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2012– 

0522), we are including a definition of 

startup in the final rule. The final rule 

defines startup as commencing when 

any feed material is first introduced into 

an affected source and ends when feed 

material is fully loaded into the affected 

source. Regarding shutdown, we agree 

with the commenters that it is not 

feasible to process all feed material from 

a process prior to shutting down most 

equipment at a facility. Such 

requirement would imply that the 

control device must be operated after 

the shutdown ends. The final rule 

defines shutdown as commencing when 

the facility ceases adding feed to an 

affected source and ends when the 

affected source is deactivated, regardless 

of whether feed material is present in 

the affected source. This definition will 

address concerns about temporary 

shutdowns as well as shutdowns of 

longer duration. 

In addition, the final rule at 40 CFR 

63.602(f) specifies that any control 

device used at the affected source must 

be operated during the entire period of 

startup and shutdown, and must meet 

the operating limits in Table 4 of the 

final rule. 

4. What is the rationale for our final 

decisions for the SSM provisions? 

For the reasons provided above and in 

the preamble for the proposed rule, we 

are finalizing the proposed revisions to 

the General Provisions table (appendix 

A of NESHAP subpart AA) to change 

several references related to 

requirements that apply during periods 

of SSM. For these same reasons, we are 

also finalizing the addition of the 

following proposed provisions to 

NESHAP subpart AA: (1) Work practice 

standards for periods of startup and 

shutdown in lieu of numeric emission 

limits; (2) the general duty to minimize 

emissions at all times; (3) performance 

testing conditions requirements; (4) sitespecific monitoring plan requirements; 

and (5) malfunction recordkeeping and 

reporting requirements. 

F. Other Changes Made to the 

Phosphoric Acid Manufacturing 

NESHAP and NSPS 

1. What other changes did we propose 

for the Phosphoric Acid Manufacturing 

NESHAP and NSPS? 

a. Clarifications to Applicability and 

Certain Definitions—i. NESHAP Subpart 

AA. As stated in the preamble to the 

proposed rule, to ensure the emission 

standards reflect inclusion of HAP 

emissions from all sources in the source 

category, we proposed to amend the 


rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 160 / Wednesday, August 19, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 50415 

9Based on the EPA memorandum, ‘‘Issuance of 

the Clean Air Act National Stack Testing 

Guidance,’’ dated April 27, 2009. 

definitions of WPPA process line, SPA 

process line, and PPA process line to 

include relevant emission points, 

including clarifiers and defluorination 

systems at WPPA process lines, and 

oxidation reactors at SPA production 

lines. We also proposed removing text 

from the applicability section that is 

duplicative of the revised definitions. 

We also proposed revising the term 

‘‘gypsum stack’’ to ‘‘gypsum dewatering 

stack’’ in order to help clarify the 

meaning of this fugitive emission 

source, and to alleviate any potential 

misconception that the ‘‘stack’’ is a 

point source. Other changes we 

proposed included the addition of 

definitions for ‘‘cooling pond,’’ 

‘‘phosphoric acid defluorination 

process,’’ ‘‘process line,’’ and ‘‘raffinate 

stream.’’ 

ii. NSPS Subpart T. As stated in the 

preamble to the proposed rule, to ensure 

the emission standards we proposed 

reflected inclusion of total fluoride 

emissions from all sources in the 

defined source category, we proposed to 

amend the definition of WPPA plant to 

include relevant emission points, 

including clarifiers and defluorination 

systems. We also proposed to remove 

text from the applicability section that 

is duplicative of the revised definitions. 

iii. NSPS Subpart U. To ensure the 

emission standards we proposed 

reflected inclusion of total fluoride 

emissions from all sources in the 

defined source category, we proposed to 

amend the definition of SPA plant to 

include relevant emission points, 

including oxidation reactors. We also 

proposed to remove text from the 

applicability section that is duplicative 

of the revised definitions. 

b. Testing, Monitoring, Recordkeeping 

and Reporting —i. NESHAP Subpart 

AA. As stated in the preamble to the 

proposed rule, to provide flexibility, we 

proposed several monitoring options, 

including pressure and temperature 

measurements, as alternatives to 

monitoring of absorber differential 

pressure. We also proposed monitoring 

the absorber inlet gas flow rate along 

with the influent absorber liquid flow 

rate (and determining liquid-to-gas 

ratio) in lieu of monitoring only the 

absorber inlet liquid flow rate. 

In addition, we proposed removing 

the requirement that facilities may not 

implement new operating parameter 

ranges until the Administrator has 

approved them, or 30 days have passed 

since submission of the performance 

test results. We proposed that facilities 

must immediately comply with new 

operating ranges when they are 

developed and submitted; and new 

operating ranges must be established 

using the most recent performance test 

conducted by a facility, which allows 

for changes in control device operation 

to be appropriately reflected. 

As stated in the preamble to the 

proposed rule, we modified the 

language for the conditions under which 

testing must be conducted to require 

that testing be conducted at ‘‘maximum 

representative operating conditions’’ for 

the process.9

In keeping with the general provisions 

for CMS (including CEMS and 

continuous parameter monitoring 

system (CPMS)), we proposed the 

addition of a site-specific monitoring 

plan and calibration requirements for 

CMS. Provisions were also proposed 

that included electronic reporting of 

stack test data. We also proposed 

modifying the format of NESHAP 

subpart AA to reference tables for 

emissions limits and monitoring 

requirements. 

Finally, we proposed HF standards in 

NESHAP subpart AA by translating the 

current total fluoride limits (lb total F/ 

ton P2O5 feed) into HF limits (lb HF/ton 

P2O5 feed). To comply with HF 

standards, we proposed that facilities 

use EPA Method 320. 

ii. NSPS Subpart T. We proposed new 

monitoring and recordkeeping 

requirements for any WPPA plant that 

commences construction, modification, 

or reconstruction after November 7, 

2014 to ensure continuous compliance 

with the standard. As stated in the 

preamble to the proposed rule, to ensure 

that the process scrubbing system is 

properly maintained over time; ensure 

continuous compliance with standards; 

and improve data accessibility, we 

proposed the owner or operator 

establish an allowable range for the 

pressure drop through the process 

scrubbing system. We also proposed 

that the owner or operator keep records 

of the daily average pressure drop 

through the process scrubbing system, 

and keep records of deviations. 

For consistency with terminology 

used in the associated NESHAP subpart 

AA, we proposed changing the term 

‘‘process scrubbing system’’ to 

‘‘absorber’’ in NSPS subpart T. 

iii. NSPS Subpart U. We proposed 

new monitoring and recordkeeping 

requirements for any SPA plant that 

commences construction, modification 

or reconstruction after November 7, 

2014 to ensure continuous compliance 

with the standard. As stated in the 

preamble to the proposed rule, to ensure 

that the process scrubbing system is 

properly maintained over time; ensure 

continuous compliance with standards; 

and improve data accessibility, we 

proposed the owner or operator 

establish an allowable range for the 

pressure drop through the process 

scrubbing system. We also proposed 

that the owner or operator keep records 

of the daily average pressure drop 

through the process scrubbing system, 

and keep records of deviations. 

For consistency with terminology 

used in the associated NESHAP subpart 

AA, we proposed changing the term 

‘‘process scrubbing system’’ to 

‘‘absorber’’ in NSPS subpart U. 

2. How did the provisions regarding 

these other proposed changes to the 

Phosphoric Acid Manufacturing 

NESHAP and NSPS change since 

proposal? 

a. Clarifications to Applicability and 

Certain Definitions—i. NESHAP Subpart 

AA. In consideration of comments 

received during the public comment 

period for the proposed rulemaking, we 

are adopting the proposed clarifications 

for oxidation reactors as discussed in 

section V.F.3.a.i of this preamble; 

however, we are also revising the 

definition of oxidation reactor in the 

final rule to clarify that oxidizing agents 

may include: Nitric acid, ammonium 

nitrate, or potassium permanganate. 

Also, in consideration of comments 

received (see section V.F.3.a.ii of this 

preamble for details), we are not 

adopting the proposed clarifications for 

defluorination systems and clarifiers. 

We have not made any change to the 

proposed revision to rename ‘‘gypsum 

stack’’ to ‘‘gypsum dewatering stack.’’ 

We have also not made any changes to 

the proposed definitions for ‘‘cooling 

pond’’ and ‘‘raffinate stream’’; however, 

we are removing the proposed 

definitions for ‘‘phosphoric acid 

defluorination process’’ and ‘‘process 

line’’ for reasons discussed in sections 

V.F.3.a.ii and V.F.3.a.iii of this 

preamble, respectively. 

Finally, we are removing the 

proposed language ‘‘includes, but is not 

limited to’’ in the definitions of WPPA, 

SPA, and PPA process lines for reasons 

discussed in section V.F.3.a.iv of this 

preamble. 

ii. NSPS Subpart T. In consideration 

of comments received (see section 

V.F.3.a.ii of this preamble for details), 

we are not adopting the proposed 

clarifications for defluorination systems 

and clarifiers. We are also removing the 

proposed language ‘‘includes, but is not 

limited to’’ in the definitions of WPPA 

plant for reasons discussed in section 

V.F.3.a.iv of this preamble. 


rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
50416 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 160 / Wednesday, August 19, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

iii. NSPS Subpart U. In consideration 

of comments received during the public 

comment period for the proposed 

rulemaking, we are adopting the 

proposed clarifications for oxidation 

reactors as discussed in section V.F.3.a.i 

of this preamble; however, we are also 

revising the proposed definition of 

oxidation reactor in the final rule to 

clarify that oxidizing agents may 

include: Nitric acid, ammonium nitrate, 

or potassium permanganate. We are also 

removing the proposed language 

‘‘includes, but is not limited to’’ in the 

definitions of SPA plant for reasons 

discussed in section V.F.3.a.iv of this 

preamble. 

b. Testing, Monitoring, Recordkeeping 

and Reporting—i. NESHAP Subpart AA. 

We have not made any changes in our 

proposed determination that pressure 

drop is not an appropriate monitoring 

parameter for absorbers that are 

designed to operate with pressure drops 

of 5 inches of water column or less. 

However, in consideration of comments 

received during the public comment 

period for the proposed rulemaking, we 

are not adopting the proposed options to 

monitor: (1) The temperature at the wet 

scrubber gas stream outlet and pressure 

at the liquid inlet of the absorber, or (2) 

the temperature at the scrubber gas 

stream outlet and scrubber gas stream 

inlet. Instead, we have revised Table 3 

of NESHAP subpart AA to require 

liquid-to-gas ratio monitoring for lowenergy absorbers, and influent liquid 

flow and pressure drop monitoring for 

high-energy absorbers; and we are 

keeping liquid-to-gas ratio monitoring as 

an option for high-energy absorbers in 

the final rule. (See section V.F.3.b.i and 

V.F.3.b.ii of this preamble for details.) 

In addition to these revisions, we are 

making corrections at 40 CFR 63.607(a) 

to clarify the procedures for establishing 

a new operating limit based on the most 

recent performance test. We are also 

revising the requirements at 40 CFR 

63.605(d)(1)(ii)(B) of the final rule to 

remove the requirement that facilities 

must request and obtain approval of the 

Administrator for changing operating 

limits. (See section V.F.3.b.iii and 

V.F.3.b.iv of this preamble for details.) 

Also, for reasons discussed in the in 

the Comment Summary and Response 

document available in the docket, we 

are revising the annual testing schedule 

in the final rule at 40 CFR 63.606(b), 

and the terminology for ‘‘maximum 

representative operating conditions’’ in 

the final rule at 40 CFR 63.606(d). 

We are not making any changes to the 

proposed addition of a site-specific 

monitoring plan and calibration 

requirements for CMS. We are also 

keeping the proposed term ‘‘absorber’’ 

in lieu of ‘‘scrubber,’’ as well as the 

proposed format of NESHAP subpart 

AA to reference tables for emissions 

limits and monitoring requirements. 

Lastly, we are retaining the current 

total fluoride limits and not adopting 

the proposed HF standards and 

associated EPA Method 320 testing in 

NESHAP subpart AA (see section 

V.F.3.c of this preamble for details). 

ii. NSPS Subpart T. We are not 

making changes to the proposed 

monitoring and recordkeeping 

requirements for any WPPA plant that 

commences construction, modification 

or reconstruction after August 19, 2015 

to ensure continuous compliance with 

the standard. We are also keeping the 

proposed term ‘‘absorber’’ in lieu of 

‘‘process scrubbing system.’’ 

iii. NSPS Subpart U. We are not 

making changes to the proposed 

monitoring and recordkeeping 

requirements for any SPA plant that 

commences construction, modification, 

or reconstruction after August 19, 2015 

to ensure continuous compliance with 

the standard. We are also keeping the 

proposed term ‘‘absorber’’ in lieu of 

‘‘process scrubbing system.’’ 

3. What key comments did we receive 

on the other changes to the Phosphoric 

Acid Manufacturing NESHAP and 

NSPS, and what are our responses? 

Several comments were received 

regarding the proposed clarifications to 

applicability and certain definitions, 

revisions to testing, monitoring, 

recordkeeping and reporting, translation 

of total fluoride to HF emission limits, 

and revisions to other provisions for the 

Phosphoric Acid Manufacturing source 

category. The following is a summary of 

significant comments and our response 

to those comments. Other comments 

received and our responses to those 

comments can be found in the Comment 

Summary and Response document 

available in the docket for this action 

(EPA–HQ–OAR–2012–0522). 

a. Applicability Clarifications and 

Certain Definitions—i. Oxidation 

Reactors—Comment. Several 

commenters remarked that the proposed 

definition of SPA process line to 

include oxidation reactors is 

problematic and goes beyond 

clarification. These commenters 

requested that the EPA develop more 

specific language or provide a clear 

technical basis under the CAA because 

any equipment that was not expressly 

included in EPA’s MACT floor 

calculations should not be included in 

the affected source definition. 

Commenters mentioned that the 

EPA’s memorandum ‘‘Applicability 

Clarifications to the Phosphoric Acid 

Manufacturing Source Category,’’ which 

is available in the docket for this action, 

captured four facilities, but it was not 

clear whether the PCS Aurora facility 

was included in the count. These 

commenters stated that the oxidation 

step at this facility is carried out in 

agitated tanks that do not have any 

emissions control, and the emissions 

from the oxidation step are not included 

in their annual performance testing 

(when demonstrating compliance with 

the current total fluoride limits). The 

commenters said that it was not clear 

whether this oxidation step involves an 

‘‘oxidation reactor’’ as proposed; and, if 

it does, the commenters argued that the 

EPA has not considered additional costs 

imposed by including ‘‘any equipment 

that uses an oxidizing agent to treat 

phosphoric acid’’ within the scope of 

the NESHAP at 40 CFR part 63, subpart 

AA. 

Response. We are adopting the 

proposed SPA process line definition in 

NESHAP subpart AA, and the proposed 

SPA plant definition in NSPS subpart U, 

to include oxidation reactors. Based on 

information in process flow diagrams 

provided by facilities, we initially 

believed that oxidation reactors were 

part of the SPA process lines that would 

have been considered in the original 

MACT analysis, and, thus subject to the 

existing limits. In response to comments 

that stated the opposite was true, we 

searched historical data, specifically the 

1996 memorandum ‘‘National Emission 

Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants 

from Phosphoric Acid Manufacturing 

and Phosphate Fertilizers Production; 

Proposed Rules—Draft Technical 

Support Document and Additional 

Technical Information’’ (1996 TSD). The 

1996 TSD lists, in Attachment 2, the test 

data for SPA process lines that were 

assembled for the MACT floor analysis 

(the 1996 TSD is item II–B–20 in Docket 

A–94–02). Based on this review as well 

as a facility construction air permit, we 

determined that oxidation reactor 

emissions from at least one facility, PCS 

White Springs (see the emission point 

‘‘Occidental, Suwanee Rv., FL–G’’ in the 

1996 TSD), were included with this 

assembled SPA test dataset. It is 

possible that three other facilities (see 

the emission points ‘‘J.R. Simplot, 

Pocatello, ID’’ for the Simplot DonPocatello facility, ‘‘Nu-West, Soda 

Springs, ID’’ for the Agrium Nu-West 

facility, and ‘‘Texasgulf, Aurora, NC’’ for 

the PCS Aurora facility in the 1996 TSD) 

with oxidation reactors were also 

included in this original dataset since 

we know today that these facilities have 

oxidation reactors; however, it is 

unclear whether the oxidation reactors 


rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 160 / Wednesday, August 19, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 50417 

at these facilities were operating when 

the dataset was assembled. 

Nevertheless, based on the emission 

point ‘‘Occidental, Suwanee Rv., FL–G,’’ 

SPA process lines that incorporate an 

oxidation reactor were included as part 

of the SPA emissions dataset that was 

evaluated in order to conduct the MACT 

floor analysis. 

In addition, the EPA’s technology 

review revealed that SPA process lines 

at four different facilities include an 

oxidation reactor to remove organic 

impurities from the acid. We 

determined that one of these facilities 

(Simplot Don-Pocatello) already ducts 

their oxidation reactor emissions 

through their SPA process line wet 

scrubber, and is achieving compliance 

with the SPA total fluoride emission 

limit. For two of these facilities (PCS 

White Springs and Agrium Nu-West), 

we determined that when their 

oxidation reactor emissions are 

combined with the rest of their SPA 

process line emissions, the facilities are 

in compliance with the total fluoride 

emission limit. Therefore, for these 

three facilities it would not be necessary 

to upgrade existing control systems, or 

to install a control system, in order to 

comply with the rule. 

With regard to the oxidation reactor at 

the fourth facility (PCS Aurora), the 

Agency has determined that this process 

(i.e., an oxidation step carried out in 

agitated tanks) does qualify as an 

oxidation reactor. Based on information 

that we received from industry after the 

public comment period ended for the 

proposal (see docket item EPA–HQ– 

OAR–2012–0522–0051), potassium 

permanganate is used in the PCS Aurora 

oxidation step. This oxidizing agent was 

one of three specifically cited in our 

memorandum ‘‘Applicability 

Clarifications to the Phosphoric Acid 

Manufacturing Source Category,’’ which 

is available in the docket for this action, 

so based on the data available, this 

oxidation step should be included as 

part of the SPA process line emissions 

when determining compliance with the 

SPA total fluoride emission limit. 

Furthermore, based on this same 

information that we received from 

industry after the public comment 

period ended for the proposal, PCS 

Aurora may need to install a new 

absorber in order to control its oxidation 

process emissions due to logistical 

complications and concerns about 

inadequate capacity of other existing 

absorbers at their SPA units. PCS 

Aurora estimated the absorber (venturi 

scrubber) would incur capital costs of 

approximately $270,500, based on prior 

absorber purchases for its facility. We 

estimated annual costs of approximately 

$95,000. The costs associated with this 

change are discussed further in the 

memorandum ‘‘Control Costs and 

Emissions Reductions for Phosphoric 

Acid and Phosphate Fertilizer 

Production Source Categories—Final 

Rule,’’ which is available in Docket ID 

No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2012–0522. 

The definition of oxidation reactor in 

the final rule for NESHAP subpart AA 

has been revised to clarify that oxidizing 

agents may include: Nitric acid, 

ammonium nitrate, or potassium 

permanganate. The words ‘‘or step’’ has 

also been added to the definition of 

oxidation reactor, for instances when a 

facility may not typically identify their 

oxidation process as occurring in a 

reactor. The definition now states that 

‘‘oxidation reactor means any 

equipment or step that uses an oxidizing 

agent (e.g., nitric acid, ammonium 

nitrate, or potassium permanganate) to 

treat SPA.’’ Similarly, the definition of 

‘‘SPA plant’’ in the final rule for NSPS 

subpart U has also been revised to 

reflect these changes. 

ii. Defluorination and Clarifiers— 

Comment. Many commenters opposed 

the proposed expanded definition of 

‘‘wet-process phosphoric acid line’’ to 

include ‘‘clarifiers’’ and ‘‘defluorination 

processes.’’ These commenters stated 

that the proposed revisions have the 

potential to pull in several 

‘‘defluorination processes’’ and 

‘‘clarifiers’’ that are not subject to the 

current rule (e.g., animal feed phosphate 

production operations that have 

traditionally been outside the scope of 

this subpart). These commenters argued 

that any unit operation that conducts 

evaporation or concentrates phosphoric 

acid will have the effect of 

defluorinating to some extent. One of 

these commenters stated that they have 

a desulfation process at one of their 

facilities that reduces F; the commenter 

also said that this facility’s WPPA 

process line has several filter product 

tanks, evaporator feed tanks, and 

evaporator product tanks that could 

potentially be deemed clarifiers, and 

thus be pulled into the proposed rule. 

Another of these commenters argued 

that it is not logical to include clarifier 

and defluorination systems in the 

definition because they operate 

independently of process lines, and are 

often operated when feed is not put into 

process lines (and so are not a process 

line manufacturing phosphoric acid by 

reacting phosphate rock and acid). This 

commenter added that clarifiers often 

operate more like tanks than process 

equipment and are not routinely 

emptied; and emissions from clarifiers 

are not a function of phosphate feed 

material to the reactor. The commenter 

stated that the addition of clarifiers will 

require significant facility modifications 

to accommodate emissions testing 

because although some clarifiers are 

evacuated to WPPA scrubbers, others 

are not; and even though some clarifiers 

have independent evacuation and 

scrubbing systems, other clarifiers have 

no evacuation and scrubbing systems. 

Another commenter also stated that one 

of their facilities contains clarifiers that 

are not source tested or vented to a wet 

scrubber. This commenter stated that it 

was not possible for one of their 

facilities to determine whether they 

meet the proposed standard for a WPPA 

process line that includes defluorination 

processes because their defluorination 

units are not only integrated with their 

WPPA process, but also with processes 

that do not meet the definition of WPPA 

lines. A commenter added that 

defluorination processes and clarifiers 

are often subject to separate emissions 

control requirements in their title V 

permits. 

Two commenters stated that since the 

original rule was adopted, the definition 

of ‘‘wet-process phosphoric line’’ has 

not been interpreted to extend or apply 

to clarifiers or defluorination processes. 

One of these commenters claimed that 

the only rationale the EPA provides is 

that the rules were ‘‘initially intended’’ 

to cover these sources, but argued that 

neither the original proposal, nor the 

original final rule mentioned the term 

‘‘clarifier’’ or ‘‘defluorination process.’’ 

The commenters requested that the EPA 

conduct CAA section 112(d)(2) or 

112(d)(3) analyses for these new affected 

units. If the EPA conducts these 

analyses, and decides to expand the 

definition of ‘‘wet-process phosphoric 

acid line’’ to include ‘‘clarifiers’’ and 

‘‘defluorination processes,’’ a 

commenter suggested that the definition 

exclude units that partially clarify or 

defluorinate an in-process stream 

incidentally. 

Response. Based on information in 

process flow diagrams provided by 

facilities, we initially believed that 

clarifiers and defluorination systems 

were part of the WPPA process lines 

that would have been considered in the 

original MACT analysis, and, thus, 

subject to the existing limits. However, 

the EPA agrees that clarifiers and 

defluorination systems should not be 

included in the WPPA process line 

definition of NESHAP subpart AA, 

based on the new information available. 

We also agree that clarifiers and 

defluorination systems should not be 

included in the WPPA plant definition 

of NSPS subpart T. 

In the proposed rules, the EPA was 

specifically referring to defluorination 


rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
50418 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 160 / Wednesday, August 19, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

processes that use diatomaceous earth 

and are included as part of the WPPA 

process line; however, commenters 

explained that this type of process is 

used solely in animal feed production. 

Because defluorination processes that 

use diatomaceous earth are not related 

to phosphoric acid manufacturing, as 

we first surmised, it is not appropriate 

to include defluorination processes in 

the WPPA process line definition. 

In response to comments regarding 

the inclusion of clarifiers in the WPPA 

process line definition, we searched 

historical data. Specifically, we 

reviewed the 1996 memorandum 

‘‘National Emission Standards for 

Hazardous Air Pollutants from 

Phosphoric Acid Manufacturing and 

Phosphate Fertilizers Production; 

Proposed Rules—Draft Technical 

Support Document and Additional 

Technical Information’’ (1996 TSD) to 

determine if clarifier emissions were 

included in the MACT floor evaluation 

for WPPA process lines (the 1996 TSD 

is item II–B–20 in Docket A–94–02). The 

1996 TSD lists, in Attachment 2, the 

WPPA test data that were assembled for 

the MACT floor analysis. Based on this 

review, we were not able to confirm that 

clarifiers were included as part of the 

WPPA emissions dataset that was 

evaluated in order to conduct the MACT 

floor analysis; therefore, we are not 

including clarifiers in the WPPA 

process line definition. Similarly, we 

are not including clarifiers in the WPPA 

plant definition of NSPS subpart T. 

iii. Generic Process Line Definition— 

Comment. One commenter stated that 

the EPA has introduced ambiguity and 

vagueness with its definition of a 

generic ‘‘process line’’ that includes ‘‘all 

equipment associated with the 

production of any grade or purity of a 

phosphoric acid product including 

emission control equipment.’’ The 

commenter asserted that under this 

expansive definition, every hypothetical 

fugitive emission source would have to 

be accounted for in determining 

compliance. The commenter explained 

that the EPA has not collected emission 

data from ‘‘all equipment’’ nor provided 

guidance on estimating emissions for 

such sources in order to allow entities 

with process lines to demonstrate 

compliance. The commenter stressed 

the ‘‘process line’’ definition, as it 

currently stands, could include a wash 

plant that prepares phosphate ore or 

product storage tanks due to these 

sources being considered ‘‘associated’’ 

with production and thus subject to the 

proposed NESHAP. 

Response. The Agency agrees with the 

commenter that it is not necessary to 

include the generic ‘‘process line’’ 

definition, and has removed it from the 

NESHAP subpart AA final rule. This 

definition did not provide additional 

clarity to facilities, and it was not our 

intent to include emissions from ‘‘all 

equipment’’ that is ‘‘associated’’ with 

phosphoric acid production for 

compliance determinations. Specific 

definitions are provided for WPPA 

process line, SPA process line, and PPA 

process line and, therefore, enough 

specificity is already provided in the 

rule. 

iv. ‘‘Includes, but is Not Limited to’’— 

Comment. A commenter remarked that 

incorporating the language ‘‘includes, 

but is not limited to’’ in the definitions 

of WPPA, SPA, and PPA process lines 

is overly broad and creates ambiguity. 

They stated that industry should have 

certainty as to the applicability and 

scope of the rule, but the language 

‘‘includes, but is not limited to’’ creates 

uncertainty as to where the affected 

equipment begins and ends for purposes 

of demonstrating compliance. 

Response. We agree that this language 

creates overly broad process line 

definitions and can lead to regulatory 

uncertainty for affected sources. 

Therefore, we are not finalizing the 

language ‘‘includes, but is not limited 

to’’ in the definitions of WPPA, SPA, 

and PPA process lines of NESHAP 

subpart AA. Similarly, we are not 

finalizing the language ‘‘includes, but is 

not limited to’’ in the definitions of 

WPPA plant and SPA plant of NSPS 

subpart T and NSPS subpart U, 

respectively. 

b. Testing, Monitoring, Recordkeeping 

and Reporting—i. Pressure Drop Across 

Absorber—Comment. Several 

commenters requested the EPA delete 

the requirement that pressure drop 

across an absorber must be greater than 

5 inches of water in order to use the 

option of measuring pressure drop as an 

operating parameter. These commenters 

contended that the EPA has not 

articulated any basis for the 

requirement. These commenters 

provided data demonstrating that units 

operate in compliance with the 

emission standards when the pressure 

drop across an absorber is less than 5 

inches of water. One of these 

commenters expressed safety concerns 

associated with operating scrubbers at 

higher range pressure drop settings, 

citing one of its facilities that 

experienced the entrainment of 

moisture within the absorbing tower 

when operating at pressure drops in 

excess of 8 inches of water, and another 

that experienced the buildup of 

excessive fumes on the digester floor 

when operating the digester scrubber as 

high as 6 inches of water. 

Response. The Agency maintains its 

determination that pressure drop is not 

an appropriate monitoring parameter for 

absorbers that do not use the energy 

from the inlet gas to increase contact 

between the gas and liquid in the 

absorber (see ‘‘Use of Pressure Drop as 

an Operating Parameter,’’ which is 

available in Docket ID No. EPA–HQ– 

OAR–2012–0522). Therefore, we are not 

revising this proposed amendment. 

High-energy (i.e., high pressure drop) 

absorbers, such as venturi scrubbers, are 

designed to use the energy in the inlet 

gas to atomize the liquid stream entering 

the absorber which increases the contact 

between the liquid droplets and gas. For 

these types of absorbers, pressure drop 

is an appropriate monitoring parameter 

because changes in pressure drop values 

indicate that either liquid droplets are 

not being formed effectively inside the 

absorber (falling pressure drop), or that 

the absorber is fouled (increasing 

pressured drop). Pressure drop is not an 

appropriate monitoring parameter for 

low-energy absorbers (i.e., absorbers that 

are designed to operate with pressure 

drops of 5 inches of water column or 

less) because pressure drop is not 

integral to the mechanism used in the 

absorber to mix the scrubbing liquid and 

inlet gas. Furthermore, in a meeting that 

occurred after the public comment 

period closed (see ‘‘EPA Meeting 

Minutes for TFI Discussion March 12, 

2015,’’ which is available in Docket ID 

No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2012–0522), 

industry stated that there is no 

correlation between pressure drop and 

absorber performance. 

With regard to the safety concerns 

raised by one commenter when 

operating low-energy absorbers at high 

pressure drop settings, the proposed 

rule (NESHAP subpart AA) did not 

require low-energy absorbers (i.e., 

absorbers that are designed to operate 

with pressure drops of 5 inches of water 

column or less) to operate at pressure 

drops greater than 5 inches of water 

column. Instead, the proposed rule 

required a different parameter to be 

monitored for these types of absorbers. 

Nevertheless, based on other comments 

received, we are not adopting the 

proposed monitoring for low-energy 

absorbers, and have revised the final 

rule (NESHAP subpart AA) to require 

liquid-to-gas ratio monitoring for lowenergy absorbers in lieu of monitoring 

influent liquid flow and pressure drop 

through the absorber (see section 

V.F.3.b.ii of this preamble for further 

details). 

ii. Absorber Monitoring Options— 

Comment. Several commenters called 

attention to the options of either 

measuring: (1) The temperature at the 


rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 160 / Wednesday, August 19, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 50419 

wet scrubber gas stream outlet and 

pressure at the liquid inlet of the 

absorber, or (2) the temperature at the 

scrubber gas stream outlet and scrubber 

gas stream inlet. One of these 

commenters said that they do not 

believe monitoring gas temperature in 

locations of large ambient temperature 

ranges would provide accurate 

monitoring of the absorbers 

performance. The commenter argued 

that temperature and pressure probes 

would be very susceptible to scaling 

issues. In addition, this commenter 

contended that liquid inlet pressure 

does not provide any additional 

monitoring of the absorber performance, 

since the inlet liquid flow rate is already 

measured and monitored. Another 

commenter contended that the EPA has 

not provided any data or analysis to 

show that there is a correlation between 

temperature and emissions; the 

commenter stated that they were not 

aware of any data suggesting a 

relationship between exit temperature 

and emissions, or that monitoring 

temperature difference across an 

absorber would be effective. One of 

these commenters argued that they were 

not in a position to evaluate the 

difficulties associated with performing 

the associated monitoring and 

establishing the requisite operating 

ranges. 

Response. Absorber outlet gas 

temperature is often used to indicate a 

change in operation for absorbers that 

are used to control thermal processes. 

Because this source category uses the 

wet process in lieu of a thermal process 

to produce phosphoric acid, the Agency 

agrees with the commenters that 

temperature is not an appropriate 

monitoring parameter for absorbers used 

in this source category, and has 

removed these monitoring options from 

Table 3 of the final rule (NESHAP 

subpart AA). However, in light of this 

comment, the Agency has revised Table 

3 of NESHAP subpart AA to require 

liquid-to-gas ratio monitoring for lowenergy absorbers (i.e., absorbers that are 

designed to operate with pressure drops 

of 5 inches of water column or less) in 

lieu of monitoring influent liquid flow 

and pressure drop through the absorber. 

(See section V.F.3.b.i of this preamble 

for further details of why we are not 

allowing pressure drop monitoring for 

low-energy absorbers.) Although liquid 

flow to the absorber is the most critical 

parameter for monitoring absorption 

systems, monitoring the inlet gas flow 

rate along with the influent liquid flow 

rate (and determining liquid-to-gas 

ratio) provides better indication of 

whether enough water is present to 

provide adequate scrubbing for the 

amount of gas flowing through the 

system. Furthermore, the Agency has 

revised Table 3 of NESHAP subpart AA 

to require influent liquid flow and 

pressure drop monitoring for highenergy (i.e., high pressure drop) 

absorbers, such as venturi scrubbers; 

and we are keeping liquid-to-gas ratio 

monitoring as an option for high-energy 

absorbers in the final rule. Rather than 

calculating one minimum flow rate at 

maximum operating conditions that 

must be continuously adhered to, this 

alternative provision (i.e., liquid-to-gas 

ratio monitoring for high-energy 

absorbers) allows a facility to optimize 

the liquid flow for varying gas flow 

rates. By using a liquid-to-gas ratio, 

sources may save resources by reducing 

the liquid rate with reductions in gas 

flow due to periods of lower production 

rates. 

The Agency believes the cost to 

implement these finalized monitoring 

requirements is minimal for facilities. 

For low-energy absorbers, we are 

allowing the gas stream to be measured 

by either measuring the gas stream flow 

at the absorber inlet or using the design 

blower capacity, with appropriate 

adjustments for pressure drop. 

Therefore, facilities would not need to 

purchase new equipment to measure gas 

flow at the inlet of the absorber since 

they may choose to use design blower 

capacity. Furthermore, we are not 

requiring any new monitoring for highenergy absorbers; therefore, these 

facilities are already equipped to 

monitor as required in the final rule. 

iii. Operating Range Established From 

a Previous Test—Comment. One 

commenter stated that 40 CFR 63.607(a) 

is somewhat ambiguous, tending to 

suggest that affected facilities would be 

immediately required to implement new 

equipment operating ranges following a 

source test, even if operating conditions 

from previous source tests demonstrated 

compliance with fluoride emission 

standards. The commenter argued that 

there is no reason that a new 

performance test at a new operating 

range should invalidate a previous 

performance test at a different operating 

range. 

Response. The Agency has clarified in 

the final rule at 40 CFR 63.607(a) that 

during the most recent performance test, 

if owners or operators demonstrate 

compliance with the emission limit 

while operating their control device 

outside the previously established 

operating limit, then limits must be 

established. Owners or operators must 

establish a new operating limit based on 

that most recent performance test and 

notify the Administrator that the 

operating limit changed based on data 

collected during the most recent 

performance test. Public comments on 

the 1999 rule stated that the equipment 

and control devices in these source 

categories are subject to harsh 

conditions that cause corrosion and 

scaling of the process components. 

Accordingly, the performance of the 

emissions controls will vary over time, 

and so might emissions. Thus, the 

Agency disagrees with the commenter’s 

argument. We have determined that a 

new performance test conducted under 

a particular operating range should 

invalidate a previous operating range 

that was established under different 

operating conditions. An operating limit 

(e.g., an operating range, a minimum 

operating level, or maximum operating 

level) is established using the most 

recent performance test, or in certain 

instances, a series of tests (potentially 

including historical tests). However, in 

all cases, if owners or operators 

demonstrate compliance with an 

emission limit during the most recent 

performance test, and during this 

performance test an owner’s or 

operator’s control device was operating 

outside the previously established 

operating limit, the owner or operator 

must establish a new operating limit 

that incorporates that most recent 

performance test. 

iv. Approving Operating Ranges— 

Comment. Several commenters support 

the EPA’s proposal to eliminate the 

requirement that facilities may not 

implement new operating parameter 

ranges until the Administrator has 

approved them, or 30 days have passed 

since submission of the performance 

test results. A commenter pointed out 

that 40 CFR 63.605(d)(1)(iii)(B), as 

proposed, does not provide the 30-day 

default period for the effectiveness of 

the new ranges if the EPA Administrator 

does not act; therefore, as currently set 

forth in the proposed rule, sources will 

be left in limbo waiting for the EPA 

Administrator to respond before they 

can implement new ranges. A 

commenter suggested that the EPA 

revise the proposed regulatory language 

to require submission of the new ranges 

to EPA, but delete the requirement to 

request and obtain EPA’s approval of 

the new ranges. Similarly, another 

commenter requested the EPA clarify 

the process for establishing new 

equipment operating ranges following 

source performance testing. This 

commenter contended that facilities 

should have the ability to update 

operating parameters if they desire 

based on source testing, and the facility 

should be required to submit the new 


rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
50420 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 160 / Wednesday, August 19, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

10 Koogler & Associates, Inc. ‘‘Technical 

Evaluation of the Measurement Limitations 

Associated with Source HF Emissions by EPA 

Method 320.’’ January 21, 2015. 

ranges, but not be required to obtain 

EPA’s approval of the new ranges. 

In addition, a commenter requested 

that the EPA clarify how revising the 

proposed regulatory language to require 

submission of the new ranges to the 

EPA, but deleting the requirement to 

request and obtain EPA’s approval of 

the new ranges, will affect possible 

obligations to undertake permit 

modifications of title V permits under 

40 CFR part 70. This commenter stated 

that such administrative processes are 

not fully anticipated in the proposed 

rule. 

Response. In the proposed NESHAP 

subpart AA, the Agency intended that 

facilities not be required to obtain 

approval, and, instead, immediately 

comply with a new operating limit 

when it is developed and submitted to 

the Administrator. Therefore, the 

requirements at proposed 40 CFR 

63.605(d)(1)(iii)(B) have been revised in 

the final rule at 40 CFR 

63.605(d)(1)(ii)(B), as the commenter 

requests, to remove the requirement that 

facilities must request and obtain 

approval of the Administrator for 

changing operating limits. Furthermore, 

the Agency suggests that the title V 

permit be modified as soon as the 

Administrator is notified of a change in 

an operating limit. The Agency 

acknowledges that corrections and 

modifications to permit applications 

could become a problem for a facility, 

particularly if the Administrator 

determines the operating limit is not 

appropriate after a facility has already 

applied for the change to be made in its 

air permit; however, we expect this 

scenario to be rare. 

c. Translation of Total Fluoride to HF 

Emission Limits—Comment. With 

regard to the proposed NESHAP subpart 

AA, several commenters opposed the 

use of EPA Method 320 to test for HF, 

and supported the retention of a total 

fluoride compliance standard and 

associated testing using EPA Method 

13A or 13B. These commenters argued 

that EPA Method 320 leads to unreliable 

and unrepresentative results because 

some reactive fluoride compounds in 

the exhaust may form HF in the 

sampling equipment. The commenters 

explained that complex reactions 

leading to fluoride emissions occur not 

only in the processing units located at 

the Phosphoric Acid Manufacturing 

source category, but also in the scrubber 

systems designed to remove fluoride 

from the stack gases. Commenters stated 

that these reactions result in a mix of 

gaseous, aerosol, and particle bound 

fluoride (all three phases) in the stack 

gas, in the form of compounds like silica 

tetrafluoride, various fluorosilicate 

aerosols and/or droplets, ammonium 

fluoride, ammonium bifluoride, and/or 

ammonium fluorosilicate; and argued 

that these compounds have the potential 

to be captured in a Method 320 

sampling equipment, biasing or 

interfering with the results of the 

sampling. Commenters specified that 

the EPA Method 320 sampling 

conducted in response to the EPA’s 

information requests demonstrated that 

SiF4 readily reacts with water vapor in 

the stack gas producing HF and silicon 

hydroxide; and one of the commenters 

provided information showing that this 

reaction is dependent on temperature, 

moisture, and residence time in the 

sampling system. Additionally, some of 

the commenters listed technical issues 

that they encountered during the EPA 

Method 320 sampling that they 

conducted in response to EPA’s 

information requests. These commenters 

recommended certain procedures be 

followed when conducting EPA Method 

320 at the Phosphoric Acid 

Manufacturing source category; 

however, they also cautioned that their 

recommendations would not resolve all 

of the inherent problems with the 

sampling and analysis process. The 

commenters also expressed concern 

over the increase in testing costs from 

using EPA Method 320 instead of EPA 

Method 13A or 13B, citing an increase 

of at least 3 to 4 times when using EPA 

Method 320 instead of EPA Method 

13B. 

We also received comments regarding 

the option to use Fourier transform 

infrared spectroscopy (FTIR) HF CEMS 

as a continuous monitoring compliance 

approach for HF at NESHAP subpart BB 

affected sources. One commenter 

contended that the EPA must consider 

requiring continuous HF emission 

monitoring before finalizing the 

proposal, and pointed out that there is 

a HF sensor (suitable for 0–10 part per 

million (ppm) monitoring range and a 

0.1 ppm resolution) available for the 

Ultima X Series Gas Monitors. Several 

commenters opposed this option and 

cited EPA’s technical memorandum 

‘‘Approach for Hydrogen Fluoride 

Continuous Emission Monitoring and 

Compliance Determination with EPA 

Method 320.’’ They argued that the 

option to use FTIR HF CEMS exceeds 

the capabilities of existing technology, 

and that there are no details on the 

required methods to implement such a 

system or known field demonstrations 

of this type of system, and that the 

option has not been proven. 

Finally, one commenter requested the 

EPA explain its technical basis for 

abandoning the longstanding total 

fluoride surrogate for HF. The 

commenter argued that the EPA has 

established similar surrogacy 

relationships to measure HAP in other 

regulated source categories in the past. 

Response. In response to the January 

2014 CAA section 114 request, 

processes at the Phosphoric Acid 

Manufacturing source category were 

tested for HF using EPA Method 320. 

Based on those results, the Agency 

concluded that moving to a form of the 

standard that requires HF (the target 

HAP) to be measured (but retaining the 

same numeric values as the current total 

fluoride standards) would be achievable 

by all facilities. However, in light of 

information provided by commenters, 

the Agency has re-evaluated the 

proposed revision to the standard and 

determined that EPA Method 320 is not 

an appropriate test method for 

accurately measuring HF emissions 

from process lines in this specific 

source category due to the complex and 

often incomplete chemical reactions 

with silicon compounds in these 

sources. Accordingly, the Agency is not 

adopting the proposed HF standards in 

NESHAP subpart AA. The Agency has 

determined that SiF4 and water are 

naturally present in the exhaust gases of 

the processes located at the Phosphoric 

Acid Manufacturing source category; 

and these chemical compounds will 

react to form HF and silicon dioxide in 

the near field from the emission point 

on release into the atmosphere. The 

Agency has reviewed a study 10 stating 

that the equilibrium of this chemical 

reaction is highly dependent on 

temperature such that as temperature 

increases, the conversion of SiF4 to HF 

increases. At high sampling 

temperatures (i.e., sampling 

temperatures ranged from about 150 to 

300 degrees Fahrenheit during the EPA 

Method 320 testing conducted pursuant 

to the January 2014 CAA section 114 

requests), there is nearly a complete 

conversion of SiF4 to HF. Therefore, as 

SiF4 is captured in the EPA Method 320 

sampling system, it may react with 

moisture (water) to form HF, resulting in 

HF measurements from this source 

category that are biased. That is, due to 

the chemical interactions and reactions 

with moisture at different temperatures, 

some of the HF emissions detected by 

EPA Method 320 may not represent HF 

that exists in the exhaust stack or HF 

released from phosphoric acid 

production. 

As a result of our determination to not 

adopt the proposed HF standards, the 


rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 160 / Wednesday, August 19, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 50421 

Agency has retained the current total 

fluoride limits (lb total F/ton P2O5 feed) 

measured using EPA Method 13A or 

13B in NESHAP subpart AA as a 

surrogate for the HAP HF, rather than 

HF emission limits using EPA Method 

320. Furthermore, in light of this 

conclusion, the Agency is not finalizing 

an option to use FTIR HF CEMS. In the 

final rule promulgated on June 10, 1999 

(64 FR 31358), the EPA explained that 

total fluoride was used as a surrogate for 

HF to establish MACT for emissions 

from process sources because no direct 

measurements of HF were available and 

because the NSPS are based on total F. 

On November 7, 2014, we proposed HF 

emission limits in an attempt to base the 

standard on the specific HAP (HF) that 

is emitted by this source category 

because we concluded that new 

technology (EPA Method 320) allows for 

direct measurement of HF, and because 

it is preferred to measure the listed HAP 

directly when possible. However, in 

light of the chemical interactions that 

may occur at this source category during 

sample collection using EPA Method 

320 (skewing HF testing results), we are 

retaining the long-standing surrogate of 

total fluoride for HF and the annual 

testing with EPA Method 13A or 13B. 

Results from EPA Method 13A or 13B 

testing include all fluoride compounds, 

including HF. Furthermore, since the 

control of total fluoride and HF from 

process sources at this source category 

is accomplished with the same control 

technology (scrubbers), the total fluoride 

emission limits will result in 

installation of the MACT for HF and the 

same level of HF control will be 

achieved regardless of how the emission 

limits are expressed. The use of total 

fluoride as a surrogate for HF simply 

changes the metric for compliance 

demonstration, not the actual level of 

emission control achieved. As such, we 

are retaining the existing total fluoride 

limits for all emission sources in 

NESHAP subpart AA. Although, at 

present time, the Agency is not 

finalizing HF standards in NESHAP 

subpart AA, it may be possible to do so 

in a future rulemaking with additional 

data and specificity on monitoring 

requirements. 

4. What is the rationale for our final 

decisions regarding these other changes 

to the Phosphoric Acid Manufacturing 

NESHAP and NSPS? 

For the reasons provided above and in 

the preamble for the proposed rule, we 

are finalizing: The proposed 

requirement in NESHAP subpart AA 

that pressure drop across an absorber 

must be greater than 5 inches of water 

in order to use the option of measuring 

pressure drop as an operating 

parameter; the proposed definitions for 

‘‘superphosphoric acid process line’’ (in 

NESHAP subpart AA) and 

‘‘superphosphoric acid plant’’ (in NSPS 

subpart U) to include oxidation reactors; 

and other proposed clarifications and 

corrections. 

Additionally, for the reasons provided 

above, we are making the revisions, 

clarifications and corrections noted in 

section V.F.2 in the final rules for 

NESHAP subpart AA, NSPS subpart T, 

and NSPS subpart U. 

VI. What is the rationale for our final 

decisions and amendments for the 

Phosphate Fertilizer Production source 

category? 

For each issue related to the 

Phosphate Fertilizer Production source 

category, this section provides a 

description of what we proposed and 

what we are finalizing for the issue, the 

EPA’s rationale for the final decisions, 

and amendments and a summary of key 

comments and responses. For all 

comments not discussed in this 

preamble, comment summaries and the 

EPA’s responses can be found in the 

Comment Summary and Response 

document available in the docket. 

A. Residual Risk Review for the 

Phosphate Fertilizer Production Source 

Category 

1. What did we propose pursuant to 

CAA section 112(f) for the Phosphate 

Fertilizer Production source category? 

Pursuant to CAA section 112(f), we 

conducted a residual risk review and 

presented the results of this review, 

along with our proposed decisions 

regarding risk acceptability and ample 

margin of safety, in the November 7, 

2014, proposed rule for the Phosphate 

Fertilizer Production NESHAP (79 FR 

66512). The results of the risk 

assessment are presented briefly below 

in Table 4 of this preamble, and in more 

detail in the residual risk document, 

‘‘Residual Risk Assessment for 

Phosphate Fertilizer Production and 

Phosphate Fertilizer Production Source 

Categories in support of the July 2015 

Risk and Technology Review Final 

Rule,’’ which is available in the docket 

for this rulemaking. 

TABLE 4—HUMAN HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT FOR PHOSPHATE FERTILIZER PRODUCTION

Category & number 

of facilities 

modeled 

Cancer MIR 

(in 1 million) Cancer 

incidence 

(cases per 

year) 

Population 

with risks 

of 1-in-1 

million or 

more 

Population 

with risks 

of 10-in-1 

million or 

more 

Max chronic non-cancer 

HI 

Worst-case max 

Based on acute non-cancer HQ 

actual 

emissions 

Based on 

allowable 

emissions 

Based on 

actual 

emissions 

Based on 

allowable 

emissions 

Phosphate Fertilizer .....

(11 facilities) .................

0.5 0.5 0.001 0 0 0.003 0.003 HQREL = 0.4 (elemental 

Hg) 

HQAEGL¥1 = 0.09 

(hydrofluoric acid). 

Facility-wide (11 facilities).0.5 .................. 0.001 0 0 0.2 

Based on actual emissions for the 

Phosphate Fertilizer Production source 

category, the MIR was estimated to be 

less than 1-in-1 million, the maximum 

chronic non-cancer TOSHI value was 

estimated to be up to 0.003, and the 

maximum off-site acute HQ value was 

estimated to be up to 0.4. The total 

estimated national cancer incidence 

from this source category, based on 

actual emission levels, was 0.001 excess 

cancer cases per year, or one case in 

every 1,000 years. Based on MACTallowable emissions for the Phosphate 

Fertilizer Production source category, 

the MIR was estimated to be less than 

1-in-1 million, and the maximum 

chronic non-cancer TOSHI value was 

estimated to be up to 0.003. We also 

found there were emissions of several 

PB–HAP with an available RTR 

multipathway screening value, and, 

with the exception of Hg compounds, 

the reported emissions of these HAP 


rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
50422 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 160 / Wednesday, August 19, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

(i.e., lead compounds, and cadmium 

compounds) were below the 

multipathway screening value for each 

compound. One facility emitted 

divalent Hg (Hg2∂) above the Tier I 

screening threshold level, exceeding the 

screening threshold by a factor of 20. 

Consequently, we conducted a Tier II 

screening assessment for Hg2∂. This 

assessment uses the assumption that the 

biological productivity limitation of 

each lake is 1 gram of fish per acre of 

water, meaning that in order to fulfill 

the adult ingestion rate, a fisher would 

need to fish from 373 total acres of 

lakes. The result of this analysis was the 

development of a site-specific emission 

screening threshold for Hg2∂. We 

compared this Tier II screening 

threshold for Hg2∂ to the facility’s Hg2∂

emissions. The facility’s emissions 

exceeded the Tier II screening threshold 

by a factor of 3. 

Additionally, to refine our Hg Tier II 

Screen for this facility, we first 

examined the set of lakes from which 

the angler ingested fish. Any lakes that 

appeared to not be fishable or publicly 

accessible were removed from the 

assessment, and the screening 

assessment was repeated. After we made 

the determination the three critical lakes 

were fishable, we analyzed the hourly 

meteorology data from which the Tier II 

meteorology statistics were derived. 

Using buoyancy and momentum 

equations from literature, and 

assumptions about facility fenceline 

boundaries, we estimated by hour the 

height achieved by the emission plume 

before it moved laterally beyond the 

assumed fenceline. If the plume height 

was above the mixing height, we 

assumed there was no chemical 

exposure for that hour. The cumulative 

loss of chemical being released above 

the mixing height reduces the exposure 

and decreases the Tier II screening 

quotient. Although the refined Tier II 

analysis for Hg emissions indicated a 

23-percent loss of emissions above the 

mixing layer due to plume rise, this 

reduction still resulted in an angler 

screening non-cancer value equal to 2. 

For this facility, after we performed 

the lake and plume rise analyses, we 

reran the relevant Tier II screening 

scenarios for the travelling subsistence 

angler in TRIM.FaTE with the same 

hourly meteorology data and hourly 

plume-rise adjustments from which the 

Tier II meteorology statistics were 

derived. The use of the time-series 

meteorology reduced the screening 

value further to a value of 0.6. For this 

source category our analysis indicated 

no potential for multipathway impacts 

of concern from this facility. The 

maximum facility-wide MIR was less 

than or equal to 1-in-1 million and the 

maximum facility-wide TOSHI was 0.2. 

We weighed all health risk factors in our 

risk acceptability determination, and we 

proposed that the residual risks from the 

Phosphate Fertilizer Production source 

category are acceptable. 

We then considered whether the 

Phosphate Fertilizer Production 

NESHAP provides an ample margin of 

safety to protect public health and 

prevents, taking into consideration 

costs, energy, safety, and other relevant 

factors, an adverse environmental effect. 

In considering whether the standards 

should be tightened to provide an ample 

margin of safety to protect public health, 

we considered the same risk factors that 

we considered for our acceptability 

determination and also considered the 

costs, technological feasibility and other 

relevant factors related to emissions 

control options that might reduce risk 

associated with emissions from the 

source category. We proposed that the 

current standards provided an ample 

margin of safety to protect public health. 

With respect to adverse environmental 

effects, none of the individual modeled 

concentrations for any facility in the 

source category exceeded any of the 

ecological benchmarks (either the 

LOAEL or NOAEL). Based on the results 

of our screening analysis for risks to the 

environment, we also proposed that the 

current standards prevent an adverse 

environmental effect. 

2. How did the risk review change for 

the Phosphate Fertilizer Production 

source category? 

The residual risk review for the 

Phosphate Fertilizer Production source 

category did not change since proposal 

(79 FR 66512). Accordingly, we are not 

tightening the standards under section 

112(f)(2) based on the residual risk 

review, and are thus readopting the 

existing standards under section 

112(f)(2). 

3. What key comments did we receive 

on the risk review, and what are our 

responses? 

The comments received on the 

proposed residual risk review were 

generally supportive of our 

determination of risk acceptability and 

ample margin of safety analysis. 

However, we received several comments 

requesting we make changes to the 

residual risk review, including: 

• Update the residual risk review with the 

recommendations and information from the 

NAS; 

• Incorporate the best currently available 

information on children’s exposure to lead, 

and go beyond using the 2008 Lead NAAQS; 

• Reevaluate whether the residual risk 

review is consistent with the key 

recommendations made by the SAB; 

• Clarify in the rulemaking docket that 

data received by industry were 

commensurate with the relevant statutory 

obligations; 

• Revise HF emission data because they 

are not representative of actual HF emissions, 

but rather overestimate emissions causing the 

residual risk review to have an overly 

conservative bias; 

• Reconsider the assumption used in the 

NESHAP residual risk assessment that all 

chromium is hexavalent chromium; 

• Revise certain stack parameters used in 

the analysis; 

• Clarify meteorological data used in the 

analysis; 

• Adequately explain rationale for the 

maximum 1-hour emission rate used for 

determining potential acute exposures; 

• Clarify the selection of ecological 

assessment endpoints; and 

• Provide some quantitative or qualitative 

rationale for the characterization of the 

exposure modeling uncertainty. 

We evaluated the comments and 

determined that no changes were 

needed. Since none of these comments 

had an effect on the final rule, their 

summaries and corresponding EPA 

responses are not included in this 

preamble. A summary of these 

comments and our responses can be 

found in the Comment Summary and 

Response document available in the 

docket for this action (EPA–HQ–OAR– 

2012–0522). 

4. What is the rationale for our final 

approach and final decisions for the risk 

review? 

For the reasons explained in the 

proposed rule, we determined that the 

risks from the Phosphate Fertilizer 

Production source category are 

acceptable, the current emissions 

standards provide an ample margin of 

safety to protect public health, and 

prevent an adverse environmental 

effect. Since proposal, neither the risk 

assessment nor our determinations 

regarding risk acceptability, ample 

margin of safety or adverse 

environmental effects have changed. 

Therefore, pursuant to CAA section 

112(f)(2), we are finalizing our residual 

risk review as proposed. 

B. Technology Review for the Phosphate 

Fertilizer Production Source Category 

1. What did we propose pursuant to 

CAA section 112(d)(6) for the Phosphate 

Fertilizer Production source category? 

Pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(6), we 

conducted a technology review, which 

focused on identifying and evaluating 

developments in practices, processes, 

and control technologies for the 

emission sources in the Phosphate 


rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 160 / Wednesday, August 19, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 50423 

Fertilizer Production source category. At 

proposal, we did not identify costeffective developments in practices, 

processes, or control technologies that 

warrant revisions to the NESHAP for 

this source category. More information 

concerning our technology review can 

be found in the memorandum, ‘‘CAA 

Section 111(b)(1)(B) and 112(d)(6) 

Reviews for the Phosphate Fertilizer 

Production and Phosphate Fertilizer 

Production Source Categories,’’ which is 

available in the docket, and in the 

preamble to the proposed rule, 79 FR 

66538–66539. 

2. How did the technology review 

change for the Phosphate Fertilizer 

Production source category? 

The technology review for the 

Phosphate Fertilizer Production source 

category did not change since proposal 

(79 FR 66512). Therefore, we are not 

revising NESHAP subpart BB based on 

the technology review. 

3. What key comments did we receive 

on the technology review, and what are 

our responses? 

Commenters agreed with our 

conclusion that there are no new costeffective developments in practices, 

processes, or control technologies that 

can be applied to the Phosphate 

Fertilizer Production source category 

that would reduce HAP emissions 

below current levels. 

4. What is the rationale for our final 

approach for the technology review? 

For the reasons explained in the 

proposed rule, we concluded that 

additional standards are not necessary 

pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(6); 

therefore, we are not finalizing changes 

to NESHAP subpart BB as part of our 

technology review. 

C. NSPS Review for the Phosphate 

Fertilizer Production Source Category 

The NSPS review focused on the 

emission limitations that have been 

adequately demonstrated to be achieved 

in practice, taking into account the cost 

of achieving such reduction and any 

non-air quality health and 

environmental impact and energy 

requirements. Determining the BSER 

that has been adequately demonstrated 

and the emission limitations achieved 

in practice necessarily involves 

consideration of emission reduction 

methods in use at existing phosphate 

fertilizer production plants. To 

determine the BSER, the EPA performed 

an extensive review of several recent 

sources of information including a 

thorough search of the RBLC, section 

114 data received from industry and 

other relevant sources. 

Our review considered the emission 

limitations that are currently achieved 

in practice, and found that more 

stringent standards are not achievable 

for this source category. When 

evaluating the emissions from various 

process lines, we observed differences 

in emissions levels, but did not identify 

any patterns in emission reductions 

based on control technology 

configuration. More information 

concerning our NSPS review can be 

found in the memorandum, ‘‘CAA 

Section 111(b)(1)(B) and 112(d)(6) 

Reviews for the Phosphoric Acid 

Manufacturing and Phosphate Fertilizer 

Production Source Categories.’’ Though 

some of the sources are emitting at 

levels well below the current NSPS, 

other sources are not. We evaluated 

emissions based on control technologies 

and practices used by facilities, and 

found that the same technologies and 

practices yielded different results for 

different facilities. Therefore, we 

determined that we cannot conclude 

that new and modified sources would 

be able to achieve a more stringent 

NSPS. As explained in the proposed 

rule, all Phosphate Fertilizer Production 

NSPS (under subpart V, subpart W, and 

subpart X) emission sources, and the 

control technologies that would be 

employed, are the same as those for the 

NESHAP regulating phosphate fertilizer 

plants, such that we reached the same 

conclusion that there are no identified 

developments in technology or practices 

that results in cost-effective emission 

reductions strategies. Therefore, we are 

finalizing our determination that 

revisions to NSPS subpart V, subpart W, 

and subpart X standards are not 

appropriate pursuant to CAA section 

111(b)(1)(B). 

D. Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunction 

Provisions for the Phosphate Fertilizer 

Production Source Category 

1. What SSM provisions did we propose 

for the Phosphate Fertilizer Production 

source category? 

To address the U.S. Court of Appeals 

for the District of Columbia Circuit 

vacatur of portions of the EPA’s CAA 

section 112 regulations governing the 

emissions of HAP during periods of 

SSM, Sierra Club v. EPA, 551 F.3d 1019 

(D.C. Cir. 2008), we proposed to revise 

and add certain provisions to the 

NESHAP subpart BB. We proposed to 

revise the General Provisions table 

(appendix A of NESHAP subpart BB) to 

change several references related to 

requirements that apply during periods 

of SSM. We also proposed to add the 

following provisions to the rule: (1) 

Work practice standards for periods of 

startup and shutdown in lieu of numeric 

emission limits; (2) the general duty to 

minimize emissions at all times; (3) 

performance testing conditions 

requirements; (4) site-specific 

monitoring plan requirements; and (5) 

malfunction recordkeeping and 

reporting requirements. These proposed 

changes are discussed in more detail in 

section V.E of this preamble where we 

describe these same proposed changes 

for NESHAP subpart AA. 

2. How did the SSM provisions change 

for the Phosphate Fertilizer Production 

source category? 

We are finalizing the proposed work 

practice standards for periods of startup 

and shutdown; however, in 

consideration of comments received 

during the public comment period for 

the proposed rulemaking (as discussed 

in sections VI.D.3.a and VI.D.3.b of this 

preamble), we are making changes to 

this work practice in order to clarify the 

standard applies in lieu of numeric 

emission limits and how compliance 

with the standard is demonstrated. 

Additionally, as discussed in section 

VI.D.3.c of this preamble, we added 

definitions of ‘‘startup’’ and 

‘‘shutdown’’ to provide additional 

clarity regarding when startup begins 

and ends, and when shutdown begins 

and ends. 

3. What key comments did we receive 

on the SSM provisions, and what are 

our responses? 

Comments were received regarding 

the proposed revisions to remove the 

SSM exemptions for the Phosphate 

Fertilizer Production source category, 

and the proposed work practice 

standards for periods of startup and 

shutdown. The following is a summary 

of some of the comments specific to the 

proposed work practice standards and 

our response to those comments. Other 

comments and our specific responses to 

those comments can be found in the 

Comment Summary and Response 

document available in the docket for 

this action (EPA–HQ–OAR–2012–0522). 

a. Work Practice Standard In Place Of 

Emission Limits—Comment. One 

commenter argued that the EPA should 

specify that the proposed work practices 

for plant startup and shutdown periods 

apply ‘‘in lieu of’’ any other emission 

standards, and that such periods should 

not be counted for testing, monitoring, 

or operating parameter requirements. 

The commenter noted that the proposed 

rule at 40 CFR 63.622(d) requires the 

use of work practices ‘‘to demonstrate 

compliance with any emission limits’’ 


rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
50424 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 160 / Wednesday, August 19, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

during periods of startup and shutdown. 

The commenter agrees with the EPA’s 

conclusion that it is not feasible to 

apply numeric limits to startup and 

shutdown because certain variables 

required to calculate emissions would 

be zero during such periods. The 

commenter also agreed with the EPA 

that existing emission control devices 

would still be effective during periods 

of startup or shutdown, if activated. 

However, the commenter recommended 

that the rule should clarify that startup 

and shutdown events should not be 

required to comply with the monitoring 

and operating parameter requirements 

because startup and shutdown events 

generally are not representative 

operating conditions for other 

compliance purposes, such as emissions 

testing. Instead, the commenter, as well 

as a second commenter, recommended 

that because the startup and shutdown 

periods are not representative, the rule 

should only require that (1) All 

emission control devices be kept active, 

and (2) owners and operators follow the 

general duty to control emissions, and 

owners and operators should not be 

required to monitor operating 

parameters during startup and 

shutdown periods. 

The commenter argued that the 

approach in the proposed rule at 40 CFR 

63.622(d) to require the use of work 

practices ‘‘to demonstrate compliance 

with any emission limits’’ during 

periods of startup and shutdown is 

‘‘directly inconsistent’’ with the 

approach that the EPA has applied to 

other source categories, where such 

practices clearly were prescribed ‘‘in 

lieu of’’ numeric emission limits that 

would otherwise apply. (The 

commenter cites, for example, 78 FR 

10015, February 12, 2013.) According to 

the commenter, the EPA made it clear 

in other industries’ rules that such work 

practice standards apply ‘‘in place of’’ 

or ‘‘in lieu of’’ numeric standards, 

including with respect to monitoring 

and recordkeeping requirements. (See 

id. at 10013 and 10015.) The commenter 

argues that according to the preamble 

language cited for those other 

industries, ‘‘there will no longer be a 

numeric emission standard applicable 

during startup and shutdown,’’ and the 

EPA recognizes that ‘‘the recordkeeping 

requirement must change to reflect the 

content of the work practice standard’’ 

(Id. at 10014). 

Therefore, the commenter 

recommended that the EPA should 

clearly explain that work practices are 

not applied to ‘‘demonstrate 

compliance’’ with numeric limits under 

subpart BB, which the EPA 

acknowledges are ‘‘not feasible’’ for 

startup and shutdown periods, and, 

instead, the work practices should be 

written to apply ‘‘in lieu of’’ the 

numeric limits during those periods. 

The commenter argues that without this 

clarification, it will appear that both the 

numeric standards and the work 

practice standards would apply during 

startup and shutdown. The commenter 

suggests that this can be corrected in the 

rule by using the ‘‘in lieu of’’ language 

used for other industries. 

Response. The commenter is correct 

that our intention at proposal was that 

the numeric emission limits would not 

apply during periods of startup and 

shutdown, but that facilities would 

comply with the work practice instead. 

We did not intend for the work practice 

to be a method to demonstrate 

compliance with the emission limit. We 

are replacing the phrasing ‘‘to 

demonstrate compliance’’ with ‘‘in lieu 

of’’ as this language is more consistent 

with our original intent. Accordingly, in 

the final rule, 40 CFR 63.622(d) 

specifies that the emission limits of 40 

CFR 63.622(a) do not apply during 

periods of startup and shutdown. 

Instead, owners and operators must 

follow the work practice specified in 40 

CFR 63.622(d). See section VI.D.3.b of 

this preamble for our response to 

commenters argument that owners and 

operators should not be required to 

monitor operating parameters during 

startup and shutdown periods. 

b. Applicability of Operating Limits— 

Comment. Two commenters 

recommended that the EPA amend the 

rule to make clear that the work practice 

standards for startup and shutdown also 

apply in lieu of the parametric 

monitoring requirements set forth in 

NESHAP subpart BB and make explicit 

that parametric operating requirements 

do not apply during times of startup and 

shutdown. 

One commenter argued that when the 

EPA established the flow rate and 

pressure drop parametric monitoring 

requirements in its 1999 final rule, the 

EPA concluded that requiring 

continuous monitoring of these 

parameters ‘‘help[ed] assure continuous 

compliance with the emission limit’’ (64 

FR 31365, June 10, 1999). The 

commenter also asserted that the rule 

specifies that ‘‘[t]he emission limitations 

and operating parameter requirements 

of this subpart do not apply during 

periods of startup, shutdown, or 

malfunction . . . ’’ (40 CFR 63.620(e)). 

The commenter argued that this was a 

reasonable action because the operating 

parameter ranges are established during 

annual performance tests, and these 

tests cannot be performed during startup 

and shutdown conditions. 

The commenter suggested that in the 

proposed rule, the EPA exempted 

compliance with the emission limits 

during startup and shutdown periods, 

imposed work practice standards in lieu 

thereof, and retained the prohibition on 

conducting a performance test during 

periods of startup or shutdown (79 FR 

66582 (proposed 40 CFR 63.626(d)). The 

commenter suggested that the proposed 

rule is silent on the applicability of the 

parametric monitoring requirements 

during startup and shutdown. The 

commenter asserted that because the 

parametric monitoring provisions 

provide an inference of compliance with 

the emission limits (64 FR 31365, June 

10, 1999), and these emission limits do 

not apply during startup and shutdown, 

the commenter concluded that the 

parametric monitoring provisions 

similarly should not apply during 

startups and shutdowns. 

The commenters pointed to two 

recent EPA NESHAP rulemakings to 

support their conclusion. First, the 

commenters argued that in its 

industrial, commercial and institutional 

boilers and process heaters NESHAP 

reconsideration proposal (hereinafter, 

the ‘‘Boiler NESHAP’’), the EPA, 

responding to a comment soliciting 

clarification ‘‘that the operating limits 

and opacity limits do not apply during 

periods of startup and shutdown,’’ 

stated that with the finalization of work 

practice standards, ‘‘EPA agrees that the 

requested clarification is what was 

intended in the final rule’’ (76 FR 80598 

and 80615, December 23, 2011.) The 

commenters asserted that to this end, in 

its response to the reconsideration, the 

EPA made clear that affected sources 

must comply with ‘‘all applicable 

emissions and operating limits at all 

times the unit is operating except for 

periods that meet the definitions of 

startup and shutdown in this subpart, 

during which times you must comply 

with these work practices’’ (78 FR 7138 

and 7142, January 31, 2013.) The 

commenters noted that in the Boiler 

NESHAP, the EPA required the 

implementation of work practice 

standards in lieu of compliance with the 

operating parameter requirements 

during startup and shutdown by (1) 

Excluding periods of startup and 

shutdown from the averaging period (Id. 

at 7187, 40 CFR 63.7575, the definition 

of a 30-day rolling average’’ excludes 

‘‘hours during startup and shutdown’’), 

and (2) expressly stating that the 

‘‘standards’’ (the emission limits and 

operating requirements) do not apply 

during periods of startup or shutdown. 

(Id. at 7163, 40 CFR 63.7500(f), titled 

‘‘What emission limitations, work 


rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 160 / Wednesday, August 19, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 50425 

practice standards, and operating limits 

must I meet?’’ applies ‘‘at all times the 

affected unit is operating, except during 

periods of startup and shutdown during 

which time you must comply only with 

Table 3 of this subpart’’). 

Second, the commenters argued that 

in its Portland Cement NESHAP, the 

EPA specified an operating limit for 

kilns, identified as a temperature limit 

established during a performance test, 

and that the temperature limit applied 

at all times the raw mill is operating, 

‘‘except during periods of startup and 

shutdown’’ (78 FR 10039, February 12, 

2013, 40 CFR 63.1346(a)(1).) Further, for 

the continuous monitoring 

requirements, including operating 

limits, the Portland Cement NESHAP 

required operating of the monitoring 

system at all times the affected source 

is operating, ‘‘[e]xcept for periods of 

startup and shutdown’’ (Id. at 10041, 40 

CFR 63.1348(b)(1)(ii).) 

The commenters argued that given the 

EPA’s conclusion in the Proposed Rule 

that the emission limits should not 

apply during startup and shutdown, and 

because the parametric monitoring 

requirements are established during a 

performance test (which cannot be 

performed during a startup or a 

shutdown) and used to infer compliance 

with the emission limits, the EPA 

should make clear in the final rule that 

the operating parameters requirements 

do not apply during a startup or a 

shutdown. The commenter 

recommended that the EPA should 

make this explicit: (1) In the operating 

and monitoring requirement section of 

subpart BB (proposed 40 CFR 63.625), 

and (2) by defining the averaging period 

(currently daily) as excluding periods of 

startup and shutdown (Proposed 40 CFR 

part 63, subpart BB, Table 4). As an 

alternative, the commenters 

recommended that if the EPA continues 

to require compliance with the 

parametric monitoring requirements 

during startup and shutdown periods, 

then the EPA should adopt a longer 

averaging period, from daily to 30 days, 

to allow for the effects of startups and 

shutdowns to be reduced by a longer 

period of steady-state operations. The 

commenter noted that the Boiler 

NESHAP has a 30-day averaging period 

for pressure drop and liquid flow rate, 

and excludes periods of startup and 

shutdown from the averaging period (40 

CFR 63.7575, definition of ‘‘30-day 

rolling average’’ and 40 CFR part 63, 

subpart DDDDD, Table 4). The 

commenter stated that a 30-day 

averaging period would be substantially 

more stringent than the Boiler NESHAP 

approach since it would include periods 

of startup and shutdown, while at the 

same time avoid misleading 

‘‘exceedances’’ caused by the inclusion 

of periods of startup and shutdown 

compared to daily average parametric 

limits. 

Response. We disagree with the 

commenters about the applicability of 

the operating limits. Based on these 

comments, we have clarified in the final 

rule at 40 CFR 63.622(d) that to comply 

with the work practice during periods of 

startup and shutdown, facilities must 

monitor the operating parameters 

specified in Table 3 to subpart BB and 

comply with the operating limits 

specified in Table 4 of subpart BB. The 

purpose of the work practice is to 

ensure that the air pollution control 

equipment that is used to comply with 

the emission limit during normal 

operations is operated during periods of 

startup and shutdown. Monitoring of 

control device operating parameters is 

necessary to demonstrate compliance 

with the work practice. We have 

concluded that it is reasonable for the 

control device at phosphate fertilizer 

production processes to meet the same 

operating limits during startup and 

shutdown that apply during normal 

operation, and that it is not necessary to 

specify different averaging times for 

periods of startup and shutdown. 

Meeting the operating limits of Table 4 

of subpart BB will ensure that owners 

and operators meet the General Duty 

requirement to operate and maintain the 

affected source and associated air 

pollution control equipment in a 

manner consistent with safety and good 

air pollution control practices for 

minimizing emissions. 

The analogies that the commenters 

made to the Boiler NESHAP and the 

Portland Cement NESHAP are not 

relevant to this rulemaking. In each 

rulemaking, we consider the feasibility 

of applying standards during startup 

and shutdown based on relevant process 

considerations for each source category, 

the pollutants regulated, and control 

devices on which the rule is based. In 

developing this rule, we obtained 

information on the operation of control 

devices during startup and shutdown 

periods in the CAA section 114 survey 

issued to the phosphate fertilizer 

production industry. Based on survey 

results, we concluded that for this 

source category, control devices (i.e., 

absorbers) could be operated during 

periods of startup and shutdown. We 

found no indication that process 

operations during startup and shutdown 

would interfere with the ability to 

operate the relevant control devices 

according to good engineering practice. 

Moreover, the commenters provided no 

technical justification as to why a 

different operating limit is needed 

during startup and shutdown. 

Regarding the comparison to the 

industrial boiler NESHAP, the operation 

of boilers and their associated control 

devices are different than phosphate 

fertilizer production plants. While 

boiler control devices do not have to 

comply with specific operating limits 

during startup or shutdown, they must 

meet a work practice that includes firing 

clean fuels, operating relevant control 

devices (e.g., absorbers) as expeditiously 

as possible, and monitoring the 

applicable operating parameters (e.g., 

flow rate) to demonstrate that the 

control devices are being operated 

properly. The EPA currently is 

reconsidering the control requirements 

for industrial boilers during startup and 

shutdown (80 FR 3090, January 21, 

2015). In the proposed action on 

reconsideration, we pointed out that 

some of the control devices used for 

boilers cannot be operated during the 

full duration of startup and shutdown 

because of safety concerns and the 

possibility of control equipment 

degradation due to fouling and 

corrosion. The control devices used for 

phosphate fertilizer production do not 

pose these same risks. Likewise, the fact 

that the Portland Cement NESHAP does 

not require monitoring of kiln 

temperature during startup and 

shutdown is not relevant. The Portland 

Cement NESHAP requires maintaining a 

kiln temperature as part of the MACT 

operating limit. The operating limit for 

Portland Cement does not apply during 

startup and shutdown because it is not 

physically possible to maintain a 

constant temperature during startup and 

shutdown of a kiln. In contrast, the 

feasibility of operating the control 

devices used to control HAP emissions 

from phosphate fertilizer production is 

not limited by specific process operating 

conditions. Therefore, it is feasible to 

operate the devices during startup and 

shutdown, and we have determined that 

it is reasonable to do so considering 

cost, nonair health and environmental 

impacts, and energy requirements. 

c. Definition of Startup and 

Shutdown—Comment. Several 

commenters stated that it is not feasible 

to base the conclusion of a ‘‘shutdown’’ 

on the point at which all feed has ‘‘been 

processed.’’ Instead, they suggested that 

the EPA should clarify the work practice 

standard of keeping all emission control 

equipment active during shutdowns. 

The commenters reported that facilities 

in the industry consider the 

commencement of ‘‘shutdown’’ as the 

moment at which the plant ceases 

adding feed to the affected process, 

rather than basing shutdown on when 


rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
50426 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 160 / Wednesday, August 19, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

11Based on the EPA memorandum, ‘‘Issuance of 

the Clean Air Act National Stack Testing 

Guidance,’’ dated April 27, 2009. 

all feed materials have been processed 

through the process. The commenters 

recommended that the EPA should 

define ‘‘shutdown’’ to begin when the 

facility ceases adding feed to an affected 

process line, and to conclude when the 

affected process line equipment is 

deactivated, even though some feed or 

residues may still be present within 

particular parts of the process. 

One of the commenters also noted 

that it is common practice to have shortterm shutdown of process inputs for 

temporary maintenance work (including 

work on emission control equipment) 

where the entire system is not emptied. 

In these cases, feed of phosphoric acid 

and ammonia to the process is 

suspended as is flow from the reactor to 

the granulator. The commenter argued 

that because the source of fluoride to the 

system has ceased and dust generating 

material flows are suspended, there 

should be no significant source of 

emissions to control, and it is not 

necessary to require the utilization of 

control devices until all feed material 

has been processed. Instead, the 

commenter recommended that an 

affected entity should be allowed to turn 

off control devices when reactor and 

granulator feeds have been stopped, 

unless the system is being emptied, in 

which case control devices should be 

required as long as the material 

handling system is in operation. 

Response. We agree with the 

commenters that the rule needs to have 

a more precise definition of startup and 

shutdown that more clearly and 

reasonably establishes the times when 

the work practice applies and when the 

emission limits apply. Accordingly, we 

added a definition of ‘‘startup’’ and 

‘‘shutdown’’ in the Definitions section 

of the final rule to specify when startup 

begins and ends, and when shutdown 

begins and ends. 

Based on additional information 

provided by industry (see ‘‘Email 

Correspondence Received After 

Comment Period re Startup Shutdown 

(May 5, 2015),’’ which is available in 

Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2012– 

0522), we are including a definition of 

startup in the final rule. The final rule 

defines startup as commencing when 

any feed material is first introduced into 

an affected source and ends when feed 

material is fully loaded into the affected 

source. Regarding shutdown, we agree 

with the commenters that it is not 

feasible to process all feed material from 

a process prior to shutting down most 

equipment at a facility. Such 

requirement would imply that the 

control device must be operated after 

the shutdown ends. The final rule 

defines shutdown as commencing when 

the facility ceases adding feed to an 

affected source and ends when the 

affected source is deactivated, regardless 

of whether feed material is present in 

the affected source. This definition will 

address concerns about temporary 

shutdowns as well as shutdowns of 

longer duration. 

In addition, the final rule at 40 CFR 

63.622(d) specifies that any control 

device used at the affected source must 

be operated during the entire period of 

startup and shutdown, and must meet 

the operating limits in Table 4 of the 

rule. 

4. What is the rationale for our final 

decisions for the SSM provisions? 

For the reasons provided above and in 

the preamble for the proposed rule, we 

are finalizing the proposed revisions to 

the General Provisions table (appendix 

A of NESHAP subpart BB) to change 

several references related to 

requirements that apply during periods 

of SSM. For these same reasons, we are 

also finalizing the addition of the 

following proposed provisions to 

NESHAP subpart BB: (1) Work practice 

standards for periods of startup and 

shutdown in lieu of numeric emission 

limits; (2) the general duty to minimize 

emissions at all times; (3) performance 

testing conditions requirements; (4) sitespecific monitoring plan requirements; 

and (5) malfunction recordkeeping and 

reporting requirements. 

E. Other Changes Made to the 

Phosphate Fertilizer Production 

NESHAP and NSPS 

1. What other changes did we propose 

for the Phosphate Fertilizer Production 

NESHAP and NSPS? 

a. Clarifications to Applicability and 

Certain Definitions —i. NESHAP 

Subpart BB. As stated in the preamble 

to the proposed rule, to ensure the 

emission standards reflect inclusion of 

HAP emissions from all sources in the 

source category, we proposed to clarify 

the applicability of the NESHAP to 

include reaction products of ammonia 

and phosphoric acid, and not just 

diammonium and monoammonium 

phosphate. 

For consistency between NESHAP 

subpart AA and NESHAP subpart BB, 

we also proposed conditions in 

NESHAP subpart BB that exclude (like 

NESHAP subpart AA does) the use of 

evaporative cooling towers for any 

liquid effluent from any wet scrubbing 

device installed to control HF emissions 

from process equipment. Lastly, we 

proposed to amend the definitions of 

‘‘diammonium and/or monoammonium 

phosphate process line,’’ ‘‘granular 

triple superphosphate process line,’’ 

and ‘‘granular triple superphosphate 

storage building’’ to include relevant 

emission points, and to remove text 

from the applicability section that is 

duplicative of the revised definitions. 

ii. NSPS Subpart V. We did not 

propose changes to applicability or 

definitions in NSPS subpart V. 

iii. NSPS Subpart W. We proposed 

changing the word ‘‘cookers’’ as listed 

in 40 CFR 60.230(a) to ‘‘coolers’’ in 

order to correct the typographical error. 

iv. NSPS Subpart X. We did not 

propose changes to applicability or 

definitions in NSPS subpart X. 

b. Testing, Monitoring, Recordkeeping 

and Reporting—i. NESHAP Subpart BB. 

As stated in the preamble to the 

proposed rule, to provide flexibility, we 

proposed several monitoring options, 

including pressure and temperature 

measurements, as alternatives to 

monitoring of absorber differential 

pressure. We also proposed monitoring 

the absorber inlet gas flow rate along 

with the influent absorber liquid flow 

rate (and determining liquid-to-gas 

ratio) in lieu of monitoring only the 

absorber inlet liquid flow rate. 

In addition, we proposed removing 

the requirement that facilities may not 

implement new operating parameter 

ranges until the Administrator has 

approved them, or 30 days have passed 

since submission of the performance 

test results. We proposed that facilities 

must immediately comply with new 

operating ranges when they are 

developed and submitted; and new 

operating ranges must be established 

using the most recent performance test 

conducted by a facility, which allows 

for changes in control device operation 

to be appropriately reflected. 

We also proposed monitoring 

requirements for fabric filters in 

NESHAP subpart BB because we 

identified two processes that used fabric 

filters rather than wet scrubbing as 

control technology. 

As stated in the preamble to the 

proposed rule, we modified the 

language for the conditions under which 

testing must be conducted to require 

that testing be conducted at ‘‘maximum 

representative operating conditions’’ for 

the process.11

In keeping with the general provisions 

for CMS (including CEMS and CPMS), 

we proposed the addition of a sitespecific monitoring plan and calibration 

requirements for CMS. Provisions were 

also proposed that included electronic 

reporting of stack test data. We also 


rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 160 / Wednesday, August 19, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 50427 

proposed modifying the format of 

NESHAP subpart BB to reference tables 

for emissions limits and monitoring 

requirements. 

Finally, we proposed HF standards in 

NESHAP subpart BB by translating the 

current total fluoride limits (lb total F/ 

ton P2O5 feed) into HF limits (lb HF/ton 

P2O5 feed). To comply with HF 

standards, we proposed that facilities 

use EPA Method 320. 

ii. NSPS Subpart V. We proposed new 

monitoring and recordkeeping 

requirements for any granular 

diammonium phosphate plant that 

commences construction, modification 

or reconstruction after November 7, 

2014 to ensure continuous compliance 

with the standard. As stated in the 

preamble to the proposed rule, to ensure 

that the process scrubbing system is 

properly maintained over time; ensure 

continuous compliance with standards; 

and improve data accessibility, we 

proposed the owner or operator 

establish an allowable range for the 

pressure drop through the process 

scrubbing system. We also proposed 

that the owner or operator keep records 

of the daily average pressure drop 

through the process scrubbing system, 

and keep records of deviations. 

For consistency with terminology 

used in the associated NESHAP subpart 

BB, we proposed changing the term 

‘‘scrubbing system’’ to ‘‘absorber’’ in 

NSPS subpart V. 

iii. NSPS Subpart W. We proposed 

new monitoring and recordkeeping 

requirements for any TSP plant that 

commences construction, modification 

or reconstruction after November 7, 

2014 to ensure continuous compliance 

with the standard. As stated in the 

preamble to the proposed rule, to ensure 

that the process scrubbing system is 

properly maintained over time; ensure 

continuous compliance with standards; 

and improve data accessibility, we 

proposed the owner or operator 

establish an allowable range for the 

pressure drop through the process 

scrubbing system. We also proposed 

that the owner or operator keep records 

of the daily average pressure drop 

through the process scrubbing system, 

and keep records of deviations. 

For consistency with terminology 

used in the associated NESHAP subpart 

BB, we proposed changing the term 

‘‘process scrubbing system’’ to 

‘‘absorber’’ in NSPS subpart W. 

iv. NSPS Subpart X. We proposed 

new monitoring and recordkeeping 

requirements for any GTSP storage 

facility that commences construction, 

modification or reconstruction after 

November 7, 2014 to ensure continuous 

compliance with the standard. As stated 

in the preamble to the proposed rule, to 

ensure that the process scrubbing 

system is properly maintained over 

time; ensure continuous compliance 

with standards; and improve data 

accessibility, we proposed the owner or 

operator establish an allowable range for 

the pressure drop through the process 

scrubbing system. We also proposed 

that the owner or operator keep records 

of the daily average pressure drop 

through the process scrubbing system, 

and keep records of deviations. 

For consistency with terminology 

used in the associated NESHAP subpart 

BB, we proposed changing the term 

‘‘process scrubbing system’’ to 

‘‘absorber’’ in NSPS subpart X. 

2. How did the provisions regarding 

these other proposed changes to the 

Phosphate Fertilizer Production 

NESHAP and NSPS change since 

proposal? 

a. Clarifications to Applicability and 

Certain Definitions—i. NESHAP Subpart 

BB. In consideration of comments 

received during the public comment 

period for the proposed rulemaking, we 

are defining ‘‘phosphate fertilizer 

process line’’ and ‘‘phosphate fertilizer 

production plant’’ separately as 

discussed in section VI.E.3.a.i of this 

preamble. We are also revising rule 

language at 40 CFR 63.620(b)(1), 

63.622(a), 63.622(a)(1), 63.622(a)(2), 

63.625(a), 63.626(f), in Table 1, and in 

Table 2 to accommodate this change. 

We are also removing the proposed 

language ‘‘includes, but is not limited 

to’’ in the definition of DAP and/or 

MAP process line for reasons discussed 

in section VI.E.3.a.ii of this preamble. 

ii. NSPS Subpart V. We are not 

making changes to applicability or 

definitions in NSPS subpart V. 

iii. NSPS Subpart W. We are not 

making changes to applicability or 

definitions in NSPS subpart W. 

iv. NSPS Subpart X. We are not 

making changes to applicability or 

definitions in NSPS subpart X. 

b. Testing, Monitoring, Recordkeeping 

and Reporting.—i. NESHAP Subpart BB. 

We have not made any changes to our 

proposed determination that pressure 

drop is not an appropriate monitoring 

parameter for absorbers that are 

designed to operate with pressure drops 

of 5 inches of water column or less. 

However, in consideration of comments 

received during the public comment 

period for the proposed rulemaking, we 

are not adopting the proposed options to 

monitor: (1) The temperature at the wet 

scrubber gas stream outlet and pressure 

at the liquid inlet of the absorber, or (2) 

the temperature at the scrubber gas 

stream outlet and scrubber gas stream 

inlet. Instead, we have revised Table 3 

of NESHAP subpart BB to require 

liquid-to-gas ratio monitoring for lowenergy absorbers, and influent liquid 

flow and pressure drop monitoring for 

high-energy absorbers; and we are 

keeping liquid-to-gas ratio monitoring as 

an option for high-energy absorbers in 

the final rule. (See sections VI.E.3.b.i 

and VI.E.3.b.ii of this preamble for 

details.) 

In addition to these revisions, we are 

making corrections at 40 CFR 63.627(a) 

to clarify the procedures for establishing 

a new operating limit based on the most 

recent performance test. We are also 

revising the requirements at 40 CFR 

63.625(d)(1)(ii)(B) to remove the 

requirement that facilities must request 

and obtain approval of the 

Administrator for changing operating 

limits. (See section VI.E.3.b.iv and 

VI.E.3.b.v of this preamble for details.) 

Also, for reasons discussed in the 

Comment Summary and Response 

document available in the docket, we 

are revising the annual testing schedule 

in the final rule at 40 CFR 63.626(b), 

and the terminology for ‘‘maximum 

representative operating conditions’’ in 

the final rule at 40 CFR 63.626(d). 

We are not making any changes to the 

proposed addition of a site-specific 

monitoring plan and calibration 

requirements for CMS. We are also 

keeping the proposed term ‘‘absorber’’ 

in lieu of ‘‘scrubber,’’ as well as the 

proposed format of NESHAP subpart BB 

to reference tables for emissions limits 

and monitoring requirements. 

Lastly, we are retaining the current 

total fluoride limits and not adopting 

the proposed HF standards and 

associated EPA Method 320 testing in 

NESHAP subpart BB (see section 

VI.E.3.c of this preamble for details). 

ii. NSPS Subpart V. We are not 

making changes to the proposed 

monitoring and recordkeeping 

requirements for any granular 

diammonium phosphate plant that 

commences construction, modification 

or reconstruction after August 19, 2015 

to ensure continuous compliance with 

the standard. We are also keeping the 

proposed term ‘‘absorber’’ in lieu of 

‘‘scrubbing system.’’ 

iii. NSPS Subpart W. We are not 

making changes to the proposed 

monitoring and recordkeeping 

requirements for any TSP plant that 

commences construction, modification 

or reconstruction after August 19, 2015 

to ensure continuous compliance with 

the standard. We are also keeping the 

proposed term ‘‘absorber’’ in lieu of 

‘‘process scrubbing system.’’ 

iv. NSPS Subpart X. We are not 

making changes to the proposed 


rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
50428 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 160 / Wednesday, August 19, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

monitoring and recordkeeping 

requirements for any GTSP storage 

facility that commences construction, 

modification or reconstruction after 

August 19, 2015 to ensure continuous 

compliance with the standard. We are 

also keeping the proposed term 

‘‘absorber’’ in lieu of ‘‘process scrubbing 

system.’’ 

3. What key comments did we receive 

on the other changes to the Phosphate 

Fertilizer Production NESHAP and 

NSPS, and what are our responses? 

Several comments were received 

regarding the proposed clarifications to 

applicability and certain definitions, 

revisions to testing, monitoring, 

recordkeeping and reporting, translation 

of total fluoride to HF emission limits, 

and revisions to other provisions for the 

Phosphate Fertilizer Production source 

category. The following is a summary of 

several of these comments and our 

response to those comments. Other 

comments received and our responses to 

those comments can be found in the 

Comment Summary and Response 

document available in the docket for 

this action (EPA–HQ–OAR–2012–0522). 

a. Applicability Clarifications and 

Certain Definitions—i. Phosphate 

Fertilizer Process Line—Comment. 

Several commenters disapproved of the 

proposed expansion of the applicability 

provision for DAP and MAP process 

lines in 40 CFR 63.620(b)(1) to include 

‘‘any process line that produces a 

reaction product of ammonia and 

phosphoric acid.’’ One commenter 

asserted that the expanded language 

could include production of nongranular products that were in existence 

since the original NESHAP but not 

regulated by it, and EPA provided no 

basis for expansion of applicability to 

bring in these processes now. Other 

commenters also reiterated that the 

proposed applicability provision for 

DAP and MAP process lines was vague 

and overbroad and would inadvertently 

regulate any process that combines 

ammonia and phosphoric acid 

regardless of the end-product or purpose 

of facility. One commenter 

recommended a change in the definition 

to clarify that subpart BB applies 

specifically to solid, granulated 

phosphate products to avoid inclusion 

of liquid fertilizer products in the 

proposed rule. 

Response. The Agency agrees with the 

commenter that the proposed language 

could be interpreted to include 

production of non-granular products at 

a phosphate fertilizer production plant. 

It was not our intent to expand the 

applicability of 40 CFR subpart BB to 

include the production of non-granular 

products at a phosphate fertilizer 

production plant; therefore, we are 

revising the definitions of ‘‘phosphate 

fertilizer process line’’ and ‘‘phosphate 

fertilizer production plant’’ in the final 

rule at 40 CFR 63.621 to reference 

granular phosphate fertilizer. Also, the 

definitions of phosphate fertilizer 

process line and phosphate fertilizer 

production plant were defined together 

at proposal (phosphate fertilizer process 

line or production plant), but are 

defined separately in the final rule for 

clarity. The definition of phosphate 

fertilizer process line means ‘‘any 

process line that manufactures a 

granular phosphate fertilizer by reacting 

phosphoric acid with ammonia. A 

phosphate fertilizer process line 

includes: Reactors, granulators, dryers, 

coolers, screens, and mills.’’ The 

definition of phosphate fertilizer 

production plant means ‘‘any 

production plant that manufactures a 

granular phosphate fertilizer by reacting 

phosphoric acid with ammonia.’’ 

As an outgrowth of this comment, the 

Agency revised rule language 

surrounding the use of ‘‘phosphate 

fertilizer process line,’’ to create clarity 

and consistency in rule language. 

Specifically, where the phrase 

‘‘diammonium and/or monoammonium 

phosphate process line and any process 

line that produces a reaction product of 

ammonia and phosphoric acid’’ was 

used at proposal, this phrase now reads 

‘‘phosphate fertilizer process line (e.g., 

diammonium and/or monoammonium 

phosphate process line)’’ in the 

finalized rule. This phrasing was 

incorporated into final rule language at 

40 CFR 63.620(b)(1), 63.622(a), 

63.622(a)(1), 63.622(a)(2), 63.625(a), 

63.626(f), in Table 1, and in Table 2. 

ii. ‘‘Includes, but is Not Limited to’’— 

Comment. A commenter remarked that 

incorporating the language ‘‘includes, 

but is not limited to’’ in the definition 

of DAP and/or MAP process line is 

overly broad and creates ambiguity. 

They stated that industry should have 

certainty as to the applicability and 

scope of the rule, but the language 

‘‘includes, but is not limited to’’ creates 

uncertainty as to where the affected 

equipment begins and ends for purposes 

of demonstrating compliance. 

Response. We agree that this language 

creates overly broad process line 

definitions and can lead to regulatory 

uncertainty for affected sources. 

Therefore, we are not finalizing the 

language ‘‘includes, but is not limited 

to’’ in the definition of DAP and/or 

MAP process line. 

b. Testing, Monitoring, Recordkeeping 

and Reporting—i. Pressure Drop Across 

Absorber—Comment. Several 

commenters requested the EPA delete 

the requirement that pressure drop 

across an absorber must be greater than 

5 inches of water in order to use the 

option of measuring pressure drop as an 

operating parameter. These commenters 

contended that the EPA has not 

articulated any basis for the 

requirement. These commenters 

provided data demonstrating that units 

operate in compliance with the 

emission standards when the pressure 

drop across an absorber is less than 5 

inches of water. One of these 

commenters expressed safety concerns 

associated with operating scrubbers at 

higher range pressure drop settings, 

citing that one of its facilities has 

experienced the entrainment of 

moisture within the absorbing tower 

when operating at pressure drops in 

excess of 8 inches of water, and another 

has experienced the buildup of 

excessive fumes on the digester floor 

when operating the digester scrubber as 

high as 6 inches of water. 

Response. The Agency maintains its 

determination that pressure drop is not 

an appropriate monitoring parameter for 

absorbers that do not use the energy 

from the inlet gas to increase contact 

between the gas and liquid in the 

absorber (see ‘‘Use of Pressure Drop as 

an Operating Parameter,’’ which is 

available in Docket ID No. EPA–HQ– 

OAR–2012–0522). Therefore, we are not 

revising this proposed amendment. For 

further explanation please see our 

response to the identical comment that 

was made for NESHAP subpart AA in 

section V.F.3.b.i of this preamble. 

ii. Absorber Monitoring Options— 

Comment. Several commenters called 

attention to the options of either 

measuring: (1) The temperature at the 

wet scrubber gas stream outlet and 

pressure at the liquid inlet of the 

absorber, or (2) the temperature at the 

scrubber gas stream outlet and scrubber 

gas stream inlet. One of these 

commenters said that they do not 

believe monitoring gas temperature in 

locations of large ambient temperature 

ranges would provide accurate 

monitoring of the absorbers 

performance. The commenter argued 

that temperature and pressure probes 

would be very susceptible to scaling 

issues. In addition, this commenter 

contended that liquid inlet pressure 

does not provide any additional 

monitoring of the absorber performance, 

since the inlet liquid flow rate is already 

measured and monitored. Another 

commenter contended that the EPA has 

not provided any data or analysis to 

show that there is a correlation between 

temperature and emissions; the 

commenter stated that they were not 


rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 160 / Wednesday, August 19, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 50429 

aware of any data suggesting a 

relationship between exit temperature 

and emissions, or that monitoring 

temperature difference across an 

absorber would be effective. One of 

these commenters argued that they were 

not in a position to evaluate the 

difficulties associated with performing 

the associated monitoring and 

establishing the requisite operating 

ranges. 

Response. Absorber outlet gas 

temperature is often used to indicate a 

change in operation for absorbers used 

to control thermal processes. Because 

this source category does not use a 

thermal process to produce fertilizer, 

the Agency agrees with the commenters 

that temperature is not an appropriate 

monitoring parameter for absorbers used 

in this source category, and has 

removed these monitoring options from 

Table 3 of the final rule (NESHAP 

subpart BB). However, in light of this 

comment, the Agency has revised Table 

3 of NESHAP subpart BB to require 

liquid-to-gas ratio monitoring for lowenergy absorbers (i.e., absorbers that are 

designed to operate with pressure drops 

of 5 inches of water column or less) in 

lieu of monitoring influent liquid flow 

and pressure drop through the absorber. 

Furthermore, the Agency has revised 

Table 3 of NESHAP subpart BB to 

require influent liquid flow and 

pressure drop monitoring for highenergy (i.e., high pressure drop) 

absorbers, such as venturi scrubbers; 

and we are keeping liquid-to-gas ratio 

monitoring as an option for high-energy 

absorbers in the final rule. For further 

explanation please see our response to 

the identical comment that was made 

for NESHAP subpart AA in section 

V.F.3.b.ii of this preamble. 

iii. Acceptable Range From Baseline 

Average Value—Comment. One 

commenter requested that the EPA 

revise 40 CFR 63.625(d)(1)(ii)(B) to have 

similar wording to 40 CFR 

63.625(d)(1)(ii)(A), in which the 

allowable parametric limits may 

encompass up to +/¥20 percent of the 

of the baseline average values for the 

series of tests used under this option; 

that is, the parametric limit may extend 

¥20 percent below the lowest baseline 

average and up to +20 percent above the 

highest baseline average from the series 

of performance tests used for this 

option. 

Response. The Agency determined 

that it is not necessary to revise 40 CFR 

63.625(d)(1)(ii)(B) to allow for a ±20 

percent operating margin, as this 

commenter requests, because this 

provision already allows owners or 

operators to establish an operating limit 

range for a control device without 

having to apply an operating margin, 

such as ±20 percent. Owners or 

operators that use an absorber or a 

WESP to comply with the emission 

limits (and monitor pressure drop across 

each absorber or secondary voltage for a 

WESP) have two options to establish 

operating limits for demonstrating 

continuous compliance: (1) At 40 CFR 

63.625(d)(1)(ii)(A), the operating limits 

may be determined using the most 

recent performance test and applying an 

operating margin of ±20 percent (e.g., 

during the three test runs conducted for 

an owner’s or operator’s most recent 

performance test that demonstrated 

compliance with the emission limit, the 

arithmetic average of the absorber 

pressure drops recorded was 7 inches of 

water; therefore, under this option, the 

owner’s or operator’s operating limit 

range for this absorber would be 5.6 to 

8.4 inches of water, or ±20 percent of 7); 

or (2) at 40 CFR 63.625(d)(1)(ii)(B), 

owners or operators may establish 

operating limit ranges based upon 

baseline values of operating parameters 

established in either historic 

performance tests or performance tests 

conducted specifically to establish such 

ranges (e.g., an owner or operator could 

choose to conduct two consecutive 

performance tests consisting of three 

test runs each and if the owner or 

operator demonstrates compliance with 

the emission limit while operating an 

absorber with a pressure drop of 6 

inches of water during the first 

performance test, and then in the 

second performance test the owner or 

operator demonstrates compliance with 

the emission limit while operating an 

absorber with a pressure drop of 10 

inches of water, the owner’s or 

operator’s operating limit range for this 

absorber would be 6 to 10 inches of 

water under this option). Additionally, 

the rule permits owners or operators to 

undertake additional performance 

testing (for either option) to establish 

control device operating limits which 

reflect compliance with the emission 

limit for the full range of operating 

conditions of the control device. 

Therefore, the Agency has determined 

that no change to 40 CFR 

63.625(d)(1)(ii)(B) is warranted. 

iv. Operating Range Established From 

a Previous Test—Comment. One 

commenter stated that 40 CFR 63.627(a) 

is somewhat ambiguous, tending to 

suggest that affected facilities would be 

immediately required to implement new 

equipment operating ranges following a 

source test, even if operating conditions 

from previous source tests demonstrated 

compliance with fluoride emission 

standards. The commenter argued that 

there is no reason that a new 

performance test at a new operating 

range should invalidate a previous 

performance test at a different operating 

range. 

Response. The Agency has clarified in 

the final rule at 40 CFR 63.627(a) that 

during the most recent performance test, 

if owners or operators demonstrate 

compliance with the emission limit 

while operating their control device 

outside the previously established 

operating limit, then limits must be 

established. Owners or operators must 

establish a new operating limit based on 

that most recent performance test and 

notify the Administrator that the 

operating limit changed based on data 

collected during the most recent 

performance test. For further 

explanation please see our response to 

the identical comment that was made 

for NESHAP subpart AA in section 

V.F.3.b.iii of this preamble. 

v. Approving Operating Ranges— 

Comment. Several commenters support 

the EPA’s proposal to eliminate the 

requirement that facilities may not 

implement new operating parameter 

ranges until the Administrator has 

approved them, or 30 days have passed 

since submission of the performance 

test results. However, two of these 

commenters pointed out that the EPA 

did not make the same allowance in 40 

CFR 63.625(d)(1)(ii)(B), where a series of 

tests (potentially including historical 

tests) are used to establish an operating 

range. A commenter pointed out that 40 

CFR 63.625(d)(1)(ii)(B), as proposed, 

does not provide the 30-day default 

period for the effectiveness of the new 

ranges if the EPA Administrator does 

not act; therefore, as currently set forth 

in the proposed rule, sources will be left 

in limbo waiting for the EPA 

Administrator to respond before they 

can implement new ranges. A 

commenter suggested that the EPA 

revise the proposed regulatory language 

to require submission of the new ranges 

to EPA, but delete the requirement to 

request and obtain EPA’s approval of 

the new ranges. Similarly, another 

commenter requested the EPA clarify 

the process for establishing new 

equipment operating ranges following 

source performance testing. This 

commenter contended that facilities 

should have the ability to update 

operating parameters if they desire 

based on source testing, and the facility 

should be required to submit the new 

ranges, but not be required to obtain 

EPA’s approval of the new ranges. 

In addition, a commenter requested 

that the EPA clarify how revising the 

proposed regulatory language to require 

submission of the new ranges to the 


rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
50430 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 160 / Wednesday, August 19, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

EPA, but deleting the requirement to 

request and obtain EPA’s approval of 

the new ranges, will affect possible 

obligations to undertake permit 

modifications of title V permits under 

40 CFR part 70. This commenter stated 

that such administrative processes are 

not fully anticipated in the proposed 

rule. 

Response. In the proposed NESHAP 

subpart BB, the Agency intended that 

facilities not be required to obtain 

approval, and instead, immediately 

comply with a new operating limit 

when it is developed and submitted to 

the Administrator. Therefore, the 

requirements at 40 CFR 

63.625(d)(1)(ii)(B) have been revised in 

the final rule, as the commenter 

requests, to remove the requirement that 

facilities must request and obtain 

approval of the Administrator for 

changing operating limits. Furthermore, 

the Agency suggests that the title V 

permit be modified as soon as the 

Administrator is notified of a change in 

an operating limit. The Agency 

acknowledges that corrections and 

modifications to permit applications 

could become a problem for a facility, 

particularly if the Administrator 

determines the operating limit is not 

appropriate after a facility has already 

applied for the change to be made in 

their air permit; however, we expect this 

scenario to be rare. 

c. Translation of Total Fluoride to HF 

Emission Limits—Comment. Several 

commenters expressed concerns 

regarding the methodology for 

expressing the existing total fluoride 

limits in terms of HF (refer to section 

V.F.3.c of this preamble for a summary 

of comments received on this topic). 

Response. In light of information 

provided by commenters, the Agency 

has re-evaluated the proposed revision 

to the standard and determined that 

EPA Method 320 is not an appropriate 

test method for accurately measuring HF 

emissions from process lines at this 

specific source category due to the 

complex and often incomplete chemical 

reactions with silicon compounds in 

these sources. Accordingly, we are not 

adopting the proposed HF standards, 

and instead we are retaining the existing 

total fluoride limits for all emission 

sources in subpart BB. For further 

explanation on this determination, refer 

to section V.F.3.c of this preamble. 

Although, at the present time, the 

Agency is not finalizing HF standards in 

NESHAP subpart BB, it may be possible 

to do so in a future rulemaking with 

additional data and specificity on 

monitoring requirements. 

4. What is the rationale for our final 

decisions regarding these other changes 

to the Phosphate Fertilizer Production 

NESHAP and NSPS? 

For the reasons provided above and in 

the preamble for the proposed rule, we 

are finalizing the proposed requirement 

in NESHAP subpart BB that pressure 

drop across an absorber must be greater 

than 5 inches of water in order to use 

the option of measuring pressure drop 

as an operating parameter; and other 

proposed clarifications and corrections. 

Additionally, for the reasons provided 

above, we are making the revisions, 

clarifications and corrections noted in 

section VI.E.2 in the final rules for 

NESHAP subpart BB, NSPS subpart V, 

NSPS subpart W, and NSPS subpart X. 

VII. Summary of Cost, Environmental, 

and Economic Impacts and Additional 

Analyses Conducted 

A. What are the affected facilities? 

We anticipate that the 13 facilities 

currently operating in the U.S. will be 

affected by these amendments. We do 

not expect any new facilities to be 

constructed or expanded in the 

foreseeable future. 

B. What are the air quality impacts? 

We anticipate HF emissions 

reductions as a result of one facility 

installing controls on its oxidation 

reactor to comply with the SPA total 

fluoride limit. However, we do not have 

emissions data for its oxidation reactor 

to calculate these reductions. In 

addition, the revised rule will mitigate 

future increases of Hg emissions from 

phosphate rock calciners by requiring 

compliance with numeric emission 

limits. 

C. What are the cost impacts? 

We have estimated compliance costs 

for all existing sources to add the 

necessary controls and monitoring 

devices, perform inspections, and 

implement recordkeeping and reporting 

requirements to comply with the final 

rules. Based on this analysis, we 

anticipate an overall total capital 

investment of $346,000, with an 

associated total annualized cost of 

approximately $294,000. We do not 

anticipate the construction of any new 

phosphoric acid manufacturing plants 

or phosphate fertilizer production 

facilities in the next 5 years. Therefore, 

there are no anticipated new source cost 

impacts. We estimated the cost to install 

a venturi scrubber to meet the SPA 

process line total fluoride standard, 

when oxidation reactor emissions are 

included, for one facility. For all 

emission sources, we calculated capital 

and annual costs for testing, monitoring, 

recordkeeping, and reporting. The 

memorandum, ‘‘Control Costs and 

Emissions Reductions for Phosphoric 

Acid and Phosphate Fertilizer 

Production Source Categories—Final 

Rule,’’ which is available in the docket 

for this action, documents the control 

cost analyses. 

D. What are the economic impacts? 

Economic impact analyses focus on 

changes in market prices and output 

levels. If changes in market prices and 

output levels in the primary markets are 

significant, we also examine impacts on 

other markets. Both the magnitude of 

costs needed to comply with the rule 

and the distribution of these costs 

among affected facilities can have a role 

in determining how the market will 

change in response to the rule. We 

project that no facility will incur 

significant costs. 

Because no small firms will incur 

control costs, there is no significant 

impact on small entities. Thus, we do 

not expect this regulation to have a 

significant impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. 

E. What are the benefits? 

The revised rule will mitigate future 

increases of Hg emissions from 

phosphate rock calciners by requiring 

compliance with numeric emission 

limits. These avoided emissions will 

result in improvements in air quality 

and reduced negative health effects 

associated with exposure to air 

pollution of these emissions. However, 

we have not quantified or monetized the 

benefits of reducing these emissions for 

this rulemaking because information is 

not available to monetize potential 

benefits and we are not aware of any 

new phosphate rock calciners that will 

be constructed in the next three years. 

F. What analysis of environmental 

justice did we conduct? 

Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, 

February 16, 1994) establishes federal 

executive policy on environmental 

justice. Its main provision directs 

federal agencies, to the greatest extent 

practical and permitted by law, to make 

environmental justice part of their 

mission by identifying and addressing, 

as appropriate, disproportionately high 

and adverse human health or 

environmental effects of their programs, 

policies and activities on minority 

populations and low-income 

populations in the U.S. 

The EPA has determined that this rule 

will not have disproportionately high 

and adverse human health or 

environmental effects on minority, lowVerDate Sep<11>2014 15:27 Aug 18, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00046 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\19AUR2.SGM 19AUR2

rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 160 / Wednesday, August 19, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 50431 

income, or indigenous populations 

because it increases the level of 

environmental protection for all affected 

populations without having any 

disproportionately high and adverse 

human health or environmental effects 

on any population, including any 

minority or low-income population. To 

gain a better understanding of the 

source category and near source 

populations, the EPA conducted a 

proximity analysis on phosphate 

facilities to identify any 

overrepresentation of minority, low 

income, or indigenous populations. This 

analysis only gives some indication of 

the prevalence of sub-populations that 

may be exposed to air pollution from 

the sources; it does not identify the 

demographic characteristics of the most 

highly affected individuals or 

communities, nor does it quantify the 

level of risk faced by those individuals 

or communities. 

The proximity analysis reveals that 

most demographic categories are below 

or within 20 percent of their 

corresponding national averages. The 

two exceptions are the minority and 

African American populations. The 

ratio of African Americans living within 

3 miles of any source affected by this 

rule is 131 percent higher than the 

national average (29 percent versus 13 

percent). The percentage of minorities 

living within 3 miles of any source 

affected by this rule is 37 percent above 

the national average (35 percent versus 

28 percent). The large minority 

population is a direct result of the 

higher percentage of African Americans 

living near these facilities (the other 

racial minorities are below or equal to 

the national average). However, as noted 

previously, we found the risks from 

these source categories to be acceptable 

for all populations. 

The changes to the standard increase 

the level of environmental protection for 

all affected populations by ensuring no 

future emission increases from the 

source categories. The proximity 

analysis results and the details 

concerning their development are 

presented in the October 2012 

memorandum, ‘‘Environmental Justice 

Review: Phosphate Fertilizer Production 

and Phosphoric Acid,’’ a copy of which 

is available in Docket ID No. EPA–HQ– 

OAR–2012–0522. 

G. What analysis of children’s 

environmental health did we conduct? 

While this action is not subject to 

Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, 

April 23, 1997), we note that the current 

standards provide an ample margin of 

safety to protect public health. 

Consideration of children’s health is 

accounted for in our risk analyses, 

which compare projected exposures to 

various health benchmarks that are 

based on the most sensitive populations. 

VIII. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

A. Executive Orders 12866: Regulatory 

Planning and Review and Executive 

Order 13563: Improving Regulation and 

Regulatory Review 

This action is not a significant 

regulatory action and was, therefore, not 

submitted to the Office of Management 

and Budget (OMB) for review. The EPA 

analyzed the potential costs and benefits 

associated with this action. The results 

are presented in sections VII.C and E of 

this preamble. 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) 

The information collection activities 

in these rules have been submitted for 

approval to OMB under the PRA. The 

Information Collection Request (ICR) 

document that the EPA prepared has 

been assigned EPA ICR number 1790.06. 

You can find a copy of the ICR in the 

docket for this rule, and it is briefly 

summarized here. The information 

collection requirements are not 

enforceable until OMB approves them. 

We are finalizing new paperwork 

requirements to the Phosphoric Acid 

Manufacturing and Phosphate Fertilizer 

Production source categories in the form 

of additional requirements for stack 

testing, performance evaluations, and 

work practices for fugitive sources. 

We estimate 12 regulated entities are 

currently subject to 40 CFR part 63, 

subpart AA and 11 regulated entities are 

currently subject to 40 CFR part 63, 

subpart BB and each will be subject to 

all applicable standards. The annual 

monitoring, reporting, and 

recordkeeping burden for these 

amendments to subpart AA and BB is 

estimated to be $224,000 per year 

(averaged over the first 3 years after the 

effective date of the standards). This 

includes 670 labor hours per year at a 

total labor cost of $55,000 per year, and 

total non-labor capital and operating 

and maintenance costs of $169,000 per 

year. This estimate includes 

performance tests, notifications, 

reporting and recordkeeping associated 

with the new requirements for emission 

points and associated control devices. 

The total burden to the federal 

government is estimated to be 330 hours 

per year at a total labor cost of $17,000 

per year (averaged over the first 3 years 

after the effective date of the standard). 

Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b). 

An agency may not conduct or 

sponsor, and a person is not required to 

respond to, a collection of information 

unless it displays a currently valid OMB 

control number. The OMB control 

numbers for the EPA’s regulations in 40 

CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9. When 

OMB approves this ICR, the Agency will 

announce that approval in the Federal 

Register and publish a technical 

amendment to 40 CFR part 9 to display 

the OMB control number for the 

approved information collection 

activities contained in this final rule. 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) 

I certify that this action will not have 

a significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the RFA. In making this 

determination, the impact of concern is 

any significant adverse economic 

impact on small entities. An agency may 

certify that a rule will not have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities if 

the rule relieves regulatory burden, has 

no net burden or otherwise has a 

positive economic effect on the small 

entities subject to the rule. This rule 

will not impose any requirements on 

small entities because we do not project 

that any small entities will incur costs 

due to these rule amendments. We have 

therefore concluded that this action will 

have no net regulatory burden for all 

directly regulated small entities. 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

(UMRA) 

This action does not contain any 

unfunded mandate as described in 

UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531–1538, and does 

not significantly or uniquely affect small 

governments. The action imposes no 

enforceable duty on any state, local, or 

tribal governments or the private sector. 

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism 

This action does not have federalism 

implications. It will not 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. 

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation 

and Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments 

This action has tribal implications. 

However, it will neither impose 

substantial direct compliance costs on 

federally recognized tribal governments, 

nor preempt tribal law. The tribal 

implications are primarily due to the 

close proximity of one facility to a tribe 

(the Shoshone-Bannock). 

The EPA consulted with tribal 

officials under the EPA Policy on 


rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
50432 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 160 / Wednesday, August 19, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

Consultation and Coordination with 

Indian Tribes early in the process of 

developing this regulation to permit 

them to have meaningful and timely 

input into its development. The Agency 

provided an overview of the source 

categories and rulemaking process 

during a monthly teleconference with 

the National Tribal Air Association. 

Additionally, we provided targeted 

outreach, including a visit to the 

Shoshone-Bannock tribe and meeting 

with environmental leaders for the tribe. 

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of 

Children from Environmental Health 

Risks and Safety Risks 

This action is not subject to Executive 

Order 13045 because it is not 

economically significant as defined in 

Executive Order 12866, and because the 

EPA does not believe the environmental 

health or safety risks addressed by this 

action present a disproportionate risk to 

children. This action’s health and risk 

assessments are contained in sections 

V.A. and VI.A. 

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions 

Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution or Use 

This action is not subject to Executive 

Order 13211, because it is not a 

significant regulatory action under 

Executive Order 12866. 

I. National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act (NTTAA) and 1 CFR 

part 51 

This action involves technical 

standards. The EPA has decided to use 

analytical methods of the Association of 

Official Analytical Chemists (AOAC) 

and of the Association of Fertilizer and 

Phosphate Chemists (AFPC). The AOAC 

methods include: AOAC Official 

Method 957.02 Phosphorus (Total) in 

Fertilizers, Preparation of Sample 

Solution, AOAC Official Method 929.01 

Sampling of Solid Fertilizers, AOAC 

Official Method 929.02 Preparation of 

Fertilizer Sample, AOAC Official 

Method 978.01 Phosphorous (Total) in 

Fertilizers, Automated Method, AOAC 

Official Method 969.02 Phosphorous 

(Total) in Fertilizers, Alkalimetric 

Quinolinium Molybdophosphate 

Method, AOAC Official Method 962.02 

Phosphorous (Total) in Fertilizers, 

Gravimetric Quinolinium 

Molybdophosphate Method and 

Quinolinium Molybdophosphate 

Method 958.01 Phosphorous (Total) in 

Fertilizers, Spectrophotometric 

Molybdovanadophosphate Method. The 

AFPC methods for analysis of phosphate 

rock include: No. 1 Preparation of 

Sample, No. 3 Phosphorus-P2O5 or 

Ca3(PO4)2, Method A—Volumetric 

Method, No. 3 Phosphorus-P2O5 or 

Ca3(PO4)2, Method B—Gravimetric 

Quimociac Method, No. 3 PhosphorusP2O5 or Ca3(PO4)2, Method C— 

Spectrophotometric Method. The AFPC 

methods for analysis of phosphoric acid, 

superphosphate, triple superphosphate 

and ammonium phosphates include: 

No. 3 Total Phosphorus-P2O5, Method 

A-Volumetric Method, No. 3 Total 

Phosphorus-P2O5, Method B— 

Gravimetric Quimociac Method and No. 

3 Total Phosphorus-P2O5, Method C— 

Spectrophotometric Method. 

As discussed in the preamble of the 

proposal, under NESHAP subpart AA 

and NESHAP subpart BB, we conducted 

searches for EPA Methods 5, 13A, 13B, 

and 30B. The EPA conducted searches 

through the Enhanced National 

Standards Systems Network (NSSN) 

Database managed by the American 

National Standards Institute (ANSI). We 

contacted voluntary consensus 

standards (VCS) organizations, and 

accessed and searched their databases. 

We did not identify any applicable VCS 

for EPA Methods 5, 13A, 13B, or 30B. 

Additional information for the VCS 

search and determinations can be found 

in the memorandum, ‘‘Voluntary 

Consensus Standard Results for 

Phosphoric Acid Manufacturing and 

Phosphate Fertilizer Production RTR 

and Standards of Performance for 

Phosphate Processing,’’ which is 

available in the docket for this action. 

The EPA solicited comments on VCS 

and invited the public to identify 

potentially applicable VCS; however, 

we did not receive comments regarding 

this aspect of NESHAP subpart AA and 

NESHAP subpart BB. 

The EPA is incorporating, into 

NESHAP subpart AA and NESHAP 

subpart BB, the following guidance 

document: EPA–454/R–98–015, Office 

Of Air Quality Planning And Standards 

(OAQPS), Fabric Filter Bag Leak 

Detection Guidance, September 1997. 

This guidance document provides 

procedures for selecting, installing, 

setting up, adjusting, and operating a 

bag leak detection system; and also 

includes quality assurance procedures. 

This guidance document is readily 

accessible at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/

emc/cem.html. 

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal 

Actions to Address Environmental 

Justice in Minority Populations and 

Low-Income Populations 

The EPA believes the human health or 

environmental risk addressed by this 

action will not have potential 

disproportionately high and adverse 

human health or environmental effects 

on minority, low-income, or indigenous 

populations because it increases the 

level of protection provided to human 

health or the environment. The results 

of this evaluation are contained in the 

memorandum titled ‘‘Environmental 

Justice Review: Phosphate Fertilizer 

Production and Phosphoric Acid,’’ 

which is available in Docket ID No. 

EPA–HQ–OAR–2012–0522, and are 

discussed in section VII.F of this 

preamble. 

K. Congressional Review Act 

This action is subject to the CRA, and 

the EPA will submit a rule report to 

each House of the Congress and to the 

Comptroller General of the U.S. This 

action is not a ‘‘major rule’’ as defined 

by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). 

List of Subjects 

40 CFR Part 60 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Fertilizers, Fluoride, 

Particulate matter, Phosphate, Reporting 

and recordkeeping requirements. 

40 CFR Part 63 

Environmental protection, 

Administrative practice and procedures, 

Air pollution control, Hazardous 

substances, Incorporation by reference, 

Intergovernmental relations, Reporting 

and recordkeeping requirements. 

Dated: July 21, 2015. 

Gina McCarthy, 

Administrator. 

For the reasons stated in the 

preamble, parts 60 and 63 of title 40, 

chapter I, of the Code of Federal 

Regulations are amended as follows: 

PART 60—STANDARDS OF 

PERFORMANCE FOR NEW 

STATIONARY SOURCES 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 60 

continues to read as follows: 

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

Subpart T—Standards of Performance 

for the Phosphate Fertilizer Industry: 

Wet-Process Phosphoric Acid Plants 

■ 2. Section 60.200 is amended by 

revising paragraph (a) to read as follows: 

§ 60.200 Applicability and designation of 

affected facility. 

(a) The affected facility to which the 

provisions of this subpart apply is each 

wet-process phosphoric acid plant 

having a design capacity of more than 

15 tons of equivalent P2O5 feed per 

calendar day. 

* * * * * 


rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 160 / Wednesday, August 19, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 50433 

■ 3. Section 60.201 is amended by 

revising paragraph (a) to read as follows: 

§ 60.201 Definitions. 

* * * * * 

(a) Wet-process phosphoric acid plant 

means any facility manufacturing 

phosphoric acid by reacting phosphate 

rock and acid. A wet-process 

phosphoric acid plant includes: 

Reactors, filters, evaporators, and hot 

wells. 

* * * * * 

■ 4. Section 60.203 is amended by 

revising paragraph (c) and adding 

paragraph (d) to read as follows: 

§ 60.203 Monitoring of operations. 

* * * * * 

(c) The owner or operator of any wetprocess phosphoric acid plant subject to 

the provisions of this part shall install, 

calibrate, maintain, and operate a 

monitoring device which continuously 

measures and permanently records the 

total pressure drop across the absorber. 

The monitoring device shall have an 

accuracy of ±5 percent over its operating 

range. 

(d) Any facility under § 60.200(a) that 

commences construction, modification 

or reconstruction after November 7, 

2014 is subject to the requirements of 

this paragraph instead of the 

requirements in paragraph (c) of this 

section. If an absorber is used to comply 

with § 60.202, then the owner or 

operator shall continuously monitor 

pressure drop through the absorber and 

meet the requirements specified in 

paragraphs (d)(1) through (4) of this 

section. 

(1) The owner or operator shall 

install, calibrate, maintain, and operate 

a continuous monitoring system (CMS) 

that continuously measures and 

permanently records the pressure at the 

gas stream inlet and outlet of the 

absorber. The pressure at the gas stream 

inlet of the absorber may be measured 

using amperage on the blower if a 

correlation between pressure and 

amperage is established. 

(2) The CMS must have an accuracy 

of ±5 percent over the normal range 

measured or 0.12 kilopascals (0.5 inches 

of water column), whichever is greater. 

(3) The owner or operator shall 

establish an allowable range for the 

pressure drop through the absorber. The 

allowable range is ±20 percent of the 

arithmetic average of the three test runs 

conducted during the performance test 

required in § 60.8. The Administrator 

retains the right to reduce the ±20 

percent adjustment to the baseline 

average values of operating ranges in 

those instances where performance test 

results indicate that a source’s level of 

emissions is near the value of an 

applicable emissions standard. 

However, the adjustment must not be 

reduced to less than ±10 percent under 

any instance. 

(4) The owner or operator shall 

demonstrate continuous compliance by 

maintaining the daily average pressure 

drop through the absorber to within the 

allowable range established in 

paragraph (d)(3) of this section. The 

daily average pressure drop through the 

absorber for each operating day shall be 

calculated using the data recorded by 

the monitoring system. If the emissions 

unit operation is continuous, the 

operating day is a 24-hour period. If the 

emissions unit operation is not 

continuous, the operating day is the 

total number of hours of control device 

operation per 24-hour period. Valid data 

points must be available for 75 percent 

of the operating hours in an operating 

day to compute the daily average. 

■ 5. Subpart T is amended by adding 

§ 60.205 to read as follows: 

§ 60.205 Recordkeeping. 

Any facility under § 60.200(a) that 

commences construction, modification 

or reconstruction after November 7, 

2014 is subject to the requirements of 

this section. You must maintain the 

records identified as specified in 

§ 60.7(f) and in paragraphs (a) and (b) of 

this section. All records required by this 

subpart must be maintained on site for 

at least 5 years. 

(a) Records of the daily average 

pressure. Records of the daily average 

pressure drop through the absorber. 

(b) Records of deviations. A deviation 

is determined to have occurred when 

the monitoring data or lack of 

monitoring data result in any one of the 

criteria specified in paragraphs (b)(1) 

and (2) of this section being met. 

(1) A deviation occurs when the daily 

average value of a monitored operating 

parameter is less than the minimum 

pressure drop, or greater than the 

maximum pressure drop established in 

§ 60.203(d)(3). 

(2) A deviation occurs when the 

monitoring data are not available for at 

least 75 percent of the operating hours 

in a day. 

Subpart U—Standards of Performance 

for the Phosphate Fertilizer Industry: 

Superphosphoric Acid Plants 

■ 6. Section 60.210 is amended by 

revising paragraph (a) to read as follows: 

§ 60.210 Applicability and designation of 

affected facility. 

(a) The affected facility to which the 

provisions of this subpart apply is each 

superphosphoric acid plant having a 

design capacity of more than 15 tons of 

equivalent P2O5 feed per calendar day. 

* * * * * 

■ 7. Section 60.211 is amended by 

revising paragraph (a) to read as follows: 

§ 60.211 Definitions. 

* * * * * 

(a) Superphosphoric acid plant means 

any facility that concentrates wetprocess phosphoric acid to 66 percent or 

greater P2O5 content by weight for 

eventual consumption as a fertilizer. A 

superphosphoric acid plant includes: 

evaporators, hot wells, acid sumps, 

oxidation reactors, and cooling tanks. 

An oxidation reactor includes any 

equipment or step that uses an oxidizing 

agent (e.g., nitric acid, ammonium 

nitrate, or potassium permanganate) to 

treat superphosphoric acid. 

* * * * * 

■ 8. Section 60.213 is amended by 

revising paragraph (c) and adding 

paragraph (d) to read as follows: 

§ 60.213 Monitoring of operations. 

* * * * * 

(c) Except as specified in paragraph 

(d) of this section, the owner or operator 

of any superphosphoric acid plant 

subject to the provisions of this part 

shall install, calibrate, maintain, and 

operate a monitoring device which 

continuously measures and 

permanently records the total pressure 

drop across the absorber. The 

monitoring device shall have an 

accuracy of ±5 percent over its operating 

range. 

(d) Any affected facility as defined in 

§ 60.210(a) that commences 

construction, modification or 

reconstruction after November 7, 2014 is 

subject to the requirements of this 

paragraph instead of the requirements in 

paragraph (c) of this section. If an 

absorber is used to comply with 

§ 60.212, then the owner or operator 

shall continuously monitor pressure 

drop through the absorber and meet the 

requirements specified in paragraphs 

(d)(1) through (4) of this section. 

(1) The owner or operator shall 

install, calibrate, maintain, and operate 

a continuous monitoring system (CMS) 

that continuously measures and 

permanently records the pressure at the 

gas stream inlet and outlet of the 

absorber. The pressure at the gas stream 

inlet of the absorber may be measured 

using amperage on the blower if a 

correlation between pressure and 

amperage is established. 

(2) The CMS must have an accuracy 

of ±5 percent over the normal range 

measured or 0.12 kilopascals (0.5 inches 

of water column), whichever is greater. 


rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
50434 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 160 / Wednesday, August 19, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

(3) The owner or operator shall 

establish an allowable range for the 

pressure drop through the absorber. The 

allowable range is ±20 percent of the 

arithmetic average of the three test runs 

conducted during the performance test 

required in § 60.8. The Administrator 

retains the right to reduce the ±20 

percent adjustment to the baseline 

average values of operating ranges in 

those instances where performance test 

results indicate that a source’s level of 

emissions is near the value of an 

applicable emissions standard. 

However, the adjustment must not be 

reduced to less than ±10 percent under 

any instance. 

(4) The owner or operator shall 

demonstrate continuous compliance by 

maintaining the daily average pressure 

drop through the absorber to within the 

allowable range established in 

paragraph (d)(3) of this section. The 

daily average pressure drop through the 

absorber for each operating day shall be 

calculated using the data recorded by 

the monitoring system. If the emissions 

unit operation is continuous, the 

operating day is a 24-hour period. If the 

emissions unit operation is not 

continuous, the operating day is the 

total number of hours of control device 

operation per 24-hour period. Valid data 

points must be available for 75 percent 

of the operating hours in an operating 

day to compute the daily average. 

■ 9. Subpart U is amended by adding 

§ 60.215 to read as follows: 

§ 60.215 Recordkeeping. 

An affected facility as defined in 

§ 60.210(a) that commences 

construction, modification, or 

reconstruction after November 7, 2014 is 

subject to the requirements of this 

section. You must maintain the records 

identified as specified in § 60.7(f) and in 

paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section. 

All records required by this subpart 

must be maintained on site for at least 

5 years. 

(a) Records of the daily average 

pressure. Records of the daily average 

pressure drop through the absorber. 

(b) Records of deviations. A deviation 

is determined to have occurred when 

the monitoring data or lack of 

monitoring data result in any one of the 

criteria specified in paragraphs (b)(1) 

and (2) of this section being met. 

(1) A deviation occurs when the daily 

average value of a monitored operating 

parameter is less than the minimum 

pressure drop, or greater than the 

maximum pressure drop established in 

§ 60.213(d)(3). 

(2) A deviation occurs when the 

monitoring data are not available for at 

least 75 percent of the operating hours 

in a day. 

Subpart V—Standards of Performance 

for the Phosphate Fertilizer Industry: 

Diammonium Phosphate Plants 

■ 10. Section 60.223 is amended by 

revising paragraph (c) and adding 

paragraph (d) to read as follows: 

§ 60.223 Monitoring of operations. 

* * * * * 

(c) Except as specified in paragraph 

(d) of this section, the owner or operator 

of any granular diammonium phosphate 

plant subject to the provisions of this 

subpart shall install, calibrate, maintain, 

and operate a monitoring device which 

continuously measures and 

permanently records the total pressure 

drop across the scrubbing system. The 

monitoring device shall have an 

accuracy of ±5 percent over its operating 

range. 

(d) Any affected facility as defined in 

§ 60.220(a) that commences 

construction, modification, or 

reconstruction after November 7, 2014 is 

subject to the requirements of this 

paragraph instead of the requirements in 

paragraph (c) of this section. If an 

absorber is used to comply with 

§ 60.222, then the owner or operator 

shall continuously monitor pressure 

drop through the absorber and meet the 

requirements specified in paragraphs 

(d)(1) through (4) of this section. 

(1) The owner or operator shall 

install, calibrate, maintain, and operate 

a continuous monitoring system (CMS) 

that continuously measures and 

permanently records the pressure at the 

gas stream inlet and outlet of the 

absorber. The pressure at the gas stream 

inlet of the absorber may be measured 

using amperage on the blower if a 

correlation between pressure and 

amperage is established. 

(2) The CMS must have an accuracy 

of ±5 percent over the normal range 

measured or 0.12 kilopascals (0.5 inches 

of water column), whichever is greater. 

(3) The owner or operator shall 

establish an allowable range for the 

pressure drop through the absorber. The 

allowable range is ±20 percent of the 

arithmetic average of the three test runs 

conducted during the performance test 

required in § 60.8. The Administrator 

retains the right to reduce the ±20 

percent adjustment to the baseline 

average values of operating ranges in 

those instances where performance test 

results indicate that a source’s level of 

emissions is near the value of an 

applicable emissions standard. 

However, the adjustment must not be 

reduced to less than ±10 percent under 

any instance. 

(4) The owner or operator shall 

demonstrate continuous compliance by 

maintaining the daily average pressure 

drop through the absorber to within the 

allowable range established in 

paragraph (d)(3) of this section. The 

daily average pressure drop through the 

absorber for each operating day shall be 

calculated using the data recorded by 

the monitoring system. If the emissions 

unit operation is continuous, the 

operating day is a 24-hour period. If the 

emissions unit operation is not 

continuous, the operating day is the 

total number of hours of control device 

operation per 24-hour period. Valid data 

points must be available for 75 percent 

of the operating hours in an operating 

day to compute the daily average. 

■ 11. Section 60.224 is amended by 

revising paragraph (b)(3)(ii) to read as 

follows: 

§ 60.224 Test methods and procedures. 

* * * * * 

(b) * * * 

(3) * * * 

(ii) The Association of Official 

Analytical Chemists (AOAC) Method 9 

(incorporated by reference—see § 60.17) 

shall be used to determine the P2O5

content (Rp) of the feed. 

■ 12. Subpart V is amended by adding 

§ 60.225 to read as follows: 

§ 60.225 Recordkeeping. 

An affected facility as defined in 

§ 60.220(a) that commences 

construction, modification, or 

reconstruction after November 7, 2014 is 

subject to the requirements of this 

section. You must maintain the records 

identified as specified in § 60.7(f) and in 

paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section. 

All records required by this subpart 

must be maintained on site for at least 

5 years. 

(a) Records of the daily average 

pressure drop through the absorber. 

(b) Records of deviations. A deviation 

is determined to have occurred when 

the monitoring data or lack of 

monitoring data result in any one of the 

criteria specified in paragraphs (b)(1) 

and (2) of this section being met. 

(1) A deviation occurs when the daily 

average value of a monitored operating 

parameter is less than the minimum 

pressure drop, or greater than the 

maximum pressure drop established in 

§ 60.223(d)(3). 

(2) A deviation occurs when the 

monitoring data are not available for at 

least 75 percent of the operating hours 

in a day. 


rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 160 / Wednesday, August 19, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 50435 

Subpart W—Standards of Performance 

for the Phosphate Fertilizer Industry: 

Triple Superphosphate Plants 

■ 13. Section 60.230 is amended by 

revising paragraph (a) to read as follows: 

§ 60.230 Applicability and designation of 

affected facility. 

(a) The affected facility to which the 

provisions of this subpart apply is each 

triple superphosphate plant having a 

design capacity of more than 15 tons of 

equivalent P2O5 feed per calendar day. 

For the purpose of this subpart, the 

affected facility includes any 

combination of: mixers, curing belts 

(dens), reactors, granulators, dryers, 

coolers, screens, mills, and facilities that 

store run-of-pile triple superphosphate. 

* * * * * 

■ 14. Section 60.233 is revised to read 

as follows: 

§ 60.233 Monitoring of operations. 

(a) The owner or operator of any triple 

superphosphate plant subject to the 

provisions of this subpart shall install, 

calibrate, maintain, and operate a flow 

monitoring device that can be used to 

determine the mass flow of phosphorusbearing feed material to the process. The 

flow monitoring device shall have an 

accuracy of ±5 percent over its operating 

range. 

(b) The owner or operator of any triple 

superphosphate plant shall maintain a 

daily record of equivalent P2O5 feed by 

first determining the total mass rate in 

Mg/hr of phosphorus-bearing feed using 

a flow monitoring device meeting the 

requirements of paragraph (a) of this 

section and then by proceeding 

according to § 60.234(b)(3). 

(c) Except as specified in paragraph 

(d) of this section, the owner or operator 

of any triple superphosphate plant 

subject to the provisions of this part 

shall install, calibrate, maintain, and 

operate a monitoring device that 

continuously measures and 

permanently records the total pressure 

drop across the absorber. The 

monitoring device shall have an 

accuracy of ±5 percent over its operating 

range. 

(d) Any facility under § 60.230(a) that 

commences construction, modification, 

or reconstruction after November 7, 

2014 is subject to the requirements of 

this paragraph instead of the 

requirements in paragraph (c) of this 

section. If an absorber is used to comply 

with § 60.232, then the owner or 

operator shall continuously monitor 

pressure drop through the absorber and 

meet the requirements specified in 

paragraphs (d)(1) through (4) of this 

section. 

(1) The owner or operator shall 

install, calibrate, maintain, and operate 

a continuous monitoring system (CMS) 

that continuously measures and 

permanently records the pressure at the 

gas stream inlet and outlet of the 

absorber. The pressure at the gas stream 

inlet of the absorber may be measured 

using amperage on the blower if a 

correlation between pressure and 

amperage is established. 

(2) The CMS must have an accuracy 

of ±5 percent over the normal range 

measured or 0.12 kilopascals (0.5 inches 

of water column), whichever is greater. 

(3) The owner or operator shall 

establish an allowable range for the 

pressure drop through the absorber. The 

allowable range is ±20 percent of the 

arithmetic average of the three test runs 

conducted during the performance test 

required in § 60.8. The Administrator 

retains the right to reduce the ±20 

percent adjustment to the baseline 

average values of operating ranges in 

those instances where performance test 

results indicate that a source’s level of 

emissions is near the value of an 

applicable emissions standard. 

However, the adjustment must not be 

reduced to less than ±10 percent under 

any instance. 

(4) The owner or operator shall 

demonstrate continuous compliance by 

maintaining the daily average pressure 

drop through the absorber to within the 

allowable range established in 

paragraph (d)(3) of this section. The 

daily average pressure drop through the 

absorber for each operating day shall be 

calculated using the data recorded by 

the monitoring system. If the emissions 

unit operation is continuous, the 

operating day is a 24-hour period. If the 

emissions unit operation is not 

continuous, the operating day is the 

total number of hours of control device 

operation per 24-hour period. Valid data 

points must be available for 75 percent 

of the operating hours in an operating 

day to compute the daily average. 

■ 15. Subpart W is amended by adding 

§ 60.235 to read as follows: 

§ 60.235 Recordkeeping. 

Any facility under § 60.230(a) that 

commences construction, modification, 

or reconstruction after November 7, 

2014 is subject to the requirements of 

this section. You must maintain the 

records identified as specified in 

§ 60.7(f) and in paragraphs (a) and (b) of 

this section. All records required by this 

subpart must be maintained onsite for at 

least 5 years. 

(a) Records of the daily average 

pressure drop through the absorber. 

(b) Records of deviations. A deviation 

is determined to have occurred when 

the monitoring data or lack of 

monitoring data result in any one of the 

criteria specified in paragraphs (b)(1) 

and (2) of this section being met. 

(1) A deviation occurs when the daily 

average value of a monitored operating 

parameter is less than the minimum 

pressure drop, or greater than the 

maximum pressure drop established in 

§ 60.233(d)(3). 

(2) A deviation occurs when the 

monitoring data are not available for at 

least 75 percent of the operating hours 

in a day. 

Subpart X—Standards of Performance 

for the Phosphate Fertilizer Industry: 

Granular Triple Superphosphate 

Storage Facilities 

■ 16. Section 60.243 is amended by 

revising paragraph (c) and adding (e) to 

read as follows: 

§ 60.243 Monitoring of operations. 

* * * * * 

(c) Except as specified in paragraph 

(e) of this section, the owner or operator 

of any granular triple superphosphate 

storage facility subject to the provisions 

of this subpart shall install, calibrate, 

maintain, and operate a monitoring 

device that continuously measures and 

permanently records the total pressure 

drop across any absorber. The 

monitoring device shall have an 

accuracy of ±5 percent over its operating 

range. 

* * * * * 

(e) Any facility under § 60.240(a) that 

commences construction, modification, 

or reconstruction after November 7, 

2014 is subject to the requirements of 

this paragraph instead of the 

requirements in paragraph (c) of this 

section. If an absorber is used to comply 

with § 60.232, then the owner or 

operator shall continuously monitor 

pressure drop through the absorber and 

meet the requirements specified in 

paragraphs (e)(1) through (4) of this 

section. 

(1) The owner or operator shall 

install, calibrate, maintain, and operate 

a continuous monitoring system (CMS) 

that continuously measures and 

permanently records the pressure at the 

gas stream inlet and outlet of the 

absorber. The pressure at the gas stream 

inlet of the absorber may be measured 

using amperage on the blower if a 

correlation between pressure and 

amperage is established. 

(2) The CMS must have an accuracy 

of ±5 percent over the normal range 

measured or 0.12 kilopascals (0.5 inches 

of water column), whichever is greater. 

(3) The owner or operator shall 

establish an allowable range for the 


rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
50436 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 160 / Wednesday, August 19, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

pressure drop through the absorber. The 

allowable range is ±20 percent of the 

arithmetic average of the three test runs 

conducted during the performance test 

required in § 60.8. The Administrator 

retains the right to reduce the ±20 

percent adjustment to the baseline 

average values of operating ranges in 

those instances where performance test 

results indicate that a source’s level of 

emissions is near the value of an 

applicable emissions standard. 

However, the adjustment must not be 

reduced to less than ±10 percent under 

any instance. 

(4) The owner or operator shall 

demonstrate continuous compliance by 

maintaining the daily average pressure 

drop through the absorber to within the 

allowable range established in 

paragraph (e)(3) of this section. The 

daily average pressure drop through the 

absorber for each operating day shall be 

calculated using the data recorded by 

the monitoring system. If the emissions 

unit operation is continuous, the 

operating day is a 24-hour period. If the 

emissions unit operation is not 

continuous, the operating day is the 

total number of hours of control device 

operation per 24-hour period. Valid data 

points must be available for 75 percent 

of the operating hours in an operating 

day to compute the daily average. 

■ 17. Subpart X is amended by adding 

§ 60.245 to read as follows: 

§ 60.245 Recordkeeping. 

Any facility under § 60.240(a) that 

commences construction, modification, 

or reconstruction after November 7, 

2014 is subject to the requirements of 

this section. You must maintain the 

records identified as specified in 

§ 60.7(f) and in paragraphs (a) and (b) of 

this section. All records required by this 

subpart must be maintained onsite for at 

least 5 years. 

(a) Records of the daily average 

pressure drop through the absorber. 

(b) Records of deviations. A deviation 

is determined to have occurred when 

the monitoring data or lack of 

monitoring data result in any one of the 

criteria specified in paragraphs (b)(1) 

and (2) of this section being met. 

(1) A deviation occurs when the daily 

average value of a monitored operating 

parameter is less than the minimum 

pressure drop, or greater than the 

maximum pressure drop established in 

§ 60.243(e)(3). 

(2) A deviation occurs when the 

monitoring data are not available for at 

least 75 percent of the operating hours 

in a day. 

PART 63—NATIONAL EMISSION 

STANDARDS FOR HAZARDOUS AIR 

POLLUTANTS FOR SOURCE 

CATEGORIES 

■ 18. The authority citation for part 63 

continues to read as follows: 

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

Subpart A—General Provisions 

■ 19. Section 63.14 is amended by 

revising paragraphs (b), (c)(1) through 

(7), and (l)(2) to read as follows: 

§ 63.14 Incorporations by reference. 

* * * * * 

(b) The Association of Florida 

Phosphate Chemists, P.O. Box 1645, 

Bartow, Florida 33830. 

(1) Book of Methods Used and 

Adopted By The Association of Florida 

Phosphate Chemists, Seventh Edition 

1991: 

(i) Section IX, Methods of Analysis for 

Phosphate Rock, No. 1 Preparation of 

Sample, IBR approved for § 63.606(f), 

§ 63.626(f). 

(ii) Section IX, Methods of Analysis 

for Phosphate Rock, No. 3 PhosphorusP2O5 or Ca3(PO4)2, Method A— 

Volumetric Method, IBR approved for 

§ 63.606(f), § 63.626(f). 

(iii) Section IX, Methods of Analysis 

for Phosphate Rock, No. 3 PhosphorusP2O5 or Ca3(PO4)2, Method B— 

Gravimetric Quimociac Method, IBR 

approved for § 63.606(f), § 63.626(f). 

(iv) Section IX, Methods of Analysis 

For Phosphate Rock, No. 3 PhosphorusP2O5 or Ca3(PO4)2, Method C— 

Spectrophotometric Method, IBR 

approved for § 63.606(f), § 63.626(f). 

(v) Section XI, Methods of Analysis 

for Phosphoric Acid, Superphosphate, 

Triple Superphosphate, and 

Ammonium Phosphates, No. 3 Total 

Phosphorus-P2O5, Method A— 

Volumetric Method, IBR approved for 

§ 63.606(f), § 63.626(f), and (g). 

(vi) Section XI, Methods of Analysis 

for Phosphoric Acid, Superphosphate, 

Triple Superphosphate, and 

Ammonium Phosphates, No. 3 Total 

Phosphorus-P2O5, Method B— 

Gravimetric Quimociac Method, IBR 

approved for § 63.606(f), § 63.626(f), and 

(g). 

(vii) Section XI, Methods of Analysis 

for Phosphoric Acid, Superphosphate, 

Triple Superphosphate, and 

Ammonium Phosphates, No. 3 Total 

Phosphorus-P2O5, Method C— 

Spectrophotometric Method, IBR 

approved for § 63.606(f), § 63.626(f), and 

(g). 

(2) [Reserved] 

(c) * * * 

(1) AOAC Official Method 929.01 

Sampling of Solid Fertilizers, Sixteenth 

edition, 1995, IBR approved for 

§ 63.626(g). 

(2) AOAC Official Method 929.02 

Preparation of Fertilizer Sample, 

Sixteenth edition, 1995, IBR approved 

for § 63.626(g). 

(3) AOAC Official Method 957.02 

Phosphorus (Total) in Fertilizers, 

Preparation of Sample Solution, 

Sixteenth edition, 1995, IBR approved 

for § 63.626(g). 

(4) AOAC Official Method 958.01 

Phosphorus (Total) in Fertilizers, 

Spectrophotometric 

Molybdovanadophosphate Method, 

Sixteenth edition, 1995, IBR approved 

for § 63.626(g). 

(5) AOAC Official Method 962.02 

Phosphorus (Total) in Fertilizers, 

Gravimetric Quinolinium 

Molybdophosphate Method, Sixteenth 

edition, 1995, IBR approved for 

§ 63.626(g). 

(6) AOAC Official Method 969.02 

Phosphorus (Total) in Fertilizers, 

Alkalimetric Quinolinium 

Molybdophosphate Method, Sixteenth 

edition, 1995, IBR approved for 

§ 63.626(g). 

(7) AOAC Official Method 978.01 

Phosphorus (Total) in Fertilizers, 

Automated Method, Sixteenth edition, 

1995, IBR approved for § 63.626(g). 

* * * * * 

(l) * * * 

(2) EPA–454/R–98–015, Office Of Air 

Quality Planning And Standards 

(OAQPS), Fabric Filter Bag Leak 

Detection Guidance, September 1997, 

IBR approved for §§ 63.548(e), 

63.606(m), 63.607(b), 63.626(h), 

63.627(b), 63.7525(j), and 63.11224(f). 

* * * * * 

■ 20. Part 63 is amended by revising 

subpart AA to read as follows: 

Subpart AA—National Emission 

Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants 

from Phosphoric Acid Manufacturing 

Plants 

Sec. 

63.600 Applicability. 

63.601 Definitions. 

63.602 Standards and compliance dates. 

63.603 [Reserved] 

63.604 [Reserved] 

63.605 Operating and monitoring 

requirements. 

63.606 Performance tests and compliance 

provisions. 

63.607 Notification, recordkeeping, and 

reporting requirements. 

63.608 General requirements and 

applicability of general provisions of this 

part. 

63.609 [Reserved] 

63.610 Exemption from new source 

performance standards. 

63.611 Implementation and enforcement. 


rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 160 / Wednesday, August 19, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 50437 

Table 1 to Subpart AA of Part 63—Existing 

Source Emission Limits 

Table 2 to Subpart AA of Part 63—New 

Source Emission Limits 

Table 3 to Subpart AA of Part 63— 

Monitoring Equipment Operating 

Parameters 

Table 4 to Subpart AA of Part 63—Operating 

Parameters, Operating Limits and Data 

Monitoring, Recordkeeping and 

Compliance Frequencies 

Table 5 to Subpart AA of Part 63— 

Calibration and Quality Control 

Requirements for Continuous Parameter 

Monitoring System (CPMS) 

Appendix A to Subpart AA of Part 63— 

Applicability of General Provisions (40 

CFR part 63, subpart A) to Subpart AA 

§ 63.600 Applicability. 

(a) Except as provided in paragraphs 

(c) and (d) of this section, you are 

subject to the requirements of this 

subpart if you own or operate a 

phosphoric acid manufacturing plant 

that is a major source as defined in 

§ 63.2. You must comply with the 

emission limitations, work practice 

standards, and operating parameter 

requirements specified in this subpart at 

all times. 

(b) The requirements of this subpart 

apply to emissions of hazardous air 

pollutants (HAP) emitted from the 

following affected sources at a 

phosphoric acid manufacturing plant: 

(1) Each wet-process phosphoric acid 

process line. 

(2) Each evaporative cooling tower. 

(3) Each phosphate rock dryer. 

(4) Each phosphate rock calciner. 

(5) Each superphosphoric acid 

process line. 

(6) Each purified phosphoric acid 

process line. 

(7) Each gypsum dewatering stack. 

(8) Each cooling pond. 

(c) The requirements of this subpart 

do not apply to a phosphoric acid 

manufacturing plant that is an area 

source as defined in § 63.2. 

(d) The provisions of this subpart do 

not apply to research and development 

facilities as defined in § 63.601. 

§ 63.601 Definitions. 

Terms used in this subpart are 

defined in § 63.2 of the Clean Air Act 

and in this section as follows: 

Active gypsum dewatering stack 

means a gypsum dewatering stack that 

is currently receiving gypsum, received 

gypsum within the last year, or is part 

of the facility’s water management 

system. A gypsum dewatering stack that 

is considered closed by a state authority 

is not considered an active gypsum 

dewatering stack. 

Breakthrough means the point in time 

when the level of mercury detected at 

the outlet of an adsorber system is 90 

percent of the highest concentration 

allowed to be discharged consistent 

with the applicable emission limit. 

Cooling pond means a natural or 

artificial open reservoir that is primarily 

used to collect and cool water that 

comes into direct contact with raw 

materials, intermediate products, byproducts, waste products, or finished 

products from a phosphoric acid 

manufacturing plant. The water in the 

cooling pond is often used at 

phosphoric acid manufacturing plants 

as filter wash water, absorber water for 

air pollution control absorbers, and/or 

to transport phosphogypsum as slurry to 

a gypsum dewatering stack(s). 

Equivalent P2O5 feed means the 

quantity of phosphorus, expressed as 

phosphorus pentoxide (P2O5), fed to the 

process. 

Evaporative cooling tower means an 

open-water, re-circulating device that 

uses fans or natural draft to draw or 

force ambient air through the device to 

remove heat from process water by 

direct contact. 

Exceedance means a departure from 

an indicator range established for 

monitoring under this subpart, 

consistent with any averaging period 

specified for averaging the results of the 

monitoring. 

Existing source depends on the date 

that construction or reconstruction of an 

affected source commenced. A wetprocess phosphoric acid process line, 

superphosphoric acid process line, 

phosphate rock dryer, phosphate rock 

calciner, evaporative cooling tower, or 

purified acid process line is an existing 

source if construction or reconstruction 

of the affected source commenced on or 

before December 27, 1996. A gypsum 

dewatering stack or cooling pond is an 

existing source if it meets one of two 

criteria: 

(1) It was constructed or reconstructed 

on or before August 19, 2015; or 

(2) It was constructed or reconstructed 

after August 19, 2015 and it was not 

required to obtain a permit by a state 

authority for the construction or 

reconstruction. 

Gypsum dewatering stack means any 

defined geographic area associated with 

a phosphoric acid manufacturing plant 

in which gypsum is disposed of or 

stored, other than within a fully 

enclosed building, container, or tank. 

Gypsum dewatering stack system 

means the gypsum dewatering stack, 

together with all pumps, piping, 

ditches, drainage conveyances, water 

control structures, collection pools, 

cooling ponds, surge ponds, auxiliary 

holding ponds, regional holding ponds 

and any other collection or conveyance 

system associated with the transport of 

gypsum from the plant to the gypsum 

dewatering stack, its management at the 

gypsum dewatering stack, and the 

process wastewater return to the 

phosphoric acid production or other 

process. 

HAP metals mean those metals and 

their compounds (in particulate or 

volatile form) that are included on the 

list of hazardous air pollutants in 

section 112 of the Clean Air Act. HAP 

metals include, but are not limited to: 

Antimony, arsenic, beryllium, 

cadmium, chromium, lead, manganese, 

nickel, and selenium expressed as 

particulate matter as measured by the 

methods and procedures in this subpart 

or an approved alternative method. For 

the purposes of this subpart, HAP 

metals (except mercury) are expressed 

as particulate matter as measured by 

Method 5 at 40 CFR part 60, appendix 

A–3. 

New source depends on the date that 

construction or reconstruction of an 

affected source commences. A wetprocess phosphoric acid process line, 

superphosphoric acid process line, 

phosphate rock dryer, phosphate rock 

calciner, evaporative cooling tower, or 

purified acid process line is a new 

source if construction or reconstruction 

of the affected source commenced after 

December 27, 1996. A gypsum 

dewatering stack or cooling pond is a 

new source if it meets two criteria: 

(1) It was constructed or reconstructed 

after August 19, 2015; and 

(2) It was required to obtain a permit 

by a state authority for the construction 

or reconstruction. 

Oxidation reactor means any 

equipment or step that uses an oxidizing 

agent (e.g., nitric acid, ammonium 

nitrate, or potassium permanganate) to 

treat superphosphoric acid. 

Phosphate rock calciner means the 

equipment used to remove moisture and 

organic matter from phosphate rock 

through direct or indirect heating. 

Phosphate rock dryer means the 

equipment used to reduce the moisture 

content of phosphate rock through 

direct or indirect heating. 

Phosphate rock feed means all 

material entering any phosphate rock 

dryer or phosphate rock calciner 

including moisture and extraneous 

material as well as the following ore 

materials: Fluorapatite, hydroxylapatite, 

chlorapatite, and carbonateapatite. 

Purified phosphoric acid process line 

means any process line that uses a HAP 

as a solvent in the separation of 

impurities from the product acid for the 

purposes of rendering that product 

suitable for industrial, manufacturing, 

or food grade uses. A purified 

phosphoric acid process line includes: 


rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
50438 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 160 / Wednesday, August 19, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

solvent extraction process equipment, 

solvent stripping and recovery 

equipment, seal tanks, carbon treatment 

equipment, cooling towers, storage 

tanks, pumps, and process piping. 

Raffinate stream means the aqueous 

stream containing the impurities that 

are removed during the purification of 

wet-process phosphoric acid using 

solvent extraction. 

Research and development facility 

means research or laboratory operations 

whose primary purpose is to conduct 

research and development into new 

processes and products, where the 

operations are under the close 

supervision of technically trained 

personnel, and where the facility is not 

engaged in the manufacture of products 

for commercial sale in commerce or 

other off-site distribution, except in a de 

minimis manner. 

Rim ditch (cell) building technique 

means a gypsum dewatering stack 

construction technique that utilizes 

inner and outer dikes to direct gypsum 

slurry flow around the perimeter of the 

stack before directing the flow and 

allowing settling of finer materials into 

the settling compartment. For the 

purpose of this definition, the rim ditch 

(cell) building technique includes the 

compartment startup phase when 

gypsum is deposited directly into the 

settling compartment in preparation for 

ditch construction as well as the stepin or terminal phases when most solids 

must be directed to the settling 

compartment prior to stack closure. 

Decant return ditches are not rim 

ditches. 

Shutdown commences when feed 

materials cease to be added to an 

affected source and ends when the 

affected source is deactivated, regardless 

of whether feed material is present in 

the affected source. 

Startup commences when any feed 

material is first introduced into an 

affected source and ends when feed 

material is fully loaded into the affected 

source. 

Superphosphoric acid process line 

means any process line that 

concentrates wet-process phosphoric 

acid to 66 percent or greater P2O5

content by weight. A superphosphoric 

acid process line includes: evaporators, 

hot wells, acid sumps, oxidation 

reactors, and cooling tanks. 

Total fluorides means elemental 

fluorine and all fluoride compounds, 

including the HAP HF, as measured by 

reference methods specified in 40 CFR 

part 60, appendix A, Method 13 A or B, 

or by equivalent or alternative methods 

approved by the Administrator pursuant 

to § 63.7(f). 

Wet-process phosphoric acid process 

line means any process line 

manufacturing phosphoric acid by 

reacting phosphate rock and acid. A 

wet-process phosphoric acid process 

line includes: reactors, filters, 

evaporators, and hot wells. 

§ 63.602 Standards and compliance dates. 

(a) On and after the dates specified in 

paragraphs (a)(1) through (6) of this 

section, for each wet-process 

phosphoric acid process line, 

superphosphoric acid process line, 

phosphate rock dryer, and phosphate 

rock calciner, you must comply with the 

emission limits as specified in 

paragraphs (a)(1) through (6) of this 

section. If a process line contains more 

than one emission point, you must sum 

the emissions from all emission points 

in a process line to determine 

compliance with the specified emission 

limits. 

(1) For each existing wet-process 

phosphoric acid process line, 

superphosphoric acid process line, and 

phosphate rock dryer that commenced 

construction or reconstruction on or 

before December 27, 1996, you must 

comply with the emission limits 

specified in Table 1 to this subpart 

beginning on June 10, 2002. 

(2) For each existing phosphate rock 

calciner that commenced construction 

or reconstruction on or before December 

27, 1996, you must comply with the 

emission limits as specified in 

paragraphs (a)(2)(i) through (iii) of this 

section. 

(i) You must comply with the total 

particulate emission limit specified in 

Table 1 to this subpart beginning on 

June 10, 2002. 

(ii) You must comply with the 

mercury emission limit specified in 

Table 1 to this subpart beginning on 

August 19, 2015. 

(iii) You must comply with the total 

fluorides emission limit specified in 

Table 1 to this subpart beginning on 

August 19, 2015. 

(3) For each new wet-process 

phosphoric acid process line, 

superphosphoric acid process line, and 

phosphate rock dryer that commences 

construction or reconstruction after 

December 27, 1996 and on or before 

August 19, 2015, you must comply with 

the emission limits specified in Table 2 

to this subpart beginning on June 10, 

1999 or at startup, whichever is later. 

(4) For each new wet-process 

phosphoric acid process line, 

superphosphoric acid process line, and 

phosphate rock dryer that commences 

construction or reconstruction after 

August 19, 2015, you must comply with 

the emission limits specified in Table 2 

to this subpart immediately upon 

startup. 

(5) For each new phosphate rock 

calciner that commences construction or 

reconstruction after December 27, 1996 

and on or before August 19, 2015, you 

must comply with the emission limits as 

specified in paragraphs (a)(5)(i) through 

(iii) of this section. 

(i) You must comply with the total 

particulate emission limit specified in 

Table 2 to this subpart beginning on 

June 10, 1999 or at startup, whichever 

is later. 

(ii) You must comply with the 

mercury emission limit specified in 

Table 2 to this subpart beginning on 

August 19, 2015, or upon startup, 

whichever is later. 

(iii) You must comply with the total 

fluorides emission limit specified in 

Table 2 to this subpart beginning on 

August 19, 2015, or upon startup, 

whichever is later. 

(6) For each new phosphate rock 

calciner that commences construction or 

reconstruction after August 19, 2015, 

you must comply with the emission 

limits specified in Table 2 to this 

subpart immediately upon startup. 

(b) For each existing purified 

phosphoric acid process line that 

commenced construction or 

reconstruction on or before December 

27, 1996, you must comply with the 

provisions of subpart H of this part and 

paragraphs (b)(1) through (3) of this 

section beginning on June 10, 2002. For 

each new purified phosphoric acid 

process line that commences 

construction or reconstruction after 

December 27, 1996, you must comply 

with the provisions of subpart H of this 

part and paragraphs (b)(1) through (3) of 

this section beginning on June 10, 1999 

or at startup, whichever is later. 

(1) Maintain a 30-day rolling average 

of daily concentration measurements of 

methyl isobutyl ketone equal to or 

below 20 parts per million by weight 

(ppmw) for each product acid stream. 

(2) Maintain a 30-day rolling average 

of daily concentration measurements of 

methyl isobutyl ketone equal to or 

below 30 ppmw for each raffinate 

stream. 

(3) Maintain the daily average 

temperature of the exit gas stream from 

the chiller stack below 50 degrees 

Fahrenheit. 

(c) Beginning on June 10, 2002, you 

must not introduce into an existing 

evaporative cooling tower that 

commenced construction or 

reconstruction on or before December 

27, 1996, any liquid effluent from any 

absorber installed to control emissions 

from process equipment. Beginning on 

June 10, 1999 or at startup, whichever 


rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 160 / Wednesday, August 19, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 50439 

is later, you must not introduce into a 

new evaporative cooling tower that 

commences construction or 

reconstruction after December 27, 1996, 

any liquid effluent from any absorber 

installed to control emissions from 

process equipment. 

(d) For each gypsum dewatering stack 

system, you must prepare, and operate 

in accordance with, a gypsum 

dewatering stack and cooling pond 

management plan that contains the 

information specified in paragraph (e) of 

this section beginning on August 19, 

2016. 

(e) The gypsum dewatering stack and 

cooling pond management plan must 

include the information specified in 

paragraphs (e)(1) through (3) of this 

section. You must submit the gypsum 

dewatering stack and cooling pond 

management plan for approval to the 

Administrator as specified in paragraph 

(e)(4) of this section. 

(1) Location (including latitude and 

longitude of centroid in decimal degrees 

to four decimal places) of each gypsum 

dewatering stack and each cooling pond 

in the gypsum dewatering stack system. 

(2) Permitted maximum footprint 

acreage of each gypsum dewatering 

stack and each cooling pond in the 

gypsum dewatering stack system. 

(3) Control measures that you use to 

minimize fugitive hydrogen fluoride 

emissions from the gypsum dewatering 

stack system. If you operate one or more 

active gypsum dewatering stacks or 

cooling ponds that are considered new 

sources as defined in § 63.601, then you 

must use, and include in the 

management plan, at least two of the 

control measures listed in paragraphs 

(e)(3)(i) through (vii) of this section for 

your gypsum dewatering stack system. If 

you only operate active gypsum 

dewatering stacks and cooling ponds 

that are considered existing sources as 

defined in § 63.601, then you must use, 

and include in the management plan, at 

least one of the control measures listed 

in paragraphs (e)(3)(i) through (vii) of 

this section for your gypsum dewatering 

stack system. 

(i) For at least one cooling pond that 

is considered part of your gypsum 

dewatering stack system, you may 

choose to submerge the discharge pipe 

to a level below the surface of the 

cooling pond. 

(ii) For at least one cooling pond that 

is considered part of your gypsum 

dewatering stack system, you may 

choose to use lime (or any other caustic 

substance) to raise the pH of the liquid 

(e.g., the condensed vapors from the 

flash cooler and evaporators, and 

scrubbing liquid) discharged into the 

cooling pond. If you choose this control 

measure, then you must include in the 

plan the method used to raise the pH of 

the liquid discharged into the cooling 

pond, the target pH value (of the liquid 

discharged into the cooling pond) 

expected to be achieved by using the 

method, and the analyses used to 

determine and support the raise in pH. 

(iii) For all cooling ponds that are 

considered part of your gypsum 

dewatering stack system, you may 

choose to reduce the total cooling pond 

surface area based on a facility specific 

evaluation plan. If you choose this 

control measure, then you must include 

in the facility specific evaluation plan 

certified by an independent licensed 

professional engineer or similarly 

qualified individual. You must also 

include in the plan the method used to 

reduce total cooling pond footprint, the 

analyses used to determine and support 

the reduction in the total cooling pond 

surface area, and the amount of total 

cooling pond surface area that was 

reduced due to the facility specific 

evaluation plan. 

(iv) For at least one gypsum 

dewatering stack that is considered part 

of your gypsum dewatering stack 

system, you may choose to minimize the 

surface area of the gypsum pond 

associated with the active gypsum 

dewatering stack by using a rim ditch 

(cell) building technique or other 

building technique. 

(v) For at least one gypsum 

dewatering stack that is considered part 

of your gypsum dewatering stack 

system, you may choose to apply slaked 

lime to the active gypsum dewatering 

stack surfaces. If you choose this control 

measure, then you must include in the 

plan the method used to determine the 

specific locations slaked lime is applied. 

The plan must also include the methods 

used to determine the quantity of, and 

when to apply, slaked lime (e.g., slaked 

lime may be applied to achieve a state 

ambient air standard for fluorides, 

measured as hydrogen fluoride). 

(vi) For at least one gypsum 

dewatering stack that is considered part 

of your gypsum dewatering stack 

system, you may choose to apply soil 

caps and vegetation, or a synthetic 

cover, to a portion of side slopes of the 

active gypsum dewatering stack. If you 

choose this control measure, then you 

must include in the plan the method 

used to determine the specific locations 

of soil caps and vegetation, or synthetic 

cover; and specify the acreage and 

locations where soil caps and 

vegetation, or synthetic cover, is 

applied. The plan must also include a 

schedule describing when soil caps and 

vegetation, or synthetic cover, is to be 

applied. 

(vii) For all gypsum dewatering stacks 

that are considered part of your gypsum 

dewatering stack system, you may 

choose to establish closure requirements 

that at a minimum, contain 

requirements for the specified items in 

paragraphs (e)(3)(vii)(A) and (B) of this 

section. 

(A) A specific trigger mechanism for 

when you must begin the closure 

process on the gypsum dewatering 

stack; and 

(B) A requirement to install a final 

cover. For purposes of this paragraph, 

final cover means the materials used to 

cover the top and sides of a gypsum 

dewatering stack upon closure. 

(4) You must submit your plan for 

approval to the Administrator at least 6 

months prior to the compliance date 

specified in § 63.602(d), or with the 

permit application for modification, 

construction, or reconstruction. The 

plan must include details on how you 

will implement and show compliance 

with the control technique(s) that you 

have selected to use. The Administrator 

will approve or disapprove your plan 

within 90 days after receipt of the plan. 

To change any of the information 

submitted in the plan, you must submit 

a revised plan 60 days before the 

planned change is to be implemented in 

order to allow time for review and 

approval by the Administrator before 

the change is implemented. 

(f) Beginning on August 19, 2015, 

during periods of startup and shutdown 

(as defined in § 63.601), you must 

comply with the work practice specified 

in this paragraph in lieu of the emission 

limits specified in paragraph (a) of this 

section. During periods of startup and 

shutdown, you must operate any control 

device(s) being used at the affected 

source, monitor the operating 

parameters specified in Table 3 of this 

subpart, and comply with the operating 

limits specified in Table 4 of this 

subpart. 

§ 63.603 [Reserved] 

§ 63.604 [Reserved] 

§ 63.605 Operating and monitoring 

requirements. 

(a) For each wet-process phosphoric 

acid process line or superphosphoric 

acid process line subject to the 

provisions of this subpart, you must 

comply with the monitoring 

requirements specified in paragraphs 

(a)(1) and (2) of this section. 

(1) Install, calibrate, maintain, and 

operate a continuous monitoring system 

(CMS) according to your site-specific 

monitoring plan specified in § 63.608(c). 

The CMS must have an accuracy of ±5 

percent over its operating range and 


rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
50440 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 160 / Wednesday, August 19, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

must determine and permanently record 

the mass flow of phosphorus-bearing 

material fed to the process. 

(2) Maintain a daily record of 

equivalent P2O5 feed. Calculate the 

equivalent P2O5 feed by determining the 

total mass rate, in metric ton/hour of 

phosphorus bearing feed, using the 

monitoring system specified in 

paragraph (a)(1) of this section and the 

procedures specified in § 63.606(f)(3). 

(b) For each phosphate rock dryer or 

phosphate rock calciner subject to the 

provisions of this subpart, you must 

comply with the monitoring 

requirements specified in paragraphs 

(b)(1) and (2) of this section. 

(1) Install, calibrate, maintain, and 

operate a CMS according to your sitespecific monitoring plan specified in 

§ 63.608(c). The CMS must have an 

accuracy of ±5 percent over its operating 

range and must determine and 

permanently record either: 

(i) The mass flow of phosphorusbearing feed material to the phosphate 

rock dryer or calciner, or 

(ii) The mass flow of product from the 

phosphate rock dryer or calciner. 

(2) Maintain the records specified in 

paragraphs (b)(2)(i) and (ii) of this 

section. 

(i) If you monitor the mass flow of 

phosphorus-bearing feed material to the 

phosphate rock dryer or calciner as 

specified in paragraph (b)(1)(i) of this 

section, maintain a daily record of 

phosphate rock feed by determining the 

total mass rate in metric tons/hour of 

phosphorus-bearing feed. 

(ii) If you monitor the mass flow of 

product from the phosphate rock dryer 

or calciner as specified in paragraph 

(b)(1)(ii) of this section, maintain a daily 

record of product by determining the 

total mass rate in metric ton/hour of 

product. 

(c) For each purified phosphoric acid 

process line, you must comply with the 

monitoring requirements specified in 

paragraphs (c)(1) and (2) of this section. 

(1) Install, calibrate, maintain, and 

operate a CMS according to your sitespecific monitoring plan specified in 

§ 63.608(c). The CMS must continuously 

measure and permanently record the 

stack gas exit temperature for each 

chiller stack. 

(2) Measure and record the 

concentration of methyl isobutyl ketone 

in each product acid stream and each 

raffinate stream once each day. 

(d) If you use a control device(s) to 

comply with the emission limits 

specified in Table 1 or 2 of this subpart, 

you must install a continuous parameter 

monitoring system (CPMS) and comply 

with the requirements specified in 

paragraphs (d)(1) through (5) of this 

section. 

(1) You must monitor the operating 

parameter(s) applicable to the control 

device that you use as specified in Table 

3 to this subpart and establish the 

applicable limit or range for the 

operating parameter limit as specified in 

paragraphs (d)(1)(i) and (ii) of this 

section, as applicable. 

(i) Except as specified in paragraph 

(d)(1)(ii) of this section, determine the 

value(s) as the arithmetic average of 

operating parameter measurements 

recorded during the three test runs 

conducted for the most recent 

performance test. 

(ii) If you use an absorber or a wet 

electrostatic precipitator to comply with 

the emission limits in Table 1 or 2 to 

this subpart and you monitor pressure 

drop across the absorber or secondary 

voltage for a wet electrostatic 

precipitator, you must establish 

allowable ranges using the methodology 

specified in paragraphs (d)(1)(ii)(A) and 

(B) of this section. 

(A) The allowable range for the daily 

averages of the pressure drop across an 

absorber, or secondary voltage for a wet 

electrostatic precipitator, is ±20 percent 

of the baseline average value 

determined in paragraph (d)(1)(i) of this 

section. The Administrator retains the 

right to reduce the ±20 percent 

adjustment to the baseline average 

values of operating ranges in those 

instances where performance test results 

indicate that a source’s level of 

emissions is near the value of an 

applicable emissions standard. 

However, the adjustment must not be 

reduced to less than ±10 percent under 

any instance. 

(B) As an alternative to paragraph 

(d)(1)(ii)(A) of this section, you may 

establish allowable ranges for the daily 

averages of the pressure drop across an 

absorber, or secondary voltage for an 

electrostatic precipitator, for the 

purpose of assuring compliance with 

this subpart using the procedures 

described in this paragraph. You must 

establish the allowable ranges based on 

the baseline average values recorded 

during previous performance tests, or 

the results of performance tests 

conducted specifically for the purposes 

of this paragraph. You must conduct all 

performance tests using the methods 

specified in § 63.606. You must certify 

that the control devices and processes 

have not been modified since the date 

of the performance test from which you 

obtained the data used to establish the 

allowable ranges. When a source using 

the methodology of this paragraph is 

retested, you must determine new 

allowable ranges of baseline average 

values unless the retest indicates no 

change in the operating parameters 

outside the previously established 

ranges. 

(2) You must monitor, record, and 

demonstrate continuous compliance 

using the minimum frequencies 

specified in Table 4 to this subpart. 

(3) You must comply with the 

calibration and quality control 

requirements that are applicable to the 

operating parameter(s) you monitor as 

specified in Table 5 to this subpart. 

(4) If you use a non-regenerative 

adsorption system to achieve the 

mercury emission limits specified in 

Table 1 or 2 to this subpart, you must 

comply with the requirements specified 

in paragraph (e) of this section. 

(5) If you use a sorbent injection 

system to achieve the mercury emission 

limits specified in Table 1 or 2 to this 

subpart and you use a fabric filter to 

collect the associated particulate matter, 

the system must meet the requirements 

for fabric filters specified in paragraph 

(f) of this section. 

(e) If you use a non-regenerative 

adsorption system to achieve the 

mercury emission limits specified in 

Table 1 or 2 to this subpart, you must 

comply with the requirements specified 

in paragraphs (e)(1) through (3) of this 

section. 

(1) Determine the adsorber bed life 

(i.e., the expected life of the sorbent in 

the adsorption system) using the 

procedures specified in paragraphs 

(e)(1)(i) through (iv) of this section. 

(i) If the adsorber bed is expected 

(designed) to have a life of less than 2 

years, determine the outlet 

concentration of mercury on a quarterly 

basis until breakthrough occurs for the 

first three adsorber bed change-outs. 

The adsorber bed life shall equal the 

average length of time between each of 

the three change-outs. 

(ii) If the adsorber bed is expected 

(designed) to have a life of 2 years or 

greater, determine the outlet 

concentration of mercury on a semiannual basis until breakthrough occurs 

for the first two adsorber bed changeouts. The adsorber bed life must equal 

the average length of time between each 

of the two change-outs. 

(iii) If more than one adsorber is 

operated in parallel, or there are several 

identical operating lines controlled by 

adsorbers, you may determine the 

adsorber bed life by measuring the 

outlet concentration of mercury from 

one of the adsorbers or adsorber systems 

rather than determining the bed life for 

each adsorber. 

(iv) The adsorber or adsorber system 

you select for the adsorber bed life test 

must have the highest expected inlet gas 


rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 160 / Wednesday, August 19, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 50441 

mercury concentration and the highest 

operating rate of any adsorber in 

operation at the affected source. During 

the test to determine adsorber bed life, 

you must use the fuel that contains the 

highest level of mercury in any fuelburning unit associated with the 

adsorption system being tested. 

(2) You must replace the sorbent in 

each adsorber on or before the end of 

the adsorbent bed life, calculated in 

paragraph (e)(1) of this section. 

(3) You must re-establish the adsorber 

bed life if the sorbent is replaced with 

a different brand or type, or if any 

process changes are made that would 

lead to a shorter bed lifetime. 

(f) Beginning August 19, 2016, if you 

use a fabric filter system to comply with 

the emission limits specified in Table 1 

or 2 to this subpart, then the fabric filter 

must be equipped with a bag leak 

detection system that is installed, 

calibrated, maintained, and 

continuously operated according to the 

requirements in paragraphs (f)(1) 

through (10) of this section. 

(1) Install a bag leak detection 

sensor(s) in a position(s) that will be 

representative of the relative or absolute 

particulate matter loadings for each 

exhaust stack, roof vent, or 

compartment (e.g., for a positivepressure fabric filter) of the fabric filter. 

(2) Use a bag leak detection system 

certified by the manufacturer to be 

capable of detecting particulate matter 

emissions at concentrations of 1 

milligram per actual cubic meter 

(0.00044 grains per actual cubic feet) or 

less. 

(3) Use a bag leak detection system 

equipped with a device to continuously 

record the output signal from the system 

sensor. 

(4) Use a bag leak detection system 

equipped with a system that will trigger 

an alarm when an increase in relative 

particulate matter emissions over a 

preset level is detected. The alarm must 

be located such that the alert is observed 

readily by plant operating personnel. 

(5) Install a bag leak detection system 

in each compartment or cell for 

positive-pressure fabric filter systems 

that do not duct all compartments or 

cells to a common stack. Install a bag 

leak detector downstream of the fabric 

filter if a negative-pressure or inducedair filter system is used. If multiple bag 

leak detectors are required, the system’s 

instrumentation and alarm may be 

shared among detectors. 

(6) Calibration of the bag leak 

detection system must, at a minimum, 

consist of establishing the baseline 

output level by adjusting the range and 

the averaging period of the device and 

establishing the alarm set points and the 

alarm delay time. 

(7) After initial adjustment, you must 

not adjust the sensitivity or range, 

averaging period, alarm set points, or 

alarm delay time except as established 

in your site-specific monitoring plan 

required in § 63.608(c). In no event may 

the sensitivity be increased more than 

100 percent or decreased by more than 

50 percent over a 365-day period unless 

such adjustment follows a complete 

inspection of the fabric filter system that 

demonstrates that the system is in good 

operating condition. 

(8) Operate and maintain each fabric 

filter and bag leak detection system such 

that the alarm does not sound more than 

5 percent of the operating time during 

a 6-month period. If the alarm sounds 

more than 5 percent of the operating 

time during a 6-month period, it is 

considered an operating parameter 

exceedance. Calculate the alarm time 

(i.e., time that the alarm sounds) as 

specified in paragraphs (f)(8)(i) through 

(iii) of this section. 

(i) If inspection of the fabric filter 

demonstrates that corrective action is 

not required, the alarm duration is not 

counted in the alarm time calculation. 

(ii) If corrective action is required, 

each alarm time is counted as a 

minimum of 1 hour. 

(iii) If it takes longer than 1 hour to 

initiate corrective action, each alarm 

time is counted as the actual amount of 

time taken to initiate corrective action. 

(9) If the alarm on a bag leak detection 

system is triggered, you must initiate 

procedures within 1 hour of an alarm to 

identify the cause of the alarm and then 

initiate corrective action, as specified in 

§ 63.608(d)(2), no later than 48 hours 

after an alarm. Failure to take these 

actions within the prescribed time 

periods is considered a violation. 

(10) Retain records of any bag leak 

detection system alarm, including the 

date, time, duration, and the percent of 

the total operating time during each 6- 

month period that the alarm sounds, 

with a brief explanation of the cause of 

the alarm, the corrective action taken, 

and the schedule and duration of the 

corrective action. 

(g) If you choose to directly monitor 

mercury emissions instead of using 

CPMS as specified in paragraph (d) of 

this section, then you must install and 

operate a mercury CEMS in accordance 

with Performance Specification 12A of 

appendix B to part 60 of this chapter, or 

a sorbent trap-based integrated 

monitoring system in accordance with 

Performance Specification 12B of 

appendix B to part 60 of this chapter. 

You must continuously monitor 

mercury emissions as specified in 

paragraphs (g)(1) through (4) of this 

section. 

(1) The span value for any mercury 

CEMS must include the intended upper 

limit of the mercury concentration 

measurement range during normal 

operation, which may be exceeded 

during other short-term conditions 

lasting less than 24 consecutive 

operating hours. However, the span 

should be at least equivalent to 

approximately two times the emissions 

standard. You may round the span value 

to the nearest multiple of 10 micrograms 

per cubic meter of total mercury. 

(2) You must operate and maintain 

each mercury CEMS or sorbent trapbased integrated monitoring system 

according to the quality assurance 

requirements specified in Procedure 5 of 

appendix F to part 60 of this chapter. 

(3) You must conduct relative 

accuracy testing of mercury monitoring 

systems, as specified in Performance 

Specification 12A, Performance 

Specification 12B, or Procedure 5 of 

appendix B to part 60 of this chapter, at 

normal operating conditions. 

(4) If you use a mercury CEMS, you 

must install, operate, calibrate, and 

maintain an instrument for 

continuously measuring and recording 

the exhaust gas flow rate to the 

atmosphere according to your sitespecific monitoring plan specified in 

§ 63.608(c). 

§ 63.606 Performance tests and 

compliance provisions. 

(a) You must conduct an initial 

performance test to demonstrate 

compliance with the applicable 

emission limits specified in Tables 1 

and 2 to this subpart, within 180 days 

of the applicable compliance date 

specified in § 63.602. 

(b) After you conduct the initial 

performance test specified in paragraph 

(a) of this section, you must conduct a 

performance test once per calendar year. 

(c) For affected sources (as defined in 

§ 63.600) that have not operated since 

the previous annual performance test 

was conducted and more than 1 year 

has passed since the previous 

performance test, you must conduct a 

performance test no later than 180 days 

after the re-start of the affected source 

according to the applicable provisions 

in § 63.7(a)(2). 

(d)(1) You must conduct the 

performance tests specified in this 

section at representative (normal) 

conditions for the process. 

Representative (normal) conditions 

means those conditions that: 

(i) Represent the range of combined 

process and control measure conditions 

under which the facility expects to 


rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
50442 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 160 / Wednesday, August 19, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

operate (regardless of the frequency of 

the conditions); and 

(ii) Are likely to most challenge the 

emissions control measures of the 

facility with regard to meeting the 

applicable emission standards, but 

without creating an unsafe condition. 

Operations during startup, shutdown, 

and malfunction do not constitute 

representative (normal) operating 

conditions for purposes of conducting a 

performance test. 

(2) You must record the process 

information that is necessary to 

document the operating conditions 

during the test and include in such 

record an explanation to support that 

such conditions represent representative 

(normal) conditions. Upon request, you 

must make available to the 

Administrator such records as may be 

necessary to determine the conditions of 

performance tests. 

(e) In conducting all performance 

tests, you must use as reference methods 

and procedures the test methods in 40 

CFR part 60, appendix A, or other 

methods and procedures as specified in 

this section, except as provided in 

§ 63.7(f). 

(f) You must determine compliance 

with the applicable total fluorides 

standards specified in Tables 1 and 2 to 

this subpart as specified in paragraphs 

(f)(1) through (3) of this section. 

(1) Compute the emission rate (E) of 

total fluorides for each run using 

Equation AA–1: 

Where: 

E = Emission rate of total fluorides, gram/

metric ton (pound/ton) of equivalent 

P2O5 feed. 

Ci = Concentration of total fluorides from 

emission point ‘‘i,’’ milligram/dry 

standard cubic meter (milligram/dry 

standard cubic feet). 

Qi = Volumetric flow rate of effluent gas from 

emission point ‘‘i,’’ dry standard cubic 

meter/hour (dry standard cubic feet/

hour). 

N = Number of emission points associated 

with the affected facility. 

P = Equivalent P2O5 feed rate, metric ton/

hour (ton/hour). 

K = Conversion factor, 1000 milligram/gram 

(453,600 milligram/pound). 

(2) You must use Method 13A or 13B 

(40 CFR part 60, appendix A) to 

determine the total fluorides 

concentration (Ci) and the volumetric 

flow rate (Qi) of the effluent gas at each 

emission point. The sampling time for 

each run at each emission point must be 

at least 60 minutes. The sampling 

volume for each run at each emission 

point must be at least 0.85 dscm (30 

dscf). If Method 13B is used, the fusion 

of the filtered material described in 

Section 7.3.1.2 and the distillation of 

suitable aliquots of containers 1 and 2, 

described in section 7.3.3 and 7.3.4 in 

Method 13 A, may be omitted. 

(3) Compute the equivalent P2O5 feed 

rate (P) using Equation AA–2: 

Where: 

P = P2O5 feed rate, metric ton/hr (ton/hour). 

Mp = Total mass flow rate of phosphorusbearing feed, metric ton/hour (ton/hour). 

Rp = P2O5 content, decimal fraction. 

(i) Determine the mass flow rate (Mp) 

of the phosphorus-bearing feed using 

the measurement system described in 

§ 63.605(a). 

(ii) Determine the P2O5 content (Rp) of 

the feed using, as appropriate, the 

following methods specified in Methods 

Used and Adopted By The Association 

of Florida Phosphate Chemists 

(incorporated by reference, see § 63.14) 

where applicable: 

(A) Section IX, Methods of Analysis 

for Phosphate Rock, No. 1 Preparation of 

Sample. 

(B) Section IX, Methods of Analysis 

for Phosphate Rock, No. 3 PhosphorusP2O5 or Ca3(PO4)2, Method A— 

Volumetric Method. 

(C) Section IX, Methods of Analysis 

for Phosphate Rock, No. 3 PhosphorusP2O5 or Ca3(PO4)2, Method B— 

Gravimetric Quimociac Method. 

(D) Section IX, Methods of Analysis 

for Phosphate Rock, No. 3 PhosphorusP2O5 or Ca3(PO4)2, Method C— 

Spectrophotometric Method. 

(E) Section XI, Methods of Analysis 

for Phosphoric Acid, Superphosphate, 

Triple Superphosphate, and 

Ammonium Phosphates, No. 3 Total 

Phosphorus-P2O5, Method A— 

Volumetric Method. 

(F) Section XI, Methods of Analysis 

for Phosphoric Acid, Superphosphate, 

Triple Superphosphate, and 

Ammonium Phosphates, No. 3 Total 

Phosphorus-P2O5, Method B— 

Gravimetric Quimociac Method. 

(G) Section XI, Methods of Analysis 

for Phosphoric Acid, Superphosphate, 

Triple Superphosphate, and 

Ammonium Phosphates, No. 3 Total 

Phosphorus-P2O5, Method C— 

Spectrophotometric Method. 

(g) You must demonstrate compliance 

with the applicable particulate matter 

standards specified in Tables 1 and 2 to 

this subpart as specified in paragraphs 

(g)(1) through (3) of this section. 

(1) Compute the emission rate (E) of 

particulate matter for each run using 

Equation AA–3: 

Where: 

E = Emission rate of particulate matter, 

kilogram/megagram (pound/ton) of 

phosphate rock feed. 

C = Concentration of particulate matter, 

gram/dry standard cubic meter (gram/dry 

standard cubic feet). 

Q = Volumetric flow rate of effluent gas, dry 

standard cubic meter/hour (dry standard 

cubic feet/hour). 

P = Phosphate rock feed rate, megagram/hour 

(ton/hour). 

K = Conversion factor, 1000 grams/kilogram 

(453.6 grams/pound). 

(2) Use Method 5 at 40 CFR part 60, 

appendix A–3 to determine the 

particulate matter concentration (C) and 

volumetric flow rate (Q) of the effluent 

gas. Except as specified in paragraph (h) 

of this section, the sampling time and 


rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES2ER19AU15.000</GPH> ER19AU15.001</GPH> ER19AU15.002</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 160 / Wednesday, August 19, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 50443 

sample volume for each run must be at 

least 60 minutes and 0.85 dry standard 

cubic meter (30 dry standard cubic feet). 

(3) Use the CMS described in 

§ 63.605(b) to determine the phosphate 

rock feed rate (P) for each run. 

(h) To demonstrate compliance with 

the particulate matter standards for 

phosphate rock calciners specified in 

Tables 1 and 2 to this subpart, you must 

use Method 5 at 40 CFR part 60, 

appendix A–3 to determine the 

particulate matter concentration. The 

sampling volume for each test run must 

be at least 1.70 dry standard cubic 

meter. 

(i) To demonstrate compliance with 

the mercury emission standards for 

phosphate rock calciners specified in 

Tables 1 and 2 to this subpart, you must 

use Method 30B at 40 CFR part 60, 

appendix A–8 to determine the mercury 

concentration, unless you use a CEMS 

to demonstrate compliance. If you use a 

non-regenerative adsorber to control 

mercury emissions, you must use this 

test method to determine the expected 

bed life as specified in § 63.605(e)(1). 

(j) If you choose to monitor the mass 

flow of product from the phosphate rock 

dryer or calciner as specified in 

§ 63.605(b)(1)(ii), you must either: 

(1) Simultaneously monitor the feed 

rate and output rate of the phosphate 

rock dryer or calciner during the 

performance test, or 

(2) Monitor the output rate and the 

input and output moisture contents of 

the phosphate rock dryer or calciner 

during the performance test and 

calculate the corresponding phosphate 

rock dryer or calciner input rate. 

(k) For sorbent injection systems, you 

must conduct the performance test at 

the outlet of the fabric filter used for 

sorbent collection. You must monitor 

and record operating parameter values 

for the fabric filter during the 

performance test. If the sorbent is 

replaced with a different brand or type 

of sorbent than was used during the 

performance test, you must conduct a 

new performance test. 

(l) If you use a mercury CEMS as 

specified in § 63.605(g), or paragraph (i) 

of this section, you must demonstrate 

initial compliance based on the first 30 

operating days during which you 

operate the affected source using a 

CEMS. You must obtain hourly mercury 

concentration and stack gas volumetric 

flow rate data. 

(m) If you use a CMS, you must 

conduct a performance evaluation, as 

specified in § 63.8(e), in accordance 

with your site-specific monitoring plan 

in § 63.608(c). For fabric filters, you 

must conduct a performance evaluation 

of the bag leak detection system 

consistent with the guidance provided 

in Office Of Air Quality Planning And 

Standards (OAQPS), Fabric Filter Bag 

Leak Detection Guidance (incorporated 

by reference, see § 63.14). You must 

record the sensitivity of the bag leak 

detection system to detecting changes in 

particulate matter emissions, range, 

averaging period, and alarm set points 

during the performance test. 

§ 63.607 Notification, recordkeeping, and 

reporting requirements. 

(a) You must comply with the 

notification requirements specified in 

§ 63.9. During the most recent 

performance test, if you demonstrate 

compliance with the emission limit 

while operating your control device 

outside the previously established 

operating limit, you must establish a 

new operating limit based on that most 

recent performance test and notify the 

Administrator that the operating limit 

changed based on data collected during 

the most recent performance test. When 

a source is retested and the performance 

test results are submitted to the 

Administrator pursuant to paragraph 

(b)(1) of this section, § 63.7(g)(1), or 

§ 63.10(d)(2), you must indicate whether 

the operating limit is based on the new 

performance test or the previously 

established limit. Upon establishment of 

a new operating limit, you must 

thereafter operate under the new 

operating limit. If the Administrator 

determines that you did not conduct the 

compliance test in accordance with the 

applicable requirements or that the 

operating limit established during the 

performance test does not correspond to 

representative (normal) conditions, you 

must conduct a new performance test 

and establish a new operating limit. 

(b) You must comply with the 

reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements in § 63.10 as specified in 

paragraphs (b)(1) through (5) of this 

section. 

(1) You must comply with the general 

recordkeeping requirements in 

§ 63.10(b)(1). 

(2) As required by § 63.10(d), you 

must report the results of the initial and 

subsequent performance tests as part of 

the notification of compliance status 

required in § 63.9(h). You must verify in 

the performance test reports that the 

operating limits for each process have 

not changed or provide documentation 

of revised operating limits established 

according to § 63.605, as applicable. In 

the notification of compliance status, 

you must also: 

(i) Certify to the Administrator 

annually that you have complied with 

the evaporative cooling tower 

requirements specified in § 63.602(c). 

(ii) Submit analyses and supporting 

documentation demonstrating 

conformance with the Office Of Air 

Quality Planning And Standards 

(OAQPS), Fabric Filter Bag Leak 

Detection Guidance (incorporated by 

reference, see § 63.14) and specifications 

for bag leak detection systems as part of 

the notification of compliance status 

report. 

(iii) Submit the gypsum dewatering 

stack and cooling pond management 

plan specified in § 63.602(e). 

(iv) If you elect to demonstrate 

compliance by following the procedures 

in § 63.605(d)(1)(ii)(B), certify to the 

Administrator annually that the control 

devices and processes have not been 

modified since the date of the 

performance test from which you 

obtained the data used to establish the 

allowable ranges. 

(v) Each time a gypsum dewatering 

stack is closed, certify to the 

Administrator within 90 days of closure, 

that the final cover of the closed gypsum 

dewatering stack is a drought resistant 

vegetative cover that includes a barrier 

soil layer that will sustain vegetation. 

(3) As required by § 63.10(e)(3), you 

must submit an excess emissions report 

for any exceedance of an emission limit, 

work practice standard, or operating 

parameter limit if the total duration of 

the exceedances for the reporting period 

is 1 percent of the total operating time 

for the reporting period or greater. The 

report must contain the information 

specified in § 63.10 and paragraph (b)(4) 

of this section. When exceedances of an 

emission limit or operating parameter 

have not occurred, you must include 

such information in the report. You 

must submit the report semiannually 

and the report must be delivered or 

postmarked by the 30th day following 

the end of the calendar half. If you 

report exceedances, you must submit 

the excess emissions report quarterly 

until a request to reduce reporting 

frequency is approved as described in 

§ 63.10(e)(3)(ii). 

(4) In the event that an affected unit 

fails to meet an applicable standard, 

record and report the following 

information for each failure: 

(i) The date, time and duration of the 

failure. 

(ii) A list of the affected sources or 

equipment for which a failure occurred. 

(iii) An estimate of the volume of each 

regulated pollutant emitted over any 

emission limit. 

(iv) A description of the method used 

to estimate the emissions. 

(v) A record of actions taken to 

minimize emissions in accordance with 

§ 63.608(b), and any corrective actions 


rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
50444 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 160 / Wednesday, August 19, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

taken to return the affected unit to its 

normal or usual manner of operation. 

(5) You must submit a summary 

report containing the information 

specified in § 63.10(e)(3)(vi). You must 

submit the summary report 

semiannually and the report must be 

delivered or postmarked by the 30th day 

following the end of the calendar half. 

(c) Your records must be in a form 

suitable and readily available for 

expeditious review. You must keep each 

record for 5 years following the date of 

each recorded action. You must keep 

each record on site, or accessible from 

a central location by computer or other 

means that instantly provides access at 

the site, for at least 2 years after the date 

of each recorded action. You may keep 

the records off site for the remaining 3 

years. 

(d) In computing averages to 

determine compliance with this subpart, 

you must exclude the monitoring data 

specified in paragraphs (d)(1) and (2) of 

this section. 

(1) Periods of non-operation of the 

process unit; 

(2) Periods of no flow to a control 

device; and any monitoring data 

recorded during CEMS or continuous 

parameter monitoring system (CPMS) 

breakdowns, out-of-control periods, 

repairs, maintenance periods, 

instrument adjustments or checks to 

maintain precision and accuracy, 

calibration checks, and zero (low-level), 

mid-level (if applicable), and high-level 

adjustments. 

(e) Within 60 days after the date of 

completing each performance test (as 

defined in § 63.2) required by this 

subpart, you must submit the results of 

the performance tests, including any 

associated fuel analyses, following the 

procedure specified in either paragraph 

(e)(1) or (2) of this section. 

(1) For data collected using test 

methods supported by the EPA’s 

Electronic Reporting Tool (ERT) as 

listed on the EPA’s ERT Web site 

(http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ert/

index.html), you must submit the results 

of the performance test to the EPA via 

the Compliance and Emissions Data 

Reporting Interface (CEDRI). CEDRI can 

be accessed through the EPA’s Central 

Data Exchange (CDX) (http://cdx.epa.

gov/epa_home.asp). Performance test 

data must be submitted in a file format 

generated through the use of the EPA’s 

ERT. Alternatively, you may submit 

performance test data in an electronic 

file format consistent with the 

extensible markup language (XML) 

schema listed on the EPA’s ERT Web 

site once the XML schema is available. 

If you claim that some of the 

performance test information being 

submitted is confidential business 

information (CBI), you must submit a 

complete file generated through the use 

of the EPA’s ERT or an alternate 

electronic file consistent with the XML 

schema listed on the EPA’s ERT Web 

site, including information claimed to 

be CBI, on a compact disc, flash drive, 

or other commonly used electronic 

storage media to the EPA. The electronic 

media must be clearly marked as CBI 

and mailed to U.S. EPA/OAPQS/CORE 

CBI Office, Attention: Group Leader, 

Measurement Policy Group, MD C404– 

02, 4930 Old Page Rd., Durham, NC 

27703. The same ERT or alternate file 

with the CBI omitted must be submitted 

to the EPA via the EPA’s CDX as 

described earlier in this paragraph. 

(2) For data collected using test 

methods that are not supported by the 

EPA’s ERT as listed on the EPA’s ERT 

Web site, you must submit the results of 

the performance test to the 

Administrator at the appropriate 

address listed in § 63.13. 

(f) Within 60 days after the date of 

completing each continuous emissions 

monitoring system performance 

evaluation (as defined in § 63.2), you 

must submit the results of the 

performance evaluation following the 

procedure specified in either paragraph 

(f)(1) or (2) of this section. 

(1) For performance evaluations of 

continuous monitoring systems 

measuring relative accuracy test audit 

(RATA) pollutants that are supported by 

the EPA’s ERT as listed on the EPA’s 

ERT Web site, you must submit the 

results of the performance evaluation to 

the EPA via the CEDRI. (CEDRI can be 

accessed through the EPA’s CDX.) 

Performance evaluation data must be 

submitted in a file format generated 

through the use of the EPA’s ERT. 

Alternatively, you may submit 

performance evaluation data in an 

electronic file format consistent with the 

XML schema listed on the EPA’s ERT 

Web site once the XML schema is 

available. If you claim that some of the 

performance evaluation information 

being transmitted is CBI, you must 

submit a complete file generated 

through the use of the EPA’s ERT or an 

alternate electronic file consistent with 

the XML schema listed on the EPA’s 

ERT Web site, including information 

claimed to be CBI, on a compact disc, 

flash drive, or other commonly used 

electronic storage media to the EPA. The 

electronic storage media must be clearly 

marked as CBI and mailed to U.S. EPA/ 

OAPQS/CORE CBI Office, Attention: 

Group Leader, Measurement Policy 

Group, MD C404–02, 4930 Old Page Rd., 

Durham, NC 27703. The same ERT or 

alternate file with the CBI omitted must 

be submitted to the EPA via the EPA’s 

CDX as described earlier in this 

paragraph. 

(2) For any performance evaluations 

of continuous monitoring systems 

measuring RATA pollutants that are not 

supported by the EPA’s ERT as listed on 

the EPA’s ERT Web site, you must 

submit the results of the performance 

evaluation to the Administrator at the 

appropriate address listed in § 63.13. 

§ 63.608 General requirements and 

applicability of general provisions of this 

part. 

(a) You must comply with the general 

provisions in subpart A of this part as 

specified in appendix A to this subpart. 

(b) At all times, you must operate and 

maintain any affected source, including 

associated air pollution control 

equipment and monitoring equipment, 

in a manner consistent with safety and 

good air pollution control practices for 

minimizing emissions. The general duty 

to minimize emissions does not require 

you to make any further efforts to 

reduce emissions if levels required by 

this standard have been achieved. 

Determination by the Administrator of 

whether a source is operating in 

compliance with operation and 

maintenance requirements will be based 

on information available to the 

Administrator that may include, but is 

not limited to, monitoring results, 

review of operation and maintenance 

procedures, review of operation and 

maintenance records, and inspection of 

the source. 

(c) For each CMS (including CEMS or 

CPMS) used to demonstrate compliance 

with any applicable emission limit or 

work practice, you must develop, and 

submit to the Administrator for 

approval upon request, a site-specific 

monitoring plan according to the 

requirements specified in paragraphs 

(c)(1) through (3) of this section. You 

must submit the site-specific monitoring 

plan, if requested by the Administrator, 

at least 60 days before the initial 

performance evaluation of the CMS. The 

requirements of this paragraph also 

apply if a petition is made to the 

Administrator for alternative monitoring 

parameters under § 63.8(f). 

(1) You must include the information 

specified in paragraphs (c)(1)(i) through 

(vi) of this section in the site-specific 

monitoring plan. 

(i) Location of the CMS sampling 

probe or other interface. You must 

include a justification demonstrating 

that the sampling probe or other 

interface is at a measurement location 

relative to each affected process unit 

such that the measurement is 

representative of control of the exhaust 


rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 160 / Wednesday, August 19, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 50445 

emissions (e.g., on or downstream of the 

last control device). 

(ii) Performance and equipment 

specifications for the sample interface, 

the pollutant concentration or 

parametric signal analyzer, and the data 

collection and reduction systems. 

(iii) Performance evaluation 

procedures and acceptance criteria (e.g., 

calibrations). 

(iv) Ongoing operation and 

maintenance procedures in accordance 

with the general requirements of 

§ 63.8(c)(1)(ii), (c)(3), (c)(4)(ii), and 

Table 4 to this subpart. 

(v) Ongoing data quality assurance 

procedures in accordance with the 

general requirements of § 63.8(d)(1) and 

(2) and Table 5 to this subpart. 

(vi) Ongoing recordkeeping and 

reporting procedures in accordance with 

the general requirements of § 63.10(c), 

(e)(1), and (e)(2)(i). 

(2) You must include a schedule for 

conducting initial and subsequent 

performance evaluations in the sitespecific monitoring plan. 

(3) You must keep the site-specific 

monitoring plan on site for the life of 

the affected source or until the affected 

source is no longer subject to the 

provisions of this part, to be made 

available for inspection, upon request, 

by the Administrator. If you revise the 

site-specific monitoring plan, you must 

keep previous (i.e., superseded) versions 

of the plan on site to be made available 

for inspection, upon request, by the 

Administrator, for a period of 5 years 

after each revision to the plan. You must 

include the program of corrective action 

required under § 63.8(d)(2) in the plan. 

(d) For each bag leak detection system 

installed to comply with the 

requirements specified in § 63.605(f), 

you must include the information 

specified in paragraphs (d)(1) and (2) of 

this section in the site-specific 

monitoring plan specified in paragraph 

(c) of this section. 

(1) Performance evaluation 

procedures and acceptance criteria (e.g., 

calibrations), including how the alarm 

set point will be established. 

(2) A corrective action plan describing 

corrective actions to be taken and the 

timing of those actions when the bag 

leak detection alarm sounds. Corrective 

actions may include, but are not limited 

to, the actions specified in paragraphs 

(d)(2)(i) through (vi) of this section. 

(i) Inspecting the fabric filter for air 

leaks, torn or broken bags or filter 

media, or any other conditions that may 

cause an increase in regulated material 

emissions. 

(ii) Sealing off defective bags or filter 

media. 

(iii) Replacing defective bags or filter 

media or otherwise repairing the control 

device. 

(iv) Sealing off a defective fabric filter 

compartment. 

(v) Cleaning the bag leak detection 

system probe or otherwise repairing the 

bag leak detection system. 

(vi) Shutting down the process 

controlled by the fabric filter. 

§ 63.609 [Reserved] 

§ 63.610 Exemption from new source 

performance standards. 

Any affected source subject to the 

provisions of this subpart is exempted 

from any otherwise applicable new 

source performance standard contained 

in 40 CFR part 60, subpart T, subpart U, 

or subpart NN. To be exempt, a source 

must have a current operating permit 

pursuant to title V of the Clean Air Act 

and the source must be in compliance 

with all requirements of this subpart. 

For each affected source, this exemption 

is effective upon the date that you 

demonstrate to the Administrator that 

the requirements of §§ 63.605 and 

63.606 have been met. 

§ 63.611 Implementation and enforcement. 

(a) This subpart is implemented and 

enforced by the U.S. EPA, or a delegated 

authority such as the applicable state, 

local, or Tribal agency. If the U.S. EPA 

Administrator has delegated authority to 

a state, local, or Tribal agency, then that 

agency, in addition to the U.S. EPA, has 

the authority to implement and enforce 

this subpart. Contact the applicable U.S. 

EPA Regional Office to find out if 

implementation and enforcement of this 

subpart is delegated to a state, local, or 

Tribal agency. 

(b) The authorities specified in 

paragraphs (b)(1) through (5) of this 

section are retained by the 

Administrator of U.S. EPA and cannot 

be delegated to State, local, or Tribal 

agencies. 

(1) Approval of alternatives to the 

requirements in §§ 63.600, 63.602, 

63.605, and 63.610. 

(2) Approval of requests under 

§§ 63.7(e)(2)(ii) and 63.7 (f) for 

alternative requirements or major 

changes to the test methods specified in 

this subpart, as defined in § 63.90. 

(3) Approval of requests under 

§ 63.8(f) for alternative requirements or 

major changes to the monitoring 

requirements specified in this subpart, 

as defined in § 63.90. 

(4) Waiver or approval of requests 

under § 63.10(f) for alternative 

requirements or major changes to the 

recordkeeping and reporting 

requirements specified in this subpart, 

as defined in § 63.90. 

(5) Approval of an alternative to any 

electronic reporting to the EPA required 

by this subpart. 

TABLE 1 TO SUBPART AA OF PART 63—EXISTING SOURCE EMISSION LIMITS a b

For the following existing sources 

. . . 

You must meet the emission limits for the specified pollutant . . . 

Total fluorides Total particulate Mercury 

Wet-Process Phosphoric Acid Line 0.020 lb/ton of equivalent P2O5

feed.

Superphosphoric Acid Process 

Line c.

0.010 lb/ton of equivalent P2O5

feed.

Superphosphoric Acid Submerged 

Line with a Submerged Combustion Process.

0.20 lb/ton of equivalent P2O5

feed.

Phosphate Rock Dryer ................... ....................................................... 0.2150 lb/ton of phosphate rock 

feed.

Phosphate Rock Calciner .............. 9.0E–04 lb/ton of rock feed d ........ 0.181 g/dscm ................................ 0.14 mg/dscm corrected to 3 percent oxygen d

aThe existing source compliance date is June 10, 2002, except as noted. 

b During periods of startup and shutdown, for emission limits stated in terms of pounds of pollutant per ton of feed, you are subject to the work 

practice standards specified in § 63.602(f). cBeginning on August 19, 2016, you must include oxidation reactors in superphosphoric acid process lines when determining compliance with 

the total fluorides limit. d Compliance date is August 19, 2015. 


rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
50446 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 160 / Wednesday, August 19, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

TABLE 2 TO SUBPART AA OF PART 63—NEW SOURCE EMISSION LIMITS a b

For the following new sources . . . 

You must meet the emissions limits for the specified pollutant . . . 

Total fluorides Total particulate Mercury 

Wet-Process Phosphoric Acid Line 0.0135 lb/ton of equivalent P2O5

feed.

Superphosphoric Acid Process 

Line c.

0.00870 lb/ton of equivalent P2O5

feed.

Phosphate Rock Dryer ................... ....................................................... 0.060 lb/ton of phosphate rock 

feed.

Phosphate Rock Calciner .............. 9.0E–04 lb/ton of rock feed .......... 0.092 g/dscm ................................ 0.014 mg/dscm corrected to 3 

percent oxygen 

aThe new source compliance dates are based on date of construction or reconstruction as specified in § 63.602(a). 

b During periods of startup and shutdown, for emission limits stated in terms of pounds of pollutant per ton of feed, you are subject to the work 

practice standards specified in § 63.602(f). cBeginning on August 19, 2016, you must include oxidation reactors in superphosphoric acid process lines when determining compliance with 

the total fluorides limit. 

TABLE 3 TO SUBPART AA OF PART 63—MONITORING EQUIPMENT OPERATING PARAMETERS

You must . . . If . . . And you must monitor . . . And . . . 

Absorbers (Wet Scrubbers) 

Install a continuous parameter monitoring system 

(CPMS) for liquid flow at 

the inlet of the absorber.

Your absorber is designed and operated with pressure 

drops of 5 inches of water column or more; and you 

choose to monitor only the influent liquid flow, rather 

than the liquid-to-gas ratio.

Influent liquid flow.

Install CPMS for liquid and 

gas flow at the inlet of the 

absorber.

Your absorber is designed and operated with pressure 

drops of 5 inches of water column or less; or.

Your absorber is designed and operated with pressure 

drops of 5 inches of water column or more, and you 

choose to monitor the liquid-to-gas ratio, rather than 

only the influent liquid flow, and you want the ability 

to lower liquid flow with changes in gas flow.

Liquid-to-gas ratio as determined by dividing the 

influent liquid flow rate 

by the inlet gas flow 

rate. The units of measure must be consistent 

with those used to calculate this ratio during 

the performance test.

You must measure the gas 

stream by: 

Measuring the gas stream 

flow at the absorber 

inlet; or 

Using the design blower 

capacity, with appropriate adjustments for 

pressure drop. 

Install CPMS for pressure at 

the gas stream inlet and 

outlet of the absorber.

Your absorber is designed and operated with pressure 

drops of 5 inches of water column or more.

Pressure drop through the 

absorber.

You may measure the 

pressure of the inlet gas 

using amperage on the 

blower if a correlation 

between pressure and 

amperage is established 

Sorbent Injection 

Install a CPMS for flow rate ........................................................................................ Sorbent injection rate.

Install a CPMS for flow rate ........................................................................................ Sorbent injection carrier 

gas flow rate.

Wet Electrostatic Precipitators 

Install secondary voltage 

meter.

You control mercury or metal HAP (particulate matter) 

using an electrostatic precipitator.

Secondary voltage.

TABLE 4 TO SUBPART AA OF PART 63—OPERATING PARAMETERS, OPERATING LIMITS AND DATA MONITORING, 

RECORDKEEPING AND COMPLIANCE FREQUENCIES

For the operating parameter applicable to you, as specified in Table 

3 . . . 

You must establish the following operating 

limit . . . 

And you must monitor, record, and demonstrate continuous compliance using these minimum frequencies . . . 

Data measurement Data 

recording 

Data averaging 

period for compliance 

Absorbers (Wet Scrubbers) 

Influent liquid flow .......................... Minimum inlet liquid flow ................................. Continuous ..................... Every 15 

minutes.

Daily. 

Influent liquid flow rate and gas 

stream flow rate.

Minimum influent liquid-to-gas ratio ................ Continuous ..................... Every 15 

minutes.

Daily. 


rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 160 / Wednesday, August 19, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 50447 

TABLE 4 TO SUBPART AA OF PART 63—OPERATING PARAMETERS, OPERATING LIMITS AND DATA MONITORING, 

RECORDKEEPING AND COMPLIANCE FREQUENCIES—Continued 

For the operating parameter applicable to you, as specified in Table 

3 . . . 

You must establish the following operating 

limit . . . 

And you must monitor, record, and demonstrate continuous compliance using these minimum frequencies . . . 

Data measurement Data 

recording 

Data averaging 

period for compliance 

Pressure drop ................................ Pressure drop range ........................................ Continuous ..................... Every 15 

minutes.

Daily. 

Sorbent Injection 

Sorbent injection rate ..................... Minimum injection rate .................................... Continuous ..................... Every 15 

minutes.

Daily. 

Sorbent injection carrier gas flow 

rate.

Minimum carrier gas flow rate ......................... Continuous ..................... Every 15 

minutes.

Daily. 

Fabric Filters 

Alarm time ...................................... Maximum alarm time is not established on a 

site-specific basis but is specified in 

§ 63.605(f)(9).

Continuous ..................... Each date 

and time 

of alarm 

start and 

stop.

Maximum alarm 

time specified 

in 

§ 63.605(f)(9). 

Wet Electrostatic Precipitator 

Secondary voltage ......................... Secondary voltage range ................................ Continuous ..................... Every 15 

minutes.

Daily. 

TABLE 5 TO SUBPART AA OF PART 63—CALIBRATION AND QUALITY CONTROL REQUIREMENTS FOR CONTINUOUS

PARAMETER MONITORING SYSTEM (CPMS) 

If you monitor this parameter . . . Your accuracy requirements are . . . And your calibration requirements are . . . 

Temperature ................................. ±1 percent over the normal range of temperature 

measured or 2.8 degrees Celsius (5 degrees Fahrenheit), whichever is greater, for non-cryogenic 

temperature ranges.

±2.5 percent over the normal range of temperature 

measured or 2.8 degrees Celsius (5 degrees Fahrenheit), whichever is greater, for cryogenic temperature ranges.

Performance evaluation annually and following any 

period of more than 24 hours throughout which the 

temperature exceeded the maximum rated temperature of the sensor, or the data recorder was 

off scale. 

Visual inspections and checks of CPMS operation 

every 3 months, unless the CPMS has a redundant temperature sensor. 

Selection of a representative measurement location. 

Flow Rate ..................................... ±5 percent over the normal range of flow measured 

or 1.9 liters per minute (0.5 gallons per minute), 

whichever is greater, for liquid flow rate.

±5 percent over the normal range of flow measured 

or 280 liters per minute (10 cubic feet per minute), 

whichever is greater, for gas flow rate.

±5 percent over the normal range measured for 

mass flow rate.

Performance evaluation annually and following any 

period of more than 24 hours throughout which the 

flow rate exceeded the maximum rated flow rate of 

the sensor, or the data recorder was off scale. 

Checks of all mechanical connections for leakage 

monthly. 

Visual inspections and checks of CPMS operation 

every 3 months, unless the CPMS has a redundant flow sensor. 

Selection of a representative measurement location 

where swirling flow or abnormal velocity distributions due to upstream and downstream disturbances at the point of measurement are minimized. 

Pressure ....................................... ±5 percent over the normal range measured or 0.12 

kilopascals (0.5 inches of water column), whichever is greater.

Checks for obstructions (e.g., pressure tap pluggage) 

at least once each process operating day. 

Performance evaluation annually and following any 

period of more than 24 hours throughout which the 

pressure exceeded the maximum rated pressure 

of the sensor, or the data recorder was off scale. 

Checks of all mechanical connections for leakage 

monthly. Visual inspection of all components for integrity, oxidation and galvanic corrosion every 3 

months, unless the CPMS has a redundant pressure sensor. 

Selection of a representative measurement location 

that minimizes or eliminates pulsating pressure, vibration, and internal and external corrosion. 


rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
50448 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 160 / Wednesday, August 19, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

TABLE 5 TO SUBPART AA OF PART 63—CALIBRATION AND QUALITY CONTROL REQUIREMENTS FOR CONTINUOUS

PARAMETER MONITORING SYSTEM (CPMS)—Continued 

If you monitor this parameter . . . Your accuracy requirements are . . . And your calibration requirements are . . . 

Sorbent Injection Rate ................. ±5 percent over the normal range measured ............. Performance evaluation annually. 

Visual inspections and checks of CPMS operation 

every 3 months, unless the CPMS has a redundant sensor. 

Select a representative measurement location that 

provides measurement of total sorbent injection. 

Secondary voltage ....................... ±1kV ............................................................................

APPENDIX A TO SUBPART AA OF PART 63—APPLICABILITY OF GENERAL PROVISIONS (40 CFR PART 63, SUBPART A) TO

SUBPART AA 

40 CFR citation Requirement Applies to subpart AA Comment 

§ 63.1(a)(1) through (4) ........................... General Applicability .............................. Yes ................... None. 

§ 63.1(a)(5) .............................................. ................................................................ No ..................... [Reserved]. 

§ 63.1(a)(6) .............................................. Contact information ................................ Yes ................... None. 

§ 63.1(a)(7)–(9) ........................................ ................................................................ No ..................... [Reserved]. 

§ 63.1(a)(10) through (12) ....................... Time periods .......................................... Yes ................... None. 

§ 63.1(b) ................................................... Initial Applicability Determination ........... Yes ................... None. 

§ 63.1(c)(1) .............................................. Applicability After Standard Established Yes ................... None. 

§ 63.1(c)(2) .............................................. Permits ................................................... Yes ................... Some plants may be area sources. 

§ 63.1(c)(3)–(4) ........................................ ................................................................ No ..................... [Reserved]. 

§ 63.1(c)(5) .............................................. Area to Major source change ................ Yes ................... None.

§ 63.1(d) ................................................... ................................................................ No ..................... [Reserved]. 

§ 63.1(e) ................................................... Applicability of Permit Program ............. Yes ................... None. 

§ 63.2 ....................................................... Definitions .............................................. Yes ................... Additional definitions in § 63.601. 

§ 63.3 ....................................................... Units and Abbreviations ......................... Yes ................... None. 

§ 63.4(a)(1) and (2) ................................. Prohibited Activities ................................ Yes ................... None. 

§ 63.4(a)(3) through (5) ........................... ................................................................ No ..................... [Reserved]. 

§ 63.4(b) and (c) ...................................... Circumvention/Fragmentation ................ Yes ................... None. 

§ 63.5(a) ................................................... Construction/Reconstruction Applicability.Yes ................... None. 

§ 63.5(b)(1) .............................................. Existing, New, Reconstructed Sources 

Requirements.

Yes ................... None. 

§ 63.5(b)(2) .............................................. ................................................................ No ..................... [Reserved]. 

§ 63.5(b)(3), (4), and (6) .......................... Construction/Reconstruction approval 

and notification.

Yes ................... None. 

§ 63.5(b)(5) .............................................. ................................................................ No ..................... [Reserved]. 

§ 63.5(c) ................................................... ................................................................ No ..................... [Reserved]. 

§ 63.5(d) ................................................... Application for Approval of Construction/

Reconstruction.

Yes ................... None. 

§ 63.5(e) ................................................... Approval of Construction/Reconstruction Yes ................... None. 

§ 63.5(f) .................................................... Approval of Construction/Reconstruction 

Based on State Review.

Yes ................... None. 

§ 63.6(a) ................................................... Compliance with Standards and Maintenance Applicability.Yes ................... None. 

§ 63.6(b)(1) through (5) ........................... New and Reconstructed Sources Dates Yes ................... See also § 63.602. 

§ 63.6(b)(6) .............................................. ................................................................ No ..................... [Reserved]. 

§ 63.6(b)(7) .............................................. Area to major source change ................ Yes ................... None.

§ 63.6(c)(1)and (2) ................................... Existing Sources Dates .......................... Yes ................... § 63.602 specifies dates. 

§ 63.6(c)(3) and (4) .................................. ................................................................ No ..................... [Reserved]. 

§ 63.6(c)(5) .............................................. Area to major source change ................ Yes ................... None.

§ 63.6(d) ................................................... ................................................................ No ..................... [Reserved]. 

§ 63.6(e)(1)(i) and (ii) ............................... Operation & Maintenance Requirements No ..................... See § 63.608(b) for general duty requirement. 

§ 63.6(e)(iii) .............................................. ................................................................ Yes ................... None. 

§ 63.6(e)(2) .............................................. ................................................................ No ..................... [Reserved]. 

§ 63.6(e)(3) .............................................. Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunction 

Plan.

No ..................... None. 

§ 63.6(f) .................................................... Compliance with Emission Standards ... No ..................... See general duty at § 63.608(b). 

§ 63.6(g) ................................................... Alternative Standard .............................. Yes ................... None. 

§ 63.6(h) ................................................... Compliance with Opacity/VE Standards No ..................... Subpart AA does not include VE/opacity 

standards. 

§ 63.6(i)(1) through (14) .......................... Extension of Compliance ....................... Yes ................... None. 

§ 63.6(i)(15) ............................................. ................................................................ No ..................... [Reserved]. 

§ 63.6(i)(16) ............................................. ................................................................ Yes ................... None. 

§ 63.6(j) .................................................... Exemption from Compliance .................. Yes ................... None. 

§ 63.7(a) ................................................... Performance Test Requirements Applicability.Yes ................... None. 


rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 160 / Wednesday, August 19, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 50449 

APPENDIX A TO SUBPART AA OF PART 63—APPLICABILITY OF GENERAL PROVISIONS (40 CFR PART 63, SUBPART A) TO

SUBPART AA—Continued 

40 CFR citation Requirement Applies to subpart AA Comment 

§ 63.7(b) ................................................... Notification ............................................. Yes ................... None. 

§ 63.7(c) ................................................... Quality Assurance/Test Plan ................. Yes ................... None. 

§ 63.7(d) ................................................... Testing Facilities .................................... Yes ................... None. 

§ 63.7(e)(1) .............................................. Conduct of Tests; startup, shutdown, 

and malfunction provisions.

No ..................... § 63.606 specifies additional requirements. 

§ 63.7(e)(2) through (4) ........................... Conduct of Tests .................................... Yes ................... § 63.606 specifies additional requirements. 

§ 63.7(f) .................................................... Alternative Test Method ......................... Yes ................... None. 

§ 63.7(g) ................................................... Data Analysis ......................................... Yes ................... None. 

§ 63.7(h) ................................................... Waiver of Tests ...................................... Yes ................... None. 

§ 63.8(a) ................................................... Monitoring Requirements Applicability ... Yes ................... None. 

§ 63.8(b) ................................................... Conduct of Monitoring ............................ Yes ................... None. 

§ 63.8(c)(1)(i) ........................................... General duty to minimize emissions and 

CMS operation.

No ..................... See 63.608(b) for general duty requirement. 

§ 63.8(c)(1)(ii) .......................................... ................................................................ Yes ................... None. 

§ 63.8(c)(1)(iii) .......................................... Requirement to develop SSM Plan for 

CMS.

No ..................... None. 

§ 63.8(c)(2) through (4) ........................... CMS Operation/Maintenance ................. Yes ................... None. 

§ 63.8(c)(5) .............................................. COMS Operation ................................... No ..................... Subpart AA does not require COMS. 

§ 63.8(c)(6) through (8) ........................... CMS requirements ................................. Yes ................... None. 

§ 63.8(d)(1) and (2) ................................. Quality Control ....................................... Yes ................... None. 

§ 63.8(d)(3) .............................................. Written procedure for CMS .................... No ..................... See § 63.608 for requirement. 

§ 63.8(e) ................................................... CMS Performance Evaluation ............... Yes ................... None.

§ 63.8(f)(1) through (5) ............................ Alternative Monitoring Method ............... Yes ................... None. 

§ 63.8(f)(6) ............................................... Alternative to RATA Test ....................... Yes ................... None. 

§ 63.8(g)(1) .............................................. Data Reduction ...................................... Yes ................... None. 

§ 63.8(g)(2) .............................................. ................................................................ Yes ................... None. 

§ 63.8(g)(3) through (5) ........................... ................................................................ Yes ................... None. 

§ 63.9(a) ................................................... Notification Requirements Applicability .. Yes ................... None.

§ 63.9(b) ................................................... Initial Notifications .................................. Yes ................... None. 

§ 63.9(c) ................................................... Request for Compliance Extension ....... Yes ................... None. 

§ 63.9(d) ................................................... New Source Notification for Special 

Compliance Requirements.

Yes ................... None. 

§ 63.9(e) ................................................... Notification of Performance Test ........... Yes ................... None. 

§ 63.9(f) .................................................... Notification of VE/Opacity Test .............. No ..................... Subpart AA does not include VE/opacity 

standards. 

§ 63.9(g) ................................................... Additional CMS Notifications ................. Yes ................... Subpart AA does not require CMS performance evaluation, COMS, or 

CEMS. 

§ 63.9(h)(1) through (3) ........................... Notification of Compliance Status .......... Yes ................... None. 

§ 63.9(h)(4) .............................................. ................................................................ No ..................... [Reserved]. 

§ 63.9(h)(5) and (6) ................................. ................................................................ Yes ................... None. 

§ 63.9(i) .................................................... Adjustment of Deadlines ........................ Yes ................... None. 

§ 63.9(j) .................................................... Change in Previous Information ............ Yes ................... None. 

§ 63.10(a) ................................................. Recordkeeping/Reporting-Applicability .. Yes ................... None. 

§ 63.10(b)(1) ............................................ General Recordkeeping Requirements .. Yes ................... None. 

§ 63.10(b)(2)(i) ......................................... Startup or shutdown duration ................ No ..................... None. 

§ 63.10(b)(2)(ii) ........................................ Malfunction ............................................. No ..................... See § 63.607 for recordkeeping and reporting requirement. 

§ 63.10(b)(2)(iii) ....................................... Maintenance records ............................. Yes ................... None. 

§ 63.10(b)(2)(iv) and (v) ........................... Startup, shutdown, malfunction actions No ..................... None. 

§ 63.10(b)(2)(vi) through (xiv) .................. General Recordkeeping Requirements Yes ................... None. 

§ 63.10(b)(3) ............................................ General Recordkeeping Requirements .. Yes ................... None. 

§ 63.10(c)(1) ............................................ Additional CMS Recordkeeping ............. Yes ................... None. 

§ 63.10(c)(2) through (4) ......................... ................................................................ No ..................... [Reserved]. 

§ 63.10(c)(5) ............................................ ................................................................ Yes ................... None. 

§ 63.10(c)(6) ............................................ ................................................................ Yes ................... None. 

§ 63.10(c)(7) and (8) ................................ ................................................................ Yes ................... None. 

§ 63.10(c)(9) ............................................ ................................................................ No ..................... [Reserved]. 

§ 63.10(c)(10) through (13) ..................... ................................................................ Yes ................... None. 

§ 63.10(c)(14) .......................................... ................................................................ Yes ................... None. 

§ 63.10(c)(15) .......................................... Startup Shutdown Malfunction Plan Provisions.No ..................... None. 

§ 63.10(d)(1) ............................................ General Reporting Requirements .......... Yes ................... None. 

§ 63.10(d)(2) ............................................ Performance Test Results ..................... Yes ................... None. 

§ 63.10(d)(3) ............................................ Opacity or VE Observations .................. No ..................... Subpart AA does not include VE/opacity 

standards. 

§ 63.10(d)(4) ............................................ Progress Reports ................................... Yes ................... None. 

§ 63.10(d)(5) ............................................ Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunction Reports.No ..................... See § 63.607 for reporting of excess 

emissions. 


rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
50450 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 160 / Wednesday, August 19, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

APPENDIX A TO SUBPART AA OF PART 63—APPLICABILITY OF GENERAL PROVISIONS (40 CFR PART 63, SUBPART A) TO

SUBPART AA—Continued 

40 CFR citation Requirement Applies to subpart AA Comment 

§ 63.10(e)(1) and (2) ............................... Additional CMS Reports ........................ Yes ................... None. 

§ 63.10(e)(3) ............................................ Excess Emissions/CMS Performance 

Reports.

Yes ................... None. 

§ 63.10(e)(4) ............................................ COMS Data Reports .............................. No ..................... Subpart AA does not require COMS. 

§ 63.10(f) .................................................. Recordkeeping/Reporting Waiver .......... Yes ................... None. 

§ 63.11 ..................................................... Control Device and Work Practice Requirements.Yes ................... None. 

§ 63.12 ..................................................... State Authority and Delegations ............ Yes ................... None. 

§ 63.13 ..................................................... Addresses .............................................. Yes ................... None. 

§ 63.14 ..................................................... Incorporation by Reference ................... Yes ................... None. 

§ 63.15 ..................................................... Information Availability/Confidentiality ... Yes ................... None. 

§ 63.16 ..................................................... Performance Track Provisions ............... No ..................... Terminated. 

■ 21. Part 63 is amended by revising 

subpart BB to read as follows: 

Subpart BB—National Emission 

Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants 

from Phosphate Fertilizers Production 

Plants 

Sec. 

63.620 Applicability. 

63.621 Definitions. 

63.622 Standards and compliance dates. 

63.623 [Reserved] 

63.624 [Reserved] 

63.625 Operating and monitoring 

requirements. 

63.626 Performance tests and compliance 

provisions. 

63.627 Notification, recordkeeping, and 

reporting requirements. 

63.628 General requirements and 

applicability of general provisions of this 

part. 

63.629 Miscellaneous requirements. 

63.630 [Reserved] 

63.631 Exemption from new source 

performance standards. 

63.632 Implementation and enforcement. 

Table 1 to Subpart BB of Part 63—Existing 

Source Emission Limits 

Table 2 to Subpart BB of Part 63—New 

Source Emission Limits 

Table 3 to Subpart BB of Part 63—Monitoring 

Equipment Operating Parameters 

Table 4 to Subpart BB of Part 63—Operating 

Parameters, Operating Limits and Data 

Monitoring, Recordkeeping and 

Compliance Frequencies 

Table 5 to Subpart BB of Part 63—Calibration 

and Quality Control Requirements for 

Continuous Parameter Monitoring 

Systems (CPMS) 

Appendix A to Subpart BB of Part 63— 

Applicability of General Provisions (40 

CFR part 63, subpart A) to Subpart BB 

§ 63.620 Applicability. 

(a) Except as provided in paragraphs 

(c) and (d) of this section, you are 

subject to the requirements of this 

subpart if you own or operate a 

phosphate fertilizer production plant 

that is a major source as defined in 

§ 63.2. You must comply with the 

emission limitations, work practice 

standards, and operating parameter 

requirements specified in this subpart at 

all times. 

(b) The requirements of this subpart 

apply to emissions of hazardous air 

pollutants (HAP) emitted from the 

following affected sources at a 

phosphate fertilizer production plant: 

(1) Each phosphate fertilizer process 

line (e.g., diammonium and/or 

monoammonium phosphate process 

line). 

(2) Each granular triple 

superphosphate process line. 

(3) Each granular triple 

superphosphate storage building. 

(4) Evaporative cooling tower. 

(c) The requirements of this subpart 

do not apply to a phosphate fertilizer 

production plant that is an area source 

as defined in § 63.2. 

(d) The provisions of this subpart do 

not apply to research and development 

facilities as defined in § 63.621. 

§ 63.621 Definitions. 

Terms used in this subpart are 

defined in § 63.2 of the Clean Air Act 

and in this section as follows: 

Diammonium and/or 

monoammonium phosphate process 

line means any process line 

manufacturing granular diammonium 

and/or monoammonium phosphate by 

reacting ammonia with phosphoric acid 

that has been derived from or 

manufactured by reacting phosphate 

rock and acid. A diammonium and/or 

monoammonium phosphate process 

line includes: Reactors, granulators, 

dryers, coolers, screens, and mills. 

Equivalent P2O5 feed means the 

quantity of phosphorus, expressed as 

phosphorus pentoxide (P2O5), fed to the 

process. 

Equivalent P2O5 stored means the 

quantity of phosphorus, expressed as 

phosphorus pentoxide, being cured or 

stored in the affected facility. 

Evaporative cooling tower means an 

open-water, re-circulating device that 

uses fans or natural draft to draw or 

force ambient air through the device to 

remove heat from process water by 

direct contact. 

Exceedance means a departure from 

an indicator range established for 

monitoring under this subpart, 

consistent with any averaging period 

specified for averaging the results of the 

monitoring. 

Existing source depends on the date 

that construction or reconstruction of an 

affected source commenced. A 

phosphate fertilizer process line (e.g., 

diammonium and/or monoammonium 

phosphate process line), granular triple 

superphosphate process line, or 

granular triple superphosphate storage 

is an existing source if construction or 

reconstruction of the affected source 

commenced on or before December 27, 

1996. 

Fresh granular triple superphosphate 

means granular triple superphosphate 

produced within the preceding 72 

hours. 

Granular triple superphosphate 

process line means any process line, not 

including storage buildings, that 

manufactures granular triple 

superphosphate by reacting phosphate 

rock with phosphoric acid. A granular 

triple superphosphate process line 

includes: mixers, curing belts (dens), 

reactors, granulators, dryers, coolers, 

screens, and mills. 

Granular triple superphosphate 

storage building means any building 

curing or storing fresh granular triple 

superphosphate. A granular triple 

superphosphate storage building 

includes: storage or curing buildings, 

conveyors, elevators, screens, and mills. 

New source depends on the date that 

construction or reconstruction of an 

affected source commences. A 

phosphate fertilizer process line (e.g., 

diammonium and/or monoammonium 


rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 160 / Wednesday, August 19, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 50451 

phosphate process line), granular triple 

superphosphate process line, or 

granular triple superphosphate storage 

is a new source if construction or 

reconstruction of the affected source 

commenced after December 27, 1996. 

Phosphate fertilizer process line 

means any process line that 

manufactures a granular phosphate 

fertilizer by reacting phosphoric acid 

with ammonia. A phosphate fertilizer 

process line includes: reactors, 

granulators, dryers, coolers, screens, and 

mills. 

Phosphate fertilizer production plant 

means any production plant that 

manufactures a granular phosphate 

fertilizer by reacting phosphoric acid 

with ammonia. 

Research and development facility 

means research or laboratory operations 

whose primary purpose is to conduct 

research and development into new 

processes and products, where the 

operations are under the close 

supervision of technically trained 

personnel, and where the facility is not 

engaged in the manufacture of products 

for commercial sale in commerce or 

other off-site distribution, except in a de 

minimis manner. 

Shutdown commences when feed 

materials cease to be added to an 

affected source and ends when the 

affected source is deactivated, regardless 

of whether feed material is present in 

the affected source. 

Startup commences when any feed 

material is first introduced into an 

affected source and ends when feed 

material is fully loaded into the affected 

source. 

Total fluorides means elemental 

fluorine and all fluoride compounds, 

including the HAP hydrogen fluoride, as 

measured by reference methods 

specified in 40 CFR part 60, appendix 

A, Method 13 A or B, or by equivalent 

or alternative methods approved by the 

Administrator pursuant to § 63.7(f). 

§ 63.622 Standards and compliance dates. 

(a) On and after the dates specified in 

paragraphs (a)(1) through (3) of this 

section, for each phosphate fertilizer 

process line (e.g., diammonium and/or 

monoammonium phosphate process 

line), granular triple superphosphate 

process line, and granular triple 

superphosphate storage building, you 

must comply with the emission limits as 

specified in paragraphs (a)(1) through 

(3) of this section. If a process line 

contains more than one emission point, 

you must sum the emissions from all 

emission points in a process line to 

determine compliance with the 

specified emission limits. 

(1) For each existing phosphate 

fertilizer process line (e.g., diammonium 

and/or monoammonium phosphate 

process line), granular triple 

superphosphate process line, and 

granular triple superphosphate storage 

building that commenced construction 

or reconstruction on or before December 

27, 1996, you must comply with the 

emission limits specified in Table 1 to 

this subpart beginning on June 10, 2002. 

(2) For each new phosphate fertilizer 

process line (e.g., diammonium and/or 

monoammonium phosphate process 

line), granular triple superphosphate 

process line, and granular triple 

superphosphate storage building that 

commences construction or 

reconstruction after December 27, 1996 

and on or before August 19, 2015, you 

must comply with the emission limits 

specified in Table 2 to this subpart 

beginning on June 10, 1999 or at startup, 

whichever is later. 

(3) For each new phosphate fertilizer 

process line (e.g., diammonium and/or 

monoammonium phosphate process 

line), granular triple superphosphate 

process line, and granular triple 

superphosphate storage building that 

commences construction or 

reconstruction after August 19, 2015, 

you must comply with the emission 

limits specified in Table 2 to this 

subpart immediately upon startup. 

(b) Beginning on June 10, 2002, you 

must not ship fresh granular triple 

superphosphate from your existing 

granular triple superphosphate storage 

building that commenced construction 

or reconstruction on or before December 

27, 1996. Beginning on June 10, 1999 or 

at startup, whichever is later, you must 

not ship fresh granular triple 

superphosphate from your new granular 

triple superphosphate storage building 

that commences construction or 

reconstruction after December 27, 1996. 

(c) Beginning on August 19, 2015, you 

must not introduce into any evaporative 

cooling tower any liquid effluent from 

any absorber installed to control 

emissions from process equipment. 

(d) Beginning on August 19, 2015, 

during periods of startup and shutdown 

(as defined in § 63.621), you must 

comply with the work practice specified 

in this paragraph in lieu of the emission 

limits specified in paragraph (a) of this 

section. During periods of startup and 

shutdown, you must operate any control 

device(s) being used at the affected 

source, monitor the operating 

parameters specified in Table 3 of this 

subpart, and comply with the operating 

limits specified in Table 4 of this 

subpart. 

§ 63.623 [Reserved] 

§ 63.624 [Reserved] 

§ 63.625 Operating and monitoring 

requirements. 

(a) For each phosphate fertilizer 

process line (e.g., diammonium and/or 

monoammonium phosphate process 

line), or granular triple superphosphate 

process line subject to the provisions of 

this subpart, you must comply with the 

monitoring requirements specified in 

paragraphs (a)(1) and (2) of this section. 

(1) Install, calibrate, maintain, and 

operate a continuous monitoring system 

(CMS) according to your site-specific 

monitoring plan specified in § 63.628(c). 

The CMS must have an accuracy of ±5 

percent over its operating range and 

must determine and permanently record 

the mass flow of phosphorus-bearing 

material fed to the process. 

(2) Maintain a daily record of 

equivalent P2O5 feed. Calculate the 

equivalent P2O5 feed by determining the 

total mass rate in metric ton/hour of 

phosphorus bearing feed using the 

procedures specified in § 63.626(f)(3). 

(b) For each granular triple 

superphosphate storage building subject 

to the provisions of this subpart, you 

must maintain an accurate record of the 

mass of granular triple superphosphate 

in storage to permit the determination of 

the amount of equivalent P2O5 stored. 

(c) For each granular triple 

superphosphate storage building subject 

to the provisions of this subpart, you 

must comply with the requirements 

specified in paragraphs (c)(1) and (2) of 

this section. 

(1) Maintain a daily record of total 

equivalent P2O5 stored by multiplying 

the percentage P2O5 content, as 

determined by § 63.626(f)(3)(ii), by the 

total mass of granular triple 

superphosphate stored as specified in 

paragraph (b) of this section. 

(2) Develop for approval by the 

Administrator a site-specific 

methodology including sufficient 

recordkeeping for the purposes of 

demonstrating compliance with 

§ 63.622(b). 

(d) If you use a control device(s) to 

comply with the emission limits 

specified in Table 1 or 2 of this subpart, 

you must install a continuous parameter 

monitoring system (CPMS) and comply 

with the requirements specified in 

paragraphs (d)(1) through (4) of this 

section. 

(1) You must monitor the operating 

parameter(s) applicable to the control 

device that you use as specified in Table 

3 to this subpart and establish the 

applicable limit or range for the 

operating parameter limit as specified in 


rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
50452 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 160 / Wednesday, August 19, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

paragraphs (d)(1)(i) and (ii) of this 

section, as applicable. 

(i) Except as specified in paragraph 

(d)(1)(ii) of this section, determine the 

value(s) as the arithmetic average of 

operating parameter measurements 

recorded during the three test runs 

conducted for the most recent 

performance test. 

(ii) If you use an absorber to comply 

with the emission limits in Table 1 or 

2 to this subpart and you monitor 

pressure drop across the absorber, you 

must establish allowable ranges using 

the methodology specified in 

paragraphs (d)(1)(ii)(A) and (B) of this 

section. 

(A) The allowable range for the daily 

averages of the pressure drop across 

each absorber is ±20 percent of the 

baseline average value determined in 

paragraph (d)(1)(i) of this section. The 

Administrator retains the right to reduce 

the ±20 percent adjustment to the 

baseline average values of operating 

ranges in those instances where 

performance test results indicate that a 

source’s level of emissions is near the 

value of an applicable emissions 

standard. However, the adjustment must 

not be reduced to less than ±10 percent 

under any instance. 

(B) As an alternative to paragraph 

(d)(1)(ii)(A) of this section, you may 

establish allowable ranges for the daily 

averages of the pressure drop across an 

absorber for the purpose of assuring 

compliance with this subpart using the 

procedures described in this paragraph. 

You must establish the allowable ranges 

based on the baseline average values 

recorded during previous performance 

tests or the results of performance tests 

conducted specifically for the purposes 

of this paragraph. You must conduct all 

performance tests using the methods 

specified in § 63.626. You must certify 

that the control devices and processes 

have not been modified since the date 

of the performance test from which you 

obtained the data used to establish the 

allowable ranges. When a source using 

the methodology of this paragraph is 

retested, you must determine new 

allowable ranges of baseline average 

values unless the retest indicates no 

change in the operating parameters 

outside the previously established 

ranges. 

(2) You must monitor, record, and 

demonstrate continuous compliance 

using the minimum frequencies 

specified in Table 4 to this subpart. 

(3) You must comply with the 

calibration and quality control 

requirements that are applicable to the 

operating parameter(s) you monitor as 

specified in Table 5 to this subpart. 

(4) If you use a fabric filter system to 

comply with the emission limits 

specified in Table 1 or 2 to this subpart, 

the system must meet the requirements 

for fabric filters specified in paragraph 

(e) of this section. 

(e) Beginning August 19, 2016, if you 

use a fabric filter system to comply with 

the emission limits specified in Table 1 

or 2 to this subpart, then the fabric filter 

must be equipped with a bag leak 

detection system that is installed, 

calibrated, maintained and continuously 

operated according to the requirements 

in paragraphs (e)(1) through (10) of this 

section. 

(1) Install a bag leak detection 

sensor(s) in a position(s) that will be 

representative of the relative or absolute 

particulate matter loadings for each 

exhaust stack, roof vent, or 

compartment (e.g., for a positivepressure fabric filter) of the fabric filter. 

(2) Use a bag leak detection system 

certified by the manufacturer to be 

capable of detecting particulate matter 

emissions at concentrations of 1 

milligram per actual cubic meter 

(0.00044 grains per actual cubic feet) or 

less. 

(3) Use a bag leak detection system 

equipped with a device to continuously 

record the output signal from the system 

sensor. 

(4) Use a bag leak detection system 

equipped with a system that will trigger 

an alarm when an increase in relative 

particulate material emissions over a 

preset level is detected. The alarm must 

be located such that the alert is observed 

readily by plant operating personnel. 

(5) Install a bag leak detection system 

in each compartment or cell for 

positive-pressure fabric filter systems 

that do not duct all compartments or 

cells to a common stack. Install a bag 

leak detector downstream of the fabric 

filter if a negative-pressure or inducedair filter is used. If multiple bag leak 

detectors are required, the system’s 

instrumentation and alarm may be 

shared among detectors. 

(6) Calibration of the bag leak 

detection system must, at a minimum, 

consist of establishing the baseline 

output level by adjusting the range and 

the averaging period of the device and 

establishing the alarm set points and the 

alarm delay time. 

(7) After initial adjustment, you must 

not adjust the sensitivity or range, 

averaging period, alarm set points or 

alarm delay time, except as established 

in your site-specific monitoring plan 

required in § 63.628(c). In no event may 

the sensitivity be increased more than 

100 percent or decreased by more than 

50 percent over a 365-day period unless 

such adjustment follows a complete 

inspection of the fabric filter system that 

demonstrates that the system is in good 

operating condition. 

(8) Operate and maintain each fabric 

filter and bag leak detection system such 

that the alarm does not sound more than 

5 percent of the operating time during 

a 6-month period. If the alarm sounds 

more than 5 percent of the operating 

time during a 6-month period, it is 

considered an operating parameter 

exceedance. Calculate the alarm time 

(i.e., time that the alarm sounds) as 

specified in paragraphs (e)(8)(i) through 

(iii) of this section. 

(i) If inspection of the fabric filter 

demonstrates that corrective action is 

not required, the alarm duration is not 

counted in the alarm time calculation. 

(ii) If corrective action is required, 

each alarm time is counted as a 

minimum of 1 hour. 

(iii) If it takes longer than 1 hour to 

initiate corrective action, each alarm 

time (i.e., time that the alarm sounds) is 

counted as the actual amount of time 

taken by you to initiate corrective 

action. 

(9) If the alarm on a bag leak detection 

system is triggered, you must initiate 

procedures within 1 hour of an alarm to 

identify the cause of the alarm and then 

initiate corrective action, as specified in 

§ 63.628(d)(2), no later than 48 hours 

after an alarm. Failure to take these 

actions within the prescribed time 

periods is considered a violation. 

(10) Retain records of any bag leak 

detection system alarm, including the 

date, time, duration, and the percent of 

the total operating time during each 6- 

month period that the alarm triggers, 

with a brief explanation of the cause of 

the alarm, the corrective action taken, 

and the schedule and duration of the 

corrective action. 

§ 63.626 Performance tests and 

compliance provisions. 

(a) You must conduct an initial 

performance test to demonstrate 

compliance with the emission limits 

specified in Tables 1 and 2 to this 

subpart, within 180 days of the 

applicable compliance date specified in 

§ 63.622. 

(b) After you conduct the initial 

performance test specified in paragraph 

(a) of this section, you must conduct a 

performance test once per calendar year. 

(c) For affected sources (as defined in 

§ 63.620) that have not operated since 

the previous annual performance test 

was conducted and more than 1 year 

has passed since the previous 

performance test, you must conduct a 

performance test no later than 180 days 

after the re-start of the affected source 


rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 160 / Wednesday, August 19, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 50453 

according to the applicable provisions 

in § 63.7(a)(2). 

(d)(1) You must conduct the 

performance tests specified in this 

section at representative (normal) 

conditions for the process. 

Representative (normal) conditions 

means those conditions that: 

(i) Represent the range of combined 

process and control measure conditions 

under which the facility expects to 

operate (regardless of the frequency of 

the conditions); and 

(ii) Are likely to most challenge the 

emissions control measures of the 

facility with regard to meeting the 

applicable emission standards, but 

without creating an unsafe condition. 

(2) Operations during startup, 

shutdown, and malfunction do not 

constitute representative (normal) 

operating conditions for purposes of 

conducting a performance test. You 

must record the process information 

that is necessary to document the 

operating conditions during the test and 

include in such record an explanation to 

support that such conditions represent 

representative (normal) conditions. 

Upon request, you must make available 

to the Administrator such records as 

may be necessary to determine the 

conditions of performance tests. 

(e) In conducting all performance 

tests, you must use as reference methods 

and procedures the test methods in 40 

CFR part 60, appendix A, or other 

methods and procedures as specified in 

this section, except as provided in 

§ 63.7(f). 

(f) For each phosphate fertilizer 

process line (e.g., diammonium and/or 

monoammonium phosphate process 

line), and granular triple 

superphosphate process line, you must 

determine compliance with the 

applicable total fluorides standards 

specified in Tables 1 and 2 to this 

subpart as specified in paragraphs (f)(1) 

through (3) of this section. 

(1) Compute the emission rate (E) of 

total fluorides for each run using 

Equation BB–1: 

Where: 

E = Emission rate of total fluorides, gram/

metric ton (pound/ton) of equivalent 

P2O5 feed. 

Ci = Concentration of total fluorides from 

emission point ‘‘i,’’ milligram/dry 

standard cubic meter (milligram/dry 

standard cubic feet). 

Qi = Volumetric flow rate of effluent gas from 

emission point ‘‘i,’’ dry standard cubic 

meter/hour (dry standard cubic feet/

hour). 

N = Number of emission points associated 

with the affected facility. 

P = Equivalent P2O5 feed rate, metric ton/

hour (ton/hour). 

K = Conversion factor, 1000 milligram/gram 

(453,600 milligram/pound). 

(2) You must use Method 13A or 13B 

(40 CFR part 60, appendix A) to 

determine the total fluorides 

concentration (Ci) and the volumetric 

flow rate (Qi) of the effluent gas at each 

emission point. The sampling time for 

each run at each emission point must be 

at least 60 minutes. The sampling 

volume for each run at each emission 

point must be at least 0.85 dscm (30 

dscf). If Method 13B is used, the fusion 

of the filtered material described in 

Section 7.3.1.2 and the distillation of 

suitable aliquots of containers 1 and 2, 

described in section 7.3.3 and 7.3.4 in 

Method 13 A, may be omitted. 

(3) Compute the equivalent P2O5 feed 

rate (P) using Equation BB–2: 

Where: 

P = P2O5 feed rate, metric ton/hour (ton/

hour). 

Mp = Total mass flow rate of phosphorusbearing feed, metric ton/hour (ton/hour). 

Rp = P2O5 content, decimal fraction. 

(i) Determine the mass flow rate (Mp) 

of the phosphorus-bearing feed using 

the measurement system described in 

§ 63.625(a). 

(ii) Determine the P2O5 content (Rp) of 

the feed using, as appropriate, the 

following methods specified in the Book 

of Methods Used and Adopted By The 

Association of Florida Phosphate 

Chemists (incorporated by reference, see 

§ 63.14) where applicable: 

(A) Section IX, Methods of Analysis 

for Phosphate Rock, No. 1 Preparation of 

Sample. 

(B) Section IX, Methods of Analysis 

for Phosphate Rock, No. 3 PhosphorusP2O5 or Ca3(PO4)2, Method A— 

Volumetric Method. 

(C) Section IX, Methods of Analysis 

for Phosphate Rock, No. 3 PhosphorusP2O5 or Ca3(PO4)2, Method B— 

Gravimetric Quimociac Method. 

(D) Section IX, Methods of Analysis 

for Phosphate Rock, No. 3 PhosphorusP2O5 or Ca3(PO4)2, Method C— 

Spectrophotometric Method. 

(E) Section XI, Methods of Analysis 

for Phosphoric Acid, Superphosphate, 

Triple superphosphate, and Ammonium 

Phosphates, No. 3 Total PhosphorusP2O5, Method A—Volumetric Method. 

(F) Section XI, Methods of Analysis 

for Phosphoric Acid, Superphosphate, 

Triple Superphosphate, and 

Ammonium Phosphates, No. 3 Total 

Phosphorus-P2O5, Method B— 

Gravimetric Quimociac Method. 

(G) Section XI, Methods of Analysis 

for Phosphoric Acid, Superphosphate, 

Triple Superphosphate, and 

Ammonium Phosphates, No. 3 Total 

Phosphorus-P2O5, Method C— 

Spectrophotometric Method. 

(g) For each granular triple 

superphosphate storage building, you 

must determine compliance with the 

applicable total fluorides standards 

specified in Tables 1 and 2 to this 

subpart as specified in paragraphs (g)(1) 

through (7) of this section. 

(1) You must conduct performance 

tests only when the following quantities 

of product are being cured or stored in 

the facility: 

(i) Total granular triple 

superphosphate is at least 10 percent of 

the building capacity, and 

(ii) Fresh granular triple 

superphosphate is at least six percent of 

the total amount of granular triple 

superphosphate, or 

(iii) If the provision in paragraph 

(g)(1)(ii) of this section exceeds 

production capabilities for fresh 

granular triple superphosphate, the 

fresh granular triple superphosphate is 

equal to at least 5 days maximum 

production. 

(2) Compute the emission rate (E) of 

total fluorides for each run using 

Equation BB–3: 


rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES2ER19AU15.003</GPH> ER19AU15.004</GPH>
50454 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 160 / Wednesday, August 19, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

Where: 

E = Emission rate of total fluorides, gram/

hour/metric ton (pound/hour/ton) of 

equivalent P2O5 stored. 

Ci = Concentration of total fluorides from 

emission point ‘‘i’’, milligram/dry 

standard cubic meter (milligram/dry 

standard cubic feet). 

Qi = Volumetric flow rate of effluent gas from 

emission point ‘‘i’’, dry standard cubic 

meter/hour (dry standard cubic feet/

hour). 

N = Number of emission points in the 

affected facility. 

P = Equivalent P2O5 stored, metric tons 

(tons). 

K = Conversion factor, 1000 milligram/gram 

(453,600 milligram/pound). 

(3) You must use Method 13A or 13B 

(40 CFR part 60, appendix A) to 

determine the total fluorides 

concentration (Ci) and the volumetric 

flow rate (Qi) of the effluent gas at each 

emission point. The sampling time for 

each run at each emission point must be 

at least 60 minutes. The sampling 

volume for each run at each emission 

point must be at least 0.85 dscm (30 

dscf). If Method 13B is used, the fusion 

of the filtered material described in 

Section 7.3.1.2 and the distillation of 

suitable aliquots of containers 1 and 2, 

described in section 7.3.3 and 7.3.4 in 

Method 13A, may be omitted. 

(4) Compute the equivalent P2O5

stored (P) using Equation BB–4: 

Where: 

P = P2O5 stored (ton). 

Mp = Amount of product in storage, metric 

ton (ton). 

Rp = P2O5 content of product in storage, 

weight fraction. 

(5) Determine the amount of product 

(Mp) in storage using the measurement 

system described in § 63.625(b) and (c). 

(6) Determine the P2O5 content (Rp) of 

the product stored using, as appropriate, 

the following methods specified in the 

Book of Methods Used and Adopted By 

The Association of Florida Phosphate 

Chemists (incorporated by reference, see 

§ 63.14) where applicable: 

(i) Section XI, Methods of Analysis 

For Phosphoric Acid, Superphosphate, 

Triple superphosphate, and Ammonium 

Phosphates, No. 3 Total PhosphorusP2O5, Method A—Volumetric Method. 

(ii) Section XI, Methods of Analysis 

For Phosphoric Acid, Superphosphate, 

Triple superphosphate, and Ammonium 

Phosphates, No. 3 Total PhosphorusP2O5, Method B—Gravimetric 

Quimociac Method. 

(iii) Section XI, Methods of Analysis 

For Phosphoric Acid, Superphosphate, 

Triple superphosphate, and Ammonium 

Phosphates, No. 3 Total PhosphorusP2O5, Method C—Spectrophotometric 

Method, or, 

(7) Determine the P2O5 content (Rp) of 

the product stored using, as appropriate, 

the following methods specified in the 

Official Methods of Analysis of AOAC 

International (incorporated by reference, 

see § 63.14) where applicable: 

(i) AOAC Official Method 957.02 

Phosphorus (Total) In Fertilizers, 

Preparation of Sample Solution. 

(ii) AOAC Official Method 929.01 

Sampling of Solid Fertilizers. 

(iii) AOAC Official Method 929.02 

Preparation of Fertilizer Sample. 

(iv) AOAC Official Method 978.01 

Phosphorus (Total) in Fertilizers, 

Automated Method. 

(v) AOAC Official Method 969.02 

Phosphorus (Total) in Fertilizers, 

Alkalimetric Quinolinium 

Molybdophosphate Method. 

(vi) AOAC Official Method 962.02 

Phosphorus (Total) in Fertilizers, 

Gravimetric Quinolinium 

Molybdophosphate Method. 

(vii) AOAC Official Method 958.01 

Phosphorus (Total) in Fertilizers, 

Spectrophotometric 

Molybdovanadophosphate Method. 

(h) If you use a CMS, you must 

conduct a performance evaluation, as 

specified in § 63.8(e), in accordance 

with your site-specific monitoring plan 

in § 63.628(c). For fabric filters, you 

must conduct a performance evaluation 

of the bag leak detection system 

consistent with the guidance provided 

in Office Of Air Quality Planning And 

Standards (OAQPS), Fabric Filter Bag 

Leak Detection Guidance (incorporated 

by reference, see § 63.14). You must 

record the sensitivity of the bag leak 

detection system to detecting changes in 

particulate matter emissions, range, 

averaging period, and alarm set points 

during the performance test. 

§ 63.627 Notification, recordkeeping, and 

reporting requirements. 

(a) You must comply with the 

notification requirements specified in 

§ 63.9. During the most recent 

performance test, if you demonstrate 

compliance with the emission limit 

while operating your control device 

outside the previously established 

operating limit, you must establish a 

new operating limit based on that most 

recent performance test and notify the 

Administrator that the operating limit 

changed based on data collected during 

the most recent performance test. When 

a source is retested and the performance 

test results are submitted to the 

Administrator pursuant to paragraph 

(b)(1) of this section, § 63.7(g)(1), or 

§ 63.10(d)(2), you must indicate whether 

the operating limit is based on the new 

performance test or the previously 

established limit. Upon establishment of 

a new operating limit, you must 

thereafter operate under the new 

operating limit. If the Administrator 

determines that you did not conduct the 

compliance test in accordance with the 

applicable requirements or that the 

operating limit established during the 

performance test does not correspond to 

representative (normal) conditions, you 

must conduct a new performance test 

and establish a new operating limit. 

(b) You must comply with the 

reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements in § 63.10 as specified in 

paragraphs (b)(1) through (5) of this 

section. 

(1) You must comply with the general 

recordkeeping requirements in 

§ 63.10(b)(1); and 

(2) As required by § 63.10(d), you 

must report the results of the initial and 

subsequent performance tests as part of 

the notification of compliance status 

required in § 63.9(h). You must verify in 

the performance test reports that the 

operating limits for each process have 

not changed or provide documentation 

of revised operating limits established 

according to § 63.625, as applicable. In 

the notification of compliance status, 

you must also: 

(i) Certify to the Administrator that 

you have not shipped fresh granular 

triple superphosphate from an affected 

facility. 


rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES2ER19AU15.005</GPH> ER19AU15.006</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 160 / Wednesday, August 19, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 50455 

(ii) Certify to the Administrator 

annually that you have complied with 

the evaporative cooling tower 

requirements specified in § 63.622(c). 

(iii) Submit analyses and supporting 

documentation demonstrating 

conformance with the Office Of Air 

Quality Planning And Standards 

(OAQPS), Fabric Filter Bag Leak 

Detection Guidance (incorporated by 

reference, see § 63.14) and specifications 

for bag leak detection systems as part of 

the notification of compliance status 

report. 

(iv) If you elect to demonstrate 

compliance by following the procedures 

in § 63.625(d)(1)(ii)(B), certify to the 

Administrator annually that the control 

devices and processes have not been 

modified since the date of the 

performance test from which you 

obtained the data used to establish the 

allowable ranges. 

(3) As required by § 63.10(e)(1), you 

must submit an excess emissions report 

for any exceedance of an emission or 

operating parameter limit if the total 

duration of the exceedances for the 

reporting period is 1 percent of the total 

operating time for the reporting period 

or greater. The report must contain the 

information specified in § 63.10 and 

paragraph (b)(4) of this section. When 

exceedances of an emission limit or 

operating parameter have not occurred, 

you must include such information in 

the report. You must submit the report 

semiannually and the report must be 

delivered or postmarked by the 30th day 

following the end of the calendar half. 

If exceedances are reported, you must 

submit the excess emissions report 

quarterly until a request to reduce 

reporting frequency is approved as 

described in § 63.10(e)(3). 

(4) In the event that an affected unit 

fails to meet an applicable standard, 

record and report the following 

information for each failure: 

(i) The date, time and duration of the 

failure. 

(ii) A list of the affected sources or 

equipment for which a failure occurred. 

(iii) An estimate of the volume of each 

regulated pollutant emitted over any 

emission limit. 

(iv) A description of the method used 

to estimate the emissions. 

(v) A record of actions taken to 

minimize emissions in accordance with 

§ 63.628(b), and any corrective actions 

taken to return the affected unit to its 

normal or usual manner of operation. 

(5) You must submit a summary 

report containing the information 

specified in § 63.10(e)(3)(vi). You must 

submit the summary report 

semiannually and the report must be 

delivered or postmarked by the 30th day 

following the end of the calendar half. 

(c) Your records must be in a form 

suitable and readily available for 

expeditious review. You must keep each 

record for 5 years following the date of 

each recorded action. You must keep 

each record on site, or accessible from 

a central location by computer or other 

means that instantly provide access at 

the site, for at least 2 years after the date 

of each recorded action. You may keep 

the records off site for the remaining 3 

years. 

(d) In computing averages to 

determine compliance with this subpart, 

you must exclude the monitoring data 

specified in paragraphs (d)(1) through 

(3) of this section. 

(1) Periods of non-operation of the 

process unit; 

(2) Periods of no flow to a control 

device; and 

(3) Any monitoring data recorded 

during continuous parameter 

monitoring system (CPMS) breakdowns, 

out-of-control periods, repairs, 

maintenance periods, instrument 

adjustments or checks to maintain 

precision and accuracy, calibration 

checks, and zero (low-level), mid-level 

(if applicable), and high-level 

adjustments. 

(e) Within 60 days after the date of 

completing each performance test (as 

defined in § 63.2) required by this 

subpart, you must submit the results of 

the performance tests, including any 

associated fuel analyses, following the 

procedure specified in either paragraph 

(e)(1) or (2) of this section. 

(1) For data collected using test 

methods supported by the EPA’s 

Electronic Reporting Tool (ERT) as 

listed on the EPA’s ERT Web site 

(http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ert/

index.html), you must submit the results 

of the performance test to the EPA via 

the Compliance and Emissions Data 

Reporting Interface (CEDRI). CEDRI can 

be accessed through the EPA’s Central 

Data Exchange (CDX) (http://cdx.epa.

gov/epa_home.asp). Performance test 

data must be submitted in a file format 

generated through the use of the EPA’s 

ERT. Alternatively, you may submit 

performance test data in an electronic 

file format consistent with the 

extensible markup language (XML) 

schema listed on the EPA’s ERT Web 

site once the XML schema is available. 

If you claim that some of the 

performance test information being 

submitted is confidential business 

information (CBI), you must submit a 

complete file generated through the use 

of the EPA’s ERT or an alternate 

electronic file consistent with the XML 

schema listed on the EPA’s ERT Web 

site, including information claimed to 

be CBI, on a compact disc, flash drive, 

or other commonly used electronic 

storage media to the EPA. The electronic 

media must be clearly marked as CBI 

and mailed to U.S. EPA/OAPQS/CORE 

CBI Office, Attention: Group Leader, 

Measurement Policy Group, MD C404– 

02, 4930 Old Page Rd., Durham, NC 

27703. The same ERT or alternate file 

with the CBI omitted must be submitted 

to the EPA via the EPA’s CDX as 

described earlier in this paragraph. 

(2) For data collected using test 

methods that are not supported by the 

EPA’s ERT as listed on the EPA’s ERT 

Web site, you must submit the results of 

the performance test to the 

Administrator at the appropriate 

address listed in § 63.13. 

§ 63.628 General requirements and 

applicability of general provisions of this 

part. 

(a) You must comply with the general 

provisions in subpart A of this part as 

specified in appendix A to this subpart. 

(b) At all times, you must operate and 

maintain any affected source, including 

associated air pollution control 

equipment and monitoring equipment, 

in a manner consistent with safety and 

good air pollution control practices for 

minimizing emissions. The general duty 

to minimize emissions does not require 

you to make any further efforts to 

reduce emissions if levels required by 

this standard have been achieved. 

Determination by the Administrator of 

whether a source is operating in 

compliance with operation and 

maintenance requirements will be based 

on information available to the 

Administrator that may include, but is 

not limited to, monitoring results, 

review of operation and maintenance 

procedures, review of operation and 

maintenance records, and inspection of 

the source. 

(c) For each CMS used to demonstrate 

compliance with any applicable 

emission limit, you must develop, and 

submit to the Administrator for 

approval upon request, a site-specific 

monitoring plan according to the 

requirements specified in paragraphs 

(c)(1) through (3) of this section. You 

must submit the site-specific monitoring 

plan, if requested by the Administrator, 

at least 60 days before the initial 

performance evaluation of the CMS. The 

requirements of this paragraph also 

apply if a petition is made to the 

Administrator for alternative monitoring 

parameters under § 63.8(f). 

(1) You must include the information 

specified in paragraphs (c)(1)(i) through 

(vi) of this section in the site-specific 

monitoring plan. 


rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
50456 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 160 / Wednesday, August 19, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

(i) Location of the CMS sampling 

probe or other interface. You must 

include a justification demonstrating 

that the sampling probe or other 

interface is at a measurement location 

relative to each affected process unit 

such that the measurement is 

representative of control of the exhaust 

emissions (e.g., on or downstream of the 

last control device). 

(ii) Performance and equipment 

specifications for the sample interface, 

the pollutant concentration or 

parametric signal analyzer, and the data 

collection and reduction systems. 

(iii) Performance evaluation 

procedures and acceptance criteria (e.g., 

calibrations). 

(iv) Ongoing operation and 

maintenance procedures in accordance 

with the general requirements of 

§ 63.8(c)(1)(ii), (c)(3), (c)(4)(ii), and 

Table 4 to this subpart. 

(v) Ongoing data quality assurance 

procedures in accordance with the 

general requirements of § 63.8(d)(1) and 

(2) and Table 5 to this subpart. 

(vi) Ongoing recordkeeping and 

reporting procedures in accordance with 

the general requirements of § 63.10(c), 

(e)(1), (e)(2)(i). 

(2) You must include a schedule for 

conducting initial and subsequent 

performance evaluations in the sitespecific monitoring plan. 

(3) You must keep the site-specific 

monitoring plan on site for the life of 

the affected source or until the affected 

source is no longer subject to the 

provisions of this part, to be made 

available for inspection, upon request, 

by the Administrator. If you revise the 

site-specific monitoring plan, you must 

keep previous (i.e., superseded) versions 

of the plan on site to be made available 

for inspection, upon request, by the 

Administrator, for a period of 5 years 

after each revision to the plan. You must 

include the program of corrective action 

required under § 63.8(d)(2) in the plan. 

(d) For each bag leak detection system 

installed to comply with the 

requirements specified in § 63.625(e), 

you must include the information 

specified in paragraphs (d)(1) and (2) of 

this section in the site-specific 

monitoring plan specified in paragraph 

(c) of this section. 

(1) Performance evaluation 

procedures and acceptance criteria (e.g., 

calibrations), including how the alarm 

set-point will be established. 

(2) A corrective action plan describing 

corrective actions to be taken and the 

timing of those actions when the bag 

leak detection alarm sounds. Corrective 

actions may include, but are not limited 

to, the actions specified in paragraphs 

(d)(2)(i) through (vi) of this section. 

(i) Inspecting the fabric filter for air 

leaks, torn or broken bags or filter 

media, or any other conditions that may 

cause an increase in regulated material 

emissions. 

(ii) Sealing off defective bags or filter 

media. 

(iii) Replacing defective bags or filter 

media or otherwise repairing the control 

device. 

(iv) Sealing off a defective fabric filter 

compartment. 

(v) Cleaning the bag leak detection 

system probe or otherwise repairing the 

bag leak detection system. 

(vi) Shutting down the process 

controlled by the fabric filter. 

§ 63.629 Miscellaneous requirements. 

The Administrator retains the 

authority to approve site-specific test 

plans for uncontrolled granular triple 

superphosphate storage buildings 

developed pursuant to § 63.7(c)(2)(i). 

§ 63.630 [Reserved] 

§ 63.631 Exemption from new source 

performance standards. 

Any affected source subject to the 

provisions of this subpart is exempted 

from any otherwise applicable new 

source performance standard contained 

in 40 CFR part 60, subpart V, subpart W, 

or subpart X. To be exempt, a source 

must have a current operating permit 

pursuant to title V of the Clean Air Act 

and the source must be in compliance 

with all requirements of this subpart. 

For each affected source, this exemption 

is effective upon the date that you 

demonstrate to the Administrator that 

the requirements of §§ 63.625 and 

63.626 have been met. 

§ 63.632 Implementation and enforcement. 

(a) This subpart is implemented and 

enforced by the U.S. EPA, or a delegated 

authority such as the applicable state, 

local, or Tribal agency. If the U.S. EPA 

Administrator has delegated authority to 

a state, local, or Tribal agency, then that 

agency, in addition to the U.S. EPA, has 

the authority to implement and enforce 

this subpart. Contact the applicable U.S. 

EPA Regional Office to find out if 

implementation and enforcement of this 

subpart is delegated to a state, local, or 

Tribal agency. 

(b) The authorities specified in 

paragraphs (b)(1) through (5) of this 

section are retained by the 

Administrator of U.S. EPA and cannot 

be delegated to State, local, or Tribal 

agencies. 

(1) Approval of alternatives to the 

requirements in §§ 63.620, 63.622, 

63.625, 63.629, and 63.631. 

(2) Approval of requests under 

§§ 63.7(e)(2)(ii) and 63.7 (f) for 

alternative requirements or major 

changes to the test methods specified in 

this subpart, as defined in § 63.90. 

(3) Approval of requests under 

§ 63.8(f) for alternative requirements or 

major changes to the monitoring 

requirements specified in this subpart, 

as defined in § 63.90. 

(4) Waiver or approval of requests 

under § 63.10(f) for alternative 

requirements or major changes to the 

recordkeeping and reporting 

requirements specified in this subpart, 

as defined in § 63.90. 

(5) Approval of an alternative to any 

electronic reporting to the EPA required 

by this subpart. 

TABLE 1 TO SUBPART BB OF PART 63—EXISTING SOURCE EMISSION LIMITS a b

For the following existing sources . . . 

You must meet the emission limits for the specified pollutant 

. . . 

Total fluorides 

Phosphate Fertilizer Process Line (e.g., Diammonium and/or Monoammonium 

Phosphate Process Line).

0.060 lb/ton of equivalent P2O5 feed. 

Granular Triple Superphosphate Process Line ........................................................ 0.150 lb/ton of equivalent P2O5 feed. 

GTSP storage building .............................................................................................. 5.0 × 10¥4 lb/hr/ton of equivalent P2O5 stored. 

aThe existing source compliance date is June 10, 2002. 

b During periods of startup and shutdown, for emission limits stated in terms of pounds of pollutant per ton of feed, you are subject to the work 

practice standards specified in § 63.622(d). 


rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 160 / Wednesday, August 19, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 50457 

TABLE 2 TO SUBPART BB OF PART 63—NEW SOURCE EMISSION LIMITS a b

For the following new sources . . . 

You must meet the emission limits for the specified pollutant 

. . . 

Total fluorides 

Phosphate Fertilizer Process Line (e.g., Diammonium and/or Monoammonium 

Phosphate Process Line).

0.0580 lb/ton of equivalent P2O5 feed. 

Granular Triple Superphosphate Process Line ........................................................ 0.1230 lb/ton of equivalent P2O5 feed. 

GTSP storage building .............................................................................................. 5.0 × 10¥4 lb/hr/ton of equivalent P2O5 stored. 

aThe new source compliance dates are based on date of construction or reconstruction as specified in § 63.622(a). 

b During periods of startup and shutdown, for emission limits stated in terms of pounds of pollutant per ton of feed, you are subject to the work 

practice standards specified in § 63.622(d). 

TABLE 3 TO SUBPART BB OF PART 63—MONITORING EQUIPMENT OPERATING PARAMETERS

You must . . . If . . . And you must 

monitor . . . And . . . 

Absorbers (Wet Scrubbers) 

Install a continuous parameter monitoring system (CPMS) for liquid 

flow at the inlet of the 

absorber..

Your absorber is designed and operated with pressure drops of 5 

inches of water column or more; 

and you choose to monitor only 

the influent liquid flow, rather than 

the liquid-to-gas ratio.

Influent liquid flow. 

Install CPMS for liquid 

and gas flow at the inlet 

of the absorber.

Your absorber is designed and operated with pressure drops of 5 

inches of water column or less; or.

Your absorber is designed and operated with pressure drops of 5 

inches of water column or more, 

and you choose to monitor the liquid-to-gas ratio, rather than only 

the influent liquid flow, and you 

want the ability to lower liquid flow 

with changes in gas flow.

Liquid-to-gas ratio as determined by 

dividing the influent liquid flow rate 

by the inlet gas flow rate. The 

units of measure must be consistent with those used to calculate 

this ratio during the performance 

test.

You must measure the gas stream 

by: 

Measuring the gas stream flow at the 

absorber inlet; or 

Using the design blower capacity, 

with appropriate adjustments for 

pressure drop. 

Install CPMS for pressure 

at the gas stream inlet 

and outlet of the absorber.

Your absorber is designed and operated with pressure drops of 5 

inches of water column or more.

Pressure drop through the absorber You may measure the pressure of 

the inlet gas using amperage on 

the blower if a correlation between 

pressure and amperage is established. 

TABLE 4 TO SUBPART BB OF PART 63—OPERATING PARAMETERS, OPERATING LIMITS AND DATA MONITORING, 

RECORDKEEPING AND COMPLIANCE FREQUENCIES

For the operating parameter applicable to you, as specified in 

Table 3 . . . 

You must establish the following 

operating limit during your performance test . . . 

And you must monitor, 

record, and demonstrate continuous 

compliance using 

these minimum frequencies 

Data measurement Data recording 

Absorbers (Wet Scrubbers) 

Influent liquid flow ........................ Minimum inlet liquid flow .............. Continuous ................. Every 15 minutes ....... Daily. 

Influent liquid flow rate and gas 

stream flow rate.

Minimum influent liquid-to-gas 

ratio.

Continuous ................. Every 15 minutes ....... Daily. 

Pressure drop .............................. Pressure drop range .................... Continuous ................. Every 15 minutes ....... Daily. 


rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
50458 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 160 / Wednesday, August 19, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

TABLE 5 TO SUBPART BB OF PART 63—CALIBRATION AND QUALITY CONTROL REQUIREMENTS FOR CONTINUOUS

PARAMETER MONITORING SYSTEMS (CPMS) 

If you monitor this parameter 

. . . Your accuracy requirements are . . . And your calibration requirements are . . . 

Flow Rate ............................. ± 5 percent over the normal range of flow measured or 

1.9 liters per minute (0.5 gallons per minute), whichever is greater, for liquid flow rate..

± 5 percent over the normal range of flow measured or 

28 liters per minute (10 cubic feet per minute), whichever is greater, for gas flow rate..

± 5 percent over the normal range measured for mass 

flow rate..

Performance evaluation annually and following any period of more than 24 hours throughout which the flow 

rate exceeded the maximum rated flow rate of the 

sensor, or the data recorder was off scale. Checks of 

all mechanical connections for leakage monthly. Visual inspections and checks of CPMS operation every 

3 months, unless the CPMS has a redundant flow 

sensor. 

Selection of a representative measurement location 

where swirling flow or abnormal velocity distributions 

due to upstream and downstream disturbances at the 

point of measurement are minimized. 

Pressure ............................... ± 5 percent over the normal range measured or 0.12 

kilopascals (0.5 inches of water column), whichever 

is greater..

Checks for obstructions (e.g., pressure tap pluggage) at 

least once each process operating day. 

Performance evaluation annually and following any period of more than 24 hours throughout which the 

pressure exceeded the maximum rated pressure of 

the sensor, or the data recorder was off scale. 

Checks of all mechanical connections for leakage 

monthly. 

Visual inspection of all components for integrity, oxidation and galvanic corrosion every 3 months, unless 

the CPMS has a redundant pressure sensor. 

Selection of a representative measurement location that 

minimizes or eliminates pulsating pressure, vibration, 

and internal and external corrosion. 

Appendix A to Subpart BB of Part 63— 

Applicability of General Provisions (40 

CFR Part 63, Subpart A) to Subpart BB 

40 CFR citation Requirement Applies to subpart BB Comment 

§ 63.1(a)(1) through (4) ........................ General Applicability .......................... Yes ................................ None. 

§ 63.1(a)(5) ........................................... ............................................................ No .................................. [Reserved]. 

§ 63.1(a)(6) ........................................... Contact information ........................... Yes ................................ None. 

§ 63.1(a)(7) through (9) ........................ ............................................................ No .................................. [Reserved]. 

§ 63.1(a)(10) through (12) .................... Time periods ...................................... Yes ................................ None. 

§ 63.1(b) ............................................... Initial Applicability Determination ...... Yes ................................ None. 

§ 63.1(c)(1) ........................................... Applicability After Standard Established.Yes ................................ None. 

§ 63.1(c)(2) ........................................... Permits .............................................. Yes ................................ Some plants may be area sources. 

§ 63.1(c)(3) through (4) ........................ ............................................................ No .................................. [Reserved]. 

§ 63.1(c)(5) ........................................... Area to Major source change ............ Yes ................................ None. 

§ 63.1(d) ............................................... ............................................................ No .................................. [Reserved]. 

§ 63.1(e) ............................................... Applicability of Permit Program ......... Yes ................................ None. 

§ 63.2 ................................................... Definitions .......................................... Yes ................................ Additional definitions in § 63.621. 

§ 63.3 ................................................... Units and Abbreviations .................... Yes ................................ None. 

§ 63.4(a)(1) and (2) .............................. Prohibited Activities ........................... Yes ................................ None. 

§ 63.4(a)(3) through (5) ........................ ............................................................ No .................................. [Reserved]. 

§ 63.4(b) and (c) .................................. Circumvention/Fragmentation ........... Yes ................................ None. 

§ 63.5(a) ............................................... Construction/Reconstruction Applicability.Yes ................................ None. 

§ 63.5(b)(1) ........................................... Existing, New, Reconstructed 

Sources Requirements.

Yes ................................ None. 

§ 63.5(b)(2) ........................................... ............................................................ No .................................. [Reserved]. 

§ 63.5(b)(3), (4), and (6) ...................... Construction/Reconstruction approval 

and notification.

Yes ................................ None. 

§ 63.5(b)(5) ........................................... ............................................................ No .................................. [Reserved]. 

§ 63.5(c) ............................................... ............................................................ No .................................. [Reserved]. 

§ 63.5(d) ............................................... Application for Approval of Construction/Reconstruction.Yes ................................ None. 

§ 63.5(e) ............................................... Approval of Construction/Reconstruction.Yes ................................ None. 

§ 63.5(f) ................................................ Approval of Construction/Reconstruction Based on State Review.Yes ................................ None. 

§ 63.6(a) ............................................... Compliance with Standards and 

Maintenance Applicability.

Yes ................................ None. 


rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 160 / Wednesday, August 19, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 50459 

40 CFR citation Requirement Applies to subpart BB Comment 

§ 63.6(b)(1) through (5) ........................ New and Reconstructed Sources 

Dates.

Yes ................................ See also § 63.622. 

§ 63.6(b)(6) ........................................... ............................................................ No .................................. [Reserved]. 

§ 63.6(b)(7) ........................................... Area to major source change ............ Yes ................................ None. 

§ 63.6(c)(1) and (2) .............................. Existing Sources Dates ..................... Yes ................................ § 63.622 specifies dates. 

§ 63.6(c)(3) and (4) .............................. ............................................................ No .................................. [Reserved]. 

§ 63.6(c)(5) ........................................... Area to major source change ............ Yes ................................ None. 

§ 63.6(d) ............................................... ............................................................ No .................................. [Reserved]. 

§ 63.6(e)(1)(i) and (ii) ........................... Operation & Maintenance Requirements.No .................................. See § 63.628(b) for general duty requirement. 

§ 63.6(e)(iii) .......................................... ............................................................ Yes ................................ None. 

§ 63.6(e)(2) ........................................... ............................................................ No .................................. [Reserved]. 

§ 63.6(e)(3) ........................................... Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunction 

Plan.

No .................................. None. 

§ 63.6(f) ................................................ Compliance with Emission Standards No .................................. See general duty at § 63.628(b). 

§ 63.6(g) ............................................... Alternative Standard .......................... Yes ................................ None. 

§ 63.6(h) ............................................... Compliance with Opacity/VE Standards.No .................................. Subpart BB does not include VE/

opacity standards. 

§ 63.6(i)(1) through (14) ....................... Extension of Compliance .................. Yes ................................ None. 

§ 63.6(i)(15) .......................................... ............................................................ No .................................. [Reserved]. 

§ 63.6(i)(16) .......................................... ............................................................ Yes ................................ None. 

§ 63.6(j) ................................................ Exemption from Compliance ............. Yes ................................ None. 

§ 63.7(a) ............................................... Performance Test Requirements Applicability.Yes ................................ None. 

§ 63.7(b) ............................................... Notification ......................................... Yes ................................ None. 

§ 63.7(c) ............................................... Quality Assurance/Test Plan ............. Yes ................................ None. 

§ 63.7(d) ............................................... Testing Facilities ................................ Yes ................................ None. 

§ 63.7(e)(1) ........................................... Conduct of Tests; startup, shutdown 

and malfunction provisions.

No .................................. § 63.626 specifies additional requirements. 

§ 63.7(e)(2) through (4) ........................ Conduct of Tests ............................... Yes ................................ § 63.626 specifies additional requirements. 

§ 63.7(f) ................................................ Alternative Test Method .................... Yes ................................ None. 

§ 63.7(g) ............................................... Data Analysis .................................... Yes ................................ None. 

§ 63.7(h) ............................................... Waiver of Tests ................................. Yes ................................ None. 

§ 63.8(a) ............................................... Monitoring Requirements Applicability.Yes ................................ None. 

§ 63.8(b) ............................................... Conduct of Monitoring ....................... Yes ................................ None. 

§ 63.8(c)(1)(i) ........................................ General duty to minimize emissions 

and CMS operation.

No .................................. See § 63.628(b) for general duty requirement. 

§ 63.8(c)(1)(ii) ....................................... ............................................................ Yes ................................ None. 

§ 63.8(c)(1)(iii) ...................................... Requirement to develop SSM Plan 

for CMS.

No .................................. None. 

§ 63.8(c)(2) through (4) ........................ CMS Operation/Maintenance ............ Yes ................................ None. 

§ 63.8(c)(5) ........................................... COMS Operation ............................... No .................................. Subpart BB does not require COMS. 

§ 63.8(c)(6) through (8) ........................ CMS requirements ............................ Yes ................................ None. 

§ 63.8(d)(1) and (2) .............................. Quality Control ................................... Yes ................................ None. 

§ 63.8(d)(3) ........................................... Written procedure for CMS ............... No .................................. See § 63.628 for requirement. 

§ 63.8(e) ............................................... CMS Performance Evaluation ........... Yes ................................ None. 

§ 63.8(f)(1) through (5) ......................... Alternative Monitoring Method .......... Yes ................................ None.

§ 63.8(f)(6) ............................................ Alternative to RATA Test .................. No .................................. Subpart BB does not require CEMS. 

§ 63.8(g)(1) ........................................... Data Reduction .................................. Yes ................................ None. 

§ 63.8(g)(2) ........................................... ............................................................ No .................................. Subpart BB does not require COMS 

or CEMS. 

§ 63.8(g)(3) through (5) ........................ ............................................................ Yes ................................ None. 

§ 63.9(a) ............................................... Notification Requirements Applicability.Yes ................................ None. 

§ 63.9(b) ............................................... Initial Notifications ............................. Yes ................................ None. 

§ 63.9(c) ............................................... Request for Compliance Extension ... Yes ................................ None. 

§ 63.9(d) ............................................... New Source Notification for Special 

Compliance Requirements.

Yes ................................ None. 

§ 63.9(e) ............................................... Notification of Performance Test ....... Yes ................................ None. 

§ 63.9(f) ................................................ Notification of VE/Opacity Test ......... No .................................. Subpart BB does not include VE/

opacity standards. 

§ 63.9(g) ............................................... Additional CMS Notifications ............. Yes ................................ None. 

§ 63.9(h)(1) through (3) ........................ Notification of Compliance Status ..... Yes ................................ None. 

§ 63.9(h)(4) ........................................... ............................................................ No .................................. [Reserved]. 

§ 63.9(h)(5) and (6) .............................. ............................................................ Yes ................................ None. 

§ 63.9(i) ................................................ Adjustment of Deadlines ................... Yes ................................ None. 

§ 63.9(j) ................................................ Change in Previous Information ........ Yes ................................ None. 

§ 63.10(a) ............................................. Recordkeeping/Reporting-Applicability.Yes ................................ None. 

§ 63.10(b)(1) ......................................... General Recordkeeping Requirements.Yes ................................ None. 

§ 63.10(b)(2)(i) ..................................... Startup or shutdown duration ............ No .................................. None. 


rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
50460 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 160 / Wednesday, August 19, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

40 CFR citation Requirement Applies to subpart BB Comment 

§ 63.10(b)(2)(ii) ..................................... Malfunction ........................................ No .................................. See § 63.627 for recordkeeping and 

reporting requirement. 

§ 63.10(b)(2)(iii) .................................... Maintenance records ......................... Yes ................................ None. 

§ 63.10(b)(2)(iv) and (v) ....................... Startup, shutdown, malfunction actions.No .................................. None. 

§ 63.10(b)(2)(vi) through (xiv) .............. General Recordkeeping Requirements.Yes ................................ None. 

§ 63.10(b)(3) ......................................... General Recordkeeping Requirements.Yes ................................ None. 

§ 63.10(c)(1) ......................................... Additional CMS Recordkeeping ........ Yes ................................ None. 

§ 63.10(c)(2) through (4) ...................... ............................................................ No .................................. [Reserved]. 

§ 63.10(c)(5) ......................................... ............................................................ Yes ................................ None. 

§ 63.10(c)(6) ......................................... ............................................................ Yes ................................ None. 

§ 63.10(c)(7) and (8) ............................ ............................................................ Yes ................................ None. 

§ 63.10(c)(9) ......................................... ............................................................ No .................................. [Reserved]. 

§ 63.10(c)(10) through (13) .................. ............................................................ Yes ................................ None. 

§ 63.10(c)(14) ....................................... ............................................................ Yes ................................ None. 

§ 63.10(c)(15) ....................................... Startup Shutdown Malfunction Plan 

Provisions.

No .................................. None. 

§ 63.10(d)(1) ......................................... General Reporting Requirements ..... Yes ................................ None. 

§ 63.10(d)(2) ......................................... Performance Test Results ................. Yes ................................ None. 

§ 63.10(d)(3) ......................................... Opacity or VE Observations .............. No .................................. Subpart BB does not include VE/

opacity standards. 

§ 63.10(d)(4) ......................................... Progress Reports .............................. Yes ................................ None. 

§ 63.10(d)(5) ......................................... Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunction 

Reports.

No .................................. See § 63.627 for reporting of excess 

emissions. 

§ 63.10(e)(1) and (2) ............................ Additional CMS Reports .................... Yes ................................ None. 

§ 63.10(e)(3) ......................................... Excess Emissions/CMS Performance 

Reports.

Yes ................................ None. 

§ 63.10(e)(4) ......................................... COMS Data Reports ......................... No .................................. Subpart BB does not require COMS. 

§ 63.10(f) .............................................. Recordkeeping/Reporting Waiver ..... Yes ................................ None. 

§ 63.11 ................................................. Control Device and Work Practice 

Requirements.

Yes ................................ None. 

§ 63.12 ................................................. State Authority and Delegations ....... Yes ................................ None. 

§ 63.13 ................................................. Addresses .......................................... Yes ................................ None. 

§ 63.14 ................................................. Incorporation by Reference ............... Yes ................................ None. 

§ 63.15 ................................................. Information Availability/Confidentiality Yes ................................ None. 

§ 63.16 ................................................. Performance Track Provisions .......... No .................................. Terminated. 

[FR Doc. 2015–19732 Filed 8–18–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 


rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES2