William C. Herz
Vice President, Scientific Programs

2918406v1/21436-0021 Capitol View 202.962.0490 425 Third Street, S.W., Suite 950 202.962.0577 fax Washington, DC 20024 www.tfi.org February 22, 2012

VIA ELECTRONIC SUBMISSION

U.S. EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC) U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Mailcode 2822T 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W. Washington, DC 20460 http://www.regulations.gov

Re: Additional Information Regarding EPA’s New Source Performance Standards Review for Nitric Acid Plants, Docket No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0750________________________________

Dear Sir or Madam:

On November 28, 2011, The Fertiliz er Institute (TFI), on behalf of its member companies, submitted comments to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA or Agency) regarding its proposed rule entitled New Source Performance Standards R eview for Nitric Acid Plants (hereinafter “ Proposal ”). See EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0750-098 (hereinafter “TFI Cmts.”). The comment period for the Proposal closed on November 28, 2011. 76 Fed. Reg. 63,878 (Oct. 14, 2011). Thereafter, TFI learned that following it s receipt of TFI’s and other stakeholders’ comments, EPA has continued to meet selectivel y with certain stakeholders to discuss and analyze its Proposal , as well as alternatives to the Proposal regarding the New Source Performance Standard (NSPS) for oxides of nitrogen (NO
x ) emitted from nitric acid plants under 40 C.F.R. Part 60, Subpart G (and proposed Subpart Ga).

Given these meetings and subsequent requests fo r, and the receipt of, additional information,
EPA continues to consider data and information that was not submitted to the docket prior to its closing. TFI submits this letter to supplement its comments, and to provide EPA with additional,
new information relevant to its review and ongoing analyses.

On January 4, 2012, the Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation (TDEC) issued Prevention of Significant Deteriorati on (PSD) permits to US Nitrogen, LLC for theU.S. EPA Docket Center February 21, 2012 Page 2

construction of an integrated nitrogen fer tilizer facility in Greene County, Tennessee. 1 The facility will produce ammonium n itrate solution, including anhydrous ammonia and nitric acid. Under the permit for the nitric acid plant (NAP) at the facility, the NAP is subject to current
NSPS standards set forth in 40 C.F.R. Part 60, Subpart G. When EPA finalizes the Proposal

, however, the new NSPS at Subpart Ga will a pply to the NAP. Despite this condition, and contrary to the Proposal ’s 0.50 lb NO
x per ton of nitric acid produced (hereinafter “lb
NO
x /tHNO 3 ”) emission limit measured on a 30-day rol ling average, the permit sets an emission
limit of 1.0 lb NO
x /tHNO 3 (100%), measured on a rolling 3- hour average, excluding startup, shutdown, and malfunction (SSM) events, and an emission limit of 0.6 lb NO
x /tHNO 3 (100%), measured on a 365-day rolling period, including SSM events. The NAP will use selective catalytic reduction (SCR) as a NO
x emissions control.

The NAP permit is precedent setting, in that it represents the first NAP permitted under EPA’s PSD Tailoring Rule for Greenhouse Gases. More im portantly here, however, is that it represents perhaps the most recent application of Best Available Control Technology (BACT) for a NAP with respect to NO
x . As set forth in TFI’s comments, by statutory design, BACT is far more stringent than NSPS, the latter of which merely represents the floor for emission limits, and thus, cannot be lower than BACT. TFI Cmts. at 24. Here, like the recent consent decree examples cited by TFI in its comments, 2 the application of BACT has resulted in emission limitations greater than those in the Proposal , and measured on a 365-day ro lling basis, an interval supported by TFI. TFI Cmts. at 20 (the 365-day rolling average is the most appropriate to
account for SSM events as well as to ba lance out seasonal impacts to emissions). 3

This outcome calls into question EPA’s conclusion in its Proposal that an emission limit of 0.50
lb NO
x /tHNO 3 is achievable. See id . at 7-13. This is particularly true given that unlike the NAPs relied upon to produce the limit in the Proposal , which were at least 10 years old, 4 the U.S. Nitrogen NAP will be newly constructed, and thus, likely would represent the state of the art in terms of emissions reduction capabilities base d on the most modern controls and design
efficiencies. 5

1 Copies of the permits are enclosed for your convenience.

2 TFI Cmts. at 24 & n. 111 (EPA’s consent decrees with Ag rium U.S., Inc. and Terra Industries, Inc. resulted in
emission limits of 0.61 and 0.60 lb NO

x /tHNO 3 (100%), measured on a 365-day rolling average).

3 Not only does the Proposal subject NAPs like the U.S. Nitrogen NAP to two completely different, and noncomplementary, standards for a single pollutant, it essentially renders the BACT/PSD program moot because NAPs will be forced to operate in a manner that produces comp liance with the lowest emission limit. This result is contrary to the Congressional intent of setting an indust ry-wide emission limit floor with the NSPS program, and then fine tuning additional reductions on a facility-by -facility basis though the BACT/PSD program. Thus, for example, whatever factors compelled TDEC to conclude th at the NOx emission limits in the permit were BACT for the U.S. Nitrogen NAP will be nullified and washed away once (if) EPA finalizes the Proposal

.

4 TFI Cmts. at 8; see also 76 Fed. Reg. at 63,883.

5 Consistent with TFI’s comments th at often NAPs (or components thereo f) are moved from place to place, rather than purchased new, see TFI Cmts. at 5, TFI understands that many of the components of the US Nitrogen NAP will be brought to Tennessee from elsewhere, and thus, are not newly fabricated. TFI also understands, however, that the
SCR and NO 2 controls will be newly fabricated.U.S. EPA Docket Center February 21, 2012 Page 3

Based on this new information, as well as similar information noted in TFI’s comments, TFI again urges EPA to reconsider its Proposal in order to develop an achievable NSPS for NO
x emissions from NAPs. To that end, TFI requests a meeting with EPA to discuss TFI’s comments
on the Proposal , as well as EPA’s current thinking regarding revisions to the same.

Should you have any questions regarding these comments, or TFI’s comments submitted on November 28, 2011, please call me directly at (202) 515-2706.

Sincerely yours,

William C. Herz Vice President of Scientific Programs

Enclosures