May 5 , 2015

Ms. Tina Ndoh

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

109 T.W. Alexander Drive

Mail Code: D243

- 04

Research Triangle Park, NC 27709

RE: Summary of Potential Costs for Implementing Phosphate NESHAPs/Recommendations

for Phosphogypsum Stack Work Practices

Dear Ms. Ndoh :

On behalf of The Fertilizer Institute (“TFI”), this letter follows up on our March 12, 2015

meeting with U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA” or “Agency”) sta ff to discuss TFI

perspectives on the proposed “ risk and technology review ” (“RTR”) of the existing Phosphoric

Acid (40 C.F.R. Part 63, Subpart AA) and Phosphate Fertilizer (40 C.F.R. Part 63 , Subpart BB)

, National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (“NESHAPs”), which w ere published in

the Federal Register on November 7, 2014 (79 Fed. Reg. 66515).

This letter addresses two topics that were part of the meeting discussion , specifically,

addition al thoughts on the work practices for phosphogypsum stacks and the potential capital

and operating costs associated with implementing the NESHAPs as proposed

.

A. Work Practices for Phophogypsum Stacks

These practices were the subject of an extended discussion during the recent meeting.

Since then, TFI members have further reflected on the practices as proposed and have

compiled the following recommendations for modifying those practices proposed by the

Agency and suggesting some additional alternative practices.

Reword section 63.602(f)(2)(ii) as follows:

( ii ) M in i m iz e t h e s u r f a ce a r ea o f t h e act i v e g y p s u m d e water in g s tack b y u s in g a r i m

di tch (ce ll ) buildin g tec hniqu e o r o t h er buildin g tec hniqu e. Ut i liz e a r i m di t ch ( c e ll )

buildin g t e c hniqu e o r o t h er similar t ec hniqu e t h ere b y r e du c in g t h e area a v a il a bl e f o r

p o nd ed s u r f a ces o n a c t i v e g y p s u m d e wa t er in g sta c ks.

Capital View 202. 515

- 2704 office

425 Third Street, S.W., Suite 950 202. 270

- 0094 cell

Washington, DC 20024 aohare@tfi.orgMs. Tina Dhoh

Page 2

Include a new definition for “rim ditch” ( b e l o w) addressing the di t c h buildin g

te chni q u e t ha t includ es co m pa r tme n t i n i t ia t io n an d te r m ina l clo s u r e pha ses w h e r e a

di t c h do e s n ’t ex i st.

Include new definition for Rim Ditch in Section 63

. 60 1, as follows:

R i m D i tch

– a g y p s u m d e w ater in g sta c k c o n str u c t i o n t ec hniqu e t h at u t ili z es

inn er a n d o u t e r di kes t o di r e ct g y p s u m s lu rry fl o w a r o un d t h e p er i m e t er o f t h e sta c k

b e f o re di r e c t in g t h e f l o w a n d a ll o w in g s ett lin g o f fi n er m ater i a l s in to t h e s e t t lin g

c o m p ar t m e n t. F o r t h e p u r p o se o f t hi s d e fini t i o n , t h e r i m di tch c o n str u ct i o n tec hniqu e

i nc lu d e t h e c o m p ar t m e n t sta r t

- u p ph ase w h en g y p s u m i s d e p o s i ted di r e ct l y in t o t h e

se t t lin g c o m pa r t m e n t i n p re p arat i o n f o r di t ch c o n s tr u ct i o n as we l l as t h e s t e p

- i n o r

te r m in al ph ases w h en m o st s o lid s m u st b e di rec t ed t o t h e se t t lin g c o m p ar t m e n t prior

to stack closure. Decant return ditches are not rim ditches.

Note : The intent of this definition is to clarify that during the initial and

terminal phases of rim ditch operation, an actual ditch will not be present. These

phases are critical components of the construction and de

- construction of the rim

ditch.

Reword section 63.602(f)(2) ( v ) r e w o rd as f o l l o w s :

( v ) Appl y s o i l ca p s a n d v e g e tat i o n to a l l s id e s l o p es o f t h e act i v e g y p s u m d ew a ter i n g

stack u p to 5 0 f eet b e l o w t h e s tack t o p

. P re p a r e a n d i m pl e m e n t a g y p s u m d e wa t er in g

sta c k c o n str u ct i o n a n d o p erat i o n pl a n s t h a t i n c lud e s a g e o t e c hni cal st a bil i ty a n a l y s i s

t o esta bli sh e l ev at i o n s a t w hi ch ste p

- i n b e n c h es are to b e c o n str u c t ed a n d t o in c lu de

l o cat i o n s a n d s c h e dul es f o r d ra i n in sta ll at i o n s a n d appropriate c o v er o n t h e s id e

s l o p es b e l o w t h e top of the stack. T h e pl a n s w il l b e upd ated at l e a st o n ce e v e r y fi v e

y ears.

Ad d new alternative work practices under section 63.602(f)(2)(vii)

- (ix) as f o ll o ws:

(vii) O p era t e t h e c o o lin g p o n d s y st e m s t o adjust the a c t i v e c oo lin g surface area t o

address weather conditions, seas o n al c o o lin g n e e d s and associated production

changes. Co o l in g c i rc ui t a d j u s t m e n ts m a y b e acc o m pli s h ed t h r o ug h u t il i z at i o n o f

e i t h er fi x ed o r fl o at in g fl o w di v e rs i o n d e v i ce s o r b y c h a ngin g fl o ws s u ch t h at s o m e o f

t h e h ea t ed w a ter i s di v e rt e d away f r o m p o rt i o n s o f t h e p o nd ed area.

(viii) P r o v id e inpu ts t o t h e g y p s u m d e wa t er in g sta c k s y st e m to rea c t w i th a n d

p r ec ipi tate flu o r id e co m p o und s t o in s o lubl e f o r m s.

(ix) Prepare and implement a plan for the dre dging of cooling ponds based on

site

- specific conditions.Ms. Tina Dhoh

Page 3

(x) A work practice, not otherwise specified above, approved by the

Administrator (or the State with an approved permit program) on a site

specific basis.

B. Summary of the Potential Capital and Operati ng Costs for Implementation

Costs to comply with the proposed rule were another topic of discussion at the March

meeting between TFI, our members, and EPA. TFI has solicited updated cost estimates from its

members, and aggregated estimated costs from comments its members submitted to the

agency. These cost estimates represent a combination of capital costs and a single year of

operation and maintenance costs and are broken out broadly by cost type category.

TFI estimates that it would cost between $4 0 million and $43 million to comply with the

Agency’s expanded definition of “process line” and additional covered emission sources,

including clarifiers, defluorination units, and oxidation reactors. These costs include routing

previously uncovered emissi ons to scrubbers, installing new scrubbers, and associated

monitoring. Further

, these costs are for capital expenditures and a single year of operation and

maintenance, they do not include future operation costs.

TFI estimated in our comments that it wou ld cost our members over $3 million to

comply with EPA’s proposed switch from a total fluoride surrogate to a hydrogen fluoride

standard and associated switch to Method 320 from Method 13b. Two TFI members submitted

revised compliance testing cost estimate s to TFI, these cost estimates total $1.75 million to

comply with FTIR and/or M320 testing. TFI believes, given these estimates that our members

will quickly exceed $3 million in complying with the M320 requirement.

EPA has proposed a variety of work pra ctices which the agency believes would reduce

HF emissions from gypsum stacks. While there is a wide range of costs associated with these

work practices, TFI members estimate that it could cost close to $500 million to comply with

the most onerous work pra ctices. Full stack closure to comply with the 80 acre operating limit

would cost two TFI member facilities at least $150 million alone

.

TFI members also submitted cost estimates for meeting mercury emission limits for

calciners and cooling system effluen t management standards in their comments. The TFI

member who addressed mercury emission limits

, has received estimates from environmental

engineering firms indicating that compl iance w ith the proposed requirements would cost

between $26.8 million and $41.1 million. To comply with the cooling system effluent

management requirements

, TFI members estimate that it would cost between $50 million and

$60 million for capital costs and only one year of operation and maintenance costs of the new

system.Ms. Tina Dhoh

Page 4

In sum, TF I believes that the rule as proposed will cost TFI members between $118

million to $632 million in capital costs, which could be spread over the first few years, and

annual operating costs, of which only one year has been included in the estimates . Clearly

, this

is an economically significant rule and deserves consideration by the Office of Management and

Budget.

C. Conclusion

Thank you for the opportunity to share this additional information with you regarding

these important aspects of the NESHAP proposals. Please do not hesitate to contact me at

(202) 515

- 2704 or aohare@tfi.org or Wade F oster at (202) 515

- 2701 with any questions

regarding the perspectives of TFI on these matters.

Sincerely,

Andrew T. O’Hare

Vice President, Public Policy

Cc: Howard Shelanski, Administrator, White House Office of Information and Regulatory

Affairs

Peter Tsirigotis, EPA Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards

Keith Barnett, EPA Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards