Date: September 22, 2009

Subject: Conference Call with American Chemistry Council (ACC)

Nitric Acid NSPS Review

EPA Contract No. EP-D-06-118; Work Assignment No. 3-22 

RTI Project No. 0210426.003.022

From: Melissa Icenhour

Roy Neulicht

To: Bill Neuffer

OAQPS/SPPD/MMG (D243-02)

U. S. Environmental Protection Agency

Research Triangle Park, NC 27711

A teleconference was held on August 11, 2009 to discuss EPA’s review of the 

New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) for Nitric Acid plants (40 CFR Part 60, 

Subpart G). The agenda is attached. The meeting attendees included:

EPA

Bill Neuffer, EPA, OAQPS, SPPD, Metals and Minerals Group

Steve Fruh, EPA, OAQPS, SPPD, Metals and Minerals Group

Tina Ndoh, EPA, OAQPS, SPPD, Program Design Group

Larry Sorrels, EPA, OAQPS, HEID, Air Benefits and Cost Group

Bill Grimley, EPA, OAQPS, AQAD, Measurement Technology Group

Mausami Desai, EPA, OAR, Climate Change Division (via phone)

Nathan Frank, EPA, Region V (via phone)

American Chemistry Council (ACC) [via phone]

Lorraine Gershman, ACC

John Dege, DuPont

Bruce Darris, DuPont

Rob Schwar, Dow

Jim Griffin, ACC

Russell Wozniak, Dow

Desi Chari, Dow

David Emerson, Air Products
EPA Support Contractors:

Roy Neulicht, RTI International

Melissa Icenhour, RTI International

Jason Goldsmith, RTI International

Purpose: 

The purpose of the meeting was to initiate communication with the American 

Chemistry Council (ACC) on activities related to the review of the Nitric Acid 

Manufacturing NSPS. 

Discussion:

A summary of the key items discussed during the meeting follows.

History of NSPS. Bill Neuffer gave a brief overview of the history of the NSPS. 

The handout is attached. NSPS reviews occurred in 1979 and 1984. The emissions 

standard did not change as a result of either of the reviews. 

EPA will again be reviewing the NSPS, specifically the NOx emissions limit, the 

opacity standard, continuous compliance, control technologies, and whether or not the 

manufacture of strong nitric acid (>70%) should be regulated. EPA also is interested in 

collecting information on greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, specifically, N2O. 

The ACC participants asked why N2O emissions were being considered. Bill 

Neuffer explained that the current litigation from Sierra Club raises the issue of N2O

emissions. Mr. Neuffer further explained that EPA will be gathering available 

information on NOX and N2O as a part of the NSPS review process, but no decision has 

been made by EPA on whether or not to regulate N2O under the NSPS. Currently, the 

schedule is for proposal of a rule in fall of 2010 and promulgation a 1 year later.

ACC was concerned with possible conflicts between the monitoring requirements 

of the NSPS and the GHG Mandatory Reporting Rule.

Economic Analysis. Larry Sorrels explained that an economic impact analysis 

will be done for this NSPS as is typically done by OAQPS. The analysis will include 

estimates of impacts on product prices and output, any impacts on small businesses, and 

impacts on imports and exports of affected products from implementing the NSPS. Such 

impacts are normally estimated for the fifth year after proposal of the NSPS, and the 

economic analysis uses the compliance costs for the NSPS as an input. He mentioned 

that the impact on small businesses also is examined.
Emissions Test Methods. The issue of whether Method 7E (instrumental 

method) was an appropriate method for determining compliance with the NSPS was 

raised. Bill mentioned that only Methods 7 though 7D (wet chemistry methods) are 

approved methods in the current NSPS. Bill Grimley explained that there are two issues 

with the use of Method 7E: 1) how moisture in the sample is handled, and 2) the 

calibration procedures/gases used. The concern is potential for a bias in measured 

emissions resulting from the loss of NO2 (which is highly soluble in water) during sample 

transport/conditioning. EPA recently has specified some sample conditioning procedures 

for Method 7E when used at nitric acid production facilities. Essentially, one needs to 

verify all NO2 is measured. 

ACC Discussion. ACC members noted that DuPont’s First Chemical facility in 

Pascagoula, Mississippi, has an upcoming NOX test. The test is performed annually as 

part of the title V permit for the plant. ACC asked for EPA input for the Mississippi 

stack test so that the results would be helpful in the NSPS review; they requested EPA 

provide the recent specifications for Method 7E use at nitric acid plants. Members also 

mentioned a plant in Texas that has a NOx control technology with upcoming plans for 

testing. ACC indicated that the data from any upcoming testing could be made available 

to EPA. Bill indicated that the data should be received by May/June of 2010 to be 

included in the NSPS review. 

A member asked if, according to the proposed GHF reporting rule, emissions 

testing would need to be conducted prior to January 2010 when the rule becomes 

effective. Mausami Desai indicated that testing would not need to be completed prior to 

January 2010; testing could be conducted sometime during 2010. The results of the 

testing would then be used, along with 2010 production date, to calculate GHG 

emissions. 

One ACC member indicated that a stack test was not representative of emissions 

due to changing process and/or control device conditions. He mentioned, for example, 

that catalyst aging can impact emissions. He indicated that Texas is requesting the use of 

CEMS. Another member asked whether there was an approved CEMS for measuring

N2O emissions. Nathan Frank indicated he knew of a CEMS that was being used to 

measure N2O emissions; it is a non-dispersive infrared system (NDIR). An NDIR also 

can be used to measure NO and NOx emissions.

Members asked about the status of the consent decree and why it has been 

delayed. Bill Neuffer had no specific information but said he would contact the Office of 

General Council (OGC) for an update.

Members also indicated that there are no new nitric acid production lines being 

built in the United States.

 
Wrap-Up:

EPA indicated they wanted to keep lines of communication open with ACC and 

other representatives of the industry. The following action items were identified:

1. Working with ACC to refine the list of facilities and process units, as well as 

each facility’s process design (e.g., low pressure, medium pressure, high 

pressure, dual pressure) and emissions controls (e.g., SCR, NSCR) 

characteristics;

2. Developing a list of data items that EPA would like to collect from industry 

and trade associations and having a follow-up call with ACC to discuss the 

list;

3. Obtaining the most recent CEMS data for NOx emissions

4. Obtaining available stack test emissions data; and 

5. Obtaining available N2O emissions data.
ATTACHMENTS

Meeting Agenda

History of NSPS
Agenda

8/11/09 – RTP, NC

EPA Meeting with American Chemistry Council (ACC)

Nitric Acid Plant NSPS Review

1. Welcome and Introductions

2. EPA Overview/ Background on New Source Performance Standard for Nitric 

Acid Plants 

3. ACC Overview – Discussion of the industry, members, and plant listing

4. Discussion/ Wrap-Up
Subpart G NSPS Review 

Notes for August 12, 2009 Meeting with ACC

Why is EPA reviewing the NSPSs?

The EPA is required by the CAA (section 111(b)(1)(B)) to review and, if appropriate, 

revise existing NSPS at least every 8 years. 

In addition to the CAA requirement to review the NSPS periodically, EPA has received a 

citizen suit from Sierra Club and Environmental Integrity Project related to the nitric acid 

NSPS which is also prompting review of the standards. 

NSPS (40 CFR part 60) Promulgation date Previous changes to rule

Nitric Acid (subpart G) June 14, 1974 

(39 FR 20794)

Changes dated October 6, 

1975 [40 FR 46258], April 

22, 1985 [50 FR 15894], 

and February 14, 1989 [40 

FR 6666]

NSPS Reviews were 1985 

and 1989

What is the schedule for the NSPS reviews?

Preliminary draft of Consent Decree (6/18/09): 

-Proposal of review in FR by November 15, 2010

-Promulgation of review in FR by November 15, 2011

The proposed/final FR notices must be one of the following: 

-Determination that revision to the NSPS is unnecessary based on complete 

review 

-Revisions to the NSPS

What are some potential outcomes of the NSPS reviews?

Potential outcomes include one or more of the following: 

-No changes 

-Clarifying amendments 

-Changes to emissions limits or other rule requirements

-Add emission limits for additional pollutants (i.e., N2O)

We currently have no inclination as to what will be changed. It will depend on what the 

information gathered reveals. 

Now is the time to provide your ideas on potential amendments needed.
Test Methods

Changes that increase stringency of the rule (if any) would apply only to new units 

installed following the NSPS review proposal date.

What is the process?

1. Data gathering (emissions test data, site visits, permits, information from 

companies/trade groups/equipment vendors/states, state regulations, etc.) 

2. Data analysis (compile data, analyze regulatory options, make recommendations)

3. Develop FR proposal (preamble and rule amendments)

4. Receive, summarize, and review public comments on proposal

5. Review conclusions, conduct additional analyses needed, make recommendations

6. Develop final FR notice

7. Litigation (hopefully none)

What is the status of our data gathering efforts?

A list of nitric acid facilities has been compiled from various information sources such as 

EPA’s AIRS, ICIS, Region 5, etc.

We have obtained many title V permits from state websites. We will use permit data to 

identify any States with requirements more stringent than NSPS, equipment capable of 

meeting more stringent emission limits, etc. 

Additional data needs include:

-For each facility subject to NSPS, the NOX emissions (in the same terms as the 

NSPS limits) and the NOX abatement method. 

-Emissions test data (e.g., for NOX and any other pollutants such as N2O) to 

evaluate the performance of current NOX abatement technologies and 

emerging NOX or N2O abatement technologies (if any).

There are approximately 60 facilities of which we are aware and resources are limited. 

Our goal is to get as much data from trade associations and states.