Date: May 20 1 2

Subject: Teleconference

Nitric Acid NSPS Review EPA Contract No. RTI Project No. 0213199
From: Melissa Icenhour
To: Nathan Topham

OAQPS/SPPD/MMG (D243 U. S. Environmental Protection Agency Research Triangle Park, NC 27711

A meeting was held on March 15 Fertilizer Institute (TFI) in reference to the Standards (NSPS) for Nitric Acid plant attendees included : EPA Chuck French , OAQPS, SPPD, Metals and Nathan Topham, OAQPS, SPPD, Metals and Bill Neuffer, OAQPS, SPPD, Metals and Nathan Frank, Region V Scott Jordan , OGC Steve Fruh , OAQPS, SPPD The Ferti lizer Institute (TFI) Bill Herz Chris L eason (Gallag h
E PA Support Contractor Melissa Icenhour , RTI International Teleconference with The Fertilizer Institute on March 15 , 2012

NSPS Review EPA Contract No. EP

- D

- 11

- 084 ; Work Assignment No. 0

- 01 RTI Project No. 0213199 .00 0 .0 01 Melissa Icenhour Nathan Topham OAQPS/SPPD/MMG (D243

- 02) U. S. Environmental Protection Agency Research Triangle Park, NC 27711

March 15 , 2012 to discuss the comments submitted by in reference to the review of the New Source Performance Nitric Acid plant s (40 CFR Part 60, Subpart G a). The meeting

, OAQPS, SPPD, Metals and In organic Chemicals Group Nathan Topham, OAQPS, SPPD, Metals and Inorganic Chemicals Group Bill Neuffer, OAQPS, SPPD, Metals and In organic Chemicals Group Nathan Frank, Region V

, OAQPS, SPPD lizer Institute (TFI)

h er and Kennedy) PA Support Contractor :

, RTI International , 2012

by The review of the New Source Performance The meeting

Group Group Group**Purpose:**

The purpose of the meeting was to allow TFI representatives to elaborate on the comments they

submitted for the proposed rule and to ask clarifying questions to the EPA

. **Discussion:** Mr. Leason began his presentation by thanking EPA for meeting with TFI and reiterating TFI’s support for the following aspects of the proposed nitric acid NSPS (Part 60, Subpart Ga): T he decisio n not to regulate nitrous oxide; the addition of Method 320 and Method 7E for emissions testing; and the deletion of the opacity standard

. Then Mr. Leason posed three questions to EPA: 1) What is the timeframe for the final rule? 2) What is the OMB review timeframe? 3) Is EPA optimistic about meeting the May 14, 2012 publication date ? EPA answered that the final rule package is being sent to OMB as soon as p ossible and EPA representatives indicated that the Agency will meet the May

14, 2012 court

- ordered deadline for signature of the final rule

. Mr. Leason noted that there are four main comment areas that TFI would like to revisit: 1) Representativeness of Test Plants 2) Assumption that there are no modified or reconstructed nitric acid plants 3) Costs 4) Subcategorization Mr. Leason noted that Section 111 of the Clean Air Act requires that the standard be achievable , meaning that EPA must demonstrate that the selected test plants are representative of the industry based on consideration of the range of relevant variables that may affect emissions from different plants. Mr. Leason stated that some of the relevant variables in the industry include: 1) Is the plant operating under single or dual pressure? 2) Is the plant using extended absorption? 3) How old is the plant? 4) Is the plant operating under low or medium pressures?EPA representatives asked for more discussion of extended absorption. Mr. Herz noted

that the definition may

vary among plants so they deferred answering until he could get input from other nitric acid plants represented b y TFI. According to Mr. Leason, PCS Geismar Plant 5 and El Dorado are not representative because these plants are two of the largest in the industry , they both possess extended absorption, and their absorption towers are much larger than typical absorption towers. Not every plant employ s extended absorption, nor is able to extend the towers in a cost effective manner. Al so, PCS Geismar Plant 5 uses a steam heater and El Dorado has access to unlimited steam from a co

- located chemical manufacturing plant to ensure that the SCR units at each plant are at peak operation during startups to limit NO X emissions. Mr. Leason state d that neither of these situations which limit NO X emissions during startup is ty

pical at most nitric acid production facilities. While Mr. L eason note d that newer plants should have lower emissions, he indicated that other anal ys es indicated that this is not alway s true. EPA note d that the test plants are extremel y good performers and that PCS Geismar Plant 5 and El Dorado are newer plants. However, the EPA noted that the third test plant, Agrium North Bend, was constructed in 196 4 as a single pressure plant which did not originall y employ

extended absorption. The plant was retrofitted with a second absorption tower in the 1970s and with an SCR in 2007 and also uses h ydrogen peroxide addition to limit NO X emissions during certain times of the ye ar. The plant has been improved over time and the NO X CEMS data demonstrate that this plant can meet the proposed standard. Mr. Leason responded with the fact that although all three test plants have SCR to reduce NO X emissions, they

also have extended absorption and hydrogen peroxide addition (Agrium North Bend) and that all of these technologies work in concert to reduce NO X . Thus, based on these test plants, it is not proper for EPA to only identify SCR as the best sy stem of emission reduction (BSER) for nitric acid plants; rather, EPA’s reliance on these plants means that SCR, extended absorption and hydrogen peroxide addition (in combination) are BSER. EPA ask ed if the issue was that older facilities cannot meet the proposed standard without additional costs or that older facilities cannot meet the proposed standard at all? Mr. Leason responded that both situations could occur but that the answer is case

specific. Mr. Leason also noted that older plants have single span monitors which are used to measure NO X emissions up to 500 ppm and, as a result, that EPA’s data used toestablish the proposed standard does not accurately account for startup, shutdown an d

malfunction emissions (since emissions during these events are much higher). EPA noted that the Agrium North Bend plant uses a dual span NO X monitor and can measure emissions higher than 500 ppm.
EPA noted that small nitric acid plants that currently employ no controls for NO X are in the minority

and that most nitric acid plants have extended absorption.
Mr. Leason questioned the exclusion of PCS Geismar Train 3 from the analy ses because its emissions average 2.55 lb NO X/ton acid

. EPA noted that the train was excluded because it employ s a low pressure SCR that is not optimally located for better performance. EPA noted that EPA staff discussed this SCR with the manager of the PCS Geismar plant , who stated that the plant could meet 0.60 lb NO X/ton acid if the SCR was relocated after the expander. Mr. Leason noted that there may be cases where placing the SCR after the expander is not possible, due to space constraints. EPA answered that enlarging the SCR or increasing the ammonia injection rate would have the same effect as relocating the existing SCR. Mr. Herz stated that the agency has not shown that the standard has been accuratel y assessed. EPA noted that the data from Agrium North Bend shows the true performance of the nitric acid plant after a retrof it and thus demonstrates the achievability of the proposed standard. Mr. Leason again noted that the Agrium North Bend facility not onl y uses SCR, but also extended absorption and hydrogen peroxide addition. Mr. Leason referenced a number of nitric acid p lants that have been permitted at 0.60 lb NO X/ton acid on a 365 day rolling emission rate , which is significantl y different than the 0.50 lb NO X/ton acid on a 30 day rolling emission rate that the EPA proposed. These plants are owned b y Rentech, Terra Indu stries, and a new US Nitrogen plant in Greene County , Tennessee.
EPA noted that the plants owned b y Terra Industries are still in the process of upgrading and the Rentech plant was completed last month, and the US Nitrogen plant is not yet operational. Th erefore, data are not available from these facilities for anal ys is that would impact the decision regarding achievability of the standard

. Mr. Leason noted another nitric acid plant in Georgia that had been modified or reconstructed in 2002 and 2007 and had thus become subject to the Nitric Acid NSPS.The EPA representatives requested more information on th i s plant . Mr. L eason promised

to get more information and report back to EPA.
Mr. Leason stated that the costs assessed at proposal are not accurate. He referenced the costs for flow monitors and dual span monitors as being incorrect and s t ated that control costs for modified sources would need to be included

. EPA noted that TFI’s cost comments on the proposed rule are being considered. Mr. Leason asked that three subcategories be considered for the nitric acid NSPS: 1) New plants; 2) Existing plants with NSCR control that undergo a modification or reconstruction; 3) Existing plants without NSCR control that undergo a modification or reconstruction. EPA asked if this approach (setting separate standards for modified sources) had been used in other rulemakings. Mr. Leason referred to Section 111 and achievability . Mr. Leason also stat ed that it is more difficult for a plant to meet a lower limit if the plant has NSCR control and undergoes a modification or reconstruction. Mr. Leason and Mr. Herz recommended that EPA look at the recently

- established 0.60 lb NO X/ton acid on a 365 day rol ling average standard set forth in consent decrees and a January 2012 permit for a US Nitrogen plant as BACT and evaluate whether it should form the basis for the NSPS. Mr. Leason noted that NSPS is the statutory floor and cannot, b y definition, be lower than BACT. In closing, Mr. Leason restated that there should be a bifurcation of the NO X standard in order for modified or reconstructed sources to comply , and costs for modified or reconstructed sources and installation of dual span NO X monitors must be included in the cost anal ys es. He also stated that the EPA should have used CEMS data from all nitric acid plants. He noted that the Greenhouse Gas Mandatory Reporting Rule (GHGMRR) reported 68% of nitric acid plants have NO X CEMS, yet EPA onl y relied on data from five nitric acid plants that have CEMS monitors (three SCR plants and two NSCR plants). Ms. Icenhour noted that the information for the GHGMRR was gathered through permits and that no CEMS data were gathered under that rulemaking.**Conclusion:**

Mr. Leason and Mr. Herz thanked the EPA representatives for meeting with them and giving them the opportunity to present additional data. **TFI stated that they would gather the following information and provide said information to the EPA as soon as pos**  **sible:**

 TFI will clarify

the definition of extended absorption for purposes of this rulemaking.
 TFI will clarify

their reasoning that modifications of nitric acid plants using NSCR control should be treated differently than modifications of nitric acid plants without NSCR control, with respect to the level of the standard.
 TFI will determine whether modification s occurred at a nitric acid plant in Georgia during 2002 and 2007.
 TFI will supply

long term CEMS data for other nitric acid plants that have been m odified to illustrate that the proposed NO X standard is not achievable.