Vol. 79 Friday, 

No. 216 November 7, 2014 

Part III 

Environmental Protection Agency 

40 CFR Parts 60 and 63 

Phosphoric Acid Manufacturing and Phosphate Fertilizer Production RTR 

and Standards of Performance for Phosphate Processing; Proposed Rule 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

66512 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 216 / Friday, November 7, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Parts 60 and 63 

[EPA–HQ–OAR–2012–0522; FRL–9912–61– 

OAR] 

RIN 2060–AQ20 

Phosphoric Acid Manufacturing and 

Phosphate Fertilizer Production RTR 

and Standards of Performance for 

Phosphate Processing 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is proposing amendments 

to the National Emission Standards for 

Hazardous Air Pollutants for the 

Phosphoric Acid Manufacturing and 

Phosphate Fertilizer Production source 

categories and to new source 

performance standards (NSPS) for 

several phosphate processing categories. 

The proposed amendments address the 

results of the residual risk and 

technology reviews (RTR) conducted as 

required under the Clean Air Act (CAA), 

as well as other actions deemed 

appropriate during the review of these 

standards. The proposed amendments 

include numeric emission limits for 

mercury and work practice standards for 

hydrogen fluoride (HF) from calciners; 

work practice standards for hazardous 

air pollutant (HAP) emissions from 

gypsum dewatering stacks and cooling 

ponds; emission standards requiring HF 

testing from various affected sources; 

clarifications to the applicability and 

monitoring requirements for both source 

categories to accommodate process 

equipment and technology changes; 

changes to remove the exemptions for 

startup, shutdown and malfunction; 

work practice standards for periods of 

startup and shutdown; and revised 

provisions to address recordkeeping and 

reporting requirements applicable to 

periods of startup, shutdown and 

malfunction. The proposed amendments 

will reduce mercury emissions, thereby 

reducing potential mercury exposure to 

children, including the unborn. Further, 

the EPA has conducted an 8-year review 

of the current NSPS for these source 

categories, and is proposing that no 

revisions to the numeric emission limits 

for these standards are appropriate. 

DATES: Comments. Comments must be 

received on or before December 22, 

2014. A copy of comments on the 

information collection provisions 

should be submitted to the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) on or 

before December 8, 2014. 

Public Hearing. If anyone contacts the 

EPA requesting to speak at a public 

hearing by November 12, 2014, we will 

hold a public hearing on November 24, 

2014 on the EPA campus at 109 T.W. 

Alexander Drive, Research Triangle 

Park, North Carolina. 

ADDRESSES: Comments. Submit your 

comments, identified by Docket ID 

Number EPA–HQ–OAR–2012–0522, by 

one of the following methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov: Follow the online 

instructions for submitting comments. 

• Email: A-and-R-Docket@epa.gov. 

Include Attention Docket ID No. EPA– 

HQ–OAR–2012–0522 in the subject line 

of the message. 

• Fax: (202) 566–9744, Attention 

Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2012– 

0522. 

• Mail: Environmental Protection 

Agency, EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), 

Mail Code 28221T, Attention Docket ID 

No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2012–0522, 1200 

Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, 

DC 20460. In addition, please mail a 

copy of your comments on the 

information collection provisions to the 

Office of Information and Regulatory 

Affairs, Office of Management and 

Budget (OMB), Attn: Desk Officer for 

EPA, 725 17th Street NW., Washington, 

DC 20503. 

• Hand/Courier Delivery: EPA Docket 

Center, Room 3334, EPA WJC Building, 

1301 Constitution Ave. NW., 

Washington, DC 20004, Attention 

Docket ID Number EPA–HQ–OAR– 

2012–0522. Such deliveries are only 

accepted during the Docket’s normal 

hours of operation, and special 

arrangements should be made for 

deliveries of boxed information. 

Instructions. Direct your comments to 

Docket ID Number EPA–HQ–OAR– 

2012–0522. The EPA’s policy is that all 

comments received will be included in 

the public docket without change and 

may be made available online at http:// 

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information provided, unless 

the comment includes information 

claimed to be confidential business 

information (CBI) or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Do not submit information that you 

consider to be CBI or otherwise 

protected through http://

www.regulations.gov or email. The 

http://www.regulations.gov Web site is 

an ‘‘anonymous access’’ system, which 

means the EPA will not know your 

identity or contact information unless 

you provide it in the body of your 

comment. If you send an email 

comment directly to the EPA without 

going through http://

www.regulations.gov, your email 

address will be automatically captured 

and included as part of the comment 

that is placed in the public docket and 

made available on the Internet. If you 

submit an electronic comment, the EPA 

recommends that you include your 

name and other contact information in 

the body of your comment and with any 

disk or CD–ROM you submit. If the EPA 

cannot read your comment due to 

technical difficulties and cannot contact 

you for clarification, the EPA may not 

be able to consider your comment. 

Electronic files should not include 

special characters or any form of 

encryption and be free of any defects or 

viruses. For additional information 

about the EPA’s public docket, visit the 

EPA Docket Center homepage at: 

http://www.epa.gov/dockets. 

Docket. The EPA has established a 

docket for this rulemaking under Docket 

ID Number EPA–HQ–OAR–2012–0522. 

All documents in the docket are listed 

in the http://www.regulations.gov index. 

Although listed in the index, some 

information is not publicly available, 

e.g., 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. Publicly 

available docket materials are available 

either electronically in http://

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at 

the EPA Docket Center, Room 3334, 

EPA WJC West Building, 1301 

Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, 

DC. The Public Reading Room is open 

from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday 

through Friday, excluding legal 

holidays. The telephone number for the 

Public Reading Room is (202) 566–1744, 

and the telephone number for the EPA 

Docket Center is (202) 566–1742. 

Public Hearing. If anyone contacts the 

EPA requesting a public hearing by 

November 12, 2014, the public hearing 

will be held on November 24, 2014 at 

the EPA’s campus at 109 T.W. 

Alexander Drive, Research Triangle 

Park, North Carolina. The hearing will 

begin at 10:00 a.m. (Eastern Standard 

Time) and conclude at 5:00 p.m. 

(Eastern Standard Time). There will be 

a lunch break from 12:00 p.m. to 1:00 

p.m. Please contact Ms. Pamela Garrett 

at 919–541–7966 or garrett.pamela@

epa.gov to register to speak at the 

hearing, or to inquire about whether a 

hearing will be held. The last day to preregister in advance to speak at the 

hearings will be November 19, 2014. 

Additionally, requests to speak will be 

taken the day of the hearing at the 

hearing registration desk, although 

preferences on speaking times may not 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 216 / Friday, November 7, 2014 / Proposed Rules 66513 

be able to be fulfilled. If you require the 

service of a translator or special 

accommodations such as audio 

description, please let us know at the 

time of registration. If you require an 

accommodation, we ask that you preregister for the hearing, as we may not 

be able to arrange such accommodations 

without advance notice. 

The hearing will provide interested 

parties the opportunity to present data, 

views or arguments concerning the 

proposed action. The EPA will make 

every effort to accommodate all speakers 

who arrive and register. Because this 

hearing is being held at U.S. government 

facilities, individuals planning to attend 

the hearing should be prepared to show 

valid picture identification to the 

security staff in order to gain access to 

the meeting room. Please note that the 

REAL ID Act, passed by Congress in 

2005, established new requirements for 

entering federal facilities. If your 

driver’s license is issued by Alaska, 

American Samoa, Arizona, Kentucky, 

Louisiana, Maine, Massachusetts, 

Minnesota, Montana, New York, 

Oklahoma or the state of Washington, 

you must present an additional form of 

identification to enter the federal 

building. Acceptable alternative forms 

of identification include: Federal 

employee badges, passports, enhanced 

driver’s licenses and military 

identification cards. In addition, you 

will need to obtain a property pass for 

any personal belongings you bring with 

you. Upon leaving the building, you 

will be required to return this property 

pass to the security desk. No large signs 

will be allowed in the building, cameras 

may only be used outside of the 

building and demonstrations will not be 

allowed on federal property for security 

reasons. 

The EPA may ask clarifying questions 

during the oral presentations, but will 

not respond to the presentations at that 

time. Written statements and supporting 

information submitted during the 

comment period will be considered 

with the same weight as oral comments 

and supporting information presented at 

the public hearing. Commenters should 

notify Ms. Garrett if they will need 

specific equipment, or if there are other 

special needs related to providing 

comments at the hearings. Verbatim 

transcripts of the hearing and written 

statements will be included in the 

docket for the rulemaking. The EPA will 

make every effort to follow the schedule 

as closely as possible on the day of the 

hearing; however, please plan for the 

hearing to run either ahead of schedule 

or behind schedule. 

Again, a hearing will only be held if 

requested by November 12, 2014. Please 

contact Ms. Pamela Garrett at 919–541– 

7966 or at garrett.pamela@epa.gov or 

visit http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/

phosph/phosphpg.html to determine if a 

hearing will be held. If the EPA holds 

a public hearing, the EPA will keep the 

record of the hearing open for 30 days 

after completion of the hearing to 

provide an opportunity for submission 

of rebuttal and supplementary 

information. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

questions about this proposed action, 

contact Ms. 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 national emissions standards for 

hazardous air pollutants (NESHAP) or 

the NSPS to a particular entity, contact 

Scott Throwe, Office of Enforcement 

and Compliance Assurance, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

William Jefferson Clinton Building, Mail 

Code 2227A, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue 

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 

AERMOD Air dispersion model used by the 

HEM–3 model 

AFPC Association of Fertilizer and 

Phosphate Chemists 

AOAC Association of Official Analytical 

Chemists 

APF Ammonium phosphate fertilizer 

BACT Best available control technology 

BDL Below the method detection limit 

BSER Best System of Emissions Reduction 

CAA Clean Air Act 

CalEPA California EPA 

CA–REL California Reference Exposure 

Level 

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 

EPA Environmental Protection Agency 

ERPG Emergency Response Planning 

Guidelines 

ERT Electronic Reporting Tool 

F Fluoride 

FaTE Fate, Transport, and Ecological 

Exposure 

FR Federal Register 

FTIR Fourier transform infrared 

spectroscopy 

gr/dscf Grams per dry standard cubic feet 

GTSP Granular triple superphosphate 

H Hydrogen 

HAP Hazardous air pollutants 

HCl Hydrogen chloride 

HEM–3 Human Exposure Model, Version 

1.1.0 

HF Hydrogen fluoride 

Hg Mercury 

HI Hazard index 

HQ Hazard quotient 

ICR Information Collection Request 

IRIS Integrated Risk Information System 

km Kilometer 

LAER Lowest achievable emissions rate 

LOAEL Lowest-observed-adverse-effect 

level 

MACT Maximum achievable control 

technology 

MAP Monoammonium phosphate 

mg/dscm Milligrams per dry standard cubic 

meter 

mg/kg-day Milligrams per kilogram-day 

mg/m3 Milligrams per cubic meter 

MIBK Methyl isobutyl ketone 

MIR Maximum individual risk 

MRL Minimum risk level 

NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality 

Standards 

NAICS North American Industry 

Classification System 

NATA National Air Toxics Assessment 

NEI National Emissions Inventory 

NESHAP National Emissions Standards for 

Hazardous Air Pollutants 

NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

NOAEL No-observed-adverse-effect level 

NRC National Research Council 

NTTAA National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act 

OAQPS Office of Air Quality Planning and 

Standards 

OECA Office of Enforcement and 

Compliance Assurance 

OMB Office of Management and Budget 

P2O5 Phosphorus pentoxide 

PB–HAP Hazardous air pollutants known to 

be persistent and bio-accumulative in the 

environment 

PEL Probable effect levels 

PM Particulate matter 

POM Polycyclic organic matter 

PPA Purified phosphoric acid 

ppm Parts per million 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

66514 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 216 / Friday, November 7, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

1U.S. EPA. Documentation for Developing the 

Initial Source Category List—Final Report, USEPA/ 

OAQPS, EPA–450/3–91–030, July, 1992. 

QA/QC Quality assurance/quality control 

RACT Reasonably available control 

technology 

RATA Relative accuracy test audit 

RBLC RACT/BACT/LAER Clearinghouse 

REL Reference exposure level 

RFA Regulatory Flexibility Act 

RfC Reference concentration 

RfD Reference dose 

RTR Residual risk and technology review 

SAB Science Advisory Board 

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 

TTN Technology Transfer Network 

UF Uncertainty factor 

mg/m3 Micrograms per cubic meter 

UMRA Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

UPL Upper prediction limit 

URE Unit risk estimate 

VCS Voluntary consensus standards 

WESP Wet electrostatic precipitator 

WPPA Wet-process phosphoric acid 

WWW World Wide Web 

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. What should I consider as I prepare my 

comments for the EPA? 

II. Background 

A. What are the statutory authorities for 

this action? 

B. What are the source categories and how 

do the current NESHAP and NSPS 

regulate emissions? 

C. What data collection activities were 

conducted to support this action? 

D. What other relevant background 

information and data are available? 

III. Analytical Procedures 

A. How did we estimate post-MACT risks 

posed by the source categories? 

B. How did we consider the risk results in 

making decisions for this proposal? 

C. How did we perform the technology 

reviews for the NESHAP and NSPS? 

IV. Analytical Results and Proposed 

Decisions for the Phosphoric Acid 

Manufacturing Source Category 

A. What actions are we taking pursuant to 

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

the Phosphoric Acid Manufacturing 

source category? 

B. What are the results of the risk 

assessment and analyses for the 

Phosphoric Acid Manufacturing source 

category? 

C. What are our proposed decisions 

regarding risk acceptability, ample 

margin of safety and adverse 

environmental effects for the Phosphoric 

Acid Manufacturing source category? 

D. What are the results and proposed 

decisions based on our technology 

review for the Phosphoric Acid 

Manufacturing source category? 

E. What other actions are we proposing for 

the Phosphoric Acid Manufacturing 

source category? 

F. What are the notification, recordkeeping 

and reporting requirements for the 

Phosphoric Acid Manufacturing source 

category? 

G. What compliance dates are we 

proposing for the Phosphoric Acid 

Manufacturing source category? 

V. Analytical Results and Proposed Decisions 

for the Phosphate Fertilizer Production 

Source Category 

A. What are the results of the risk 

assessment and analyses for the 

Phosphate Fertilizer Production source 

category? 

B. What are our proposed decisions 

regarding risk acceptability, ample 

margin of safety and adverse 

environmental effects for the Phosphate 

Fertilizer Production source category? 

C. What are the results and proposed 

decisions based on our technology 

review for the Phosphate Fertilizer 

Production source category? 

D. What other actions are we proposing for 

the Phosphate Fertilizer Production 

source category? 

E. What are the notification, recordkeeping 

and reporting requirements for the 

Phosphate Fertilizer Production source 

category? 

F. What compliance dates are we 

proposing for the Phosphate Fertilizer 

Production source category? 

VI. Summary of Cost, Environmental and 

Economic Impacts 

A. What are the affected sources? 

B. What are the air quality impacts? 

C. What are the cost impacts? 

D. What are the economic impacts? 

E. What are the benefits? 

VII. Request for Comments 

VIII. Submitting Data Corrections 

IX. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory 

Planning and Review and Executive 

Order 13563: Improving Regulation and 

Regulatory Review 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

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 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

I. National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act 

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions 

to Address Environmental Justice in 

Minority Populations and Low-Income 

Populations 

I. General Information 

A. Does this action apply to me? 

Table 1 of this preamble lists the 

industrial source categories that are the 

subject of this proposal. Table 1 is not 

intended to be exhaustive but rather to 

provide a guide for readers regarding the 

entities that this proposed action is 

likely to affect. The proposed standards, 

once promulgated, will be directly 

applicable to the affected sources. As 

defined in the ‘‘Initial List of Categories 

of Sources Under Section 112(c)(1) of 

the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990’’ 

(see 57 FR 31576, July 16, 1992), the 

‘‘Phosphoric Acid Manufacturing’’ 

source category is any facility engaged 

in the production of phosphoric acid. 

The category includes, but is not limited 

to, production of wet-process 

phosphoric acid (WPPA) and 

superphosphoric acid (SPA). The 

‘‘Phosphate Fertilizer Production’’ 

source category includes any facility 

engaged in the production of phosphatebased fertilizers including, but not 

limited to, plants with bulk-blend 

processes, fluid-mix processes or 

ammonia granulation processes. 

Examples of phosphate fertilizers are: 

Monoammonium phosphates (MAP) 

and diammonium phosphates (DAP) (or 

ammonium phosphate fertilizer (APF)), 

and triple superphosphates (TSP).1

TABLE 1—INDUSTRIAL SOURCE CATEGORIES AFFECTED BY THIS PROPOSED ACTION

Source category NAICS Code a Examples of regulated entities 

Industrial ......................................................................... 325312 Phosphoric Acid; and Phosphate Fertilizers. 

a North American Industry Classification System. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 216 / Friday, November 7, 2014 / Proposed Rules 66515 

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 action 

is available on the Internet through the 

EPA’s 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 proposed 

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 of the proposal and key 

technical documents at the same Web 

site. Information on the overall residual 

risk and technology review program is 

available at the following Web site: 

http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/rrisk/rtrpg.

html. 

C. What should I consider as I prepare 

my comments for the EPA? 

Submitting CBI. Do not submit 

information containing CBI to the EPA 

through http://www.regulations.gov or 

email. Clearly mark the part or all of the 

information that you claim to be CBI. 

For CBI information on a disk or CD– 

ROM that you mail to the EPA, mark the 

outside of the disk or CD–ROM as CBI 

and then identify electronically within 

the disk or CD–ROM the specific 

information that is claimed as CBI. In 

addition to one complete version of the 

comments that includes information 

claimed as CBI, you must submit a copy 

of the comments that does not contain 

the information claimed as CBI for 

inclusion in the public docket. If you 

submit a CD–ROM or disk that does not 

contain CBI, mark the outside of the 

disk or CD–ROM clearly that it does not 

contain CBI. Information not marked as 

CBI will be included in the public 

docket and the EPA’s electronic public 

docket without prior notice. Information 

marked as CBI will not be disclosed 

except in accordance with procedures 

set forth in 40 Code of Federal 

Regulations (CFR) part 2. Send or 

deliver information identified as CBI 

only to the following address: Roberto 

Morales, OAQPS Document Control 

Officer (C404–02), OAQPS, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 

27711, Attention Docket ID Number 

EPA–HQ–OAR–2012–0522. 

II. Background 

A. What are the statutory authorities for 

this action? 

1. NESHAP Authority 

Section 112 of the CAA establishes a 

two-stage regulatory process to address 

emissions of hazardous air pollutants 

(HAPs) from stationary sources. In the 

first stage, after the EPA has identified 

categories of sources emitting one or 

more of the HAP listed in CAA section 

112(b), CAA section 112(d) requires us 

to promulgate technology-based 

NESHAP for those sources. ‘‘Major 

sources’’ are those that emit or have the 

potential to emit 10 tons per year (tpy) 

or more of a single HAP or 25 tpy or 

more of any combination of HAPs. For 

major sources, the technology-based 

NESHAP must reflect the maximum 

degree of emission reductions of HAPs 

achievable (after considering cost, 

energy requirements and non-air quality 

health and environmental impacts) and 

are commonly referred to as maximum 

achievable control technology (MACT) 

standards. 

MACT standards must reflect the 

maximum degree of emissions reduction 

achievable through the application of 

measures, processes, methods, systems 

or techniques, including, but not limited 

to, measures that (1) reduce the volume 

of or eliminate pollutants through 

process changes, substitution of 

materials or other modifications; (2) 

enclose systems or processes to 

eliminate emissions; (3) capture or treat 

pollutants when released from a 

process, stack, storage or fugitive 

emissions point; (4) are design, 

equipment, work practice or operational 

standards (including requirements for 

operator training or certification); or (5) 

are a combination of the above. CAA 

section 112(d)(2)(A)–(E). The MACT 

standards may take the form of design, 

equipment, work practice or operational 

standards where the EPA first 

determines either that (1) a pollutant 

cannot be emitted through a conveyance 

designed and constructed to emit or 

capture the pollutant, or that any 

requirement for, or use of, such a 

conveyance would be inconsistent with 

law; or (2) the application of 

measurement methodology to a 

particular class of sources is not 

practicable due to technological and 

economic limitations. CAA section 

112(h)(1)–(2). 

The MACT ‘‘floor’’ is the minimum 

control level allowed for MACT 

standards promulgated under CAA 

section 112(d)(3) and may not be based 

on cost considerations. For new sources, 

the MACT floor cannot be less stringent 

than the emissions control that is 

achieved in practice by the bestcontrolled similar source. The MACT 

floor for existing sources can be less 

stringent than floors for new sources but 

not less stringent than the average 

emissions limitation achieved by the 

best-performing 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, the EPA must also consider 

control options that are more stringent 

than the floor. We may establish 

standards more stringent than the floor 

based on considerations of the cost of 

achieving the emission reductions, any 

non-air quality health and 

environmental impacts and energy 

requirements. 

The EPA is then required to review 

these technology-based standards and 

revise them ‘‘as necessary (taking into 

account developments in practices, 

processes, and control technologies)’’ no 

less frequently than every eight years. 

CAA section 112(d)(6). In conducting 

this review, the EPA is not required to 

recalculate the MACT floor. NRDC v. 

EPA, 529 F.3d 1077, 1084 (D. C. Cir. 

2008). Association of Battery Recyclers, 

Inc. v. EPA, 716 F.3d 667 (D.C. Cir. 

2013). 

The second stage in standard-setting 

focuses on reducing any remaining (i.e., 

‘‘residual’’) risk according to CAA 

section 112(f). CAA section 112(f)(1) 

required that the EPA prepare a report 

to Congress discussing (among other 

things) methods of calculating the risks 

posed (or potentially posed) by sources 

after implementation of the MACT 

standards, the public health significance 

of those risks and the EPA’s 

recommendations as to legislation 

regarding such remaining risk. The EPA 

prepared and submitted the Residual 

Risk Report to Congress, EPA–453/R– 

99–001 (Risk Report) in March 1999. 

CAA section 112(f)(2) then provides that 

if Congress does not act on any 

recommendation in the Risk Report, the 

EPA must analyze and address residual 

risk for each category or subcategory of 

sources 8 years after promulgation of 

such standards pursuant to CAA section 

112(d). 

CAA section 112(f)(2) of the CAA 

requires the EPA to determine for source 

categories subject to MACT standards 

whether the emission standards provide 

an ample margin of safety to protect 

public health. CAA section 112(f)(2)(B) 

of the CAA expressly preserves the 

EPA’s use of the two-step process for 

developing standards to address any 

residual risk and the agency’s 

interpretation of ‘‘ample margin of 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

66516 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 216 / Friday, November 7, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

safety’’ developed in the National 

Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air 

Pollutants: Benzene Emissions from 

Maleic Anhydride Plants, Ethylbenzene/ 

Styrene Plants, Benzene Storage Vessels, 

Benzene Equipment Leaks, and Coke 

By-Product Recovery Plants (Benzene 

NESHAP) (54 FR 38044, September 14, 

1989). The EPA notified Congress in the 

Risk Report that the agency intended to 

use the Benzene NESHAP approach in 

making CAA section 112(f) residual risk 

determinations (EPA–453/R–99–001, p. 

ES–11). The EPA subsequently adopted 

this approach in its residual risk 

determinations and in a challenge to the 

risk review for the Synthetic Organic 

Chemical Manufacturing source 

category, the United States Court of 

Appeals for the District of Columbia 

Circuit upheld as reasonable the EPA’s 

interpretation that CAA section 112(f)(2) 

incorporates the approach established in 

the Benzene NESHAP. See NRDC v. 

EPA, 529 F.3d 1077, 1083 (D.C. Cir. 

2008)(‘‘[S]ubsection 112(f)(2)(B) 

expressly incorporates the EPA’s 

interpretation of the Clean Air Act from 

the Benzene standard, complete with a 

citation to the Federal Register.’’); see 

also A Legislative History of the Clean 

Air Act Amendments of 1990, vol. 1, p. 

877 (Senate debate on Conference 

Report). 

The first step in the process of 

evaluating residual risk is the 

determination of acceptable risk. If risks 

are unacceptable, the EPA cannot 

consider cost in identifying the 

emissions standards necessary to bring 

risks to an acceptable level. The second 

step is the determination of whether 

standards must be further revised in 

order to provide an ample margin of 

safety to protect public health. The 

ample margin of safety is the level at 

which the standards must be set, unless 

an even more stringent standard is 

necessary to prevent, taking into 

consideration costs, energy, safety and 

other relevant factors, an adverse 

environmental effect. 

a. Step 1-Determination of Acceptability 

The agency in the Benzene NESHAP 

concluded that ‘‘the acceptability of risk 

under section 112 is best judged on the 

basis of a broad set of health risk 

measures and information’’ and that the 

‘‘judgment on acceptability cannot be 

reduced to any single factor.’’ Benzene 

NESHAP at 38046. The determination of 

what represents an ‘‘acceptable’’ risk is 

based on a judgment of ‘‘what risks are 

acceptable in the world in which we 

live’’ (Risk Report at 178, quoting NRDC 

v. EPA, 824 F. 2d 1146, 1165 (D.C. Cir. 

1987) (en banc) (‘‘Vinyl Chloride’’), 

recognizing that our world is not riskfree. 

In the Benzene NESHAP, we stated 

that ‘‘EPA will generally presume that if 

the risk to [the maximum exposed] 

individual is no higher than 

approximately one in 10 thousand, that 

risk level is considered acceptable.’’ 54 

FR at 38045, September 14, 1989. We 

discussed the maximum individual 

lifetime cancer risk (or maximum 

individual risk (MIR)) as being ‘‘the 

estimated risk that a person living near 

a plant would have if he or she were 

exposed to the maximum pollutant 

concentrations for 70 years.’’ Id. We 

explained that this measure of risk ‘‘is 

an estimate of the upper bound of risk 

based on conservative assumptions, 

such as continuous exposure for 24 

hours per day for 70 years.’’ Id. We 

acknowledged that maximum 

individual lifetime cancer risk ‘‘does not 

necessarily reflect the true risk, but 

displays a conservative risk level which 

is an upper-bound that is unlikely to be 

exceeded.’’ Id. 

Understanding that there are both 

benefits and limitations to using the 

MIR as a metric for determining 

acceptability, we acknowledged in the 

Benzene NESHAP that ‘‘consideration of 

maximum individual risk * * * must 

take into account the strengths and 

weaknesses of this measure of risk.’’ Id. 

Consequently, the presumptive risk 

level of 100-in-1 million (1-in-10 

thousand) provides a benchmark for 

judging the acceptability of maximum 

individual lifetime cancer risk, but does 

not constitute a rigid line for making 

that determination. Further, in the 

Benzene NESHAP, we noted that: 

‘‘[p]articular attention will also be accorded 

to the weight of evidence presented in the 

risk assessment of potential carcinogenicity 

or other health effects of a pollutant. While 

the same numerical risk may be estimated for 

an exposure to a pollutant judged to be a 

known human carcinogen, and to a pollutant 

considered a possible human carcinogen 

based on limited animal test data, the same 

weight cannot be accorded to both estimates. 

In considering the potential public health 

effects of the two pollutants, the Agency’s 

judgment on acceptability, including the 

MIR, will be influenced by the greater weight 

of evidence for the known human 

carcinogen.’’ 

Id. at 38046. The agency also 

explained in the Benzene NESHAP that: 

‘‘[i]n establishing a presumption for MIR, 

rather than a rigid line for acceptability, the 

Agency intends to weigh it with a series of 

other health measures and factors. These 

include the overall incidence of cancer or 

other serious health effects within the 

exposed population, the numbers of persons 

exposed within each individual lifetime risk 

range and associated incidence within, 

typically, a 50 km exposure radius around 

facilities, the science policy assumptions and 

estimation uncertainties associated with the 

risk measures, weight of the scientific 

evidence for human health effects, other 

quantified or unquantified health effects, 

effects due to co-location of facilities, and coemission of pollutants.’’ 

Id. at 38045. In some cases, these health 

measures and factors taken together may 

provide a more realistic description of 

the magnitude of risk in the exposed 

population than that provided by 

maximum individual lifetime cancer 

risk alone. 

As noted earlier, in NRDC v. EPA, the 

court held that CAA section 112(f)(2) 

‘‘incorporates the EPA’s interpretation 

of the Clean Air Act from the Benzene 

Standard.’’ The court further held that 

Congress’ incorporation of the Benzene 

standard applies equally to carcinogens 

and non-carcinogens. 529 F.3d at 1081– 

82. Accordingly, we also consider noncancer risk metrics in our determination 

of risk acceptability and ample margin 

of safety. 

b. Step 2-Determination of Ample 

Margin of Safety 

CAA section 112(f)(2) requires the 

EPA to determine, for source categories 

subject to MACT standards, whether 

those standards provide an ample 

margin of safety to protect public health. 

As explained in the Benzene NESHAP, 

‘‘the second step of the inquiry, 

determining an ‘ample margin of safety,’ 

again includes consideration of all of 

the health factors, and whether to 

reduce the risks even further. . . . 

Beyond that information, additional 

factors relating to the appropriate level 

of control will also be considered, 

including costs and economic impacts 

of controls, technological feasibility, 

uncertainties and any other relevant 

factors. Considering all of these factors, 

the agency will establish the standard at 

a level that provides an ample margin of 

safety to protect the public health, as 

required by section 112.’’ 54 FR at 

38046, September 14, 1989. 

According to CAA section 

112(f)(2)(A), if the MACT standards for 

HAP ‘‘classified as a known, probable, 

or possible human carcinogen do not 

reduce lifetime excess cancer risks to 

the individual most exposed to 

emissions from a source in the category 

or subcategory to less than one in one 

million,’’ the EPA must promulgate 

residual risk standards for the source 

category (or subcategory), as necessary 

to provide an ample margin of safety to 

protect public health. In doing so, the 

EPA may adopt standards equal to 

existing MACT standards if the EPA 

determines that the existing standards 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 216 / Friday, November 7, 2014 / Proposed Rules 66517 

2 ‘‘Adverse environmental effect’’ is defined as 

any significant and widespread adverse effect, 

which may be reasonably anticipated to wildlife, 

aquatic life or natural resources, including adverse 

impacts on populations of endangered or threatened 

species or significant degradation of environmental 

qualities over broad areas. CAA section 112(a)(7). 

(i.e., the MACT standards) are 

sufficiently protective. 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.’’) The EPA must also adopt 

more stringent standards, if necessary, 

to prevent an adverse environmental 

effect,2 but must consider cost, energy, 

safety and other relevant factors in 

doing so. 

The CAA does not specifically define 

the terms ‘‘individual most exposed,’’ 

‘‘acceptable level’’ and ‘‘ample margin 

of safety.’’ In the Benzene NESHAP, 54 

FR at 38044–38045, September 14, 1989, 

we stated as an overall objective: 

In protecting public health with an ample 

margin of safety under section 112, EPA 

strives to provide maximum feasible 

protection against risks to health from 

hazardous air pollutants by (1) protecting the 

greatest number of persons possible to an 

individual lifetime risk level no higher than 

approximately 1-in-1 million and (2) limiting 

to no higher than approximately 1-in-10 

thousand [i.e., 100-in-1 million] the 

estimated risk that a person living near a 

plant would have if he or she were exposed 

to the maximum pollutant concentrations for 

70 years. 

The agency further stated that ‘‘[t]he 

EPA also considers incidence (the 

number of persons estimated to suffer 

cancer or other serious health effects as 

a result of exposure to a pollutant) to be 

an important measure of the health risk 

to the exposed population. Incidence 

measures the extent of health risks to 

the exposed population as a whole, by 

providing an estimate of the occurrence 

of cancer or other serious health effects 

in the exposed population.’’ Id. at 

38045, September 14, 1989. 

In the ample margin of safety decision 

process, the agency again considers all 

of the health risks and other health 

information considered in the first step, 

including the incremental risk reduction 

associated with standards more 

stringent than the MACT standard or a 

more stringent standard that EPA has 

determined is necessary to ensure risk is 

acceptable. In the ample margin of 

safety analysis, the agency considers 

additional factors, including costs and 

economic impacts of controls, 

technological feasibility, uncertainties 

and any other relevant factors. 

Considering all of these factors, the 

agency will establish the standard at a 

level that provides an ample margin of 

safety to protect the public health, as 

required by CAA section 112(f). 54 FR 

38046, September 14, 1989. 

2. NSPS Authority 

New source performance standards 

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 nonair 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 be 

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 

‘‘best system of emissions reduction’’ 

and (2) whether emissions limitations 

and percent reductions beyond those 

required by the current standards are 

achieved in practice. 

B. What are the source categories and 

how do the current NESHAP and NSPS 

regulate emissions? 

1. Description of Phosphoric Acid 

Manufacturing Source Category 

In 2014, 12 facilities in the United 

States manufacture 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 WPPA, 

fluorine contained in the rock is 

released. Fluoride (F) 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 

F 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 

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 F 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 processes to remove organics from 

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

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 Emission Standards 

Applicable to the Phosphoric Acid 

Manufacturing Source Category 

The following federal emission 

standards are associated with the 

Phosphoric Acid Manufacturing source 

category and are subject of this 

proposed rulemaking: 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

66518 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 216 / Friday, November 7, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

3According to 2014 production and trade 

statistics issued by International Fertilizer Industry 

Association (IFA). 

• 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: WetProcess 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 F 

emission limits, as a surrogate for the 

HAP HF, were set for WPPA process 

lines and SPA process lines. For new 

sources, WPPA process lines are limited 

to 0.0135 pounds (lb) total F per ton (lb 

total F/ton) of equivalent phosphorus 

pentoxide (P2O5), and SPA process lines 

are limited to 0.00870 lb total F/ton of 

equivalent P2O5. For existing sources, 

WPPA process lines are limited to 0.020 

lb total F/ton of equivalent P2O5, SPA 

process lines using a vacuum 

evaporation process are limited to 0.010 

lb total F/ton of equivalent P2O5, and 

SPA process lines using a submerged 

combustion process are limited to 0.020 

lb total F/ton of equivalent P2O5. 

The NESHAP established emission 

limits for PM from phosphate rock 

dryers and phosphate rock calciners as 

a surrogate for metal HAP. For new 

sources, phosphate rock dryers are 

limited to 0.060 pounds PM per ton (lb 

PM/ton) of phosphate rock feed, and 

phosphate rock calciners are limited to 

0.040 grains of PM per dry standard 

cubic feet (gr/dscf). For existing sources, 

phosphate rock dryers are limited to 

0.2150 lb PM/ton of phosphate rock 

feed, and phosphate rock calciners are 

limited to 0.080 gr/dscf. 

Also, the NESHAP established an 

emission limit for methyl isobutyl 

ketone (MIBK) for PPA process lines 

and work practices for cooling towers. 

For new and existing sources, each 

product acid stream from PPA process 

lines is limited to 20 parts per million 

(ppm) of MIBK, and each raffinate 

stream from PPA process lines is limited 

to 30 ppm of MIBK (compliance is based 

on a 30-day average of daily 

concentration measurements). 

b. Phosphoric Acid Manufacturing 

NSPS Emission Regulations 

The EPA promulgated 40 CFR part 60, 

subpart T for Wet-Process Phosphoric 

Acid Plants on August 6, 1975 (40 FR 

33154). The NSPS established standards 

to control total F emissions from WPPA 

plants, including reactors, filters, 

evaporators and hot wells. For new, 

modified, and reconstructed sources 

WPPA plants are limited to 0.020 lb 

total F/ton of equivalent P2O5. 

The EPA promulgated 40 CFR part 60, 

subpart U for Superphosphoric Acid 

Plants on August 6, 1975 (40 FR 33155). 

The NSPS established standards to 

control total F emissions from SPA 

plants, including evaporators, hot wells, 

acid sumps and cooling tanks. For new, 

modified and reconstructed sources, 

SPA plants are limited to 0.010 lb total 

F/ton of equivalent P2O5. 

3. Description of Phosphate Fertilizer 

Production Source Category 

In 2014, there are 11 operating 

facilities that produce phosphate 

fertilizers, and most facilities can 

produce either MAP or 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 it is 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. In addition, some of the 

fluorine is liberated as HF and silicon 

tetrafluoride (SiF4), with the majority 

being emitted as HF. Sources of F 

emissions from MAP and DAP plants 

include the reactor, granulator, dryer, 

cooler, screens and mills. 

TSP is made as run-of-the-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 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,3 although 

one facility retains an operating permit 

to store GTSP. 

4. Federal Emission Standards 

Applicable to the Phosphate Fertilizer 

Production Source Category 

The following federal emission 

standards are associated with the 

Phosphate Fertilizer Production source 

category and are subject of this 

proposed rulemaking: 

• 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 

F 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 new sources, 

DAP and MAP process lines are limited 

to 0.058 lb total F/ton of equivalent P2O5

feed. For existing sources, DAP and 

MAP process lines are limited to 0.06 lb 

total F/ton of equivalent P2O5 feed. For 

new sources, GTSP process lines are 

limited to 0.1230 lb total F/ton of 

equivalent P2O5 feed. For existing 

sources, GTSP process lines are limited 

to 0.150 lb total F/ton of equivalent P2O5

feed. For new and existing sources, 

GTSP storage buildings are limited to 

5.0×10¥4 pounds of total F per hour per 

ton of equivalent P2O5 stored. 

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 F emissions from granular 

DAP plants, including reactors, 

granulators, dryers, coolers, screens and 

mills. For new, modified and 

reconstructed sources, granular DAP 

plants are limited to 0.06 lb total F/ton 

of equivalent P2O5 feed. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 216 / Friday, November 7, 2014 / Proposed Rules 66519 

4U.S. EPA SAB. Risk and Technology Review 

(RTR) Risk Assessment Methodologies: For Review 

by the EPA’s Science Advisory Board with Case 

Studies—MACT I Petroleum Refining Sources and 

Portland Cement Manufacturing, May 2010. 

The EPA promulgated 40 CFR part 60, 

subpart W for Triple Superphosphate 

Plants on July 25, 1977 (42 FR 37938). 

The NSPS established standards to 

control total F emissions from the 

production of ROP–TSP and GTSP, and 

the storage of ROP–TSP. For new, 

modified and reconstructed sources, 

production of ROP–TSP and GTSP and 

the storage of ROP–TSP is limited to 

0.20 lb total F/ton of equivalent P2O5

feed. 

The EPA promulgated 40 CFR part 60, 

subpart X for Granular Triple 

Superphosphate Storage Facilities on 

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

established standards to control total F 

emissions from the storage of GTSP, 

including storage or curing buildings 

(noted as ‘‘piles’’ in subpart X), 

conveyors, elevators, screens and mills. 

For new, modified and reconstructed 

sources, the storage of GTSP is limited 

to 5.0×10¥4 pounds of total F per hour 

per ton of equivalent P2O5 stored. 

C. What data collection activities were 

conducted to support this action? 

In April 2010, the EPA requested data, 

pursuant to CAA section 114, from the 

seven companies that own and operate 

the 12 Phosphoric Acid facilities and 11 

Phosphate Fertilizer facilities. The EPA 

requested available information 

regarding process equipment, control 

devices, point and fugitive emissions, 

and other aspects of facility operations. 

The seven companies completed the 

surveys for their facilities and submitted 

the responses to the EPA in the fall of 

2010. Additionally, the EPA requested 

that the facilities conduct emissions 

tests in 2010 for certain HAP from 

specific processes. Pollutants tested 

included HF, total F, PM and HAP 

metals. The facilities also conducted 

analyses of the phosphate rock used in 

the manufacture of phosphoric acid. 

The facilities submitted the results of 

these tests to the EPA in the fall of 2010. 

The test results are available in the 

docket for this action. 

On January 24, 2014, the EPA issued 

another CAA section 114 survey and 

testing request to certain facilities in 

order to gather additional mercury (Hg) 

and HF emissions data from calciner 

operations, and additional total F and 

HF emissions data from certain WPPA, 

SPA and APF lines. The selection of 

WPPA, SPA and APF lines to be tested 

was based on a review of the data 

received from the April 13, 2010 CAA 

section 114 survey request. In addition 

to the testing, the EPA requested process 

production rate data concurrent with 

the duration of the emissions testing 

(e.g., phosphoric acid production in 

tons per hour of P2O5). 

For more information regarding the 

April 2010 CAA section 114 and 

January 2014 CAA section 114 requests, 

refer to the memorandum, ‘‘Information 

Collection and Additional Data 

Received for the Phosphoric Acid and 

Phosphate Fertilizer Production Source 

Categories,’’ which is available in the 

docket for this action. 

D. What other relevant background 

information and data are available? 

To support this proposed rulemaking, 

the EPA used information from the 

EPA’s National Emissions Inventory 

(NEI), and the RACT/BACT/LAER 

Clearinghouse (RBLC) when performing 

the technology review and other 

analyses. If emissions for a specific 

emission point were available in the 

NEI, but test data were not available, we 

used the NEI data to estimate emissions. 

This approach was primarily applicable 

to combustion emissions. The EPA 

utilized the RBLC as a reference for 

additional control technologies when 

performing the technology review. See 

sections III.C, and IV.D, and V.C of this 

preamble for further details on the use 

of these sources of information. 

Table 2 of this preamble summarizes 

the emissions data collected for point 

sources and fugitive sources at 

phosphoric acid manufacturing and 

phosphate fertilizer production facilities 

of HF, Total PM, Hg and other HAP 

Metals. This includes emissions data 

from stack tests, fugitive emission 

reports, and the NEI. 

TABLE 2—SUMMARY OF EMISSIONS DATA COLLECTED FOR POINT SOURCES AND FUGITIVE SOURCES AT PHOSPHORIC

ACID MANUFACTURING AND PHOSPHATE FERTILIZER PRODUCTION FACILITIES

Source category and emission point type HF 

(tpy) 

Total PM 

(tpy) 

Hg 

(tpy) 

HAP Metals 

(tpy) a

Phosphoric Acid Manufacturing: 

Point Sources ........................................................................................... 38 162 0.019 1.07 

Fugitive Sources ....................................................................................... 2,155 0 0 0 

Total .......................................................................................................... 2,193 162 0.019 1.07 

Phosphate Fertilizer Production: 

Point Sources ........................................................................................... 85.0 907 0.13 0.40 

Fugitive Sources ....................................................................................... 0.0051 0 0 0 

Total .......................................................................................................... 85.0 907 0.13 0.40 

a HAP metals includes: antimony, arsenic, beryllium, cadmium, chromium (VI), chromium III, cobalt, lead, manganese, nickel, and selenium. 

III. Analytical Procedures 

In this section, we describe the 

analyses performed to support the 

proposed decisions for the RTR and 

other issues addressed in this proposal. 

A. How did we estimate post-MACT 

risks posed by the source categories? 

The EPA conducted a risk assessment 

that provides estimates of the MIR 

posed by the HAP emissions from each 

source in the source category, the 

hazard index (HI) for chronic exposures 

to HAP with the potential to cause noncancer health effects, and the hazard 

quotient (HQ) for acute exposures to 

HAP with the potential to cause noncancer health effects. The assessment 

also provides estimates of the 

distribution of cancer risks within the 

exposed populations, cancer incidence 

and an evaluation of the potential for 

adverse environmental effects. The risk 

assessment consisted of seven primary 

steps, as discussed below. The docket 

for this rulemaking contains the 

following document, which provides 

more information on the risk assessment 

inputs and models: Draft Residual Risk 

Assessment for Phosphate Fertilizer 

Production and Phosphoric Acid 

Manufacturing. The methods used to 

assess risks (as described in the seven 

primary steps below) are consistent with 

those peer-reviewed by a panel of the 

EPA’s Science Advisory Board (SAB) in 

2009 and described in their peer review 

report issued in 2010; 4 they are also 

consistent with the key 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

66520 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 216 / Friday, November 7, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

recommendations contained in that 

report. 

1. How did we estimate actual 

emissions and identify the emissions 

release characteristics? 

a. Estimation of Actual Emissions 

Data from our April 2010 CAA section 

114 request were used for this 

assessment. The EPA performed a 

review and thorough quality assurance/ 

quality control (QA/QC) of the data to 

identify any limitations and issues. The 

EPA also contacted facility and industry 

representatives to clarify details and 

resolve issues with their data 

submissions. 

The EPA updated the 2005 NEI data 

for the Phosphate Fertilizer Production 

and Phosphoric Acid Manufacturing 

source categories with the emissions 

data and corrections to facility and 

emission point locations that we 

received from industry through the CAA 

section 114 request. The data 

incorporation procedures are discussed 

in the memorandum, ‘‘Emissions Data 

Used in Residual Risk Modeling: 

Phosphoric Acid and Phosphate 

Fertilizer Production Source 

Categories,’’ which is available in the 

docket for this action. In a few limited 

instances, test data were not available 

for an emission point available in the 

NEI, in which case the existing 

emissions data in the 2005 NEI were 

used. The following sections of this 

preamble describe each of the source 

categories, including a discussion of the 

applicable information sources used to 

estimate emissions. 

b. Phosphoric Acid Manufacturing 

Phosphate rock is the starting material 

for the production of all phosphate 

products. Once the rock reaches the 

phosphoric acid production facility, 

phosphoric acid is typically produced 

using the wet method, in which 

beneficiated ground phosphate rock 

(i.e., phosphate rock that has been 

processed to remove impurities) is 

reacted with sulfuric acid and weak 

phosphoric acid to produce phosphoric 

acid and phosphogypsum, a waste 

product. The phosphogypsum is 

disposed of on site in waste piles known 

as gypsum dewatering stacks (which are 

also referred to as ‘‘gypsum stacks’’ or 

‘‘gypstacks’’). Phosphoric acid facility 

emissions are both point sources and 

fugitive sources. Point source emissions 

originate from equipment (e.g., reactors, 

filters, evaporators and calciners) 

associated with phosphoric acid 

manufacturing processes including 

WPPA process lines, SPA process lines 

and PPA process lines. Fugitive 

emissions are released from cooling 

ponds, cooling towers and gypsum 

dewatering stacks. 

In 2014, there are 12 phosphoric acid 

manufacturing facilities operating in the 

United States. Based on the emissions 

dataset (see the memorandum, 

‘‘Emissions Data Used in Residual Risk 

Modeling: Phosphoric Acid and 

Phosphate Fertilizer Production Source 

Categories,’’ which is available in the 

docket for this action), all 12 of these 

facilities are, or show the potential to 

be, major sources of HAP even though 

two of these facilities identified 

themselves as area sources of HAP in 

their response to our April 2010 CAA 

section 114 request. Ten of these 12 

facilities are collocated with phosphate 

fertilizer production facilities. 

Based on the emissions data provided 

with the CAA section 114 request or 

available in the NEI, the total HAP 

emissions for the Phosphoric Acid 

Manufacturing source category are 

approximately 2,230 tpy. HF is the HAP 

emitted in the largest quantity across 

these 12 facilities, accounting for 

approximately 98 percent of the total 

HAP emissions by mass. Persistent and 

bioaccumulative HAP (PB–HAP) 

emissions reported from these facilities 

include Hg, Pb, dioxin, polycyclic 

organic matter (POM) and cadmium 

compounds. 

c. Phosphate Fertilizer Production 

Phosphate fertilizer operations are 

generally collocated with phosphoric 

acid manufacturing facilities, which 

provide the feedstock (phosphoric acid) 

for phosphate fertilizer production 

facilities. Phosphate fertilizer is 

produced by reacting phosphoric acid 

and ammonia, followed by granulation, 

drying, cooling and screening. 

Emissions from each of these steps are 

included in the estimated point source 

emissions for each facility. Phosphate 

fertilizer facilities also send water to 

cooling ponds and, thus, contribute to 

the fugitive emissions from these 

sources. However, the contribution from 

phosphate fertilizer production sources 

to the fugitive emissions from the 

cooling ponds is minimal. Therefore, we 

have assigned fugitive emissions from 

cooling ponds to the Phosphoric Acid 

Manufacturing source category. 

In 2014, there are 11 phosphate 

fertilizer production facilities operating 

in the United States. Based on the 

emissions dataset (see the 

memorandum, ‘‘Emissions Data Used in 

Residual Risk Modeling: Phosphoric 

Acid and Phosphate Fertilizer 

Production Source Categories,’’ which is 

available in the docket for this action), 

all 11 of these facilities are, or show the 

potential to be, major sources of HAP 

even though one of these facilities 

identified itself as an area source of 

HAP in their response to our April 2010 

CAA section 114 request. Ten of these 

11 facilities are collocated with 

phosphoric acid manufacturing 

facilities. 

Based on the emissions data provided 

with the CAA section 114 request or 

available in the NEI, the total HAP 

emissions for the Phosphate Fertilizer 

Production source category are 

approximately 86 tpy. The HAP emitted 

in the largest quantity across these 11 

facilities is HF. HF accounts for 99 

percent of the total emissions by mass. 

PB–HAP emissions reported from these 

facilities include Hg, Pb, and cadmium 

compounds. 

2. How did we estimate MACTallowable emissions? 

The available emissions data in the 

RTR emissions dataset include estimates 

of the mass of HAP emitted during the 

specified annual time period. In some 

cases, these ‘‘actual’’ emission levels are 

lower than the emission levels required 

to comply with the MACT standards. 

The emissions level allowed to be 

emitted by the MACT standards is 

referred to as the ‘‘MACT-allowable’’ 

emissions level. We discussed the use of 

both MACT-allowable and actual 

emissions in the final Coke Oven 

Batteries residual risk rule (70 FR 

19998–19999, April 15, 2005) and in the 

proposed and final Hazardous Organic 

NESHAP residual risk rules (71 FR 

34428, June 14, 2006, and 71 FR 76609, 

December 21, 2006, respectively). In 

those previous actions, we noted that 

assessing the risks at the MACTallowable level is inherently reasonable 

since these risks reflect the maximum 

level facilities could emit and still 

comply with national emission 

standards. We also explained that it is 

reasonable to consider actual emissions, 

where such data are available, in both 

steps of the risk analysis, in accordance 

with the Benzene NESHAP approach. 

(54 FR 38044, September 14, 1989.) 

Details on the methodologies for 

calculating allowable emissions, as 

discussed below, are provided in the 

memorandum, ‘‘Emissions Data Used in 

Residual Risk Modeling: Phosphoric 

Acid and Phosphate Fertilizer 

Production Source Categories,’’ which is 

available in the docket for this action. 

a. Phosphoric Acid Manufacturing 

In the case of this particular source 

category, point sources contribute only 

a small percentage of overall emissions. 

Therefore, as a conservative approach, 

we used the emission limits and the 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 216 / Friday, November 7, 2014 / Proposed Rules 66521 

5This metric comes from the Benzene NESHAP. 

See 54 FR 38046. 6U.S. EPA. Revision to the Guideline on Air 

Quality Models: Adoption of a Preferred General 

Purpose (Flat and Complex Terrain) Dispersion 

Model and Other Revisions (70 FR 68218, 

November 9, 2005). 

7A census block is the smallest geographic area 

for which census statistics are tabulated. 

permitted production capacity specified 

in the title V permit for each facility to 

calculate allowable emissions for point 

sources. Because emission limits are in 

terms of total F (pounds of total F per 

ton of P2O5 production), and not the 

HAP HF, emissions for total F were used 

as a surrogate for HF when calculating 

allowable emissions. If emissions limits 

were not available in the title V permit, 

we used the emission limits for existing 

sources in the current NESHAP subpart 

AA. Because emissions limits for metals 

and MIBK are not listed in the permits, 

we calculated allowable emissions using 

the emissions as measured in the stack 

tests for the CAA section 114 request, 

and scaled these emissions up using the 

permitted capacity. Allowable point 

source emissions are as much as 59 

times higher than actual total F 

emissions, about 8 times higher than 

actual metal emissions, and about 2 

times higher than actual MIBK 

emissions at phosphoric acid 

manufacturing processes. 

For fugitive emissions of HF from 

gypsum dewatering stacks, cooling 

ponds and cooling towers, the EPA 

estimated that actual emissions were 

equivalent to allowable emissions. We 

do not expect fugitive emissions to 

increase from these sources with an 

increase in production rate, or increase 

significantly during a process upset, as 

emissions from these large fugitive 

sources are the cumulative result of 

many decades of stacking gypsum waste 

product and re-circulating cooling 

water. Because of their general 

homeostatic nature, we expect only 

minor changes in cooling pond 

emissions over time. We also anticipate 

that emissions are higher during 

daylight hours and warmer months due 

to the increased evaporation rate 

associated with higher ambient 

temperatures. Test data for these sources 

were obtained during the spring and 

summer seasons and during daylight 

hours. Therefore, emissions would not 

be expected to increase significantly 

beyond the levels measured during the 

tests. We expect that the emission 

factors and range of estimates (high, 

medium and low) that we developed, 

based on the test data for the spring and 

summer seasons obtained from industry, 

account sufficiently for any changes to 

emissions as ambient conditions 

change. For more information on the 

development of emission factors, see the 

memorandum, ‘‘Emissions Data Used in 

Residual Risk Modeling: Phosphoric 

Acid and Phosphate Fertilizer 

Production Source Categories,’’ which is 

available in the docket for this action. 

b. Phosphate Fertilizer Production 

Similar to phosphoric acid 

manufacturing, point sources contribute 

only a small percentage of overall 

emissions from this particular source 

category. Therefore, as a conservative 

approach, we used the emission limits 

(expressed in pounds of total F per ton 

of P2O5 production) and the permitted 

production capacity specified in the 

title V permit for each facility to 

calculate point source allowable 

emissions for total F, as a surrogate for 

HF. If emissions limits were not 

available in the title V permit, we used 

the limits for existing sources in the 

current NESHAP subpart BB. Because 

emissions limits for metals are not listed 

in the permits, we calculated allowable 

emissions using the emissions test data 

collected by the CAA section 114 

request, and scaled these emissions up 

using the permitted capacity. Allowable 

point source emissions are as much as 

11 times higher than actual total F 

emissions and about 2 times higher than 

actual metal at phosphate fertilizer 

production processes. 

3. How did we conduct dispersion 

modeling, determine inhalation 

exposures and estimate individual and 

population inhalation risks? 

Both long-term and short-term 

inhalation exposure concentrations and 

health risks from the source category 

addressed in this proposal were 

estimated using the Human Exposure 

Model (Community and Sector HEM–3 

version 1.1.0). The HEM–3 performs 

three primary risk assessment activities: 

(1) Conducting dispersion modeling to 

estimate the concentrations of HAP in 

ambient air, (2) estimating long-term 

and short-term inhalation exposures to 

individuals residing within 50 

kilometers (km) of the modeled 

sources,5 and (3) estimating individual 

and population-level inhalation risks 

using the exposure estimates and 

quantitative dose-response information. 

The air dispersion model used by the 

HEM–3 model (AERMOD) is one of the 

EPA’s preferred models for assessing 

pollutant concentrations from industrial 

facilities.6 To perform the dispersion 

modeling and to develop the 

preliminary risk estimates, HEM–3 

draws on three data libraries. The first 

is a library of meteorological data, 

which is used for dispersion 

calculations. This library includes 1 

year (2011) of hourly surface and upper 

air observations for more than 800 

meteorological stations, selected to 

provide coverage of the United States 

and Puerto Rico. A second library of 

United States Census Bureau census 

block 7 internal point locations and 

populations provides the basis of 

human exposure calculations (U.S. 

Census, 2010). In addition, for each 

census block, the census library 

includes the elevation and controlling 

hill height, which are also used in 

dispersion calculations. A third library 

of pollutant unit risk factors and other 

health benchmarks is used to estimate 

health risks. These risk factors and 

health benchmarks are the latest values 

recommended by the EPA for HAP and 

other toxic air pollutants. These values 

are available at: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/ 

atw/toxsource/summary.html and are 

discussed in more detail later in this 

section. 

In developing the risk assessment for 

chronic exposures, we used the 

estimated annual average ambient air 

concentrations of each HAP emitted by 

each source for which we have 

emissions data in the source category. 

The air concentrations at each nearby 

census block centroid were used as a 

surrogate for the chronic inhalation 

exposure concentration for all the 

people who reside in that census block. 

We calculated the MIR for each facility 

as the cancer risk associated with a 

continuous lifetime (24 hours per day, 

7 days per week and 52 weeks per year 

for a 70-year period) exposure to the 

maximum concentration at the centroid 

of inhabited census blocks. Individual 

cancer risks were calculated by 

multiplying the estimated lifetime 

exposure to the ambient concentration 

of each of the HAP (in micrograms per 

cubic meter (mg/m3)) by its unit risk 

estimate (URE). The URE is an upper 

bound estimate of an individual’s 

probability of contracting cancer over a 

lifetime of exposure to a concentration 

of 1 microgram of the pollutant per 

cubic meter of air. For residual risk 

assessments, we generally use URE 

values from the EPA’s Integrated Risk 

Information System (IRIS). For 

carcinogenic pollutants without EPA 

IRIS values, we look to other reputable 

sources of cancer dose-response values, 

often using California EPA (CalEPA) 

URE values, where available. In cases 

where new, scientifically credible dose 

response values have been developed in 

a manner consistent with the EPA 

guidelines and have undergone a peer 

review process similar to that used by 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

66522 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 216 / Friday, November 7, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

8These classifications also coincide with the 

terms ‘‘known carcinogen, probable carcinogen, and 

possible carcinogen,’’ respectively, which are the 

terms advocated in the EPA’s previous Guidelines 

for Carcinogen Risk Assessment, published in 1986 

(51 FR 33992, September 24, 1986). Summing the 

risks of these individual compounds to obtain the 

cumulative cancer risks is an approach that was 

recommended by the EPA’s SAB in their 2002 peer 

review of EPA’s National Air Toxics Assessment 

(NATA) entitled, NATA—Evaluating the Nationalscale Air Toxics Assessment 1996 Data—an SAB 

Advisory, available at: http://yosemite.epa.gov/sab/ 

sabproduct.nsf/

214C6E915BB04E14852570CA007A682C/$File/

ecadv02001.pdf. 

9National Academy of Sciences (NAS), 2001. 

Standing Operating Procedures for Developing 

Acute Exposure Levels for Hazardous Chemicals, 

page 2. 

the EPA, we may use such doseresponse values in place of, or in 

addition to, other values, if appropriate. 

The EPA estimated incremental 

individual lifetime cancer risks 

associated with emissions from the 

facilities in the source category as the 

sum of the risks for each of the 

carcinogenic HAP (including those 

classified as carcinogenic to humans, 

likely to be carcinogenic to humans, and 

suggestive evidence of carcinogenic 

potential 8) emitted by the modeled 

sources. Cancer incidence and the 

distribution of individual cancer risks 

for the population within 50 km of the 

sources were also estimated for the 

source category as part of this 

assessment by summing individual 

risks. A distance of 50 km is consistent 

with both the analysis supporting the 

1989 Benzene NESHAP (54 FR 38044, 

September 14, 1989) and the limitations 

of Gaussian dispersion models, 

including AERMOD. 

To assess the risk of non-cancer 

health effects from chronic exposures, 

we summed the HQ for each of the HAP 

that affects a common target organ 

system to obtain the HI for that target 

organ system (or target organ-specific 

HI, TOSHI). The HQ is the estimated 

exposure divided by the chronic 

reference value, which is either the EPA 

reference concentration (RfC) (http://

www.epa.gov/riskassessment/

glossary.htm), defined as ‘‘an estimate 

(with uncertainty spanning perhaps an 

order of magnitude) of a continuous 

inhalation exposure to the human 

population (including sensitive 

subgroups) that is likely to be without 

an appreciable risk of deleterious effects 

during a lifetime,’’ or, in cases where an 

RfC from the EPA’s IRIS database is not 

available, a value from the following 

prioritized sources: (1) The Agency for 

Toxic Substances and Disease Registry 

Minimum Risk Level (http://

www.atsdr.cdc.gov/mrls/index.asp), 

which is defined as ‘‘an estimate of 

daily human exposure to a hazardous 

substance that is likely to be without an 

appreciable risk of adverse non-cancer 

health effects (other than cancer) over a 

specified duration of exposure’’; (2) the 

CalEPA Chronic Reference Exposure 

Level (REL) (http://www.oehha.ca.gov/

air/hot_spots/pdf/HRAguidefinal.pdf), 

which is defined as ‘‘the concentration 

level (that is expressed in units of 

micrograms per cubic meter (mg/m3) for 

inhalation exposure and in a dose 

expressed in units of milligram per 

kilogram-day (mg/kg-day) for oral 

exposures), at or below which no 

adverse health effects are anticipated for 

a specified exposure duration’’; or (3), as 

noted above, a scientifically credible 

dose-response value that has been 

developed in a manner consistent with 

the EPA guidelines and has undergone 

a peer review process similar to that 

used by the EPA, in place of or in 

concert with other values. 

The EPA also evaluated screening 

estimates of acute exposures and risks 

for each of the HAP at the point of 

highest potential off-site exposure for 

each facility. To do this, the EPA 

estimated the risks when both the peak 

hourly emissions rate and worst-case 

dispersion conditions occur. We also 

assume that a person is located at the 

point of highest impact during that same 

time. In accordance with our mandate in 

section 112 of the CAA, we use the 

point of highest off-site exposure to 

assess the potential risk to the 

maximally exposed individual. The 

acute HQ is the estimated acute 

exposure divided by the acute doseresponse value. In each case, the EPA 

calculated acute HQ values using best 

available, short-term dose-response 

values. These acute dose-response 

values, which are described below, 

include the acute REL, acute exposure 

guideline levels (AEGL) and emergency 

response planning guidelines (ERPG) for 

1-hour exposure durations. As 

discussed below, we used conservative 

assumptions for emissions rates, 

meteorology and exposure location for 

our acute analysis. 

As described in the CalEPA’s Air 

Toxics Hot Spots Program Risk 

Assessment Guidelines, Part I, The 

Determination of Acute Reference 

Exposure Levels for Airborne Toxicants, 

an acute REL value (http://

www.oehha.ca.gov/air/pdf/acuterel.pdf) 

is defined as ‘‘the concentration level at 

or below which no adverse health 

effects are anticipated for a specified 

exposure duration.’’ Id. at page 2. Acute 

REL values are based on the most 

sensitive, relevant, adverse health effect 

reported in the peer-reviewed medical 

and toxicological literature. Acute REL 

values are designed to protect the most 

sensitive individuals in the population 

through the inclusion of margins of 

safety. Because margins of safety are 

incorporated to address data gaps and 

uncertainties, exceeding the REL does 

not automatically indicate an adverse 

health impact. 

AEGL values were derived in 

response to recommendations from the 

National Research Council (NRC). As 

described in Standing Operating 

Procedures (SOP) of the National 

Advisory Committee on Acute Exposure 

Guideline Levels for Hazardous 

Substances (http://www.epa.gov/oppt/

aegl/pubs/sop.pdf),9 ‘‘the NRC’s 

previous name for acute exposure 

levels—community emergency exposure 

levels—was replaced by the term AEGL 

to reflect the broad application of these 

values to planning, response, and 

prevention in the community, the 

workplace, transportation, the military, 

and the remediation of Superfund 

sites.’’ Id. at 2. 

This document also states that AEGL 

values ‘‘represent threshold exposure 

limits for the general public and are 

applicable to emergency exposures 

ranging from 10 minutes to eight 

hours.’’ Id. at 2. The document lays out 

the purpose and objectives of AEGL by 

stating that ‘‘the primary purpose of the 

AEGL program and the National 

Advisory Committee for Acute Exposure 

Guideline Levels for Hazardous 

Substances is to develop guideline 

levels for once-in-a-lifetime, short-term 

exposures to airborne concentrations of 

acutely toxic, high-priority chemicals.’’ 

Id. at 21. In detailing the intended 

application of AEGL values, the 

document states that ‘‘[i]t is anticipated 

that the AEGL values will be used for 

regulatory and nonregulatory purposes 

by U.S. federal and state agencies and 

possibly the international community in 

conjunction with chemical emergency 

response, planning, and prevention 

programs. More specifically, the AEGL 

values will be used for conducting 

various risk assessments to aid in the 

development of emergency 

preparedness and prevention plans, as 

well as real-time emergency response 

actions, for accidental chemical releases 

at fixed facilities and from transport 

carriers.’’ Id. at 31. 

The AEGL–1 value is then specifically 

defined as ‘‘the airborne concentration 

(expressed as ppm (parts per million) or 

mg/m3 (milligrams per cubic meter)) of 

a substance above which it is predicted 

that the general population, including 

susceptible individuals, could 

experience notable discomfort, 

irritation, or certain asymptomatic 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 216 / Friday, November 7, 2014 / Proposed Rules 66523 

10ERP Committee Procedures and 

Responsibilities. November 1, 2006. American 

Industrial Hygiene Association. 

11See http://www.tceq.state.tx.us/compliance/

field_ops/eer/index.html or docket to access the 

source of these data. 

12The SAB peer review of RTR Risk Assessment 

Methodologies is available at: http://

yosemite.epa.gov/sab/sabproduct.nsf/

4AB3966E263D943A8525771F00668381/$File/EPASAB-10-007-unsigned.pdf. 

nonsensory effects. However, the effects 

are not disabling and are transient and 

reversible upon cessation of exposure.’’ 

Id. at 3. The document also notes that, 

‘‘Airborne concentrations below AEGL– 

1 represent exposure levels that can 

produce mild and progressively 

increasing but transient and 

nondisabling odor, taste, and sensory 

irritation or certain asymptomatic, 

nonsensory effects.’’ Id. Similarly, the 

document defines AEGL–2 values as 

‘‘the airborne concentration (expressed 

as parts per million or milligrams per 

cubic meter) of a substance above which 

it is predicted that the general 

population, including susceptible 

individuals, could experience 

irreversible or other serious, long-lasting 

adverse health effects or an impaired 

ability to escape.’’ Id. 

ERPG values are derived for use in 

emergency response, as described in the 

American Industrial Hygiene 

Association’s ERP Committee document 

titled, ERPGS Procedures and 

Responsibilities (http://sp4m.aiha.org/

insideaiha/GuidelineDevelopment/

ERPG/Documents/ERP-SOPs2006.pdf), 

which states that, ‘‘Emergency Response 

Planning Guidelines were developed for 

emergency planning and are intended as 

health based guideline concentrations 

for single exposures to chemicals.’’ 10 Id. 

at 1. The ERPG–1 value is defined as 

‘‘the maximum airborne concentration 

below which it is believed that nearly 

all individuals could be exposed for up 

to 1 hour without experiencing other 

than mild transient adverse health 

effects or without perceiving a clearly 

defined, objectionable odor.’’ Id. at 2. 

Similarly, the ERPG–2 value is defined 

as ‘‘the maximum airborne 

concentration below which it is 

believed that nearly all individuals 

could be exposed for up to one hour 

without experiencing or developing 

irreversible or other serious health 

effects or symptoms which could impair 

an individual’s ability to take protective 

action.’’ Id. at 1. 

As can be seen from the definitions 

above, the AEGL and ERPG values 

include the similarly-defined severity 

levels 1 and 2. For many chemicals, a 

severity level 1 value AEGL or ERPG has 

not been developed because the types of 

effects for these chemicals are not 

consistent with the AEGL–1/ERPG–1 

definitions; in these instances, we 

compare higher severity level AEGL–2 

or ERPG–2 values to our modeled 

exposure levels to screen for potential 

acute concerns. When AEGL–1/ERPG–1 

values are available, they are used in 

our acute risk assessments. 

Acute REL values for 1-hour exposure 

durations are typically lower than their 

corresponding AEGL–1 and ERPG–1 

values. Even though their definitions are 

slightly different, AEGL–1 values are 

often the same as the corresponding 

ERPG–1 values, and AEGL–2 values are 

often equal to ERPG–2 values. 

Maximum HQ values from our acute 

screening risk assessments typically 

result when basing them on the acute 

REL value for a particular pollutant. In 

cases where our maximum acute HQ 

value exceeds 1, we also report the HQ 

value based on the next highest acute 

dose-response value (usually the AEGL– 

1 and/or the ERPG–1 value). 

To develop screening estimates of 

acute exposures in the absence of hourly 

emissions data, generally we first 

develop estimates of maximum hourly 

emissions rates by multiplying the 

average actual annual hourly emissions 

rates by a default factor to cover 

routinely variable emissions. We choose 

the factor to use partially based on 

process knowledge and engineering 

judgment. The factor chosen also 

reflects a Texas study of short-term 

emissions variability, which showed 

that most peak emission events in a 

heavily-industrialized four-county area 

(Harris, Galveston, Chambers and 

Brazoria Counties, Texas) were less than 

twice the annual average hourly 

emissions rate. The highest peak 

emissions event was 74 times the 

annual average hourly emissions rate, 

and the 99th percentile ratio of peak 

hourly emissions rate to the annual 

average hourly emissions rate was 9.11

Considering this analysis, to account for 

more than 99 percent of the peak hourly 

emissions, we apply a conservative 

screening multiplication factor of 10 to 

the average annual hourly emissions 

rate in our acute exposure screening 

assessments as our default approach. 

However, we use a factor other than 10 

if we have information that indicates 

that a different factor is appropriate for 

a particular source category. For this 

source category, we applied a 

multiplication factor of 10 to all 

emission sources except for HF 

emissions from the gypsum dewatering 

stacks and cooling ponds. The EPA used 

a multiplication factor of 1 for gypsum 

dewatering stacks and cooling ponds 

based upon the stability of HF releases 

from this emission source. Section 

III.A.2.a of this preamble as well as the 

memorandum, ‘‘Emissions Data Used in 

Residual Risk Modeling: Phosphoric 

Acid Manufacturing and Phosphate 

Fertilizer Production,’’ which is 

available in the docket for this 

rulemaking, discusses our rationale for 

choosing this factor. 

As part of our acute risk assessment 

process, for cases where acute HQ 

values from the screening step were less 

than or equal to 1 (even under the 

conservative assumptions of the 

screening analysis), acute impacts were 

deemed negligible and no further 

analysis was performed. In cases where 

an acute HQ from the screening step 

was greater than 1, additional sitespecific data were considered to 

develop a more refined estimate of the 

potential for acute impacts of concern. 

For these source categories, the data 

refinements employed consisted of, in 

some cases, the use of a refined 

emissions multiplier for individual 

emission process groups to estimate the 

peak hourly emission rates in lieu of 

using the default emission multiplier of 

10(x) the annual average 1-hour 

emission rate. 

For the two source categories, we 

conducted a review of the layout of 

emission points at the facilities to 

ensure they were located within the 

facility boundaries as well as to identify 

the maximum off-site acute impact 

receptor for the facilities that did not 

screen out during the initial base model 

run. 

Ideally, we would prefer to have 

continuous measurements over time to 

see how the emissions vary by each 

hour over an entire year. Having a 

frequency distribution of hourly 

emissions rates over a year would allow 

us to perform a probabilistic analysis to 

estimate potential threshold 

exceedances and their frequency of 

occurrence. Such an evaluation could 

include a more complete statistical 

treatment of the key parameters and 

elements adopted in this screening 

analysis. Recognizing that this level of 

data is rarely available, we instead rely 

on the multiplier approach. 

To better characterize the potential 

health risks associated with estimated 

acute exposures to HAP, and in 

response to a key recommendation from 

the SAB’s peer review of the EPA’s RTR 

risk assessment methodologies,12 we 

generally examine a wider range of 

available acute health metrics (e.g., 

RELs, AEGLs) than we do for our 

chronic risk assessments. This is in 

response to the SAB’s acknowledgement 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

66524 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 216 / Friday, November 7, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

13U.S. EPA. (2009) Chapter 2.9 Chemical Specific 

Reference Values for Formaldehyde in Graphical 

Arrays of Chemical-Specific Health Effect Reference 

Values for Inhalation Exposures (Final Report). U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, 

EPA/600/R–09/061, and available online at http:// 

cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/cfm/

recordisplay.cfm?deid=211003. 

14 In doing so, the EPA notes that the legal 

standard for a primary NAAQS—that a standard is 

requisite to protect public health and provide an 

adequate margin of safety (CAA section 109(b))— 

differs from the CAA section 112(f) standard 

(requiring among other things that the standard 

provide an ‘‘ample margin of safety’’). However, the 

Pb NAAQS is a reasonable measure of determining 

risk acceptability (i.e., the first step of the Benzene 

NESHAP analysis) since it is designed to protect the 

most susceptible group in the human population— 

children, including children living near major lead 

emitting sources (73 FR 67002/3; 73 FR 67000/3; 73 

FR 67005/1). In addition, applying the level of the 

primary Pb NAAQS at the risk acceptability step is 

conservative, since that primary Pb NAAQS reflects 

an adequate margin of safety. 

that there are generally more data gaps 

and inconsistencies in acute reference 

values than there are in chronic 

reference values. In some cases, when 

Reference Value Arrays 13 for HAP have 

been developed, we consider additional 

acute values (i.e., occupational and 

international values) to provide a more 

complete risk characterization. 

4. How did we conduct the 

multipathway exposure and risk 

screening? 

The EPA conducted a screening 

analysis examining the potential for 

significant human health risks due to 

exposures via routes other than 

inhalation (i.e., ingestion). We first 

determined whether any sources in the 

source categories emitted any hazardous 

air pollutants known to be persistent 

and bioaccumulative in the 

environment (PB–HAP). The PB–HAP 

compounds or compound classes are 

identified for the screening from the 

EPA’s Air Toxics Risk Assessment 

Library (available at http://

www2.epa.gov/fera/risk-assessmentand-modeling-air-toxics-riskassessment-reference-library). 

For the Phosphoric Acid 

Manufacturing source category, we 

identified PB–HAP emissions of 

cadmium compounds, Pb compounds, 

Hg compounds, POM and dioxin. For 

the Phosphate Fertilizer Production 

Source Category, we identified PB–HAP 

emissions of cadmium compounds, Pb 

compounds, and Hg compounds. 

Because one or more of these PB–HAP 

are emitted by at least one facility in the 

two source categories, we proceeded to 

the next step of the evaluation. In this 

step, we determined whether the 

facility-specific emissions rates of the 

emitted PB–HAP were large enough to 

create the potential for significant noninhalation human health risks under 

reasonable worst-case conditions. To 

facilitate this step, we developed 

emissions rate screening levels for 

several PB–HAP using a hypothetical 

upper-end screening exposure scenario 

developed for use in conjunction with 

the EPA’s Total Risk Integrated 

Methodology. Fate, Transport and 

Ecological Exposure (TRIM.FaTE) 

model. The PB–HAP with emissions 

rate screening levels are: Pb, cadmium, 

chlorinated dibenzodioxins and furans, 

Hg compounds and POM. We 

conducted a sensitivity analysis on the 

screening scenario to ensure that its key 

design parameters would represent the 

upper end of the range of possible 

values, such that it would represent a 

conservative but not impossible 

scenario. The facility-specific emissions 

rates of each of these PB–HAP were 

compared to the emission rate screening 

levels for these PB–HAP to assess the 

potential for significant human health 

risks via non-inhalation pathways. We 

call this application of the TRIM.FaTE 

model the Tier I TRIM-screen or Tier I 

screen. 

For the purpose of developing 

emissions rates for our Tier I TRIMscreen, we derived emission levels for 

these PB–HAP (other than Pb 

compounds) at which the maximum 

excess lifetime cancer risk would be 

1-in-1 million (i.e., for polychlorinated 

dibenzodioxins and furans and POM) 

or, for HAP that cause non-cancer health 

effects (i.e., cadmium compounds and 

Hg compounds), the maximum HQ 

would be 1. If the emissions rate of any 

PB–HAP included in the Tier I screen 

exceeds the Tier I screening emissions 

rate for any facility, we conduct a 

second screen, which we call the Tier II 

TRIM-screen or Tier II screen. In the 

Tier II screen, the location of each 

facility that exceeded the Tier I 

emission rate is used to refine the 

assumptions associated with the 

environmental scenario while 

maintaining the exposure scenario 

assumptions. We then adjusted the riskbased Tier I screening level for each PB– 

HAP for each facility based on an 

understanding of how exposure 

concentrations estimated for the 

screening scenario change with 

meteorology and environmental 

assumptions. PB–HAP emissions that do 

not exceed these new Tier II screening 

levels are considered to pose no 

unacceptable risks. When facilities 

exceed the Tier II screening levels, it 

does not mean that multipathway 

impacts are significant, only that we 

cannot rule out that possibility based on 

the results of the screen. These facilities 

may be further evaluated for 

multipathway risks using the 

TRIM.FaTE model. 

In evaluating the potential multipathway risk from emissions of Pb 

compounds, rather than developing a 

screening emissions rate for them, we 

compared maximum estimated chronic 

inhalation exposures with the level of 

the current NAAQS for Pb.14 Values 

below the level of the primary (health 

based) Pb NAAQS were considered to 

have a low potential for multi-pathway 

risk. 

For further information on the 

multipathway analysis approach, see 

the memorandum, ‘‘Draft Residual Risk 

Assessment for Phosphate Fertilizer 

Production and Phosphoric Acid 

Manufacturing,’’ which is available in 

the docket for this action. 

5. How did we conduct the 

environmental risk screening 

assessment? 

a. Adverse Environmental Effect 

The EPA has developed a screening 

approach to examine the potential for 

adverse environmental effects as 

required under section 112(f)(2)(A) of 

the CAA. Section 112(a)(7) of the CAA 

defines ‘‘adverse environmental effect’’ 

as ‘‘any significant and widespread 

adverse effect, which may reasonably be 

anticipated, to wildlife, aquatic life, or 

other natural resources, including 

adverse impacts on populations of 

endangered or threatened species or 

significant degradation of 

environmental quality over broad 

areas.’’ 

b. Environmental HAP 

The EPA focuses on seven HAP, 

which we refer to as ‘‘environmental 

HAP,’’ in its screening analysis: Five 

PB–HAP and two acid gases. The five 

PB–HAP are cadmium, dioxins/furans, 

POM, Hg (both inorganic mercury and 

methyl mercury) and Pb compounds. 

The two acid gases are HCl and HF. The 

rationale for including these seven HAP 

in the environmental risk screening 

analysis is presented below. 

HAP that persist and bioaccumulate 

are of particular environmental concern 

because they accumulate in the soil, 

sediment and water. The PB–HAP are 

taken up, through sediment, soil, water, 

and/or ingestion of other organisms, by 

plants or animals (e.g., small fish) at the 

bottom of the food chain. As larger and 

larger predators consume these 

organisms, concentrations of the PB– 

HAP in the animal tissues increases as 

does the potential for adverse effects. 

The five PB–HAP we evaluate as part of 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 216 / Friday, November 7, 2014 / Proposed Rules 66525 

15The secondary Pb NAAQS is a reasonable 

measure of determining whether there is an adverse 

environmental effect since it was established 

considering ‘‘effects on soils, water, crops, 

vegetation, man-made materials, animals, wildlife, 

weather, visibility and climate, damage to and 

deterioration of property, and hazards to 

transportation, as well as effects on economic 

values and on personal comfort and well-being.’’ 

our screening analysis account for 99.8 

percent of all PB–HAP emissions 

nationally from stationary sources (on a 

mass basis from the 2005 NEI). 

In addition to accounting for almost 

all of the mass of PB–HAP emitted, we 

note that the TRIM.FaTE model that we 

use to evaluate multipathway risk 

allows us to estimate concentrations of 

for cadmium compounds, dioxins/

furans, POM and Hg in soil, sediment 

and water. For Pb compounds, we 

currently do not have the ability to 

calculate these concentrations using the 

TRIM.FaTE model. Therefore, to 

evaluate the potential for adverse 

environmental effects from Pb 

compounds, we compare the estimated 

HEM-modeled exposures from the 

source category emissions of Pb with the 

level of the secondary NAAQS for Pb.15

We consider values below the level of 

the secondary Pb NAAQS to be unlikely 

to cause adverse environmental effects. 

Due to their well-documented 

potential to cause direct damage to 

terrestrial plants, we include two acid 

gases, HCl and HF, in the environmental 

screening analysis. According to the 

2005 NEI, HCl and HF account for about 

99 percent (on a mass basis) of the total 

acid gas HAP emitted by stationary 

sources in the U.S. In addition to the 

potential to cause direct damage to 

plants, high concentrations of HF in the 

air have been linked to fluorosis in 

livestock. Air concentrations of these 

HAP are already calculated as part of 

the human multipathway exposure and 

risk screening analysis using the HEM3– 

AERMOD air dispersion model, and we 

are able to use the air dispersion 

modeling results to estimate the 

potential for an adverse environmental 

effect. 

The EPA acknowledges that other 

HAP beyond the seven HAP discussed 

above may have the potential to cause 

adverse environmental effects. 

Therefore, the EPA may include other 

relevant HAP in its environmental risk 

screening in the future, as modeling 

science and resources allow. The EPA 

invites comment on the extent to which 

other HAP emitted by the source 

categories may cause adverse 

environmental effects. Such information 

should include references to peerreviewed ecological effects benchmarks 

that are of sufficient quality for making 

regulatory decisions, as well as 

information on the presence of 

organisms located near facilities within 

the source category that such 

benchmarks indicate could be adversely 

affected. 

c. Ecological Assessment Endpoints and 

Benchmarks for PB–HAP 

An important consideration in the 

development of the EPA’s screening 

methodology is the selection of 

ecological assessment endpoints and 

benchmarks. Ecological assessment 

endpoints are defined by the ecological 

entity (e.g., aquatic communities 

including fish and plankton) and its 

attributes (e.g., frequency of mortality). 

Ecological assessment endpoints can be 

established for organisms, populations, 

communities or assemblages, and 

ecosystems. 

For PB–HAP (other than Pb 

compounds), we evaluated the 

following community-level ecological 

assessment endpoints to screen for 

organisms directly exposed to HAP in 

soils, sediment and water: 

• Local terrestrial communities (i.e., 

soil invertebrates, plants) and 

populations of small birds and 

mammals that consume soil 

invertebrates exposed to PB–HAP in the 

surface soil. 

• Local benthic (i.e., bottom sediment 

dwelling insects, amphipods, isopods 

and crayfish) communities exposed to 

PB–HAP in sediment in nearby water 

bodies. 

• Local aquatic (water-column) 

communities (including fish and 

plankton) exposed to PB–HAP in nearby 

surface waters. 

For PB–HAP (other than Pb 

compounds), we also evaluated the 

following population-level ecological 

assessment endpoint to screen for 

indirect HAP exposures of top 

consumers via the bioaccumulation of 

HAP in food chains: 

• Piscivorous (i.e., fish-eating) 

wildlife consuming PB–HAPcontaminated fish from nearby water 

bodies. 

For cadmium compounds, dioxins/

furans, POM and Hg, we identified the 

available ecological benchmarks for 

each assessment endpoint. An 

ecological benchmark represents a 

concentration of HAP (e.g., 0.77 ug of 

HAP per liter of water) that has been 

linked to a particular environmental 

effect level (e.g., a no-observed-adverseeffect level (NOAEL)) through scientific 

study. For PB–HAP we identified, 

where possible, ecological benchmarks 

at the following effect levels: 

• Probable effect levels (PEL): Level 

above which adverse effects are 

expected to occur frequently. 

• Lowest-observed-adverse-effect 

level (LOAEL): The lowest exposure 

level tested at which there are 

biologically significant increases in 

frequency or severity of adverse effects. 

• NOAEL: The highest exposure level 

tested at which there are no biologically 

significant increases in the frequency or 

severity of adverse effect. 

We established a hierarchy of 

preferred benchmark sources to allow 

selection of benchmarks for each 

environmental HAP at each ecological 

assessment endpoint. In general, the 

EPA sources that are used at a 

programmatic level (e.g., Office of 

Water, Superfund Program) were used, 

if available. If not, the EPA benchmarks 

used in regional programs (e.g., 

Superfund) were used. If benchmarks 

were not available at a programmatic or 

regional level, we used benchmarks 

developed by other federal agencies 

(e.g., National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration (NOAA) or state 

agencies. 

Benchmarks for all effect levels are 

not available for all PB–HAP and 

assessment endpoints. In cases where 

multiple effect levels were available for 

a particular PB–HAP and assessment 

endpoint, we use all of the available 

effect levels to help us to determine 

whether ecological risks exist and, if so, 

whether the risks could be considered 

significant and widespread. 

d. Ecological Assessment Endpoints and 

Benchmarks for Acid Gases 

The environmental screening analysis 

also evaluated potential damage and 

reduced productivity of plants due to 

direct exposure to acid gases in the air. 

For acid gases, we evaluated the 

following ecological assessment 

endpoint: 

• Local terrestrial plant communities 

with foliage exposed to acidic gaseous 

HAP in the air. 

The selection of ecological 

benchmarks for the effects of acid gases 

on plants followed the same approach 

as for PB–HAP (i.e., we examine all of 

the available chronic benchmarks). For 

HCl, the EPA identified chronic 

benchmark concentrations. We note that 

the benchmark for chronic HCl exposure 

to plants is greater than the reference 

concentration for chronic inhalation 

exposure for human health. This means 

that where the EPA includes regulatory 

requirements to prevent an exceedance 

of the reference concentration for 

human health, additional analyses for 

adverse environmental effects of HCl 

would not be necessary. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

66526 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 216 / Friday, November 7, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

For HF, the EPA identified chronic 

benchmark concentrations for plants 

and evaluated chronic exposures to 

plants in the screening analysis. High 

concentrations of HF in the air have also 

been linked to fluorosis in livestock. 

However, the HF concentrations at 

which fluorosis in livestock occur are 

higher than those at which plant 

damage begins. Therefore, the 

benchmarks for plants are protective of 

both plants and livestock. 

e. Screening Methodology 

For the environmental risk screening 

analysis, the EPA first determined 

whether any facilities in the Phosphoric 

Acid Manufacturing source category and 

Phosphate Fertilizer Production source 

category emitted any of the seven 

environmental HAP. For the Phosphoric 

Acid Manufacturing source category, we 

identified emissions of cadmium, 

dioxin, Hg, Pb, POM, HCl and HF. For 

the Phosphate Fertilizer Production 

source category, we identified emissions 

of cadmium, Hg, Pb and HF. 

Because one or more of the seven 

environmental HAP evaluated are 

emitted by at least one facility in the 

source categories, we proceeded to the 

second step of the evaluation. 

f. PB–HAP Methodology 

For cadmium, Hg, POM and dioxins/ 

furans, the environmental screening 

analysis consists of two tiers, while Pb 

compounds are analyzed differently as 

discussed earlier. In the first tier, we 

determined whether the maximum 

facility-specific emission rates of each of 

the emitted environmental HAP were 

large enough to create the potential for 

adverse environmental effects under 

reasonable worst-case environmental 

conditions. These are the same 

environmental conditions used in the 

human multipathway exposure and risk 

screening analysis. 

To facilitate this step, TRIM.FaTE was 

run for each PB–HAP under 

hypothetical environmental conditions 

designed to provide conservatively high 

HAP concentrations. The model was set 

to maximize runoff from terrestrial 

parcels into the modeled lake, which in 

turn, maximized the chemical 

concentrations in the water, the 

sediment and the fish. The resulting 

media concentrations were then used to 

back-calculate a screening level 

emission rate that corresponded to the 

relevant exposure benchmark 

concentration value for each assessment 

endpoint. To assess emissions from a 

facility, the reported emission rate for 

each PB–HAP was compared to the 

screening level emission rate for that 

PB–HAP for each assessment endpoint. 

If emissions from a facility do not 

exceed the Tier I screening level, the 

facility ‘‘passes’’ the screen, and, 

therefore, is not evaluated further under 

the screening approach. If emissions 

from a facility exceed the Tier I 

screening level, we evaluate the facility 

further in Tier II. 

In Tier II of the environmental 

screening analysis, the emission rate 

screening levels are adjusted to account 

for local meteorology and the actual 

location of lakes in the vicinity of 

facilities that did not pass the Tier I 

screen. The modeling domain for each 

facility in the Tier II analysis consists of 

eight octants. Each octant contains 5 

modeled soil concentrations at various 

distances from the facility (5 soil 

concentrations × 8 octants = total of 40 

soil concentrations per facility) and 1 

lake with modeled concentrations for 

water, sediment and fish tissue. In the 

Tier II environmental risk screening 

analysis, the 40 soil concentration 

points are averaged to obtain an average 

soil concentration for each facility for 

each PB–HAP. For the water, sediment 

and fish tissue concentrations, the 

highest value for each facility for each 

pollutant is used. If emission 

concentrations from a facility do not 

exceed the Tier II screening level, the 

facility passes the screen, and is 

typically not evaluated further. If 

emissions from a facility exceed the Tier 

II screening level, the facility does not 

pass the screen and, therefore, may have 

the potential to cause adverse 

environmental effects. Such facilities 

are evaluated further to investigate 

factors such as the magnitude and 

characteristics of the area of exceedance. 

g. Acid Gas Methodology 

The environmental screening analysis 

evaluates the potential phytotoxicity 

and reduced productivity of plants due 

to chronic exposure to acid gases. The 

environmental risk screening 

methodology for acid gases is a singletier screen that compares the average 

off-site ambient air concentration over 

the modeling domain to ecological 

benchmarks for each of the acid gases. 

Because air concentrations are 

compared directly to the ecological 

benchmarks, emission-based screening 

levels are not calculated for acid gases 

as they are in the ecological risk 

screening methodology for PB–HAPs. 

For purposes of ecological risk 

screening, the EPA identifies a potential 

for adverse environmental effects to 

plant communities from exposure to 

acid gases when the average 

concentration of the HAP around a 

facility exceeds the LOAEL ecological 

benchmark. In such cases, we further 

investigate factors such as the 

magnitude and characteristics of the 

area of exceedance (e.g., land use of 

exceedance area, size of exceedance 

area) to determine if there is an adverse 

environmental effect. 

For further information on the 

environmental screening analysis 

approach, see the ‘‘Draft Residual Risk 

Assessment for Phosphate Fertilizer 

Production and Phosphoric Acid 

Manufacturing’’, which is available in 

the docket for this action. 

6. How did we conduct facility-wide 

assessments? 

To put the source category risks in 

context, we typically examine the risks 

from the entire ‘‘facility,’’ where the 

facility includes all HAP-emitting 

operations within a contiguous area and 

under common control. In other words, 

we examine the HAP emissions not only 

from the source category emission 

points of interest, but also emissions of 

HAP from all other emission sources at 

the facility for which we have data. We 

examined ‘‘facility-wide’’ risks using 

2005 NEI data and modeling as 

described in sections IV.B.5 and V.A.5 

of this preamble. 

We analyzed risks due to the 

inhalation of HAP that are emitted 

‘‘facility-wide’’ for the populations 

residing within 50 km of each facility, 

consistent with the methods used for 

the source category analysis described 

above. For these facility-wide risk 

analyses, the modeled source category 

risks were compared to the facility-wide 

risks to determine the portion of facilitywide risks that could be attributed to 

each of the source categories addressed 

in this proposal. For the facilities in 

these source categories, we estimated 

the maximum inhalation cancer and 

chronic non-cancer risks associated 

with all HAP emissions sources at the 

facility, including emissions sources 

that are not part of the source categories 

but are located within a contiguous area 

and are under common control. We 

specifically examined the facility that 

was associated with the highest estimate 

of risk and determined the percentage of 

that risk attributable to the source 

category of interest. The results of these 

facility-wide assessments are 

summarized in sections IV and V of this 

preamble. The ‘‘Draft Residual Risk 

Assessment for Phosphate Fertilizer 

Production and Phosphoric Acid 

Manufacturing’’ available through the 

docket for this action provides the 

methodology and results of the facilitywide analyses, including all facilitywide risks and the percentage of source 

category contribution to facility-wide 

risks. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 216 / Friday, November 7, 2014 / Proposed Rules 66527 

16Short-term mobility is movement from one 

micro-environment to another over the course of 

hours or days. Long-term mobility is movement 

from one residence to another over the course of a 

lifetime. 

17U.S. EPA. National-Scale Air Toxics 

Assessment for 1996. (EPA 453/R–01–003; January 

2001; page 85.) 

7. How did we consider uncertainties in 

risk assessment? 

In the Benzene NESHAP, we 

concluded that risk estimation 

uncertainty should be considered in our 

decision-making under the ample 

margin of safety framework. Uncertainty 

and the potential for bias are inherent in 

all risk assessments, including those 

performed for this proposal. Although 

uncertainty exists, we believe that our 

approach, which used conservative 

tools and assumptions, ensures that our 

decisions are health protective and 

environmentally protective. A brief 

discussion of the uncertainties in the 

RTR emissions datasets, dispersion 

modeling, inhalation exposure estimates 

and dose-response relationships follows 

below. A more thorough discussion of 

these uncertainties is included in the 

Draft Residual Risk Assessment for 

Phosphate Fertilizer Production and 

Phosphoric Acid Manufacturing, which 

is available in the docket for this action. 

a. Uncertainties in the RTR Emissions 

Datasets 

Although the development of the RTR 

emissions datasets involved quality 

assurance/quality control processes, the 

accuracy of emissions values will vary 

depending on the source of the data, the 

degree to which data are incomplete or 

missing, the degree to which 

assumptions made to complete the 

datasets are accurate, errors in emission 

estimates and other factors. The 

emission estimates considered in this 

analysis generally are annual totals for 

certain years, and they do not reflect 

short-term fluctuations during the 

course of a year or variations from year 

to year. The estimates of peak hourly 

emission rates for the acute effects 

screening assessment were based on an 

emission adjustment factor applied to 

the average annual hourly emission 

rates, which are intended to account for 

emission fluctuations due to normal 

facility operations. 

b. Uncertainties in Dispersion Modeling 

We recognize there is uncertainty in 

ambient concentration estimates 

associated with any model, including 

the EPA’s recommended regulatory 

dispersion model, AERMOD. In using a 

model to estimated ambient pollutant 

concentrations, the user chooses certain 

options to apply. For RTR assessments, 

we select some model options that have 

the potential to overestimate ambient air 

concentrations (e.g., not including 

plume depletion or pollutant 

transformation). We select other model 

options that have the potential to 

underestimate ambient impacts (e.g., not 

including building downwash). Other 

options that we select have the potential 

to either under- or overestimate ambient 

levels (e.g., meteorology and receptor 

locations). On balance, considering the 

directional nature of the uncertainties 

commonly present in ambient 

concentrations estimated by dispersion 

models, the approach we apply in the 

RTR assessments should yield unbiased 

estimates of ambient HAP 

concentrations. 

c. Uncertainties in Inhalation Exposure 

The EPA did not include the effects 

of human mobility on exposures in the 

assessment. Specifically, short-term 

mobility and long-term mobility 

between census blocks in the modeling 

domain were not considered.16 The 

approach of not considering short or 

long-term population mobility does not 

bias the estimate of the theoretical MIR 

(by definition), nor does it affect the 

estimate of cancer incidence because the 

total population number remains the 

same. It does, however, affect the shape 

of the distribution of individual risks 

across the affected population, shifting 

it toward higher estimated individual 

risks at the upper end and reducing the 

number of people estimated to be at 

lower risks, thereby increasing the 

estimated number of people at specific 

high risk levels (e.g., 1-in-10 thousand 

or 1-in-1 million). 

In addition, the assessment predicted 

the chronic exposures at the centroid of 

each populated census block as 

surrogates for the exposure 

concentrations for all people living in 

that block. Using the census block 

centroid to predict chronic exposures 

tends to over-predict exposures for 

people in the census block who live 

farther from the facility and underpredict exposures for people in the 

census block who live closer to the 

facility. Thus, using the census block 

centroid to predict chronic exposures 

may lead to a potential understatement 

or overstatement of the true maximum 

impact, but is an unbiased estimate of 

average risk and incidence. We reduce 

this uncertainty by analyzing large 

census blocks near facilities using aerial 

imagery and adjusting the location of 

the block centroid to better represent the 

population in the block, as well as 

adding additional receptor locations 

where the block population is not well 

represented by a single location. 

The assessment evaluates the cancer 

inhalation risks associated with 

pollutant exposures over a 70-year 

period, which is the assumed lifetime of 

an individual. In reality, both the length 

of time that modeled emission sources 

at facilities actually operate (i.e., more 

or less than 70 years) and the domestic 

growth or decline of the modeled 

industry (i.e., the increase or decrease in 

the number or size of domestic 

facilities) will influence the future risks 

posed by a given source or source 

category. Depending on the 

characteristics of the industry, these 

factors will, in most cases, result in an 

overestimate both in individual risk 

levels and in the total estimated number 

of cancer cases. However, in the 

unlikely scenario where a facility 

maintains, or even increases, its 

emissions levels over a period of more 

than 70 years, residents live beyond 70 

years at the same location, and the 

residents spend most of their days at 

that location, then the cancer inhalation 

risks could potentially be 

underestimated. However, annual 

cancer incidence estimates from 

exposures to emissions from these 

sources would not be affected by the 

length of time an emissions source 

operates. 

The exposure estimates used in these 

analyses assume chronic exposures to 

ambient (outdoor) levels of pollutants. 

Because most people spend the majority 

of their time indoors, actual exposures 

may not be as high, depending on the 

characteristics of the pollutants 

modeled. For many of the HAP, indoor 

levels are roughly equivalent to ambient 

levels, but for very reactive pollutants or 

larger particles, indoor levels are 

typically lower. This factor has the 

potential to result in an overestimate of 

25 to 30 percent of exposures.17

In addition to the uncertainties 

highlighted above, there are several 

factors specific to the acute exposure 

assessment that the EPA conducts as 

part of the risk review under section 112 

of the CAA that should be highlighted. 

The accuracy of an acute inhalation 

exposure assessment depends on the 

simultaneous occurrence of 

independent factors that may vary 

greatly, such as hourly emissions rates, 

meteorology and the presence of 

humans at the location of the maximum 

concentration. In the acute screening 

assessment that we conduct under the 

RTR program, we assume that peak 

emissions from the source category and 

worst-case meteorological conditions 

co-occur, thus resulting in maximum 

ambient concentrations. These two 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

66528 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 216 / Friday, November 7, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

18 Guidelines for Carcinogen Risk Assessment, 

EPA/630/P–03/001F, March 2005, Risk Assessment 

Forum, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

Washington, DC. 

19Upper bound, IRIS glossary (http://

www.epa.gov/NCEA/iris/help_gloss.htm). 

20An exception to this is the URE for benzene, 

which is considered to cover a range of values, each 

end of which is considered to be equally plausible, 

and which is based on maximum likelihood 

estimates. 

21U.S. EPA. Reference Dose (RfD): Description 

and Use in Health Risk Assessments. Dated March 

1993. 22U.S. EPA. Methods for Derivation of Inhalation 

Reference Concentrations and Application of 

Inhalation Dosimetry. EPA/600/8–90/066F. Dated 

October 1994. 23According to the NRC report, Science and 

Judgment in Risk Assessment (NRC, 1994) 

‘‘[Default] options are generic approaches, based on 

general scientific knowledge and policy judgment, 

that are applied to various elements of the risk 

assessment process when the correct scientific 

model is unknown or uncertain.’’ The 1983 NRC 

report, Risk Assessment in the Federal Government: 

Managing the Process, defined default option as 

‘‘the option chosen on the basis of risk assessment 

policy that appears to be the best choice in the 

absence of data to the contrary’’ (NRC, 1983a, p. 63). 

Therefore, default options are not rules that bind 

the agency; rather, the agency may depart from 

them in evaluating the risks posed by a specific 

substance when it believes this to be appropriate. 

In keeping with the EPA’s goal of protecting public 

health and the environment, default assumptions 

are used to ensure that risk to chemicals is not 

underestimated (although defaults are not intended 

to overtly overestimate risk). See EPA, 2004, An 

Examination of EPA Risk Assessment Principles 

and Practices, EPA/100/B–04/001 available at: 

http://www.epa.gov/osa/pdfs/ratf-final.pdf. 

events are unlikely to occur at the same 

time, making these assumptions 

conservative. We then include the 

additional assumption that a person is 

located at this point during this same 

time period. For this source category, 

these assumptions would tend to be 

worst-case actual exposures as it is 

unlikely that a person would be located 

at the point of maximum exposure 

during the time when peak emissions 

and worst-case meteorological 

conditions occur simultaneously. 

d. Uncertainties in Dose-Response 

Relationships 

There are uncertainties inherent in 

the development of the dose-response 

values used in our risk assessments for 

cancer effects from chronic exposures 

and non-cancer effects from both 

chronic and acute exposures. Some 

uncertainties may be considered 

quantitatively, and others generally are 

expressed in qualitative terms. We note 

as a preface to this discussion a point on 

dose-response uncertainty that is 

brought out in the EPA’s 2005 Cancer 

Guidelines; 18 namely, that ‘‘the primary 

goal of EPA actions is protection of 

human health; accordingly, as an 

Agency policy, risk assessment 

procedures, including default options 

that are used in the absence of scientific 

data to the contrary, should be health 

protective’’ (EPA 2005 Cancer 

Guidelines, pages 1–7). This is the 

approach followed here as summarized 

in the next several paragraphs. A 

complete detailed discussion of 

uncertainties and variability in doseresponse relationships is given in the 

Draft Residual Risk Assessment for 

Phosphate Fertilizer Production and 

Phosphoric Acid Manufacturing, which 

is available in the docket for this action. 

Cancer URE values used in our risk 

assessments are those that have been 

developed to generally provide an upper 

bound estimate of risk. That is, they 

represent a ‘‘plausible upper limit to the 

true value of a quantity’’ (although this 

is usually not a true statistical 

confidence limit).19 In some 

circumstances, the true risk could be as 

low as zero; however, in other 

circumstances the risk could be 

greater.20 When developing an upper 

bound estimate of risk and to provide 

risk values that do not underestimate 

risk, health-protective default 

approaches are generally used. To err on 

the side of ensuring adequate health 

protection, the EPA typically uses the 

upper bound estimates rather than 

lower bound or central tendency 

estimates in our risk assessments, an 

approach that may have limitations for 

other uses (e.g., priority-setting or 

expected benefits analysis). 

Chronic non-cancer RfC and reference 

dose (RfD) values represent chronic 

exposure levels that are intended to be 

health-protective levels. Specifically, 

these values provide an estimate (with 

uncertainty spanning perhaps an order 

of magnitude) of a continuous 

inhalation exposure (RfC) or a daily oral 

exposure (RfD) to the human population 

(including sensitive subgroups) that is 

likely to be without an appreciable risk 

of deleterious effects during a lifetime. 

To derive values that are intended to be 

‘‘without appreciable risk,’’ the 

methodology relies upon an uncertainty 

factor (UF) approach (U.S. EPA, 1993, 

1994) 21 22 which considers uncertainty, 

variability and gaps in the available 

data. The UF are applied to derive 

reference values that are intended to 

protect against appreciable risk of 

deleterious effects. The UF are 

commonly default values,23 e.g., factors 

of 10 or 3, used in the absence of 

compound-specific data; where data are 

available, UF may also be developed 

using compound-specific information. 

When data are limited, more 

assumptions are needed and more UF 

are used. Thus, there may be a greater 

tendency to overestimate risk in the 

sense that further study might support 

development of reference values that are 

higher (i.e., less potent) because fewer 

default assumptions are needed. 

However, for some pollutants, it is 

possible that risks may be 

underestimated. 

While collectively termed ‘‘UF,’’ these 

factors account for a number of different 

quantitative considerations when using 

observed animal (usually rodent) or 

human toxicity data in the development 

of the RfC. The UF are intended to 

account for: (1) Variation in 

susceptibility among the members of the 

human population (i.e., inter-individual 

variability); (2) uncertainty in 

extrapolating from experimental animal 

data to humans (i.e., interspecies 

differences); (3) uncertainty in 

extrapolating from data obtained in a 

study with less-than-lifetime exposure 

(i.e., extrapolating from sub-chronic to 

chronic exposure); (4) uncertainty in 

extrapolating the observed data to 

obtain an estimate of the exposure 

associated with no adverse effects; and 

(5) uncertainty when the database is 

incomplete or there are problems with 

the applicability of available studies. 

Many of the UF used to account for 

variability and uncertainty in the 

development of acute reference values 

are quite similar to those developed for 

chronic durations, but they more often 

use individual UF values that may be 

less than 10. The UF are applied based 

on chemical-specific or health effectspecific information (e.g., simple 

irritation effects do not vary appreciably 

between human individuals, hence a 

value of 3 is typically used), or based on 

the purpose for the reference value (see 

the following paragraph). The UF 

applied in acute reference value 

derivation include: (1) Heterogeneity 

among humans; (2) uncertainty in 

extrapolating from animals to humans; 

(3) uncertainty in lowest observed 

adverse effect (exposure) level to no 

observed adverse effect (exposure) level 

adjustments; and (4) uncertainty in 

accounting for an incomplete database 

on toxic effects of potential concern. 

Additional adjustments are often 

applied to account for uncertainty in 

extrapolation from observations at one 

exposure duration (e.g., 4 hours) to 

derive an acute reference value at 

another exposure duration (e.g., 1 hour). 

Not all acute reference values are 

developed for the same purpose and 

care must be taken when interpreting 

the results of an acute assessment of 

human health effects relative to the 

reference value or values being 

exceeded. Where relevant to the 

estimated exposures, the lack of shortterm dose-response values at different 

levels of severity should be factored into 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 216 / Friday, November 7, 2014 / Proposed Rules 66529 

24 In the context of this discussion, the term 

‘‘uncertainty’’ as it pertains to exposure and risk 

encompasses both variability in the range of 

expected inputs and screening results due to 

existing spatial, temporal, and other factors, as well 

as uncertainty in being able to accurately estimate 

the true result. 

25 In the context of this discussion, the term 

‘‘uncertainty,’’ as it pertains to exposure and risk 

assessment, encompasses both variability in the 

range of expected inputs and screening results due 

to existing spatial, temporal, and other factors, as 

well as uncertainty in being able to accurately 

estimate the true result. 

the risk characterization as potential 

uncertainties. 

For a group of compounds that are 

unspeciated (e.g., glycol ethers), we 

conservatively use the most protective 

reference value of an individual 

compound in that group to estimate 

risk. Similarly, for an individual 

compound in a group (e.g., ethylene 

glycol diethyl ether) that does not have 

a specified reference value, we also 

apply the most protective reference 

value from the other compounds in the 

group to estimate risk. 

e. Uncertainties in the Multipathway 

Assessment 

For each source category, we 

generally rely on site-specific levels of 

PB–HAP emissions to determine 

whether a refined assessment of the 

impacts from multipathway exposures 

is necessary. This determination is 

based on the results of a two-tiered 

screening analysis that relies on the 

outputs from models that estimate 

environmental pollutant concentrations 

and human exposures for 4 PB–HAP. 

Two important types of uncertainty 

associated with the use of these models 

in RTR risk assessments and inherent to 

any assessment that relies on 

environmental modeling are model 

uncertainty and input uncertainty.24

Model uncertainty concerns whether 

the selected models are appropriate for 

the assessment being conducted and 

whether they adequately represent the 

actual processes that might occur for 

that situation. An example of model 

uncertainty is the question of whether 

the model adequately describes the 

movement of a pollutant through the 

soil. This type of uncertainty is difficult 

to quantify. However, based on feedback 

received from previous EPA Science 

Advisory Board reviews and other 

reviews, we are confident that the 

models used in the screen are 

appropriate and state-of-the-art for the 

multipathway risk assessments 

conducted in support of RTR. 

Input uncertainty is concerned with 

how accurately the models have been 

configured and parameterized for the 

assessment at hand. For Tier I of the 

multipathway screen, we configured the 

models to avoid underestimating 

exposure and risk. This was 

accomplished by selecting upper-end 

values from nationally-representative 

data sets for the more influential 

parameters in the environmental model, 

including selection and spatial 

configuration of the area of interest, lake 

location and size, meteorology, surface 

water and soil characteristics and 

structure of the aquatic food web. We 

also assume an ingestion exposure 

scenario and values for human exposure 

factors that represent reasonable 

maximum exposures. 

In Tier II of the multipathway 

assessment, we refine the model inputs 

to account for meteorological patterns in 

the vicinity of the facility versus using 

upper-end national values and we 

identify the actual location of lakes near 

the facility rather than the default lake 

location that we apply in Tier I. By 

refining the screening approach in Tier 

II to account for local geographical and 

meteorological data, we decrease the 

likelihood that concentrations in 

environmental media are overestimated, 

thereby increasing the usefulness of the 

screen. The assumptions and the 

associated uncertainties regarding the 

selected ingestion exposure scenario are 

the same for Tier I and Tier II. 

For both Tiers I and II of the 

multipathway assessment, our approach 

to addressing model input uncertainty is 

generally cautious. We choose model 

inputs from the upper end of the range 

of possible values for the influential 

parameters used in the models, and we 

assume that the exposed individual 

exhibits ingestion behavior that would 

lead to a high total exposure. This 

approach reduces the likelihood of not 

identifying high risks for adverse 

impacts. 

Despite the uncertainties, when 

individual pollutants or facilities do 

screen out, we are confident that the 

potential for adverse multipathway 

impacts on human health is very low. 

On the other hand, when individual 

pollutants or facilities do not screen out, 

it does not mean that multipathway 

impacts are significant, only that we 

cannot rule out that possibility and that 

a refined multipathway analysis for the 

site might be necessary to obtain a more 

accurate risk characterization for the 

source category. 

For further information on 

uncertainties and the Tier I and II 

screening methods, refer to the risk 

document, Appendix 5, ‘‘Technical 

Support Document for TRIM-Based 

Multipathway Tiered Screening 

Methodology for RTR.’’ 

f. Uncertainties in the Environmental 

Risk Screening Assessment 

For each source category, we 

generally rely on site-specific levels of 

environmental HAP emissions to 

perform an environmental screening 

assessment. The environmental 

screening assessment is based on the 

outputs from models that estimate 

environmental HAP concentrations. The 

same models, specifically the 

TRIM.FaTE multipathway model and 

the AERMOD air dispersion model, are 

used to estimate environmental HAP 

concentrations for both the human 

multipathway screening analysis and for 

the environmental screening analysis. 

Therefore, both screening assessments 

have similar modeling uncertainties. 

Two important types of uncertainty 

associated with the use of these models 

in RTR environmental screening 

assessments—and inherent to any 

assessment that relies on environmental 

modeling—are model uncertainty and 

input uncertainty.25

Model uncertainty concerns whether 

the selected models are appropriate for 

the assessment being conducted and 

whether they adequately represent the 

movement and accumulation of 

environmental HAP emissions in the 

environment. For example, does the 

model adequately describe the 

movement of a pollutant through the 

soil? This type of uncertainty is difficult 

to quantify. However, based on feedback 

received from previous EPA SAB 

reviews and other reviews, we are 

confident that the models used in the 

screen are appropriate and state-of-theart for the environmental risk 

assessments conducted in support of 

our RTR analyses. 

Input uncertainty is concerned with 

how accurately the models have been 

configured and parameterized for the 

assessment at hand. For Tier I of the 

environmental screen for PB–HAP, we 

configured the models to avoid 

underestimating exposure and risk to 

reduce the likelihood that the results 

indicate the risks are lower than they 

actually are. This was accomplished by 

selecting upper-end values from 

nationally-representative data sets for 

the more influential parameters in the 

environmental model, including 

selection and spatial configuration of 

the area of interest, the location and size 

of any bodies of water, meteorology, 

surface water and soil characteristics 

and structure of the aquatic food web. 

In Tier I, we used the maximum facilityspecific emissions for the PB–HAP 

(other than Pb compounds, which were 

evaluated by comparison to the 

secondary Pb NAAQS) that were 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

66530 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 216 / Friday, November 7, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

26Although defined as ‘‘maximum individual 

risk,’’ MIR refers only to cancer risk. MIR, one 

metric for assessing cancer risk, is the estimated 

risk where an individual exposed to the maximum 

level of a pollutant for a lifetime. 

included in the environmental 

screening assessment and each of the 

media when comparing to ecological 

benchmarks. This is consistent with the 

conservative design of Tier I of the 

screen. In Tier II of the environmental 

screening analysis for PB–HAP, we 

refine the model inputs to account for 

meteorological patterns in the vicinity 

of the facility versus using upper-end 

national values, and we identify the 

locations of water bodies near the 

facility location. By refining the 

screening approach in Tier II to account 

for local geographical and 

meteorological data, we decrease the 

likelihood that concentrations in 

environmental media are overestimated, 

thereby increasing the usefulness of the 

screen. To better represent widespread 

impacts, the modeled soil 

concentrations are averaged in Tier II to 

obtain one average soil concentration 

value for each facility and for each PB– 

HAP. For PB–HAP concentrations in 

water, sediment and fish tissue, the 

highest value for each facility for each 

pollutant is used. 

For the environmental screening 

assessment for acid gases, we employ a 

single-tiered approach. We use the 

modeled air concentrations and 

compare those with ecological 

benchmarks. 

For both Tiers I and II of the 

environmental screening assessment, 

our approach to addressing model input 

uncertainty is generally cautious. We 

choose model inputs from the upper 

end of the range of possible values for 

the influential parameters used in the 

models, and we assume that the 

exposed individual exhibits ingestion 

behavior that would lead to a high total 

exposure. This approach reduces the 

likelihood of not identifying potential 

risks for adverse environmental impacts. 

Uncertainty also exists in the 

ecological benchmarks for the 

environmental risk screening analysis. 

We established a hierarchy of preferred 

benchmark sources to allow selection of 

benchmarks for each environmental 

HAP at each ecological assessment 

endpoint. In general, EPA benchmarks 

used at a programmatic level (e.g., 

Office of Water, Superfund Program) 

were used if available. If not, we used 

EPA benchmarks used in regional 

programs (e.g., Superfund Program). If 

benchmarks were not available at a 

programmatic or regional level, we used 

benchmarks developed by other 

agencies (e.g., NOAA) or by state 

agencies. 

In all cases (except for Pb compounds, 

which were evaluated through a 

comparison to the NAAQS), we 

searched for benchmarks at the 

following three effect levels, as 

described in section III.A.5 of this 

preamble: 

1. A no-effect level (i.e., NOAEL). 

2. Threshold-effect level (i.e., 

LOAEL). 

3. Probable effect level (i.e., PEL). 

For some ecological assessment 

endpoint/environmental HAP 

combinations, we could identify 

benchmarks for all three effect levels, 

but for most, we could not. In one case, 

where different agencies derived 

significantly different numbers to 

represent a threshold for effect, we 

included both. In several cases, only a 

single benchmark was available. In 

cases where multiple effect levels were 

available for a particular PB–HAP and 

assessment endpoint, we used all of the 

available effect levels to help us to 

determine whether risk exists and if the 

risks could be considered significant 

and widespread. 

The EPA evaluates the following 

seven HAP in the environmental risk 

screening assessment: Cadmium, 

dioxins/furans, POM, Hg (both 

inorganic Hg and methyl Hg), Pb 

compounds, HCl and HF, where 

applicable. These seven HAP represent 

pollutants that can cause adverse 

impacts for plants and animals either 

through direct exposure to HAP in the 

air or through exposure to HAP that is 

deposited from the air onto soils and 

surface waters. These seven HAP also 

represent those HAP for which we can 

conduct a meaningful environmental 

risk screening assessment. For other 

HAP not included in our screening 

assessment, the model has not been 

parameterized such that it can be used 

for that purpose. In some cases, 

depending on the HAP, we may not 

have appropriate multipathway models 

that allow us to predict the 

concentration of that pollutant. The EPA 

acknowledges that other HAP beyond 

the seven HAP that we are evaluating 

may have the potential to cause adverse 

environmental effects and, therefore, the 

EPA may evaluate other relevant HAP in 

the future, as modeling science and 

resources allow. 

Further information on uncertainties 

and the Tier I and II environmental 

screening methods, is provided in 

Appendix 5 of the document, 

‘‘Technical Support Document for 

TRIM-Based Multipathway Tiered 

Screening Methodology for RTR: 

Summary of Approach and Evaluation.’’ 

Also, see the memorandum, ‘‘Draft 

Residual Risk Assessment for Phosphate 

Fertilizer Production and Phosphoric 

Acid Manufacturing,’’ which is 

available in the docket for this action. 

B. How did we consider the risk results 

in making decisions for this proposal? 

As discussed in section II.A of this 

preamble, in evaluating and developing 

standards under CAA section 112(f)(2), 

we apply a two-step process to address 

residual risk. In the first step, the EPA 

determines whether risks are acceptable. 

This determination ‘‘considers all health 

information, including risk estimation 

uncertainty, and includes a presumptive 

limit on maximum individual lifetime 

[cancer] risk (MIR) 26 of approximately 

[1-in-10 thousand] [i.e., 100-in-1 

million].’’ 54 FR 38045, September 14, 

1989. If risks are unacceptable, the EPA 

must determine the emissions standards 

necessary to bring risks to an acceptable 

level without considering costs. In the 

second step of the process, the EPA 

considers whether the emissions 

standards provide an ample margin of 

safety ‘‘in consideration of all health 

information, including the number of 

persons at risk levels higher than 

approximately 1-in-1 million, as well as 

other relevant factors, including costs 

and economic impacts, technological 

feasibility, and other factors relevant to 

each particular decision.’’ Id. The EPA 

must promulgate emission standards 

necessary to provide an ample margin of 

safety. After conducting the ample 

margin of safety analysis, we consider 

whether a more stringent standard is 

necessary to prevent, taking into 

consideration costs, energy, safety and 

other relevant factors, an adverse 

environmental effect. 

In past residual risk actions, the EPA 

considered a number of human health 

risk metrics associated with emissions 

from the categories under review, 

including the MIR, the number of 

persons in various risk ranges, cancer 

incidence, the maximum non-cancer HI 

and the maximum acute non-cancer 

hazard. See, e.g., 72 FR 25138, May 3, 

2007; 71 FR 42724, July 27, 2006. The 

EPA considered this health information 

for both actual and allowable emissions. 

See, e.g., 75 FR 65068, October 21, 2010; 

75 FR 80220, December 21, 2010; 76 FR 

29032, May 19, 2011. The EPA also 

discussed risk estimation uncertainties 

and considered the uncertainties in the 

determination of acceptable risk and 

ample margin of safety in these past 

actions. The EPA considered this same 

type of information in support of this 

action. 

The agency is considering these 

various measures of health information 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 216 / Friday, November 7, 2014 / Proposed Rules 66531 

27EPA’s responses to this and all other key 

recommendations of the SAB’s advisory on RTR 

risk assessment methodologies (which is available 

at: http://yosemite.epa.gov/sab/sabproduct.nsf/

4AB3966E263D943A8525771F00668381/$File/EPASAB-1-007-unsigned.pdf) are outlined in a 

memorandum to this rulemaking docket from David 

Guinnup titled, EPA’s Actions in Response to the 

Key Recommendations of the SAB Review of RTR 

Risk Assessment Methodologies. 

to inform our determinations of risk 

acceptability and ample margin of safety 

under CAA section 112(f). As explained 

in the Benzene NESHAP, ‘‘the first step 

judgment on acceptability cannot be 

reduced to any single factor’’ and, thus, 

‘‘[t]he Administrator believes that the 

acceptability of risk under [previous] 

section 112 is best judged on the basis 

of a broad set of health risk measures 

and information.’’ 54 FR 38046, 

September 14, 1989. Similarly, with 

regard to the ample margin of safety 

determination, ‘‘the Agency again 

considers all of the health risk and other 

health information considered in the 

first step. Beyond that information, 

additional factors relating to the 

appropriate level of control will also be 

considered, including cost and 

economic impacts of controls, 

technological feasibility, uncertainties, 

and any other relevant factors.’’ Id. 

The Benzene NESHAP approach 

provides flexibility regarding factors the 

EPA may consider in making 

determinations and how the EPA may 

weigh those factors for each source 

category. In responding to comment on 

our policy under the Benzene NESHAP, 

the EPA explained that: 

‘‘[t]he policy chosen by the Administrator 

permits consideration of multiple measures 

of health risk. Not only can the MIR figure 

be considered, but also incidence, the 

presence of non-cancer health effects, and the 

uncertainties of the risk estimates. In this 

way, the effect on the most exposed 

individuals can be reviewed as well as the 

impact on the general public. These factors 

can then be weighed in each individual case. 

This approach complies with the Vinyl 

Chloride mandate that the Administrator 

ascertain an acceptable level of risk to the 

public by employing [her] expertise to assess 

available data. It also complies with the 

Congressional intent behind the CAA, which 

did not exclude the use of any particular 

measure of public health risk from the EPA’s 

consideration with respect to CAA section 

112 regulations, and thereby implicitly 

permits consideration of any and all 

measures of health risk which the 

Administrator, in [her] judgment, believes are 

appropriate to determining what will ‘protect 

the public health’.’’ 

See 54 FR at 38057, September 14, 

1989. Thus, the level of the MIR is only 

one factor to be weighed in determining 

acceptability of risks. The Benzene 

NESHAP explained that ‘‘an MIR of 

approximately one in 10 thousand 

should ordinarily be the upper end of 

the range of acceptability. As risks 

increase above this benchmark, they 

become presumptively less acceptable 

under CAA section 112, and would be 

weighed with the other health risk 

measures and information in making an 

overall judgment on acceptability. Or, 

the Agency may find, in a particular 

case, that a risk that includes MIR less 

than the presumptively acceptable level 

is unacceptable in the light of other 

health risk factors.’’ Id. at 38045. 

Similarly, with regard to the ample 

margin of safety analysis, the EPA stated 

in the Benzene NESHAP that: ‘‘EPA 

believes the relative weight of the many 

factors that can be considered in 

selecting an ample margin of safety can 

only be determined for each specific 

source category. This occurs mainly 

because technological and economic 

factors (along with the health-related 

factors) vary from source category to 

source category.’’ Id. at 38061. We also 

consider the uncertainties associated 

with the various risk analyses, as 

discussed earlier in this preamble, in 

our determinations of acceptability and 

ample margin of safety. 

The EPA notes that it has not 

considered certain health information to 

date in making residual risk 

determinations. At this time, we do not 

attempt to quantify those HAP risks that 

may be associated with emissions from 

other facilities that do not include the 

source categories in question, mobile 

source emissions, natural source 

emissions, persistent environmental 

pollution or atmospheric transformation 

in the vicinity of the sources in these 

categories. 

The agency understands the potential 

importance of considering an 

individual’s total exposure to HAP in 

addition to considering exposure to 

HAP emissions from the source category 

and facility. We recognize that such 

consideration may be particularly 

important when assessing non-cancer 

risks, where pollutant-specific exposure 

health reference levels (e.g., RfCs) are 

based on the assumption that thresholds 

exist for adverse health effects. For 

example, the agency recognizes that, 

although exposures attributable to 

emissions from a source category or 

facility alone may not indicate the 

potential for increased risk of adverse 

non-cancer health effects in a 

population, the exposures resulting 

from emissions from the facility in 

combination with emissions from all of 

the other sources (e.g., other facilities) to 

which an individual is exposed may be 

sufficient to result in increased risk of 

adverse non-cancer health effects. In 

May 2010, the SAB advised the EPA 

‘‘that RTR assessments will be most 

useful to decision makers and 

communities if results are presented in 

the broader context of aggregate and 

cumulative risks, including background 

concentrations and contributions from 

other sources in the area.’’ 27

In response to the SAB 

recommendations, the EPA is 

incorporating cumulative risk analyses 

into its RTR risk assessments, including 

those reflected in this proposal. The 

agency is: (1) Conducting facility-wide 

assessments, which include source 

category emission points as well as 

other emission points within the 

facilities; (2) considering sources in the 

same category whose emissions result in 

exposures to the same individuals; and 

(3) for some persistent and 

bioaccumulative pollutants, analyzing 

the ingestion route of exposure. In 

addition, the RTR risk assessments have 

always considered aggregate cancer risk 

from all carcinogens and aggregate noncancer HI from all non-carcinogens 

affecting the same target organ system. 

Although we are interested in placing 

source category and facility-wide HAP 

risks in the context of total HAP risks 

from all sources combined in the 

vicinity of each source, we are 

concerned about the uncertainties of 

doing so. Because of the contribution to 

total HAP risk from emission sources 

other than those that we have studied in 

depth during this RTR review such 

estimates of total HAP risks would have 

significantly greater associated 

uncertainties than the source category or 

facility-wide estimates. Such aggregate 

or cumulative assessments would 

compound those uncertainties, making 

the assessments too unreliable. 

C. How did we perform the technology 

reviews for the NESHAP and NSPS? 

Our technology review focused on the 

identification and evaluation of 

developments in practices, processes 

and control technologies that have 

occurred since the NESHAP standards 

were promulgated. We also focused on 

the emission limitations and percent 

reductions achieved in practice that 

have occurred since the NSPS standards 

were promulgated. Where we identified 

such developments, in order to inform 

our decision of whether it is 

‘‘necessary’’ to revise the emissions 

standards, we analyzed the technical 

feasibility of applying these 

developments and the estimated costs, 

energy implications, non-air 

environmental impacts, as well as 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

66532 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 216 / Friday, November 7, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

considering the emission reductions. 

For the NEHAP, we also considered the 

appropriateness of applying controls to 

new sources versus retrofitting existing 

sources. 

Based on our analyses of the available 

data and information, we identified 

potential developments in practices, 

processes and control technologies. For 

this exercise, we considered any of the 

following to be a ‘‘development’’: 

• Any add-on control technology or 

other equipment that was not identified 

and considered during development of 

the original NESHAP and NSPS. 

• Any improvements in add-on 

control technology or other equipment 

(that were identified and considered 

during development of the original 

NESHAP and NSPS) that could result in 

additional emissions reduction. 

• Any work practice or operational 

procedure that was not identified or 

considered during development of the 

original NESHAP and NSPS. 

• Any process change or pollution 

prevention alternative that could be 

broadly applied to the industry and that 

was not identified or considered during 

development of the original NESHAP 

and NSPS. 

• Any significant changes in the cost 

(including cost effectiveness) of 

applying controls (including controls 

the EPA considered during the 

development of the original NESHAP 

and NSPS). 

In addition to reviewing the practices, 

processes or control technologies that 

were considered at the time we 

developed the 1999 Phosphoric Acid 

Manufacturing and Phosphate Fertilizer 

Production NESHAP (i.e., NESHAP 

subpart AA and NESHAP subpart BB), 

we reviewed a variety of data sources in 

our investigation of potential practices, 

processes or controls to consider. 

Among the data sources we reviewed 

were the NESHAP for various industries 

that were promulgated since the 

NESHAP and NSPS standards being 

reviewed in this action. We reviewed 

the regulatory requirements and/or 

technical analyses associated with these 

regulatory actions to identify any 

practices, processes and control 

technologies considered in these efforts 

that could be applied to emission 

sources in the Phosphoric Acid 

Manufacturing and Phosphate Fertilizer 

Production source categories as well as 

the costs, non-air impacts and energy 

implications associated with the use of 

these technologies. 

We also consulted the EPA’s RBLC to 

identify potential technology advances. 

Control technologies, classified as 

Reasonably Available Control 

Technology (RACT), Best Available 

Control Technology (BACT), or Lowest 

Achievable Emissions Rate (LAER) 

apply to stationary sources depending 

on whether the sources are existing or 

new, and depending on the size, age and 

location of the facility. BACT and LAER 

(and sometimes RACT) are determined 

on a case-by-case basis, usually by state 

or local permitting agencies. The EPA 

established the RBLC to provide a 

central database of air pollution 

technology information (including 

technologies required in source-specific 

permits) to promote the sharing of 

information among permitting agencies 

and to aid in identifying future possible 

control technology options that might 

apply broadly to numerous sources 

within a category or apply only on a 

source-by-source basis. The RBLC 

contains over 5,000 air pollution control 

permit determinations that can help 

identify appropriate technologies to 

mitigate many air pollutant emission 

streams. We searched this database to 

determine whether it contained any 

practices, processes or control 

technologies that are applicable to the 

types of processes covered by the 

phosphoric acid and phosphate 

fertilizer NESHAP and NSPS. 

Additionally, we requested 

information from facilities regarding 

developments in practices, processes or 

control technology. Finally, we 

reviewed information from other 

sources, such as state and/or local 

permitting agency databases and 

industry-supported databases. 

IV. Analytical Results and Proposed 

Decisions for the Phosphoric Acid 

Manufacturing Source Category 

A. What actions are we taking pursuant 

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

for the Phosphoric Acid Manufacturing 

source category? 

1. MACT and Work Practice Standards 

for Phosphate Rock Dryers and 

Calciners 

We are proposing MACT standards 

pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(2) and 

(d)(3), and work practice standards 

pursuant to CAA section 112(h), for 

phosphate rock calciners, an emissions 

source that was regulated under the 

initial MACT standard for PM only, and 

adding pollutants, Hg and HF, that were 

not regulated under the initial NESHAP 

subpart AA. Under CAA section 

112(d)(3), the EPA is required to 

promulgate emissions limits for all HAP 

emitted from major source categories 

(see National Lime v. EPA, 233 F. 3d 

625, 634 (D.C. Cir. 2000); see also Sierra 

Club v. EPA, 479 F. 3d 875, 878 and 883 

(D.C. Cir. 2007) (finding that the EPA 

must set standards for HAP even if they 

are not currently controlled with 

technology and that the agency may not 

set ‘‘no emissions reductions’’ MACT 

floors). 

The United States Court of Appeals 

for the District of Columbia Circuit has 

also held that the EPA may permissibly 

amend improper MACT determinations, 

including amendments to improperly 

promulgated floor determinations, using 

its authority under CAA section 

112(d)(2) and (3). Medical Waste 

Institute v. EPA, 645 F. 3d 420, 425–27 

(D.C. Cir. 2011). National Lime, 233 F. 

3d at 633–34; see also Medical Waste 

Incinerator 645 F. 3d at 426 (resetting 

MACT floor, based on post-compliance 

data, permissible when originallyestablished floor was improperly 

established, and permissibility of the 

EPA’s action does not turn on whether 

the prior standard was remanded or 

vacated); Portland Cement Ass’n v. EPA, 

665 F.3d 177 at 189 (the EPA may 

reassess its standards including revising 

existing floors). 

Phosphate rock dryers are no longer 

used in the manufacture of phosphoric 

acid or phosphate fertilizers. Rock 

dryers were previously used in the 

industry in the manufacture of GTSP. 

Because there are no longer any U.S. 

producers of GTSP, the rock dryers that 

were previously used in this industry 

are no longer in operation. In response 

to our April 2010 CAA section 114 

request, we received emissions data for 

one dryer that is currently used in the 

production of defluorinated phosphate 

rock, which is subsequently used in the 

production of animal feed products. 

Because this process is not part of the 

regulated source categories, Phosphoric 

Acid or Phosphate Fertilizer NESHAP, 

these data were not used to set 

emissions limits and the EPA is not 

proposing revised emissions limits for 

rock dryers. 

a. Determination of Emission Standards 

for Mercury From Phosphate Rock 

Calciners 

The 1999 Phosphoric Acid 

Manufacturing NESHAP (i.e., NESHAP 

subpart AA) specified emissions limits 

for metal HAP (e.g., arsenic, cadmium, 

Pb, Hg) from phosphate rock dryers and 

phosphate rock calciners in terms of a 

PM emissions limit (i.e., PM is used as 

a surrogate for all metal HAP). However, 

in this source category, PM is an 

improper surrogate for Hg. Therefore, 

we are eliminating the use of PM as a 

surrogate for Hg and proposing a Hg 

emission limit for phosphate rock 

calciners. Based on information 

provided by industry, rock dryers are no 

longer used in the production of 

phosphoric acid and their future use is 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 216 / Friday, November 7, 2014 / Proposed Rules 66533 

not anticipated, so there are no 

emissions from rock dryers for this 

source category. Therefore, we are not 

proposing a Hg emission limit for rock 

dryers. We are retaining the PM 

standard as a surrogate for other HAP 

metal emissions from phosphate rock 

calciners. 

In general, MACT floor analyses 

involve an assessment of the emissions 

from the best-performing sources in a 

source category using the available 

emissions information. For each source 

category, the assessment involves a 

review of emissions data with an 

appropriate accounting for emissions 

variability. Various methods of 

estimating emissions can be used if the 

methods can be shown to provide 

reasonable estimates of the actual 

emissions performance of a source or 

sources. 

The MACT standards for existing 

sources must be at least as stringent as 

the average emissions limitation 

achieved by the best-performing 12 

percent of existing sources (for which 

the Administrator has emissions 

information) or the best-performing five 

sources for source categories or 

subcategories with fewer than 30 

sources (CAA section 112(d)(3)(A) and 

(d)(3)(B)). For new sources, MACT 

standards must be at least as stringent 

as the control level achieved in practice 

by the best-controlled similar source 

(CAA section 112(d)(3)). The EPA must 

also consider more stringent ‘‘beyondthe-floor’’ control options. When 

considering beyond-the-floor options, 

the EPA must consider not only the 

maximum degree of reduction in 

emissions of HAP, but must take into 

account costs, energy, and non-air 

quality health and environmental 

impacts. 

In 2014, only one facility operates 

phosphate rock calciners. In response to 

the April 2010 CAA section 114 request, 

the facility provided Hg emissions 

testing results for one of their six 

calciners to the EPA. In addition, the 

facility provided Hg emissions testing 

results for another, previously untested 

calciner in response to the January 2014 

CAA section 114 request. As a result, 

the EPA had two datasets (at one 

facility) on which to base the MACT 

floors for Hg for new and existing 

phosphate rock calciners. However, 

calciner Hg emissions are the result of 

Hg contained in the fuel and raw 

materials. Because the six calciners are 

designed to be identical and use the 

same raw materials and fuels, Hg 

emissions from the six calciners are 

expected to be identical. This 

determination is consistent with the 

June 13, 2002, amendments to the 

NESHAP subpart AA (67 FR 40814) 

when the EPA could not find any reason 

to believe that the six calciners are not 

identical in regards to particulate 

emissions. In the preamble to the 2002 

amendments, we concluded that factors 

other than the MACT technology (e.g., 

the source of the rock input, operator 

training experience) do not affect 

emission levels and that the calciners 

were designed to be identical. For this 

reason, all the data from the calciners 

were combined into one dataset to 

determine both new and existing MACT 

floors. 

To determine the MACT floors for 

phosphate rock calciners, we used the 

arithmetic average of all the available 

emissions data from the 2010 and 2014 

data requests and accounted for 

emissions variability. We accounted for 

emissions variability in setting floors 

not only because variability is an aspect 

of performance, but because it is 

reasonable to assess performance over 

time and to account for test method 

variability. The United States Court of 

Appeals for the District of Columbia 

Circuit has recognized that the EPA may 

consider variability in estimating the 

degree of emission reduction achieved 

by best-performing sources, and in 

setting MACT floors (see Mossville 

Environmental Action Now v. EPA, 370 

F.3d 1232, 1241–42 (D.C. Cir. 2004)). 

To account for variability in the 

operation and emissions, we used the 

stack test data to calculate the average 

emissions and the 99-percent upper 

prediction limit (UPL) to derive the 

MACT floor limit. For more information 

regarding the general use of the UPL and 

why it is appropriate for calculating 

MACT floors, see the memorandum, 

‘‘Use of the Upper Prediction Limit for 

Calculating MACT Floors,’’ which is 

available in the docket for this action. 

Table 3 of this preamble provides the 

results of the MACT floor calculations 

(considering variability) for Hg. 

TABLE 3—RESULTS OF THE MACT FLOOR CALCULATIONS FOR MERCURY FROM PHOSPHATE ROCK CALCINERS AT

PHOSPHORIC ACID FACILITIES

Pollutant Results Units 

Hg 0.14 a mg/dscm @3%O2. 

aThe EPA is proposing beyond-the-floor emission standards for Hg from phosphate rock calciners; therefore, the results of the MACT floor 

variability calculations do not reflect the proposed emission standards for Hg from phosphate rock calciners. Please refer to Table 4 of this preamble for the proposed emission limits for Hg. 

Additional details regarding the 

MACT floor analysis and UPL 

calculations, including a description of 

how we assessed the limited dataset that 

was used to calculate the MACT floor 

value, are contained in the 

memorandum, ‘‘Maximum Achievable 

Control Technology (MACT) Floor 

Analysis for the Phosphate Rock 

Calciners at Phosphoric Acid 

Manufacturing Plants,’’ which is 

available in the docket for this action. 

Additional detail on the EPA’s approach 

for applying the UPL methodology to 

limited datasets is provided in the 

memorandum, ‘‘Approach for Applying 

the Upper Prediction Limit to Limited 

Datasets,’’ which is available in the 

docket for this action. 

Once the MACT floor determinations 

were completed, we considered various 

regulatory options more stringent than 

the MACT floor levels of control (e.g., 

control technologies or work practices 

that could result in lower emissions). 

The memorandum, ‘‘Beyond-the-Floor 

Analysis for Phosphate Rock Calciners 

at Phosphoric Acid Manufacturing 

Plants,’’ which is available in the docket 

for this action, contains a detailed 

description of the beyond-the-floor 

consideration. We first identified 

regulatory requirements for phosphate 

rock calciners that would be more 

stringent than the MACT floor level of 

control and determined whether the 

requirements were technically feasible. 

If the more stringent requirements were 

technically feasible, we conducted an 

analysis of the cost and emission 

impacts associated with implementing 

the requirements. 

We analyzed a beyond-the-floor 

option of requiring existing phosphate 

rock calciners to meet a Hg emission 

limit of 0.014 milligrams per dry 

standard cubic meter (mg/dscm) on a 3- 

percent oxygen basis. This reflects the 

expected emission reductions that can 

be achieved using the available control 

technologies. Specifically, we analyzed 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

66534 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 216 / Friday, November 7, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

the costs and emission reductions of 

two types of control technologies: 

installation of a fixed-bed carbon 

adsorption system, and installation of 

activated carbon injection (ACI) 

(followed by either the existing wet 

electrostatic precipitators (WESP) or a 

newly installed fabric filter system). 

Both the fixed-bed and ACI systems are 

estimated to reduce emissions of Hg by 

90 percent from the baseline emissions 

(for further detail see the memorandum, 

‘‘Beyond-the-Floor Analysis for the 

Phosphate Rock Calciners at Phosphoric 

Acid Manufacturing Plants,’’ which is 

available in the docket for this action). 

We chose to evaluate an ACI system 

(installed after the existing WESP) 

followed by a fabric filter, in addition to 

an ACI system followed by the existing 

WESP, due to the relatively high 

moisture content of the calciner exhaust 

streams. ACI followed by a fabric filter 

is the most common control system 

installed for control of Hg, but in this 

case, the high moisture content may 

have a tendency to blind a fabric filter. 

We also evaluated fixed-bed carbon 

adsorption systems as potential control 

technology for achieving beyond-thefloor emission reductions. For a fixedbed carbon adsorption system, we 

estimate that applying additional 

control to reduce Hg emissions from 

phosphate rock calciners would result 

in an annualized cost of approximately 

$1.2 million, and would achieve Hg 

reductions of 145 pounds of Hg per 

year. The cost effectiveness of installing 

a fixed-bed carbon adsorber was 

estimated to be $8,000 dollars per 

pound of Hg reduced, which we 

considered to be cost effective. This 

cost-effectiveness for Hg is comparable 

to or less than values the EPA found to 

be cost effective for removal of Hg in 

other air toxics rules. For example, in 

the National Emission Standards for 

Hazardous Air Pollutants: Mercury 

Emissions from Mercury Cell ChlorAlkali Plants, the cost effectiveness was 

found to be between $13,000 to $31,000 

per pound of Hg emissions reduced for 

the individual facilities (see 

Supplemental proposed rule, 76 FR 

13858 (March 14, 2011)). 

For an ACI system, we estimate that 

applying additional control to reduce 

Hg emissions from phosphate rock 

calciners would result in an annualized 

cost of approximately $1.8 million to 

$2.5 million (using a WESP or a fabric 

filter system, respectively), and would 

achieve Hg reductions of 145 pounds of 

Hg per year. The cost effectiveness of 

installing an ACI system was estimated 

to be between $12,000 and $17,000 

dollars per pound of Hg reduced (using 

a WESP or a fabric filter system, 

respectively), which we considered to 

be cost effective on the basis previously 

stated. Consequently, we are proposing 

that existing phosphate rock calciners 

meet a Hg emission limit of 0.014 mg/ 

dscm on a 3-percent oxygen basis as a 

beyond-the-floor standard. We are also 

proposing that phosphate rock calciners 

at new sources meet a beyond-the-floor 

Hg emission limit of 0.014 mg/dscm on 

a 3-percent oxygen basis. Table 4 of this 

preamble lists the proposed Hg emission 

limits for phosphate rock calciners. We 

are unaware of any technologies that 

could further reduce Hg emissions from 

streams that have high moisture content. 

The memorandum, ‘‘Beyond-the-Floor 

Analysis for the Phosphate Rock 

Calciners at Phosphoric Acid 

Manufacturing Plants,’’ which is 

available in the docket for this action, 

documents the results of the beyondthe-floor analysis. 

TABLE 4—PROPOSED EMISSION LIMITS FOR MERCURY FROM PHOSPHATE ROCK CALCINERS AT PHOSPHORIC ACID

FACILITIES

Pollutant Limit Units 

Existing and new sources: 

Hg ........................................................................................ 0.014 mg/dscm @3%O2. 

b. Determination of Work Practice 

Standards for Hydrogen Fluoride From 

Phosphate Rock Calciners 

The 1999 Phosphoric Acid 

Manufacturing NESHAP (i.e., NESHAP 

subpart AA) included emissions limits 

for total F as a surrogate for HF for 

WPPA and SPA processes. A total F 

emission limit was not set for phosphate 

rock dryers or phosphate rock calciners. 

We propose to address the failure to set 

an emission limit in this action. Test 

data collected from industry in 2014 

show HF emissions from phosphate 

rock calciners, although more than half 

of the data are below-the-method 

detection limit (BDL). CAA section 

112(h)(1) states that the Administrator 

may prescribe a work practice standard 

or other requirements, consistent with 

the provisions of CAA sections 112(d) or 

(f), in those cases where, in the 

judgment of the Administrator, it is not 

feasible to 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.’’ Therefore, we are 

proposing work practice standards for 

HF emissions from phosphate rock 

calciners. Rock dryers are no longer 

used in this source category. Therefore, 

we are not proposing a limit or work 

practice standard for HF from rock 

dryers. 

In response to a January 2014 CAA 

section 114 request, the EPA received 

HF emissions testing results by EPA 

Method 320 for one phosphate rock 

calciner. Of the six test runs reported to 

EPA, four were reported as BDL. The 

detected concentrations were, on 

average, only 20 percent above the 

method detection limit. The expected 

measurement imprecision for an 

emissions value occurring at or near the 

method detection limit is about 40 to 50 

percent. Because the HF emission levels 

are BDL or near BDL, the measured 

concentration values are questionable 

for HF. As a result, we are uncertain of 

the true levels of HF emitted from 

phosphate rock calciners. 

Because approximately 67 percent of 

the HF data collected using EPA Method 

320 were BDL, and the fact that the 

detected concentrations were, on 

average, only 20 percent above the 

method detection limit, the EPA 

concludes that HF emissions from 

phosphate rock calciners cannot 

practicably be measured. As a result, we 

are proposing work practice standards 

in place of a numeric emission limit for 

HF from phosphate rock calciners. 

According to information provided by 

industry, phosphate rock calciners are 

operated to remove organic content from 

the phosphate rock in efforts to produce 

products with low organic content (refer 

to the memorandum, ‘‘Summary of 

August 14, 2012 U.S. EPA Meeting with 

PCS Phosphate,’’ which is available in 

the docket for this action). Based on 

review of available literature, liberation 

of fluorine takes place at temperatures 

between approximately 2,500 and 2,750 

degrees Fahrenheit (in addition to 

adding defluorinating agents), whereas 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 216 / Friday, November 7, 2014 / Proposed Rules 66535 

removal of organic matter and 

dissociation of carbonates is typically 

carried out between 1,200 and 1,830 

degrees Fahrenheit. Process flow 

diagrams submitted by industry in 

response to an April 2010 and January 

2014 CAA section 114 request indicate 

that the phosphate rock calciners 

currently in operation maintain a 

calcination temperature of less than 

1,600 degrees Fahrenheit. Based on this 

information, we conclude that 

maintaining the temperature of the 

phosphate rock calciner fluidized bed at 

less than 1,600 degrees Fahrenheit will 

minimize emission of HF. Therefore, we 

are proposing a maximum calcination 

temperature of less than 1,600 degrees 

Fahrenheit for phosphate rock calciners 

as a work practice standard to control 

HF emissions. The facility that operates 

calciners currently maintains 

temperatures below 1,600 degrees 

Fahrenheit, as such, we do not expect 

any costs of control with this proposed 

work practice requirement. 

In addition, particulate emissions 

from the calciners currently in operation 

are controlled using a combination of an 

absorber (i.e., a Venturi-type wet 

scrubbing system) and an electrostatic 

precipitator. As discussed in section 

IV.D.1 of this preamble, the Phosphoric 

Acid Manufacturing source category 

uses wet scrubbing technology 

(including Venturi-type wet scrubbing 

systems) to control HF emissions from 

various processes located at the source 

category. Because HF is highly soluble 

in water, we expect that, if HF is present 

in the calcination exhaust stream in any 

amount, the absorbers currently in 

operation are achieving some level of 

emission reduction. As a result, we are 

proposing to require that emissions from 

phosphate rock calciners be routed to an 

absorber, in addition to proposing a 

maximum calcination temperature, to 

limit emissions of HF from phosphate 

rock calciners. 

Refer to the memorandum, 

‘‘Maximum Achievable Control 

Technology (MACT) Floor Analysis for 

the Phosphate Rock Calciners at 

Phosphoric Acid Manufacturing 

Plants,’’ available in the docket for this 

action, for additional information 

regarding the determination of the work 

practice standards to control HF 

emissions. The EPA did not identify any 

beyond-the-floor options for reducing 

HF emissions from the phosphate rock 

calciners other than the proposed work 

practice standard. 

2. Gypsum Dewatering Stack and 

Cooling Pond Work Practices 

We conducted an evaluation of 

fugitive HF emissions from gypsum 

dewatering stacks and cooling ponds 

and determined that these fugitive 

sources contribute the majority of HF 

emissions from phosphoric acid 

facilities (see the memorandum, 

‘‘Emissions Data Used in Residual Risk 

Modeling: Phosphoric Acid and 

Phosphate Fertilizer Production Source 

Categories,’’ which is available in the 

docket). The 1999 Phosphoric Acid 

Manufacturing NESHAP (i.e., NESHAP 

subpart AA) did not include emission 

limits or require work practices for 

control of fugitive HF emissions from 

gypsum dewatering stacks, or cooling 

ponds. We are proposing standards that 

will control HAP emissions from 

gypsum dewatering stacks and cooling 

ponds. We are proposing work practices 

instead of numeric emission limits 

because it is ‘‘not feasible to prescribe 

or enforce an emission standard’’ for 

these emissions because they are not 

‘‘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 

sources makes conveyance impractical. 

The work practices would apply to any 

existing or new gypsum dewatering 

stacks or cooling ponds at a source 

subject to this subpart. 

A review of state requirements for 

regulated facilities and current literature 

on the industry revealed work practices 

that include submerging the discharge 

pipe below the surface of the cooling 

pond; wetting the gypsum dewatering 

stack areas during hot or dry periods to 

minimize dust formation; using rim 

ditch (cell) building techniques that 

minimize the overall surface area of the 

gypsum dewatering stack and pond; 

applying slaked lime to the gypsum 

dewatering stack surfaces; and applying 

soil caps and vegetation to inactive 

gypsum dewatering stacks. After review 

of these various state requirements, the 

EPA believes that the control measures 

required by the states for these facilities 

are effective in reducing fugitive 

emissions. These measures are, 

therefore, consistent with CAA section 

112(d) controls and reflect a level of 

performance analogous to a MACT floor. 

See CAA section 112(h)(1) (in 

promulgating work practices, the EPA is 

to adopt standards ‘‘which in the 

Administrator’s judgment [are] 

consistent with section (d) or (f) of this 

section’’). 

We are proposing that facilities 

develop a site-specific gypsum 

dewatering stack and cooling pond 

management plan to control fugitive 

emissions. We have developed a list of 

control techniques for facilities to use in 

development of this management plan. 

These techniques include: introducing 

cooling water or gypsum slurry into a 

pond below the surface in order to 

minimize aeration of F in the water; 

wetting the active gypsum dewatering 

stack areas during hot or dry periods to 

minimize dust formation; using cell 

building techniques that minimize the 

overall surface area of the active gypsum 

dewatering stack; applying slaked lime 

to the active gypsum dewatering stack 

surfaces; and applying soil caps and 

vegetation to all side slopes of the active 

gypsum dewatering stack up to 50 feet 

below the stack top. The memorandum, 

‘‘Analysis of Requirements for Gypsum 

Dewatering Stacks and Cooling Ponds at 

Phosphoric Acid Manufacturing 

Plants,’’ which is available in the 

docket, provides more detail for 

choosing these control measures. 

The varying geographic locations of 

facilities influence the composition of 

the phosphate ore mined and the 

ambient meteorological conditions, both 

of which will influence best 

management practices. Therefore, we 

believe that it is most effective for 

sources to determine the best practices 

that are to be incorporated into their 

site-specific management plan. 

However, as previously noted, sources 

would be required to incorporate 

management practices from the list of 

options being proposed. 

We are also proposing 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 emissions. When new 

gypsum dewatering stacks are 

constructed, 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). 

The extensive area that gypsum 

dewatering stacks encompass is a direct 

correlation to their high HF emissions. 

This is seen when estimating emissions 

from gypsum dewatering stacks, where 

emission factors are applied (tons HF 

per acre per year). In addition, gypsum 

dewatering stacks are continuously 

releasing emissions unless they are 

properly covered and closed. Limiting 

the size of gypsum dewatering stacks 

would minimize emissions by creating 

an upper bound on emissions; this 

would require appropriate foresight and 

planning of the new gypsum dewatering 

stack construction process to ensure the 

gypsum dewatering stack area to 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

66536 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 216 / Friday, November 7, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

manufacturing capacity ratio is not 

exceeded (i.e., facilities may need to 

close gypsum dewatering stacks to 

comply). While certain states already 

require the closure of gypsum 

dewatering stacks at the end of their life, 

this work practice would apply to 

facilities in all states and would ensure 

that gypsum dewatering stacks are 

appropriately considered from an 

emissions perspective in all phases of 

their life. 

To develop the limit of 80 acres per 

100,000 tons of annual phosphoric acid 

manufacturing capacity, we evaluated 

the area of active gypsum dewatering 

stacks to manufacturing capacity for 

each facility. We expected facilities with 

greater manufacturing capacities to, in 

most cases, require larger gypsum 

dewatering stack areas, because higher 

acid manufacturing rates result in 

higher gypsum generation rates; 

however, this was not the case. Based 

on the available data, we did not detect 

a correlation between gypsum stack 

dewatering area and phosphoric acid 

manufacturing capacity. 

We considered that the size of active 

gypsum dewatering stacks at a facility is 

dynamic and does not remain the same 

over time. We also considered other 

factors that influence gypsum 

dewatering stack size such as the actual 

area available for stack construction, 

closure of recently active stacks, and 

local permitting limitations. Gypsum 

dewatering stacks also serve the 

fertilizer manufacturing processes in 

addition to the phosphoric acid 

manufacturing processes as a source of 

cooling water, wash water, process 

water and slurry water. As a result, we 

concluded that the size of gypsum 

dewatering stacks is a function of 

several factors, including process 

optimization. Nonetheless, we still 

believe that phosphoric acid 

manufacturing capacity has a significant 

impact on the size of gypsum 

dewatering stacks. As a result, we are 

proposing a size limit based on the 

current operation of 10 out of 12 

facilities. We believe this upper limit 

captures the complexities of gypsum 

dewatering stack size determination, but 

provides a reasonable limit on the size 

of active stacks in the future. 

Further discussion on the site-specific 

gypsum dewatering stack and cooling 

pond management plan and details on 

the calculation of the ratio of gypsum 

dewatering stack area to phosphoric 

acid manufacturing capacity is provided 

in the memorandum, ‘‘Analysis of 

Requirements for Gypsum Dewatering 

Stacks and Cooling Ponds at Phosphoric 

Acid Manufacturing Plants,’’ which is 

available in the docket for this action. 

We solicit comment on the proposed 

site-specific gypsum dewatering stack 

and cooling pond management plan. We 

are also seeking comment on other 

approaches for minimizing fugitive 

emissions from gypsum dewatering 

stacks including, but not limited to: 

Limiting the size of active gypsum 

dewatering stacks independent of 

phosphoric acid manufacturing 

capacity, and requiring owners or 

operators to apply soil caps and 

vegetation to all side slopes (up to a 

certain distance below the stack top) for 

all new active gypsum dewatering 

stacks and new gypsum cells that are 

built on to (or adjacent to) existing 

active gypsum dewatering stacks. 

B. What are the results of the risk 

assessment and analyses for the 

Phosphoric Acid Manufacturing source 

category? 

The preamble sections below 

summarize the results of the risk 

assessment for the Phosphoric Acid 

Manufacturing source category. The 

complete risk assessment, Draft 

Residual Risk Assessment for Phosphate 

Fertilizer Production and Phosphoric 

Acid Manufacturing, is available in the 

docket for this action. 

1. Inhalation Risk Assessment Results 

The basic chronic inhalation risk 

estimates presented here are the 

maximum individual lifetime cancer 

risk, the maximum chronic HI and the 

cancer incidence. We also present 

results from our acute inhalation impact 

screening in the form of maximum HQs, 

as well as the results of our preliminary 

screening for potential non-inhalation 

risks from PB–HAP. Also presented are 

the HAP ‘‘drivers,’’ which are the HAP 

that collectively contribute 90 percent of 

the maximum cancer risk or maximum 

HI at the highest exposure location. 

The inhalation risk results for this 

source category indicate that maximum 

lifetime individual cancer risks are less 

than 1-in-1 million. The total estimated 

cancer incidence from this source 

category is 0.0002 excess cancer cases 

per year, or one excess case in every 

5,000 years. The maximum chronic noncancer TOSHI value for the source 

category could be up to 0.2 associated 

with emissions of hydrofluoric acid 

from gypsum dewatering stacks and 

cooling ponds, indicating no significant 

potential for chronic non-cancer 

impacts. 

We analyzed the potential differences 

between actual emissions levels and 

calculated the maximum emissions 

allowable under the MACT standards 

for every emission process group for this 

source category. Based upon the above 

analysis, we multiplied the modeled 

actual risks for the MIR facility with 

site-specific process multipliers to 

estimate allowable risks under the 

MACT. We deemed this approach 

sufficient due to the low actual modeled 

risks for the source category. The 

maximum lifetime individual cancer 

risks based upon allowable emissions 

are still less than 1-in-1 million. The 

maximum chronic non-cancer TOSHI 

value increased to an HI of 0.3. 

2. Acute Risk Results 

Worst-case acute HQs were calculated 

for every HAP that has an acute 

benchmark. Two facilities were 

identified with HQ values greater than 

1. For cases where the acute HQ from 

the screening analysis was greater than 

1, we further refined the estimates by 

determining the highest HQ value that 

is outside facility boundaries. The 

highest refined, worst-case acute HQ 

value is 2 (based on the acute reference 

exposure level (REL) for hydrofluoric 

acid). The HQ values represent upperbound risk estimates for both facilities; 

the off-site locations for these sites were 

either located in a rural location in 

which public access is limited or in an 

off-site area that may be owned by the 

facility. The primary source of 

emissions is fugitive air releases from 

gypsum dewatering stacks and cooling 

ponds. See the memorandum, 

‘‘Emissions Data Used in Residual Risk 

Modeling: Phosphoric Acid and 

Phosphate Fertilizer Production Source 

Category,’’ which is available in the 

docket for this rulemaking, for a 

detailed description of the methodology 

we used to develop the maximum 

hourly emissions for this source 

category. Based on maximum hourly 

emission estimates available by 

emission process group, an emissions 

multiplier of 1 was used to estimate the 

peak hourly emission rates for this 

source category. 

To better characterize the potential 

health risks associated with estimated 

worst-case acute exposures to HAP, we 

examined a wider range of available 

acute health metrics than we examine 

for our chronic risk assessments. This is 

in response to the acknowledgement 

that there are generally more data gaps 

and inconsistencies in acute reference 

values than there are in chronic 

reference values. By definition, the 

acute reference exposure level relied on 

in the analysis, the California Reference 

Exposure Level (CA–REL), represents a 

health-protective level of exposure, with 

no risk anticipated below those levels, 

even for repeated exposures; however, 

the health risk from higher-level 

exposures is unknown. Therefore, when 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 216 / Friday, November 7, 2014 / Proposed Rules 66537 

an REL is exceeded, we have used 

secondary acute dose-response exposure 

levels, including the AEGL–1 and ERPG, 

as a second comparative measure. The 

worst-case, maximum estimated 1-hour 

exposure to hydrofluoric acid outside 

the facility fence line for the Phosphoric 

Acid Manufacturing source category is 

0.5 ug/m3. This estimated worst-case 

exposure exceeds the 1-hour REL by a 

factor of 2 (HQREL = 2) and is below the 

1-hour AEGL–1 (HQAEGL–1 = 0.6). See 

the memorandum, ‘‘Draft Residual Risk 

Assessment for Phosphate Fertilizer 

Production and Phosphoric Acid 

Manufacturing’’ in the docket for this 

rulemaking for additional information. 

3. Multipathway Risk Screening Results 

For the Phosphoric Acid Production 

source category, the EPA conducted a 

Tier I screening-level evaluation of the 

potential human health risks associated 

with emissions of PB–HAP. The PB– 

HAP emitted by facilities in this 

category include Hg compounds (12 

facilities), Pb compounds (12 facilities), 

and cadmium compounds (12 facilities), 

dioxin/furan compounds (1 facility), 

and POM compounds (1 facility). We 

compared reported emissions of PB– 

HAP to the Tier I screening emission 

thresholds established by the EPA for 

the purposes of the RTR risk 

assessments. 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. 

For the Tier II screening assessment, 

we refined our Hg2+ and cadmium 

analysis with additional site-specific 

information. The additional site-specific 

information included the land use 

around the facilities, the location of 

fishable lakes within 50 km of the 

facility, and local wind direction and 

speed. The Tier II Screen also included 

two scenarios to evaluate health risks by 

evaluating risks separately for two 

hypothetical receptors; (1) subsistence 

travelling angler and (2) subsistence 

farmer. The travelling fisher scenario is 

based on the idea that an adult fisher 

might travel to multiple lakes if the first 

(i.e., highest-concentration) lake is 

unable to provide him an adequate 

catch to satisfy the assumed ingestion 

rate (i.e., 373 grams/day for adults) over 

a 70-year time frame. 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, the fisher will 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 

refined Tier II screening threshold for 

Hg2+ to the facility’s Hg2+ emissions. 

The facility’s emissions from both 

pollutants of concern are below the Tier 

II screening threshold, indicating no 

potential for multipathway impacts of 

concern from this facility. 

For the other PB–HAP emitted by 

facilities in the source category, no 

facilities emit POM, or dioxin 

compounds above the Tier I screening 

threshold level. Pb is a PB–HAP, but the 

NAAQS value (which was used for the 

chronic noncancer risk assessment) 

takes into account multipathway 

exposures, so a separate multipathway 

screening value was not developed. 

Since we did not estimate any 

exceedances of the NAAQS in our 

chronic noncancer risk assessment, we 

do not expect any significant 

multipathway exposure and risk due to 

Pb emissions from these facilities. For 

more information on the multipathway 

screening assessment conducted for this 

source category, see the memorandum, 

‘‘Draft Residual Risk Assessment for 

Phosphate Fertilizer Production and 

Phosphoric Acid Manufacturing’’ 

provided in the docket for this 

rulemaking. 

4. Environmental Risk Screening Results 

As described in section III.A.5 of this 

preamble, we conducted an 

environmental risk screening 

assessment for the Phosphoric Acid 

Manufacturing source category. In the 

Tier I screening analysis for PB–HAP 

other than Pb (which was evaluated 

differently, as noted in section III.A.5 of 

this preamble), none of the individual 

modeled concentrations for any facility 

in the source category exceed any of the 

ecological benchmarks (either the 

LOAEL or NOAEL). Therefore, we did 

not conduct a Tier II screening 

assessment. For Pb, we did not estimate 

any exceedances of the secondary Pb 

NAAQS. 

For acid gases, the average modeled 

concentration around each facility (i.e., 

the average concentration of all off-site 

data points in the modeling domain) did 

not exceed any ecological benchmarks 

(either the LOAEL or NOAEL). For HCl, 

each individual concentration (i.e., each 

off-site data point in the modeling 

domain) was below the ecological 

benchmarks for all facilities. For HF, 

less than 1 percent of the off-site 

modeling domain for the source 

category was above the LOAEL 

ecological benchmark. The largest 

facility exceedance area represented 3 

percent of the facility’s 50 km modeling 

domain. We did not identify an adverse 

environmental effect as defined in CAA 

section 112(a)(7) from HAP emissions 

from this source category. 

5. Facility-Wide Risk Results 

The facility-wide MIR and TOSHI are 

based on emissions, as identified in the 

NEI, from all emissions sources at the 

identified facilities. The results of the 

facility-wide analysis indicate that all 

12 facilities with phosphoric acid 

manufacturing processes have a facilitywide cancer MIR less than or equal to 

1-in-1 million. The maximum facilitywide TOSHI for the source category is 

0.2. The risk results are summarized in 

Table 5 of this preamble. 

TABLE 5—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). 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

66538 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 216 / Friday, November 7, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE 5—HUMAN HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT FOR PHOSPHORIC ACID MANUFACTURING—Continued 

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 

Facility-wide (12 facilities).0.5 0.5 0.001 0 0 0.2 0.3 _ 

6. What demographic groups might 

benefit from this regulation? 

To determine whether or not to 

conduct a demographics analysis, which 

is an assessment of risks to individual 

demographic groups, we look at a 

combination of factors including the 

MIR, non-cancer TOSHI, population 

around the facilities in the source 

category and other relevant factors. For 

the Phosphoric Acid Manufacturing 

source category, the MIR is less than 1- 

in-1 million and the HI is less than 1. 

Therefore, we did not conduct an 

assessment of risks to individual 

demographic groups for this 

rulemaking. However, we did conduct a 

proximity analysis, which identifies any 

overrepresentation of minority, low 

income or indigenous populations near 

facilities in the source category. The 

results of this analysis are presented in 

the section of this preamble titled, 

‘‘Executive Order 12898: Federal 

Actions to Address Environmental 

Justice in Minority Populations and 

Low-Income Populations.’’ 

C. What are our proposed decisions 

regarding risk acceptability, ample 

margin of safety and adverse 

environmental effects for the Phosphoric 

Acid Manufacturing source category? 

1. Risk Acceptability 

The risk assessment results for the 

phosphoric acid manufacturing source 

category indicate that all facilities have 

a cancer MIR less than 1-in-1 million. 

The maximum TOSHI is less than 1, and 

the maximum worst-case acute HQ is 

less than the AEGL–1 benchmark. 

Therefore, we propose that the risks 

posed by emissions from this source 

category are acceptable. 

2. Ample Margin of Safety Analysis and 

Proposed Controls 

Under the ample margin of safety 

analysis, we evaluate the cost and 

feasibility of available control 

technologies and other measures 

(including the controls, measures, and 

costs evaluated under the technology 

review) that could be applied in this 

source category to further reduce the 

risks due to emissions of HAP identified 

in our risk assessment, as well as the 

health impacts of such potential 

additional measures. As noted in our 

discussion of the technology review in 

section III.C of this preamble, no 

measures (beyond those already in place 

or that we are proposing today under 

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

identified for reducing HAP emissions 

from the Phosphoric Acid 

Manufacturing source category. In 

addition, because our analyses show 

that the maximum baseline chronic 

cancer risk is below 1-in-1 million, the 

maximum chronic non-cancer HI is less 

than 1, and the worst-case acute HQ is 

less than the AEGL–1, minimal 

reductions in risk could be achieved 

even if we identified measures that 

could reduce HAP emissions further. 

Based on the discussion above, we 

propose that the current standards 

provide an ample margin of safety to 

protect public health. 

Although the current standards were 

found to provide an ample margin of 

safety to protect public health, we also 

are proposing additional standards to 

address previously unregulated 

emissions of Hg and HF from phosphate 

rock calciners. We are proposing Hg 

emission limits and HF work practice 

standards for the phosphate rock 

calciners at phosphoric acid facilities, 

resulting in an estimated HAP reduction 

between 165 and 220 pounds per year 

of Hg. We are also proposing that 

sources develop management plans for 

fugitive emissions from cooling ponds 

and gypsum dewatering stacks. As 

noted above, we are proposing that the 

MACT standard, prior to the 

implementation of the proposed 

emission limits and work practice 

standards for phosphate rock calciners 

discussed in this section of the 

preamble and the fugitive emissions 

work practice standard, provides an 

ample margin of safety to protect public 

health. Therefore, we maintain that, 

after the implementation of the 

phosphate rock calciner emission limits 

and work practice standards, and the 

fugitive emissions work practice 

standard, the rule will continue to 

provide an ample margin of safety to 

protect public health. Consequently, we 

do not believe it will be necessary to 

conduct another residual risk review 

under CAA section 112(f) for this source 

category 8 years following promulgation 

of new emission limits and work 

practice standards for phosphate rock 

calciners and promulgation of new 

fugitive emission work practices, merely 

due to the addition of these MACT 

requirements. While our decisions on 

risk acceptability and ample margin of 

safety are supported even in the absence 

of these reductions (from calciners, 

cooling ponds and gypsum dewatering 

stacks), if we finalize the proposed 

requirements for these sources, they 

would further strengthen our 

conclusions that risk is acceptable with 

an ample margin of safety to protect 

public health. 

Although we did not identify any new 

technologies to reduce risk from this 

source category, we are specifically 

requesting comment on whether there 

are additional control measures that 

may be able to reduce risks from the 

source category. We request any 

information on potential emission 

reductions of such measures, as well the 

cost and health impacts of such 

reductions to the extent they are known. 

3. Adverse Environmental Effects 

Based on the results of our 

environmental risk screening 

assessment, we conclude that there is 

not an adverse environmental effect as 

a result of HAP emissions from the 

Phosphoric Acid Manufacturing source 

category. We are proposing that it is not 

necessary to set a more stringent 

standard to prevent, taking into 

consideration costs, energy, safety and 

other relevant factors, an adverse 

environmental effect. 

D. What are the results and proposed 

decisions based on our technology 

review for the Phosphoric Acid 

Manufacturing source category? 

1. NESHAP Technology Review 

In order to fulfill our obligations 

under CAA section 112(d)(6), we 

conducted a technology review to 

identify new developments that may 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 216 / Friday, November 7, 2014 / Proposed Rules 66539 

advise revisions to the current NESHAP 

standards applicable to the Phosphoric 

Acid Manufacturing source category 

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

conducting our technology review for 

the Phosphoric Acid Manufacturing 

source category, we utilized the RBLC 

database and the data submitted by 

facilities in response to the April 2010 

CAA section 114 request. 

Based on our review of the RBLC, we 

did not find any new developments in 

practices, processes and control 

technologies that have been applied 

since the original NESHAP to reduce 

emissions from phosphoric acid 

manufacturing plants. 

Based on our review of the CAA 

section 114 data (see 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 Docket No. EPA–HQ–OAR– 

2012–0522), we determined that the 

control technologies used to control 

stack emissions at phosphoric acid 

manufacturing plants have not changed 

since the EPA published 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,’’ which is 

available in Docket ID No. A–94–02. 

In general, the Phosphoric Acid 

Manufacturing source category 

continues to use wet scrubbing 

technology to control HF emissions 

from the various processes located at 

this source category (e.g., WPPA, SPA 

and PPA). We did not identify any 

technical developments in wet 

scrubbing methods used at phosphoric 

acid manufacturing plants. As noted in 

the 1996 memorandum discussed above, 

the type and configuration of the wet 

scrubbing technology varies 

significantly between facilities and 

between process lines within a facility. 

In addition, electrostatic precipitators 

have been installed to control PM 

emissions at the phosphate rock 

calciners. In order to determine the 

differences in effectiveness of control 

technologies we identified, we reviewed 

the emissions data submitted by 

facilities in response to the April 2010 

and January 2014 CAA section 114 

requests. 

For WPPA process lines, differences 

in facility emissions may be related to 

the control technology used; however, it 

is difficult to discern whether this is the 

case because each WPPA process line 

operates a unique equipment and 

control technology configuration (i.e., 

there are no WPPA process lines that 

operate in similar configurations for 

comparison). 

We observed some differences in total 

F emissions from SPA process lines. 

However, we did not find any patterns 

in emissions reductions based on 

control technology used because most of 

the SPA process lines that were tested 

operate a unique equipment and control 

technology configuration. For all SPA 

process lines that we examined, 

emissions from the evaporators are sent 

to a single wet scrubber, but the type of 

wet scrubber used at these SPA process 

lines varies. 

Some SPA process lines include an 

oxidation step to remove organic 

impurities from the acid. For one 

facility, we noted relatively high HF 

emissions from a currently uncontrolled 

oxidation process. The application of 

wet scrubbing control technology would 

be consistent with other SPA process 

lines, where all applicable emission 

points are controlled by wet scrubbers. 

Available information from similar 

sources controlled by wet scrubbers 

indicates that the use of wet scrubbing 

control technology would result in a 

reduction of emissions from the 

identified oxidation process to levels 

consistent with other industry wide 

SPA emissions. Because the facility 

already has wet scrubbing technology 

for their SPA process line, they should 

only need to install additional ductwork 

from the uncontrolled emission point to 

the wet scrubber. Therefore, it would 

not be necessary to install a new wet 

scrubber to control the oxidation 

process emissions. Refer to the 

memorandum, ‘‘Control Costs and 

Emissions Reductions for Phosphoric 

Acid and Phosphate Fertilizer 

Production Source Categories,’’ which is 

available in the docket, for additional 

discussion regarding the uncontrolled 

oxidation process. 

For PPA process lines, it is not 

possible to discern whether the control 

technology used is more (or less) 

effective than another control 

technology because there is only one set 

of data. 

We believe that observed differences 

in HAP emissions from WPPA, SPA and 

PPA process lines, except for the one 

uncontrolled oxidation process at a SPA 

process line, are the result of factors 

other than control technology (e.g., 

subtle differences in sampling and 

analytical techniques, age of control 

equipment and differences in facility 

operating parameters). Therefore, 

neither these data nor any other 

information we have examined show 

that there has been a significant 

improvement in the add-on control 

technology or other equipment since 

promulgation of NESHAP subpart AA. 

There are six existing phosphate rock 

calciners located at one facility. These 

are the only phosphate rock calciners in 

the source category. The one facility 

with calciners had wet scrubbers 

installed prior to the current NESHP PM 

limits being promulgated. To meet the 

current PM limits, the facility added 

WESP in addition to the previously 

installed wet scrubbers. Based on the 

data submitted by facilities in response 

to the April 2010 CAA section 114 

request, PM emissions from these units 

vary from 0.0012 to 0.0695 grains PM 

per dry standard cubic foot. This range 

of emissions indicate that the current 

limits represent expected performance 

of the control technology configuration. 

We did not identify any new costeffective technologies that could reduce 

emissions further from this source. 

Based on this information, we are not 

proposing any revisions to the PM limits 

from calciners. 

We also reviewed the CAA section 

114 responses to identify any work 

practices, pollution prevention 

techniques and process changes at 

phosphoric acid manufacturing plants 

that could achieve emission reductions. 

We did not identify any developments 

regarding practices, techniques, or 

process changes that affect point source 

emissions from this source category. See 

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, for additional details on the 

technology review. 

In light of the results of the 

technology review, we conclude that 

additional standards are not necessary 

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

we are not proposing changes to 

NESHAP subpart AA as part of our 

technology review. We solicit comment 

on our proposed decision. 

2. NSPS Review 

Pursuant to CAA section 111(b)(1)(B), 

we conducted a review to identify new 

developments that may advise revisions 

to the current NSPS standards 

applicable to the Phosphoric Acid 

Manufacturing source category (i.e., 

NSPS subparts T and U). This review 

considered both (1) whether 

developments in technology or other 

factors support the conclusion that a 

different system of emissions reduction 

has become the ‘‘best system of 

emissions reduction’’ and (2) whether 

emissions limitations and percent 

reductions beyond those required by the 

standards are achieved in practice. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

66540 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 216 / Friday, November 7, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

As discussed in section IV.D.1 of this 

preamble, the EPA conducted a 

thorough search of the RBLC, section 

114 data received from industry and 

other relevant sources. The emission 

sources for both NSPS and the control 

technologies that would be employed 

are the same as those used for the 

NESHAP regulating phosphoric acid 

plants, yielding the same results of no 

cost-effective emission reductions 

strategies being identified. 

Therefore, we are proposing that 

revisions to NSPS subpart T and subpart 

U standards are not appropriate 

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

We solicit comment on our proposed 

determination. 

E. What other actions are we proposing 

for the Phosphoric Acid Manufacturing 

source category? 

In addition to the proposed actions 

described above, we are proposing 

additional revisions or clarifications. 

We are proposing clarifications to the 

applicability of NESHAP subpart AA, 

NSPS subpart T, and NSPS subpart U. 

In addition, we are proposing revisions 

to the startup, shutdown and 

malfunction (SSM) provisions of 

NESHAP subpart AA in order to ensure 

that they are consistent with the court 

decision in Sierra Club v. EPA, 551 F. 

3d 1019 (D.C. Cir. 2008), which vacated 

two provisions that exempted sources 

from the requirement to comply with 

otherwise applicable CAA section 

112(d) emission standards during 

periods of SSM. We also are proposing 

various other changes to testing, 

monitoring, recordkeeping and 

reporting requirements in NESHAP 

subpart AA, NSPS subpart T, and NSPS 

subpart U. Our analyses and proposed 

changes related to these issues are 

discussed in this section of this 

preamble. 

1. Clarifications to Applicability and 

Certain Definitions 

a. NESHAP Subpart AA 

For the applicability section of 

NESHAP subpart AA, we determined 

that it was unclear whether emissions 

from clarifiers and defluorination 

systems at wet-process phosphoric acid 

process lines, and oxidation reactors at 

superphosphoric acid process lines, 

were regulated by the Phosphoric Acid 

Manufacturing NESHAP. To ensure the 

emission standards we are proposing 

reflect inclusion of HAP emissions from 

all sources in the defined source 

category, as initially intended in the 

rule promulgation, we believe it 

necessary to clarify the applicability of 

the NESHAP. Therefore, we are 

proposing to amend the definitions of 

wet-process phosphoric acid process 

line, superphosphoric acid process line 

and purified phosphoric acid process 

line to include relevant emission points, 

including clarifiers and defluorination 

systems at wet-process phosphoric acid 

process lines, and oxidation reactors at 

superphosphoric acid production lines. 

We are also proposing to remove text 

from the applicability section that is 

duplicative of the revised definitions. 

Defluorination of phosphoric acid is 

performed at several facilities with at 

least two facilities using diatomaceous 

earth for the process. Oxidation reactors 

are used in the production of SPA at 

four facilities to remove organics by 

mixing SPA with nitric acid, 

ammonium nitrate or potassium 

permanganate. These clarifications to 

the applicability and definitions of the 

standard are more reflective of the 

source category definition that includes 

any facility engaged in the production of 

phosphoric acid. 

A technical memorandum, 

‘‘Applicability Clarifications to the 

Phosphoric Acid Manufacturing 

Production Source Category,’’ in the 

Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2012– 

0522 provides further information on 

the applicability clarifications proposed 

in this action. 

We also are proposing to revise 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 include 

the addition of definitions for ‘‘cooling 

pond,’’ ‘‘phosphoric acid defluorination 

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

stream’’. 

b. NSPS Subpart T 

For the applicability section of NSPS 

subpart T, we determined that it was 

unclear whether emissions from 

clarifiers and defluorination systems at 

wet-process phosphoric acid plants 

were regulated by the NSPS. To ensure 

the emission standards we are 

proposing reflect inclusion of total F 

emissions from all sources in the 

defined source category, as initially 

intended in the rule promulgation, we 

believe it necessary to clarify the 

applicability of the NSPS. Therefore, we 

are proposing to amend the definition of 

wet-process phosphoric acid plant to 

include relevant emission points, 

including clarifiers and defluorination 

systems. We are also proposing to 

remove text from the applicability 

section that is duplicative of the revised 

definitions. Defluorination of 

phosphoric acid is performed at several 

facilities with at least two facilities 

using diatomaceous earth for the 

process. These clarifications to the 

applicability and definitions of the 

standard are more reflective of the 

source category definition that includes 

any facility engaged in the production of 

phosphoric acid. 

A technical memorandum, 

‘‘Applicability Clarifications to the 

Phosphoric Acid Manufacturing 

Production Source Category,’’ in the 

Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2012– 

0522 provides further information on 

the applicability clarifications proposed 

in this action. 

c. NSPS Subpart U 

For the applicability section of NSPS 

subpart U, we determined that it was 

unclear whether emissions from 

oxidation reactors at superphosphoric 

acid plants were regulated by the NSPS. 

To ensure the emission standards we are 

proposing reflect inclusion of total F 

emissions from all sources in the 

defined source category, as initially 

intended in the rule promulgation, we 

believe it necessary to clarify the 

applicability of the NSPS. Therefore, we 

are proposing to amend the definition of 

superphosphoric acid plant to include 

relevant emission points, including 

oxidation reactors. We are also 

proposing to remove text from the 

applicability section that is duplicative 

of the revised definitions. Oxidation 

reactors are used in the production of 

SPA at four facilities to remove organics 

by mixing SPA with nitric acid, 

ammonium nitrate, or potassium 

permanganate. These clarifications to 

the applicability and definitions of the 

standard are more reflective of the 

source category definition that includes 

any facility engaged in the production of 

phosphoric acid. 

A technical memorandum, 

‘‘Applicability Clarifications to the 

Phosphoric Acid Manufacturing 

Production Source Category,’’ in the 

Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2012– 

0522 provides further information on 

the applicability clarifications proposed 

in this action. 

2. What are the startup, shutdown and 

malfunction requirements? 

The United States 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 (Sierra Club v. EPA, 551 

F.3d 1019 (D.C. Cir. 2008), cert. denied, 

130 S. Ct. 1735 (U.S. 2010)). 

Specifically, the Court vacated the SSM 

exemption contained in 40 CFR 

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

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 216 / Friday, November 7, 2014 / Proposed Rules 66541 

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 are proposing the elimination of 

the SSM exemption in this rule. 

Consistent with Sierra Club v. EPA, the 

EPA is proposing standards in this rule 

that apply at all times. We are also 

proposing several revisions to appendix 

A of subpart AA (the General Provisions 

Applicability Table) as explained in 

more detail below. For example, we are 

proposing to eliminate the incorporation 

of the requirement in the General 

Provisions that the source develop an 

SSM plan. We also are proposing to 

eliminate and revise certain 

recordkeeping and reporting 

requirements related to the SSM 

exemption as further described below. 

The EPA has attempted to ensure that 

the provisions we are proposing to 

eliminate are inappropriate, 

unnecessary or redundant in the 

absence of the SSM exemption. We are 

specifically seeking comment on 

whether we have successfully done so. 

For the reasons explained below, we 

are proposing work practice standards 

for periods of startup and shutdown in 

lieu of numerical 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 

to 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 numerical 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, 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 are proposing a 

work practice standard rather than an 

emissions limit for periods of startup or 

shutdown. Control devices used on the 

various process lines in this source 

category are effective at achieving 

desired emission reductions 

immediately upon start-up. Therefore, 

during startup and shutdown periods, 

we are proposing that sources begin 

operation of any control device(s) in the 

production unit prior to introducing any 

feed into the production unit. We are 

also proposing 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. 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, 

emissions 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 United States 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 

emissions 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. For these reasons, 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, 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-by-case 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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

66542 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 216 / Friday, November 7, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

28The court’s reasoning in NRDC focuses on civil 

judicial actions. The Court noted that ‘‘EPA’s ability 

to determine whether penalties should be assessed 

for Clean Air Act violations extends only to 

administrative penalties, not to civil penalties 

imposed by a court.’’ Id. 

29Although the NRDC case does not address the 

EPA’s authority to establish an affirmative defense 

to penalties that is available in administrative 

enforcement actions, the EPA is not including such 

an affirmative defense in the proposed rule. As 

explained above, such an affirmative defense is not 

necessary. Moreover, assessment of penalties for 

violations caused by malfunctions in administrative 

proceedings and judicial proceedings should be 

consistent. CF. CAA section 113(e) (requiring both 

the Administrator and the court to take specified 

criteria into account when assessing penalties). 

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 shut down, 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 standards as a result of a 

malfunction event, the EPA would 

determine an appropriate response 

based on, among other things, the goodfaith 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 

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 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. 

In several prior CAA section 112 

rules, the EPA had included an 

affirmative defense to civil penalties for 

violations caused by malfunctions in an 

effort to create a system that 

incorporates some flexibility, 

recognizing that there is a tension, 

inherent in many types of air regulation, 

to ensure adequate compliance while 

simultaneously recognizing that despite 

the most diligent of efforts, emission 

standards may be violated under 

circumstances entirely beyond the 

control of the source. Although the EPA 

recognized that its case-by-case 

enforcement discretion provides 

sufficient flexibility in these 

circumstances, it included the 

affirmative defense to provide a more 

formalized approach and more 

regulatory clarity. See Weyerhaeuser Co. 

v. Costle, 590 F.2d 1011, 1057–58 (D.C. 

Cir. 1978) (holding that an informal 

case-by-case enforcement discretion 

approach is adequate); but see Marathon 

Oil Co. v. EPA, 564 F.2d 1253, 1272–73 

(9th Cir. 1977) (requiring a more 

formalized approach to consideration of 

‘‘upsets beyond the control of the permit 

holder.’’). Under the EPA’s regulatory 

affirmative defense provisions, if a 

source could demonstrate in a judicial 

or administrative proceeding that it had 

met the requirements of the affirmative 

defense in the regulation, civil penalties 

would not be assessed. Recently, the 

United States Court of Appeals for the 

District of Columbia Circuit vacated an 

affirmative defense in one of the EPA’s 

CAA section 112 regulations. NRDC v. 

EPA, 749 F.3d 1055 (D.C. Cir., 2014) 

(vacating affirmative defense provisions 

in CAA section 112 rule establishing 

emission standards for Portland cement 

kilns). The court found that the EPA 

lacked authority to establish an 

affirmative defense for private civil suits 

and held that under the CAA, the 

authority to determine civil penalty 

amounts in such cases lies exclusively 

with the courts, not the EPA. 

Specifically, the court found: ‘‘As the 

language of the statute makes clear, the 

courts determine, on a case-by-case 

basis, whether civil penalties are 

‘appropriate.’ ’’ See NRDC, 2014 U.S. 

App. LEXIS 7281 at *21 (‘‘[U]nder this 

statute, deciding whether penalties are 

‘appropriate’ in a given private civil suit 

is a job for the courts, not EPA.’’).28 In 

light of NRDC, the EPA is not including 

a regulatory affirmative defense 

provision in the proposed rule. As 

explained above, if a source is unable to 

comply with emissions standards as a 

result of a malfunction, the EPA may 

use its case-by-case enforcement 

discretion to provide flexibility, as 

appropriate. Further, as the D.C. Circuit 

recognized, in an EPA or citizen 

enforcement action, the court has the 

discretion to consider any defense 

raised and determine whether penalties 

are appropriate. Cf. NRDC, 2014 U.S. 

App. LEXIS 7281 at *24 (arguments that 

violation were caused by unavoidable 

technology failure can be made to the 

courts in future civil cases when the 

issue arises). The same is true for the 

presiding officer in EPA administrative 

enforcement actions.29

a. 40 CFR 63.608(b) General Duty 

We are proposing 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 a ‘‘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 are proposing 

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 is 

proposing does not include that 

language from 40 CFR 63.6(e)(1). We are 

also proposing 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 

a ‘‘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 are proposing to revise the entry 

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

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 216 / Friday, November 7, 2014 / Proposed Rules 66543 

Provisions table (appendix A) by 

changing the ‘‘yes’’ in column three to 

a ‘‘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 is 

proposing 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 are proposing 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 

a ‘‘no.’’ The current language of 40 CFR 

63.6(f)(1) exempts sources from nonopacity standards during periods of 

SSM. As discussed above, the court in 

Sierra Club 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, the EPA is proposing to revise 

standards in this rule to apply at all 

times. 

d. 40 CFR 63.606 Performance Testing 

We are proposing 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 

a ‘‘no.’’ Section 63.7(e)(1) describes 

performance testing requirements. The 

EPA is instead proposing to add a 

performance testing requirement at 40 

CFR 63.606(d). The performance testing 

requirements we are proposing to add 

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 

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. 

We are proposing that sources 

conduct performance tests during 

‘‘maximum representative operating 

conditions for the process’’. 

Specifically, we are proposing that 

sources must operate your process 

during the performance test in such a 

way that results in the flue gas 

characteristics that are the most difficult 

for reducing emissions of the regulated 

pollutant(s) by the control device used. 

In an effort to provide more flexibility 

to owners and operators regarding the 

identification of the proper testing 

conditions, the most difficult condition 

for the control device may include, but 

is not limited to, the highest HAP mass 

loading rate to the control device, or the 

highest HAP mass loading rate of 

constituents that approach the limits of 

solubility for scrubbing media. The EPA 

understands that there may be cases 

where efficiencies are dependent on 

other characteristics of emission 

streams, including the characteristics of 

components and the operating 

principles of the devices. For example, 

the solubility of emission stream 

components in scrubbing media, or 

emission stream component affinity in 

carbon adsorption systems can also 

define the most difficult condition for a 

particular control device. The EPA is 

also proposing to add language that 

requires the owner or operator to record 

the process information that is 

necessary to document operating 

conditions during the test and include 

in such record an explanation to 

support that such conditions represent 

maximum representative operating 

conditions. Section 63.7(e) requires that 

the owner or operator make available to 

the Administrator upon request such 

records ‘‘as may be necessary to 

determine the condition of the 

performance test,’’ but did not 

specifically require the owner or 

operator to record the information. The 

regulatory text the EPA is proposing to 

add builds on that requirement and 

makes explicit the requirement to record 

the information. 

e. Monitoring 

We are proposing 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 a ‘‘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 are proposing 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 

a ‘‘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 

is proposing to add to the rule at 40 CFR 

63.608(c)(4) 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 are proposing 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 

a ‘‘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 is proposing 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 are proposing 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 

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

the recordkeeping requirements during 

a malfunction. The EPA is proposing to 

add such requirements to 40 CFR 

63.607(b). The regulatory text we are 

proposing 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 is proposing 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 is also proposing 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 is proposing to require 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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

66544 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 216 / Friday, November 7, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

that may document how the source met 

the general duty to minimize emissions 

when the source has failed to meet an 

applicable standard. 

We are proposing 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 

a ‘‘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 are proposing 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 

a ‘‘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 are proposing 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 

a ‘‘no.’’ The EPA is proposing 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 is proposing 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 are proposing 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 

a ‘‘no.’’ Section 63.10(d)(5) describes the 

reporting requirements for startups, 

shutdowns and malfunctions. To 

replace the General Provisions reporting 

requirement, the EPA is proposing 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 are proposing 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 are 

proposing 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., 

product-loss calculations, mass balance 

calculations, direct measurements or 

engineering judgment based on known 

process parameters). The EPA is 

proposing 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. These specifications are no 

longer necessary because the events will 

be reported in otherwise required 

reports with similar format and 

submittal requirements. We are 

proposing 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 are proposing 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 

a ‘‘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 will 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. 

3. Testing, Monitoring, Recordkeeping 

and Reporting 

a. NESHAP Subpart AA 

For wet scrubbers, we are proposing 

alternatives to the existing requirement 

to monitor pressure differential across 

the scrubber. We received input from 

industry that the pressure differential is 

not a reliable method of determining the 

performance of a scrubber because 

fouling occurs over time, increasing the 

pressure differential. The pressure 

differential immediately after cleaning 

will be much lower than that after the 

scrubber has operated for some time. 

Therefore, to provide flexibility, we 

have included several monitoring 

options, including pressure and 

temperature measurements, as 

alternatives to monitoring of scrubber 

differential pressure. We are also adding 

flexibility in the existing requirement to 

measure the flow rate of the scrubbing 

liquid to each scrubber (i.e., the inlet 

liquid flow rate to a scrubber). We are 

proposing that the inlet liquid-to-gas 

ratio may now be monitored in lieu of 

the inlet liquid flow rate, which 

provides the ability to lower liquid flow 

rate with changes in gas flow rate to the 

scrubber. 

We are 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. For the 

proposed requirements, facilities must 

immediately comply with new 

operating ranges when they are 

developed and submitted. New 

operating ranges must also be 

established using the most recent 

performance test conducted by a 

facility, which allows for changes in 

control device operation to be 

appropriately reflected. 

Because control devices may be 

necessary to meet the proposed Hg 

limits for phosphate rock calciners, we 

are proposing monitoring and testing 

requirements in 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., ACI) followed by a WESP 

or followed by fabric filtration. We are 

also proposing the addition of methods 

to monitor emissions of Hg using 

continuous emissions monitoring 

systems (CEMS). 

As described in section IV.E.2.d of 

this preamble, for all processes, we have 

also 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. 

In keeping with the general provisions 

for continuous monitoring systems 

(CMS) (including CEMS and continuous 

parameter monitoring system (CPMS)), 

we are proposing the addition of a sitespecific monitoring plan and calibration 

requirements for CMS. Provisions are 

also included for electronic reporting of 

stack test data. 

We have also modified the format of 

the NESHAP to reference tables for 

emissions limits and monitoring 

requirements. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 216 / Friday, November 7, 2014 / Proposed Rules 66545 

b. NSPS Subpart T 

The EPA evaluated the monitoring 

and recordkeeping requirements 

currently required in NSPS subpart T to 

determine if they are adequate for 

determining compliance. Currently 

under NSPS subpart T, an owner or 

operator of a wet-process phosphoric 

acid plant is required to install, 

calibrate, maintain and operate a 

monitoring device which continuously 

measures and permanently records the 

total pressure drop across the process 

scrubbing system. However, the current 

rule does not require an owner or 

operator to establish, and demonstrate 

continuous compliance with, an 

allowable range for the pressure drop 

through the process scrubbing system. 

Therefore, we are proposing new 

monitoring and recordkeeping 

requirements for any wet-process 

phosphoric acid plant that commences 

construction, modification or 

reconstruction after [date of publication 

of the final rule in the Federal Register] 

to ensure continuous compliance with 

the standard. 

We are proposing that for any wetprocess phosphoric acid plant that 

commences construction, modification 

or reconstruction after [date of 

publication of the final rule in the 

Federal Register] the owner or operator 

establish an allowable range for the 

pressure drop through the process 

scrubbing system. The allowable range 

would be established during the 

performance test required in 40 CFR 

60.8. We also propose that the allowable 

range is ±20 percent of the arithmetic 

average of the three test runs conducted 

during the performance test. In addition, 

the owner or operator would be required 

to maintain the daily average pressure 

drop through the process scrubbing 

system within the allowable range; and 

valid data points must be available for 

75 percent of the operating hours in an 

operating day to compute the daily 

average. We also propose that the owner 

or operator keep records of the daily 

average pressure drop through the 

process scrubbing system, and keep 

records of deviations. We are proposing 

these monitoring and recordkeeping 

requirements in order to: Ensure that the 

process scrubbing system is properly 

maintained over time; ensure 

continuous compliance with standards; 

and improve data accessibility. 

Finally, for consistency with 

terminology used in the associated 

NESHAP subpart AA, we have changed 

the term ‘‘process scrubbing system’’ to 

‘‘absorber.’’ 

We do not expect any costs associated 

with these proposed monitoring and 

recordkeeping requirements. These 

proposed requirements will only apply 

to new sources, and we are not aware of 

any planned new sources. Also, we 

believe that most, if not all, new sources 

will be exempt from NSPS subpart T 

compliance due to the likelihood of the 

new source being subject to NESHAP 

subpart AA. 

c. NSPS Subpart U 

The EPA evaluated the monitoring 

and recordkeeping requirements 

currently required in NSPS subpart U to 

determine if they are adequate for 

determining compliance. Currently 

under NSPS subpart U, an owner or 

operator of a superphosphoric acid 

plant is required to install, calibrate, 

maintain and operate a monitoring 

device which continuously measures 

and permanently records the total 

pressure drop across the process 

scrubbing system. However, the current 

rule does not require an owner or 

operator to establish, and demonstrate 

continuous compliance with, an 

allowable range for the pressure drop 

through the process scrubbing system. 

Therefore, we are proposing new 

monitoring and recordkeeping 

requirements for any superphosphoric 

acid plant that commences construction, 

modification or reconstruction after 

[date of publication of the final rule in 

the Federal Register] to ensure 

continuous compliance with the 

standard. 

We are proposing that for any 

superphosphoric acid plant that 

commences construction, modification 

or reconstruction after [date of 

publication of the final rule in the 

Federal Register] the owner or operator 

establish an allowable range for the 

pressure drop through the process 

scrubbing system. The allowable range 

would be established during the 

performance test required in 40 CFR 

60.8. We also propose that the allowable 

range is ±20 percent of the arithmetic 

average of the three test runs conducted 

during the performance test. In addition, 

the owner or operator would be required 

to maintain the daily average pressure 

drop through the process scrubbing 

system within the allowable range; and 

valid data points must be available for 

75 percent of the operating hours in an 

operating day to compute the daily 

average. We also propose that the owner 

or operator keep records of the daily 

average pressure drop through the 

process scrubbing system, and keep 

records of deviations. We are proposing 

these monitoring and recordkeeping 

requirements in order to: ensure that the 

process scrubbing system is properly 

maintained over time; ensure 

continuous compliance with standards; 

and improve data accessibility. 

Finally, for consistency with 

terminology used in the associated 

NESHAP subpart AA, we have changed 

the term ‘‘process scrubbing system’’ to 

‘‘absorber.’’ 

We do not expect any costs associated 

with these proposed monitoring and 

recordkeeping requirements. These 

proposed requirements will only apply 

to new sources, and we are not aware of 

any planned new sources. Also, we 

believe that most, if not all, new sources 

will be exempt from NSPS subpart U 

compliance due to the likelihood of the 

new source being subject to NESHAP 

subpart AA. 

4. Translation of Total F to HF Emission 

Limits 

The EPA is proposing to translate the 

current total F limit (lb total F/ton P2O5

feed) into an HF limit (lb HF/ton P2O5

feed). The current standard uses total F 

as a surrogate for HF, and as such, the 

standard allows for a scenario where 

100 percent of all total F emissions 

could be HF. Therefore, we are 

proposing HF limits as the same 

numeric values as the current total F 

limits. We recognize that on a mass 

basis, HF emissions will be slightly 

greater than total F emissions; however, 

this relatively small difference of 

approximately 5 percent is negligible in 

measurement of the pollutant. 

Additionally, based on test data 

provided by industry, the EPA believes 

that moving to a form of the standard 

that requires HF to be measured, but 

retains the same numeric values as the 

current total F standards will be 

achievable by all facilities. We are 

proposing that sources would annually 

demonstrate compliance with the HF 

limit using EPA Method 320. 

The resulting new and existing HF 

emission source limits are summarized 

in Table 6 of this preamble. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

66546 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 216 / Friday, November 7, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE 6—SUMMARY OF PROPOSED HF EMISSION LIMITS FOR NEW AND EXISTING PHOSPHORIC ACID FACILITIES

Regulated process 

Current total F limits * Proposed HF limits * 

Existing New Existing New 

WPPA Line ........................................................................................ 0.020 0 .0135 0.020 0 .0135 

SPA Line ............................................................................................ 0.010 0 .00870 0.010 0 .00870 

* All limits expressed as lbs/ton P2O5 feed. 

With this proposal, we are seeking 

comment on finalizing the HF limit for 

regulating HF emissions using the target 

HAP (HF), instead of the long-standing 

surrogate for HF, total F. We invite 

comment on determining and setting a 

standard for HF in lieu of the existing 

total F standard. We solicit comment on 

our proposed decision. 

We also seek comment on the use of 

EPA Method 320 for the compliance 

demonstration test method. 

Additionally, we solicit comment on the 

use of Fourier transform infrared 

spectroscopy (FTIR) HF CEMS as an 

optional continuous monitoring 

compliance approach within the rule. 

We also invite comment on the use of 

an HF emission standard where a source 

using an HF CEMS would comply with 

a 30-day rolling average emission limit, 

and annual relative accuracy test audit 

(RATA) certifications of CEMS. A 

technical memorandum, ‘‘Hydrogen 

Fluoride Continuous Emission 

Monitoring and Compliance 

Determination with EPA Method 320,’’ 

in the Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR– 

2012–0522 outlines technical detail on 

the use of HF CEMS and is provided as 

guidance for comments regarding details 

of a continuous HF monitoring option. 

To allow facilities flexibility in 

demonstrating compliance, we are also 

considering an option to maintain the 

existing total F limits as an alternative 

addition to the proposed HF limits. 

Facilities would be required to comply 

with all of the provisions in this 

proposed rulemaking, including the 

emission standards, and the operating, 

monitoring, notification, recordkeeping 

and reporting requirements; however, 

facilities would have the option to 

comply with either the proposed HF 

limits using EPA Method 320, or the 

current total F limits using EPA Method 

13B. This option would be implemented 

by revising 40 CFR 63.602(a) and Tables 

1, 1a, 2 and 2a to subpart AA to include 

both HF and total F limits; all other 

provisions would remain as proposed in 

subpart AA. We solicit comment on 

allowing facilities to demonstrate 

compliance with the current total F 

limits as an alternative to the proposed 

HF limits. 

F. What are the notification, 

recordkeeping and reporting 

requirements for the Phosphoric Acid 

Manufacturing source category? 

In this proposal, the EPA is describing 

a process to increase the ease and 

efficiency of submitting performance 

test data while improving data 

accessibility. Specifically, the EPA is 

proposing that owners and operators of 

phosphoric acid manufacturing facilities 

submit electronic copies of required 

performance test and performance 

evaluation reports by direct computerto-computer electronic transfer using 

EPA-provided software. The direct 

computer-to-computer electronic 

transfer is accomplished through the 

EPA’s Central Data Exchange (CDX) 

using the Compliance and Emissions 

Data Reporting Interface (CEDRI). The 

CDX is the EPA’s portal for submittal of 

electronic data. The EPA-provided 

software is called the Electronic 

Reporting Tool (ERT), which is used to 

generate electronic reports of 

performance tests and evaluations. The 

ERT generates an electronic report 

package that facilities will submit using 

CEDRI. The submitted report package 

will be stored in the CDX archive (the 

official copy of record) and the EPA’s 

public database called WebFIRE. All 

stakeholders will have access to all 

reports and data in WebFIRE and 

accessing these reports and data will be 

very straightforward and easy (see the 

WebFIRE Report Search and Retrieval 

link at http://cfpub.epa.gov/webfire/

index.cfm?action=fire.searchERT

Submission). 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 

(www.epa.gov/cdx). A description of the 

WebFIRE database is available at: 

http://cfpub.epa.gov/oarweb/

index.cfm?action=fire.main. 

The proposal to submit performance 

test data electronically to the EPA 

applies only to those performance tests 

and/or performance evaluations 

conducted using test methods that are 

supported by the ERT. The ERT 

supports most of the commonly used 

EPA reference test methods. A listing of 

the pollutants and test methods 

supported by the ERT is available at: 

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

index.html. 

We believe that industry would 

benefit from this proposed approach to 

electronic data submittal. Specifically, 

by using this approach, industry will 

save time in the performance test 

submittal process. Additionally, the 

standardized format that the ERT uses 

allows sources to create a more 

complete test report, resulting in less 

time spent on backfilling data if a source 

failed to submit all required data 

elements. Also through this proposal, 

industry may only need to submit a 

report once to meet the requirements of 

the applicable subpart because 

stakeholders can readily access these 

reports from the WebFIRE database. 

This also benefits industry by reducing 

recordkeeping costs as the performance 

test reports that are submitted to the 

EPA using CEDRI are no longer required 

to be retained in hard copy, thereby, 

reducing staff time needed to coordinate 

these records. 

Because the EPA will already have 

performance test data in hand, another 

benefit to industry of electronic 

reporting is that fewer or less substantial 

data collection requests in conjunction 

with prospective required residual risk 

assessments or technology reviews will 

be needed. This would result in a 

decrease in staff time needed to respond 

to data collection requests. 

State, local and tribal air pollution 

control agencies may also benefit from 

having electronic versions of the reports 

they are now receiving. For example, 

state, local and tribal air pollution 

control agencies may be able to conduct 

a more streamlined and accurate review 

of electronic data submitted to them. 

For example, the ERT would allow for 

an electronic review process, rather than 

a manual data assessment, therefore, 

making their review and evaluation of 

the source-provided data and 

calculations easier and more efficient. In 

addition, the public stands to benefit 

from electronic reporting of emissions 

data because the electronic data will be 

easier for the public to access. The 

methods and procedures for collecting, 

accessing and reviewing air emissions 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 216 / Friday, November 7, 2014 / Proposed Rules 66547 

data will be more transparent for all 

stakeholders. 

One major advantage of the proposed 

submittal of performance test data 

through the ERT is a standardized 

method to compile and store much of 

the documentation required to be 

reported by this rule. The ERT clearly 

states the information required by the 

test method and ERT has the ability to 

house additional data elements that 

might be required by a delegated 

authority. 

In addition, the EPA must have 

performance test data to conduct 

effective reviews of CAA sections 112 

standards as well as for many other 

purposes including compliance 

determinations, emission factor 

development and annual emission rate 

determinations. In conducting these 

required reviews, the EPA has found it 

ineffective and time consuming, not 

only for us, but also for regulatory 

agencies and source owners and 

operators, to locate, collect and submit 

performance test data. Also, in recent 

years, stack testing firms have typically 

collected performance test data in 

electronic format, making it possible to 

move to an electronic data submittal 

system that would increase the ease and 

efficiency of data submittal and improve 

data accessibility. 

A common complaint heard from 

industry and regulators is that emission 

factors are outdated or not 

representative of a particular source 

category. With timely receipt and 

incorporation of data from most 

performance tests, the EPA would be 

able to ensure that emission factors, 

when updated, represent the most 

current range of operational practices. 

Finally, another benefit of the proposed 

electronic data submittal to WebFIRE is 

that these data would greatly improve 

the overall quality of existing and new 

emissions factors by supplementing the 

pool of emissions test data that the EPA 

evaluates to develop emissions factors. 

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 would save industry, state, 

local, tribal agencies and the EPA 

significant time, money and effort while 

also improving the quality of emission 

factors and inventories and air quality 

regulations. 

G. What compliance dates are we 

proposing for the Phosphoric Acid 

Manufacturing source category? 

We are proposing that facilities must 

comply with the proposed Hg limits for 

existing rock calciners no later than 3 

years after the effective date of this rule. 

We are proposing a 3-year compliance 

lead time so that facilities with existing 

rock calciners have adequate time to 

design and install additional controls 

and demonstrate compliance, including 

the time necessary to: construct control 

devices; seek bids, select a vendor and 

install and test the new equipment; and 

purchase and install compliance 

monitoring equipment and implement 

quality assurance measures. We believe 

that three years are needed for facilities 

with existing rock calciners to complete 

the steps described above and achieve 

compliance with the proposed 

standards. For new rock calciners that 

commence construction or 

reconstruction after December 27, 1996, 

and on or before the effective date of 

this rule, we are proposing that facilities 

must comply with the proposed Hg 

limits no later than 1 year after the 

effective date of this rule. New rock 

calciners that commence construction or 

reconstruction after the effective date of 

this rule would comply with the 

proposed Hg limits immediately upon 

startup. We are also proposing the 

compliance date for HF work practice 

standards for all (existing and new) rock 

calciners is the effective date of this 

rule. Based on the data that the EPA has 

received, all rock calciners are meeting 

the HF work practice standard; 

therefore, no additional time would be 

required to achieve compliance with 

this HF work practice standard. We 

specifically seek comment on the 

compliance dates proposed for 

regulating Hg and HF from new and 

existing phosphate rock calciners. 

In addition, for existing gypsum 

dewatering stack or cooling ponds, we 

are proposing that facilities must 

prepare and comply with a gypsum 

dewatering stack and cooling pond 

management plan to control fugitive HF 

emissions no later than 1 year after the 

effective date of this rule. For new 

gypsum dewatering stack or cooling 

ponds, we are proposing that facilities 

must prepare and comply with a 

gypsum dewatering stack and cooling 

pond management plan to control 

fugitive HF emissions beginning on the 

effective date of this rule. 

We are also proposing that for existing 

and new wet-process phosphoric acid 

process lines and superphosphoric acid 

process lines that commence 

construction or reconstruction on or 

before the effective date of this rule, the 

facility must comply with the proposed 

HF limits no later than 1 year after the 

effective date of this rule. Facilities will 

continue to conduct the annual 

performance test, but will be required to 

use a different test method. Therefore, 

we are proposing a one-year compliance 

lead time so that facilities have adequate 

time to coordinate performance testing 

with the new test method. We do not 

anticipate that any facilities will need to 

install a new control device to meet the 

proposed HF limits. For new wetprocess phosphoric acid process lines 

and superphosphoric acid process lines 

that commence construction or 

reconstruction after the effective date of 

this rule, the facility must comply with 

the proposed HF limits beginning on the 

effective date of this rule. Prior to these 

compliance dates (for HF limits), we are 

proposing that facilities continue to 

comply with the current total F 

standards. 

We are also proposing that the 

compliance date for the amended SSM 

requirements is the effective date of this 

rule. 

V. Analytical Results and Proposed 

Decisions for the Phosphate Fertilizer 

Production Source Category 

A. What are the results of the risk 

assessment and analyses for the 

Phosphate Fertilizer Production source 

category? 

The preamble sections below 

summarize the results of the risk 

assessments for the Phosphate Fertilizer 

Production source category. The 

complete risk assessment, Draft 

Residual Risk Assessment for Phosphate 

Fertilizer Production and Phosphoric 

Acid Manufacturing, is available in the 

docket for this action. 

1. Inhalation Risk Assessment Results 

The basic chronic inhalation risk 

estimates presented here are the 

maximum individual lifetime cancer 

risk, the maximum chronic HI and the 

cancer incidence. We also present 

results from our acute inhalation impact 

screening in the form of maximum HQs, 

as well as the results of our preliminary 

screening for potential non-inhalation 

risks from PB–HAP. Also presented are 

the HAP ‘‘drivers,’’ which are the HAP 

that collectively contribute 90 percent of 

the maximum cancer risk or maximum 

HI at the highest exposure location. 

The inhalation risk results for this 

source category indicate that maximum 

lifetime individual cancer risks are less 

than 1-in-1 million. The total estimated 

cancer incidence from this source 

category is 0.001 excess cancer cases per 

year, or one excess case in every 1,000 

years. The maximum chronic noncancer TOSHI value for the source 

category could be up to 0.1 associated 

with emissions of manganese, indicating 

no significant potential for chronic noncancer impacts. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

66548 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 216 / Friday, November 7, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

We analyzed the potential differences 

between actual emissions levels and 

calculated the maximum emissions 

allowable under the MACT standards 

for every emission process group for this 

source category. Based upon the above 

analysis, we multiplied the modeled 

actual risks for the MIR facility with 

site-specific process multipliers to 

estimate allowable risks under the 

MACT. We deemed this approach 

sufficient due to the low actual modeled 

risks for the source category. The 

maximum lifetime individual cancer 

risks based upon allowable emissions 

are still less than 1-in-1 million. The 

maximum chronic non-cancer TOSHI 

value is also estimated at an HI of 0.1. 

2. Acute Risk Results 

Worst-case acute HQs were calculated 

for every HAP that has an acute 

benchmark. There were no phosphate 

fertilizer production facilities identified 

with HQ values greater than 1. 

3. Multipathway Risk Screening Results 

For the Phosphate Fertilizer 

Production source category, the EPA 

conducted a Tier I screening-level 

evaluation of the potential human 

health risks associated with emissions 

of PB–HAP. The PB–HAP emitted by 

facilities in this category include Hg 

compounds (11 facilities), Pb 

compounds (11 facilities), and cadmium 

compounds (11 facilities). We compared 

reported emissions of PB–HAP to the 

Tier I screening emission thresholds 

established by the EPA for the purposes 

of the RTR risk assessments. One facility 

emitted Hg2+ above the Tier I screening 

threshold level, exceeding the screening 

threshold by a factor of 20. 

Consequently, we found it necessary to 

conduct a Tier II screening assessment. 

For the Tier II screening assessment, 

we refined our Hg2+ analysis with 

additional site-specific information. The 

additional site-specific information 

included the land use around the 

facilities, the location of fishable lakes 

and local meteorological data such as 

wind direction. The result of this 

analysis was the development of a sitespecific emission screening threshold 

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, the fisher will 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. 

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. The refined 

Tier II analysis for mercury emissions 

indicated a 23-percent loss of emissions 

above 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 utilization of the timeseries 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. 

For the other PB–HAP emitted by 

facilities in the source category, no 

facilities emit cadmium above the Tier 

I screening threshold level. Lead is a 

PB–HAP, but the NAAQS value (which 

was used for the chronic noncancer risk 

assessment) takes into account 

multipathway exposures, so a separate 

multipathway screening value was not 

developed. Since we did not estimate 

any exceedances of the NAAQS in our 

chronic noncancer risk assessment, we 

do not expect any significant 

multipathway exposure and risk due to 

Pb emissions from these facilities. For 

more information on the multipathway 

screening assessment conducted for this 

source category, see the memorandum, 

‘‘Draft Residual Risk Assessment for 

Phosphate Fertilizer Production and 

Phosphoric Acid Manufacturing’’ 

provided in the docket for this 

rulemaking. 

4. Environmental Risk Screening Results 

As described in section III.A.5 of this 

preamble, we conducted an 

environmental risk screening 

assessment for the Phosphate Fertilizer 

Production source category. In the Tier 

I screening analysis for PB–HAP (other 

than Pb, which was evaluated 

differently as noted in section III.A.5 of 

this preamble) none of the individual 

modeled concentrations for any facility 

in the source category exceeds any of 

the ecological benchmarks (either the 

LOAEL or NOAEL). Therefore, we did 

not conduct a Tier II assessment. For Pb, 

we did not estimate any exceedances of 

the secondary Pb NAAQS. 

For acid gases, the average modeled 

concentration around each facility (i.e., 

the average concentration of all off-site 

data points in the modeling domain) did 

not exceed any ecological benchmark 

(either the LOAEL or NOAEL). HCl 

emissions were not identified from the 

category. For HF, each individual 

concentration (i.e., each off-site data 

point in the modeling domain) was 

below the ecological benchmarks for all 

facilities. We did not identify an adverse 

environmental effect as defined in CAA 

section 112(a)(7) from HAP emissions 

from this source category. 

5. Facility-Wide Risk Results 

The facility-wide MIR and TOSHI are 

based on emissions, as identified in the 

NEI, from all emissions sources at the 

identified facilities. The results of the 

facility-wide analysis indicate that all 

11 facilities with phosphate fertilizer 

production have a facility-wide cancer 

MIR less than or equal to 1-in-1 million. 

The maximum facility-wide TOSHI for 

the source category is 0.2. The risk 

results are summarized in Table 7 of 

this preamble. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 216 / Friday, November 7, 2014 / Proposed Rules 66549 

TABLE 7—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 acute 

non-cancer HQ Based on 

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 0.02 0.02 HQREL = 0.4 (elemental Hg). 

HQAEGL¥1 = 0.09 

(hydrofluoric 

acid). _ 

Facility-wide (11 facilities).0.5 0.5 0.001 0 0 0.2 0.3 _ 

6. What demographic groups might 

benefit from this regulation? 

To determine whether or not to 

conduct a demographics analysis, we 

look at a combination of factors 

including the MIR, non-cancer TOSHI, 

population around the facilities in the 

source category, and other relevant 

factors. For the Phosphate Fertilizer 

Production source category, the MIR is 

less than 1-in-1 million, and the HI is 

less than 1 and, therefore, we did not 

conduct an assessment of risks to 

individual demographic groups for this 

rulemaking. However, we did conduct a 

proximity analysis, which identifies any 

overrepresentation of minority, low 

income or indigenous populations near 

facilities in the source category. The 

results of this analysis are presented in 

section IX.J of this preamble. 

B. What are our proposed decisions 

regarding risk acceptability, ample 

margin of safety and adverse 

environmental effects for the Phosphate 

Fertilizer Production source category? 

1. Risk Acceptability 

The results of both the source 

category and facility-wide risk 

assessments indicate that all phosphate 

fertilizer production facilities have a 

cancer MIR less than 1-in-1 million. The 

maximum source category and facilitywide TOSHI are both less than 1, and 

the maximum worst-case acute noncancer HQ is less than 1. We propose 

that the risks posed by emissions from 

this source category are acceptable. 

2. Ample Margin of Safety Analysis and 

Proposed Controls 

Under the ample margin of safety 

analysis, we evaluate the cost and 

feasibility of available control 

technologies and other measures 

(including the controls, measures and 

costs evaluated under the technology 

review) that could be applied in this 

source category to further reduce the 

risks due to emissions of HAP identified 

in our risk assessment, as well as the 

health impacts of such potential 

additional measures. As noted in our 

discussion of the technology review in 

section V.C of this preamble, no 

measures (beyond those already in 

place) were identified for reducing HAP 

emissions from the Phosphate Fertilizer 

source category. In addition, because 

our analyses show that the maximum 

baseline chronic cancer risk is below 1- 

in-1 million, the maximum chronic noncancer HI is less than 1, and the worstcase acute HQ is less than the CA–REL, 

minimal reductions in risk could be 

achieved even if we identified measures 

that could reduce HAP emissions 

further. Based on the discussion above, 

we propose that the current standards 

provide an ample margin of safety to 

protect public health. 

Though we did not identify any new 

technologies to reduce risk from this 

source category, we are specifically 

requesting comment on whether there 

are additional control measures that 

may be able to reduce risks from the 

source category. We request any 

information on potential emission 

reductions of such measures, as well as 

the cost and health impacts of such 

reductions to the extent they are known. 

3. Adverse Environmental Effects 

Based on the results of our 

environmental risk screening 

assessment, we conclude that there is 

not an adverse environmental effect as 

a result of HAP emissions from the 

Phosphate Fertilizer Production source 

category. We are proposing that it is not 

necessary to set a more stringent 

standard to prevent an adverse 

environmental effect, taking into 

consideration costs, energy, safety and 

other relevant factors. 

C. What are the results and proposed 

decisions based on our technology 

review for the Phosphate Fertilizer 

Production source category? 

1. NESHAP Technology Review 

In order to fulfill our obligations 

under CAA section 112(d)(6), we 

conducted a technology review to 

identify new developments that may 

warrant revisions to the current 

NESHAP standards applicable to the 

Phosphate Fertilizer Production source 

category (i.e., NESHAP subpart BB). In 

conducting our technology review for 

the Phosphate Fertilizer Production 

source category, we utilized the RBLC 

database and the data submitted by 

facilities in response to the April 2010 

CAA section 114 request. 

Based on our review of the RBLC, we 

did not find any new developments in 

practices, processes and control 

technologies that have been applied 

since the original NESHAP to reduce 

emissions from phosphate fertilizer 

production plants. 

Based on our review of the CAA 

section 114 data (see 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 Docket No. EPA–HQ–OAR– 

2012–0522), we determined that the 

control technologies used at phosphate 

fertilizer production plants have not 

changed since the EPA published 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,’’ which is 

available in Docket ID No. A–94–02. 

In general, the Phosphate Fertilizer 

Production source category continues to 

use wet scrubbing technology to control 

HF emissions from the APF processes. 

We did not identify any technical 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

66550 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 216 / Friday, November 7, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

developments in wet scrubbing methods 

used at phosphate fertilizer production 

plants. As noted in the memorandum 

discussed above, the type and 

configuration of the wet scrubbing 

technology varies significantly between 

facilities and between process lines 

within a facility. In order to determine 

the differences in effectiveness of 

control device technologies we 

identified, we reviewed the emissions 

data submitted by facilities in response 

to the April 2010 and January 2014 CAA 

section 114 requests. 

For APF process lines, we identified 

four control technology configurations 

from the CAA section 114 data. 

However, based on the available 

emissions data, we could not 

distinguish one configuration that 

clearly achieved greater emissions 

reductions than the other 

configurations. The emissions data for 

the four configurations we identified 

cover a wide range of emissions and do 

not show that a particular configuration 

achieves greater emission reductions. 

We believe that observed differences in 

facility emissions are likely the result of 

factors other than control technology 

(e.g., subtle differences in sampling and 

analytical techniques, age of control 

equipment and differences in facility 

operation). 

For TSP processes, none of the 11 

facilities with APF processes have 

active operations for TSP production or 

storage based on the CAA section 114 

responses. While one facility is 

permitted to store GTSP, we do not 

anticipate that the facility will resume 

GTSP operations at any point in the 

future because according to the 

International Fertilizer Industry 

Association, North American 

production of GTSP ceased in 2007. 

However, if a facility were to start 

producing and storing TSP, the control 

technologies would be the same as those 

already used at APF process lines 

because the same, or very similar, 

equipment is used to produce and store 

TSP as what is used to produce and 

store APF (see 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,’’ which is 

available in Docket ID No. A–94–02). 

Given the lack of TSP production in the 

U.S., and the lack of new control 

technologies for the similarly controlled 

APF process lines, no new technologies 

were identified during this review of 

TSP production and storage processes. 

Therefore, neither these data nor any 

other information we have examined 

show that there has been a significant 

improvement in the add-on control 

technology or other equipment since 

promulgation of NESHAP subpart BB. 

We also reviewed the CAA section 

114 responses to identify any work 

practices, pollution prevention 

techniques and process changes at 

phosphate fertilizer production 

manufacturing plants that could achieve 

emission reductions. We did not 

identify any developments regarding 

practices, techniques, or process 

changes that affect point source 

emissions from this source category. See 

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 

Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2012– 

0522. 

In light of the results of the 

technology review, we conclude that 

additional standards are not necessary 

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

we are not proposing changes to 

NESHAP subpart BB as part of our 

technology review. We solicit comment 

on our proposed decision. 

2. NSPS Review 

Pursuant to CAA section 111(b)(1)(B), 

we conducted a review to identify new 

developments that may advise revisions 

to the current NSPS standards 

applicable to the Phosphate Fertilizer 

Production source category (i.e., NSPS 

subparts V, W and X). This review 

considered both (1) whether 

developments in technology or other 

factors support the conclusion that a 

different system of emissions reduction 

has become the ‘‘best system of 

emissions reduction’’ and (2) whether 

emissions limitations and percent 

reductions beyond those required by the 

standards are achieved in practice. 

a. NSPS Subpart V Review 

Based on a search of the RBLC 

database, CAA section 114 data, and 

other relevant sources, we did not find 

any new developments that have been 

applied since the original NSPS subpart 

V to reduce total F emissions from a 

DAP plant. Additionally, based on our 

review of the CAA section 114 data 

provided by this industry, we 

determined that the technologies used 

to control stack emissions at DAP plants 

have not changed since the original 

NSPS subpart V. As discussed in more 

detail 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 Docket ID No. EPA–HQ– 

OAR–2012–0522, we observed some 

differences in total F emissions from 

DAP plants. However, we did not find 

any patterns in emissions reductions 

based on control technology used. 

Although we identified four control 

technology configurations that are being 

used at DAP plants, based on the 

available emissions data, we could not 

distinguish one configuration that 

clearly achieved greater emissions 

reductions than the other 

configurations. The emissions data for 

the four configurations we identified 

cover a wide range of emissions and do 

not show that a particular configuration 

achieves greater emission reductions. 

We believe that observed differences in 

facility total F emissions are likely the 

result of factors other than control 

technology (e.g., subtle differences in 

sampling and analytical techniques, age 

of control equipment and differences in 

facility operating parameters). 

Therefore, neither these data nor any 

other information we have examined 

show that there has been a significant 

improvement in the add-on control 

technology or other equipment since 

promulgation of NSPS subpart V. 

Finally, we also reviewed the CAA 

section 114 responses to identify any 

work practices, pollution prevention 

techniques and process changes at DAP 

plants that could achieve greater 

emission reductions than is required 

under the current NSPS. We did not 

identify any developments regarding 

practices, techniques, or process 

changes that affect point source 

emissions from DAP plants. For these 

reasons, we do not see any basis for 

concluding that the ‘‘best system of 

emissions reduction’’ has changed. 

Therefore, we are proposing that 

additional revisions to NSPS subpart V 

standards are not appropriate pursuant 

to CAA section 111(b)(1)(B). We solicit 

comment on our proposed 

determination. 

b. NSPS Subparts W and X Reviews 

As previously discussed in section 

V.C.1 of this preamble, none of the 11 

facilities with APF processes have 

active operations for TSP production or 

storage based on the CAA section 114 

responses. While one facility is 

permitted to store GTSP, we do not 

anticipate that the facility will resume 

GTSP operations at any point in the 

future because, according to the 

International Fertilizer Industry 

Association, North American 

production of GTSP ceased in 2007. 

However, if a facility were to start 

producing and storing TSP, the control 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 216 / Friday, November 7, 2014 / Proposed Rules 66551 

technologies would be the same as those 

already used at APF process lines 

because the same, or very similar, 

equipment is used to produce and store 

GTSP as what is used to produce and 

store APF (see 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,’’ which is 

available in Docket ID No. A–94–02). 

Given the lack of TSP production in the 

U.S., and the lack of new developments 

for the similarly controlled APF process 

lines, no new developments were 

identified during this review of TSP 

production and storage processes. For 

these reasons, we do not see any basis 

for concluding that the ‘‘best system of 

emissions reduction’’ has changed. 

Therefore, we are proposing that 

additional revisions to NSPS subpart W 

and subpart X standards are not 

appropriate pursuant to CAA section 

111(b)(1)(B). We solicit comment on our 

proposed determination. 

D. What other actions are we proposing 

for the Phosphate Fertilizer Production 

source category? 

In addition to the amendments 

described above, we reviewed NESHAP 

subpart BB, NSPS subpart V, NSPS 

subpart W and NSPS subpart X to 

determine whether we should make 

additional amendments. From this 

review, we are proposing several 

additional revisions or clarifications. 

We are proposing revisions to the SSM 

provisions of NESHAP subpart BB in 

order to ensure that they are consistent 

with the court decision in Sierra Club v. 

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

which vacated two provisions that 

exempted sources from the requirement 

to comply with otherwise applicable 

CAA section 112(d) emission standards 

during periods of SSM. In addition, we 

are proposing clarifications to the 

applicability of NESHAP subpart BB. 

We also are proposing various other 

changes to testing, monitoring, 

recordkeeping and reporting 

requirements in NESHAP subpart BB, 

NSPS subpart V, NSPS subpart W and 

NSPS subpart X. Our analyses and 

proposed changes related to these issues 

are discussed in this section of this 

preamble. 

1. What are the SSM requirements? 

The United States 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. Sierra Club v. EPA, 551 

F.3d 1019 (D.C. Cir. 2008), cert. denied, 

130 S. Ct. 1735 (U.S. 2010). 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 are proposing the elimination of 

the SSM exemption in this rule. 

Consistent with Sierra Club v. EPA, the 

EPA is proposing standards in this rule 

that apply at all times. We are also 

proposing several revisions to appendix 

A of subpart BB (the General Provisions 

Applicability Table) as is explained in 

more detail below. For example, we are 

proposing to eliminate the incorporation 

of the requirement in the General 

Provisions that the source develop an 

SSM plan. We also are proposing to 

eliminate and revise certain 

recordkeeping and reporting 

requirements related to the SSM 

exemption as further described below. 

The EPA has attempted to ensure that 

the provisions we are proposing to 

eliminate are inappropriate, 

unnecessary or redundant in the 

absence of the SSM exemption. We are 

specifically seeking comment on 

whether we have successfully done so. 

For the reasons explained below, we 

are proposing work practice standards 

for periods of startup and shutdown in 

lieu of numerical 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 

phosphate fertilizer production facilities 

generally only last between 30 minutes 

to 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 numerical emission standard 

for these periods. Furthermore, 

according to information provided by 

industry, it is possible that the feed rate 

(i.e., equivalent P2O5 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 

Fertilizer Production source category, 

we did not receive any emissions data 

collected during a startup and shutdown 

period, 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 are proposing a 

work practice standard rather than an 

emissions limit for periods of startup or 

shutdown. Control devices used on the 

various process lines in this source 

category are effective at achieving 

desired emission reductions 

immediately upon start-up. Therefore, 

during startup and shutdown periods, 

we are proposing that sources begin 

operation of any control device(s) in the 

production unit prior to introducing any 

feed into the production unit. We are 

also proposing 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. 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, 

emissions 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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

66552 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 216 / Friday, November 7, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

30The court’s reasoning in NRDC focuses on civil 

judicial actions. The court noted that ‘‘EPA’s ability 

to determine whether penalties should be assessed 

for Clean Air Act violations extends only to 

administrative penalties, not to civil penalties 

imposed by a court.’’ Id. 

‘‘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 United States 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 

emissions standards, nothing in section 

112 requires the EPA 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 the 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. For these reasons, 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, 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-by-case 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 shut down, 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 standards as a result of a 

malfunction event, the EPA would 

determine an appropriate response 

based on, among other things, the goodfaith 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 

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 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. 

In several prior CAA section 112 

rules, the EPA had included an 

affirmative defense to civil penalties for 

violations caused by malfunctions in an 

effort to create a system that 

incorporates some flexibility, 

recognizing that there is a tension, 

inherent in many types of air regulation, 

to ensure adequate compliance while 

simultaneously recognizing that despite 

the most diligent of efforts, emission 

standards may be violated under 

circumstances entirely beyond the 

control of the source. Although the EPA 

recognized that its case-by-case 

enforcement discretion provides 

sufficient flexibility in these 

circumstances, it included the 

affirmative defense to provide a more 

formalized approach and more 

regulatory clarity. See Weyerhaeuser Co. 

v. Costle, 590 F.2d 1011, 1057–58 (D.C. 

Cir. 1978) (holding that an informal 

case-by-case enforcement discretion 

approach is adequate); but see Marathon 

Oil Co. v. EPA, 564 F.2d 1253, 1272–73 

(9th Cir. 1977) (requiring a more 

formalized approach to consideration of 

‘‘upsets beyond the control of the permit 

holder.’’). Under the EPA’s regulatory 

affirmative defense provisions, if a 

source could demonstrate in a judicial 

or administrative proceeding that it had 

met the requirements of the affirmative 

defense in the regulation, civil penalties 

would not be assessed. Recently, the 

United States Court of Appeals for the 

District of Columbia Circuit vacated an 

affirmative defense in one of the EPA’s 

CAA section 112 regulations. NRDC v. 

EPA, 749 F.3d 1055 (D.C. Cir., 2014) 

(vacating affirmative defense provisions 

in CAA section 112 rule establishing 

emission standards for Portland cement 

kilns). The court found that the EPA 

lacked authority to establish an 

affirmative defense for private civil suits 

and held that under the CAA, the 

authority to determine civil penalty 

amounts in such cases lies exclusively 

with the courts, not the EPA. 

Specifically, the court found: ‘‘As the 

language of the statute makes clear, the 

courts determine, on a case-by-case 

basis, whether civil penalties are 

‘appropriate.’ ’’ See NRDC, 2014 U.S. 

App. LEXIS 7281 at *21 (‘‘[U]nder this 

statute, deciding whether penalties are 

‘appropriate’ in a given private civil suit 

is a job for the courts, not EPA.’’).30 In 

light of NRDC, the EPA is not including 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 216 / Friday, November 7, 2014 / Proposed Rules 66553 

31Although the NRDC case does not address the 

EPA’s authority to establish an affirmative defense 

to penalties that is available in administrative 

enforcement actions, EPA is not including such an 

affirmative defense in the proposed rule. As 

explained above, such an affirmative defense is not 

necessary. Moreover, assessment of penalties for 

violations caused by malfunctions in administrative 

proceedings and judicial proceedings should be 

consistent. CF. CAA section 113(e) (requiring both 

the Administrator and the court to take specified 

criteria into account when assessing penalties). 

a regulatory affirmative defense 

provision in the proposed rule. As 

explained above, if a source is unable to 

comply with emissions standards as a 

result of a malfunction, the EPA may 

use its case-by-case enforcement 

discretion to provide flexibility, as 

appropriate. Further, as the United 

States Court of Appeals for the District 

of Columbia Circuit recognized, in an 

EPA or citizen enforcement action, the 

court has the discretion to consider any 

defense raised and determine whether 

penalties are appropriate. Cf. NRDC, 

2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 7281 at *24 

(arguments that violation were caused 

by unavoidable technology failure can 

be made to the courts in future civil 

cases when the issue arises). The same 

is true for the presiding officer in EPA 

administrative enforcement actions.31

a. 40 CFR 63.628(b) General Duty 

We are proposing 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 a ‘‘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 are proposing 

instead to add general duty regulatory 

text at 40 CFR 63.628(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 is 

proposing does not include that 

language from 40 CFR 63.6(e)(1). We are 

also proposing 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 

a ‘‘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 

63.628(b). 

b. SSM Plan 

We are proposing 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 

a ‘‘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 is 

proposing 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 are proposing 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 

a ‘‘no.’’ The current language of 40 CFR 

63.6 (f)(1) exempts sources from nonopacity standards during periods of 

SSM. As discussed above, the court in 

Sierra Club 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, the EPA is proposing to revise 

standards in this rule to apply at all 

times. 

d. 40 CFR 63.626 Performance Testing 

We are proposing 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 

a ‘‘no.’’ Section 63.7(e)(1) describes 

performance testing requirements. The 

EPA is instead proposing to add a 

performance testing requirement at 40 

CFR 63.626(d). The performance testing 

requirements we are proposing to add 

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 

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. 

We are proposing that sources 

conduct performance tests during 

‘‘maximum representative operating 

conditions for the process’’. 

Specifically, we are proposing that 

sources must operate their process 

during the performance test in such a 

way that results in the flue gas 

characteristics that are the most difficult 

for reducing emissions of the regulated 

pollutant(s) by the control device used. 

In an effort to provide more flexibility 

to owners and operators regarding the 

identification of the proper testing 

conditions, the most difficult condition 

for the control device may include, but 

is not limited to, the highest HAP mass 

loading rate to the control device, or the 

highest HAP mass loading rate of 

constituents that approach the limits of 

solubility for scrubbing media. The EPA 

understands that there may be cases 

where efficiencies are dependent on 

other characteristics of emission 

streams, including the characteristics of 

components and the operating 

principles of the devices. For example, 

the solubility of emission stream 

components in scrubbing media, or 

emission stream component affinity in 

carbon adsorption systems can also 

define the most difficult condition for a 

particular control device. The EPA is 

also proposing to add language that 

requires the owner or operator to record 

the process information that is 

necessary to document operating 

conditions during the test and include 

in such record an explanation to 

support that such conditions represent 

maximum representative operating 

conditions. Section 63.7(e) requires that 

the owner or operator make available to 

the Administrator upon request such 

records ‘‘as may be necessary to 

determine the condition of the 

performance test,’’ but did not 

specifically require the owner or 

operator to record the information. The 

regulatory text the EPA is proposing to 

add builds on that requirement and 

makes explicit the requirement to record 

the information. 

e. Monitoring 

We are proposing to revise the entry 

for 40 CFR 63.8(c)(1)(i) and (c)(1)(iii) in 

the General Provisions table by 

changing the ‘‘yes’’ in column three to 

a ‘‘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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

66554 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 216 / Friday, November 7, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

program for monitoring equipment (40 

CFR 63.8(d)). 

We are proposing to revise the entry 

for 40 CFR 63.8(d)(3) in the General 

Provisions table by changing the ‘‘yes’’ 

in column three to a ‘‘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 is proposing to add 

to the rule at 40 CFR 63.628(c) 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 63.627 Recordkeeping 

We are proposing 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 

a ‘‘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 is proposing 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 are proposing 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 

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

the recordkeeping requirements during 

a malfunction. The EPA is proposing to 

add such requirements to 40 CFR 

63.627(b). The regulatory text we are 

proposing 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 is proposing that this requirement 

apply to any failure to meet an 

applicable standard and is requiring that 

the source record the date, time and 

duration of the failure rather than the 

‘‘occurrence.’’ The EPA is also 

proposing to add to 40 CFR 63.627 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 productloss calculations, mass balance 

calculations, measurements when 

available or engineering judgment based 

on known process parameters. The EPA 

is proposing to require 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 are proposing 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 

a ‘‘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 63.627. 

We are proposing 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 

a ‘‘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 are proposing 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 

a ‘‘no.’’ The EPA is proposing 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 is proposing 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 63.627 Reporting 

We are proposing 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 

a ‘‘no.’’ Section 63.10(d)(5) describes the 

reporting requirements for SSM. To 

replace the General Provisions reporting 

requirement, the EPA is proposing to 

add reporting requirements to 40 CFR 

63.627. The replacement language 

differs from the General Provisions 

requirement in that it eliminates 

periodic SSM reports as a stand-alone 

report. We are proposing 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 are 

proposing 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., 

product-loss calculations, mass balance 

calculations, direct measurements, or 

engineering judgment based on known 

process parameters). The EPA is 

proposing 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. These specifications are no 

longer necessary because the events will 

be reported in otherwise required 

reports with similar format and 

submittal requirements. We are 

proposing 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 are proposing 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 

a ‘‘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 will 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. 

2. Clarifications to Applicability and 

Certain Definitions 

a. NESHAP Subpart BB 

We are proposing clarifications to the 

applicability section (40 CFR 63.620) of 

the Phosphate Fertilizer Production 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 216 / Friday, November 7, 2014 / Proposed Rules 66555 

NESHAP (subpart BB). The 

requirements of the current Phosphate 

Fertilizer Production NESHAP (subpart 

BB) apply to diammonium and/or 

monoammonium phosphate process 

lines, granular triple superphosphate 

lines and granular triple 

superphosphate storage buildings only. 

In this action, we are proposing 

clarifications to the applicability of the 

NESHAP to include any process line 

that produces a reaction product of 

ammonia and phosphoric acid. Based 

on facility responses to the CAA section 

114 survey issued to the Phosphate 

Fertilizer Production source category, 

EPA learned that the phosphate 

fertilizer products produced by facilities 

changes over time (e.g., no facility 

currently produces a granular triple 

superphosphate product). To ensure the 

emission standards we are proposing 

reflect inclusion of HAP emissions from 

all sources in the defined source 

category, as initially intended in the 

rule promulgation, we believe it 

necessary to clarify the applicability of 

the NESHAP to include reaction 

products of ammonia and phosphoric 

acid, and not just diammonium and 

monoammonium phosphate. This 

revision also further aligns the 

definition of the source category with 

the current provisions in 40 CFR 

63.620(a) which specify that the 

NESHAP applies to each phosphate 

fertilizers production plant. 

Granular triple superphosphate is no 

longer produced in the United States. 

However, in the unlikely event that a 

facility were to start producing and 

storing GTSP, we are not proposing to 

remove requirements for the triple 

superphosphate processes regulated by 

NESHAP subpart BB (i.e., GTSP process 

lines and storage buildings). 

For consistency between NESHAP 

subpart AA and NESHAP subpart BB, 

we are proposing the NESHAP subpart 

AA conditions 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 also be 

included in NESHAP subpart BB. For 

additional consistency between 

NESHAP subpart AA and NESHAP 

subpart BB, we are also proposing 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. 

b. NSPS Subpart W 

We are proposing to change the word 

‘‘cookers’’ as listed in 40 CFR 60.230(a) 

to ‘‘coolers’’ in order to correct the 

typographical error. The term should be 

‘‘coolers,’’ and background literature 

does not indicate any equipment 

referred to ‘‘cookers’’ being used in the 

manufacture of TSP. 

3. Testing, Monitoring, Recordkeeping 

and Reporting 

a. NESHAP Subpart BB 

For wet scrubbers, we are proposing 

alternatives to the existing requirement 

to monitor pressure differential through 

the scrubber. We received input from 

industry that the pressure differential is 

not a reliable method of determining the 

performance of a column because 

fouling occurs over time, increasing the 

pressure differential. The pressure 

differential immediately after cleaning 

will be much lower than that after the 

scrubber has operated for some time. 

Therefore, to provide flexibility, we 

have included a number of monitoring 

options as alternatives to determining 

the performance of a column using 

pressure differential. We are also adding 

flexibility in the existing requirement to 

measure the flow rate of the scrubbing 

liquid to each scrubber (i.e., the inlet 

liquid flow rate to a scrubber). We are 

proposing that the inlet liquid-to-gas 

ratio may now be monitored in lieu of 

the inlet liquid flow rate, which 

provides the ability to lower liquid flow 

rate with changes in gas flow rate to the 

scrubber. 

We are 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. For the 

proposed requirements, facilities must 

immediately comply with new 

operating ranges when they are 

developed and submitted. New 

operating ranges must also 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 described in section V.D.1.d of this 

preamble, we have also 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. 

For subpart BB we are proposing 

monitoring requirements for fabric 

filters because two processes were 

identified that used fabric filters rather 

than wet scrubbing as the control 

technology. 

In keeping with the general provisions 

for CMS (including CEMS and CPMS), 

we are proposing the addition of a sitespecific monitoring plan and calibration 

requirements for CMS. Provisions are 

included for electronic reporting of 

stack test data. 

We have also modified the format of 

the NESHAP to reference tables for 

emissions limits and monitoring 

requirements. 

b. NSPS Subpart V 

The EPA evaluated the monitoring 

and recordkeeping requirements 

currently required in NSPS subpart V to 

determine if they are adequate for 

determining compliance. Currently 

under NSPS subpart V, an owner or 

operator of a granular diammonium 

phosphate plant is required to install, 

calibrate, maintain and operate a 

monitoring device which continuously 

measures and permanently records the 

total pressure drop across the process 

scrubbing system. However, the current 

rule does not require an owner or 

operator to establish, and demonstrate 

continuous compliance with, an 

allowable range for the pressure drop 

through the process scrubbing system. 

Therefore, we are proposing new 

monitoring and recordkeeping 

requirements for any diammonium 

phosphate plant that commences 

construction, modification or 

reconstruction after [date of publication 

of the final rule in the Federal Register] 

to ensure continuous compliance with 

the standard. 

We are proposing that for any 

granular diammonium phosphate plant 

that commences construction, 

modification or reconstruction after 

[date of publication of the final rule in 

the Federal Register] the owner or 

operator establish an allowable range for 

the pressure drop through the process 

scrubbing system. The allowable range 

would be established during the 

performance test required in 40 CFR 

60.8. We also propose that the allowable 

range is ±20 percent of the arithmetic 

average of the three test runs conducted 

during the performance test. In addition, 

the owner or operator would be required 

to maintain the daily average pressure 

drop through the process scrubbing 

system within the allowable range; and 

valid data points must be available for 

75 percent of the operating hours in an 

operating day to compute the daily 

average. We also propose that the owner 

or operator keep records of the daily 

average pressure drop through the 

process scrubbing system, and keep 

records of deviations. We are proposing 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

66556 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 216 / Friday, November 7, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

these monitoring and recordkeeping 

requirements in order to: Ensure that the 

process scrubbing system is properly 

maintained over time; ensure 

continuous compliance with standards; 

and improve data accessibility. 

Finally, for consistency with 

terminology used in the associated 

NESHAP subpart BB, we have changed 

the term ‘‘process scrubbing system’’ to 

‘‘absorber’’. 

We do not expect any costs to be 

associated with these proposed 

monitoring and recordkeeping 

requirements. These proposed 

requirements will apply to all 

diammonium phosphate plants that 

reconstruct or modify their plants; 

however, facilities that are subject to the 

NESHAP are exempt from compliance 

with the NSPS. We are aware of only 

one facility currently subject to the 

NSPS, but not the NESHAP. We do not 

anticipate that this facility will modify 

their diammonium phosphate plant over 

the next 3 years; therefore, this facility 

will not trigger the proposed monitoring 

and recordkeeping requirements for 

NSPS subpart V. Furthermore, pursuant 

to their Title V air permit compliance 

assurance monitoring plan, this facility 

already conducts daily monitoring of 

pressure drop through their process 

scrubbing system and compares it 

against an established range. Therefore, 

any costs to comply with these 

requirements would be negligible 

should the facility become subject. 

c. NSPS Subpart W 

The EPA evaluated the monitoring 

and recordkeeping requirements 

currently required in NSPS subpart W to 

determine if they are adequate for 

determining compliance. Currently 

under NSPS subpart W, an owner or 

operator of a triple superphosphate 

plant is required to install, calibrate, 

maintain and operate a monitoring 

device which continuously measures 

and permanently records the total 

pressure drop across the process 

scrubbing system. However, the current 

rule does not require an owner or 

operator to establish, and demonstrate 

continuous compliance with, an 

allowable range for the pressure drop 

through the process scrubbing system. 

Therefore, we are proposing new 

monitoring and recordkeeping 

requirements for any triple 

superphosphate plant that commences 

construction, modification or 

reconstruction after [date of publication 

of the final rule in the Federal Register] 

to ensure continuous compliance with 

the standard. 

We are proposing that for any triple 

superphosphate plant that commences 

construction, modification or 

reconstruction after [date of publication 

of the final rule in the Federal Register] 

the owner or operator establish an 

allowable range for the pressure drop 

through the process scrubbing system. 

The allowable range would be 

established during the performance test 

required in 40 CFR 60.8. We also 

propose that the allowable range is ±20 

percent of the arithmetic average of the 

three test runs conducted during the 

performance test. In addition, the owner 

or operator would be required to 

maintain the daily average pressure 

drop through the process scrubbing 

system within the allowable range; and 

valid data points must be available for 

75 percent of the operating hours in an 

operating day to compute the daily 

average. We also propose that the owner 

or operator keep records of the daily 

average pressure drop through the 

process scrubbing system, and keep 

records of deviations. We are proposing 

these monitoring and recordkeeping 

requirements in order to: Ensure that the 

process scrubbing system is properly 

maintained over time; ensure 

continuous compliance with standards; 

and improve data accessibility. 

Finally, for consistency with 

terminology used in the associated 

NESHAP subpart BB, we have changed 

the term ‘‘process scrubbing system’’ to 

‘‘absorber.’’ 

We do not expect any costs associated 

with these proposed monitoring and 

recordkeeping requirements, as we are 

not aware of any facilities in the United 

States that manufacture TSP or that plan 

to manufacture TSP in the next three 

years. 

d. NSPS Subpart X 

The EPA evaluated the monitoring 

and recordkeeping requirements 

currently required in NSPS subpart X to 

determine if they are adequate for 

determining compliance. Currently 

under NSPS subpart X, an owner or 

operator of a granular triple 

superphosphate storage facility is 

required to install, calibrate, maintain 

and operate a monitoring device which 

continuously measures and 

permanently records the total pressure 

drop across the process scrubbing 

system. However, the current rule does 

not require an owner or operator to 

establish, and demonstrate continuous 

compliance with, an allowable range for 

the pressure drop through the process 

scrubbing system. Therefore, we are 

proposing new monitoring and 

recordkeeping requirements for any 

granular triple superphosphate storage 

facility that commences construction, 

modification or reconstruction after 

[date of publication of the final rule in 

the Federal Register] to ensure 

continuous compliance with the 

standard. 

We are proposing that for any 

granular triple superphosphate storage 

facility that commences construction, 

modification or reconstruction after 

[date of publication of the final rule in 

the Federal Register] the owner or 

operator establish an allowable range for 

the pressure drop through the process 

scrubbing system. The allowable range 

would be established during the 

performance test required in 40 CFR 

60.8. We also propose that the allowable 

range is ±20 percent of the arithmetic 

average of the three test runs conducted 

during the performance test. In addition, 

the owner or operator would be required 

to maintain the daily average pressure 

drop through the process scrubbing 

system within the allowable range; and 

valid data points must be available for 

75 percent of the operating hours in an 

operating day to compute the daily 

average. We also propose that the owner 

or operator keep records of the daily 

average pressure drop through the 

process scrubbing system, and keep 

records of deviations. We are proposing 

these monitoring and recordkeeping 

requirements in order to: Ensure that the 

process scrubbing system is properly 

maintained over time; ensure 

continuous compliance with standards; 

and improve data accessibility. 

Finally, for consistency with 

terminology used in the associated 

NESHAP subpart BB, we have changed 

the term ‘‘process scrubbing system’’ to 

‘‘absorber.’’ 

We do not expect any costs associated 

with these proposed monitoring and 

recordkeeping requirements as we are 

not aware of any facilities that 

manufacture or store GTSP or plan to 

manufacture or store GTSP in the next 

3 years. 

4. Translation of TF to HF Emission 

Limits 

As described in section IV.E.4 of this 

preamble, the EPA is proposing to 

translate the current total F limit (lbs 

total F/ton P2O5 feed) into an HF limit 

(lbs HF/ton P2O5 feed). Please refer to 

section IV.E.4 of this preamble for a 

detailed description of the methodology 

used to translate the existing TF limits 

to HF limits. 

The resulting new and existing 

proposed HF emission limits are 

summarized in Table 8 of this preamble: 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 216 / Friday, November 7, 2014 / Proposed Rules 66557 

TABLE 8—SUMMARY OF PROPOSED HF EMISSION LIMITS FOR NEW AND EXISTING PHOSPHATE FERTILIZER FACILITIES

Regulated process 

Current total F limits * Proposed HF limits * 

Existing New Existing New 

MAP/DAP Fertilizer Lines ........................................................ 0.060 0.0580 0.060 0.0580 

GTSP Process Line ................................................................. 0.150 0.1230 0.150 0.1230 

GTSP Storage Building ........................................................... 5.0 × 10¥4 5.0 × 10¥4 5.0 × 10¥4 5.0 × 10¥4

* All limits expressed as lbs/Ton P2O5 feed. 

Also, as discussed in section IV.E.4 of 

this preamble, we are seeking comment 

on finalizing HF limits for regulating HF 

rather than total F, the use of EPA 

Method 320 for the compliance 

demonstration test method, the use of 

FTIR HF CEMS as an optional 

continuous monitoring compliance 

approach within the rule, the use of an 

HF CEMS as a compliance option and 

reduced testing frequency for HF 

monitoring. A more detailed discussion 

of these requests for comments is 

provided in section IV.E.4 of this 

preamble. 

E. What are the notification, 

recordkeeping and reporting 

requirements for the Phosphate 

Fertilizer Production source category? 

For the Phosphate Fertilizer 

Production source category, we are 

proposing the same electronic reporting 

requirements described in section IV.F 

of this preamble. 

F. What compliance dates are we 

proposing for the Phosphate Fertilizer 

Production source category? 

We are proposing that for existing and 

new process lines that produce a 

reaction product of ammonia and 

phosphoric acid (e.g., diammonium 

and/or monoammonium phosphate 

process lines), granular triple 

superphosphate process lines and 

granular triple superphosphate storage 

buildings that commence construction 

or reconstruction on or before the 

effective date of this rule, the facility 

must comply with the proposed HF 

limits no later than 1 year after the 

effective date of this rule. Facilities will 

continue to conduct the annual 

performance test, but will be required to 

use a different test method. Therefore, 

we are proposing a 1-year compliance 

lead time so that facilities have adequate 

time to coordinate performance testing 

with the new test method. We do not 

anticipate that any facilities will need to 

install a new control device to meet the 

proposed HF limits. For new process 

lines that produce a reaction product of 

ammonia and phosphoric acid (e.g., 

diammonium and/or monoammonium 

phosphate process lines), granular triple 

superphosphate process lines and 

granular triple superphosphate storage 

buildings that commence construction 

or reconstruction after the effective date 

of this rule, the facility must comply 

with the proposed HF limits beginning 

on the effective date of this rule. Prior 

to these compliance dates (for HF 

limits), we are proposing that facilities 

continue to comply with the current 

total F standards. 

We are proposing that the SSM 

requirements compliance date is the 

effective date of this rule. 

VI. Summary of Cost, Environmental 

and Economic Impacts 

A. What are the affected sources? 

We anticipate that the 13 facilities 

currently operating in the United States 

will be affected by these proposed 

amendments. One of the 13 facilities has 

indicated to the EPA that it plans on 

closing the phosphoric acid and 

phosphate fertilizer processes when the 

gypsum dewatering stack in use reaches 

the end of its capacity to accept gypsum 

slurry. We do not expect any new 

facilities to be constructed or expanded 

in the foreseeable future. 

B. What are the air quality impacts? 

We have estimated the potential 

emissions reductions that may be 

realized from the implementation of the 

proposed emission standards for the 

Phosphoric Acid Manufacturing and 

Phosphate Fertilizer Production source 

categories. We estimated emission 

reductions by first calculating emissions 

at the current level of control for each 

facility (referred to as the baseline level 

of control), and at the proposed level of 

control (i.e., the proposed beyond-thefloor emission standard for Hg from 

phosphate rock calciners). We 

calculated emission reductions as the 

difference between the proposed level 

and baseline level of control. We 

estimate that the proposed subpart AA 

NESHAP will result in emissions 

reductions of approximately 145 lb per 

year of Hg from phosphate rock 

calciners as a result of beyond-the-floor 

emission standards for Hg. The current 

estimated Hg emissions from the 

phosphate rock calciners is 

approximately 169 lb per year. The 

memorandum, ‘‘Beyond-the-Floor 

Analysis for Phosphate Rock Calciners 

at Phosphoric Acid Manufacturing 

Plants,’’ which is available in the docket 

for this action, documents the results of 

the beyond-the-floor analysis. 

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, 

recordkeeping and reporting 

requirements to comply with the 

proposed rule. Based on this analysis, 

we anticipate an overall total capital 

investment of $4.9 million, with an 

associated total annualized cost of 

approximately $2.0 million (using a 

discount rate of 7 percent), in 2013 

dollars. 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 

new source cost impacts. 

We calculated costs to meet the 

proposed level of control. For phosphate 

rock calciners, we estimated the cost of 

adding a fixed-bed carbon adsorption 

system to meet the proposed Hg 

emission standard. For all other 

emission sources, including phosphate 

rock calciners, 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,’’ 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 enough, 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 estimated the total annualized 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

66558 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 216 / Friday, November 7, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

costs for the proposed rule to be $2.0 

million. We project that only one 

facility will incur significant costs. A 

global agrochemical company with 

annual revenue estimated in the $100 

million to $500 million range owns this 

facility. The facility itself would not be 

a small business even if it were not 

owned by the larger entity. The 

annualized control costs for this 

company would be 0.3 percent to 1.5 of 

percent revenues. We do not expect 

these small costs to result in a 

significant market impact whether they 

are passed on to the consumer or 

absorbed by the company. 

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? 

We anticipate this rulemaking to 

reduce Hg emissions by approximately 

145 lb each year starting in 2016. 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 the estimated 

costs for this action are less than $100 

million. 

VII. Request for Comments 

We solicit comments on all aspects of 

this proposed action. In addition to 

general comments on this proposed 

action, we are also interested in 

additional data that may improve the 

risk assessments and other analyses. We 

are specifically interested in receiving 

any improvements to the data used in 

the site-specific emissions profiles used 

for risk modeling, including information 

on the appropriate acute emissions 

factors for estimating emissions from the 

gypsum dewatering stacks and cooling 

ponds. Such data should include 

supporting documentation in sufficient 

detail to allow characterization of the 

quality and representativeness of the 

data or information. Section VIII of this 

preamble provides more information on 

submitting data. 

VIII. Submitting Data Corrections 

The site-specific emissions profiles 

used in the source category risk and 

demographic analyses and instructions 

are available for download on the RTR 

Web page at: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/

atw/rrisk/rtrpg.html. The data files 

include detailed information for each 

HAP emissions release point for the 

facilities in the source category. 

If you believe that the data are not 

representative or are inaccurate, please 

identify the data in question, provide 

your reason for concern and provide any 

‘‘improved’’ data that you have, if 

available. When you submit data, we 

request that you provide documentation 

of the basis for the revised values to 

support your suggested changes. To 

submit comments on the data 

downloaded from the RTR Web page, 

complete the following steps: 

1. Within this downloaded file, enter 

suggested revisions to the data fields 

appropriate for that information. 

2. Fill in the commenter information 

fields for each suggested revision (i.e., 

commenter name, commenter 

organization, commenter email address, 

commenter phone number and revision 

comments). 

3. Gather documentation for any 

suggested emissions revisions (e.g., 

performance test reports, material 

balance calculations, etc.). 

4. Send the entire downloaded file 

with suggested revisions in Microsoft®

Access format and all accompanying 

documentation to Docket ID Number 

EPA–HQ–OAR–2012–0522 (through one 

of the methods described in the 

ADDRESSES section of this preamble). 

5. If you are providing comments on 

a single facility or multiple facilities, 

you need only submit one file for all 

facilities. The file should contain all 

suggested changes for all sources at that 

facility. We request that all data revision 

comments be submitted in the form of 

updated Microsoft® Excel files that are 

generated by the Microsoft® Access file. 

These files are provided on the RTR 

Web page at: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/

atw/rrisk/rtrpg.html. 

IX. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory 

Planning and Review and Executive 

Order 13563: Improving Regulation and 

Regulatory Review 

This action is not a ‘‘significant 

regulatory action’’ under the terms of 

Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993) and is, therefore, not 

subject to review under Executive 

Orders 12866 and 13563 (76 FR 3821, 

January 21, 2011). The EPA analyzed 

the potential costs and benefits 

associated with this action. The results 

are presented in sections VI.C and E of 

this preamble. 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act 

The information collection 

requirements in this proposed rule have 

been submitted for approval to OMB 

under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 

U.S.C. 3501, et seq. The Information 

Collection Request (ICR) document 

prepared by the EPA has been assigned 

EPA ICR number 1790.06. The 

information requirements are based on 

notification, recordkeeping and 

reporting requirements in the NESHAP 

General Provisions (40 CFR part 63, 

subpart A), which are mandatory for all 

operators subject to national emissions 

standards. These recordkeeping and 

reporting requirements are specifically 

authorized by section 114 of the CAA 

(42 U.S.C. 7414). All information 

submitted to the EPA pursuant to the 

recordkeeping and reporting 

requirements for which a claim of 

confidentiality is made is safeguarded 

according to EPA policies set forth in 40 

CFR part 2, subpart B. 

We are proposing 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 

gypsum dewatering stacks. 

We estimate 12 regulated entities are 

currently subject to 40 CFR part 63 

subpart AA and 10 regulated entities are 

currently subject to 40 CFR part 63 

subpart BB and each will be subject to 

all applicable proposed standards. The 

annual monitoring, reporting and 

recordkeeping burden for these 

amendments to subpart AA and BB is 

estimated to be $625,000 per year 

(averaged over the first 3 years after the 

effective date of the standards). This 

includes 640 labor hours per year at a 

total labor cost of $53,000 per year, and 

total non-labor capital and operating 

and maintenance costs of $572,000 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 326 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. 

To comment on the agency’s need for 

this information, the accuracy of the 

provided burden estimates and any 

suggested methods for minimizing 

respondent burden, the EPA has 

established a public docket for this rule 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 216 / Friday, November 7, 2014 / Proposed Rules 66559 

(Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2012– 

0522) which includes this ICR. Submit 

any comments related to the ICR to the 

EPA and OMB. See ADDRESSES section 

at the beginning of this notice for where 

to submit comments to the EPA. Send 

comments to OMB at the Office of 

Information and Regulatory Affairs, 

Office of Management and Budget, 725 

17th Street, NW., Washington, DC 

20503, Attention: Desk Office for the 

EPA. Since OMB is required to make a 

decision concerning the ICR between 30 

and 60 days after November 7, 2014, a 

comment to OMB is best assured of 

having its full effect if OMB receives it 

by December 8, 2014. The final rule will 

respond to any OMB or public 

comments on the information collection 

requirements contained in this proposal. 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) 

generally requires an agency to prepare 

a regulatory flexibility analysis of any 

rule subject to notice and comment 

rulemaking requirements under the 

Administrative Procedure Act or any 

other statute unless the agency certifies 

that the rule will not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. Small entities 

include small businesses, small 

organizations and small governmental 

jurisdictions. 

For purposes of assessing the impacts 

of this rule on small entities, small 

entity is defined as: (1) A small business 

as defined by the Small Business 

Administration’s (SBA) regulations at 13 

CFR 121.201; (2) a small governmental 

jurisdiction that is a government of a 

city, county, town, school district or 

special district with a population of less 

than 50,000; and (3) a small 

organization that is any not-for-profit 

enterprise that is independently owned 

and operated and is not dominant in its 

field. 

After considering the economic 

impacts of this proposed rule on small 

entities, I certify that this action will not 

have a significant economic impact on 

a substantial number of small entities. 

This proposed rule will not impose any 

requirements on small entities because 

we do not project that any small entities 

will incur costs due to these proposed 

rule amendments. We continue to be 

interested in the potential impacts of the 

proposed rule on small entities and 

welcome comments on issues related to 

such impacts. 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

This action contains no federal 

mandates under the provisions of Title 

II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform 

Act of 1995 (UMRA), 2 U.S.C. 1531– 

1538 for state, local, or tribal 

governments or the private sector. The 

action imposes no enforceable duty on 

any state, local, or tribal governments or 

the private sector. Therefore, this action 

is not subject to the requirements of 

sections 202 or 205 of the UMRA. 

This action is also not subject to the 

requirements of section 203 of UMRA 

because it does not contain regulatory 

requirements that might significantly or 

uniquely affect small governments 

because this action neither contains 

requirements that apply to such 

governments nor does it impose 

obligations upon them. 

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, as specified in 

Executive Order 13132. None of the 

facilities subject to this action are 

owned or operated by state 

governments, and nothing in this 

proposal will supersede state 

regulations. Thus, Executive Order 

13132 does not apply to this action. 

In the spirit of Executive Order 13132, 

and consistent with EPA policy to 

promote communications between the 

EPA and state and local governments, 

the EPA specifically solicits comment 

on this proposed rule from state and 

local officials. 

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation 

and Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments 

Subject to the Executive Order 13175 

(65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), the 

EPA may not issue a regulation that has 

tribal implications, that imposes 

substantial direct compliance costs and 

that is not required by statute, unless 

the federal government provides the 

funds necessary to pay the direct 

compliance costs incurred by tribal 

governments, or the EPA consults with 

tribal officials early in the process of 

developing the proposed regulation and 

develops a tribal summary impact 

statement. 

The EPA has concluded that this 

action may have tribal implications, due 

to the close proximity of one facility to 

a tribe (the Shoshone-Bannock). 

However, this action will neither 

impose substantial direct compliance 

costs on tribal governments, nor 

preempt tribal law. 

The EPA consulted with tribal 

officials 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. 

The EPA specifically solicits additional 

comment on this proposed action from 

tribal officials. 

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

Risks and Safety Risks 

This action is not subject to Executive 

Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 

1997) because it is not economically 

significant as defined in Executive 

Order 12866. This action’s health and 

risk assessments are contained in 

section V of this preamble. 

The proposed standards for Hg 

emissions from phosphate rock 

calciners will reduce Hg emissions, 

thereby reducing potential exposure to 

children, including the unborn. We 

invite the public to submit comments or 

identify peer-reviewed studies and data 

that assess effects of early life exposure 

to these pollutants. 

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions 

Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

This action is not a ‘‘significant 

energy action’’ as defined in Executive 

Order 13211 (66 FR 28355 (May 22, 

2001)), because it is not likely to have 

a significant adverse effect on the 

supply, distribution, or use of energy. 

The proposed changes to the emissions 

limits may require one facility to install 

additional control for Hg in the form of 

carbon adsorbers or ACI. These devices 

have minimal energy requirements, and 

we do not expect these devices to 

contribute significantly to the overall 

energy use at the facility. We have 

concluded that this rule is not likely to 

have any adverse energy effects. 

I. National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law 

Number 104–113, 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 

note) directs the EPA to use voluntary 

consensus standards (VCS) in its 

regulatory activities unless to do so 

would be inconsistent with applicable 

law or otherwise impractical. VCS are 

technical standards (e.g., materials 

specifications, test methods, sampling 

procedures and business practices) that 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

66560 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 216 / Friday, November 7, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

are developed or adopted by VCS 

bodies. The NTTAA directs the EPA to 

provide Congress, through OMB, 

explanations when the agency decides 

not to use available and applicable VCS. 

This proposed rulemaking involves 

technical standards. The EPA proposes 

to incorporate analytical methods of the 

Association of Official Analytical 

Chemists (AOAC) and of the 

Association of Fertilizer and Phosphate 

Chemists (AFPC). The EPA proposes to 

incorporate by reference the following 

AOAC methods: 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 

EPA proposes to incorporate the 

following AFPC methods for analysis of 

phosphate rock: 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 CSpectrophotometric Method. The EPA 

proposes to incorporate the following 

AFPC methods for analysis of 

phosphoric acid, superphosphate, triple 

superphosphate and ammonium 

phosphates: No. 3 Total PhosphorusP2O5, Method A-Volumetric Method, 

No. 3 Total Phosphorus-P2O5, Method 

B-Gravimetric Quimociac Method and 

No. 3 Total Phosphorus-P2O5, Method 

C-Spectrophotometric Method. 

We did not identify any applicable 

VCS for EPA Methods 5, 13A, 13B or 

30B. We did identify one VCS, ASTM 

D6348–03(2010), as an acceptable 

alternative for Method 320. 

During EPA’s VCS search, if the title 

or abstract (if provided) of the VCS 

described technical sampling and 

analytical procedures that are similar to 

the EPA’s reference method, the EPA 

ordered a copy of the standard and 

reviewed it as a potential equivalent 

method. We reviewed all potential 

standards to determine the practicality 

of the VCS for this rule. This review 

requires significant method validation 

data that meet the requirements of EPA 

Method 301 for accepting alternative 

methods or scientific, engineering and 

policy equivalence to procedures in 

EPA reference methods. The EPA may 

reconsider determinations of 

impracticality when additional 

information is available for particular 

VCS. 

The search identified 8 other VCS that 

were potentially applicable for this rule 

in lieu of the EPA reference methods. 

After reviewing the available standards, 

the EPA determined that 8 candidate 

VCS identified for measuring emissions 

of pollutants or their surrogates subject 

to emission standards in the rule would 

not be practical due to lack of 

equivalency, documentation, validation 

data and other important technical and 

policy considerations. 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 welcomes comments on this 

aspect of the proposed rulemaking, and, 

specifically, invites the public to 

identify potentially applicable VCS, and 

to explain why the EPA should use such 

standards in this regulation. 

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal 

Actions To Address Environmental 

Justice in Minority Populations and 

Low-Income Populations. 

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 United States. 

The EPA has determined that this 

proposed rule will not have 

disproportionately high and adverse 

human health or environmental effects 

on minority, low-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. More information on 

the source categories risk can be found 

in section IV of this preamble. 

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 proposed changes to the standard 

increase the level of environmental 

protection for all affected populations 

by ensuring no future emission 

increases from the source categories. 

Additionally, the proposed standards 

for Hg emissions from phosphate rock 

calciners will reduce Hg emissions, 

thereby reducing potential exposure to 

sustenance fishers and other sensitive 

populations. 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. 

List of Subjects 

40 CFR Part 60 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Fertilizers, Fluoride, 

Particulate matter, Phosphate, Reporting 

and recordkeeping requirements. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 216 / Friday, November 7, 2014 / Proposed Rules 66561 

40 CFR Part 63 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Hazardous 

substances, Incorporation by reference, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

Dated: October 21, 2014. 

Gina McCarthy, 

Administrator. 

For the reasons stated in the 

preamble, the Environmental Protection 

Agency proposes to amend title 40, 

chapter I, of the Code of Federal 

Regulations 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. 

* * * * * 

■ 3. Section 60.201 is amended by 

revising paragraph (a) to read as follows. 

§ 60.201 Definitions. 

* * * * * 

(a) Wet-process phosphoric acid plan 

means any facility manufacturing 

phosphoric acid by reacting phosphate 

rock and acid. A wet-process 

phosphoric acid plant includes, but is 

not limited to: reactors, filters, 

evaporators, hot wells, clarifiers, and 

defluorination systems. 

* * * * * 

■ 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 [date of 

publication of the final rule in the 

Federal Register] 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 [date of 

publication of the final rule in the 

Federal Register] 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 which concentrates wetprocess phosphoric acid to 66 percent or 

greater P2O5 content by weight for 

eventual consumption as a fertilizer. A 

superphosphoric acid plant includes, 

but is not limited to: evaporators, hot 

wells, acid sumps, oxidation reactors, 

and cooling tanks. 

* * * * * 

■ 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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

66562 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 216 / Friday, November 7, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

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 [date of publication 

of the final rule in the Federal Register] 

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. 

(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 [date of publication 

of the final rule in the Federal Register] 

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 (b)(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 [date of publication 

of the final rule in the Federal Register] 

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) 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 216 / Friday, November 7, 2014 / Proposed Rules 66563 

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 [date of publication 

of the final rule in the Federal Register] 

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. 

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 

which 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 which 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 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 § 60.230(a) that 

commences construction, modification, 

or reconstruction after [date of 

publication of the final rule in the 

Federal Register] 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 [date of 

publication of the final rule in the 

Federal Register] 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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

66564 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 216 / Friday, November 7, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

of this subpart shall install, calibrate, 

maintain, and operate a monitoring 

device which 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 [date of 

publication of the final rule in the 

Federal Register] 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 

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 [date of 

publication of the final rule in the 

Federal Register] 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)(3)(ii)(A), § 63.626(f)(3)(ii)(A). 

(ii) Section IX, Methods of Analysis 

for Phosphate Rock, No. 3 Phosphorus— 

P2O5 or Ca3(PO4)2, Method A— 

Volumetric Method, IBR approved for 

§ 63.606(f)(3)(ii)(B), § 63.626(f)(3)(ii)(B). 

(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)(3)(ii)(C), 

§ 63.626(f)(3)(ii)(C). 

(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)(3)(ii)(D), 

§ 63.626(f)(3)(ii)(D). 

(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)(3)(ii)(E), § 63.626(f)(3)(ii)(E), 

and § 63.626(g)(6)(i). 

(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)(3)(ii)(F), 

§ 63.626(f)(3)(ii)(F), and 

§ 63.626(g)(6)(ii). 

(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)(3)(ii)(G), 

§ 63.626(f)(3)(ii)(G), and 

§ 63.626(g)(6)(iii). 

(2) [Reserved] 

(c) * * * 

(1) AOAC Official Method 929.01 

Sampling of Solid Fertilizers, Sixteenth 

edition, 1995, IBR approved for 

§ 63.626(g)(7)(ii). 

(2) AOAC Official Method 929.02 

Preparation of Fertilizer Sample, 

Sixteenth edition, 1995, IBR approved 

for § 63.626(g)(7)(iii). 

(3) AOAC Official Method 957.02 

Phosphorus (Total) in Fertilizers, 

Preparation of Sample Solution, 

Sixteenth edition, 1995, IBR approved 

for § 63.626(g)(7)(i). 

(4) AOAC Official Method 958.01 

Phosphorus (Total) in Fertilizers, 

Spectrophotometric 

Molybdovanadophosphate Method, 

Sixteenth edition, 1995, IBR approved 

for § 63.626(g)(7)(vii). 

(5) AOAC Official Method 962.02 

Phosphorus (Total) in Fertilizers, 

Gravimetric Quinolinium 

Molybdophosphate Method, Sixteenth 

edition, 1995, IBR approved for 

§ 63.626(g)(7)(vi). 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 216 / Friday, November 7, 2014 / Proposed Rules 66565 

(6) AOAC Official Method 969.02 

Phosphorus (Total) in Fertilizers, 

Alkalimetric Quinolinium 

Molybdophosphate Method, Sixteenth 

edition, 1995, IBR approved for 

§ 63.626(g)(7)(v). 

(7) AOAC Official Method 978.01 

Phosphorus (Total) in Fertilizers, 

Automated Method, Sixteenth edition, 

1995, IBR approved for 

§ 63.626(g)(7)(iv). 

* * * * * 

(l) * * * 

(2) Office Of Air Quality Planning 

And Standards (OAQPS), Fabric Filter 

Bag Leak Detection Guidance, EPA–454/ 

R–98–015, September 1997, IBR 

approved for §§ 63.548(e)(4), 63.606(m), 

63.607(b)(2)(ii), 63.626(h), 

63.627(b)(2)(iii), 63.7525(j)(2), and 

63.11224(f)(2). 

* * * * * 

■ 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 part 63 general 

provisions. 

63.609 [Reserved] 

63.610 Exemption from new source 

performance standards. 

63.611 Implementation and enforcement. 

Table 1 to Subpart AA of Part 63—Existing 

Source Phase 1 Emission Limits 

Table 1a to Subpart AA of Part 63—Existing 

Source Phase 2 Emission Limits and Work 

Practice Standards 

Table 2 to Subpart AA of Part 63—New 

Source Phase 1 Emission Limits 

Table 2a to Subpart AA of Part 63—New 

Source Phase 2 Emission Limits and Work 

Practices 

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 

pond associated with the phosphoric 

acid manufacturing plant. 

(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 

does not meet the definition of closed 

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. 

Closed gypsum dewatering stack 

means a gypsum dewatering stack that 

is no longer receiving phosphogypsum, 

and has received a cover on the top and 

sides. The final cover of a closed 

gypsum dewatering stack must include 

a barrier soil layer that will sustain 

vegetation and a drought resistant 

vegetative cover. 

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 P 2O5 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, rock 

dryer, 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 

construction or reconstruction of the 

gypsum dewatering stack or cooling 

pond commenced on or before [date of 

publication of the final rule in the 

Federal Register]. 

Gypsum dewatering stack means the 

phosphogypsum stack (or pile, or 

landfill), together with all pumps, 

piping, ditches, drainage conveyances, 

water control structures, collection 

pools, cooling ponds, surge ponds, 

auxiliary holding ponds, and any other 

collection or conveyance system 

associated with the transport of 

phosphogypsum from the plant to the 

gypsum dewatering stack, its 

management at the stack, and the 

process wastewater return to the 

phosphhoric acid production or other 

process. This definition includes toe 

drain systems, ditches and other 

leachate collection systems, but does 

not include conveyances within the 

confines of the fertilizer plant or 

emergency diversion impoundments 

used in emergency circumstances 

caused by rainfall events of high volume 

or duration for the temporary storage of 

process wastewater to avoid discharges 

to surface waters. 

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: 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

66566 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 216 / Friday, November 7, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

antimony, arsenic, beryllium, cadmium, 

chromium, Pb, 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, rock 

dryer, 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 construction or 

reconstruction of the gypsum 

dewatering stack or cooling pond 

commenced after [date of publication of 

the final rule in the Federal Register] 

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. 

Phosphoric acid defluorination 

process means any process that treats 

phosphoric acid in a manner that 

removes fluorine compounds. 

Phosphoric acid oxidation reactor 

means any equipment that uses an 

oxidizing agent to treat phosphoric acid. 

Process line means all equipment 

associated with the production of any 

grade or purity of a phosphoric acid 

product including emission control 

equipment. 

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, 

but is not limited to: 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. 

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, but is not 

limited to: evaporators, hot wells, acid 

sumps, oxidation reactors, and cooling 

tanks. 

Total fluorides means elemental 

fluorine and all F 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, but is not limited to: 

Reactors, filters, evaporators, hot wells, 

clarifiers, and defluorination systems. 

§ 63.602 Standards and compliance dates. 

(a) On and after the date on which the 

initial performance test specified in 

§§ 63.7 and 63.606 is required to be 

completed, for each wet-process 

phosphoric acid process line, 

superphosphoric acid process line, rock 

dryer, and rock calciner, you must 

comply with the emission limits and 

work practice standards 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 

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 

and ending on [date one year after the 

date of publication of the final rule in 

the Federal Register]. Beginning on 

[date one year after the date of 

publication of the final rule in the 

Federal Register], the emission limits 

specified in Table 1 to this subpart no 

longer apply, and you must comply 

with the emission limits specified in 

Table 1a to this subpart. 

(2) For each existing 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) and (ii) of this 

section, and the work practice standards 

as specified in paragraph (a)(2)(iii) of 

this section. 

(i) You must comply with the total 

particulate emission limit specified in 

Tables 1 and 1a to this subpart 

beginning on June 10, 2002. 

(ii) You must comply with the 

mercury emission limit specified in 

Table 1a to this subpart beginning on 

[date three years after the date of 

publication of the final rule in the 

Federal Register]. 

(iii) You must comply with the 

hydrogen fluoride work practice 

standards specified in Table 1a to this 

subpart beginning on [date of 

publication of the final rule in the 

Federal Register]. 

(3) For each new wet-process 

phosphoric acid process line, 

superphosphoric acid process line, and 

rock dryer that commences construction 

or reconstruction after December 27, 

1996 and on or before [date of 

publication of the final rule in the 

Federal Register], you must comply 

with the emission limits specified in 

Table 2 to this subpart beginning at 

startup or on June 10, 1999, whichever 

is later, and ending on [date one year 

after the date of publication of the final 

rule in the Federal Register]. Beginning 

on [date one year after the date of 

publication of the final rule in the 

Federal Register], the emission limits 

specified in Table 2 to this subpart no 

longer apply, and you must comply 

with the emission limits specified in 

Table 2a to this subpart beginning on 

[date one year after the date of 

publication of the final rule in the 

Federal Register] or immediately upon 

startup, whichever is later. 

(4) For each new wet-process 

phosphoric acid process line, 

superphosphoric acid process line, and 

rock dryer that commences construction 

or reconstruction after [date of 

publication of the final rule in the 

Federal Register], you must comply 

with the emission limits specified in 

Table 2a to this subpart immediately 

upon startup. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 216 / Friday, November 7, 2014 / Proposed Rules 66567 

(5) For each new rock calciner that 

commences construction or 

reconstruction after December 27, 1996 

and on or before [date of publication of 

the final rule in the Federal Register], 

you must comply with the emission 

limits as specified in paragraphs (a)(5)(i) 

and (ii) of this section, and the work 

practice standards as specified in 

paragraph (a)(5)(iii) of this section. 

(i) You must comply with the total 

particulate emission limit specified in 

Tables 2 and 2a 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 2a to this subpart beginning on 

[date one year after the date of 

publication of the final rule in the 

Federal Register]. 

(iii) You must comply with the 

hydrogen fluoride work practice 

standards specified in Table 2a to this 

subpart beginning on [date of 

publication of the final rule in the 

Federal Register]. 

(6) For each new rock calciner that 

commences construction or 

reconstruction after [date of publication 

of the final rule in the Federal Register], 

you must comply with the emission 

limits and work practices standards 

specified in Table 2a to this subpart 

immediately upon startup. 

(b) For each existing and new purified 

phosphoric acid process line, you must 

comply with the provisions of subpart H 

of this part and maintain: 

(1) 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) A 30-day rolling average of daily 

concentration measurements of methyl 

isobutyl ketone equal to or below 30 

ppmw for each raffinate stream. 

(3) The daily average temperature of 

the exit gas stream from the chiller stack 

below 50 degrees Fahrenheit. 

(c) You must not introduce into any 

existing or new evaporative cooling 

tower any liquid effluent from any wet 

scrubbing device installed to control 

emissions from process equipment. 

(d) For each existing gypsum 

dewatering stack or cooling pond that 

commenced construction or 

reconstruction on or before [date of 

publication of the final rule in the 

Federal Register], you must prepare, 

and operate in accordance with, a 

gypsum dewatering stack and cooling 

pond management plan that contains 

the information specified in paragraph 

(f) of this section beginning on [date one 

year after the date of publication of the 

final rule in the Federal Register]. 

(e) For each new gypsum dewatering 

stack or cooling pond that commences 

construction or reconstruction after 

[date of publication of the final rule in 

the Federal Register], you must prepare, 

and operate in accordance with, a 

gypsum dewatering stack and cooling 

pond management plan that contains 

the information specified in paragraph 

(f) of this section beginning on [date of 

publication of the final rule in the 

Federal Register]. 

(f) The gypsum dewatering stack and 

cooling pond management plan must 

include the information specified in 

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

section. 

(1) Location and size (i.e., current 

total footprint acreage) of each closed 

gypsum dewatering stack, active 

gypsum dewatering stack, and cooling 

pond. 

(2) Control techniques that are used to 

minimize hydrogen fluoride and 

fugitive dust emissions from exposed 

surface areas of each active gypsum 

dewatering stack and cooling pond. For 

each active gypsum dewatering stack 

and cooling pond that commenced 

construction or reconstruction on or 

before [date of publication of the final 

rule in the Federal Register], you must 

use, and include in the management 

plan, at least one of the control 

techniques listed in paragraphs (f)(2)(i) 

through (vi) of this section. For each 

active gypsum dewatering stack and 

cooling pond that commences 

construction or reconstruction after 

[date of publication of the final rule in 

the Federal Register], you must use, and 

include in the management plan, at least 

two of the control techniques listed in 

paragraphs (f)(2)(i) through (vi) of this 

section. 

(i) Submerge the discharge pipe along 

with any necessary siphon breaks to a 

level below the surface of the cooling 

pond or the surface of the pond 

associated with the active gypsum 

dewatering stack. 

(ii) Minimize the surface area of the 

active gypsum dewatering stack by 

using a rim ditch (cell) building 

technique or other building technique. 

(iii) Wet the active gypsum 

dewatering stack during hot or dry 

periods. 

(iv) Apply slaked lime to the active 

gypsum dewatering stack surfaces. 

(v) Apply soil caps and vegetation to 

all side slopes of the active gypsum 

dewatering stack up to 50 feet below the 

stack top. 

(vi) Close the active gypsum 

dewatering stack such that it meets the 

definition of a closed gypsum 

dewatering stack specified in § 63.601. 

(3) You must conduct calculations 

and maintain a record of the 

calculations to demonstrate compliance 

with the ratio requirement specified in 

paragraph (g) of this section. 

(g) After [date of publication of the 

final rule in the Federal Register], 

whenever a facility commences 

construction of a new gypsum 

dewatering stack, the 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 must not be greater than 80 

acres per 100,000 tons of annual 

phosphoric acid manufacturing capacity 

(equivalent P2O5 feed). 

(h) To demonstrate compliance with 

any emission limits specified in 

paragraph (a) of this section during 

periods of startup and shutdown, you 

must begin operation of any control 

device(s) being used at the affected 

source prior to introducing any feed into 

the affected source. You must continue 

operation of the control device(s) 

through the shutdown period until all 

feed material has been processed 

through the affected source. 

§ 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 

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) through (3) of this section. 

(1) Install, calibrate, maintain, and 

operate a CMS according to your sitespecific monitoring plan specified in 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

66568 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 216 / Friday, November 7, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

§ 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. 

(3) For each phosphate rock calciner, 

you must comply with the requirements 

in paragraphs (b)(3)(i) and (ii) of this 

section. 

(i) The CMS must continuously 

measure and permanently record the 

calcination temperature of the 

phosphate rock calciner every 15 

minutes. 

(ii) You must comply with the 

applicable calibration and quality 

control requirements for temperature 

specified in Table 5 to this subpart. 

(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, 

or to comply with the emission limits or 

work practice standards specified in 

Table 1a or 2a 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) through (iii) of this 

section, as applicable. 

(i) Except as specified in paragraphs 

(d)(1)(ii) and (iii) of this section, 

determine the value(s) as the arithmetic 

average of operating parameter 

measurements recorded during with the 

three test runs conducted for the most 

recent performance test. 

(ii) For any absorber required by the 

work practice standards for phosphate 

rock calciners in Table 1a or 2a of this 

subpart, you must determine the 

value(s) based on an engineering 

assessment. The engineering assessment 

may include, but is not limited to, 

manufacturer’s specifications and 

recommendations and/or a design 

analysis based on accepted chemical 

engineering principles, measurable 

process parameters, or physical or 

chemical laws or properties. Examples 

of analytical methods include, but are 

not limited to, the use of material 

balances based on process stoichiometry 

and estimation of maximum flow rate 

based on physical equipment design 

such as pump or blower capacities. 

(iii) If you use an absorber or a wet 

electrostatic precipitator to comply with 

the emission limits in Table 1, 1a, 2, or 

2a to this subpart and you monitor 

pressure drop across each absorber or 

secondary voltage for a wet electrostatic 

precipitator, you must establish 

allowable ranges using the methodology 

specified in paragraphs (d)(1)(iii)(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)(iii)(A) of this section, you may 

establish, and provide to the 

Administrator for approval, 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. 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. You must request and 

obtain approval of the Administrator for 

changes to 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 1a or 2a 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 1a or 2a 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 1a or 2a 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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 216 / Friday, November 7, 2014 / Proposed Rules 66569 

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 

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) If you use a fabric filter system to 

comply with the emission limits 

specified in Table 1, 1a, 2, or 2a to this 

subpart, 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, 

1a, 2, and 2a to this subpart, on or 

before 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 an 

annual performance test no more than 

13 months after the date the previous 

performance test was conducted. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

66570 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 216 / Friday, November 7, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

(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) You must conduct the 

performance tests specified in this 

section at maximum representative 

operating conditions for the process. 

Maximum representative operating 

conditions means process operating 

conditions that are likely to recur and 

that result in the flue gas characteristics 

that are the most difficult for reducing 

emissions of the regulated pollutant(s) 

by the control device used. The most 

difficult condition for the control device 

may include, but is not limited to, the 

highest HAP mass loading rate to the 

control device or the highest HAP mass 

loading rate of constituents that 

approach the limits of solubility for 

scrubbing media. Operations during 

startup, shutdown, and malfunction do 

not constitute representative 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 maximum 

representative operating 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 or hydrogen fluoride 

standards specified in Tables 1, 1a, 2, 

and 2a to this subpart as specified in 

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

section. 

(1) Compute the emission rate (E) of 

total fluorides or hydrogen fluoride for 

each run using Equation AA–1: 

Where: 

E = Emission rate of total fluorides or 

hydrogen fluoride, gram/metric ton 

(pound/ton) of equivalent P2O5 feed. 

Ci = Concentration of total fluorides or 

hydrogen fluoride 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 the test methods and 

procedures as specified in paragraphs 

(f)(2)(i) or (ii) of this section. 

(i) 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. 

(ii) You must use Method 320 at 40 

CFR part 63, appendix A to determine 

the hydrogen fluoride concentration (Ci) 

at each emission point. The sampling 

time for each run at each emission point 

must be at least 60 minutes. You must 

use Method 2 at 40 CFR part 60, 

Appendix A–1 to determine the 

volumetric flow rate (Qi) of the effluent 

gas from each of the emission points. 

(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 (Seventh 

Edition, 1991) where applicable: 

(A) Section IX, Methods of Analysis 

for Phosphate Rock, No. 1 Preparation of 

Sample (incorporated by reference, see 

§ 63.14). 

(B) Section IX, Methods of Analysis 

for Phosphate Rock, No. 3 PhosphorusP2O5 or Ca3(PO4)2, Method AVolumetric Method (incorporated by 

reference, see § 63.14). 

(C) Section IX, Methods of Analysis 

for Phosphate Rock, No. 3 PhosphorusP2O5 or Ca3(PO4)2, Method BGravimetric Quimociac Method 

(incorporated by reference, see § 63.14). 

(D) Section IX, Methods of Analysis 

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

(incorporated by reference, see § 63.14). 

(E) Section XI, Methods of Analysis 

for Phosphoric Acid, Superphosphate, 

Triple Superphosphate, and 

Ammonium Phosphates, No. 3 Total 

Phosphorus-P2O5, Method A-Volumetric 

Method (incorporated by reference, see 

§ 63.14). 

(F) Section XI, Methods of Analysis 

for Phosphoric Acid, Superphosphate, 

Triple Superphosphate, and 

Ammonium Phosphates, No. 3 Total 

Phosphorus-P2O5, Method BGravimetric Quimociac Method 

(incorporated by reference, see § 63.14). 

(G) Section XI, Methods of Analysis 

for Phosphoric Acid, Superphosphate, 

Triple Superphosphate, and 

Ammonium Phosphates, No. 3 Total 

Phosphorus-P2O5, Method CSpectrophotometric Method 

(incorporated by reference, see § 63.14). 

(g) You must demonstrate compliance 

with the applicable particulate matter 

standards specified in Tables 1, 1a, 2, 

and 2a 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). 


mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALSEP07NO14.000</GPH> EP07NO14.001</GPH> EP07NO14.002</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 216 / Friday, November 7, 2014 / Proposed Rules 66571 

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 

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, 1a, 2, or 2a 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 

Table 1a or 2a 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, EPA–454/R– 

98–015, September 1997 (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. You must also notify the 

Administrator each time that the 

operating limits change 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 

range is based on the new performance 

test or the previously established range. 

Upon establishment of a new operating 

range, you must thereafter operate under 

the new range. If the Administrator 

determines that you did not conduct the 

compliance test in accordance with the 

applicable requirements or that the 

ranges established during the 

performance test do not represent 

normal operations, you must conduct a 

new performance test and establish new 

operating ranges. 

(b) You must comply with the 

reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements in § 63.10 as specified in 

paragraphs (b)(1) through (b)(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, EPA–454/R–98– 

015, September 1997 (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(f). 

(iv) If you elect to demonstrate 

compliance by following the procedures 

in § 63.605(d)(1)(iii)(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. 

(vi) If you operate a phosphate rock 

calciner, include the engineering 

assessment as required by 

§ 63.605(d)(1)(ii) and the information in 

paragraphs (b)(2)(vi)(A) through (D) of 

this section. 

(A) Description of the monitoring 

devices and monitoring frequencies. 

(B) The established operating limits of 

the monitored parameter(s). 

(C) The rationale for the established 

operating limit, inlcuding any data and 

calculations used to develop the 

operating limit and a description of why 

the operating limit inidcates proper 

operation of the control device. 

(D) The rationale used to determine 

which format to use for your operating 

limit (e.g., operating range, minimum 

operating level or maximum operating 

level), where this subpart does not 

specify which format to use. 

(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) 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

66572 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 216 / Friday, November 7, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

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 

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) through 

(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), you must submit the 

results of the performance tests, 

including any associated fuel analyses, 

required by this subpart according to the 

methods specified in paragraphs (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 

Compliance and Emissions Data 

Reporting Interface (CEDRI) that is 

accessed through the EPA’s Central Data 

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

epa_home.asp), unless the 

Administrator approves another 

approach. Performance test data must be 

submitted in a file format generated 

through the use of the EPA’s ERT. 

Owners or operators, who claim that 

some of the information being submitted 

for performance tests is confidential 

business information (CBI), must submit 

a complete file generated through the 

use of the EPA’s ERT, including 

information claimed to be CBI, on a 

compact disk, 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/OAQPS/CORE CBI 

Office, Attention: WebFIRE 

Administrator, MD C404–02, 4930 Old 

Page Rd., Durham, NC 27703. The same 

ERT file with the CBI omitted must be 

submitted to the EPA via CDX as 

described earlier in this paragraph. 

(2) For any performance test 

conducted using test methods that are 

not supported by the EPA’s ERT as 

listed on the EPA’s ERT Web site, the 

owner or operator shall 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 CEMS performance 

evaluation (as defined in § 63.2), you 

must submit the results of the 

performance evaluation according to the 

method specified by either paragraph 

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

(1) For data collection of 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 CEDRI 

that is accessed through the EPA’s CDX, 

unless the Administrator approves 

another approach. Performance 

evaluation data must be submitted in a 

file format generated through the use of 

the EPA’s ERT. 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, including information claimed to 

be CBI, on a compact disk or other 

commonly used electronic storage 

media (including, but not limited to, 

flash drives) by registered letter to the 

EPA. The compact disk shall be clearly 

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

OAQPS/CORE CBI Office, Attention: 

WebFIRE Administrator, MD C404–02, 

4930 Old Page Rd., Durham, NC 27703. 

The same ERT file with the CBI omitted 

must be submitted to the EPA via CDX 

as described earlier in this paragraph. 

(2) For any performance evaluations 

with RATA pollutants that are not 

supported by the EPA’s ERT as listed on 

the EPA’s ERT Web site, you shall 

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 part 63 general provisions. 

(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). 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 216 / Friday, November 7, 2014 / Proposed Rules 66573 

(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 

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 PHASE 1 EMISSION LIMITS a b

For the following existing sources 

. . . 

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

Total 

fluorides 

Hydrogen 

fluoride 

Total 

particulate Mercury 

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

feed.

........................................ ........................................

Superphosphoric Acid Process 

Line.

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 .............. ...................................................... ........................................ 0.181 g/dscm .................

aThe phase 1 existing source compliance date is June 10, 2002. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

66574 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 216 / Friday, November 7, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

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(h). 

TABLE 1A TO SUBPART AA OF PART 63—EXISTING SOURCE PHASE 2 EMISSION LIMITS AND WORK PRACTICE

STANDARDS a b

For the following existing sources 

. . . 

You must meet the emission limits and work practice standards for the specified pollutant . . . 

Total 

fluorides 

Hydrogen 

fluoride 

Total 

particulate Mercury 

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

Superphosphoric Acid Process 

Line.

...................................................... 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 .............. ...................................................... Maintain a daily average 

calcination temperature below 1,600 °F, 

and route emissions to 

an absorber.

0.181 g/dscm ................. 0.014 mg/dscm 

@3% O2

aThe phase 2 existing source compliance dates apply at different times for different pollutants 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(h). 

TABLE 2 TO SUBPART AA OF PART 63—NEW SOURCE PHASE 1 EMISSION LIMITS a b

For the following new sources . . . 

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

Total 

fluorides 

Hydrogen 

fluoride 

Total 

particulate Mercury 

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

feed.

........................................ ........................................

Superphosphoric Acid Process 

Line.

0.00870 lb/ton of equivalent P2O5

feed.

........................................ ........................................

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

Phosphate Rock Calciner .............. ...................................................... ........................................ 0.092 g/dscm .................

aThe phase 1 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(h). 

TABLE 2A TO SUBPART AA OF PART 63—NEW SOURCE PHASE 2 EMISSION LIMITS AND WORK PRACTICES a b

For the following new sources . . . 

You must meet the emissions limits and work practice standards for the specified pollutant . . . 

Total 

fluorides 

Hydrogen 

fluoride 

Total 

particulate Mercury 

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

Superphosphoric Acid Process 

Line.

...................................................... 0.00870 lb/ton of equivalent P2O5 feed.........................................

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

Phosphate Rock Calciner .............. ...................................................... Maintain a daily average 

calcination temperature below 1,600 °F, 

and route emissions to 

an absorber.

0.092 g/dscm ................. 0.014 mg/dscm 

@3% O2

aThe phase 2 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(h). 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 216 / Friday, November 7, 2014 / Proposed Rules 66575 

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

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

All Absorbers (Wet Scrubbers): Choose one of the following two options 

Install a continuous parameter monitoring system (CPMS) for liquid 

flow at the inlet of the absorber.

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.

You choose to monitor the liquidto-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, or 

those found in the engineering 

assessment as specified in 

§ 63.605(d)(1)(ii), as applicable.

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. 

Absorbers (Wet Scrubbers): You must also choose one of the following three options 

Install CPMS for pressure at the 

gas stream inlet and outlet of the 

absorber.

You choose to monitor pressure 

drop through the absorber, and 

your pressure drop through the 

absorber is greater than 5 

inches of water.

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. 

Install CPMS for temperature at the 

absorber gas stream outlet and 

pressure at the liquid inlet of the 

adsorber.

You choose to monitor exit gas 

temperature and inlet pressure 

of the liquid.

Exit gas temperature of the absorber and inlet liquid pressure 

of the absorber.

Install CPMS for temperature at the 

absorber gas stream outlet and 

absorber gas stream inlet.

You choose to monitor temperature differential across the absorber.Exit gas temperature of the absorber and inlet gas temperature of the absorber.

Condensers 

Install a CPMS for temperature in 

the stack exit gas.

....................................................... Temperature of the stack exit gas 

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-togas ratio.Continuous ........................ Every 15 minutes .............. Daily. 

Pressure drop .................... Pressure drop range ......... Continuous ........................ Every 15 minutes .............. Daily. 

Exit gas temperature ......... Maximum exit gas temperature.Continuous ........................ Every 15 minutes .............. Daily. 

Inlet gas temperature ........ Minimum temperature difference between inlet 

and exit gas.

Continuous ........................ Every 15 minutes .............. Daily. 

Inlet liquid pressure ........... Minimum Inlet liquid pressure.Continuous ........................ Every 15 minutes .............. Daily. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

66576 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 216 / Friday, November 7, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

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 

Condensers 

Gas temperature at the 

exit of the condenser.

Maximum outlet gas temperature.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 sitespecific basis but is 

specified in 

§ 63.604(e)(1)(ix).

Continuous ........................ Each date and time of 

alarm start and stop.

Maximum alarm time specified in § 65.604(e)(1)(ix). 

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.

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. 

±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.

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.

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. 

±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.

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. 

±5 percent over the normal range measured for mass 

flow rate.

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. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 216 / Friday, November 7, 2014 / Proposed Rules 66577 

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. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

66578 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 216 / Friday, November 7, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

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 

§ 63.6(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 .......................... § 63.606 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. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 216 / Friday, November 7, 2014 / Proposed Rules 66579 

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

§ 63.10(d)(5) .......................................... Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunction 

Reports.

No .......................... See § 63.607 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 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 part 63 general 

provisions. 

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 Phase 1 Emission Limits 

Table 1a to Subpart BB of Part 63—Existing 

Source Phase 2 Emission Limits 

Table 2 to Subpart BB of Part 63—New 

Source Phase 1 Emission Limits 

Table 2a to Subpart BB of Part 63—New 

Source Phase 2 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 diammonium and/or 

monoammonium phosphate process 

line and any process line that produces 

a reaction product of ammonia and 

phosphoric acid. 

(2) Each granular triple 

superphosphate process line. 

(3) Each granular triple 

superphosphate storage building. 

(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, but is not limited to: 

Reactors, granulators, dryers, coolers, 

cooling towers, 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. 

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 process 

line that produces a reaction product of 

ammonia and phosphoric acid (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. 

Phosphate fertilizer process line or 

production plant means any process 

line or production plant that 

manufactures a phosphate fertilizer by 

reacting phosphoric acid with ammonia. 

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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

66580 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 216 / Friday, November 7, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

includes, but is not limited to: Mixers, 

curing belts (dens), reactors, granulators, 

dryers, coolers, cooling towers, 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, but is not limited to: 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 process 

line that produces a reaction product of 

ammonia and phosphoric acid (e.g., 

diammonium and/or monoammonium 

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. 

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. 

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 date on which the 

initial performance test specified in 

§§ 63.7 and 63.626 is required to be 

completed, for each process line that 

produces a reaction product of ammonia 

and phosphoric acid (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 process line that 

produces a reaction product of ammonia 

and phosphoric acid (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 

and ending on [date one year after the 

date of publication of the final rule in 

the Federal Register]. Beginning on 

[date one year after the date of 

publication of the final rule in the 

Federal Register], the emission limits 

specified in Table 1 to this subpart no 

longer apply, and you must comply 

with the emission limits specified in 

Table 1a to this subpart. 

(2) For each new process line that 

produces a reaction product of ammonia 

and phosphoric acid (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 [date of 

publication of the final rule in the 

Federal Register], you must comply 

with the emission limits specified in 

Table 2 to this subpart beginning at 

startup or on June 10, 1999, whichever 

is later, and ending on [date one year 

after the date of publication of the final 

rule in the Federal Register]. Beginning 

on [date one year after the date of 

publication of the final rule in the 

Federal Register], the emission limits 

specified in Table 2 to this subpart no 

longer apply, and you must comply 

with the emission limits specified in 

Table 2a to this subpart beginning on 

[date one year after the date of 

publication of the final rule in the 

Federal Register] or immediately upon 

startup, whichever is later. 

(3) For each new process line that 

produces a reaction product of ammonia 

and phosphoric acid (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 [date of 

publication of the final rule in the 

Federal Register], you must comply 

with the emission limits specified in 

Table 2a to this subpart immediately 

upon startup. 

(b) You must not ship fresh granular 

triple superphosphate from your 

granular triple superphosphate storage 

building. 

(c) You must not introduce into any 

evaporative cooling tower any liquid 

effluent from any wet scrubbing device 

installed to control emissions from 

process equipment. 

(d) To demonstrate compliance with 

any emission limits specified in 

paragraph (a) of this section during 

periods of startup and shutdown, you 

must begin operation of any control 

device(s) being used at the affected 

source prior to introducing any feed into 

the affected source. You must continue 

operation of the control device(s) 

through the shutdown period until all 

feed material has been processed 

through the affected source. 

§ 63.623 [Reserved] 

§ 63.624 [Reserved] 

§ 63.625 Operating and monitoring 

requirements. 

(a) For each process line that 

produces a reaction product of ammonia 

and phosphoric acid (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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 216 / Friday, November 7, 2014 / Proposed Rules 66581 

demonstrating compliance with 

§ 63.622(b). 

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

comply with the emission limits 

specified in Tables 1, 1a, 2, or 2a 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 

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 with 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, 1a, 

2, or 2a to this subpart and you monitor 

pressure drop across each 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, and provide to the 

Administrator for approval, allowable 

ranges for the daily averages of the 

pressure drop across an absorber for the 

purpose of assuring compliance with 

this subpart. 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. You must request and 

obtain approval of the Administrator for 

changes to 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, 1a, 2, or 2a to this 

subpart, the system must meet the 

requirements for fabric filters specified 

in paragraph (e) of this section. 

(e) If you use a fabric filter system to 

comply with the emission limits 

specified in Table 1, 1a, 2, or 2a to this 

subpart, 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 

(iv) 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. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

66582 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 216 / Friday, November 7, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

§ 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, 1a, 2, and 2a to 

this subpart, on or before 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 an 

annual performance test no more than 

13 months after the date the previous 

performance test was conducted. 

(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 

according to the applicable provisions 

in § 63.7(a)(2). 

(d) You must conduct the 

performance tests specified in this 

section at maximum representative 

operating conditions for the process. 

Maximum representative operating 

conditions means process operating 

conditions that are likely to recur and 

that result in the flue gas characteristics 

that are the most difficult for reducing 

emissions of the regulated pollutant(s) 

by the control device used. The most 

difficult condition for the control device 

may include, but is not limited to, the 

highest HAP mass loading rate to the 

control device or the highest HAP mass 

loading rate of constituents that 

approach the limits of solubility for 

scrubbing media. Operations during 

startup, shutdown, and malfunction do 

not constitute representative 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 maximum 

representative operating 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 process line that produces 

a reaction product of ammonia and 

phosphoric acid (e.g., diammonium 

and/or monoammonium phosphate 

process line), and granular triple 

superphosphate process line, you must 

determine compliance with the 

applicable total fluorides or hydrogen 

fluoride standards specified in Tables 1, 

1a, 2, and 2a to this subpart as specified 

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

section. 

(1) Compute the emission rate (E) of 

total fluorides or hydrogen fluoride for 

each run using Equation BB–1: 

Where: 

E = Emission rate of total fluorides or 

hydrogen fluoride, gram/metric ton 

(pound/ton) of equivalent P2O5 feed. 

Ci = Concentration of total fluorides or 

hydrogen fluoride 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, 1,000 milligram/gram 

(453,600 milligram/pound). 

(2) You must use the test methods and 

procedures as specified in paragraphs 

(f)(2)(i) or (f)(2)(ii) of this section. 

(i) 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. 

(ii) You must use Method 320 at 40 

CFR part 63, appendix A to determine 

the hydrogen fluoride concentration (Ci) 

at each emission point. The sampling 

time for each run at each emission point 

must be at least 60 minutes. You must 

use Method 2 at 40 CFR part 60, 

Appendix A–1 to determine the 

volumetric flow rate (Qi) of the effluent 

gas from each of the emission points. 

(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 (Seventh Edition, 1991) where 

applicable: 

(A) Section IX, Methods of Analysis 

for Phosphate Rock, No. 1 Preparation of 

Sample (incorporated by reference, see 

§ 63.14). 

(B) Section IX, Methods of Analysis 

for Phosphate Rock, No. 3 Phosphorus— 

P2O5 or Ca3(PO4)2, Method A— 

Volumetric Method (incorporated by 

reference, see § 63.14). 

(C) Section IX, Methods of Analysis 

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

Gravimetric Quimociac Method 

(incorporated by reference, see § 63.14). 

(D) Section IX, Methods of Analysis 

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

Spectrophotometric Method 

(incorporated by reference, see § 63.14). 

(E) Section XI, Methods of Analysis 

for Phosphoric Acid, Superphosphate, 

Triple superphosphate, and Ammonium 

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

(incorporated by reference, see § 63.14). 

(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 

(incorporated by reference, see § 63.14). 

(G) Section XI, Methods of Analysis 

for Phosphoric Acid, Superphosphate, 

Triple Superphosphate, and 


mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALSEP07NO14.003</GPH> EP07NO14.004</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 216 / Friday, November 7, 2014 / Proposed Rules 66583 

Ammonium Phosphates, No. 3 Total 

Phosphorus-P2O5, Method C— 

Spectrophotometric Method 

(incorporated by reference, see § 63.14). 

(g) For each granular triple 

superphosphate storage building, you 

must determine compliance with the 

applicable total fluorides or hydrogen 

fluoride standards specified in Tables 1, 

1a, 2, and 2a 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 or hydrogen fluoride for 

each run using Equation BB–3: 

Where: 

E = Emission rate of total fluorides or 

hydrogen fluoride, gram/hour/metric ton 

(pound/hour/ton) of equivalent P2O5

stored. 

Ci = Concentration of total fluorides or 

hydrogen fluoride 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 the test methods and 

procedures as specified in paragraphs 

(g)(3)(i) or (g)(3)(ii) of this section. 

(i) 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. 

(ii) You must use Method 320 at 40 

CFR part 63, appendix A, to determine 

the hydrogen fluoride concentration (Ci) 

at each emission point. The sampling 

time for each run must be at least 60 

minutes. You must use Method 2 at 40 

CFR part 60, Appendix A–1 to 

determine the volumetric flow rate (Qi) 

of the effluent gas from each of the 

emission points. 

(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, Seventh Edition 1991, where 

applicable: 

(i) Section XI, Methods of Analysis 

For Phosphoric Acid, Superphosphate, 

Triple Superphosphate, and 

Ammonium Phosphates, No. 3 Total 

Phosphorus—P2O5, Method A— 

Volumetric Method (incorporated by 

reference, see § 63.14). 

(ii) Section XI, Methods of Analysis 

For Phosphoric Acid, Superphosphate, 

Triple Superphosphate, and 

Ammonium Phosphates, No. 3 Total 

Phosphorus—P2O5, Method B— 

Gravimetric Quimociac Method 

(incorporated by reference, see § 63.14). 

(iii) Section XI, Methods of Analysis 

For Phosphoric Acid, Superphosphate, 

Triple Superphosphate, and 

Ammonium Phosphates, No. 3 Total 

Phosphorus—P2O5, Method C— 

Spectrophotometric Method 

(incorporated by reference, see § 63.14), 

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, Sixteenth edition, 1995, 

where applicable: 

(i) AOAC Official Method 957.02 

Phosphorus (Total) In Fertilizers, 

Preparation of Sample Solution, 

Sixteenth edition, 1995, (incorporated 

by reference, see § 63.14). 

(ii) AOAC Official Method 929.01 

Sampling of Solid Fertilizers, Sixteenth 

edition, 1995, (incorporated by 

reference, see § 63.14). 

(iii) AOAC Official Method 929.02 

Preparation of Fertilizer Sample, 

Sixteenth edition, (incorporated by 

reference, see § 63.14). 

(iv) AOAC Official Method 978.01 

Phosphorus (Total) in Fertilizers, 

Automated Method, Sixteenth edition, 

1995 (incorporated by reference, see 

§ 63.14). 

(v) AOAC Official Method 969.02 

Phosphorus (Total) in Fertilizers, 

Alkalimetric Quinolinium 

Molybdophosphate Method, Sixteenth 

edition, 1995 (incorporated by 

reference, see § 63.14). 

(vi) AOAC Official Method 962.02 

Phosphorus (Total) in Fertilizers, 

Gravimetric Quinolinium 

Molybdophosphate Method, Sixteenth 

edition, 1995 (incorporated by 

reference, see § 63.14). 

(vii) AOAC Official Method 958.01 

Phosphorus (Total) in Fertilizers, 

Spectrophotometric 

Molybdovanadophosphate Method, 

Sixteenth edition, 1995 (incorporated by 

reference, see § 63.14). 

(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, EPA–454/R– 

98–015, September 1997 (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, 


mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALSEP07NO14.005</GPH> EP07NO14.006</GPH>
66584 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 216 / Friday, November 7, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

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. You must also notify the 

Administrator each time that the 

operating limits change 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 

range will be based on the new 

performance test or the previously 

established range. Upon establishment 

of a new operating range, you must 

thereafter operate under the new range. 

If the Administrator determines that you 

did not conduct the compliance test in 

accordance with the applicable 

requirements or that the ranges 

established during the performance test 

do not represent normal operations, you 

must conduct a new performance test 

and establish new operating ranges. 

(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. 

(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, EPA–454/R–98– 

015, September 1997 (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), you must submit the 

results of the performance tests, 

including any associated fuel analyses, 

required by this subpart according to the 

methods specified in paragraphs (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 

Compliance and Emissions Data 

Reporting Interface (CEDRI) that is 

accessed through the EPA’s Central Data 

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

epa_home.asp), unless the 

Administrator approves another 

approach. Performance test data must be 

submitted in a file format generated 

through the use of the EPA’s ERT. 

Owners or operators, who claim that 

some of the information being submitted 

for performance tests is confidential 

business information (CBI), must submit 

a complete file generated through the 

use of the EPA’s ERT, including 

information claimed to be CBI, on a 

compact disk, 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/OAQPS/CORE CBI 

Office, Attention: WebFIRE 

Administrator, MD C404–02, 4930 Old 

Page Rd., Durham, NC 27703. The same 

ERT file with the CBI omitted must be 

submitted to the EPA via CDX as 

described earlier in this paragraph. 

(2) For any performance test 

conducted using test methods that are 

not supported by the EPA’s ERT as 

listed on the EPA’s ERT Web site, the 

owner or operator shall submit the 

results of the performance test to the 

Administrator at the appropriate 

address listed in § 63.13. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 216 / Friday, November 7, 2014 / Proposed Rules 66585 

§ 63.628 General requirements and 

applicability of part 63 general provisions. 

(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. 

(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), 

63.10 (e)(1), and 63.10(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. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

66586 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 216 / Friday, November 7, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

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

For the following existing sources . . . 

You must meet the emission limits for the specified 

pollutant . . . 

Total fluorides Hydrogen fluoride 

Process Line that Produces a Reaction Product Of Ammonia And Phosphoric Acid (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 phase 1 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). 

TABLE 1a TO SUBPART BB OF PART 63—EXISTING SOURCE PHASE 2 EMISSION LIMITS a b

For the following existing sources . . . 

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

Total fluorides Hydrogen fluoride 

Process Line that Produces a Reaction Product Of Ammonia And 

Phosphoric Acid (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 phase 2 existing source compliance date is [date one year after the date of publication of the final rule in the Federal Register] or immediately upon startup, whichever is later. 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 2 TO SUBPART BB OF PART 63—NEW SOURCE PHASE 1 EMISSION LIMITS a b

For the following existing sources . . . 

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

Total fluorides Hydrogen fluoride 

Process Line that Produces a Reaction Product Of Ammonia And 

Phosphoric Acid (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 phase 1 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 2a TO SUBPART BB OF PART 63—NEW SOURCE PHASE 2 EMISSION LIMITS a b

For the following new sources . . . 

You must meet the emission limits for the specified 

pollutant . . . 

Total fluorides Hydrogen fluoride 

Process Line That Produces a Reaction Product of Ammonia and Phosphoric Acid (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 phase 2 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). 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 216 / Friday, November 7, 2014 / Proposed Rules 66587 

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

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

All Absorbers (Wet Scrubbers): Choose one of the following two options 

Install a continuous parameter 

monitoring system (CPMS) for 

liquid flow at the inlet of the absorber.

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.

You choose to monitor the liquidto-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. 

Absorbers (Wet Scrubbers): You must also choose one of the following three options 

Install CPMS for pressure at the 

gas stream inlet and outlet of 

the absorber.

You choose to monitor pressure 

drop through the absorber, and 

your pressure drop through the 

absorber is greater than 5 

inches of water.

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. 

Install CPMS for temperature at 

the absorber gas stream outlet 

and pressure at the liquid inlet of 

the adsorber.

You choose to monitor outlet temperature and inlet pressure of 

the liquid.

Exit gas temperature of the absorber and inlet liquid pressure 

of the absorber.

Install CPMS for temperature at 

the absorber gas stream outlet 

and absorber gas stream inlet.

You choose to monitor temperature differential across the absorber.Exit gas temperature of the absorber and inlet gas temperature of the absorber.

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 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. 

Pressure drop ....................................... Pressure drop range ........................... Continuous ........... Every 15 minutes Daily. 

Exit gas temperature ............................ Maximum exit gas temperature ........... Continuous ........... Every 15 minutes Daily. 

Inlet gas temperature ............................ Minimum temperature difference between inlet and exit gas.Continuous ........... Every 15 minutes Daily. 

Inlet liquid pressure .............................. Minimum Inlet liquid pressure ............. Continuous ........... Every 15 minutes Daily. 

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 . . . 

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.

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. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

66588 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 216 / Friday, November 7, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

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

PARAMETER MONITORING SYSTEMS (CPMS)—Continued 

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.

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. 

± 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.

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) ............................ CircumventionFragmentation ..................................................... Yes ................. None. 

§ 63.5(a) ......................................... ConstructionReconstruction 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) ................ ConstructionReconstruction approval and notification .............. Yes ................. None. 

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

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

§ 63.5(d) ......................................... Application for Approval of ConstructionReconstruction ........... Yes ................. None. 

§ 63.5(e) ......................................... Approval of ConstructionReconstruction ................................... Yes ................. None. 

§ 63.5(f) .......................................... Approval of ConstructionReconstruction 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 § 63.622. 

§ 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]. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 216 / Friday, November 7, 2014 / Proposed Rules 66589 

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

SUBPART BB—Continued 

40 CFR citation Requirement Applies to 

subpart BB Comment 

§ 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 OpacityVE Standards ..................................... No ................... Subpart BB does not include VEopacity 

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 AssuranceTest 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 ................. Non. 

§ 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 OperationMaintenance ...................................................... 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(d) 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 VEOpacity Test ................................................... No ................... Subpart BB does not include VEopacity 

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) ....................................... RecordkeepingReporting-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 § 63.627 for recordkeeping and reporting 

requirement. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

66590 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 216 / Friday, November 7, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

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

SUBPART BB—Continued 

40 CFR citation Requirement Applies to 

subpart BB Comment 

§ 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 VEopacity 

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 EmissionsCMS Performance Reports .......................... Yes ................. None. 

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

§ 63.10(f) ........................................ RecordkeepingReporting 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 AvailabilityConfidentiality ........................................ Yes ................. None. 

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

[FR Doc. 2014–25872 Filed 11–6–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS