Federal Implementation Plan for the Astaris-Idaho LLC Facility
(formerly owned by FMC Corporation) in the Fort Hall PM-10
Nonattainment Area
Related Material
[Federal Register: August 23, 2000 (Volume 65, Number 164)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 51411-51451]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr23au00-12]
[[Page 51411]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Part II
Environmental Protection Agency
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
40 CFR Part 49
Federal Implementation Plan for the Astaris-Idaho LLC Facility
(formerly owned by FMC Corporation) in the Fort Hall PM-10
Nonattainment Area; Final Rule
[[Page 51412]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 49
[Docket 24-7004; FRL-6846-2]
Federal Implementation Plan for the Astaris-Idaho LLC Facility
(formerly owned by FMC Corporation) in the Fort Hall PM-10
Nonattainment Area
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA, Agency or we) is
taking final action on a Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) to control
particulate matter emissions from an elemental phosphorus facility
owned by Astaris-Idaho LLC (formerly owned by FMC Corporation) in
southeastern Idaho (Astaris facility). The Astaris facility is located
on the Fort Hall Indian Reservation and in an area known as the Fort
Hall PM-10 nonattainment area. The Fort Hall PM-10 nonattainment area
is not in attainment with the national ambient air quality standards
(NAAQS) for particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter less than
or equal to a nominal 10 micrometers (PM-10). The purpose of the FIP is
to impose emission limits and work practice requirements that
constitute reasonably available control technology (RACT) for
particulate matter and that will, in light of this area's longstanding
nonattainment problem, ensure expeditious progress towards improving
air quality and attaining the PM-10 standards in order to protect the
public health.
DATES: Effective September 22, 2000.
ADDRESSES: Copies of all information supporting this action are
available for public inspection and copying between 8:30 a.m. and 5:30
p.m. Eastern Standard Time at EPA's Central Docket Section, Office of
Air and Radiation, Room 1500 (M-6102), 401 M Street, SW., Washington,
DC 20460, and between 8:30 a.m. and 3:30 p.m. Pacific Standard Time at
EPA Region 10, Office of Air Quality, 10th Floor, 1200 Sixth Avenue,
Seattle, Washington 98101. A copy of the docket is also available for
review at the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes, Office of Air Quality Program,
Land Use Commission, Fort Hall Government Center, Agency and Bannock
Roads, Fort Hall, Idaho 83203. A reasonable fee may be charged for
copies.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Steven K. Body, EPA, Office of Air
Quality (OAQ-107), 1200 Sixth Avenue, Seattle, Washington, 98101, (206)
553-0782.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
The contents of today's preamble are listed in the following
outline:
I. General Information
A. How Can I Get Additional Information or Copies of Support
Documents?
B. Who Does This FIP Apply To?
II. Background of the Final Rule
III. Summary of the Final Rule
IV. Major Issues Raised by Commenters
A. Trust Responsibility and Consultation
B. Consideration of Information Received Outside of the Public
Comment Period
C. Scope of the FIP
D. RCRA Consent Decree
E. Reliability of Source Test Data Submitted by Astaris-Idaho
F. Emission Limits for Sources at RACT
G. Emission Limits for Calciners
H. Emission Limits for Calciner Cooler Vents
I. Emission Limits for Furnace Building
J. Emission Limits for Excess CO Burner
K. Opacity Limits
L. Excess Emissions
M. Monitoring, Recordkeeping, and Reporting
N. PM-10 Precursors
O. Implementation and Enforcement of the FIP
P. Transportation Conformity
V. Other Changes From the January 2000 Supplemental Proposal
A. Codification
B. Definitions
C. Emission Limits
D. New and Modified Sources
E. Monitoring, Recordkeeping, and Reporting
VI. Effectiveness of the Control Strategy
VII. Administrative Requirements
A. Executive Order 12866
B. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
C. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)
D. Paperwork Reduction Act
E. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From
Environmental
----Health Risks and Safety Risks
F. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
G. Executive Order 13084: Consultation and Coordination With
Indian Tribal Governments
H. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995
(NTTAA)
I. Submission to Congress and the Comptroller General
J. Petitions for Judicial Review
I. General Information
A. How Can I Get Additional Information or Copies of Support Documents?
1. Electronically. You may obtain electronic copies of this
document, the February 12, 1999, FIP proposal, and the January 27, 2000
supplemental proposal from the internet at the following address:
http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/.
2. In person or by phone. If you have any questions or need
additional information about this action, please contact the person
identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. In addition,
the official record for this document, which is called the ``docket,''
has been established under docket control number ID 24-7004. The docket
is available for public inspection and copying as described above in
the ADDRESSES section.
B. Who Does This FIP Apply To?
This regulation applies to the owner(s) or operator(s) of the
elemental phosphorous facility located on the Fort Hall Indian
Reservation in Idaho adjacent to Highway 30 and the State-Reservation
boundary. The facility was owned by FMC Corporation until April 17,
2000. On that day, ownership and operation of the facility was
transferred to Astaris-Idaho LLC (Astaris-Idaho). Astaris-Idaho is a
subsidiary of Astaris LLC, a joint venture between the FMC Corporation
and Solutia, Inc. A copy of the agreement between FMC Corporation and
Astaris-Idaho documenting the transfer is in the docket. This
regulation will also apply to any new owner or operator of the Astaris-
Idaho facility in the event of a later change in ownership. All
references in this notice and in the regulation to the facility will be
to the ``Astaris-Idaho facility.''
II. Background of the Final Rule
Astaris-Idaho produces elemental phosphorus at its facility located
on the Fort Hall Indian Reservation in southeastern Idaho near
Pocatello. The Astaris-Idaho facility emits over 1400 tons of
particulate matter into the atmosphere each year. Numerous exceedences
of the PM-10 NAAQS, in effect as of July 1, 1987, have been and
continue to be recorded at monitoring stations located in the Fort Hall
PM-10 nonattainment area in the vicinity of the Astaris-Idaho facility
(the Tribal monitors).
On February 12, 1999, we published a proposed rule containing air
pollution emission limitations, work practice requirements, and related
monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements designed to
control PM-10 emissions from the Astaris-Idaho facility. 64 FR 7308
(February 12, 1999) (February 1999 FIP proposal).\1\ We held a public
workshop on the Fort Hall Indian Reservation on March 4, 1999, to
explain the February 1999 FIP proposal and to answer questions on the
proposal. On March 18, 1999, we held a public hearing on the February
1999 FIP proposal on the Fort Hall Indian Reservation. Three members of
the
[[Page 51413]]
Shoshone-Bannock Tribes provided oral testimony at the hearing. A copy
of the transcript from the public hearing is in the docket. EPA
accepted written comments on the February 1999 FIP proposal until May
13, 1999, and received timely written comments from five commenters,
including Astaris-Idaho and the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes (Tribes).
Additional comments on the February 1999 FIP proposal were received
after the close of the public comment period. Copies of all written
comments on the February 1999 FIP proposal, both timely and late, are
in the docket.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ EPA published a Federal Register document with minor
corrections to the February 1999 FIP proposal on April 13, 1999. 64
FR 17990. All future references to the February 1999 FIP proposal
include the corrections in the April 13, 1999, document.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
After carefully reviewing the public comments, including additional
technical and source test information provided by Astaris-Idaho, EPA
issued a supplemental proposal in which EPA revised certain limited
aspects of the original FIP proposal. 65 FR 4466 (January 27, 2000)
(January 2000 supplemental proposal). EPA held public hearings on the
January 2000 supplemental proposal on February 29, 2000, in Pocatello,
and on March 1, 2000, on the Fort Hall Indian Reservation. Thirty-two
persons provided comments over the course of the two evening sessions.
A copy of the transcript from the public hearings is located in the
docket. EPA solicited written comments on the January 2000 supplemental
proposal until the extended date of March 13, 2000. 65 FR 8679
(February 22, 2000) (notice of public hearing schedule and extension of
public comment period). EPA received written comments from 13
commenters, including the Tribes and Astaris-Idaho. Copies of all
written comments on the January 2000 supplemental proposal, both timely
and late, are in the docket.
After carefully reviewing and considering all comments received on
the February 1999 FIP proposal and the January 2000 supplemental
proposal, EPA is issuing this final FIP.
III. Summary of the Final Rule
In issuing this FIP, EPA is exercising its discretionary authority
under sections 301(a) and 301(d)(4) of the Clean Air Act (CAA or Act)
to promulgate such FIP provisions as are necessary or appropriate to
protect air quality within the Fort Hall Indian Reservation. EPA's
ultimate goal is to ensure that all persons residing in, working in,
and traveling through the Fort Hall PM-10 nonattainment area can
breathe air that meets the PM-10 NAAQS standards. EPA has used the PM-
10 planning requirements applicable to States with PM-10 nonattainment
areas as a guide in determining what is necessary or appropriate for
the protection of air quality in the Fort Hall PM-10 nonattainment
area.
The Clean Air Act requires States to impose RACT on major
stationary sources of PM-10 in moderate PM-10 nonattainment areas. See
sections 172(c)(1) and 189(a)(1)(C) of the CAA. This FIP contains
emission limits and work practice requirements that EPA believes
represent RACT, along with related monitoring, recordkeeping, and
reporting requirements, for PM-10 emissions from the Astaris-Idaho
facility that emanate from the Fort Hall PM-10 nonattainment area. EPA
believes that many sources at Astaris-Idaho currently employ RACT-level
controls. For point sources that EPA believes currently employ RACT-
level controls, the FIP imposes mass emissions limits based on current
actual maximum daily emission rates from these point sources and
opacity limits designed to keep PM-10 emissions at current levels. For
area sources that EPA believes currently employ RACT-level controls,
the FIP proposes opacity limits and work practice requirements designed
to keep emissions at current levels.
The largest sources of PM-10 emissions at the Astaris-Idaho
facility are the slag pit and related slag handling operations, the
elevated secondary condenser and carbon monoxide (CO) ground flares,
and the calciners. EPA believes that these sources, along with the
phosphorous loading dock and the furnace building, do not currently
employ RACT-level controls. For these sources, the FIP establishes
emission limits and opacity requirements that will require process
changes and additional control equipment to achieve substantial
emission reductions, along with related monitoring, recordkeeping, and
reporting requirements. The controls required to comply with the
emission limits and work practice requirements in the FIP will be
costly--an estimated $49 million dollars in capital expenditures, and
annual costs for monitoring, work practice requirements, recordkeeping,
and reporting of up to $202,000. EPA nonetheless believes the controls
needed to comply with the requirements of this FIP, many of which have
already been implemented, are both technologically and economically
feasible. In developing the FIP, EPA has carefully evaluated
alternative control technologies for each source at Astaris-Idaho,
including the incremental emission reductions and estimated cost of
installing, operating, and maintaining these alternative control
technologies. In addition, in connection with the settlement of alleged
violations of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) at the
Astaris-Idaho facility, FMC Corporation \2\ has entered into a consent
agreement with the United States (RCRA Consent Decree) in which FMC has
agreed to expend more than $64 million in capital costs to implement 13
PM-10 reduction projects at the facility. Five of these projects
include the controls that EPA believes are necessary to comply with the
proposed FIP. EPA believes that the remaining eight projects will
better enable Astaris-Idaho to comply with the requirements of the
proposed FIP. The company's commitment to install and operate the 13
PM-10 reduction projects for five years as part of the RCRA settlement
is persuasive evidence that the control technology identified in this
FIP is both technologically and economically feasible.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ FMC Corporation retains responsibility for funding the
capital costs of and for implementing the RCRA Consent Decree.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA believes that emission reductions that will be achieved by this
FIP are necessary in order to ensure that PM-10 levels in the Fort Hall
PM-10 nonattainment area do not endanger public health, and that
emissions reductions will be achieved on a time frame that will
contribute to attainment of the PM-10 NAAQS as expeditiously as
practicable. To achieve these goals, EPA believes that PM-10 emissions
from the Astaris-Idaho facility must be reduced by approximately 65%,
based on measured air quality and the levels of the PM-10 standards.
EPA anticipates that the emission limitations and work practice
requirements in this proposed FIP, when considered together, will
result in an overall reduction in PM-10 emissions of almost 80%.
To further these objectives, EPA is proposing a rigorous compliance
schedule. For sources that EPA believes currently employ RACT-level
controls, as well as for the phosphorous loading dock, compliance with
the applicable emission limits and work practice requirements is
required 60 days after the effective date of the FIP. The emission
limits and related control requirements for slag handling, the calciner
scrubbers, and the secondary condenser flare and CO ground flare will
be in place and in effect on November 1, 2000, December 1, 2000, and
January 1, 2001, respectively. By January 1, 2001, emissions from the
Astaris-Idaho facility are expected to be reduced by almost 80%. The
last requirements of the FIP, to control fugitive emissions from the
furnace building, come into effect on April 1,
[[Page 51414]]
2002. Because most of the emission reductions at the Astaris-Idaho
facility will occur by January 1, 2001, EPA does not expect particulate
values above the level of the PM-10 NAAQS to be recorded on the Tribal
monitors after that date.
IV. Major Issues Raised by Commenters
The following is a summary of the major issues raised in comments
on the February 1999 FIP proposal (64 FR 7308 (February 12, 1999)), as
well as the January 2000 supplemental proposal (65 FR 4466 (January 27,
2000)), along with a summary of EPA's responses to those issues. A
separate document containing responses to all comments on the two
proposals (Response to Comments) is in the docket.
A. Trust Responsibility and Consultation
The Tribes and several individual tribal members commented that EPA
has a trust responsibility to the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes to fully
consider tribal interests and protect tribal interests in carrying out
its responsibilities under the Clean Air Act on Tribal lands, which
includes a responsibility to consult with and fully involve the Tribes
in decisions affecting the Tribes and their resources. These commenters
assert that, in issuing the January 2000 supplemental proposal, EPA
failed to adequately consult on a government-to-government basis with
the Tribes prior to changing several requirements in the 1999 FIP
proposal and failed to meet its trust responsibility toward the Tribes.
EPA acknowledges that the federal government has a trust
responsibility to federally-recognized tribes, including the Shoshone-
Bannock Tribes. EPA has recognized this responsibility throughout the
development of the FIP and believes its actions have been consistent
with its responsibility to consult with the Tribes on a government-to-
government basis. EPA offered the Tribes an opportunity to provide
their views and concerns before it made decisions, made a number of
offers to meet with the Tribal government, and fully considered the
issues raised by the Tribes prior to issuing the original and
supplemental proposals, as well as this final rule.
As described in more detail in the Response to Comments, the Tribes
were invited to participate in all aspects of the FIP development
process that led up to and followed the February 1999 proposal. The
Tribes were invited to all meetings with Astaris-Idaho to discuss
Astaris-Idaho's comments on the February 1999 FIP proposal, and
representatives of the Tribes participated directly in all but one of
those meetings. The Tribes were provided with the technical information
and proposals submitted by Astaris-Idaho to EPA, and offered
opportunities to give their views to EPA on that information and raise
any concerns. Staff from the Tribes have had numerous telephone
conferences with EPA, and met separately with EPA to discuss the
technical issues arising from both the February 1999 FIP proposal and
the January 2000 supplemental proposal. The Tribes were asked to
comment on preliminary drafts of the February 1999 FIP proposal and the
January 2000 supplemental proposal, and the Tribes provided their views
and perspectives in writing as well as orally on those drafts. The
Tribes' views and perspectives were considered by EPA prior to making
decisions on the proposals and on this final rule. EPA has continued to
consult with the Tribes since publication of the January 2000
supplemental proposal. EPA met with Tribal air quality staff and legal
staff on several occasions to discuss the Tribes' comments on and
concerns with the January 2000 supplemental proposal and sought their
input on changes to be made in the final FIP. The Tribes' comments and
involvement throughout this entire rulemaking process were welcome and
valuable. This summary clearly documents that EPA has made a number of
diligent, continuing efforts to consult with the Tribes throughout the
process before making decisions on the numerous regulatory requirements
established in this FIP.
The FIP that EPA is publishing today for the Astaris-Idaho facility
has been designed to meet the requirements of the Clean Air Act, and to
protect the members and natural resources of the Tribes. The limits
that have been placed on facility emissions through a number of
specific regulatory controls are expected to curb air pollution
sufficiently so that air quality in the region attains the PM-10 NAAQS,
national standards which EPA has established to protect human health
and the environment. The requirements in the FIP also establish
additional requirements that are necessary or appropriate to protect
human and environmental health, in accordance with EPA's authorities
under the CAA. The FIP published today establishes strict, federally
enforceable requirements to control and monitor PM-10 emissions. EPA
expects that these requirements will provide a verifiable means of
ensuring that the facility complies with the federal regulations and is
operated in a manner that protects the health and welfare of the
Tribes, its members, and its resources.
EPA believes that its actions to include the Tribes in the FIP
development process and to consult with and consider the interests of
the Tribes prior to making decisions have been consistent with its
trust responsibility to the Tribes. See Nance v. EPA, 645 F.2d 701,
710-11 (9th Cir. 1981), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 1081 (1981). By
promulgating the FIP while operating within a proactive government-to-
government relationship with the Tribes, EPA has been able to fully
consider the views of the Tribes. Thus, EPA is satisfied that it has
consulted with the Tribes consistent with its trust responsibility to
the Tribes while fulfilling its duties under the CAA.
B. Consideration of Information Received Outside of the Public Comment
Period
The Tribes and several other commenters objected to EPA's
consideration of information submitted to EPA by Astaris-Idaho after
the close of the public comment period on the February 1999 FIP
proposal. EPA did receive information from Astaris-Idaho after the
close of the public comment period on the February 1999 FIP proposal.
\3\ However, the comment materials submitted by Astaris-Idaho contained
substantively relevant information disputing the technical adequacy of
certain aspects of the February 1999 FIP proposal. Section 553(c) of
the Administrative Procedures Act (APA) states that administrative
agencies ``shall give interested persons'' an opportunity to comment on
proposed rulemakings. That section further states that final rulemaking
action may occur only ``after consideration of the relevant matter
presented.'' In EPA's view, the information presented by Astaris-Idaho
constitutes ``relevant matter'' which, pursuant to the APA, is required
to be considered by the Agency. There is
[[Page 51415]]
nothing in the APA that would preclude EPA from considering information
received after the close of the public comment period. In addition, EPA
has a long-standing, historical policy of accepting and considering all
written comments submitted during rulemakings, even those submitted
after the close of the public comment period. \4\ Congress effectively
adopted this policy when it included detailed public record
requirements for certain rulemakings under subsection 307(d) of the
Clean Air Act. This action is not a rulemaking under subsection 307(d),
since this FIP is being promulgated subject to requirements imposed
under subsections 301(a) and 301(d) of the Act. However, the process
being followed in this rulemaking is substantially similar to that
followed for rulemakings under subsection 307(d) of the Act. In
litigation challenging EPA's rulemaking process, courts have upheld the
Agency's practice of considering and including in the public record or
docket for final rulemakings documents received after the close of the
comment period that are materially relevant. See Air Pollution Control
District of Jefferson County, Kentucky v. United States Environmental
Protection Agency, 739 F.2d 1071, 1079-1080 (6th Cir. 1984); Sierra
Club v. Costle, 657 F.2d 298, 397-98 (D.C. Cir. 1981). In fact, EPA
failure to consider information of the type submitted by Astaris-Idaho
would be a violation of the APA and could significantly delay
promulgation of the FIP. If the FIP were challenged on grounds that
information of central relevance to the rulemaking had not been
considered by EPA, a court, upon such a determination, would likely
remand the FIP to EPA for further consideration. However, given that
EPA has made the information itself, as well as the adjustments it has
proposed to make to the FIP in light of the additional data, fully
available for public review through notice and comment, neither the
commenters specifically nor the public in general were denied an
opportunity for meaningful public participation. Indeed, EPA also
received comments after the close of the public comment period on both
the February 1999 FIP proposal and the January 2000 supplemental
proposal from the Tribes and members of the public. Consistent with the
APA requirements and Agency policy, EPA has considered and responded,
without exception, to all comments received during this FIP rulemaking,
and, moreover, has put all the comments into the final rulemaking
docket, including all those that were received after the close of the
several public comment periods.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ The Tribes also argue that EPA should not consider Astaris-
Idaho's formal comments on the February 1999 FIP proposal because
the copy on file with EPA is date stamped ``May 14, 1999,'' one day
after the close of the public comment period. EPA believes that it
received an electronic version of Astaris-Idaho's comments on May
13, 1999. Therefore, even if Astaris-Idaho's comments were late, the
comments were only one day late. However, what is more relevant is
that EPA was aware that Astaris-Idaho would be submitting comments
on the FIP. Astaris-Idaho had already provided EPA with a
substantial portion of the information that comprised its comments
in documents that were submitted to EPA and the Tribes on April 23
and April 27, 1999--well before the close of the public comment
period.
\4\ ``[E]PA must provide for the most extensive public
participation possible in decision-making * * * Therefore, after a
rule is proposed * * * [a]ll written comments received from people
outside the Agency (whether during or after the comment period)
[must be] entered in the public record for the rulemaking * * * Of
paramount importance, however, is ensuring any new data or
information affecting the decision is promptly placed in the public
record.'' Memorandum from Carol M. Browner to all EPA employees,
August 8, 1993. See also original Memorandum on EPA ``open
rulemaking'' policy (known as the ``Fishbowl Memo'') from William D.
Ruckelshaus, May 19, 1983.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
C. Scope of the FIP
The Tribes commented that the focus of the FIP is too narrow in two
respects. First, the Tribes contend that the FIP is too narrow in its
geographic coverage in that it only applies to the Astaris-Idaho
facility and does not address the entire Fort Hall PM-10 nonattainment
area. In this regard, the Tribes point to a resolution of the Fort Hall
Business Council which requested that the FIP cover the entire
nonattainment area. A major concern of the Tribes is that a major
source of air pollution could move into the Fort Hall PM-10
nonattainment area without adequate controls and cause or contribute to
violations of the PM-10 NAAQS. Second, the Tribes contend that the FIP
does not contain all of the elements normally associated with a State
implementation plan (SIP) under Title I of the Clean Air Act, such as
reasonable further progress, an emission inventory, identification and
quantification, permits for new and modified major stationary sources,
other measures such as enforceable emission limits, the elements of
section 110(a)(2) of the Act, and contingency measures. The Tribes
contend that the FIP should contain all of the elements that a State
must include in a moderate PM-10 nonattainment SIP.
As discussed above in section III, in promulgating this FIP, EPA is
exercising its discretionary authority under sections 301(a) and
301(d)(4) of the Clean Air Act and 40 CFR 49.11(a) to promulgate such
FIP provisions as are necessary or appropriate to protect air quality
within the Fort Hall Indian Reservation. The Title I planning
requirements of the Clean Air Act applicable to States do not directly
apply to EPA in promulgating a Federal Implementation Plan in Indian
Country although, as stated in the FIP proposal, EPA used the planning
requirements applicable to States with PM-10 nonattainment areas as a
guide in developing this FIP. See 64 FR at 7313.
Because of the serious PM-10 nonattainment problem that exists in
the Fort Hall PM-10 nonattainment area, EPA believes it is appropriate
to focus this FIP on the sources that cause or contribute to the air
quality problem in the area and the elements applicable to States with
PM-10 nonattainment areas that will address the PM-10 air quality
problem as quickly as possible. As stated in the FIP proposal, EPA
believes that the primary cause of the PM-10 problem in the Fort Hall
PM-10 nonattainment area is primary PM-10 emissions from the Astaris-
Idaho facility. 64 FR at 7309, 7321-7323. There are no other major
stationary sources in the nonattainment area and the five other minor
stationary sources in the nonattainment area collectively account for
less than 1% of PM-10 emissions from stationary sources in the
nonattainment area, with Astaris-Idaho emitting more than 99% of all
such emissions. Although area source emissions account for
approximately 43% of all PM-10 emissions in the nonattainment area,
these area source emissions are spread out over the entire
nonattainment area and EPA believes these emissions have an
insignificant impact on the PM-10 violations that have been recorded.
The Source Apportionment Study, which is discussed in the January 2000
supplemental proposal and is included in the docket, supports the
conclusion that the PM-10 exceedences are local in nature and points
conclusively to Astaris-Idaho as the source of the exceedences on the
Tribal monitors. 65 FR at 4481-4482.
EPA did receive a copy of a resolution enacted by the Fort Hall
Business Council, the governing body of the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes,
which acknowledged EPA's efforts in the development of a FIP proposal.
A careful reading of the resolution indicates that the Tribes were
requesting that EPA promulgate a FIP regulating PM-10 emissions for all
sources in the PM-10 nonattainment area and not just for the Astaris-
Idaho facility. EPA had not understood this was the case initially
because the resolution also expresses support for the draft FIP that
EPA had been developing in coordination with the Tribes which covered
only the Astaris-Idaho facility. In addition, the resolution was
received by EPA just shortly before the FIP proposal was signed by
Administrator Browner.
EPA now understands that the Tribes desire is for EPA, and not the
Tribes, to take the initial lead in developing restrictions on PM-10
emissions from other sources within the Fort Hall PM-10 nonattainment
area, and that the Tribes intend to take the lead in
[[Page 51416]]
promulgating an implementation plan for the remainder of the Fort Hall
Indian Reservation. EPA does not believe, however, that promulgation of
final PM-10 control requirements for the Astaris-Idaho facility, the
major if not sole contributor to the PM-10 violations that have been
recorded on the Reservation, should be delayed while EPA considers
whether imposition of requirements for PM-10 emissions on other sources
of PM-10 within the nonattainment area are necessary or appropriate to
safeguard public health and the environment. In exercising its
discretionary authority under section 301(a) and 301(d)(4) of the Clean
Air Act and 40 CFR 49.11(a) to promulgate such FIP provisions as are
necessary or appropriate to protect air quality within Indian country,
EPA has stated that it will carry out this authority in a prioritized
way, beginning with the facilities that pose the greatest threat to
public health and the environment. 64 FR 8247, 8255 (February 12,
1999). Accordingly, EPA intends to go forward with this FIP for the
Astaris-Idaho facility and, as it has stated throughout this rulemaking
process, will address particulate emissions from other sources in the
Fort Hall PM-10 nonattainment area in a subsequent rulemaking. EPA
believes this approach is the best way to address the Tribes' and the
public's concern that the Astaris-Idaho facility be subject to limits
on its particulate emissions as soon as possible.
With respect to the concern that this FIP does not contain all of
the elements a State must address in a PM-10 nonattainment SIP, EPA
again notes that, in promulgating this FIP, EPA is exercising its
discretionary authority under sections 301(a) and 301(d)(4) of the
Clean Air Act and 40 CFR 49.11(a) to promulgate such FIP provisions as
are necessary or appropriate to protect air quality within the Fort
Hall Indian Reservation. EPA focused the efforts of this FIP rulemaking
on the elements that would bring the area into attainment with the PM-
10 NAAQS as expeditiously as possible: imposing RACT on Astaris-Idaho
and demonstrating that the Fort Hall PM-10 nonattainment area will
attain the PM-10 standard once these RACT-level control requirements
are in place at the Astaris-Idaho facility. Again, as stated in its
proposal, EPA will address the other PM-10 planning elements that are
applicable to States with moderate PM-10 nonattainment areas as
necessary or appropriate in future rulemaking proceedings. 64 FR at
7342.
It should be noted, however, that although the focus of this FIP is
on implementation of RACT and demonstrating attainment, many of the
specific planning elements usually required of States in PM-10
nonattainment SIPs are in fact addressed by this FIP. For example, EPA
believes that the compliance dates for the control measures promulgated
in this FIP are consistent with the quantitative milestone reporting
requirements. Similarly, implementation of the control measures in
accordance with the compliance schedule will result in annual
incremental reductions that represent reasonable further progress, as
required by sections 172(c)(2) and 189(c)(1) of the Act. The FIP is
based on and does include a comprehensive, accurate, and current
inventory of reasonable worst case PM-10 emissions from the Astaris-
Idaho facility. EPA revised the emission inventory in the January 2000
supplemental proposal and has made further refinements in this final
action. As discussed in more detail below in section VI, EPA believes
the revised emission inventory represents the best available
information regarding PM-10 emissions from the Astaris-Idaho facility.
A major concern of the Tribes and other commenters relates to EPA's
authority, resources, and plans for ensuring implementation and
enforcement of the FIP. That issue is discussed in more detail in
section IV.O. below. Another major concern of the Tribes and other
commenters is the requirement of section 189(e) of the CAA that a State
SIP impose RACT on major stationary sources of PM-10 precursors that
contribute to exceedences of the PM-10 standards. That issue is
discussed in more detail in section IV.N. below. With respect to
contingency measures, the FIP does include a cushion of over-control:
EPA has determined that a 65% reduction in daily PM-10 emissions is
needed to attain the PM-10 standards and expects that, after full
implementation of all control measures in the FIP, PM-10 emissions will
be reduced by almost 80% on a 24-hour basis. In addition, EPA intends
to propose in a separate Federal Register published in the fall of 2000
a lower emission limit for the facility's calciner cooler vents as a
contingency measure. \5\ Once finalized as a contingency measure, the
reduced emission limit for the calciner coolers would become effective
when triggered without further administrative action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ A contingency measure is a requirement that becomes
effective without further action by EPA upon a determination that
the area has failed to achieve reasonable further progress or to
attain the PM-10 NAAQS by the attainment date. See generally 57 FR
13510-13512 and 13543-13544.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is true that the FIP does not include a permit program for the
construction and operation of new and modified major stationary sources
of PM-10 that meets the requirements of sections 172(b)(6) and 173 of
the Clean Air Act and 40 CFR 51.165 (often referred to as a ``Part D
NSR program'') or a program for the review and permitting of minor
sources, as is required of States in PM-10 nonattainment SIPs. See
sections 110(a)(2) and 189(a). EPA is addressing the issue of new
sources of PM-10 in several respects. First, EPA, in a rulemaking
process separate from this FIP for Astaris-Idaho, is developing a
national rule that would apply to the construction or modification of
new minor sources in Indian Country, and also extend to Indian Country
the requirements of Part D NSR for new major stationary sources and
major modifications to major stationary sources in nonattainment areas.
To the extent a new major source of PM-10 locates in the Fort Hall PM-
10 nonattainment area before EPA revises 40 CFR part 52 to apply in
Indian Country, it is EPA's intention to act as necessary or
appropriate to promulgate a source-specific FIP setting out the
permitting requirements for the new or modified source. EPA has taken
this approach for a new major source that wanted to construct a new
major facility on the reservation of the Salt River Pima-Maricopa
Indian Community, which is located in a nonattainment area. 64 FR 65660
(November 23, 1999). Thus, EPA does not agree that a new major source
could locate within the Fort Hall PM-10 nonattainment area without
installing controls that would assure protection of the PM-10 NAAQS.
Finally, as discussed in the January 2000 supplemental proposal, EPA
has revised the FIP to better address new construction and
modifications at the Astaris-Idaho facility. 65 FR at 4477. The FIP
requires Astaris-Idaho to notify EPA and the Tribes at least 90 days
prior to beginning construction of any new source of PM-10 or a
modification to an existing source that would result in an increase of
PM-10 emissions. After 90 days, Astaris-Idaho would be authorized to
construct the new or modified source, but the source would be subject
to an opacity limit of 10% and must be addressed in the facility's
operation and maintenance plan, unless EPA established alternative or
additional emission limitations or work practice requirements for the
source through a revision to the FIP.
Please refer to the Response to Comments document for a more
[[Page 51417]]
detailed discussion of the other PM-10 planning issues referenced
earlier.
D. RCRA Consent Decree
The Tribes and several other commenters expressed concern that the
control technologies relied on in the FIP were pre-selected by Astaris-
Idaho as part of the RCRA Consent Decree before the FIP process was
started and without consideration of comments by the Tribes and public.
These commenters believe that EPA made a decision to take the projects
selected by Astaris-Idaho in the RCRA process outside of the public
comment process and transfer each one of them over to satisfy this RACT
FIP. As a consequence of this, these commenters assert that EPA has
proposed a FIP that does not adhere to the Clean Air Act requirements
for nonattainment areas and that Astaris-Idaho has had too much control
in determining the outcome of the FIP.
EPA has considered technical information and comments from Astaris-
Idaho, as it has from all commenters, but, as discussed below, EPA does
not agree that Astaris-Idaho is or has been in control of the outcome
of the FIP, nor with the corollary implication that public comment,
including comments from the Tribes, has been meaningless or unfairly
prejudiced. Although the FIP now under consideration was not proposed
in the Federal Register until February 1999, after the RCRA Consent
Decree was signed by the United States and FMC in October 1998, the
control strategy for the FIP has been under development and discussion
with Astaris-Idaho, the Tribes, the local community, and EPA since the
early 1990s. Environmental Quality Management, Inc. (EQM), a contractor
with extensive knowledge of the phosphorus industry in general and
experience with the Astaris-Idaho facility in particular, was hired in
the mid-1990s to conduct an evaluation of alternative control
technologies for each source at Astaris-Idaho that could be used as the
basis for a determination of RACT. Based on EQM's work, EPA ultimately
presented a workshop in Fort Hall and Pocatello in September 1997 in
which EPA explained the basic control strategy for the FIP that EPA
intended to propose. That presentation included a discussion of
installation of hot pour pot handling to control emissions from slag
handling, upgrades to the calciner scrubbers, controls on the calciner
cooler vents, and the enclosure and control of the secondary condenser
flare and CO ground flare. In the final RACT report issued by EQM in
July 1998 (EQM RACT Report), hot pour pot handling was identified as
the best control option for slag handling at Astaris-Idaho and spray
towers were identified as the best control option for the calciner
scrubbers at Astaris-Idaho. The EQM RACT Report stated that, with
respect to the secondary condenser flare and CO ground flare, there
were no options for control of P2O5 emissions
from CO gas flares in the phosphate industry. EQM RACT Report, p. 113.
The report goes on to discuss the theoretical options for the control
of these flares, including combustion of the CO gases in an enclosed
device and control by a wet scrubber.
During settlement negotiations to resolve the RCRA violations at
the Astaris-Idaho facility, Astaris-Idaho provided EPA and the Tribes
with a document entitled ``RACT Project Descriptions--Astaris-Idaho--15
October 1997.'' That document included a proposal to install hot pour
pot handling, to increase the performance of the scrubbing control
system from 50-60% to 80-90%, and to direct all excess CO gas to an
enclosed burner/combuster device with the off gas sent to a high
efficiency scrubber. Astaris-Idaho's proposal also included ten other
projects to reduce PM-10 emissions at Astaris-Idaho. Hot pour slag
handling, upgrades to the calciner scrubbers, and control of the excess
CO gas, however, were, and have always been, the three projects
believed by EPA to be essential to bringing the Fort Hall PM-10
nonattainment area into attainment with the PM-10 NAAQS. Moreover, they
represent RACT-level controls for those sources. Thus, the control
equipment and project upgrades that are the basis of the FIP were in
fact not pre-selected by Astaris-Idaho as part of the RCRA Consent
Decree, but instead driven by EPA's preliminary determination of what
represented RACT-level controls. Although it is true that Astaris-Idaho
began to design and implement these controls before the FIP went out
for public notice and comment, the Tribes and the public were aware of
what EPA believed represented RACT-level controls at least since the
public workshops in Fort Hall and Pocatello in September 1997. During
the public comment period on the February 1999 FIP proposal and the
January 2000 supplemental proposal, no commenter has suggested any
better technology that could achieve higher emission reductions for
slag handling, the calciner scrubbers, or the flares. The Tribes have
suggested additional controls for the furnace building (i.e., enclosing
the building) which, as discussed below in section IV.I., EPA believes
goes far beyond RACT in terms of cost effectiveness. The Tribes and the
members of the public have commented that EPA should consider
additional controls on the calciner cooler vents in light of the recent
information showing that PM-10 emissions from this source are much
higher than originally thought. As discussed in section IV.H. below,
EPA intends to propose in the fall a reduced emission limit for the
calciner cooler vents based on the installation of additional controls
that would serve as a contingency measure.
In short, the RCRA Consent Decree and the FIP are two separate
mechanisms by which EPA is bringing about PM-10 emission reductions in
the Fort Hall PM-10 nonattainment area. The RCRA Consent Decree was
designed to address past violations of the RCRA requirements, whereas
the FIP is designed to implement RACT and ensure ultimate attainment of
the PM-10 NAAQS. As part of the RCRA Consent Decree, Astaris-Idaho did
commit to implement 13 PM-10 emission reduction projects ahead of the
schedule that would have otherwise been required in the FIP, and
Astaris-Idaho received some reduction in the RCRA penalty for this
agreement. This agreement was done in accordance with EPA's policies
for Supplemental Environmental Projects, and is a common feature in
settlements in these types of enforcement cases. See ``Supplemental
Environmental Projects Policy,'' 63 FR 24976 (May 5, 1998). Although
there is some overlap in the requirements of the RCRA Consent Decree
and the requirements of the FIP, in each case EPA issued each document
in accordance with the governing environmental statute, regulations,
and policies of the Agency. As is evident from even a quick review of
the RCRA Consent Decree and the FIP, the FIP is separate from and far
more extensive and stringent than the RCRA Consent Decree with respect
to PM-10 emission reduction requirements.
E. Reliability of Source Test Data Submitted by Astaris-Idaho
The Tribes, the State of Idaho, and other commenters questioned
EPA's reliance on source test data submitted by Astaris-Idaho after the
February 1999 FIP proposal. Because this information was based on
source tests conducted by Astaris-Idaho that were not observed by EPA
or the Tribes, these commenters do not believe EPA should have revised
the emission inventory or the proposed emission limits to allow higher
emission levels from Astaris-Idaho based on this source test data. The
Tribes, the State of Idaho, and many citizens also commented that EPA
should not
[[Page 51418]]
exclude condensible PM-10 \6\ from the emission limits because the
source tests conducted by Astaris-Idaho did, in fact, measure
condensible PM-10 from these sources.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Condensible particulate matter refers to material that is
not particulate matter at stack conditions but which condenses or
reacts upon cooling and dilution in the ambient air to form
particulate matter immediately after discharge from the stack. The
condensible emissions form particles in the PM-10 size range and are
considered PM-10 emissions. See 57 FR 13498, 13542 (April 16, 1992).
Method 202 is the EPA reference test method for measuring
condensible PM-10. 40 CFR part 51, subpart M (Method 202).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Astaris-Idaho did submit more recent source test data it collected
in response to the February 1999 FIP proposal. EPA has reviewed the
tests and believes, with some exceptions related to condensible
particulate matter reported from sources at ambient temperatures, that
the recent test data are more representative of current conditions at
the Astaris-Idaho facility than the previously available information.
With respect to many sources, the recent source test data show that
filterable PM-10 emissions \7\ from these sources are less than shown
by previous source tests and, based on its review of the results, EPA
has reduced the emission limits on filterable PM-10 for these sources.
For four other sources (the west shale baghouse, the calciner
scrubbers, the calciner cooler vents, and the excess CO burner), EPA
has increased the emission limits based on its review of information
from Astaris-Idaho showing that emissions from these sources are higher
than previously shown. EPA has explained these changes in great detail
in the January 2000 supplemental proposal, elsewhere in this notice,
and in the Response to Comments. Neither the Tribes nor any other
commenter has provided information to show that the recent source test
data provided by Astaris-Idaho do not accurately reflect current
reasonable worst-case emissions of filterable PM-10 at the Astaris-
Idaho facility. Issues relating to the reliability of the condensible
PM-10 emission data is discussed in section IV.F below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ Filterable particulate matter refers to material that is
particulate matter at existing gas stream temperatures and
conditions. Method 201/201A is the EPA reference test method for
measuring filterable PM-10 emissions. 40 CFR part 51, appendix M
(Method 201/201A)). Method 5 measures filterable total suspended
particulate emissions. 40 CFR part 60, appendix A (Method 5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is important to remember that, at the time of the February 1999
FIP proposal, EPA believed that Astaris-Idaho emitted 6920 pounds of
PM-10 per day and that emissions would be reduced to approximately 2164
pounds per day, a reduction of 69%. EPA now believes that Astaris-Idaho
emits more than 15,000 pounds of PM-10 per day under reasonable worst
case conditions, but anticipates that the FIP will reduce PM-10
emissions from Astaris-Idaho to approximately 3200 pounds per day, a
reduction of almost 80%. Thus, although emissions after the FIP will be
higher under the final rule (as compared to the February 1999 FIP
proposal), the improvement in air quality, when compared to existing
emissions, should be greater than expected under the February 1999 FIP
proposal.
F. Emission Limits for Sources at RACT
As stated in the preamble to the February 1999 FIP proposal, we
believe that many of the sources at Astaris-Idaho currently employ
RACT-level controls. See 64 FR at 7311 and 7325. These include the
following point sources: source 5a (east shale baghouse); source 6a
(middle shale baghouse); source 7a (west shale baghouse); source 10
(calciner cooler vents); sources 12a and 12b (north and south nodule
discharge baghouses); source 13 (nodule reclaim baghouse); source 15a
and 15b (east and west nodule discharge baghouses); source 16a (nodule
stockpile baghouse) \8\; 17a (dust silo baghouse); sources 18a and 18b
(furnace building east and west baghouses); source 18d, 18e, 18f, and
18g (furnace building Medusa-Andersen stacks); and source 20a (coke
handling baghouse). For these point sources, EPA intended to propose
mass emission limits designed to keep PM-10 emissions at current levels
and not to require additional controls in order to meet the FIP limits.
See 64 FR at 7311 and 7325.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ As discussed below in section V.C, EPA source 13 is now
known as the ``nodule reclaim baghouse'' and source 16a as the
``nodule stockpile baghouse.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Based on information provided by Astaris-Idaho during the public
comment period, EPA determined that the mass emission limits proposed
for the above-identified sources were not consistent with current
emission levels. The proposed mass emission limits were derived from
the 1996 emission inventory, which included only filterable PM-10
emissions using EPA Method 5 and did not consider condensible PM-10
emissions. In the February 1999 FIP proposal, however, we proposed EPA
Methods 201/201A and 202 as the reference test methods for determining
compliance with the proposed mass emission limits. Method 201/201A
measures all filterable PM-10 and Method 202 measures condensible PM-
10. Thus, the proposed reference test method required the inclusion of
more particulate matter (condensible PM-10) than originally considered
when developing the 1996 emission inventory and establishing the
proposed emission limits. To address this issue, EPA proposed in the
January 2000 supplemental proposal that, for these sources, condensible
emissions would not be included in the emission limit and that Method
202 would be required for informational purposes only (that is, not as
part of the reference test method).
It is true that the source tests conducted by Astaris-Idaho show
the presence of condensible PM-10 emissions from these sources.
However, this is a result that would not normally be expected. Except
for the calciner cooler vents, the calciners, and the excess CO burner,
the PM-10 sources at Astaris-Idaho have stack temperatures at, or near,
ambient temperature. Therefore, condensible particulate should already
have condensed, that is, changed from a gaseous to a particulate state,
and, therefore, should not be measurable by the Method 202 source
tests. Given that these sources are not high temperature sources, it is
likely that the particulate measured by Method 202 is an artifact of
the sampling method, a sampling error, or a contaminant in the sample.
To determine if the condensible PM-10 measured at these sources
represents real emissions, the material collected by Method 202 in the
source tests would need to be chemically analyzed to determine its
composition and source. Until the condensible material is chemically
analyzed or additional source tests for condensible particulate
emissions are conducted for sources at Astaris-Idaho at ambient
temperatures, EPA believes it would be inadvisable to consider the
condensible particulate matter in establishing emission limits for
these sources. To do so could result in an emission limit far higher
than appropriate to ensure PM-10 emissions remain at current levels.
Requiring Astaris-Idaho to conduct source tests with Method 202 for
informational purposes will allow EPA to further analyze whether the
condensible particulate matter measured in the source tests is an
artifact or is being actually measured, and determine whether
additional controls may be necessary. 65 FR at 4468-4469. At the same
time, because the source test data submitted by Astaris-Idaho showed
that filterable PM-10 emissions for 13 of these sources (as well as for
the phos dock scrubber) was lower than previously realized, EPA
proposed to reduce the emission limits for these 14 sources to ensure
emissions do not increase above existing levels. 65 FR at 4469.
[[Page 51419]]
These commenters also stated that EPA should conduct another RACT
analysis for these sources because the previous RACT analysis did not
consider condensible PM-10 emissions from these sources. EPA disagrees
that the potential presence of condensible emissions from these sources
would change the RACT analysis. First, as discussed above, EPA believes
it is very unlikely that condensible PM-10 is in fact being emitted
from these sources because the emissions are already at or near ambient
temperatures. EPA has advised States that condensible PM-10 emissions
need to be controlled as part of implementing RACT-level controls only
where condensible PM-10 is determined to be a significant portion of
the emissions from an existing stationary source. See 57 FR 13498,
13543 (April 16, 1992). Even if the condensible emissions measured from
these sources are assumed to represent actual PM-10 emissions, among
other things, the incremental cost to control condensible PM-10 from
the material handling sources in this category (the sources controlled
by baghouses) would be very high, well in excess of what EPA would
consider to be reasonably available (i.e., RACT) because traditional
methods of control such as baghouses are not effective for controlling
condensible particulate matter and any condensible fractions collected
by other available control devices would be extremely small. Also, to
capture the condensible fraction, it would have to be condensed from
vapor to particulate using techniques such as gas cooling, capillary
condensation, or carbon adsorption. However, no abatement systems of
this type are known to be used for controlling particulate matter from
material handling sources or are defined as RACT for material handling
sources in any industry. The furnace building Medusa-Andersen scrubbers
and the phos dock scrubber are controlled by scrubbing systems that do
control condensible PM-10 if in fact condensible PM-10 is being emitted
from these sources.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ EPA also notes that the State of Idaho does not, to EPA's
knowledge, regulate or require testing of condensible PM-10
emissions using Method 202. The PM-10 SIP submitted by Idaho for the
neighboring Portneuf Valley PM-10 nonattainment area does not
discuss, regulate, or require sources to measure condensible PM-10
emissions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Astaris-Idaho commented that the source test data provided by
Astaris-Idaho, which EPA relied on to reduce the emission limits for
the 14 sources discussed above, did not reflect reasonable worst case
emissions. Moreover, Astaris-Idaho argued, EPA erred in relying on the
average of the three source test runs, rather than the highest source
test run for each of these sources. Astaris-Idaho therefore requested
that EPA increase the emission limit for several of these sources. EPA
notes that Astaris-Idaho submitted the average of the three runs, not
the individual source test runs, with its comments on the February 1999
FIP proposal. Moreover, it submitted the source test data to EPA as
being representative of emissions from these sources and without
qualification. In any event, a source test using Method 201/201A
consists of the average of three individual runs, not the results of an
individual run or even the highest run. The fact that an individual
source test run exceeds the emission limit would not of itself
represent a violation of the emission limit.
In proposing the revised emission limits for these sources in the
January 2000 supplemental proposal, EPA took the average of the three
test runs and added a small margin to allow for normal variability in
source test results. Because the data set on which EPA was relying then
was limited, in this final action EPA has increased the limit slightly
for six sources: middle shale baghouse (source 6a) from 0.30 pounds per
hour (lb/hr) to 0.50 lb/hr; west shale baghouse (source 7a) from 0.20
to 0.50 lb/hr; east nodule baghouse (source 15a) from 0.50 lb/hr to
0.60 lb/hr; nodule stockpile baghouse (source 16a) from 0.20 lb/hr to
0.30 lb/hr; furnace building-east baghouse (source 18a) from 0.75 lb/hr
to 0.80 /hr; and furnace building-west baghouse (source 18b) from 0.75
lb/hr to 0.80 lb/hr. The increases range from 0.05 to 0.30 lb/hr. In
contrast, EPA has lowered the emission limit for the west nodule
baghouse (source 15b) from 0.50 lb/hr to 0.30 lb/hr because the highest
test run was 0.248 lb/hr, with an average of 0.202 lb/hr. The net
change in emissions from these sources is an increase of 0.60 lb/hr.
EPA believes this is an insignificant increase from that proposed in
the January 2000 supplemental proposal. However, the changes should
provide Astaris-Idaho with some level of confidence that it will be
able to operate these sources, which EPA believes currently employ
RACT-level controls, without needing to install additional controls.
These increases will provide a minimum cushion of 20% beyond the
recorded source test results for each of these sources.
EPA has not increased the emission limits for the following other
sources as Astaris-Idaho requested: the furnace building Medusa-
Andersen scrubbers (sources 18d, 18e, 18f, and 18g) and the coke
handling baghouse (source 20a). The emission limit of 1.70 lb/hr for
the coke handling baghouse is more than 30% above the source test
result for this source (the average of the three source test runs). In
addition, in commenting on the February 1999 FIP proposal, Astaris-
Idaho did not contest the numerical value of this limit, but instead
only requested that the limit not apply to condensible PM-10 emissions.
EPA has made that change. With respect to the Medusa-Andersen scrubber
stacks on the furnace building, Astaris-Idaho submitted test data
comprising a total of 12 source test runs on all four stacks, which are
similar in design and operation and control similar sources. Only one
of the 12 source test runs (stack 1--source 18d) was above the 2.0 lb/
hr limit proposed by EPA. For the three other furnace scrubber stacks,
the highest source test run for any of the stacks was 1.520 lb/hr, well
below EPA's 2.0 lb/hr limit, and the average of the three runs for each
of the these three furnace scrubber stacks was less than 1.0 lb/hr. EPA
believes that the source test data provides sufficient evidence that
Astaris-Idaho can comply with an emission limit of 2.0 lb/hr for each
of the four furnace scrubber stacks. In this regard, EPA again notes
that the source test run of 2.634 for stack 1 would not, of itself,
represent a violation of the emission limit of 2.0 lb/hr, because a
source test consists of three runs that are averaged for the purpose of
determining compliance with the standard. The calciner cooler vents are
discussed in section IV.H. below.
G. Emission Limits for Calciners
The February 1999 FIP proposal proposed a mass concentration limit
for the calciner scrubbers of 0.005 grains per dry standard cubic foot
(gr/dscf). During the public comment period on the February 1999 FIP
proposal, Astaris-Idaho argued that the proposed emission limit was not
achievable because the February 1999 FIP proposal underestimated
existing emissions from the calciner scrubbers and underestimated the
control efficiency of the existing control system. The result,
according to Astaris-Idaho, was an emission limit that was not
achievable by Astaris-Idaho with the installation of RACT-level
controls. Astaris-Idaho also stated that the emission limit was
inconsistent with the performance criteria for the calciner scrubbers
agreed to by EPA and Astaris-Idaho in the RCRA Consent Decree. After
reviewing the information presented by Astaris-Idaho, EPA agreed that
existing emissions from the calciner scrubbers
[[Page 51420]]
had been underestimated in the February 1999 FIP proposal. EPA
concluded that a more accurate estimate of current reasonable worst
case PM-10 emissions from the calciner scrubbers was 0.043 gr/dscf
using Method 5 and Method 202. 65 FR at 4469-4471.
EPA further determined that enhancing the scrubber control system
to achieve a control efficiency of at least 90% was reasonably
available and, thus, constituted RACT-level controls. A 90% control
efficiency would result in a decrease in emissions from the calciner
scrubbers of approximately 50%. To effect this, EPA proposed an
emission limit of 0.022 gr/dscf (with Method 5 and Method 202 as the
reference test methods) for the calciner scrubbers. EPA also proposed
to require that the pollution control equipment on the calciner
scrubber stacks achieve at least a 90% control efficiency under all
operating conditions to ensure that the modified scrubbing control
system was being properly operated and maintained at all times. 65 FR
at 4469-4471.
The Tribes, the State of Idaho, and members of the public expressed
concern over EPA's proposal to increase the emission limit for the
calciner scrubbers. These commenters believed that EPA had not
adequately demonstrated that an emission limit of 0.022 gr/dscf (for
both filterable and condensible PM-10) was the lowest emission limit
that the calciner scrubbers are capable of meeting using control
technology that is reasonably available in light of economic and
technological considerations. Astaris-Idaho also commented that it
could not demonstrate a 90% control efficiency for low inlet loadings
during which PM-10 emissions at the outlet would be low. Astaris-Idaho
therefore requested that EPA eliminate the control efficiency
requirement or restrict the requirement to higher inlet loadings. To
support its claims, Astaris-Idaho submitted additional information
regarding source tests it has conducted with different pilot
technologies in an attempt to reduce emissions from the calciner
scrubbers. After reviewing these comments, as well as the additional
source test data provided by Astaris-Idaho, EPA has determined that
reasonably available control technology can, in light of technological
and economic considerations, achieve emission limits for the calciner
scrubbers lower than the limits proposed in the January 2000
supplemental proposal.
Astaris-Idaho's pilot studies of improvements to the calciner
scrubbers utilized two different technologies: dry lime and water
injection.\10\ The source test results for each technology are
summarized in the docket. See Memorandum from Paul Boys to Julie
Vergeront and Steve Body, ``Technical Recommendation for the Astaris-
Idaho LLC Calciner Scrubber,'' dated June 29, 2000, Attachment 2. The
emission test run results from trials with dry lime ranged from 0.0014
to 0.0145 gr/dscf for filterable PM-10 and from 0.0096 to 0.0317 gr/
dscf for total PM-10.\11\ In addition to reducing PM-10 emissions, the
dry lime has the added benefit of reducing sulfur dioxide emissions.
When dry lime is injected at a rate of 900 to 1000 lb/hr, sulfur
dioxide emissions were reduced by about 53%. Source test runs with
water injection showed results ranging from 0.0019 to 0.0079 gr/dscf
for filterable PM-10 emissions and from 0.0089 to 0.0262 gr/dscf for
total PM-10 emissions.\12\ In February 1999, Astaris LLC conducted
several tests while using cleaner water in the existing scrubber
system. These tests demonstrated that the water quality in the
scrubbing system has an influence on the emissions and that cleaner
water can also reduce the PM-10 emissions to some extent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ Astaris-Idaho also conducted trials using lime slurry. This
approach was not successful due to excessive buildup of lime
deposits on the walls of the calciner windbox and ductwork.
\11\ These ranges do not include data from tests conducted in
October 1999 and April 2000. According to Astaris-Idaho, these data
have limited utility due to adverse water quality in the scrubbing
system.
\12\ See footnote 11.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The test data gathered to date for the calciner scrubbers show that
a significant portion of the total PM-10 emissions is attributable to
condensible PM-10. The total amounts of PM-10 emissions and the
percentage that appears to represent condensible particulate emissions
varies between data sets and has not been sufficiently characterized by
chemical speciation to reliably explain what the results actually
reveal and consequently what type of control strategy would be most
effective in reducing those emissions. EPA suspects that a portion of
the PM-10 that is reported as condensible particulate may well be an
artifact of the test procedure due to absorption and reaction of gases
and/or contamination of test trains during handling and cleanup.
Therefore, EPA has decided that, rather than establishing a single
emission limit for the total PM-10 emissions, it is more appropriate to
establish one emission limit that applies to filterable and another
emission limit that applies to total PM-10 emissions. This approach is
best designed to assure that overall PM-10 emissions are reduced.
Based on the emissions data discussed above and other available
information, EPA believes that the calciner scrubbers can achieve an
emission limit of 0.0080 gr/dscf for filterable PM-10 and 0.0180 gr/
dscf for total PM-10 using cleaner water in the calciner scrubbing
system in conjunction with either water injection or dry lime
technology. These values for emission limits provide a moderate margin
above the average values from the trial data, are slightly higher than
all but one of the individual test data points for dry lime injection,
and slightly higher than all but two data points for water
injection.\13\ EPA believes that Astaris-Idaho will be able to optimize
a full-scale control system and thereby achieve even better results
than they have shown in the trials. The emission limits allow Astaris-
Idaho the flexibility to use either dry lime injection or water
injection, in conjunction with improved secondary scrubber water
quality (lower total dissolved solids), to achieve the limits, or any
other technology of their choosing, so long as it achieves the final
emission limits established in the FIP, and otherwise complies with the
requirements of the Clean Air Act and EPA implementing regulations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ See footnote 11.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Astaris-Idaho requested that the emission limit for the calciner
scrubbers be averaged over all eight calciner stacks. With a
``bubble'', or averaging, approach, the source test results for each of
the calciner scrubber stacks would be added together and then divided
by the total number of calciner scrubber stacks, and the resulting
average compared to the emission limit. Although ``bubbling'' among
stacks would reduce the inherent variability of any single source test
run, EPA is concerned that this approach could mask performance
problems that might exist in any one of the four calciner scrubbers or
the two calciners. To minimize this risk, use of a bubbling approach
for all calciner scrubbing stacks would require that all eight stacks
be tested simultaneously or within a short duration under the same
operating conditions, a difficult task given the number of stacks
involved. EPA nonetheless believes that some limited ``bubbling'' or
averaging can be accommodated while still ensuring that each calciner
scrubbing system is being operated at optimal conditions. Accordingly,
EPA has established that the limit for the calciner scrubbers as the
arithmetic average of source test
[[Page 51421]]
results from the four individual calciner stacks from a single
calciner. The individual source tests for these four stacks must be
conducted simultaneously or at most within three hours of each other
under the same operating conditions. This approach should reduce some
of the variability in the test data results and yet provide a more
representative indication of how each calciner is operating.
In reaching the determination that an emission limit of 0.008 gr/
dscf for filterable and 0.018 gr/dscf for total PM-10 emissions
represents RACT for the calciner scrubbers, EPA has re-evaluated the
various control technologies for the calciner scrubbers considered by
EPA as potential RACT in the February 1999 FIP proposal and the January
2000 supplemental proposal: steam injection with high energy wet
scrubbers, spray tower with hydrosonic scrubbers, replacement of the
existing scrubbing system with a baghouse, lime injection, and
installation of waste evaporators. Water injection, coupled with
Astaris-Idaho's existing primary scrubbers and John Zink hydrosonic
scrubbers, is similar in theory to a spray tower followed by hydrosonic
scrubbers and, consequently, would be expected to achieve comparable
emission reductions. Although replacement of the existing scrubbing
control system with a baghouse could potentially achieve a lower
emission rate for filterable PM-10 than water injection or a spray
tower, it is undesirable for several reasons. First, because polonium-
210 (Po-210), a radioactive isotope released in significant quantities
in the calciner emissions, would be captured in the baghouse dust and
retained on the baghouse walls, hoppers, and bags, it creates potential
health and safety risks for workers. 64 FR at 7332. These risks can be
overcome, but doing so would add additional expense to the cost of the
system. Second, baghouses are less effective for controlling
condensible PM-10 emissions than other control methods unless the
baghouse gas is cooled considerably. The existing test data shows that
almost 50% of the total PM-10 from the calciner scrubbers consists of
condensibles. Adding a cooling system to a baghouse in order to
increase the capture and control of condensible PM-10 emissions would
further add to the cost of the baghouse system. For these reasons, EPA
continues to believe that replacement of the existing scrubbing system
with a baghouse is not economically or technologically feasible and
therefore does not represent RACT-level control for this source. The
other control options considered by EPA are expected to achieve lower
or similar emission reductions, often at a higher cost, than water
injection or a spray tower. Therefore, EPA believes that modification
of the existing calciner scrubbers by installation of a spray tower or
through the similar process of water injection represents RACT-level
control for this source. The source test data from the Astaris-Idaho
pilot projects show that dry lime injection can achieve comparable
emission reductions and would therefore also constitute RACT-level
controls.
The Tribes, the State of Idaho, and several other commenters stated
that the emission limit for the calciner scrubbers proposed in the FIP
for Astaris-Idaho was less stringent than the emission limit for the
calciners at a Monsanto facility in Soda Springs, Idaho, the only other
operating elemental phosphorous facility in the United States. EPA
disagrees. As an initial matter, there are important differences
between the emission limit for the calciners at Astaris-Idaho's
facility and the Monsanto facility that prevent a direct comparison
between the emission limits. At Astaris-Idaho, the limit is a mass
concentration limit (gr/dscf), along with a limit on the volume flow
rate, and it applies only to the calciner stack emissions. The State of
Idaho's permit limit for the Monsanto facility combines emissions from
four calciner scrubber stacks and the calciner cooler stacks. Also, the
permit limits emissions from the calcining process based on production
rate using a mathematical equation: the higher the production rate, the
higher the emission limitation, which is expressed in pounds per hour.
In addition, the State limit for the Monsanto facility only applies to
filterable particulates. There is no limit on condensible PM-10
emissions from the Monsanto facility, and EPA is not aware of any
source test data available on condensible PM-10 emissions from the
Monsanto facility. A review of the most recent source test results from
the calciners at the Monsanto facility conducted during the 1998,
however, shows that the emission limit established by EPA in the FIP
for filterable PM-10 emissions from the calciner scrubbers at Astaris-
Idaho will result in emissions that are lower than the current actual
filterable PM-10 emissions from the calciner scrubbers at the Monsanto
facility. The 1998 source tests showed that actual filterable emissions
from the calciners at the Monsanto facility ranged from 0.006 to 0.017
gr/dscf based on Method 5 (filterable particulate only) for each
calciner scrubber stack. Three of the four stacks had filterable
particulate emission rates at, or above, 0.010 gr/dscf. Thus, only one
of the calciner stacks at Monsanto had emissions lower than the
emission limit of 0.008 gr/dscf that will now apply to the calciners at
the Astaris-Idaho facility.
With respect to the control efficiency requirement, EPA agrees,
based on further review of the information provided by Astaris-Idaho,
that requiring Astaris-Idaho to demonstrate a control efficiency of 90%
under low inlet loadings is not reasonable. After reviewing the
available source test data, EPA believes that, after the improvements
to the scrubbing system, the facility should be able to demonstrate a
control efficiency of 90% at inlet loadings of 0.150 gr/dscf or above.
With an emission limit of 0.0180 for all PM-10, when inlet PM-10
concentrations are at 0.180 gr/dscf or above, the control efficiency
must be at least 90% in order to be in compliance with the 0.0180 gr/
dscf limit for all PM-10. Thus, only when inlet loadings are at or
above 0.150 gr/dscf but below 0.180 gr/dscf would the control
efficiency requirement potentially be the limiting factor. Given the
logistical difficulties associated with measuring inlet and outlet
loadings at each of eight different stacks and the narrow range where
the control efficiency requirement would be the limiting factor for
emissions, EPA is requiring a one time performance test for this
control efficiency requirement. EPA believes the other monitoring
requirements for the calciner scrubbers, coupled with the grain loading
standards, should be adequate to ensure ongoing compliance with the
control efficiency requirement. EPA could also require additional
source testing for the control efficiency requirement through Astaris-
Idaho's Title V permit or under section 114 of the Clean Air Act.
The Tribes commented that during source testing of the calciners,
Tribal Air Quality Staff observed fugitive emissions that were not
captured by the exhaust hoods, especially during windy conditions, and
asked EPA to assess this problem in the FIP. EPA staff also recently
observed such fugitive emissions from the calciners during source
testing in connection with the radionuclides NESHAP. EPA has therefore
added to Tables 1 and 2, a source 9b, ``calciner traveling grate--
fugitive emissions,'' and has redesignated the calciner scrubbers as
source 9a. Consistent with the approach for establishing emission
limits for fugitive emissions escaping from other control devices, EPA
has established an
[[Page 51422]]
opacity limit for this source of 10%, with a corrective action level of
5%. EPA will also work with the Tribes and Astaris-Idaho to develop a
method for estimating emissions from this source through source testing
or other means.
H. Emission Limits for Calciner Cooler Vents
Emissions from the calciner cooler vents are not currently
controlled by a baghouse, scrubber, or other add-on control technology.
In the February 1999 FIP proposal, EPA stated that no additional
control constituted RACT-level controls for the calciner cooler vents.
We therefore proposed an emission limit for this source that we
believed would keep emissions from the calciner cooler vents at current
levels, 64 FR at 7324, which would essentially operate as a limit on
the production of nodules. In response to the February 1999 FIP
proposal, Astaris-Idaho submitted source test data showing emissions
from the calciner cooler vents were much higher than previously
understood, both because the previous emission rate had included only
filterable PM-10 and because the assumed ratio of PM-10 to total
suspended particulate fraction had been underestimated. 65 FR at 4471-
4472. Because the gas stream in the calciner coolers is above ambient
temperatures, some condensible PM-10 emissions would be expected and in
fact were documented through source testing. Based on the more recent
source test data, filterable PM-10 emissions are almost 50% greater
than in the emission inventory relied on in the February 1999 FIP
proposal. When condensible PM-10 emissions are included, the emission
estimate is again increased by approximately 100%. In the January 2000
supplemental proposal, EPA proposed to increase the emission limit for
the calciner cooler vents from 2.0 lbs/hr for each stack (filterable
and condensible PM-10) to 4.4 lbs/hr for each stack (for filterable PM-
10 only). EPA did not revisit the RACT analysis for this source.
In commenting on the January 2000 supplemental proposal, the
Tribes, the State, and members of the public expressed strong
disagreement with EPA's proposal to increase the emission limit for
this source and to exclude consideration of condensible emissions in
establishing the emission limit without first conducting another RACT
analysis in light of the revised emission information from Astaris-
Idaho. These commenters believe that the significant increase in the
emissions estimate for this source calls for a lower emission limit for
this source, rather than a higher emission limit, as proposed by EPA.
By contrast, Astaris-Idaho commented that the emission limit should be
further increased to 6.0 pounds/hour (lb/hr) because one run from the
source tests on one of the four calciner cooler vents exceeded 4.4 lb/
hr.
EPA is rejecting Astaris-Idaho's request that the emission limit
for the calciner cooler vents be further increased to 6.0 lb/hr. In its
earlier comments on the February 1999 FIP proposal, Astaris-Idaho
requested a limit of 4.0 lb/hr for the calciner cooler vents. EPA
proposed a limit of 4.4 lb/hr in the January 2000 supplemental proposal
to provide for a margin of error. Astaris-Idaho has not submitted any
additional test data to justify a further increase, nor has it
explained in any detail why it now believes it needs the additional
increase in the emission limit. The source test results show that only
two of the 12 source test runs were above the 4.4 lb/hr limit proposed
by EPA and the average of the three runs for each of the four calciner
cooler vents was less than 4.10 lb/hr. EPA believes that the source
test data provides sufficient evidence that Astaris-Idaho can comply
with an emission limit of 4.40 lb/hr for each of the calciner cooler
vents.
In response to the comments submitted by the Tribes, the State, and
members of the public, EPA has reconsidered its previous RACT analysis
for the calciner cooler vents in light of the higher emissions estimate
for this source, including consideration of condensible particulates. A
preliminary review indicates that the cost effectiveness of PM-10
removal for the calciner cooler vents would be at the very least more
than $10,000 per ton, with some technologies ranging as high as $60,000
per ton of PM-10. In addition, there are questions regarding which
control technology would be the most effective in reducing PM-10
emissions because the nature and extent of condensible PM-10 emissions
from the calciner cooler vents is not well understood. A baghouse would
have a high removal efficiency for filterable PM-10 but would have
little impact in reducing condensible PM-10 emissions. A scrubber would
be more efficient than a baghouse in controlling condensible PM-10
emissions, but would be less effective in controlling filterable PM-10
emissions. EPA plans to further investigate the nature and extent of
PM-10 emissions from the calciner cooler vents over the next several
months through additional source testing and filter analysis, and to
propose a reduced emission limit based on additional controls to serve
as a contingency measure. Until that time, a limit of 4.4 pounds per
hour for filterable PM-10 should ensure that emissions from the
calciner cooler vents do not increase above existing levels.
I. Emission Limits for Furnace Building
In the February 1999 FIP proposal, EPA determined that furnace
building Medusa-Andersen scrubber stacks (sources 18d, 18e, 18f, and
18g) are RACT-level controls. See Technical Support Document, pp. 102-
103. EPA also determined that additional controls, including slag
ladling and improvements to the control and capture of emissions on the
burden level of the furnace building were needed. See 64 FR at 7334-
7335. EPA proposed an opacity limit of 10%, with a corrective action
level of 5%, except that fugitive emissions from the furnace building
are subject to an opacity limit of 20% and a corrective action level of
10% until April 1, 2002, when the upgrades to the burden level of the
furnace building must be completed. See 65 FR at 4489-4493 (Tables 1
and 2, sources 18a to 18g). The Tribes commented that they do not
believe Astaris-Idaho will be able to comply with the opacity limits in
the FIP for the furnace building and that they have frequently observed
opacity levels from the furnace building sources in excess of the
proposed opacity limits. The Tribes therefore state that the furnace
building sources do not employ RACT and that additional controls, such
as enclosure of the furnace building and ducting the air mass to a
control device, should be required and are needed to meet the opacity
limits.
The focus of the Tribes' comments appears to center on their belief
Astaris-Idaho cannot comply with the opacity limits for the furnace
building because it has not done so in the past. As an initial matter,
EPA continues to believe that the Medusa-Andersen scrubbers represent
RACT for point source emissions from the furnace building. These
scrubbers are the most effective control technology known to EPA at
this time for water soluble phosphorus compounds. As discussed in the
TSD for the February 1999 FIP proposal, although adding low energy
scrubbers to the existing Medusa-Andersen scrubbing system would result
in additional emissions reductions, EPA believes that such a
requirement would go beyond RACT in light of the cost of these
additional controls when compared to anticipated additional emission
reductions. See TSD, pp. 102-103. EPA also believes that the current
control equipment, when properly operated and maintained, can achieve
[[Page 51423]]
the opacity limits in the FIP on a continuous basis. During the three
visible emissions surveys conducted by the Tribes from 1995 to 1999,
the highest reported six-minute average was 1.25%, with most individual
readings at zero percent opacity, well below the opacity limit of 10%
and the corrective action level of 5% for the furnace building
scrubbers.
The furnace building itself is subject to an opacity limit of 20%
until April 1, 2002, and thereafter subject to an opacity limit of 10%.
Complying with the 20% opacity limit will necessitate implementation of
stringent operations and maintenance procedures and good housekeeping
procedures by Astaris-Idaho until the upgrades to the furnace building
are completed. Astaris-Idaho has not contested application of a 20%
opacity limit to this source and EPA fully expects that the facility
will be able to achieve it. Failure to do so would put the facility in
violation of the FIP and subject to penalties and injunctive relief. If
the violations continue, such injunctive action could include expedited
imposition of all actions necessary to comply with the emission limits,
including the early installation of additional controls on the furnace
building.
EPA has carefully evaluated the feasibility of enclosing the
furnace building and ducting the emissions to a control device. EPA has
concluded that, in light of the nature and amount of emissions from the
furnace building and safety issues relating to complete enclosure of
the building, implementation of this control option would do go beyond
what is considered reasonable and would therefore not constitute RACT.
EPA believes that Astaris-Idaho should be able to comply with the
opacity limits in the FIP by completing implementation of hot pour slag
ladling on all four furnaces, completing the upgrades to the upper
level of the furnace building, closing doors and other openings on the
side of the furnace building during windy conditions, and if necessary,
constructing a minimum additional building enclosure to reduce cross
drafts. A copy of the analysis of the feasibility of additional
controls for the furnace building is in the docket. See also 64 FR at
7323-7324.
J. Emission Limits for Excess CO Burner
The elevated secondary condenser flare and CO ground flare (excess
CO flares) are the largest emitters of PM-10 at the Astaris-Idaho
facility. At the time of the February 1999 FIP proposal, EPA believed
that these sources emitted approximately 3109 lb/day, accounting for
almost one half of all PM-10 emissions at the Astaris-Idaho facility.
EPA determined that replacing the flares with a combustion chamber to
burn the phosphorus in the excess CO gas stream and ducting exhaust
gasses to a scrubber to remove phosphorus pentoxide would constitute
effective RACT-level controls for this source (this control option has
been referred to as an excess CO burner). See 64 FR at 7332-7333.
Indeed, it is a very novel control option for controlling the excess CO
flare gas. EPA also believes it is technologically and economically
feasible because Astaris-Idaho has already committed to installing the
excess CO burner as part of the RCRA Consent Decree and meeting a
control efficiency of 95%. The February 1999 FIP proposal proposed an
emission limit of 6.5 lb/hr and an opacity limit of 5%, commencing
January 1, 2001. The emission limit was derived by assuming a 95%
reduction in existing emissions from the flares. The February FIP
proposal also proposed interim requirements on the flares to reduce
emissions attributable to ``mini-flushes'' until the excess CO burner
is in place. Id.
During the summer of 1999, Astaris-Idaho built, operated, and
tested a pilot excess CO burner demonstration project. This project is
approximately 1/80th in scale of the excess CO burner Astaris-Idaho
intends to build to satisfy its obligations under the RCRA Consent
Decree. Operation and testing of the excess CO burner pilot project
over the summer of 1999 revealed that emissions from the excess CO
flares were much higher than previously believed. This was the first
time that emissions from the flares had been estimated through actual
source testing and that condensible PM-10 emissions had been included
in the estimate. Based on this source test data, EPA concluded that the
flares emitted approximately 10,543 lb/day of PM-10 under reasonable
worst case conditions, thus accounting for more than two-thirds of all
PM-10 emissions from the Astaris-Idaho facility. See 65 FR at 4472-
4474. Based on this revised emissions information, EPA proposed in the
January 2000 supplemental proposal to increase the emission limit from
for the excess CO burner to 24 lb/hr and to add a requirement that the
excess CO burner meet a control efficiency of 95% under all operating
conditions. The pounds per hour limit was again based on a 95%
reduction in emissions from current levels from the flares. Consistent
with the opacity limits for other sources and numerous opacity readings
on the pilot plant, EPA proposed an opacity limit of 10% with a
corrective action level of 5%. See 65 FR at 4472-4477. The effective
date of these limits, including the interim requirements on the flares
to limit mini-flushes, were not changed by the January 2000
supplemental proposal.
The Tribes and citizens raised several concerns with EPA's proposal
for the flares and excess CO burner. First, due to the continued high
emissions from the flares (more than 10,000 pounds per day under
reasonable worst case conditions), these commenters requested that EPA
propose an additional interim requirement that Astaris-Idaho curtail
furnace use (i.e., curtail production) when use of one of the calciners
must be shut down for maintenance or other reasons. Second, the
commenters questioned the basis and reliability of the increase in the
emissions estimate from this source and the resulting increase in the
emission limit by EPA. The commenters argued that alternative control
technology that can achieve the originally proposed limit of 6.5 lb/hr
should be considered and required. Astaris-Idaho commented that it was
not technologically feasible to achieve a control efficiency of 95%
under low inlet loadings. Astaris-Idaho also requested flexibility to
modify the reference test method.
EPA does not have sufficient information at this time to determine
whether the commenters' proposal to curtail furnace use or to impose
additional requirements before the excess CO burner is installed are
technologically feasible. In support of their request, the commenters
note that Astaris-Idaho earlier committed that if one of the calciners
goes down, once the excess CO burner is in place, it would indeed
curtail furnace operation within ten minutes so that the facility can
handle the excess CO gas without further flaring. EPA does not have
sufficient information at this time to determine whether this approach
is feasible before the excess CO burner is constructed. Even if EPA
were to establish additional interim requirements, they would not
become effective until the late summer of 2000, at the earliest. The
FIP requires that the excess CO burner be operational by January 1,
2001, but Astaris-Idaho has advised EPA that they intend to have the
system in operation on November 1, 2000. This means that emissions from
the excess CO burner will continue at current levels for only a period
of approximately four months (six months if the system is not in place
until January 1, 2001). During this period, EPA urges Astaris-Idaho to
take all possible measures to ensure that the
[[Page 51424]]
flaring of excess CO gas is minimized, such as by deferring maintenance
on the calciners until after the excess CO burner is operational.
With respect to the comments concerning the revisions to the
emissions estimate for the excess CO flares and the resulting increase
in the emission limit for the excess CO burner, EPA has reviewed the
source test results and believes for a number of reasons that the
information is more reliable than the previous emission estimates for
the excess CO flares. First, the testing on the excess CO burner pilot
project is the first actual source testing ever conducted on the excess
CO flares. Previous emission estimates were derived from theoretical
chemical reaction calculations and assumptions of worst case operating
conditions. Second, the revised emission estimates include condensible
PM-10 emissions, which would be expected from this source, whereas the
previous emission estimate did not. Finally, the revised emission
estimates, which indicate that emissions from the flares account for
almost two-thirds of all PM-10 emissions from the Astaris-Idaho
facility, is consistent with the conclusions of the Source
Apportionment Study.
Based on the revised emission estimate, EPA does not believe an
emission limit of 6.5 lb/hr is achievable with the excess CO burner or
with any other reasonably available control technology. EPA has
determined that the best control option available for the excess CO
flares, one that is so novel that it has never been applied to an
elemental phosphorous facility, is combustion of the CO gases and
control by a scrubber. Based on the emission characteristics of the gas
stream in the flares at Astaris-Idaho (including the chemical
composition of the particulates and precursors), EPA further believes
that the Andersen scrubber is the most effective technology available.
No one has provided in their comments information regarding another
control technology that would be more effective for controlling PM-10
emissions from flaring excess CO gas at the Astaris-Idaho facility. For
these reasons, EPA continues to believe that an emission limit of 24
lb/hr is appropriate and represents RACT for this source.
As discussed above, Astaris-Idaho commented that requiring a 95%
control efficiency under low inlet loadings (where the gas stream to
the scrubber system is relatively clean) is contrary to accepted
scrubber theory. Based on further review of the information provided by
Astaris-Idaho, EPA agrees that requiring Astaris-Idaho to demonstrate a
control efficiency of 95% under low inlet loadings is not reasonable.
Astaris-Idaho requested that the control efficiency requirement not
apply to situations where inlet loadings were below 0.69 gr/dscf. The
equipment supplier, Andersen 2000, Inc., guaranteed in a comment letter
dated February 29, 2000, that 95% control would be achieved at or above
this inlet loading. In their March 13, 2000 comments, Astaris-Idaho
provided a graph that showed overall control efficiency as a function
of quench inlet loadings (gr/dscf). From that graph, at inlet loadings
equal to or greater than 0.4 gr/dscf, overall control efficiency is
greater than 95%. At inlet loadings below 0.4 gr/dscf, overall control
efficiency drops below 95%. After reviewing the available source test
data, EPA believes that Astaris-Idaho should be able to demonstrate a
control efficiency of 95% at inlet loadings of 0.50 gr/dscf or above.
Therefore, EPA has modified the control efficiency requirement to
require that the excess CO burner achieve a control efficiency of at
least 95% when inlet loadings are greater than or equal to 0.50 gr/
dscf.
Astaris-Idaho also commented that an alternative stack sampling
test method will be required for the excess CO burner because of the
nature of the particulates being sampled . The FIP includes procedures
to allow modifications to reference test methods if sufficient support
information is provided. See 40 CFR 49.10711(d)(5). Those procedures
should accommodate Astaris-Idaho's concerns.
Another issue relating to the excess CO burner is the need for an
emergency flare on the system. Astaris-Idaho has indicated that during
unplanned shutdowns of the excess CO burner and scrubber system, the
excess CO burner will need to be equipped with an emergency flare for
safety reasons. The Tribes and other commenters have expressed concern
that the use of this emergency flare be carefully controlled.
In its comments on the January 2000 supplemental proposal, Astaris-
Idaho stated that it would provide notification to EPA and the Tribes
regarding the emergency flare on the excess CO burner in accordance
with the requirements of the final FIP for new and modified sources.
The FIP requires Astaris-Idaho to notify EPA of at least 90 days prior
to the construction of a new or modified source of PM-10 at the
facility. Because the emergency flare on the excess CO burner is not
included in Table 1, it would be considered a new source. See 40 CFR
49.10711(c)(11). If Astaris-Idaho follows the procedure in 40 CFR
49.10711(c)(11), an emergency flare on the excess CO burner would be
subject to an opacity limit of 10% and must be addressed in the
operations and maintenance plan for the facility. If, based on the
information provided by Astaris-Idaho, EPA determines that additional
requirements for the emergency flare on the excess CO burner are
necessary or appropriate, EPA would promulgate additional requirements
for this source as a FIP revision through notice and comment
rulemaking.
Prohibiting construction or operation of the emergency flare for
the excess CO burner outright would delay construction and operation of
the excess CO burner and scrubber, the control technology imposed by
the FIP for the largest source of particulate matter at Astaris-Idaho,
because the emergency flare is needed for safe operation of the excess
CO burner. If operation of the excess CO burner were delayed, the
elevated secondary condenser flare and CO ground flare would continue
emitting up to 10,000 lb/day of PM-10 emissions. EPA urges Astaris-
Idaho to honor its commitment to provide EPA and the Tribes with the
information required by 40 CFR 49.10711(c)(11) regarding the emergency
flare on the excess CO burner as promptly as possible so that
construction and operation of the excess CO burner is not delayed.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ Failing to begin operation of the excess CO burner by
January 1, 2001, would be a violation of the FIP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
K. Opacity Limits
In the February 1999 FIP proposal, we proposed limits on visible
emissions from all sources except for the calciner scrubbers, dumping
to the slag pile, and the existing excess CO flares. The proposed
opacity limits ranged from a limit of no visible emissions from certain
piles and processes to 10% opacity on fugitive emissions not captured
by baghouses. See 64 FR at 7325-7326. EPA did not rely on a direct
correlation between opacity levels and mass emissions to support the
opacity limits proposed in the FIP. Instead, the control strategy is
premised on ensuring that, for those sources in the emission inventory
that we believe currently employ RACT-level controls, emissions from
those sources remain at current levels. 64 FR at 7325. The emissions
rates in the emission inventory were established on the assumption that
the process and control equipment that affect a particular source are
properly operated and maintained at all times. In turn, the opacity
limits proposed by
[[Page 51425]]
EPA are intended to ensure that assumption will in fact be met.
In commenting on the February 1999 FIP proposal, Astaris-Idaho
conceded that some enforceable limits on visible emissions should be
required in the FIP, but contended that the proposed opacity limits are
overly stringent and not supported by the record. As an alternative,
Astaris-Idaho suggested that the FIP establish a facility-wide opacity
limit of 20% and then build in action levels for each source below 20%
that would trigger a requirement for Astaris-Idaho to commence an
investigation and take corrective action. A source that exceeded the
action level would not, however, be considered in violation of the
opacity limit so long as emissions do not exceed the 20% opacity limit.
Another commenter stated that an opacity limit of zero percent should
be required for all baghouses because baghouses should have no visible
emissions if they are being properly operated and maintained.
In the January 2000 supplemental proposal, EPA adopted a slightly
different approach to opacity in an attempt to accommodate some of
Astaris-Idaho's concerns while still achieving EPA's goal of ensuring
that all control and process equipment are being properly operated and
maintained. To simplify the regime for monitoring opacity, EPA proposed
a limit of 10% for most sources. To further ensure that emissions from
these sources are minimized at all times, EPA also proposed an opacity
action level for each source. In addition, for certain open (i.e.,
uncaptured) fugitive dust sources, such as certain piles and roads,
that could be impacted by meteorological conditions, such as high winds
during dry conditions, EPA proposed an opacity limit of 20%, with a
corrective action level of 10%.
EPA agrees with the one commenter that a properly operating
baghouse will generally have no visible emissions. When baghouses are
in the self-cleaning mode (part of the normal and needed cleaning of
the baghouse), however, visible emissions are occasionally observed.
EPA, therefore, did not propose a limit of zero visible emissions on
baghouses. For a more detailed discussion of this proposal, please
refer to the January 2000 supplemental proposal. 65 FR at 4475-4476.
In response to the January 2000 supplemental proposal, Astaris-
Idaho and a few other commenters again requested a facility-wide
opacity limit of 20% and action levels for each source below 20% that
would trigger a requirement for Astaris-Idaho to commence an
investigation and take corrective action. Other commenters expressed a
general concern with high opacity levels at the Astaris-Idaho facility,
but these other commenters did not appear to take issue with the
opacity limits proposed by EPA in the January 2000 supplemental
proposal. EPA does not believe that a facility-wide opacity limit of
20% achieves its objective of ensuring emissions from sources employing
RACT-level controls remain at current levels through proper operation
and maintenance of process and control equipment. Based on the visible
emission surveys of the Astaris-Idaho facility conducted in December
1995-January 1996, October-November 1998, and a recent survey conducted
in September 1999, opacity levels above 20% are far above typical
opacity levels for the sources at Astaris-Idaho and thus would reliably
identify a source that was not being properly operated or maintained.
Based on a comment from Astaris-Idaho, EPA has made a minor
revision to the opacity limit for the pressure relief vents (PRVs). EPA
has added an exception to the 10% opacity limit for emissions occurring
during steam cleaning and draining of the PRV drop tank. This operation
and maintenance procedure occurs twice each day and Astaris-Idaho
expressed concern that steam escaping the PRV during such cleaning
events could be identified incorrectly as visible emissions. To account
for this concern, EPA is providing an opacity limit of 20% during this
operation and maintenance procedure twice each day. EPA is also
requiring the facility to keep records of the date and time of this
procedure, consistent with the facility's current practice.
L. Excess Emissions
In the February 1999 FIP proposal, EPA proposed two alternative
approaches with respect to excess emissions due to startup, shutdown,
scheduled maintenance, malfunction, or emergency. 64 FR at 7328; 64 FR
17990, 17991 (April 13, 1999). Under the first approach, the emission
limitations would apply at all times and there would be no affirmative
defense for excess emissions caused by such events. If emissions did
exceed the proposed limits during startup, shutdown, scheduled
maintenance, malfunction, or emergency, EPA would, of course, retain
its enforcement discretion to forgo seeking a civil penalty for
violation of the limits. Under the second alternative, EPA proposed to
provide an affirmative defense to a penalty action (but not to an
action for injunctive relief) provided certain conditions are
satisfied. EPA based the affirmative defense on EPA's interpretation of
the CAA set forth in a guidance document EPA issued to States regarding
excess emissions during startup, shutdown, scheduled maintenance, and
malfunctions, and also on the ``emergency defense'' provision in 40 CFR
71.6(g). See Memorandum from Kathleen M. Bennett, Assistant
Administrator for Air And Radiation, to the Regional Administrators,
entitled ``Policy Regarding Excess Emissions During Startup, Shutdown,
Scheduled Maintenance, and Malfunctions'' (February 15, 1983) (referred
to hereafter as ``1983 Excess Emissions Policy''). These two
alternatives were not further discussed in the January 2000
supplemental proposal.
Although the Tribes, the State of Idaho, and members of the public
expressed concerns regarding frequent events referred to by Astaris-
Idaho in the past as ``upsets'' that the commenters believe cause
exceedences of the PM-10 standards, none of the commenters opposed
providing Astaris-Idaho a narrowly-tailored affirmative defense for
emissions in excess of limits in the FIP so long as such a provision
does not interfere with expeditious attainment and maintenance of the
PM-10 NAAQS in the area. Astaris-Idaho strongly supported the
affirmative defense proposed by EPA, although with several
modifications. In general, Astaris-Idaho requested that the affirmative
defense more closely follow EPA's 1983 Excess Emissions Policy. In
particular, Astaris-Idaho objected to the provision that made the
affirmative defense unavailable on any day an exceedence of the PM-10
NAAQS was recorded in the Fort Hall PM-10 nonattainment area. The
Tribes also commented that EPA should more closely follow EPA's
policies on excess emissions but expressed strong support for the
provision objected to by Astaris-Idaho.
Since publication of the February 1999 FIP proposal, EPA issued a
revised guidance document regarding excess emission events in SIPs. See
Memorandum from Steven A. Herman, Assistant Administrator for
Enforcement and Compliance Monitoring, and Robert Perciasepe, Assistant
Administrator for Air And Radiation, to the Regional Administrators,
entitled ``State Implementation Plans: Policy Regarding Excess
Emissions During Malfunctions, Startup, and Shutdown'' (September 20,
1999) (referred to hereafter as ``1999 SIP Excess Emissions Policy'').
That guidance document reaffirmed, clarified, and supplemented EPA's
1983 Excess Emissions Policy. Copies of the
[[Page 51426]]
1983 and 1999 policies are in the docket.
Based on the comments submitted to EPA, EPA believes it is
appropriate to provide a narrowly drawn affirmative defense to a
penalty action brought for emissions in excess of the FIP limits under
certain conditions. EPA has made some minor revisions to the provisions
to ensure consistency with the Clean Air Act, as interpreted in the
guidance EPA has issued to States regarding the types of excess
emissions provisions that States may incorporate into State
Implementation Plans. For example, EPA has determined it is
inappropriate to include scheduled maintenance as an event that could
excuse excess emissions from a penalty action. EPA believes that
maintenance is a predictable event that can be scheduled at the
discretion of the operator to coincide with maintenance of production
equipment or other source shutdowns. With respect to excess emissions
caused by emergencies or malfunctions, EPA has clarified the proposal
to ensure prompt corrective action and the minimization of excess
emissions similar to that included in the provision for excess
emissions in the case of startup and shutdown. EPA has continued to
include the provision stating that the affirmative defense would not
apply on any day on which an exceedence of the revised PM-10 NAAQS was
recorded by any monitor in the Fort Hall PM-10 nonattainment area. EPA
believes that an affirmative defense is appropriate only when the
respective contributions of individual sources to pollutant
concentrations in the ambient air are such that no single source or
small group of sources has the potential to cause an exceedence of the
NAAQS or PSD increments. See 1999 Excess Emissions Policy, Attachment
p. 1. As discussed in the February 1999 FIP proposal, Astaris-Idaho is
the primary or at least the most significant contributor to the PM-10
exceedences that have been recorded on the Tribal monitors. 64 FR at
7309. The Tribes and other commenters also stated it was important to
ensure that allowing an affirmative defense must not interfere with
attainment and maintenance of the PM-10 NAAQS in the area. To the
extent Astaris-Idaho believes that an exceedence of the PM-10 NAAQS
recorded in the Fort Hall PM-10 nonattainment area is not attributable
to its facility and makes a persuasive case to that effect to EPA, EPA
could exercise its enforcement discretion to forgo seeking a civil
penalty for violation of the emission limit.
M. Monitoring, Recordkeeping, and Reporting
The February 1999 FIP proposal included extensive monitoring,
recordkeeping, and reporting provisions for ensuring compliance with
the emission limits and work practice requirements in the FIP. Astaris-
Idaho requested that EPA include provisions that would provide
procedural flexibility for modifying certain aspects of the FIP through
a process other than a revision to the FIP. In the January 2000
supplemental proposal, EPA included several such provisions, such as a
provision authorizing the Regional Administrator to extend the time
period for conducting source tests for an additional 90 days for good
cause, a provision authorizing the Regional Administrator to modify a
reference test method, and a provision authorizing changes to
monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting provisions of the FIP through
the issuance of or a significant permit modification to Astaris-Idaho's
title V permit. See 65 FR at 4478-4479.
The Tribes requested that EPA require semi-annual source testing
for the calciner scrubbers, the calciner cooler vents, the furnace
Medusa-Andersen scrubbers, the phos-dock Andersen scrubber, and the
excess CO burner, as well as continuous opacity monitors (COMs) on the
furnace scrubbers, phos-dock Andersen scrubber, and excess CO burner
because these sources have a larger potential to emit or a much higher
probability of compliance problems. The Tribes further requested that,
if a source test documents a violation of an emission limit, Astaris-
Idaho should be required to conduct another test of that source within
90 days. The Tribes also requested a change in the reference test
method for the furnace Medusa-Andersen scrubbers.
EPA has revised the FIP to require semi-annual source tests for the
calciners and the excess CO burners because these two sources will
either be completely new or have substantial changes made to existing
control technology. EPA is not requiring more frequent testing of the
other sources identified by the Tribes because the change in the
control systems for these sources is less substantial. EPA has
authority under section 114 of the Clean Air Act to require more
frequent testing of these sources if needed. EPA has also revised the
FIP to include a requirement that another source test be conducted
within 90 days after a source test shows a violation of the emission
limit for this source. In addition, EPA has revised the reference test
method for the furnace scrubbers to include at least 20 minutes of slag
tapping in each of two runs and at least 20 minutes of metal tapping in
the other run. EPA based this approach on the fact that tapping occurs
approximately every hour, a tap lasts approximately 20 minutes, and
slag tapping occurs more frequently than metal tapping. Because each
source test run takes a minimum of one hour, this approach should
ensure that the source tests are representative of operational
conditions. EPA has not revised the FIP to require COMs because EPA
does not believe that COMs can be installed on the Andersen scrubber
stacks due to interference from water vapor.
N. PM-10 Precursors
Under CAA section 189(e), the control requirements applicable under
SIPs to major stationary sources of PM-10 must also be applied to major
stationary sources of PM-10 precursors, unless EPA determines such
sources do not contribute significantly to PM-10 levels in excess of
the NAAQS in the area. 57 FR at 13541. Not all particulate in the air
is directly emitted in particulate form from emission sources.
Particulate can also be formed in the air through complex chemical
processes involving emission of gaseous pollutants called ``precursor
gasses'' or ``precursors''. A precursor gas is a gas that is in the
vapor state under both elevated stack temperature and at ambient
temperature and cannot be measured in stack tests using either Methods
5 or 201/201A (filterable particulate) or Method 202 (condensible
particulate). PM-10 precursors can include volatile organic compounds,
which form secondary organic compounds; sulphur dioxide, which forms
sulfate compounds; and nitrogen oxides, which form nitrate compounds.
See 57 FR 13538. The particulates formed in the air from precursor
gasses are generally referred to as ``secondary aerosol.''
In the February 1999 FIP proposal, EPA stated that it did not have
sufficient information to determine whether PM-10 precursors contribute
significantly to PM-10 levels in excess of the NAAQS in the Fort Hall
PM-10 nonattainment area but that an analysis of the filters on the
Tribal monitors (the Source Apportionment Study), which was to be
completed in the summer of 1999, should provide this information. EPA
also stated that it would address PM-10 precursors, as necessary or
appropriate, in a subsequent rulemaking. See 64 FR at 7318, 7342. The
January 2000 supplemental proposal did not directly address PM-10
precursors, although it did summarize the findings of the Source
Apportionment Study.
[[Page 51427]]
EPA received many comments on PM-10 precursors, including comments
from the Tribes and the State of Idaho. The Tribes stated that EPA
should either revise the FIP to address precursors or directly address
the possibility that the FIP will need to be reopened after the Source
Apportionment Study was complete in order to include controls on
emissions of PM-10 precursors. Two other commenters noted their
expectation that EPA address PM-10 precursor emissions from the
Astaris-Idaho facility if such emissions are determined to be a
significant contributor to NAAQS violations in the area, and also
stated that such emissions would likely need to be addressed and
controlled under the new PM-2.5 standard. The comments on the January
2000 supplemental proposal revealed a heightened concern with PM-10
precursors for two apparent reasons. First, several commenters
interpreted the Source Apportionment Study as finding that PM-10
precursor emissions from the Astaris-Idaho facility do contribute
significantly to exceedences of the PM-10 standards on the Tribal
monitors. The Tribes and Idaho are particularly concerned that
phosphorus and sulfur dioxide emissions from Astaris-Idaho are PM-10
precursor emissions. Second, public concern with PM-10 precursors and
air quality in general was heightened by the exceedences of the PM-10
NAAQS recorded on State monitors in and near Pocatello and on the
Tribal monitors in December 1999 and January 2000 during an air
stagnation event. These were the first exceedences recorded on the
State monitors since January 1993. Preliminary information shows that
sulfates were a significant portion of the PM-10 mass captured on the
filters at the State and Tribal PM-10 monitors during the December 1999
and January 2000 exceedences.
EPA does not agree that the Source Apportionment Study supports a
finding that PM-10 precursors contribute significantly to exceedences
of PM-10 in the Fort Hall PM-10 nonattainment area.\15\ In fact, the
report states, ``Sulfate is contributed by regional sources and by the
calciner stacks, but is a minor contributor to PM-10, accounting for
about 5% of the fine mass during exceedences.'' See Source
Apportionment Study, Executive Summary, Bullet #4. EPA also does not
agree that phosphorous is a precursor to the formation of PM-10
secondary aerosol. Phosphorus in a gas stream converts to phosphorus
pentoxide (P2O5), a fine particulate, prior to or
immediately upon contact with the atmosphere. Phosphorus is, of course,
emitted from Astaris-Idaho in significant quantities. The gases in the
calciners, excess CO flares (which will be replaced by the excess CO
burner), and phos dock contain significant amounts of phosphorus, which
is oxidized to P2O5 when it meets with the
ambient air. This P2O5 is collected and measured
by reference test Methods 5, 201/201A and 202 as primary particulate
matter, and is therefore not a precursor to PM-10 secondary aerosol.
This P2O5 is included in the emission inventory
and will be controlled by the requirements of in this FIP. For example,
the largest sources of phosphorus and phosphorus compounds are the
elevated secondary condenser flare and CO ground flare. These will be
replaced by the excess CO burner and controlled by the Andersen
scrubbing system, which will be required to remove 95% of the inlet
particulate loadings under most operating conditions and meet an
emission limit of 24 lbs/hr. EPA is not aware of any other alternative
control technology that is more effective in controlling phosphorous
and phosphorus compounds from the excess CO flares and believes that
this technology constitutes RACT-level control and likely even BACT-
level control. Another large source of phosphorus and phosphorus
compounds are the calciners. Again, this source will be required to
meet RACT-level emission limits of 0.008 gr/dscf for filterable PM-10
and 0.018 gr/dscf for all PM-10. In any event, these phosphorous gases
will be regulated by the FIP because the FIP requires the
implementation of RACT on all sources at the Astaris-Idaho facility and
the phosphorus sources that contribute to exceedences of the PM-10
NAAQS are included in the sources regulated by the FIP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ It is important to emphasize that EPA is stating only that
the Source Apportionment Study alone does not support a finding that
PM-10 precursors contribute significantly to exceedences of PM-10 in
the Fort Hall PM-10 nonattainment area. As discussed below, an
analysis of monitor filters during days of high PM-10 levels in
December 1999 and January 2000 do show that, on these days, sulfates
were a significant portion of the PM-10 mass.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As stated above, preliminary information from Idaho and the Tribes
indicates that a significant portion of the filter loadings during the
days when the level of the 24-hour PM-10 standard was exceeded in
December 1999 and January 2000 was determined to be sulfates. This
could suggest that PM-10 precursors do contribute significantly to PM-
10 levels which exceed the PM-10 NAAQS in the area. EPA has not yet
received the results of the filter analysis recently completed for the
State and Tribal monitors for the December 1999-January 2000
exceedences. Once EPA receives this information, it will work with the
Tribes and the State to better understand the sources, emissions, and
chemical reactions that contributed to the recent exceedences of the
PM-10 NAAQS and, if the results demonstrate precursor contributions are
not insignificant, will address PM-10 precursor emissions from Astaris-
Idaho as necessary or appropriate in a later rulemaking.
O. Implementation and Enforcement of the FIP
Several commenters, including the Tribes and the State, expressed
concern that the FIP does not contain enforcement provisions or a
detailed description of EPA's plans for determining whether Astaris-
Idaho is complying with the requirements of the FIP and taking
enforcement action if Astaris-Idaho is out of compliance. These
commenters complained that the FIP relies heavily on self-monitoring by
Astaris-Idaho and argued that regular EPA unannounced inspections of
the Astaris-Idaho facility, observation of source tests, and a strong
enforcement presence by EPA is essential if improved air quality is to
be assured. Some commenters expressed support for the Tribes'
involvement in this oversight and enforcement process.
EPA agrees that a strong enforcement presence is needed to ensure
that Astaris-Idaho is complying with the requirements of the FIP and
that the expected air quality benefits are in fact being realized.
Until the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes are authorized to manage CAA programs
within the Fort Hall Indian Reservation under the provisions of the
Tribal Authority Rule (TAR), 40 CFR part 49, EPA is responsible for
ensuring that all sources on the Fort Hall Indian Reservation,
including Astaris-Idaho, comply with the requirements of the Clean Air
Act and any applicable implementing regulations. The federal Clean Air
Act programs that apply within the Fort Hall Indian Reservation at this
time include Prevention of Significant Deterioration, section 169 of
the CAA and 40 CFR part 51.21; New Source Performance Standards,
section 111 of the CAA and 40 CFR part 60; National Emission Standards
for Hazardous Air Pollutants, section 112 of the CAA and 40 CFR parts
61 and 63. For the Astaris-Idaho facility, the federal requirements
will also include this FIP.
[[Page 51428]]
The Tribes have expressed a desire to assist EPA in ensuring that
Astaris-Idaho acts in compliance with the requirements of this FIP, and
for otherwise assuring that Astaris-Idaho and other sources located
within the Fort Hall Indian Reservation are in compliance with the
requirements of the Clean Air Act and its implementing regulations. EPA
is working with the Tribes to develop a memorandum of agreement that
will set forth the roles and responsibilities of EPA and the Tribes in
overseeing enforcement of the Clean Air Act and this FIP within the
Fort Hall Indian Reservation. With respect to the Astaris-Idaho
facility, this agreement is expected to address the following
activities:
Inspections of the Astaris-Idaho facility at least two
times per year. Except in unusual circumstances due to logistical or
other planning considerations, such inspections will be unannounced
inspections;
Regular monitoring of visible emissions;
Reviews of operating reports, excess emission reports, and
emission monitoring reports;
Reviews of required operation and maintenance manuals;
Observations of scheduled source tests and reviews of the
results;
Investigations of causes of elevated levels of particulate
matter as determined by ambient monitoring;
Investigations of public complaints regarding the Astaris-
Idaho facility;
Logging of compliance and inspection data regarding the
Astaris-Idaho facility into EPA data bases.
The agreement is also expected to address oversight of the air
quality-related Supplemental Environmental Projects under the RCRA
Consent Decree to ensure that the projects are completed in a timely
manner.
When violations are reported by Astaris-Idaho or discovered by EPA
or the Tribes as a result of inspections or other reviews, EPA intends
to take prompt enforcement action consistent with EPA policy, including
how penalties are assessed. The Clean Air Act provides EPA with broad
discretionary authority in this regard. Under section 113 of the Clean
Air Act, EPA is authorized to bring enforcement actions against
Astaris-Idaho for violations of the FIP. This authority includes civil
and administrative penalty authority, the authority to seek injunctive
relief, and the authority to pursue criminal actions. Additional
authority also exists in other parts of the Act, including EPA's
emergency authority under section 303 and penalty authority under
section 120. EPA rules under the Clean Air Act, such as this FIP, do
not typically include separate or special enforcement provisions, but
instead rely on the authority under section 113, 120, 303 and other EPA
statutes. Under section 113 of the Clean Air Act, EPA has authority to
collect up to $27,500 per day for each violation of each FIP
requirement. Most States' penalty authority is limited to a maximum of
$10,000 per day for each violations. See RCW 70.94.30 (Washington's
civil penalty authority for air violations); Idaho Code 39-108(5)
(Idaho's civil penalty authority for air violations).
Thus, the FIP does not rely on any single enforcement tool. Self-
monitoring by Astaris-Idaho is a component, as indeed it is for sources
subject to a SIP as well, but as discussed above, EPA also intends to
play an active oversight role, along with the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes.
Citizens also have a right to bring enforcement actions against
Astaris-Idaho for violation of the FIP under section 304 of the Clean
Air Act. In addition, the FIP includes many mechanisms that enhance the
reliability of Astaris-Idaho's self-monitoring. First, the FIP requires
Astaris-Idaho to install, maintain, and operate numerous monitoring
devices that continuously measure and record emissions-related data.
For example, all baghouses must be equipped with bag leak detectors,
which will sound an alarm to signal when bag quality is deteriorating.
Astaris-Idaho is also required to install monitoring devices to
continuously record pressure drop and scrubbing functions. Under
section 113(c)(2)(C), it is a criminal offense to falsify, tamper with,
render inaccurate, or fail to install any monitoring device or method
required under the Clean Air Act. Second, in some instances the FIP
requires more than one monitoring method to ensure compliance with a
single requirement. Finally, all reports and records required to be
submitted to EPA and the Tribes must be certified by a responsible
official as to their truth, accuracy, and completeness. Again, Astaris-
Idaho would be subject to criminal liability for falsifying these
records or reports.
P. Transportation Conformity
One commenter on the January 2000 supplemental proposal, Bannock
Planning Organization (BPO), although favorably acknowledging EPA's
efforts to regulate Astaris-Idaho and the emission reductions expected
to be achieved through the FIP, expressed concern that the FIP did not
adequately address transportation conformity. The commenter stated
that, as the designated metropolitan planning organization (MPO) for
the area, it is required to ensure that transportation projects conform
with air quality plans. Without a mobile emissions budget in the FIP,
BPO stated, they would not be able to make a conformity determination
for the Fort Hall PM-10 nonattainment area and absent such a
determination the area would be unable to complete any transportation
projects. BPO requested that EPA either formally determine that
transportation conformity requirements are inapplicable for the Fort
Hall PM-10 nonattainment area, or, alternatively, assure BPO that a FIP
which includes a mobile source emissions budget covering the entire
nonattainment area would be adopted by the Agency by December 2002.
EPA is confused by the comments submitted by BPO, since they raise
issues with respect to the Fort Hall PM-10 nonattainment area and the
Astaris-Idaho facility that are inconsistent with prior regulatory
actions by EPA, as well as with FIP actions that have been proposed and
are being finalized today. EPA revised the designation for the former
Power-Bannock Counties PM-10 nonattainment area to create two separate
nonattainment areas, the Portneuf Valley PM-10 nonattainment area
situated on State lands and the Fort Hall PM-10 nonattainment area
comprised of lands located within the exterior boundaries of the Fort
Hall Indian Reservation. 63 FR 59722 (November 5, 1998). In its initial
FIP proposal notice, EPA stated that it was issuing this FIP pursuant
to discretionary authority granted the Agency under sections 301(a) and
301(d)(4) of the Clean Air Act. 64 FR at 73010-11. These sections of
the Act authorize EPA to promulgate regulations specifying those
provisions of the Act for which it is appropriate to treat Indian
tribes in the same manner as states. EPA promulgated such regulations,
known as the Tribal Authority Rule (TAR), on February 12, 1998. 63 FR
7254. In the TAR, EPA determined that the CAA provisions cited above
constitute a delegation of federal authority to Tribes approved by EPA
to administer CAA programs over all air resources within the exterior
boundaries of appropriate reservations. Id. EPA further explained that,
pursuant to these provisions, Congress expressed an intent to grant to
eligible Tribes jurisdiction over all areas within the exterior
boundaries of their reservations for the management of CAA programs. 63
FR at 7255. The TAR provides that, until Tribes have received EPA
approval to manage particular CAA programs, the
[[Page 51429]]
Agency itself will administer the CAA in Indian country in instances
where EPA determines that doing so is necessary or appropriate to
protect public health and welfare. See 40 CFR 49.11(a). Moreover, under
the Federal Lands Highways Program, 23 U.S.C. 202(d), 204, as amended
by the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21),
authorization to promulgate and implement regulations regarding
planning and construction, as well as transit-related improvement
projects on Indian reservation roads are entrusted to the Secretary of
the Interior, through the assistance of the Bureau of Indian Affairs.
Given all the above, EPA is uncertain what BPO means when it asserts
that ``it is the designated metropolitan planning organization for the
area,'' if the area to which it is referring is the Fort Hall PM-10
nonattainment area that comprises the Fort Hall Indian Reservation.
In any event, the purpose of the FIP is to impose emission limits
and work practice requirements that constitute RACT for particulate
matter and that will, in light of this area's longstanding
nonattainment problem, ensure expeditious progress towards improving
air quality and attaining the PM-10 standards in order to protect the
public health. Issues related to requirements on federal agencies,
under section 176(c) of the Act, to demonstrate conformity of their
emissions-generating activities to the air quality goals of the Fort
Hall PM-10 nonattainment area, to the extent they are determined to be
necessary or appropriate, will be addressed by EPA in a future
rulemaking.
V. Other Changes From the January 2000 Supplemental Proposal
Many of the changes to the FIP have been discussed above in the
discussion of the major comments on the FIP and EPA's responses to
those comments. Other significant changes to the FIP are discussed
below.
A. Codification
EPA originally proposed the FIP as an amendment to part 52, subpart
N. That subpart codifies the provisions of the State Implementation
Plan for the State of Idaho. In light of the opportunity to manage
Clean Air Act programs now afforded to Tribes by the Tribal Authority
Rule, EPA has determined that implementation provisions applicable in
Indian Country should not be codified with State Implementation Plans,
but should instead be codified separately to reflect and respect Tribal
sovereignty. EPA is therefore codifying this FIP as an amendment to
part 49, which is entitled ``Tribal Clean Air Act Authority.'' In
connection with publication of this FIP, EPA is also making
administrative amendments to part 49 that will create the structure for
codifying this FIP, as well as future Federal Implementation Plans and
Tribal Implementation Plans promulgated or approved by EPA for Indian
Country. A subpart of part 49 is being created for each Region and will
include the Federal and Tribal Implementation Plans for Tribes within
that Region.
Implementation plans for Tribes in Region 10 will be codified in
subpart M, and provisions for the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes will be
codified at 40 CFR 49.10701 to 49.10730. This FIP for the Astaris-Idaho
facility will be codified at 40 CFR 49.10711.
B. Definitions
EPA has revised the definition of Astaris-Idaho or Astaris-Idaho
facility to include ponds and construction activities operated by
Astaris-Idaho on Section 14 of Township 6 south, Range 33 east. The
omission of this section of land from the definition was inadvertent.
Because the definition of fugitive emissions is used for application of
the emission limits and control requirements of the FIP, and not for
applicability purposes, EPA has revised the definition to clarify that
the relevant inquiry is whether the emissions actually do pass through
a stack, chimney, vent, or other functionally equivalent opening.
C. Emission Limits
EPA has added a zero to the last digit of each emission limit to
clarify rounding procedures. EPA has also revised the designation of
three sources in Tables 1 and 2. In June 2000, Astaris-Idaho notified
EPA that it had completed revamping its nodule reclaim operation as a
Supplemental Environmental Project under the RCRA Consent Decree. That
project eliminates the nodule fines pile (source 13) through enclosure
of the pile under a dome that is controlled by a new baghouse, which
Astaris-Idaho refers to as the ``Nodule Reclaim Baghouse.'' This is the
name that EPA had used to identify sources 16a and 16b in Tables 1 and
2 of the proposals. EPA has renamed sources 16a and 16b as the ``nodule
stockpile baghouse'' and the ``nodule stockpile baghouse outside
capture hood--fugitive emissions.'' Because source 13 is now a baghouse
rather than a pile, EPA has imposed the same opacity limit as for all
other baghouses--10% opacity with a corrective action level of 5%
opacity. EPA has also established an emission limit for this source of
0.90 pounds per hour. EPA derived this emission rate using a grain
loading standard of 0.005 gr/dscf, an emission limit commonly
established by States for new baghouses, and information provided by
Astaris-Idaho regarding the flow rate of the baghouse.
D. New and Modified Sources
Astaris-Idaho objected to the 90-day advance notice provision for
new and modified sources expected to cause an increase in PM-10
emissions and also to the definitions proposed by EPA to implement this
provision. EPA believes a 90-day advance notice is appropriate and
consistent with requirements in new source review provisions
implemented in other States. EPA has added a provision, however, that
would allow Astaris-Idaho to commence construction in less than 90-days
upon receipt of written notification from EPA that the 90-day delay is
not required. EPA intends to use this provision in appropriate
situations such as where the PM-10 impacts of the project are small,
less than the full 90 days is needed to review the project, and the
existing opacity requirements in the FIP, as well as the operations and
maintenance plan, are sufficient to address PM-10 emissions from the
new or modified source. EPA also made minor changes to clarify what
information must be submitted in connection with a new or modified
source. EPA has clarified the definition of modification in response to
a comment by Astaris-Idaho but has otherwise retained the definitions
for this advance notice provision.
E. Monitoring, Recordkeeping, and Reporting
The changes to the frequency of source testing for certain sources
are discussed in section IV.M. above. EPA has revised the source
testing requirements to include provisions in the New Source
Performance Standards for source testing, such as the requirement for
30 days prior written notice to EPA regarding the date of a scheduled
source test and providing safe and effective facilities for source
testing. See 40 CFR 60.8. Other minor changes to the source testing
procedures were made to better ensure consistency between the
requirements of this FIP and the standard terms and conditions of
Region 10's part 71, Title V permits. At the request of Astaris-Idaho,
EPA made minor modifications to the monitoring requirements for the
calciner scrubbers and furnace Medusa-Andersen scrubbers. At the same
time, EPA added a requirement that Astaris-Idaho propose and implement
a plan for
[[Page 51430]]
monitoring scrubber water quality for these sources because EPA
believes that water quality is an important parameter for ensuring the
scrubbers are being properly operated and maintained. EPA has modified
the provision regarding weekly visible emission inspections to ensure
that, if the first visible emissions observation detects a potential
compliance problem, the visible emission observation conducted after
investigation and appropriate corrective action must be conducted with
the reference test method for the opacity limit. This will provide
information needed to determine whether the source is in compliance
with the opacity limit.
At the request of the Tribes and Astaris-Idaho, EPA has revised the
FIP to require that Astaris-Idaho provide to the Tribes a
contemporaneous copy of all reports, notices, and other documents
submitted to EPA under the FIP. This provision will better enable the
Tribes to ensure that the facility complies with the FIP and is
operated in a manner that protects the health and welfare of the
Tribes, their members, and their resources. Making this information
more readily available to the Tribes will also facilitate the Tribes'
role in working with EPA to ensure compliance with and enforcement of
the FIP and will assist in building the Tribes' experience and capacity
for administering Clean Air Act programs.
Finally, EPA made other minor changes to the monitoring,
recordkeeping, and reporting provisions to better ensure consistency
between the requirements of the FIP and the terms of the RCRA Consent
Decree.
VI. Effectiveness of the Control Strategy
EPA continues to believe that the emission limits and work practice
requirements in this FIP will result in attainment of the PM-10 NAAQS
as expeditiously as practicable. As discussed in the February 1999 FIP
proposal and the January 2000 supplemental proposal, based on measured
air quality values, EPA believes that daily PM-10 emissions from the
Astaris-Idaho facility must be reduced by approximately 65% in order
for the Fort Hall PM-10 nonattainment area to attain the 24-hour
standard and that annual PM-10 emissions must be reduced by
approximately 25% in order for the area to attain the annual PM-10
standard. 65 FR at 4482; 64 FR at 7342.
Table A, below, shows current actual daily PM-10 emissions for
Astaris-Idaho before implementation of the control strategy in
comparison to expected actual and allowable emissions after full
implementation of the control strategy. Expected actual emissions after
full implementation of the FIP requirements were determined by assuming
that Astaris-Idaho would operate each source at current levels or at
the FIP limit for the source, whichever is less. For example, in the
case of sources controlled by baghouses, Astaris-Idaho operates those
sources, based on source test information, at rates slightly below the
maximum levels allowed under the FIP. Allowable emissions after
implementation of the FIP were determined by assuming that Astaris-
Idaho would operate each source at the maximum rate allowed by the FIP
for 100% of the 24-hour and annual time periods in the case of those
sources that have a mass emission limitation. For sources for which
there is no mass emission limit in the FIP but for which opacity limits
and other requirements were based on the installation of additional
control technology (such as slag handling sources), allowable emissions
are calculated by applying the control efficiency of that technology as
determined from the RACT evaluation. In the case of all other sources
for which there is no mass emission limitation and the FIP does not
contemplate the installation of additional controls, actual and
allowable emissions are assumed to remain the same before and after
implementation of the control strategy. Note that allowable annual
emissions for some sources can be significantly higher than actual
emissions because some processes only operate for short periods
throughout the year. In calculating allowable emissions however, it is
assumed that the processes operate continuously all year. For example,
the calciners typically operate 6500 out of 8760 hours per year, or
approximately 75% of the year.
A few changes have been made to the emission inventory. Condensible
emissions have been included in the emission estimate for the calciner
cooler vents both before and after the implementation of the control
strategy. The January 2000 supplemental proposal had included
condensible PM-10 emissions for the calciner scrubbers and the excess
CO burner. With the revision of the emission estimate to include
condensible emissions for the calciner cooler vents, the emission
inventory includes filterable and condensible PM-10 estimates for the
three sources from which condensible PM-10 emissions are expected.
Condensible PM-10 emissions have been assumed to be zero for all other
sources for the reasons discussed in section IV.F. above.
EPA has revised the estimate of current reasonable worst case
annual emissions for the calciner scrubbers. In the January 2000
supplemental proposal, EPA assumed a grain loading of 0.029 gr/dscf to
calculate current annual reasonable worst case emissions. This grain
loading was the average baseline number, not a reasonable worst case
number and EPA believes it may have underestimated current reasonable
worst case annual emissions from the calciner scrubbers. EPA has
determined a more representative grain loading for calculating current
reasonable worst case annual emissions is 0.031 gr/dscf, resulting in
an estimate of 252 tons per year.
The nodule fines truck loading and nodule fines stock pile emission
sources have been eliminated in the case of expected actual and
allowable emissions after implementation of the control strategy. As a
SEP under the RCRA Consent Decree, the truck loading has been
eliminated and the stockpile is now totally enclosed. A new baghouse
has been constructed to control the emissions from the newly enclosed
nodule fines stockpile. The emissions formerly included under nodule
fines loading and the nodule fines stockpile are now included under
``all other baghouses.'' The emission estimate for the Medusa-Andersen
scrubbers on the furnace building has been revised to better reflect
reasonable worst case emissions based on what EPA believes to be a more
accurate estimate of how many hours the furnace scrubbers operate on a
reasonable worst case day.
As indicated in Table A below, the FIP is expected to reduce 24-
hour PM-10 emissions by almost 80%. As discussed above, based on air
quality monitoring data, a 65% reduction in PM-10 (from 433 ug/m3 to
150 ug/m3) is needed to achieve the 24-hour PM-10 NAAQS. As indicated
in Table B below, the FIP is expected to reduce annual PM-10 emissions
by at least 60%. As discussed above, based on air quality monitoring
data, a 25% reduction in PM-10 is needed to achieve the annual PM-10
NAAQS. Thus, the FIP is expected to achieve emission reductions
significantly in excess of that needed for attainment of the PM-10
standards. This cushion of over control should help alleviate concerns
regarding whether the FIP will result in attainment of the PM-10 NAAQS.
[[Page 51431]]
Table A.--Attainment Demonstration 24-Hour PM-10 Standard Astaris-Idaho
Reasonable Worst Case PM-10 Emissions Summary Full Implementation of
Proposed Control Strategy
[Pounds per day]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Actual Actual Allowable
emissions emissions emissions
Source name before after after
control control control
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point sources:
Ground & elevated CO flares * 10,543 527 576
Calciners *.................. 2,419 1,012 1,208
All other baghouses.......... 106 ** 125 ** 169
Medusa-Andersen.............. 115 115 192
Calciner cooler vents *...... 679 679 679
Pressure relief vents........ 99 99 99
Cooling tower................ 96 96 96
Phos dock.................... 34 34 34
Boilers...................... 13 13 13
Emergency flares............. 12 12 12
Fugitive sources:
Slag handling................ 1,045 146 146
All roads.................... 190 190 190
All piles.................... 163 163 163
Dry fines recycle............ 33 33 33
Nodule fines loading......... 12 0 0
Nodule fines stockpile....... 7 0 0
--------------------------------------
Grand total................ 15,566 3,244 3,610
Reduction (in percent)..... ........... 79 77
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Emission estimate includes condensible PM-10 emissions; emission limit
for the calciner cooler vents does not apply to condensible PM-10.
** The emissions formerly included under nodule fines loading and the
nodule fines stockpile are now included under ``all other baghouses.''
Table B.--Attainment Demonstration Annual PM-10 Standard Astaris-Idaho
Reasonable Worst Case PM-10 Emissions Summary Full Implementation of
Proposed Control Strategy
[Tons/year]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Actual Actual Allowable
emissions emission emissions
Source name before after after
control control control
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point sources:
Ground & elevated CO flares * 903 45 105
Calciners *.................. 252 144 221
All other baghouses **....... 12 15 31
Medusa-Andersen.............. 18 18 35
Calciner cooler vents *...... 98 98 98
Pressure relief vents........ 1 1 1
Cooling tower................ 18 18 18
Phos dock.................... 6 6 6
Boilers...................... 2 2 2
Emergency flares............. 0 0 0
Fugitive sources:
Slag handling................ 165 23 23
All roads.................... 25 25 25
All piles.................... 23 23 23
Dry fines recycle............ 6 6 6
Nodule fines loading......... 2 0 0
Nodule fines stockpile....... 1 0 0
--------------------------------------
Grand total................ 1,532 424 594
Reduction (in percent)..... ........... 72 61
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Emission estimate includes condensible PM-10 emissions; emission limit
for the calciner cooler vents does not apply to condensible PM-10.
** The emissions formerly included under nodule fines loading and the
nodule fines stockpile are now included under ``all other baghouses.''
VII. Administrative Requirements
A. Executive Order 12866
Under Executive Order 12866, 58 FR 51735 (October 4, 1993), all
``regulatory actions'' that are ``significant'' are subject to Office
of Management and Budget review and the requirements of the Executive
Order. As discussed in the February 1999 FIP proposal, this FIP is not
a rule of general applicability and therefore is not a ``regulatory
action'' under Executive Order 12866. See 64 FR at 7342-7343.
B. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., EPA
generally must prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule
subject to notice and comment rulemaking requirements unless EPA
certifies that the rule will
[[Page 51432]]
not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities. 5 U.S.C. sections 603, 604 and 605(b). As discussed in the
February 1999 FIP proposal, because Astaris-Idaho has more than 1,000
employees, it is not a small entity under the RFA. Therefore, pursuant
to 5 U.S.C. 605(b), I certify that the FIP will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. See 64 FR at
7343.
C. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995, Public Law
04-4, establishes requirements for federal agencies to assess the
effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and tribal
governments and the private sector. For the reasons discussed in the
February 1999 FIP proposal, the FIP does not impose any enforceable
duties or contain any unfunded mandate on State, local or tribal
governments, or impose any significant or unique impact on small
governments as described in UMRA. Moreover, the FIP is not likely to
result in the expenditure of $100 million or more by the private sector
in any one year. Therefore, the requirements of UMRA do not apply. See
64 FR at 7343.
D. Paperwork Reduction Act
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., OMB must
approve all ``collections of information'' by EPA. The Act defines
``collection of information'' as a requirement for ``answers to * * *
identical reporting or recordkeeping requirements imposed on ten or
more persons* * *.'' 44 U.S.C. 3502(3)(A). Because the FIP only applies
to one company, the Paperwork Reduction Act does not apply.
E. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks
This executive order applies to any rule that: (1) is determined to
be ``economically significant'' as that term is defined in Executive
Order 12866, and (2) concerns an environmental health or safety risk
that EPA has reason to believe may have a disproportionate effect on
children. A rule is economically significant if it is likely to have an
annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or adversely
affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the economy,
productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or
safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or communities. As
discussed in the February 1999 FIP proposal, the costs to Astaris-Idaho
of complying with the FIP are expected to be less than $50 million
dollars. 64 FR at 7343. In addition, EPA does not believe the FIP will
adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the
economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public
health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or
communities. Accordingly, EPA has determined that the FIP is not
economically significant and thus not subject to Executive Order 13045.
F. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
Federalism (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999) revokes and replaces
Executive Orders 12612 (Federalism) and 12875 (Enhancing the
Intergovernmental Partnership). Executive Order 13132 requires EPA to
develop an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful and timely input
by State and local officials in the development of regulatory policies
that have federalism implications.'' ``Policies that have federalism
implications'' is defined in the Executive Order to include regulations
that 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.'' Under Executive Order 13132, EPA may not issue a
regulation that has federalism 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 State and local governments, or EPA
consults with State and local officials early in the process of
developing the proposed regulation. EPA also may not issue a regulation
that has federalism implications and that preempts State law unless EPA
consults with State and local officials early in the process of
developing the proposed regulation.
If EPA complies by consulting, Executive Order 13132 requires EPA
to provide to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), in a
separately identified section of the preamble to the rule, a federalism
summary impact statement (FSIS). The FSIS must include a description of
the extent of EPA's prior consultation with State and local officials,
a summary of the nature of their concerns and the agency's position
supporting the need to issue the regulation, and a statement of the
extent to which the concerns of State and local officials have been
met. Also, when EPA transmits a draft final rule with federalism
implications to OMB for review pursuant to Executive Order 12866, EPA
must include a certification from the agency's Federalism Official
stating that EPA has met the requirements of Executive Order 13132 in a
meaningful and timely manner.
This FIP does 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. This rule only
prescribes standards appropriate for one facility on an Indian
Reservation, and thus does not directly affect any State. Moreover, it
does not alter the relationship or the distribution of power and
responsibilities established in the Clean Air Act. Thus, the
requirements of section 6 of the Executive Order do not apply to this
rule. Nonetheless, as discussed in the February 1999 FIP proposal and
the January 2000 supplemental proposal, EPA worked closely with
representatives of the Tribes during the development of the FIP
proposals. See 64 FR at 7312; 65 FR at 4485. EPA has continued to work
with the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes in developing this final action.
G. Executive Order 13084: Consultation and Coordination With Indian
Tribal Governments
Under Executive Order 13084, EPA may not issue a regulation that is
not required by statute, that significantly or uniquely affects the
communities of Indian tribal governments, and that imposes substantial
direct compliance costs on those communities, unless the federal
government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct compliance
costs incurred by the tribal governments, or EPA consults with those
governments. In addition, Executive Order 13084 requires EPA to develop
an effective process permitting elected and other representatives of
Indian tribal governments ``to provide meaningful and timely input in
the development of regulatory policies on matters that significantly or
uniquely affect their communities.'' This Executive Order is discussed
in more detail in the February 1999 FIP proposal. See 64 FR at 7312.
The FIP imposes obligations only on the owner or operator of
Astaris-Idaho, and does not impose substantial direct compliance costs
on the communities of Indian tribal governments. Accordingly, the
requirements of section 3(b) of Executive Order 13084 do not apply to
this rule. As discussed in the February 1999 FIP proposal and the
January 2000 supplemental proposal, EPA worked closely with
representatives of the
[[Page 51433]]
Shoshone-Bannock Tribes during the development of the FIP proposal. See
64 FR at 7312; 65 FR at 4485. EPA has continued to work with the Tribes
in developing this final action.
H. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (NTTAA)
Section 12(d) of NTTAA, Pub. L. No. 104-113, section 12(d) (15
U.S.C. 272 note) directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in
its regulatory activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with
applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards
are technical standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods,
sampling procedures, business practices) that are developed or adopted
by voluntary consensus standards bodies. The NTTAA directs EPA to
provide Congress, through OMB, explanations when the Agency decides not
to use available and applicable voluntary standards.
The proposed reference test methods for the emissions limitations
and work practice requirements in this FIP are technical standards. The
test methods for the emission limitations and work practice
requirements in this FIP are test methods that have been promulgated by
EPA. See Methods 201, 201A, and 202, 40 CFR part 51, appendix M;
Methods 1, 2, 2C, 2D, 3, 3A, 4, 5, and 22 (in part), 40 CFR part 60,
appendix A. Before proposing these reference test methods, EPA
conducted a search to identify potentially applicable voluntary
consensus standards. EPA did not identify any potentially applicable
standards that could be used in place of Methods 201, 201A, and 202, 40
CFR part 51, appendix M; or Methods 1, 3, 3A, 4, 5, and 22 (in part),
40 CFR part 60, appendix A. EPA received no comments on either proposal
that identified potentially-applicable voluntary consensus standards
that could be used in place of the reference test methods proposed by
EPA.
I. Submission to Congress and the Comptroller General
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. Section 804, however, exempts from section 801 the
following types of rules: rules of particular applicability; rules
relating to agency management or personnel; and rules of agency
organization, procedure, or practice that do not substantially affect
the rights or obligations of non-agency parties. 5 U.S.C. section
804(3). EPA is not required to submit a rule report regarding this
action under section 801 because this is a rule of particular
applicability.
J. Petitions for Judicial Review
Under Section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for
judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court
of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by October 23, 2000. Filing a
petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule
does not affect the finality of this rule for the purposes of judicial
review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial
review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such
rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings
to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 49
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Administrative
practice and procedure, Indians, Intergovernmental relations, Reporting
and recordkeeping requirements.
Dated: July 31, 2000.
Carol Browner,
Administrator.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, title 40 , chapter I of
the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:
PART 49--TRIBAL CLEAN AIR ACT AUTHORITY
1. The authority citation for part 49 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401, et seq.
Subpart A--Tribal Authority
Secs. 49.1 through 49.11, and 49.22 [Redesignated as Subpart A]
Secs. 49.12 through 49.21, 49.23 through 49.50 [Added and Reserved]
2. Part 49 is amended by designating Secs. 49.1 through 49.11 and
49.22 as subpart A and adding and reserving Secs. 49.12 through 49.21
and 49.23 through 49.50 to subpart A.
3. Part 49 is amended by adding Subparts B through L as follows:
Subpart B--General Provisions
Sec.
49.51-49.100 [Reserved]
Subpart C--General Federal Implementation Plan Provisions
49.101-49.200 [Reserved]
Subpart D--Implementation Plans for Tribes--Region I
49.201-49.470 [Reserved]
Subpart E--Implementation Plans for Tribes--Region II
49.471-49.680 [Reserved]
Subpart F--Implementation Plans for Tribes--Region III
49.681-49.710 [Reserved]
Subpart G--Implementation Plans for Tribes--Region IV
49.711-49.920 [Reserved]
Subpart H--Implementation Plans for Tribes--Region V
49.921-49.1970 [Reserved]
Subpart I--Implementation Plans for Tribes--Region VI
49.1971-49.3920 [Reserved]
Subpart J--Implementation Plans for Tribes--Region VII
49.3921-49.4160 [Reserved]
Subpart K--Implementation Plans for Tribes--Region VIII
49.4161-49.5510 [Reserved]
Subpart L--Implementation Plans for Tribes--Region IX
49.5511-49.9860 [Reserved]
4. Part 49 is amended by adding Subpart M to read as follows:
Subpart M--Implementation Plans for Tribes--Region X
49.9861-49.10700 [Reserved]
Implementation Plan for the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes of the Fort Hall
Indian Reservation
49.10701 Identification of plan.
49.10702 Approval status.
49.10703 Legal authority. [Reserved]
49.10704 Source Surveillance. [Reserved]
49.10705 Classification of regions for episode plans.
49.10706 Contents of implementation plan.
49.10707 EPA-approved Tribal rules and plans. [Reserved]
49.10708 Permits to construct.
49.10709 Permits to operate. [Reserved]
49.10710 Federally-promulgated regulations and federal
implementation plans.
49.10711 Federal Implementation Plan for the Astaris-Idaho LLC
Facility (formerly owned by FMC Corporation) in the Fort Hall PM-10
Nonattainment Area.
49.10712-49.17810 [Reserved]
Secs. 49.9861-49.10700 [Reserved]
Implementation Plan for the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes of the Fort Hall
Indian Reservation
Sec. 49.10701 Identification of plan.
Sections 49.10701 through 49.10730 contain the implementation plan
for the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes of the Fort Hall Indian Reservation.
This plan consists of a combination of Tribal rules
[[Page 51434]]
and measures and federal regulations and measures which apply for the
Shoshone-Bannock Tribes of the Fort Hall Indian Reservation.
Sec. 49.10702 Approval status.
There are currently no EPA-approved Tribal rules or measures in the
implementation plan for the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes of the Fort Hall
Indian Reservation.
Sec. 49.10703 Legal authority. [Reserved]
Sec. 49.10704 Source Surveillance. [Reserved]
Sec. 49.10705 Classification of regions for episode plans.
The air quality control region which encompasses the Shoshone-
Bannock Tribes of the Fort Hall Indian Reservation is classified as
follows for purposes of episode plans:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pollutant Classification
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Carbon monoxide........................... III
Nitrogen dioxide.......................... III
Ozone..................................... III
Particulate matter (PM-10)................ I
Sulfur dioxide............................ II
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 49.10706 Contents of implementation plan.
The implementation plan for the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes of the Fort
Hall Indian Reservation consists of the following rules, regulations,
and measures:
(a) Section 49.10711. Federal Implementation Plan for the Astaris-
Idaho LLC Facility (formerly owned by FMC Corporation) in the Fort Hall
PM-10 Nonattainment Area.
(b) 40 CFR 52.21. Prevention of Significant Deterioration Permits
Sec. 49.10707 EPA-approved Tribal rules and plans. [Reserved]
Sec. 49.10708 Permits to construct.
Permits to construct are required for new major stationary sources
and major modifications to existing major stationary sources pursuant
to 40 CFR 52.21.
Sec. 49.10709 Permits to operate. [Reserved]
Sec. 49.10710 Federally-promulgated regulations and federal
implementation plans.
The following regulations are incorporated and made part of the
implementation plan for the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes of the Fort Hall
Indian Reservation:
(a) Section 49.10711. Federal Implementation Plan for the Astaris-
Idaho LLC Facility (formerly owned by FMC Corporation) in the Fort Hall
PM-10 Nonattainment Area.
(b) 40 CFR 52.21. Prevention of Significant Deterioration Permits.
Sec. 49.10711 Federal Implementation Plan for the Astaris-Idaho LLC
Facility (formerly owned by FMC Corporation) in the Fort Hall PM-10
Nonattainment Area.
(a) Applicability. This section applies to the owner(s) or
operator(s) of the Astaris-Idaho LLC's elemental phosphorus facility
located on the Fort Hall Indian Reservation in Idaho, including any new
owner(s) or operator(s) in the event of a change in ownership or
operation of the Astaris-Idaho facility.
(b) Definitions. The terms used in this section retain the meaning
accorded them under the Clean Air Act, except as follows:
Astaris-Idaho or Astaris-Idaho facility means all of the pollutant-
emitting activities that comprise the elemental phosphorus plant owned
by or under the common control of Astaris-Idaho LLC in Township 6
south, Range 33 east, Sections 12, 13, and 14, and that lie within the
exterior boundaries of the Fort Hall Indian Reservation, in Idaho,
including, without limitation, all buildings, structures, facilities,
installations, material handling areas, storage piles, roads, staging
areas, parking lots, mechanical processes and related areas, and other
processes and related areas. For purposes of this section, the term
``Astaris-Idaho'' or ``Astaris-Idaho facility'' shall not include
pollutant emitting activities located on lands outside the exterior
boundaries of the Fort Hall Indian Reservation.
Bag leak detection guidance means Office of Air Quality Planning
and Standards (OAQPS): Fabric Filter Bag Leak Detection Guidance, EPA
454/R-98-015 (Sept. 1997).
Begin actual construction means, in general, initiation of physical
on-site construction activities on a source which are of a permanent
nature. Such activities include, but are not limited to, installation
of building supports and foundations, laying of underground pipework,
and construction of permanent storage structures. With respect to a
change in the method of operating, this term refers to those on-site
activities other than preparatory activities which mark the initiation
of the change.
Certified observer means a visual emissions observer who has been
properly certified using the initial certification and periodic semi-
annual recertification procedures of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A, Method
9.
Construction means any physical change or change in the method of
operation (including fabrication, erection, installation, demolition,
or modification of a source) which would result in a change in actual
emissions.
Emergency means any situation arising from sudden and reasonably
unforeseeable events beyond the control of the owner or operator of the
Astaris-Idaho facility, including acts of God, which requires immediate
corrective action to restore normal operation. An emergency shall not
include events caused by improperly designed equipment, lack of
preventative maintenance, careless or improper operation, or operator
error.
Emission limitation or emission standard means a requirement which
limits the quantity, rate, or concentration of emissions of air
pollutants on a continuous basis, including any requirements which
limit the level of opacity, prescribe equipment, set fuel
specifications, or prescribe operations or maintenance procedures to
assure continuous emission reduction.
EPA means United States Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10.
Excess emissions means emissions of an air pollutant in excess of
an emission limitation.
Excursion means a departure from a parameter range approved under
paragraphs (e)(3) or (g)(1) of this section, consistent with any
averaging period specified for averaging the results of monitoring.
Fugitive emissions means those emissions that do not actually pass
through a stack, chimney, vent, or other functionally equivalent
opening.
Malfunction means any sudden and unavoidable breakdown of process
or control equipment. A sudden breakdown which could have been avoided
by better operation and maintenance is not a malfunction.
Method 5 is the reference test method described in 40 CFR part 60,
appendix A, conducted in accordance with the requirements of this
section.
Method 9 is the reference test method described in 40 CFR part 60,
appendix A.
Methods 201, 201A, and 202 are the reference test methods described
in 40 CFR part 51, appendix M, conducted in accordance with the
requirements of this section.
Mini-flush means the process of flushing elemental phosphorus,
which has solidified in the secondary condenser, to the elevated
secondary condenser flare or to the ground flare, and thus into the
atmosphere.
[[Page 51435]]
Modification means any physical change in or a change in the method
of operation of, an existing source which increases the amount of
particulate matter emitted by that source. The following shall not, by
themselves, be considered modifications:
(1) Maintenance, repair, and replacement which the Regional
Administrator determines to be routine for the particular source;
(2) An increase in production rate of an existing source, if that
increase can be accomplished without a physical change to the source or
the Astaris-Idaho facility;
(3) An increase in the hours of operation of an existing source, if
that increase can be accomplished without a physical change to the
source or the Astaris-Idaho facility;
(4) Use of an alternative fuel or raw material, if the existing
source is capable of accommodating that alternative without a physical
change to the source or the Astaris-Idaho facility; or
(5) The addition, replacement, or use of any system or device whose
primary function is the reduction of an air pollutant, except when an
emissions control system is removed or replaced by a system which the
Regional Administrator determines to be less environmentally
beneficial.
Monitoring malfunction means any sudden, infrequent, not reasonably
preventable failure of the monitoring to provide valid data. Monitoring
failures that are caused in part by poor maintenance or careless
operation are not monitoring malfunctions.
O&M plan means an operation and maintenance plan developed by
Astaris-Idaho and submitted to EPA in accordance with paragraph (e)(8)
of this section.
Opacity means the degree to which emissions reduce the transmission
of light and obscure the view of an object in the background.
Opacity action level means the level of opacity of emissions from a
source requiring the owner or operator of the Astaris-Idaho facility to
take prompt corrective action to minimize emissions, including without
limitation those actions described in the approved operations and
maintenance plan.
Owner or operator means any person who owns, leases, operates,
controls, or supervises the Astaris-Idaho facility or any portion
thereof.
Particulate matter means any airborne finely-divided solid or
liquid material with an aerodynamic diameter smaller than 100
micrometers.
PM-10 or PM-10 emissions means finely divided solid or liquid
material, with an aerodynamic diameter less than or equal to a nominal
ten micrometers emitted to the ambient air as measured by an applicable
reference method such as Method 201, 201A, or 202, of 40 CFR Part 51,
appendix M, or an equivalent or alternative method specifically
approved by the Regional Administrator.
Regional Administrator means the Regional Administrator, EPA Region
10, or a duly designated representative of the Regional Administrator.
Road means access and haul roads, driveways or established vehicle
paths, permanent or temporary, which are graded, constructed, used,
reconstructed, improved, or maintained for use in vehicle movement
throughout the Astaris-Idaho facility.
Shutdown means the cessation of operation of a source for any
purpose.
Slag Pit Area means the area of the Astaris-Idaho facility
immediately bordering the south side of the furnace building extending
out 100 yards.
Source means any building, structure, facility, installation,
material handling area, storage pile, road, staging area, parking lot,
mechanical process or related area, or other process or related area
which emits or may emit particulate matter.
Startup means the setting in operation of a source for any purpose.
Title V permit means an operating permit issued under 40 CFR part
70 or 71.
Tribes means the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes.
Visible emissions means the emission of pollutants into the
atmosphere, excluding uncombined condensed water vapor (steam), that is
observable by the naked eye.
Visual observation means the continuous observation of a source for
the presence of visible emissions for a period of ten consecutive
minutes conducted in accordance with section 5 of EPA Method 22, 40 CFR
part 60, appendix A, by a person who meets the training guidelines
described in section 1 of Method 22.
(c) Emission limitations and work practice requirements. (1)(i)
Except as otherwise provided in paragraphs (c)(1)(ii), (c)(1)(iii), and
(c)(2) of this section, there shall be no visible emissions from any
location at the Astaris-Idaho facility at any time, as determined by a
visual observation.
(ii) Emissions from the following equipment, activities, processes,
or sources shall not exceed 20% opacity over a six minute average.
Method 9, of 40 CFR Part 60, appendix A, is the reference test method
for this requirement.
(A) Brazing, welding, and welding equipment and oxygen-hydrogen
cutting torches;
(B) Plant upkeep, including routine housekeeping, preparation for
and painting of structures;
(C) Grinding, sandblasting, and cleaning operations that are not
part of a routine operation or a process at the Astaris-Idaho facility;
(D) Cleaning and sweeping of streets and paved surfaces;
(E) Lawn and landscaping activities;
(F) Repair and maintenance activities;
(G) Landfill operations;
(H) Laboratory vent stacks; and
(I) Pond piping discharges.
(iii) Except as otherwise provided in paragraph (c)(1)(ii) of this
section, emissions from equipment, activities, processes, or sources
not identified in Table 1 to this section shall not exceed 10% opacity
over a six minute average provided that Astaris-Idaho has complied with
the requirements of paragraph (c)(11) of this section and provided
further that a more stringent opacity limit has not been established
for the source in this section. Method 9, 40 CFR Part 60, appendix A,
is the reference test method for this requirement.
(2) For each source identified in Column II of Table 1 to this
section, the owner or operator of the Astaris-Idaho facility shall
comply with the emission limitations and work practice requirements for
that source established in Column III of Table 1 to this section.
(3) The opacity limits for the following fugitive emission sources,
which are also identified in Column II of Table 1 to this section,
apply to adding of material to, taking of material from, reforming, or
otherwise disturbing the pile: main shale pile (Table 1 of this
section, source 2), emergency/contingency raw ore shale pile (Table 1
of this section, source 3), stacker and reclaimer (Table 1 of this
section, source 4), recycle material pile (Table 1 of this section,
source 8b), nodule pile (Table 1 of this section, source 11), and
screened shale fines pile (Table 1 of this section, source 14).
(4)(i) Except as provided in paragraph (c)(4)(ii) of this section,
beginning November 1, 2000, the following activities shall be
prohibited:
(A) The discharge of molten slag from furnaces or slag runners onto
the ground, pit floors (whether dressed with crushed slag or not), or
other non-mobile permanent surface.
(B) The digging of solid slag in the slag pit area or the loading
of slag into transport trucks in the slag pit area.
(ii) The prohibition set forth in paragraph (c)(4)(i) of this
section shall
[[Page 51436]]
not apply to the lining of slag pots and the handling (including but
not limited to loading, crushing, or digging) of cold slag for purposes
of the lining of slag pots.
(5)(i) Beginning January 1, 2001, no furnace gas shall be burned in
the existing elevated secondary condenser flare or the existing ground
flare (Table 1 of this section, source 26a).
(ii) Until December 31, 2000, the owner or operator of the Astaris-
Idaho facility shall take the following measures to reduce PM-10
emissions from mini-flushes and to ensure there is no bias toward
conducting mini-flushes during night-time hours.
(A) Mini-flushes shall be limited to no more than 50 minutes per
day (based on a monthly average) beginning January 1, 1999. Failure to
meet this limit for any given calendar month will be construed as a
separate violation for each day during that month that mini-flushes
lasted more than 50 minutes. The monthly average for any calendar month
shall be calculated by summing the duration (in actual minutes) of each
mini-flush during that month and dividing by the number of days in that
month. (B)(1) No mini-flush shall be conducted at any time unless one
of the following operating parameters is satisfied:
(i) The flow rate of recirculated phossy water is equal to or less
than 1800 gallons per minute; or
(ii) The secondary condenser outlet temperature is equal to or
greater than 36 degrees Centigrade.
(2) The prohibition set forth in paragraph (c)(5)(ii)(B)(1) of this
section shall not apply during periods of malfunction or emergency,
provided the owner or operator of the Astaris-Idaho facility complies
with the requirements of paragraph (c)(9) of this section.
(6) At all times, including periods of startup, shutdown,
malfunction, or emergency, the owner or operator of the Astaris-Idaho
facility shall, to the extent practicable, maintain and operate each
source of PM-10 at the Astaris-Idaho facility, including without
limitation those sources identified in Column II of Table 1 to this
section and associated air pollution control equipment, in a manner
consistent with good air pollution control practices for minimizing
emissions. Determination of whether acceptable operating and
maintenance procedures are being used will be based on information
available to the Regional Administrator which may include, but is not
limited to, monitoring results, opacity observations, review of
operating and maintenance procedures, and inspection of the source.
(7) Maintaining operation of a source within approved parameter
ranges, promptly taking corrective action, and otherwise following the
work practice, monitoring, record keeping, and reporting requirements
of this section do not relieve the owner or operator of the Astaris-
Idaho facility from the obligation to comply with applicable emission
limitations and work practice requirements at all times.
(8) An affirmative defense to a penalty action brought for
emissions in excess of an emission limitation shall be available if the
excess emissions were due to startup or shutdown and all of the
following conditions are met:
(i) The owner or operator of the Astaris-Idaho facility notifies
EPA and the Tribes in writing of any startup or shutdown that is
expected to cause excess emissions. The notification shall be given as
soon as possible, but no later than 48 hours prior to the start of the
startup or shutdown, unless the owner or operator demonstrates to EPA's
satisfaction that a shorter advanced notice was necessary. The notice
shall identify the expected date, time, and duration of the excess
emissions event, the source involved in the excess emissions event, and
the type of excess emissions event.
(ii) The periods of excess emissions that occurred during startup
or shutdown were short and infrequent and could not have been prevented
through careful planning and design.
(iii) The excess emissions were not part of a recurring pattern
indicative of inadequate design, operation, or maintenance.
(iv) If the excess emissions were caused by a bypass (an
intentional diversion of control equipment), then the bypass was
unavoidable to prevent loss of life, personal injury, or severe
property damage.
(v) At all times, the facility was operated in a manner consistent
with good practice for minimizing emissions.
(vi) The frequency and duration of operation in startup or shutdown
mode was minimized to the maximum extent practicable.
(vii) All possible steps were taken to minimize the impact of the
excess emissions on ambient air quality.
(viii) All emission monitoring systems were kept in operation if at
all possible.
(ix) The owner or operator's actions during the period of excess
emissions were documented by properly signed, contemporaneous operating
logs, or other relevant evidence.
(x) The owner or operator of the Astaris-Idaho facility submitted
notice of the startup or shutdown to EPA and the Tribes within 48 hours
of the time when emission limitations were exceeded due to startup or
shutdown. This notice fulfills the requirement of paragraph (g)(5) of
this section. This notice must contain a description of the startup or
shutdown, any steps taken to mitigate emissions, and corrective actions
taken.
(xi) No exceedance of the 24-hour PM-10 National Ambient Air
Quality Standard, 40 CFR 50.6(a) was recorded on any monitor located
within the Fort Hall PM-10 nonattainment area that regularly reports
information to the Aerometric Information Retrieval System-Air Quality
Subsystem, as defined under 40 CFR 58.1(p), on any day for which the
defense of startup or shutdown is asserted.
(xii) In any enforcement proceeding, the owner or operator of the
Astaris-Idaho facility has the burden of proof on all requirements of
this paragraph (c)(8).
(9) An affirmative defense to a penalty action brought for
emissions in excess of an emission limitation shall be available if the
excess emissions were due to an emergency or malfunction and all of the
following conditions are met:
(i) The excess emissions were caused by a sudden, unavoidable
breakdown of technology, beyond the control of the owner or operator of
the Astaris-Idaho facility.
(ii) The excess emissions;
(A) Did not stem from any activity or event that could have been
foreseen and avoided or planned for; and
(B) Could not have been avoided by better operation and maintenance
practices.
(iii) To the maximum extent practicable the air pollution control
equipment or processes were maintained and operated in a manner
consistent with good practice for minimizing emissions.
(iv) Repairs were made in an expeditious fashion when the operator
knew or should have known that applicable emission limitations were
being exceeded. Off-shift labor and overtime must have been utilized,
to the extent practicable, to ensure that such repairs were made as
expeditiously as practicable.
(v) The amount and duration of the excess emissions (including any
bypass) were minimized to the maximum extent practicable during periods
of such emissions.
(vi) All possible steps were taken to minimize the impact of the
excess emissions on ambient air quality.
(vii) All emission monitoring systems were kept in operation if at
all possible.
(viii) The owner or operator's actions in response to the excess
emissions were documented by properly signed,
[[Page 51437]]
contemporaneous operating logs, or other relevant evidence.
(ix) The excess emissions were not part of a recurring pattern
indicative of inadequate design, operation, or maintenance.
(x) The owner or operator of the Astaris-Idaho facility submitted
notice of the emergency or malfunction to EPA and the Tribes within 48
hours of the time when emission limitations were exceeded due to the
emergency or malfunction. This notice fulfills the requirement of
paragraph (g)(5) of this section. This notice must contain a
description of the emergency or malfunction, any steps taken to
mitigate emissions, and corrective actions taken.
(xi) No exceedance of the 24-hour PM-10 National Ambient Air
Quality Standard, 40 CFR 50.6(a), was recorded on any monitor located
within the Fort Hall PM-10 nonattainment area that regularly reports
information to the Aerometric Information Retrieval System-Air Quality
Subsystem, as defined under 40 CFR 58.1(p), on any day for which the
defense of emergency or malfunction is asserted.
(xii) In any enforcement proceeding, the owner or operator of the
Astaris-Idaho facility has the burden of proof on all requirements of
this paragraph (c)(9).
(10) For each source identified in Column II of Table 2 to this
section, the owner or operator of the Astaris-Idaho facility shall take
appropriate actions to reduce visible emissions from the source if
opacity exceeds the opacity action level for that source identified in
Column III of Table 2 of this section. Such actions shall be commenced
as soon as possible but not to exceed 24 hours after an exceedance of
the opacity action level is first identified and shall be completed as
soon as possible. Such actions shall include, but not be limited to,
those actions identified in the O&M plan for the source. Exceedance of
an opacity action level does not constitute a violation of this
section, but failure to take appropriate corrective action as
identified in this paragraph (c)(10) does constitute a violation of
this section.
(11) The owner or operator of the Astaris-Idaho facility shall
notify EPA prior to the construction of a new source of PM-10 at the
Astaris-Idaho facility or the modification of an existing source at the
Astaris-Idaho facility in a manner that increases emissions of PM-10 as
follows:
(i) Such notification shall be submitted to EPA at least 90 days
prior to commencement of the construction or modification.
(ii) Such notification shall include the following information:
(A) A description of the source, including location of the process
and associated control equipment, and any modification thereto;
(B) An estimate of potential PM-10 emissions from the source on
both a 24-hour and annual basis, without consideration of any proposed
air pollution control equipment;
(C) The expected daily hours of operation of the source, including
any seasonal variation, and an estimate of actual PM-10 emissions from
the source on both a 24-hour and annual basis, considering the effect
of any proposed air pollution control equipment; and
(D) A description of any PM-10 control technology to be implemented
at the source along with an analysis of alternative control
technologies considered but rejected.
(iii) Any source identified in this section shall continue to be
subject to the requirements of this section notwithstanding the
modification of the source.
(iv) The requirements of this paragraph (c)(11) are in addition to
any other requirements to obtain a permit under the Clean Air Act.
(v) This paragraph (c)(11) shall cease to apply if either of the
following events occur:
(A) EPA promulgates a minor new source review program for PM-10
that applies to the Astaris-Idaho facility; or
(B) The Tribes promulgate a minor new source review program for PM-
10 that applies to the Astaris-Idaho facility and EPA approves the
Tribes' program under of this part.
(vi) If, after receipt of the notice referred to in this paragraph
(c)(11), EPA notifies Astaris-Idaho in writing that a 90 day delay in
the commencement of construction or modification is not required,
Astaris-Idaho may proceed with the commencement of the construction or
modification as described in the notice, subject to the other
requirements of this section.
(d) Reference test methods. (1) For each source identified in
Column II of Table 1 to this section, the reference test method for the
corresponding emission limitation in Column III of Table 1 to this
section for that source is identified in Column IV of Table 1 to this
section. For each source identified in Column II of Table 2 to this
section, the reference test method for the corresponding opacity action
level in Column III of Table 2 to this section for that source is
identified in Column IV of Table 2 to this section.
(2) When Method 201/201A or Methods 201/201A and 202 of 40 CFR Part
60, appendix A, are specified as the reference test methods, the
testing shall be conducted in accordance with the identified test
methods and the following additional requirements:
(i) Each test shall consist of three runs, with each run a minimum
of one hour.
(ii) Method 202 shall be run concurrently with Method 201 or Method
201A. Unless Method 202 is specifically designated as part of the
reference test method, Method 202 shall be performed on each source for
informational purposes only and the results from the Method 202 test
shall not be included in determining compliance with the mass emission
limit for the source.
(iii) The source shall be operated at a capacity of at least 90% of
maximum during all tests unless the Regional Administrator determines
in writing that other operating conditions are representative of normal
operations.
(iv) Only regular operating staff may adjust the processes or
emission control device parameters during a performance test or within
two hours prior to the tests. Any operating adjustments made during a
performance test, which are a result of consultation during the tests
with source testing personnel, equipment vendors, or other consultants
may render the source test invalid.
(v) For all reference tests, the sampling site and minimum number
of sampling points shall be selected according to EPA Method 1 (40 CFR
part 60, appendix A).
(vi) EPA Methods 2, 2C, 2D, 3, 3A, and 4 (40 CFR part 60, appendix
A) shall be used, as appropriate, for determining mass emission rates.
(vii) The mass emission rate of PM-10 shall be determined as
follows:
(A)(1) Where Method 201/201A is identified as the reference test
method, the mass emission rate of PM-10 shall be determined by taking
the results of the Method 201/201A test and then multiplying by the
average hourly volumetric flow rate for the run.
(2) Where Methods 201/201A and 202 are identified as the reference
test methods, the mass emission rate of PM-10 shall be determined by
first adding the PM-10 concentrations from Methods 201/201A and 202,
and then multiplying by the average hourly volumetric flow rate for the
run.
(B) The average of the three required runs shall be compared to the
emission standard for purposes of determining compliance.
(viii) Two of the three runs from a source test of each Medusa-
Andersen stack on the furnace building (Table 1 of this section,
sources 18d, 18e, 18f, and 18g) shall include at least 20 minutes of
slag tapping and a third run
[[Page 51438]]
shall include at least 20 minutes of metal tapping.
(ix) At least one of the three runs from a source test of the
excess CO burner (Table 1 of this section, source 26b) shall be
conducted during either a mini-flush or hot-flush that lasts for at
least 30 minutes.
(3) Method 5 shall be used in place of Method 201 or 201A for the
calciner scrubbers (Table 1 of this section, source 9a) and any other
sources with entrained water drops. In such case, all the particulate
matter measured by Method 5 must be counted as PM-10, and the testing
shall be conducted in accordance with paragraph (d)(2) of this section.
(4) Method 5 may be used as an alternative to Method 201 or 201A
for a particular point source, provided that all of the particulate
measured by Method 5 is counted as PM-10 and the testing is conducted
in accordance with paragraph (d)(2) of this section.
(5)(i) An alternative reference test method or a deviation from a
reference test method identified in this section may be approved as
follows:
(A) The owner or operator of the Astaris-Idaho facility must submit
a written request to the Regional Administrator at least 60 days before
the performance test is scheduled to begin which includes the reasons
why the alternative or deviation is needed and the rationale and data
to demonstrate that the alternative test method or deviation from the
reference test method:
(1) Provides equal or improved accuracy and precision as compared
to the specified reference test method; and (2) Does not decrease the
stringency of the standard as compared to the specified reference test
method.
(B) If requested by EPA, the demonstration referred to in paragraph
(d)(5)(i)(A) of this section must use Method 301 in 40 CFR part 63,
appendix A to validate the alternative test method or deviation.
(C) The Regional Administrator must approve the request in writing.
(ii) Until the Regional Administrator has given written approval to
use an alternative test method or to deviate from the reference test
method, the owner or operator of the Astaris-Idaho facility is required
to use the reference test method when conducting a performance test
pursuant to paragraph (e)(1) of this section.
(6) For the purpose of submitting compliance certifications or
establishing whether or not a person has violated or is in violation of
any requirement of this section, nothing in this section shall preclude
the use, including the exclusive use, of any credible evidence or
information relevant to whether a source would have been in compliance
with applicable requirements if the appropriate performance or
reference test or procedure had been performed.
(e) Monitoring and additional work practice requirements. (1) The
owner or operator of the Astaris-Idaho facility shall conduct a
performance test to measure PM-10 emissions as follows:
(i) The owner or operator of the Astaris-Idaho facility shall
conduct a performance test to measure PM-10 emissions from each of the
following sources on an annual basis using the specified reference test
methods: east shale baghouse (Table 1 of this section, source 5a),
middle shale baghouse (Table 1 of this section, source 6a), west shale
baghouse (Table 1 of this section, source 7a), calciner cooler vents
(Table 1 of this section, source 10), north nodule discharge baghouse
(Table 1 of this section, source 12a), south nodule discharge baghouse
(Table 1 of this section, source 12b), proportioning building-east
nodule baghouse (Table 1 of this section, source 15a), proportioning
building-west nodule baghouse (Table 1 of this section, source 15b),
nodule stockpile baghouse (Table 1 of this section, source 16a), dust
silo baghouse (Table 1 of this section, source 17a), furnace building-
east baghouse (Table 1 of this section, source 18a), furnace building-
west baghouse (Table 1 of this section, source 18b), furnace #1, #2,
#3, and #4--Medusa-Andersen scrubbers (Table 1 of this section, sources
18d, 18e, 18f and 18g), coke handling baghouse (Table 1 of this
section, source 20a), and phos dock-Andersen scrubber (Table 1 of this
section, source 21a).
(A) The first annual test for each source shall be completed within
16 months of August 23, 2000. Subsequent annual tests shall be
completed within 12 months of the most recent previous test.
(B) If, after conducting annual source tests for a particular
source for two consecutive years, the emissions from that source are
less than 80% of the applicable emission limit, then the frequency of
source testing for that source may be reduced to every other year. The
frequency of source testing shall revert to annually if the emissions
from any source test on the source are greater than or equal to 80% of
the applicable emission limit.
(ii) The owner or operator of the Astaris-Idaho facility shall
conduct a performance test to measure PM-10 emissions from the calciner
scrubbers (Table 1 of this section, source 9a) and the excess CO burner
(Table 1 of this section, source 26b) on a semi-annual basis using the
specified reference test methods.
(A) The first semi-annual performance test for each source shall be
conducted within 90 days after the date on which the PM-10 emission
limitations become applicable to the source. Subsequent semi-annual
tests shall be completed within 6 months of the most recent previous
test.
(B) If, after conducting semi-annual source tests for the calciners
or the excess CO burner for two consecutive years, the emissions from
that source during each of the four previous consecutive semi-annual
tests are less than 80% of the applicable emission limit, then the
frequency of source testing for the source may be reduced to annual
testing. The frequency of source testing shall revert to semi-annually
if the emissions from any source test on the source are greater than or
equal to 80% of the applicable emission limit.
(iii) The owner or operator of the Astaris-Idaho facility shall
conduct a performance test to determine the control efficiency of the
calciner scrubbers (Table 1 of this section, source 9a) and the excess
CO burner (Table 1 of this section, source 26b) using the specified
reference test methods as follows:
(A) A performance test for the calciner scrubbers shall be
conducted within 90 days after the date on which the PM-10 emission
limitations become applicable to the source.
(B) The first performance test for the excess CO burner shall be
conducted within 90 days after the date on which the PM-10 emission
limitations become applicable to the source. Subsequent semi-annual
tests shall be completed within 6 months of the most recent previous
test.
(C) If, after conducting semi-annual source tests for the excess CO
burner for two consecutive years, the emissions from that source during
each of the four previous consecutive semi-annual tests are less than
80% of the mass emission limit, then the frequency of source testing
for the control efficiency requirement for the excess CO burner may be
reduced to annual testing. The frequency of source testing shall revert
to semi-annually if the emissions from any source test on the source
are greater than or equal to 80% of the mass emission limit.
(iv) If a source test indicates an exceedence of the emission limit
applicable to the source, the owner or operator of the Astaris-Idaho
facility shall conduct a performance test of that source within 90 days
of the source test showing the exceedence. The schedule
[[Page 51439]]
for conducting future source tests shall not be affected by this
requirement.
(v) The time period for conducting any source test may be extended
by a period of up to 90 days provided that:
(A) The owner or operator of the Astaris-Idaho facility submits a
written request to the Regional Administrator at least 30 days prior to
the expiration of the time period for conducting the test which
demonstrates the need for the extension; and
(B) The Regional Administrator approves the request in writing.
(vi) The owner or operator of the Astaris-Idaho facility shall
provide the Regional Administrator a proposed test plan at least 30
days in advance of each scheduled source test. If the proposed test
plan is unchanged for the next scheduled source test on the source, the
owner or operator of the Astaris-Idaho facility shall not be required
to resubmit a source test plan. Astaris-Idaho shall submit a new source
test plan to EPA in accordance with this paragraph (e)(1) if the
proposed test plan will be different from the immediately preceding
source test plan that had been submitted to EPA.
(vii) The owner or operator of the Astaris-Idaho facility shall
provide the Regional Administrator at least 30 days prior written
notice of any performance test required under this section to afford
the Regional Administrator the opportunity to have an observer present.
If after 30 days notice for an initially scheduled performance test,
there is a delay (due to operational problems, etc.) in conducting the
scheduled performance test, the owner or operator of the Astaris-Idaho
facility shall notify the Regional Administrator as soon as possible of
any delay in the original test date, either by providing at least 7
days prior notice of the rescheduled date of the performance test or by
arranging a rescheduled date with the Regional Administrator by mutual
agreement.
(viii)(A) The owner or operator of the Astaris-Idaho facility shall
provide, or cause to be provided, performance testing facilities as
follows:
(1) Sampling ports adequate for test methods applicable to the
source. This includes:
(i) Constructing any new or modified air pollution control system
such that volumetric flow rates and pollutant emission rates can be
accurately determined by the applicable test methods and procedures;
and
(ii) Except with respect to the calciner scrubber stacks (Table 1
of this section, source 9a), providing a stack or duct free of cyclonic
flow during performance tests, as demonstrated by applicable test
methods and procedures.
(2) Safe sampling platforms.
(3) Safe access to sampling platforms.
(4) Utilities for sampling and testing equipment.
(B) A modification to these requirements can be approved with
respect a particular source provided that:
(1) The owner or operator of the Astaris-Idaho facility submits a
written request to the Regional Administrator which demonstrates the
need for the modification; and
(2) The Regional Administrator approves the request in writing.
(ix) During each test run and for at least two hours prior to the
test and two hours after the test is completed, the owner or operator
of the Astaris-Idaho facility shall monitor and record the parameters
specified in paragraphs (e)(2), (e)(3), (e)(4), (e)(5), and (e)(6) of
this section, as appropriate, for the source being tested, and shall
report the results to EPA as part of the performance test report
referred to in paragraph (g)(3)(i)(G) of this section.
(x) The owner or operator of the Astaris-Idaho facility shall
conduct a 12 minute visible emission observation using Method 9 of 40
CFR Part 60, appendix A, at least twice during the performance test at
an interval of no less than one hour apart, and shall report the
results of this observation to EPA as part of the performance test
report referred to in paragraph (g)(3)(i)(G) of this section.
(xi) Concurrently with the performance testing, the owner or
operator of the Astaris-Idaho facility shall measure the flow rate
(throughput to the control device) using Method 2 of 40 CFR Part 60,
appendix A, for the calciner scrubbers (Table 1 of this section, source
9a) and the phos dock Andersen scrubber (Table 1 of this section,
source 21a) and shall report the results to EPA as part of the
performance test report referred to in paragraph (g)(3)(i)(G) of this
section.
(2) The owner or operator of the Astaris-Idaho facility shall
install, calibrate, maintain, and operate in accordance with the
manufacturer's specifications a device to continuously measure and
continuously record the pressure drop across the baghouse for each of
the following sources identified in Column II of Table I: east shale
baghouse (Table 1 of this section, source 5a), middle shale baghouse
(Table 1 of this section, source 6a), west shale baghouse (Table 1 of
this section, source 7a), north nodule discharge baghouse (Table 1 of
this section, source 12a), north reclaim baghouse (Table 1 of this
section, source 13), south nodule discharge baghouse (Table 1 of this
section, source 12b), proportioning building-east nodule baghouse
(Table 1 of this section, source 15a), proportioning building-west
nodule baghouse (Table 1 of this section, source 15b), nodule stockpile
baghouse (Table 1 of this section, source 16a), dust silo baghouse
(Table 1 of this section, source 17a), furnace building-east baghouse
(Table 1 of this section, source 18a), furnace building-west baghouse
(Table 1 of this section, source 18b), and coke handling baghouse
(Table 1 of this section, source 20a).
(i) The devices shall be installed and fully operational no later
than 210 days after August 23, 2000.
(ii) Upon EPA approval of the acceptable range of baghouse pressure
drop for each source, as provided in paragraph (g)(1) of this section,
the owner or operator of the Astaris-Idaho facility shall maintain and
operate the source to stay within the approved range. Until EPA
approval of the acceptable range of baghouse pressure drop for each
source, the owner or operator of the Astaris-Idaho facility shall
maintain and operate the source to stay within the proposed range for
that source, as provided in paragraph (g)(1) of this section.
(iii) If an excursion from an approved range occurs, the owner or
operator of the Astaris-Idaho facility shall immediately upon
discovery, but no later than within three hours of discovery, initiate
corrective action to bring source operation back within the approved
range.
(iv) The owner or operator of the Astaris-Idaho facility shall
complete the corrective action as expeditiously as possible.
(3) The owner or operator of the Astaris-Idaho facility shall
install, calibrate, maintain, and operate in accordance with the
manufacture's specifications and the bag leak detection guidance a
triboelectric monitor to continuously monitor and record the readout of
the instrument response for each of the following sources identified in
Column II of Table 1 to this section: east shale baghouse (Table 1 of
this section, source 5a), middle shale baghouse (Table 1 of this
section, source 6a), west shale baghouse (Table 1 of this section,
source 7a), north nodule discharge baghouse (Table 1 of this section,
source 12a), south nodule discharge baghouse (Table 1 of this section,
source 12b), north reclaim baghouse (Table 1 of this section, source
13), proportioning building-east nodule baghouse (Table 1 of this
section, source 15a), proportioning building-west nodule baghouse
(Table 1 of this section, source 15b), nodule stockpile baghouse (Table
1 of this section, source
[[Page 51440]]
16a), dust silo baghouse (Table 1 of this section, source 17a), furnace
building-east baghouse (Table 1 of this section, source 18a), furnace
building-west baghouse (Table 1 of this section, source 18b), and coke
handling baghouse (Table 1 of this section, source 20a).
(i) The triboelectric monitors shall be installed and fully
operational no later than 210 days after August 23, 2000.
(ii) The owner or operator of the Astaris-Idaho facility shall
maintain and operate the source to stay within the approved range. For
the triboelectric monitors, the ``approved range'' shall be defined as
operating the source so that an ``alarm,'' as defined in and as
determined in accordance with the bag leak detection guidance, does not
occur.
(iii) If an excursion from an approved range occurs, the owner or
operator of the Astaris-Idaho facility shall immediately upon
discovery, but no later than within three hours of discovery, initiate
corrective action to bring source operation back within the approved
range.
(iv) The owner or operator of the Astaris-Idaho facility shall
complete the corrective action as expeditiously as possible.
(4) The owner or operator of the Astaris-Idaho facility shall
install, calibrate, maintain, and operate in accordance with the
manufacturer's specifications, a device to continuously measure and
continuously record the pressure drop across the scrubber and the
scrubber liquor flowrate for each of the calciner scrubbers (Table 1 of
this section, source 9a).
(i) The devices for the calciner scrubbers (Table 1 of this
section, source 9a) shall be installed and fully operational on or
before December 1, 2000.
(ii) Upon EPA approval of the acceptable range of pressure drop,
scrubber liquor flow rate, and scrubber liquor pH for the calciner
scrubbers, as provided in paragraph (g)(1) of this section, the owner
or operator of the Astaris-Idaho facility shall maintain and operate
the source to stay within the approved range. Until EPA approval of the
acceptable ranges for each source, the owner or operator of the
Astaris-Idaho facility shall maintain and operate the calciner
scrubbers to stay within the proposed range for that source, as
provided in paragraph (g)(1) of this section.
(iii) If an excursion from an approved range occurs, Astaris-Idaho
shall immediately upon discovery, but no later than within three hours
of discovery, initiate corrective action to bring calciner scrubber
operation back within the approved range.
(iv) The owner or operator of the Astaris-Idaho facility shall
complete the corrective action as expeditiously as possible.
(5) The owner or operator of the Astaris-Idaho facility shall
install, calibrate, maintain, and operate in accordance with the
manufacturer's specifications, a device to continuously measure and
continuously record the pressure drop across the scrubber for each of
the following sources identified in Column II of Table 1 to this
section: furnaces #1, #2, #3 and #4--Medusa-Andersen scrubbers (Table 1
of this section, sources 18d, 18e, 18f and 18g), phos dock Andersen
scrubber (Table 1 of this section, source 21a), and excess CO burner--
Andersen scrubber (Table 1 of this section, source 26b).
(i) The device for furnaces #1, #2, #3 and #4--Medusa-Andersen
scrubbers (Table 1 of this section, sources 18d, 18e, 18f and 18g) and
the phos dock Andersen scrubber (Table 1 of this section, source 21a)
shall be installed and fully operational no later than 210 days after
August 23, 2000. The device for the excess CO burner (Table 1 of this
section, source 26b) shall be installed and fully operational no later
than January 1, 2001.
(ii) Upon EPA approval of the acceptable range of scrubber pressure
drop for each source, as provided in paragraph (g)(1) of this section,
the owner or operator of the Astaris-Idaho facility shall maintain and
operate the source to stay within the approved range. Until EPA
approval of the acceptable ranges of scrubber pressure drop for each
source, the owner or operator of the Astaris-Idaho facility shall
maintain and operate the source to stay within the proposed range for
that source, as provided in paragraph (g)(1) of this section.
(iii) If an excursion from an approved range occurs, the owner or
operator of the Astaris-Idaho facility shall immediately upon
discovery, but no later than within three hours of discovery, initiate
corrective action to bring source operation back within the approved
range.
(iv) The owner or operator of the Astaris-Idaho facility shall
complete the corrective action as expeditiously as possible.
(6) The owner or operator of the Astaris-Idaho facility shall
develop and implement a written plan for monitoring the scrubber water
quality (through a parameter(s) such as total dissolved solids, total
suspended solids, conductivity, specific gravity, etc) on a daily basis
for the following sources: calciner scrubbers (Table 1 of this section,
source 9a) and furnace #1, #2, #3 and #4--Medusa-Andersen scrubbers
(Table 1 of this section, sources 18d, 18e, 18f and 18g).
(i) The plan for furnaces #1, #2, #3 and #4--Medusa-Andersen
scrubbers (Table 1 of this section, sources 18d, 18e, 18f and 18g)
shall be submitted to the Regional Administrator within 180 days after
September 22, 2000. The plan for the calciner scrubbers (Table 1 of
this section, source 9a) shall submitted to the Regional Administrator
no later than December 1, 2000.
(ii) Upon EPA approval of the acceptable parameter range for water
quality for each source, as provided in paragraph (g)(1) of this
section, the owner or operator of the Astaris-Idaho facility shall
maintain and operate the source to stay within the approved range.
Until EPA approval of the acceptable range of water quality for each
source, the owner or operator of the Astaris-Idaho facility shall
maintain and operate the source to stay within the proposed range for
that source, as provided in paragraph (g)(1) of this section.
(iii) If an excursion from an approved range occurs, the owner or
operator of the Astaris-Idaho facility shall immediately upon
discovery, but no later than within three hours of discovery, initiate
corrective action to bring source operation back within the approved
range.
(iv) The owner or operator of the Astaris-Idaho facility shall
complete the corrective action as expeditiously as possible.
(7) For each of the pressure relief vents on the furnaces (Table 1
of this section, source 24), Astaris-Idaho shall install, calibrate,
maintain, and operate in accordance with the manufacturer's
specifications, devices to continuously measure and continuously record
the temperature and pressure of gases in the relief vent downstream of
the pressure relief valve and the water level of the pressure relief
valve.
(i) The devices shall be installed and fully operational no later
than 90 days after August 23, 2000.
(ii) A ``pressure release'' is defined as an excursion of the
temperature, pressure, or water level outside of the parameters
approved in accordance with paragraph (g)(1) of this section. Until EPA
approval of the acceptable range of parameters for the pressure release
vents, a ``pressure release'' is defined as an excursion of the
temperature, pressure, or water level outside of the parameters
proposed by the owner or operator of the Astaris-Idaho facility for the
pressure relief vents, as provided in paragraph (g)(1) of this section.
[[Page 51441]]
(iii) The release point on each pressure relief vent shall be
maintained at no less than 18 inches of water.
(iv) When a pressure release through a pressure relief vent is
detected, the owner or operator of the Astaris-Idaho facility shall,
within 30 minutes of the beginning of the pressure release, inspect the
pressure relief valve to ensure that it has properly sealed and verify
that at least 18 inches of water seal pressure is maintained.
(8) The owner or operator of the Astaris-Idaho facility shall
develop and implement a written O&M plan covering all sources of PM-10
at the Astaris-Idaho facility, including without limitation, each
source identified in Column II of Table 1 of this section and
uncaptured fugitive and general fugitive emissions of PM-10 from each
source.
(i) The purpose of the O&M plan is to ensure each source at the
Astaris-Idaho facility will be operated and maintained consistent with
good air pollution control practices and procedures for maximizing
control efficiency and minimizing emissions at all times, including
periods of startup, shutdown, emergency, and malfunction, and to
establish procedures for assuring continuous compliance with the
emission limitations, work practice requirements, and other
requirements of this section.
(ii) The O&M plan shall be submitted to the Regional Administrator
within 60 days of September 22, 2000 and shall cover all sources and
requirements for which compliance is required 90 days after August 23,
2000.
(A) A revision to the O&M plan covering each source or requirement
with a compliance date of more than 60 days after September 22, 2000
shall be submitted at least 60 days before the source is required to
comply with the requirement.
(B) The owner or operator of the Astaris-Idaho facility shall
review and, as appropriate, update the O&M plan at least annually.
(C) The Regional Administrator may require the owner or operator of
the Astaris-Idaho facility to modify the plan if, at any time, the
Regional Administrator determines that the O&M plan does not:
(1) Adequately ensure that each source at the Astaris-Idaho
facility will be operated and maintained consistent with good air
pollution control practices and procedures for maximizing control
efficiency and minimizing emissions at all times;
(2) Contain adequate procedures for assuring continuous compliance
with the emission limitations, work practice requirements, and other
requirements of this section;
(3) Adequately address the topics identified in this paragraph
(e)(8); or
(4) Include sufficient mechanisms for ensuring that the O&M plan is
being implemented.
(iii) The O&M plan shall address at least the following topics:
(A) Procedures for minimizing fugitive PM-10 emissions from
material handling, storage piles, roads, staging areas, parking lots,
mechanical processes, and other processes, including but not limited
to:
(1) A visual inspection of all material handling, storage piles,
roads, staging areas, parking lots, mechanical processes, and other
processes at least once each week at a regularly scheduled time. The
O&M plan shall include a list of equipment, operations, and storage
piles, and what to look for at each source during this regularly
scheduled inspection.
(2) A requirement to document the time, date, and results of each
visual inspection, including any problems identified and any corrective
actions taken.
(3) A requirement to take corrective action as soon as possible but
no later than within 48 hours of identification of operations or
maintenance problems identified during the visual inspection (unless a
shorter time frame is specified by this rule or is warranted by the
nature of the problem).
(4) Procedures for the application of dust suppressants to and the
sweeping of material from storage piles, roads, staging areas, parking
lots, or any open area as appropriate to maintain compliance with
applicable emission limitations or work practice requirements. Such
procedures shall include the specification of dust suppressants, the
application rate, and application frequency, and the frequency of
sweeping. Such procedures shall also include the procedures for
application of latex to the main shale pile (source 2) and the
emergency/contingency raw ore shale pile (source 3) after each
reforming of the pile or portion of the pile.
(B) Specifications for parts or elements of control or process
equipment needing replacement after some set interval prior to
breakdown or malfunction.
(C) Process conditions that indicate need for repair, maintenance
or cleaning of control or process equipment, such as the need to open
furnace access ports or holes.
(D) Procedures for the visual inspection of all baghouses,
scrubbers, and other control equipment of at least once each week at a
regularly scheduled time.
(E) Procedures for the regular maintenance of control equipment,
including without limitation, procedures for the rapid identification
and replacement of broken or ripped bags for all sources controlled by
a baghouse, bag dimensions, bag fabric, air-to-cloth ratio, bag
cleaning methods, cleaning type, bag spacing, compartment design, bag
replacement schedule, and typical exhaust gas volume.
(F) Procedures that meet or exceed the manufacturer's
recommendations for the inspection, maintenance, operation, and
calibration of each monitoring device required by this part.
(G) Procedures for the rapid identification and repair of equipment
or processes causing a malfunction or emergency and for reducing or
minimizing the duration of and emissions resulting from any malfunction
or emergency.
(H) Procedures for the training of staff in procedures listed in
paragraph (e)(8)(i) of this section.
(I) For each source identified in Column II of Table 2 to this
section, additional control measures or other actions to be taken if
the emissions from the source exceed the opacity action level
identified in Column III of Table 2 to this section.
(9) For each source identified in Column II of Table 1 to this
section, the owner or operator of the Astaris-Idaho facility shall
conduct a visual observation of each source at least once during each
calendar week.
(i) If visible emissions are observed for any period of time during
the observation period, the owner or operator of the Astaris-Idaho
facility shall immediately, but no later than within 24 hours of
discovery, take corrective action to minimize visible emissions from
the source. Such actions shall include, but not be limited to, those
actions identified in the O&M plan for the source. Immediately upon
completion of the corrective action, a certified observer shall conduct
a visible emissions observation of the source using the reference test
method for the opacity limit with an observation duration of at least
six minutes. If opacity exceeds the opacity action level, the owner or
operator of the Astaris-Idaho facility shall take prompt corrective
action. This process shall be repeated until opacity returns to below
the opacity action level.
(ii) In lieu of the periodic visual observation under this
paragraph (e)(9), the owner or operator of the Astaris-Idaho facility
may conduct a visible
[[Page 51442]]
emission observation of any source subject to the requirements of this
paragraph (e)(9) using the reference test method for the opacity limit,
in which case corrective action must be taken only if opacity exceeds
the opacity action level.
(iii) Should, for good cause, the visible emissions reading not be
conducted on schedule, the owner or operator of the Astaris-Idaho
facility shall record the reason observations were not conducted.
Visible emissions observations shall be conducted immediately upon the
return of conditions suitable for visible emissions observations.
(iv) If, after conducting weekly visible emissions observations for
a given source for more than one year and detecting no visible
emissions from that source for 52 consecutive weeks, the frequency of
observations may be reduced to monthly. The frequency of observations
for such source shall revert to weekly if visible emissions are
detected from that source during any monthly observation or at any
other time.
(v) With respect to slag handling (Table 1 of this section, source
8a):
(A) Visible emission observations shall be made of the slag tapping
area as viewed from the exterior of the furnace building and in the
general area of the old slag pits;
(B) For the first three months after the effective date of the
opacity limit, the owner or operator of the Astaris-Idaho facility
shall conduct a visual observation of this source three days each week
and shall submit the results of such observations at the end of the
three month time frame. Thereafter, such observations shall be
conducted weekly or as otherwise provided in this paragraph (e)(9).
(10) Except for, as applicable, monitoring malfunctions, associated
repairs, and required quality assurance or control activities
(including, as applicable, calibration checks and required zero span
adjustments), the owner or operator of the Astaris-Idaho facility shall
conduct all monitoring with the monitoring devices required by
paragraphs (e)(2), (e)(3), (e)(4), (e)(5), (e)(6), and (e)(7) of this
section in continuous operation at all times that the monitored process
is in operation. Data recorded during monitoring malfunctions,
associated repairs, and required quality assurance or control
activities shall not be used for purposes of this section, including
data averages and calculations, or fulfilling a minimum data
availability requirement. The owner or operator of the Astaris-Idaho
facility shall use data collected during all other periods in assessing
the operation of the control device and associated control system.
(11) The minimum data availability requirement for monitoring data
pursuant to paragraphs (e)(2), (e)(3), (e)(4), (e)(5), (e)(6), and
(e)(7) of this section is 90% on a monthly average basis. Data
availability is determined by dividing the time (or number of data
points) representing valid data by the time (or number of data points)
that the monitored process is in operation.
(12) Nothing in this paragraph (e) shall preclude EPA from
requiring any other testing or monitoring pursuant to section 114 of
the Clean Air Act.
(f) Record keeping requirements. (1) The owner or operator of the
Astaris-Idaho facility shall keep records of all monitoring required by
this section that include, at a minimum, the following information:
(i) The date, place as defined in this section, and time of the
sampling or measurement.
(ii) The dates the analyses were performed.
(iii) The company or entity that performed the analyses.
(iv) The analytical techniques or methods used.
(v) The results of the analyses.
(vi) The operating conditions existing at the time of the sampling
or measurement.
(2)(i) The owner or operator of the Astaris-Idaho facility shall
keep records of all inspections and all visible emissions observations
required by this section or conducted pursuant to the O&M plan, which
records shall include the following:
(A) The date, place, and time of the inspection or observation.
(B) The name and title of the person conducting the inspection or
observation.
(C) In the case of a visible emission observation, the test method
(Method 9 or visual observation), the relevant or specified
meteorological conditions, and the results of the observation,
including raw data and calculations. In the case of visible emission
observations of slag handling (Table 1 of this section, source 8a), the
owner or operator of the Astaris-Idaho facility shall also document
whether visible emissions emanate from fuming of hot slag from pots or
other points in the old slag pit area.
(D) For any corrective action required by this section or the O&M
plan or taken in response to a problem identified during an inspection
or visible emissions observation required by this section or the O&M
plan, the time and date corrective action was initiated and completed
and the nature of corrective action taken.
(E) The reason for any monitoring not conducted on schedule.
(ii) With respect to control devices, the requirement of paragraph
(f)(2)(i) of this section is satisfied by meeting the requirements of
paragraph (f)(11) of this section.
(3) The owner or operator of the Astaris-Idaho facility shall
continuously record the parameters specified in paragraphs (e)(2),
(e)(3), (e)(4), (e)(5), and (e)(7) of this section, and shall record
the parameters specified in paragraphs (e)(6) of this section on the
frequency specified in the monitoring plan required under paragraph
(e)(6) of this section.
(4) The owner or operator of the Astaris-Idaho facility shall keep
records of all excursions from ranges approved under paragraph (e)(3)
or (g)(1) of this section, including without limitation, the measured
excursion, time and date of the excursion, duration of the excursion,
time and date corrective action was initiated and completed, and nature
of corrective action taken.
(5) The owner or operator of the Astaris-Idaho facility shall keep
records of:
(i) The time, date, and duration of each pressure release from a
furnace pressure relief vent (Table 1 of this section, source 24), the
method of detecting the release, the results of the inspection required
by paragraph (e)(7) of this section, and any actions taken to ensure
resealing, including the time and date of such actions; and
(ii) The time, date, and duration of the steaming and draining of
the pressure relief vent drop tank.
(6) The owner or operator of the Astaris-Idaho facility shall keep
records of the time, date, and duration of each flaring of the
emergency CO flares (Table 1 of this section, source 25) due to an
emergency, the method of detecting the emergency, and all corrective
action taken in response to the emergency.
(7) Until January 1, 2001, the owner or operator of the Astaris-
Idaho facility shall keep records of the date and start/stop time of
each mini-flush; the phossy water flow rate and outlet temperature
immediately preceding the start time; whether the operating parameters
for conducting the mini-flush set forth in paragraph (c)(5)(ii) of this
section were met; and, if the parameters were not met, whether the
failure to comply with the parameters was attributable to a malfunction
or emergency.
(8) The owner or operator of the Astaris-Idaho facility shall keep
records of the application of dust suppressants
[[Page 51443]]
to all storage piles, roads, staging areas, parking lots, and any other
area, including the purchase of dust suppressants, the identification
of the surface covered, type of dust suppressant used, the application
rate (gallons per square foot), and date of application.
(9) The owner or operator of the Astaris-Idaho facility shall keep
records of the frequency of sweeping of all roads, staging areas,
parking lots, and any other area, including the identification of the
surface swept and date and duration of sweeping.
(10) The owner or operator of the Astaris-Idaho facility shall keep
the following records with respect to the main shale pile (Table 1 of
this section, source 2) and emergency/contingency raw ore shale pile
(Table 1 of this section, source 3):
(i) The date and time of each reforming of the pile or portion of
the pile.
(ii) The date, time, and quantity of latex applied.
(11) The owner or operator of the Astaris-Idaho facility shall keep
a log for each control device of all inspections of and maintenance on
the control device, including without limitation the following
information:
(i) The date, place, and time of the inspection or maintenance
activity.
(ii) The name and title of the person conducting the inspection or
maintenance activity.
(iii) The condition of the control device at the time.
(iv) For any corrective action required by this section or the O&M
plan or taken in response to a problem identified during an inspection
required by this section or the O&M plan, the time and date corrective
action was initiated and completed, and the nature of corrective action
taken.
(v) A description of, reason for, and the date of all maintenance
activities, including without limitation any bag replacements.
(vi) The reason any monitoring was not conducted on schedule,
including a description of any monitoring malfunction, and the reason
any required data was not collected.
(12) The owner or operator of the Astaris-Idaho facility shall keep
the following records:
(i) The Method 9 initial certification and recertification for all
individuals conducting visual emissions observations using Method 9 as
required by this section.
(ii) Evidence that all individuals conducting visual observations
as required by this section meet the training guidelines described in
section 1 of Method 22, 40 CFR part 60, appendix A.
(13) The owner or operator of the Astaris-Idaho facility shall keep
records on the type and quantity of fuel used in the boilers (Table 1
of this section, source 23), including without limitation the date of
any change in the type of fuel used.
(14) The owner or operator of the Astaris-Idaho facility shall keep
records of the results of the daily monitoring of the water quality of
the scrubber water in the calciner scrubbers (Table 1 of this section,
source 9a) and the Medusa-Andersen furnace scrubbers (Table 1 of this
section, sources 18d, 18e, 18f, and 18g) as specified in the O&M plan.
(15) The owner or operator of the Astaris-Idaho facility shall keep
records of the time, date, and duration of each damper vent opening for
the furnace building east and west baghouses (Table 1 of this section,
sources 18a and 18b), the reason for the damper vent opening, and all
corrective action taken in response to the damper vent opening.
(16) The owner or operator of the Astaris-Idaho facility shall keep
a copy of all reports required to be submitted to EPA under paragraph
(g) of this section.
(17) All records required to be maintained by this section and
records of all required monitoring data and support information shall
be maintained on site at the Astaris-Idaho facility in a readily
accessible location for a period of at least five years from the date
of the monitoring sample, measurement, report, or record.
(i) Such records shall be made available to EPA on request.
(ii) Support information includes all calibration and maintenance
records and all original strip chart recordings for continuous
monitoring instrumentation.
(g) Reporting requirements. (1) The owner or operator of the
Astaris-Idaho facility shall submit to EPA, for each of the operating
parameters required to be continuously monitored pursuant to paragraphs
(e)(2), (e)(4), (e)(5), (e)(6), and (e)(7) of this section, a proposed
range of operation, including a proposed averaging period, and
documentation demonstrating that operating the source within the
proposed range will assure compliance with applicable emission
limitations and work practice requirements of this section.
(i) The proposed parameter ranges shall be submitted within 210
days of August 23, 2000, for all sources except as follows:
(A) A proposed parameter range for the pressure relief vents (Table
1 of this section, source 24) shall be submitted within 90 days of
August 23, 2000.
(B) Proposed parameter ranges for the calciner scrubbers (Table 1
of this section, source 9a) and the excess CO burner (Table 1 of this
section, source 26b) shall be submitted no later than the date by which
the emission limitations become applicable to those sources under this
section.
(ii) A parameter range for each source shall be approved by EPA
through the issuance of a title V operating permit to the Astaris-Idaho
facility, or as a modification thereto. Until EPA approval of the
acceptable range for a parameter for a source, the owner or operator of
the Astaris-Idaho facility shall maintain and operate the source to
stay within the proposed range for that source.
(iii) If EPA determines at any time that the proposed or approved
range does not adequately assure compliance with applicable emission
limitations and work practice requirements, EPA may request additional
information, request that revised parameter ranges and supporting
documentation be submitted to EPA for approval, or establish
alternative approved parameter ranges through the issuance of a title V
operating permit to the Astaris-Idaho facility, or as a modification
thereto.
(iv) This requirement to submit proposed parameter ranges is in
addition to and separate from any requirement to develop parameter
ranges under 40 CFR part 64 (Compliance Assurance Monitoring rule).
However, monitoring for any pollutant specific source that meets the
design criteria of 40 CFR 64.3 and the submittal requirements of 40 CFR
64.4 may be submitted to meet the requirements of this paragraph
(g)(1).
(2) The owner or operator of Astaris-Idaho shall submit to EPA a
bi-monthly report covering the preceding two calendar months (e.g.,
January-February, March-April). Such report shall be submitted 15 days
after the end of each two month period, with the last such report
covering the period of November and December 2000. The report shall
include the following:
(i) The date and start/stop time of each mini-flush; the phossy
water flow rate and outlet temperature immediately preceding the start
time; and a ``Yes/No'' column indicating whether the operating
parameters for conducting the mini-flush set forth in paragraph
(c)(5)(ii) of this section were met.
(ii) For any ``No'' entry, an indication of whether the failure to
comply with the parameters was attributable to a malfunction and, if
so, the date and time of notification to EPA of the malfunction and a
copy of the
[[Page 51444]]
contemporaneous record described in paragraph (c)(5)(ii) of this
section.
(iii) For each month, the total mini-flush time in minutes, the
number of operating days for the secondary condenser, and the average
minutes per operating day.
(3) The owner or operator of the Astaris-Idaho facility shall
submit to EPA a semi-annual report of all monitoring required by this
section covering the six month period from January 1 through June 30
and July 1 through December 31 of each year. Such report shall be
submitted 30 days after the end of such six month period.
(i) The semiannual report shall:
(A) Identify each time period (including the date, time, and
duration) during which a visible emissions observation or PM-10
emissions measurement exceeded the applicable emission limitation and
state what actions were taken to address the exceedence. If no action
was taken, the report shall state the reason that no action was taken.
(B) Identify each time period (including the date, time, and
duration) during which there was an excursion of a monitored parameter
from the approved range and state what actions were taken to address
the excursion. If no action was taken, the report shall state the
reason that no action was taken.
(C) Identify each time period (including the date, time, and
duration) during which there was an excursion above the opacity action
level and state what actions were taken to address the excursion. If no
action was taken, the report shall state the reason that no action was
taken.
(D) Identify each time period (including date, time and duration)
of each flaring of the emergency CO flares (Table 1 of this section,
source 25) due to an emergency and state what actions were taken to
address the emergency. If no action was taken, the report shall state
the reason that no action was taken.
(E) Identify each time period (including date, time and duration)
of each pressure release from a pressure relief vent (Table 1 of this
section, source 24) and state what actions were taken to address the
pressure release. If no action was taken, the report shall state the
reason that no action was taken.
(F) Include a summary of all monitoring required under this
section.
(G) Include a copy of the source test report for each performance
test conducted in accordance with paragraph (e)(1) of this section.
(H) Describe the status of compliance with this section for the
period covered by the semi-annual report, the methods or other means
used for determining the compliance status, and whether such methods or
means provide continuous or intermittent data.
(1) Such methods or other means shall include, at a minimum, the
monitoring, record keeping, and reporting required by this section.
(2) If necessary, the owner or operator of Astaris-Idaho shall also
identify any other material information that must be included in the
report to comply with section 113(c)(2) of the Clean Air Act, which
prohibits making a knowing false certification or omitting material
information.
(3) The determination of compliance shall also take into account
any excursions from the required parameter ranges reported pursuant to
paragraph (g)(3)(i)(B) of this section.
(ii) Each semi-annual report submitted pursuant to this paragraph
shall contain certification by a responsible official, as defined in 40
CFR 71.2, of truth, accuracy and completeness. Such certification shall
state that, based on information and belief formed after reasonable
inquiry, the statements and information in the documents are true,
accurate, and complete.
(4) The owner or operator of the Astaris-Idaho facility shall
notify EPA by telephone or facsimile within 48 hours of the beginning
of each flaring of the emergency CO flares (Table 1 of this section,
source 25) due to an emergency.
(5)(i) For emissions that continue for more than two hours in
excess of the applicable emissions limitation, the owner or operator of
the Astaris-Idaho facility shall notify EPA by telephone or facsimile
within 48 hours. A written report containing the following information
shall be submitted to EPA within ten working days of the occurrence of
the excess emissions:
(A) The identity of the stack and/or other source where excess
emissions occurred.
(B) The magnitude of the excess emissions expressed in the units of
the applicable emissions limitation and the operating data and
calculations used in determining the magnitude of the excess emissions.
(C) The time and duration or expected duration of the excess
emissions.
(D) The identity of the equipment causing the excess emissions.
(E) The nature and probable cause of such excess emissions.
(F) Any corrective action or preventative measures taken.
(G) The steps taken or being taken to limit excess emissions.
(ii) Compliance with this paragraph is required even in cases where
the owner or operator of the Astaris-Idaho facility does not seek to
establish an affirmative defense of startup, shutdown, malfunction, or
emergency under paragraphs (c)(8) or (c)(9) of this section.
(6) The owner or operator of Astaris-Idaho shall notify EPA if it
uses any fuel other than natural gas in the boilers (Table 1 of this
section, source 23) within 24 hours of commencing use of such other
fuel.
(7) All reports and notices submitted under this section shall be
submitted to EPA at the addresses set forth below: U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Region 10, State and Tribal Programs Unit, Re:
Astaris-Idaho FIP, Office of Air Quality, OAQ 107, 1200 Sixth Avenue,
Seattle, Washington 98101, (206) 553-1189, Fax: 206-553-0404.
(8) The owner or operator of the Astaris-Idaho facility shall
submit a copy of each report, notice, or other document submitted to
EPA under this section contemporaneously to the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes
at the following address: Shoshone-Bannock Tribes, Air Quality Program,
Land Use Department, P.O. Box 306, Fort Hall, Idaho, 83203, telephone
(208) 478-3853; fax (208) 237-9736. The owner or operator of the
Astaris-Idaho facility shall also provide contemporaneously to the
Tribes notice by telephone in the event notice by telephone is provided
to EPA under this section.
(h) Title V Permit. (1) Additional monitoring, work practice,
record keeping, and reporting requirements may be included in the title
V permit for the Astaris-Idaho facility to assure compliance with the
requirements of this section.
(2)(i) A requirement of paragraph (e), (f), or (g) of this section
may be revised through issuance or renewal of a title V operating
permit by EPA to the Astaris-Idaho facility under 40 CFR part 71 or
through a significant permit modification thereto, provided that:
(A) Any alternative monitoring, record keeping, or reporting
requirements that revise requirements of paragraphs (e), (f), or (g) of
this section:
(1) Are sufficient to yield reliable data from the relevant time
period that are representative of the source's compliance with the
requirements of paragraph (c) of this section; and
(2) Provide no less compliance assurance than the requirements of
paragraphs (e), (f), or (g) of this section that the alternative
requirements would replace.
[[Page 51445]]
(B) In the event the alternative monitoring, record keeping, or
reporting requirements are requested by the owner or operator of the
Astaris-Idaho facility, Astaris-Idaho's application for its title V
operating permit or significant permit modification must include:
(1) The proposed alternative monitoring, record keeping, or
reporting permit terms or conditions;
(2) The specific provisions of paragraphs (e), (f), or (g) of this
section the owner or operator of the Astaris-Idaho facility is seeking
to revise; and
(3) The supporting documentation to establish that the alternative
permit terms or conditions meet the requirements of paragraph
(h)(2)(i)(A) of this section.
(C) The draft and final title V operating permit or significant
permit modification identifies the specific provisions of paragraphs
(e), (f), or (g) of this section being revised;
(D) In the event a revision to paragraphs (e), (f), or (g) of this
section is accomplished through a significant modification to Astaris-
Idaho's title V operating permit, it is accomplished using the
significant permit modification procedures of 40 CFR part 71; and
(ii) Upon issuance or renewal of Astaris-Idaho's title V permit or
a significant permit modification thereto that revises a requirement of
paragraphs (e), (f), or (g) of this section, the revision shall remain
in effect as a requirement of this section not withstanding expiration,
termination, or revocation of Astaris-Idaho's title V operating permit.
(i) Compliance schedule. Except as otherwise provided in this
section, the owner or operator of the Astaris-Idaho facility shall
comply with the requirements of this section within 90 days of August
23, 2000.
Table 1 to Sec. 49.10711
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
III Emission
I Source No. II Source description limitations and work IV Reference test
practice requirements method
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1................................ Railcar unloading of Opacity shall not exceed Method 9.
shale (ore) into 10% over a 6 minute
underground hopper. average.
2................................ Main shale pile (portion Opacity shall not exceed
located on Fort Hall 10% over a 6 minute
Indian Reservation). average.
Latex shall be applied Method 9.
after each reforming of
pile or portion of pile.
3................................ Emergency/contingency raw Opacity shall not exceed Method 9.
ore shale pile. 10% over a 6 minute
average.
Latex shall be applied
after each reforming of
pile or portion of pile.
4................................ Stacker and reclaimer.... Opacity shall not exceed Method 9.
10% over a 6 minute
average.
5a............................... East shale baghouse...... a. Emissions shall not a. Methods 201/201A.
exceed 0.10 lb. PM-10/
hr (excluding
condensible PM-10).
Opacity shall not exceed Method 9.
10% over a 6 minute
average.
5b............................... East shale baghouse b. Opacity shall not b. Method 9.
building. exceed 10% over a 6
minute average from any
portion of the building.
6a............................... Middle shale baghouse.... a. Emissions shall not a. Methods 201/201A.
exceed 0.50 lb. PM-10/
hr (excluding
condensible PM-10).
Opacity shall not exceed Method 9.
10% over a 6 minute
average.
6b............................... Middle shale baghouse b. Opacity shall not b. Method 9.
building. exceed 10% over a 6
minute average from any
portion of the building.
6c............................... Middle shale baghouse c. Opacity shall not c. Method 9.
outside capture hood-- exceed 10% over a 6
fugitive emissions. minute average.
7a............................... West shale baghouse...... a. Emissions shall not a. Methods 201/201A.
exceed 0.50 lb. PM-10/
hr (excluding
condensible PM-10).
Opacity shall not exceed Method 9.
10% over a 6 minute
average.
7b............................... West shale baghouse b. Opacity shall not b. Method 9.
building. exceed 10% over a 6
minute average from any
portion of the building.
7c............................... West shale baghouse c. Opacity shall not c. Method 9.
outside capture hood-- exceed 10% over a 6
fugitive emissions. minute average.
8a............................... a. Slag handling: slag a. Until November 1, ........................
pit area and pot rooms. 2000, emissions from
the slag pit area and
the pot rooms shall be
exempt from opacity
limitations.
[[Page 51446]]
Effective November 1, Method 9.
2000, opacity of
emissions in the slag
pit area and from pot
rooms shall not exceed
10% over a 6 minute
average. Exemption:
Fuming of molten slag
in transport pots
during transport are
exempt provided the
pots remain in the pot
room for at least 3
minutes after the flow
of molten slag to the
pots has ceased.
See also 40 CFR ........................
49.10711(c)(4).
8b............................... b. Recycle material pile. b. Opacity shall not b. Method 9.
exceed 10% over a 6
minute average.
8c............................... c. Dump to slag pile..... c. Fuming of molten slag ........................
during dump to slag
pile shall be exempt
from opacity
limitations.
9a............................... Calciner scrubbers....... Effective December 1, Method 5 (all
2000: The calciner particulate collected
scrubbing chain (air shall be counted as PM-
pollution control 10) and Method 202 at
equipment) shall the scrubber outlet.
achieve an overall Method 201A and Method
control efficiency \1\ 202 at the inlet to the
of at least 90% for PM- scrubber systems.
10 (including
condensible PM-10) when
inlet loadings equal or
exceed 0.150 grains per
dry standard cubic foot.
The arithmetic average Method 5 (all
of the emission particulate collected
concentration from the shall be counted as PM-
four stacks associated 10).
with each calciner
shall not exceed 0.0080
grains per dry standard
cubic foot PM-10
(excluding condensible
PM-10) \2\.
The arithmetic average Method 5 (all
of the emission particulate collected
concentration from the shall be counted as PM-
four stacks associated 10) and Method 202 at
with each calciner the scrubber outlet.
shall not exceed 0.0180
grains per dry standard
cubic foot PM-10
(including condensible
PM-10) \2\.
Calciner scrubbers....... Total gas flow rate Method 2.
through any one outlet
stack shall not exceed
40,800 dry standard
cubic feet per minute.
The calciner scrubbers ........................
shall be exempt from
opacity limitations.
9b............................... Calciner traveling grate-- b. Opacity shall not Method 9.
fugitive emissions. exceed 10% over a 6
minute average.
10............................... Calciner cooler vents.... Emissions from any one Methods 201/201A.
calciner cooler vent
shall not exceed 4.40
lb. PM-10/hr (excluding
condensible PM-10).
Opacity shall not exceed Method 9.
10% over a 6 minute
average.
11............................... Nodule pile.............. Opacity shall not exceed Method 9.
20% over a 6 minute
average.
12a.............................. North nodule discharge a. Emissions shall not a. Methods 201/201A.
baghouse. exceed 0.20 lb. PM-10/
hr (excluding
condensible PM-10).
Opacity shall not exceed Method 9.
10% over a 6 minute
average.
12b.............................. South nodule discharge b. Emissions shall not b. Methods 201/201A.
baghouse. exceed 0.20 lb. PM-10/
hr (excluding
condensible PM-10).
Opacity shall not exceed Method 9.
10% over a 6 minute
average.
12c.............................. North and south nodule c. Opacity shall not c. Method 9.
discharge baghouse exceed 10% over a 6
outside capture hood-- minute average.
fugitive emissions.
[[Page 51447]]
13............................... Nodule reclaim baghouse.. a. Emissions shall not Methods 201/201A.
exceed 0.90 lb. PM-10/
hr (excluding
condensible PM-10).
Opacity shall not exceed Method 9.
10% over a 6 minute
average.
14............................... Screened shale fines pile Opacity shall not exceed Method 9.
adjacent to the West 20% over a 6 minute
shale building. average.
Proportioning building
15a.............................. a. East nodule baghouse.. a. Emissions shall not a. Methods 201/201A.
exceed 0.60 lb. PM-10/
hr (excluding
condensible PM-10).
Opacity shall not exceed Method 9.
10% over a 6 minute
average.
15b.............................. b. West nodule baghouse.. b. Emissions shall not b Methods 201/201A .
exceed 0.30 lb. PM-10/
hr (excluding
condensible PM-10).
Opacity shall not exceed Method 9
10% over a 6 minute
average.
15c.............................. c. Proportioning c. Opacity shall not c. Method 9.
building--fugitive exceed 10% over a 6
emissions. minute average from any
portion of the building.
16a.............................. Nodule stockpile baghouse a. Emissions shall not a. Methods 201/201A.
exceed 0.30 lb. PM-10/
hr (excluding
condensible PM-10).
Opacity shall not exceed Method 9.
10% over a 6 minute
average.
16b.............................. Nodule stockpile baghouse b. Opacity shall not b. Method 9.
outside capture hood-- exceed 10% over a 6
fugitive emissions. minute average.
17a.............................. Dust silo baghouse....... a. Emissions shall not a. Methods 201/201A.
exceed 0.150 lb. PM-10/
hr(excluding
condensible PM-10).
Opacity shall not exceed Method 9.
10% over a 6 minute
average.
17b.............................. Dust silo fugitive b. Opacity shall not b. Method 9.
emissions and pneumatic exceed 10% over a 6
dust handling system. minute average from any
portion of the dust
silo or pneumatic dust
handling system.
Furnace building
18a.............................. a. East baghouse......... a. Emissions shall not a. Methods 201/201A.
exceed 0.80 lb. PM-10/
hr (excluding
condensible PM-10).
Opacity shall not exceed Method 9.
10% over a 6 minute
average.
18b.............................. b. West baghouse......... b. Emissions shall not b. Methods 201/201A.
exceed 0.80 lb. PM-10/
hr (excluding
condensible PM-10).
Opacity shall not exceed Method 9.
10% over a 6 minute
average.
18c.............................. c. Furnace building; any c. Until April 1, 2002, c. Method 9.
emission point except opacity shall not
18a, 18b, 18d, 18e, 18f, exceed 20% over a 6
or 18g. minute average.
Effective April 1, 2002, Method 9.
opacity shall not
exceed 10% over a 6
minute average.
18d.............................. d. Furnace #1 Medusa- d, e, f, g: Emissions d, e, f, g: Methods 201/
Andersen. from any one Medusa- 201A.
Andersen stack shall
not exceed 2.0 lb/hr
(excluding condensible
PM-10).
18e.............................. e. Furnace #2 Medusa-
Andersen.
18f.............................. f. Furnace #3 Medusa- Opacity from any one Method 9.
Andersen. Medusa-Andersen shall
not exceed 10% over a 6
minute average.
18g.............................. g. Furnace #4 Medusa-
Anderson.
19............................... Briquetting building..... Opacity shall not Method 9.
exceed 10% over a 6
minute average from any
portion of the building.
20a.............................. a. Coke handling baghouse a. Emissions shall not a. Methods 201/201A.
exceed 1.70 lb. PM-10/
hr (excluding
condensible PM-10).
[[Page 51448]]
Opacity shall not exceed Method 9.
10% over a 6 minute
average.
20b.............................. b. Coke unloading b. Opacity shall not b. Method 9.
building. exceed 10% over a 6
minute average from any
portion of the coke
unloading building.
21a.............................. a. Phosphorous loading Emissions shall not a. Methods 201/201A.
dock (phos dock), exceed 0.0040 grains
Andersen Scrubber. per dry standard cubic
foot PM-10 (excluding
condensible PM-10).
Flow rate (throughput to Method 2.
the control device)
shall not exceed
manufacturer's design
specification.
Opacity shall not exceed Method 9.
10% over a 6 minute
average.
21b.............................. b. Phosphorous loading b. Opacity shall not b. Method 9.
dock--fugitive emissions. exceed 10% over a 6
minute average.
22............................... All roads................ Opacity shall not exceed Method 9.
20% over a 6 minute
average.
23............................... Boilers.................. Emissions from any one Methods 201/201A.
boiler shall not exceed
0.090 lb. PM-10/hr
(excluding condensible
PM-10).
Opacity from any one Method 9.
boiler shall not exceed
10% over a 6 minute
average.
24............................... Pressure relief vents.... Opacity shall not exceed Method 9.
10% over a 6 minute
average except:
(i) during a pressure ........................
release, as defined in
40 CFR
49.10711(e)(7)(ii),
which shall be exempt
from opacity limits;
and.
(ii) during steaming and ........................
draining of the
pressure relief vent
drop tank, which shall
occur no more than
twice each day, opacity
shall not exceed 20%
over a 6 minute average.
Pressure release point Inspection of pressure
shall be maintained at relief vent and
18 inches of water monitoring device
pressure at all times.
25............................... Furnace CO emergency Except during an Method 9.
flares. emergency flaring
caused by an emergency
as defined in 40 CFR
49.10711(b), opacity
shall not exceed 10%
over a 6 minute average.
Emissions during an ........................
emergency flaring
caused by an emergency
are exempt from opacity
limitations.
26a.............................. a. Existing elevated a. See 40 CFR ........................
secondary condenser 49.10711(c)(5).
flare and ground flare.
26b.............................. b. Excess CO burner (to b. Effective January 1, i. Methods 201/201A and
be built to replace the 2001: i. The control Method 202 for the
existing elevated efficiency \1\ of the inlet (sampling
secondary condenser air pollution control locations to be
flare and ground flare). equipment shall achieve determined). Method 201/
an overall control 201A (Method 5 if gas
efficiency of at least stream contains
95% for PM-10 condensed water vapor)
(including condensible and Method 202 for the
PM-10) when inlet outlet.
loadings equal or
exceed 0.50 grains per
dry standard cubic foot.
ii. Emissions from the ii. Method 201/201A
excess CO burner shall (Method 5 if gas stream
not exceed 24.0 lbs PM- contains condensed
10/hr (including water vapor) and Method
condensible PM-10). 202 for the outlet.
Effective January 1, Method 9.
2001, opacity shall not
exceed 10% over a 6
minute average.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The control efficiency (as a percentage) of the air pollution control equipment shall be determined by the
following equation:
CE (%)=100 {1-([Fho+Bho]/[Fhi+Bhi])}
[[Page 51449]]
Where CE is the control efficiency
Fhi is the front half emissions for the inlet
Bhi is the back half emissions for the inlet
Fho is the sum of the front half emissions from each stack for the outlet
Bho is the sum of the back half emissions from each stack for the outlet
Inlet and all outlet stacks to be sampled simultaneously for required testing.
The individual source tests for the inlet and outlet to the emission control system shall be conducted
simultaneously or within 3 hours of each other with the same operating conditions.
\2\ The individual source tests for the four stacks associated with each calciner shall be conducted
simultaneously or within 3 hours of each other with the same operating conditions.
Table 2 to Sec. 49.10711
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
III Opacity action IV Reference test
I Source No. II Source description level method
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1................................ Railcar unloading of Any visible emissions... Visual observation.
shale (ore) into
underground hopper.
2................................ Main shale pile (portion Any visible emissions... Visual observation.
located on Fort Hall
Indian Reservation).
3................................ Emergency/ contingency Any visible emissions... Visual observation.
raw ore shale pile.
4................................ Stacker and reclaimer.... Any visible emissions... Visual observation.
5a............................... East shale baghouse...... a. 5% over a 6 minute a. Method 9.
average.
5b............................... East shale baghouse b. Any visible emissions b. Visual observation.
building.
6a............................... Middle shale baghouse.... a. 5% over a 6 minute a. Method 9.
average.
6b............................... Middle shale baghouse b. Any visible emissions b. Visual observation.
building.
6c............................... Middle shale baghouse c. 5% over a 6 minute c. Method 9.
outside capture hood-- average.
fugitive emissions.
7a............................... West shale baghouse...... a. 5% over a 6 minute a. Method 9.
average.
7b............................... West shale baghouse b. Any visible emissions b. Visual observation.
building.
7c............................... West shale baghouse c. 5% over a 6 minute c. Method 9.
outside capture hood-- average.
fugitive emissions.
8a............................... a. Slag handling: slag a. Until November 1, Method 9.
pit area and pot rooms. 2000, emissions from
the slag pit area and
the pot rooms shall be
exempt from opacity
limits and opacity
action levels.
Effective November 1,
2000, the opacity
action level for this
source shall be 5% over
a 6 minute average.
Exemption: Fuming of
molten slag in
transport pots during
transport are exempt
from opacity limits and
opacity action levels
provided the pots
remain in the pot room
for at least 3 minutes
after the flow of
molten slag to the pots
has ceased.
8b............................... b. Recycle material pile. b. Any visible emissions b. Visual observation.
8c............................... c. Dump to slag pile..... c. Fuming of molten slag
during dump to slag
pile shall be exempt
from opacity limits and
opacity action levels.
9a............................... Calciner scrubbers....... a. The calciner
scrubbers shall be
exempt from opacity
limits and opacity
action levels.
9b............................... Calciner traveling grate-- b. 5% over a 6 minute
fugitive emissions. average.
10............................... Calciner cooler vents.... 5% over a 6 minute Method 9.
average.
11............................... Nodule pile.............. 10% over a 6 minute Method 9.
average.
12a.............................. North nodule discharge a. 5% over a 6 minute a. Method 9.
baghouse. average.
12b.............................. South nodule discharge b. 5% over a 6 minute b. Method 9.
baghouse. average.
12c.............................. North and south nodule c. 5% over a 6 minute c. Method 9.
discharge baghouse average.
outside capture hood--
fugitive emissions.
13............................... Nodule reclaim baghouse.. 5% over a 6 minute Method 9.
average.
14............................... Screened shale fines pile 10% over a 6 minute Method 9.
adjacent to the West average.
shale building.
Proportioning building...
15a.............................. a. East nodule baghouse.. a. 5% over a 6 minute a. Method 9.
average..
15b.............................. b. West nodule baghouse.. b. 5% over a 6 minute b. Method 9.
average.
[[Page 51450]]
15c.............................. c. Proportioning c. Any visible emissions c. Visual observation.
building--fugitive
emissions.
16a.............................. Nodule stockpile baghouse a. 5% over a 6 minute a. Method 9.
average.
16b.............................. Nodule stockpile baghouse b. 5% over a 6 minute b. Method 9.
outside capture hood-- average.
fugitive emissions.
17a.............................. Dust silo baghouse....... a. 5% over a 6 minute a. Method 9.
average.
17b.............................. Dust silo fugitive b. Any visible emissions b. Visual observation.
emissions and pneumatic
dust handling system.
Furnace building.........
18a.............................. a. East baghouse......... a. 5% over a 6 minute a. Method 9.
average.
18b.............................. b. West baghouse......... b. 5% over a 6 minute b. Method 9.
average.
18c.............................. c. Furnace building; any c. Until April 1, 2002, c. Method 9.
emission point except 10% over a 6 minute
18a, 18b, 18d, 18e, 18f, average.
or 18g.
Effective April 1, 2002, Method 9.
5% over a 6 minute
average.
18d.............................. d. Furnace #1 Medusa- d, e, f, g: 5% over a 6 d, e, f, g: Method 9.
Andersen. minute average.
18e.............................. e. Furnace #2 Medusa-
Andersen.
18f.............................. f. Furnace #3 Medusa-
Andersen.
18g.............................. g. Furnace #4 Medusa-
Anderson.
19............................... Briquetting building..... Any visible emissions... Visual observation.
20a.............................. a. Coke handling baghouse a. 5% over a 6 minute a. Method 9.
average.
20b.............................. b. Coke unloading b. Any visible emissions b.Visual observation.
building.
21a............................. Phosphorous loading dock a. 5% over a 6 minute Method 9.
(phos dock), Andersen average.
Scrubber.
21b.............................. b. Phosphorous loading b. 5% over a 6 minute b. Method 9.
dock--fugitive emissions. average.
22.............................. All roads............... 10% over a 6 minute Method 9.
average.
23.............................. Boilers.................. 5% over a 6 minute Method 9.
average.
24.............................. Pressure relief vents.... 5% over a 6 minute Method 9.
average.
25.............................. Furnace CO emergency Any visible emissions Visual observation.
flares. except during an
emergency flaring
caused by an emergency
as defined in 40 CFR
49.10711(b).
Emissions during an
emergency flaring
caused by an emergency
are exempt from opacity
limits and opacity
action levels.
26a............................. a. Existing elevated a. Exempt from opacity
secondary condenser limits and opacity
flare and ground flare. action levels.
26b............................. b. Excess CO burner (to 5% over a 6 minute Method 9.
be built to replace the average.
elevated secondary
condenser flare and
ground flare).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Secs. 49.10712-49.10730 [Reserved]
Secs. 49.10731-49.17810 [Reserved]
Appendix to Subpart M--Alphabetical Listing of Tribes and
Corresponding Sections
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Refer to the following sections in
Indian tribe subpart M
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Burns Paiute Tribe............. Secs. 49.9861-49.9890
Chehalis Reservation-- Secs. 49.9891-49.9920
Confederated Tribes of the.
Coeur d'Alene Tribe............ Secs. 49.9921-49.9950
Colville Reservation-- Secs. 49.9951-49.9980
Confederated Tribes of the.
Coos, Lower Umpqua and Suislaw Secs. 49.9981-49.10010
Indians--Confederated Tribes
of the.
Coquille Tribe................. Secs. 49.10011-49.10040
Cow Creek Band of Umpqua Secs. 49.10041-49.10100
Indians.
Grand Ronde Community-- Secs. 49.10101-49.10130
Confederated Tribes of the.
Hoh Indian Tribe............... Secs. 49.10131-49.10160
[[Page 51451]]
Jamestown S'Klallam Tribe...... Secs. 49.10161-49.10190
Kalispel Indian Community...... Secs. 49.10191-49.10220
Klamath Indian Tribe........... Secs. 49.10221-49.10250
Kootenai Tribe................. Secs. 49.10251-49.10280
Lower Elwah Tribal Community... Secs. 49.10281-49.10310
Lummi Tribe.................... Secs. 49.10311-49.10340
Makah Indian Tribe............. Secs. 49.10341-49.10370
Muckleshoot Indian Tribe....... Secs. 49.10371-49.10400
Nez Perce Tribe................ Secs. 49.10401-49.10430
Nisqually Indian Tribe......... Secs. 49.10431-49.10460
Nooksack Indian Tribe.......... Secs. 49.10461-49.10490
Port Gamble Indian Community... Secs. 49.10491-49.10520
Puyallup Tribe................. Secs. 49.10521-49.10550
Quileute Tribe................. Secs. 49.10551-49.10580
Quinault Tribe................. Secs. 49.10581-49.10610
Samish Indian Tribe............ Secs. 49.10611-49.10640
Sauk-Suiattle Indian Tribe..... Secs. 49.10641-49.10670
Shoalwater Bay Tribe........... Secs. 49.10671-49.10700
Shoshone-Bannock Tribes of the Secs. 49.10701-49.10730
Fort Hall Indian Reservation.
Siletz Reservation-- Secs. 49.10731-49.10760
Confederated Tribes of.
Skokomish Indian Tribe......... Secs. 49.10761-49.10790
Snoqualmie Indian Tribe........ Secs. 49.10791-49.10820
Spokane Tribe.................. Secs. 49.10821-49.10850
Squaxin Island Tribe........... Secs. 49.10851-49.10880
Stillaquamish Tribe............ Secs. 49.10881-49.10920
Suquamish Indian Tribe......... Secs. 49.10921-49.10950
Swinomish Indians.............. Secs. 49.10951-49.10980
Tulalip Tribes................. Secs. 49.10981-49.11010
Umatilla Reservation-- Secs. 49.11011-49.11040
Confederated Tribes of the.
Upper Skagit Indian Tribe...... Secs. 49.11041-49.11070
Warm Springs Reservation-- Secs. 49.11071-49.11100
Confederated Tribes of the.
Yakama Indian Nation-- Secs. 49.11101-49.11130
Confederated Tribes and Bands
of the.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[FR Doc. 00-20727 Filed 8-22-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
![[logo] US EPA](http://www.epa.gov/epafiles/images/logo_epaseal.gif){kind=logo}