The Fertilizer Institute (TFI), in a Jan. 7 letter to the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, outlined three key issues of regulatory concern currently facing the fertilizer industry. These include the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) efforts to establish numeric nutrient criteria for Florida waters; EPA’s proposed Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) limit for nutrients in the Chesapeake Bay watershed; and EPA’s promulgation of regulations to control stationary source greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.
The letter from TFI President Ford West was sent in response to a December invitation from Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.), chairman of the committee, asking TFI to identify “existing and proposed regulations that have negatively impacted job growth in your members’ industry.” Issa noted in his Dec. 8 invitation to TFI that federal agencies promulgated some 43 major new regulations in fiscal 2010.
TFI referred to EPA’s Water Quality Standards for the State of Florida’s Lakes and Flowing Waters as a “highly controversial and precedent setting rule,” saying it “represents the first time EPA has attempted to displace a state’s efforts to manage nutrient impacts by establishing federal numeric nutrient criteria.” TFI said the rule “would have a devastating impact on Florida’s already fragile economy,” and warned in the letter that EPA has stated its intention to adopt a similar approach in the Chesapeake Bay and Upper Mississippi River Basin watersheds.
TFI also reiterated its criticism of the scientific data and methodologies used in formulating the Florida waters rule. TFI asked the committee to request that EPA conduct an independent economic analysis of the rule and commission a thorough scientific peer-review of the rule by its Science Advisory Board, and urged the committee to “withhold any funding for EPA to implement the rule” until both studies are completed and their results incorporated into the rule.
Regarding EPA’s efforts to regulate GHG emissions, TFI said its primary concerns focus on the GHG Mandatory Reporting Rule, the Prevention of Significant Deterioration Rule, and the Title V Greenhouse Gas Tailoring Rule. The first, according to TFI, is of concern in part because EPA has refused to remove from reporting requirements for ammonia and nitric acid production facilities the CO2 process emissions that are consumed on-site for urea production. “These process emissions are not released to the ambient air from the facility and their reporting exaggerates the GHG footprint for the facility,” TFI states in the letter.
TFI’s criticism of the PSD and Title V Greenhouse Gas Tailoring Rules centers on a number of issues, including what TFI claims is EPA’s “rewriting of the Clean Air Act” to tailor the rule’s applicability to larger GHG sources. TFI also states in the letter that there is a lack of clarity in terms of what manufacturers must do to meet these new regulations, and claims that EPA has provided no guidance on how controls will be implemented and what will constitute best available control technology (BACT).
“This rulemaking would primarily impact nitrogen and nitric acid production, but also impacts phosphate production to some extent,” TFI states in the letter. “While the BACT implementation process could result in substantial economic harm to TFI members, a robust economic analysis is not possible at this point given the lack of clarity and transparency thus far in the process.”
In its criticism of the Chesapeake Bay TMDL, TFI referred to the rule as “yet another attempt by the EPA to set precedent; this time by establishing a TMDL for an area that encompasses 64,000 square miles in seven jurisdictions.” TFI states in the letter that EPA failed to address concerns raised by industry during the Chesapeake Bay TMDL rulemaking process.
TFI states at the conclusion of the letter that the U.S. fertilizer industry provides high paying jobs in manufacturing plants, retail and wholesale businesses, and in related industries such as rail, barge, and truck transportation. “It is therefore critical that any legislative or regulatory actions do not jeopardize the domestic fertilizer industry, which is such a vital link in food production, food security, and the U.S. economy,” the letter says.