[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 140 (Tuesday, July 22, 1997)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 39120-39123]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-19213]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[MN44-01-7269a; FRL-5861-6]
Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Minnesota
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.
ACTION: Direct final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: In this action, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is
conditionally approving a revision to the Minnesota State
Implementation Plan (SIP) for the Saint Paul particulate matter (PM)
nonattainment area, located in Ramsey County Minnesota. The SIP was
submitted by the State for the purpose of bringing about the attainment
of the PM National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). The rationale
for the conditional approval and other information are provided in this
notice.
DATES: This ``direct final'' rule is effective September 22, 1997,
unless EPA receives adverse or critical comments by August 21, 1997. If
the effective date is delayed, timely notice will be published in the
Federal Register.
ADDRESSES: Written comments should be addressed to: Carlton Nash,
Chief, Regulation Development Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J),
United States Environmental Protection Agency, 77 West Jackson
Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. Copies of this SIP revision and
EPA's analysis are available for inspection during normal business
hours at the above address. (Please telephone Christos Panos at (312)
353-8328, before visiting the Region 5 office.)
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Christos Panos, Regulation Development
Section (AR-18J), Air Programs Branch, Air and Radiation Division,
United States Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West
Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604, Telephone Number (312) 353-
8328.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
Upon enactment of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, certain
areas were designated nonattainment for M and classified as moderate
under sections 107(d)(4)(B) and 188(a) of the amended Clean Air Act
(Act). See 56 FR 56694 (November 6, 1991) and 57 FR 13498, 13537 (April
16, 1992). A portion of the St. Paul area was designated nonattainment
thus requiring the State to submit SIP revisions by November 15, 1991,
satisfying the attainment demonstration requirements of the Act.
The State submitted SIP revisions and intended to meet these
requirements in 1991 and 1992. The enforceable element of the State's
submittals were administrative orders for nine facilities in the St.
Paul area. On February 15, 1994 at 59 FR 7218, EPA took final action to
approve Minnesota's submittals as satisfying the applicable
requirements for the St. Paul M nonattainment area. The EPA also made a
final determination pursuant to section 189(e) that secondary PM formed
from PM precursors does not contribute significantly to exceedances of
the NAAQS.
The EPA received a request from the Minnesota Pollution Control
Agency (MPCA) on February 9, 1996 to revise the PM SIP for Ramsey
County, Minnesota. The revision to the SIP is for the control of PM
emissions from certain sources located along Red Rock Road (Red Rock
Road Area), within the boundaries of Ramsey County. The SIP revision
request was reviewed for completeness based on the completeness
requirements contained in Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations,
part 51, appendix V. The EPA determined the submittal to be complete,
and notified the State of Minnesota in a May 6, 1996 letter from Valdas
Adamkus, EPA to Charles Williams, MPCA.
Red Rock Road Area. St. Paul has three ``pockets'' of M problems in
the nonattainment area: University Avenue/Mississippi Street, Childs
Road, and Red Rock Road. At the time of the original air dispersion
modeling and the SIP revision submittals (1992), MPCA staff believed
all culpable sources were accounted for and that the control strategies
demonstrated in the modeling and the Administrative Orders would be
adequate for the area to attain the PM NAAQS. However, exceedances have
been recorded between 1992 and 1995 at an ambient monitor located at
1303 Red Rock Road.
Two facilities on Red Rock Road have administrative orders that are
part of the 1992 M SIP: Commercial Asphalt, Inc. (a subsidiary of
Tiller Corporation), and North Star Steel Company. The MPCA believes
that these sources were not culpable for a major fraction of these M
exceedances (based upon microscopic analysis of the filters and wind
directions during the relevant days).
Since the original air quality dispersion modeling for the SIP was
completed, several small sources, whose activities did not require
permits, have located along Red Rock Road. Consequently, the changes in
land use has resulted in increased vehicle traffic on unpaved roads.
Because of the changing dynamics of the area, MPCA recognized that the
M SIP submitted in 1992 no longer accurately characterized the area.
After reviewing the data collected from air monitoring, site
visits, and meetings with sources in the area, MPCA staff concluded
that the changes along Red Rock Road are the cause of the recent
problems in the area, and not
[[Page 39121]]
because the former SIP was inadequate. The MPCA believes the original
SIP was adequate to attain the PM NAAQS at the time of the original
submittal. With the new information on Red Rock Road collected, MPCA
staff performed new dispersion modeling which showed that the control
strategies included in North Star Steel's and Commercial Asphalt's
Administrative Orders were still adequate. However, the MPCA recognizes
that changes which have occurred along Red Rock Road since the original
SIP was submitted necessitate revision to this area's SIP. Moreover,
the MPCA believes that the Red Rock Road area situation is an isolated
problem that does not affect the rest of the nonattainment area in St.
Paul. An ambient monitor located across from the Childs Road sources in
St. Paul has not shown any exceedances since before 1987. This monitor
is located approximately 1.5 miles from the monitor on Red Rock Road.
II. Evaluation of State's Submission
A. Evaluation of the State Administrative Orders
The modeling identified three facilities in the area that either
are, or could be, significant contributors to the current exceedances.
In order to bring the area into modeled attainment, two of these
facilities are required to commit to control measures to reduce their
PM emissions. The third facility is required to either quantify their
PM emissions to show that they can meet the NAAQS, or commit to control
measures to reduce their PM emissions. MPCA put these requirements into
Administrative Orders which were signed by St. Paul Terminals, Inc.,
AMG Resources Corporation, and Lafarge Corporation on February 2, 1996.
In addition, the State also hopes to further analyze other sources
outside of the 2 kilometer area from the ambient monitor, but within 4
kilometers. This is because there have been emission changes to some of
these sources and the State will need to evaluate whether emissions
from these sources cause additional concern for this nonattainment
area. Because of these changes, as well as potentially significant
changes by the other sources in the 4 kilometer area and other
revisions, an additional modeling analysis will be submitted by the
State to EPA.
St. Paul Terminals. St. Paul Terminals contributes significant
amounts of PM from truck traffic on its roads without the
implementation of controls. The Administrative Order for St. Paul
Terminals includes applying dust suppressant on unpaved roads and
pressure washing paved roads. However, St. Paul Terminals has committed
to implementing control measures on its property roads with a greater
control efficiency than the control measures assumed in the modeling.
The company chose to pave some previously unpaved areas, ``power wash''
with water all paved areas, and apply chemical dust suppressants
(salts) in the remaining unpaved areas. In addition, to prevent the
entrainment of fugitive dust from sediment tracked onto Red Rock Road,
the Company will pressure wash Red Rock Road to the extent that track
out of sediment from the facility can be seen on Red Rock Road.
AMG Resources Corporation. The PM emissions at the facility are
generated from three metal shredders. Particulate emissions are
controlled by cyclones, one for each shredder. The cyclone exhaust
gases are vented into the building and escape the building through two
wall vents with fans. The State initially assumed that all of the PM
emissions from the metal shredders (subsequently emitted through the
wall vents) are equal to that limited by Minnesota's Industrial Process
Rule (Minn. R.7011.0735). However, because AMG could not model
attainment with this emission rate, AMG Resources disputed the State's
assumption that the shredder wall vents emit the amount limited within
Minn. R. 7011.0735, and that all shredder emissions reach the outside
air. The State later assumed that the vents emit at a rate 10 percent
of the original assumption and issued an Administrative Order to AMG
Resources allowing them to conduct a performance stack test on the
shredders (in absence of any approved methods for testing the wall
vents), in order to prove that additional controls at the facility are
not needed. Performance testing of the shredder emissions has
subsequently been performed by AMG. A letter from MPCA to EPA, dated
May 20, 1997 states that MPCA has verified the test results showing
that AMG is able to meet the PM emission rate assumed in the State
attainment modeling. Because AMG has fulfilled the requirements of the
Administrative Order, MPCA has requested that the Administrative Order
for AMG be removed from the SIP submittal.
Lafarge Corporation. At the end of 1994, Lafarge Corporation
purchased Red Rock Road of Minnesota, Inc. The facility receives,
transfers, stores, and ships cement. The cement is received by river
barge, transferred to a hopper by crane and clamshell bucket, conveyed
into storage silos and storage dome, and shipped by truck. The PM
emission sources at Lafarge Corporation are five baghouses, fugitive
emissions from the transfer of the cement from the barge to the hopper,
and truck and car traffic on the paved industrial roads. The modeling
for Lafarge demonstrated that the operation of unloading cement from a
barge with a clamshell bucket could not demonstrate compliance with the
PM NAAQS. In addition, it is unclear if the five baghouses are in
compliance with the PM NAAQS without further testing (Lafarge has not
conducted performance testing to determine their emissions).
The Administrative Order requires the Company to: (1) Complete
installation of a pneumatic unloader in place of the clamshell bucket
by March 31, 1998; (2) operate the clamshell bucket in a prescribed
manner in the interim until the pneumatic unloader is operational; and
(3) submit revised modeling to MPCA which will include baghouse and
stack parameters for the pneumatic unloading system. The Order also
requires vendor certification and/or performance testing of all their
baghouses. When vendor certification and/or performance testing is
complete, Lafarge's Order will be revised to include specific limits
for the baghouses.
The pneumatic unloading system is assumed to be a much cleaner
system for unloading the barges. However, at the time of the submittal,
no system had been chosen, therefore, no emissions data was available
for the modeling analysis. Assumptions were made in the modeled
attainment demonstration regarding the distribution of emissions with
the pneumatic unloader installed, however, these will not be truly
representative of operating conditions after April 1, 1998. In the
interim, the administrative order requires the company to operate its
current clam-shell unloading system in accordance with prescribed
measures designed to reduce the amount of fugitive emissions. The
operating measures remain in effect until the pneumatic unloader is in
operation. However, this scenario was not modeled. Specific information
on dispersion characteristics associated with pneumatic unloader
operation will be available in early 1998. The MPCA has assumed that
the pneumatic unloader's fugitive PM emissions will be zero. However,
emissions from other points will change as a result of the unloader.
The MPCA will remodel the Red Rock Road area with the specific emission
information from Lafarge once it becomes available.
[[Page 39122]]
B. EPA Analysis of Air Quality Data Modeling and Results
The results from the modeling analysis preliminarily demonstrate
protection of the PM NAAQS. However, due to the lack of emission limits
and specific information regarding emission distribution at Lafarge
Corporation following the installation of the pneumatic unloader, EPA
is conditionally approving the attainment demonstration/SIP revision at
this time. Final approval will be conditioned upon EPA receiving a
subsequent modeled attainment demonstration taking into consideration
the sources which have experienced emission changes that may impact the
Red Rock Road attainment demonstration. A more detailed discussion of
the state's modeling analysis can be found in EPA's June 6, 1997
Technical Support Document.
C. Conditions and Commitments
The EPA has determined that the attainment demonstration for the
Red Rock Road portion of the Ramsey County PM nonattainment area is not
fully approvable at this time. As previously explained in this
document, the demonstration lacks specific emissions data related to
the operation of the pneumatic loading system to be installed by
Lafarge Corporation. This information will not be available until early
1998. However, EPA believes that the SIP submittal is adequate to be
approved on a conditional basis. When the emissions associated with the
installation of the pneumatic loading system are known, the
administrative order for Lafarge will be revised to reflect those
limits on specific emission units. Additionally, a new modeling
demonstration must be submitted reflecting the new limits as well as
additional changes identified in this document. This remodeling must be
submitted to EPA within 1 year of publication of the notice of
conditional approval for the Red Rock Road area SIP revision.
III. Final Action
The EPA is approving this SIP revision, based on the condition that
the State will submit a revised modeling demonstration which will
contain the corrections detailed in this notice within 12 months of
this final approval action. If the State fails to submit a SIP
revision, this conditional approval under section 110(k) will be
converted to a disapproval and the sanctions clock will begin. If the
State does not submit a SIP, and the EPA does not approve the SIP on
which the disapproval was based within 18 months of the disapproval,
the EPA must impose the sanctions under section 179 of the Act.
IV. Miscellaneous
A. Comment and Approval Procedure
The EPA is publishing this action without prior proposal because
the EPA views this as a noncontroversial amendment and anticipates no
adverse comments. However, in a separate document in this Federal
Register publication, the EPA is proposing to approve the SIP revision
should adverse or critical comments be filed. This action will be
effective on September 22, 1997, unless adverse or critical comments
concerning this action are submitted and postmarked by August 21, 1997.
If the EPA receives such comments, this action will be withdrawn before
the effective date by publishing a subsequent document that will
withdraw the final action. All public comments received concerning this
action will then be addressed in a subsequent final rule based on this
action serving as a proposed rule. The EPA will not institute a second
comment period on this action. Any parties interested in commenting on
this action should do so at this time. If no such comments are received
on this action, the public is advised that this action will be
effective on September 22, 1997.
B. Applicability to Future SIP Decisions
Nothing in this action should be construed as permitting, allowing
or establishing a precedent for any future request for revision to any
SIP. Each request for a revision to the SIP shall be considered
separately in light of specific technical, economic, and environmental
factors and in relation to relevant statutory and regulatory
requirements.
C. Executive Order 12866
This action has been classified as a Table 3 action for signature
by the Regional Administrator under the procedures published in the
Federal Register on January 19, 1989 (54 FR 2214-2225), as revised by a
July 10, 1995 memorandum from Mary Nichols, Assistant Administrator for
Air and Radiation. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has
exempted this regulatory action from E.O. 12866 review.
D. Regulatory Flexibility Act
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 600 et seq., the EPA
must prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis assessing the impact of
any proposed or final rule on small entities (5 U.S.C. 603 and 604).
Alternatively, under 5 U.S.C. 605(b), the EPA may certify that the rule
will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small
entities (see 46 FR 8709). Small entities include small businesses,
small not-for-profit enterprises, and governmental entities with
jurisdiction over populations of less than 50,000.
Conditional approvals under section 110 and subchapter I, part D of
the Act do not create any new requirements, but simply approve
requirements that the State is already imposing. Therefore, because the
Federal SIP-approval does not impose any new requirements, the EPA
certifies that it does not have a significant impact on small entities.
Moreover, due to the nature of the Federal-State relationship under the
Act, preparation of a regulatory flexibility analysis would constitute
Federal inquiry into the economic reasonableness of State action. The
Act forbids the EPA from basing its actions concerning SIPs on such
grounds. Union Electric Co. v. U.S. E.P.A., 427 U.S. 246, 256-66 (S.Ct.
1976); 42 U.S.C. section 7410(a)(2).
If the conditional approval is converted to a disapproval under
Section 110(k), based on the State's failure to meet the commitment, it
will not affect any existing State requirements applicable to small
entities. Federal disapproval of the State submittal does not affect
its State-enforceability. Moreover, the EPA's disapproval of the
submittal does not impose a new Federal requirement. Therefore, the EPA
certifies that such a disapproval will not have a significant impact on
a substantial number of small entities because it does not remove
existing State requirements, nor does it substitute a new Federal
requirement.
E. Unfunded Mandates
Under Section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
(``Unfunded Mandates Act''), signed into law on March 22, 1995, EPA
must prepare a budgetary impact statement to accompany any proposed or
final rule that includes a Federal mandate that may result in estimated
costs to State, local, or tribal governments in the aggregate; or to
the private sector, of $100 million or more. Under Section 205, EPA
must select the most cost-effective and least burdensome alternative
that achieves the objectives of the rule and is consistent with
statutory requirements. Section 203 requires EPA to establish a plan
for informing and advising any small governments that may be
significantly or uniquely impacted by the rule.
EPA has determined that the conditional approval action promulgated
does not include a Federal
[[Page 39123]]
mandate that may result in estimated costs of $100 million or more to
either State, local, or tribal governments in the aggregate, or to the
private sector. This Federal action approves pre-existing requirements
under State or local law, and imposes no new requirements. Accordingly,
no additional costs to State, local, or tribal governments, or to the
private sector, result from this action.
F. Submission to Congress and the General Accounting Office
Under 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A) as added by the Small Business
Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, EPA submitted a report
containing this rule and other required information to the U.S. Senate,
the U.S. House of Representatives and the Comptroller General of the
General Accounting Office prior to publication of the rule in the
Federal Register. This rule is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5
U.S.C. 804(2).
G. Petitions for Judicial Review
Under section 307(b)(1) of the Act, petitions for judicial review
of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for
the appropriate circuit by September 22, 1997. Filing a petition for
reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect
the finality of this rule for 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 52
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Particulate matter.
Dated: July 8, 1997.
Michelle D. Jordan,
Acting Regional Administrator.
Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations, chapter I, part 52, is
amended as follows:
PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401-7671q.
2. Section 52.1219 is amended by adding new paragraph (b) to read
as follows:
Sec. 52.1219 Identification of plan--Conditional Approval.
* * * * *
(b) On February 9, 1996, the State of Minnesota submitted a request
to revise its particulate matter (PM) State Implementation Plan (SIP)
for the Saint Paul area. This SIP submittal contains administrative
orders which include control measures for three companies located in
the Red Rock Road area--St. Paul Terminals, Inc., Lafarge Corporation
and AMG Resources Corporation. Recent exceedances were attributed to
changes of emissions/operations that had occurred at particular sources
in the area. The results from the modeling analysis submitted with the
Red Rock Road SIP revision, preliminarily demonstrate protection of the
PM National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). However, due to the
lack of emission limits and specific information regarding emission
distribution at Lafarge Corporation following the installation of the
pneumatic unloader, EPA is conditionally approving the SIP revision at
this time. Final approval will be conditioned upon EPA receiving a
subsequent modeled attainment demonstration with specific emission
limits for Lafarge Corporation, corrected inputs for Peavey/Con-Agra,
and consideration of the sources in the 2-4 km range which have
experienced emission changes that may impact the Red Rock Road
attainment demonstration.
[FR Doc. 97-19213 Filed 7-21-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
