[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 11 (Wednesday, January 18, 1995)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 3544-3546]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-1083]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[MN20-2-6751a; FRL-5135-7]
Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Minnesota
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.
ACTION: Direct final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: In this action, the United States Environmental Protection
Agency (USEPA) is granting direct final approval of proposed revisions
to Minnesota State Implementation Plan (SIP) for sulfur dioxide
(SO2) for the St. Paul Park area of Air Quality Control Region
131. The revisions were contained in a formal submittal dated December
11, 1992, and a formal amendment submitted on September 30, 1994.
USEPA's action is based upon a revision request which was submitted by
the State to satisfy the requirements of the Clean Air Act.
DATES: This action will be effective March 20, 1995, unless notice is
received by February 17, 1995, that someone wishes to submit adverse or
critical comments. If the effective date is delayed, timely notice will
be published in the Federal Register.
ADDRESSES: Written comments should be addressed to: William L.
MacDowell, Chief, Regulation Development Section, Air Enforcement
Branch (AE-17J), United States Environmental Protection Agency, 77 West
Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604.
Copies of the SIP revision request and USEPA's analysis are
available for public inspection during normal business hours at the
following addresses: United States Environmental Protection Agency,
Region 5, Air and Radiation Division, 77 West Jackson Boulevard (AE-
17J), Chicago, Illinois 60604; and Office of Air and Radiation (OAR),
Docket and Information Center (Air Docket 6102) room M1500, United
States Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M Street, SW., Washington,
DC 20460.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Randy Robinson, Air Enforcement
Branch, Regulation Development Section (AE-17J), United States
Environmental Protection, Region 5, Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 353-
6713.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Summary of State Submittal
On December 11, 1992, the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA)
submitted proposed revisions to its SIP for SO2 for the St. Paul
Park area of Air Quality Control Region 131. The submittal also
contained technical information to support demonstration and
maintenance of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for
SO2. On September 2, 1994 (59 FR 45653) the USEPA proposed to
disapprove the MPCA submittal based on several enforceability and
attainment demonstration issues. However, that notice also stated that
if the MPCA adequately addressed the concerns before the end of the 30-
day comment period, and if no other substantive, adverse comments were
received, USEPA would proceed with a direct final approval. On
September 30, 1994, the MPCA submitted a revised proposed SIP, along
with technical information, addressing the issues raised in the
proposed disapproval. The notice of proposed rulemaking (59 FR 45653)
contained a comprehensive discussion of the history of the submittal,
the attainment demonstration, the requirements of section 172 of the
CAA, 42 U.S.C. 7502, and the issues identified by USEPA concerning
enforceability and attainment demonstration aspects of the submittal.
This notice of direct final rulemaking will summarize the major items
of the submittal as well as provide information as to how the September
30, 1994, MPCA submittal addressed the issues identified in the
proposed rulemaking.
Background
The USEPA published the designation of AQCR 131 as a primary
nonattainment area for SO2 on March 3, 1978 (43 FR 8692). The MPCA
submitted a final SO2 plan on August 4, 1980. The USEPA published
its final rule approving and promulgating the Minnesota Part D SIP for
SO2 for AQCR 131 on April 8, 1981 (46 FR 20997). AQCR 131,
however, has not been redesignated to attainment. The promulgation of
the Stack Height Rule on July 8, 1985, required the MPCA to review
existing emission limitations to determine if any sources were affected
by the new Rule. The MPCA determined that Ashland Petroleum Company,
located in the St. Paul Park area of AQCR 131, would require additional
permit revisions due to modeled violations using the reduced creditable
stack heights.
In response to the modeled violations, the MPCA submitted a
proposed SIP revision for SO2 for the St. Paul Park area on
December 11, 1992. The submittal included an administrative order for
the Ashland Petroleum Company-St. Paul Park Refinery, in addition to
dispersion modeling and technical support intended to show that the
limits are sufficient to attain and maintain the NAAQS for SO2. A
subsequent revision, containing an amended administrative order for
Ashland Petroleum Company and additional technical support, was
submitted on September 30, 1994.
II. Submittal Review Summary
This section will provide a summary of USEPA's review of the
attainment demonstration and administrative order for Ashland Petroleum
Company. A more detailed description is contained in the notice of
proposed rulemaking (59 FR 45653) and in the technical support document
associated with this action.
Modeling Methodology
Section 172(c)(6) of the Clean Air Act requires that plan revisions
include enforceable emission limitations and other control measures,
means or techniques, necessary to provide for attainment of the
applicable NAAQS. The State submittal demonstrated attainment through
the use of air dispersion modeling. The primary guidance for such
demonstrations is the ``Guideline on Air Quality Models (Revised)''
(1986), Supplement A (1987), and Supplement B (1993), which specifies
the criteria for selection of dispersion models and for estimation of
emissions and other model inputs. In accordance with that guidance, the
dispersion modeling conducted for the administrative order in the
submittal was performed using the Industrial [[Page 3545]] Source
Complex Short-term (ISCST) model (version 90346) for calculation of the
3-hour, 24-hour, and annual average concentrations. The model used the
regulatory default option, urban mode 3 (McElroy-Pooler) dispersion
coefficients, one year of on-site meteorological surface data with
upper air data from St. Cloud, Minnesota, and receptors spaced at 100
meter intervals at areas of maximum predicted impact. The emissions
used in the modeling were based on the maximum emissions allowed at
each source. The modeled concentrations, plus monitored background
concentrations, showed attainment with the 3-hour, 24-hour, and annual
NAAQS.
Issue Resolution
As stated previously, several issues were identified in the
original December 1992 submittal. The issues were detailed in the
September 2, 1994, notice of proposed disapproval. The issues and how
they were addressed in the amended submittal sent to USEPA on September
30, 1994, are discussed below.
(1) The definition of 24-hour average was incorrect. It has been
revised to correctly define the 24-hour average as the quantity of
pollutant emitted during any 24 consecutive hours divided by 24.
(2) There was a discrepency between the modeling demonstration and
the administrative order as to the number of allowable hours during
which the Company is allowed to conduct decoking operations. The number
of allowable decoking hours in the administrative order was changed to
reflect what was used in the modeled attainment demonstration.
(3) The limit on hydrogen sulfide in the refinery gas of 162 parts
per million, as written in the original administrative order, did not
apply during periods of startup, shutdown, breakdown, maintenance and
repair of the fuel gas amine system, SRU1, SRU2, the tailgas recovery
unit (SCOT), the heavy distillate hydrotreater, and significant
decreases in hydrogen production. An USEPA concern was that allowing
these exemptions may jeopardize the SO2 standards since these
scenarios were not included in the attainment demonstration. The
amended administrative order removes all of the exemptions except for
regularly scheduled maintenance and repair of the tailgas recovery unit
and the amine regenerating unit. Air dispersion modeling, following the
modeling guidance, was conducted to demonstrate that the SO2 NAAQS
are not violated during these periods. This information was submitted
with the amended order that included revised emission limits and
recordkeeping requirements which are effective during these scheduled
maintenance and repair periods.
(4) A provision in the original administrative order stated that no
facility be allowed to operate if it experienced an unreasonable
breakdown freqency of control equipment. This provision was determined
to be unenforceable and was removed.
(5) The original administrative order stated that to the extent
that additional requirements were imposed upon the Company, the Company
shall comply with the more stringent requirements. This presented an
enforceability issue and the language was revised to read that the
Company shall also comply with the additional requirements.
(6) An issue was raised regarding air quality impacts when the
tailgas unit is bypassed. This issue was addressed through the
dispersion modeling conducted for the scheduled maintenance scenarios
discussed above. The modeling indicated that when the tailgas unit is
being bypassed, the standards are not violated. Recordkeeping
requirements remain in effect during these bypass periods and emissions
are monitored by continuous emission monitors.
(7) The amended administrative order revised a section title to
apply to sources not subject to New Source Performance Standards.
Additionally, the amended administrative order revised testing language
to state that testing capacity may be specified by USEPA as well as by
the MPCA.
Section 172 Requirements
Air Quality Control Region 131 is designated as a nonattainment
area for the primary NAAQS for sulfur dioxide. Sulfur dioxide
nonattainment areas must meet the requirements of Subpart I of Part D
of Subchapter I of the Clean Air Act, particularly section 172(c).
Guidance on the requirements of section 172 is given in the General
Preamble for the Implementation of Title I of the Clean Air Act
Amendments of 1990 at 57 FR 13498 (April 16, 1992). The USEPA has
determined that the State submittal meets the applicable requirements
of section 172. A detailed justification of this determination is
provided in the September 2, 1994, notice of proposed rulemaking. 59 FR
45653.
Public Comments
A public comment period was associated with the notice of proposed
rulemaking. No comments were received.
III. Rulemaking Action
This action has evaluated the approvability of the Minnesota
SO2 SIP revision submittal for the St. Paul Park area of Air
Quality Control Region 131. It has been determined that the submittal
meets the applicable requirements of the Clean Air Act. Therefore,
USEPA is granting direct final approval.
Because USEPA considers this action noncontroversial and routine,
we are approving it through direct final rulemaking. The action will
become effective on March 20, 1995, unless notice is received by
February 17, 1995, that someone wishes to submit adverse or critical
comments. If the effective date is delayed, timely notice will be
published in the Federal Register.
Nothing in this action should be construed as permitting, allowing
or establishing a precedent for any future request for revision to any
SIP. USEPA shall consider each request for revision to the SIP in light
of specific technical, economic, and environmental factors and in
relation to relevant statutory and regulatory requirements.
This action has been classified as a Table 3 action by the Regional
Administrator under the procedures published in the Federal Register on
January 19, 1989 (54 FR 2214-2225), as revised by an October 4, 1993
memorandum from Michael H. Shapiro, Acting Assistant Administrator for
Air and Radiation. The Office of Management and Budget exempted this
regulatory action from Executive Order 12866 review.
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 600 et seq., USEPA
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, USEPA may certify that the rule will not have a
significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. Small
entities include small businesses, small not-for-profit enterprises,
and government entities with jurisdiction over populations of less than
50,000.
State Implementation Plan approvals under section 110 and
subchapter I, Part D of the Clean Air 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, I certify that it does not have a significant
impact on any small entities affected. Moreover, due to the nature of
the Federal-State relationship under the Clean Air Act,
[[Page 3546]] preparation of a regulatory flexibility analysis would
constitute Federal inquiry into the economic reasonableness of State
action. The Clean Air Act forbids USEPA to base its actions concerning
SIPS on such grounds. Union Electric Co. v. USEPA, 427 U.S. 246, 256-66
(S.Ct. 1976); 42 U.S.C. 7410(a)(2).
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 March 20, 1995. 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 52
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides.
Note.--Incorporation by reference of the State Implementation
Plan for the State of Minnesota was approved by the Director of the
Federal Register on July 1, 1982.
Dated: December 16, 1994.
Valdas V. Adamkus,
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 52.1220 is amended by adding paragraph (c)(38) to read
as follows:
Sec. 52.1220 Identification of plan.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(38) On December 22, 1992 and September 30, 1994, the State of
Minnesota submitted revisions to its State Implementation Plans (SIPs)
for sulfur dioxide for the St. Paul Park area of Air Quality Control
Region (AQCR) 131.
(i) Incorporation by reference.
(A) For Ashland Petroleum Company, located in St. Paul Park,
Minnesota:
(1) An administrative order, dated and effective December 15, 1992,
submitted December 22, 1992.
(2) Amendment One to the administrative order, dated and effective
September 30, 1994, submitted September 30, 1994.
(ii) Additional material.
(A) A letter from Charles Williams to Valdas Adamkus dated December
22, 1992, with enclosures providing technical support (e.g., computer
modeling) for the revision to the administrative order for Ashland
Petroleum Company.
(B) A letter from Charles Williams to Valdas Adamkus dated
September 30, 1994, with enclosures, submitting Amendment One to the
administrative order for Ashland Petroleum Company.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 95-1083 Filed 1-17-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
