98-1763. Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Illinois  

  • [Federal Register Volume 63, Number 16 (Monday, January 26, 1998)]
    [Rules and Regulations]
    [Pages 3650-3652]
    From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
    [FR Doc No: 98-1763]
    
    
    =======================================================================
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------
    
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
    
    40 CFR Part 52
    
    [IL160-1a; FRL-5951-6]
    
    
    Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Illinois
    
    AGENCY: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA).
    
    ACTION: Direct Final Rule.
    
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------
    
    SUMMARY: On August 20, 1997, Illinois submitted a variance to allow 
    Marathon Oil to emit particulate matter in increased quantities from 
    June 14, 1996, to September 5, 1996, to allow the company to defer 
    repairs of its control equipment until a scheduled system shutdown. The 
    submittal included modeling to indicate that the temporary emissions 
    increase would not be expected to cause a violation of air quality 
    standards. USEPA is approving this variance because air quality 
    standards continue to be protected.
    
    DATES: This action is effective on March 27, 1998 unless USEPA receives 
    written adverse or critical comments by February 25, 1998. If the 
    effective date is delayed, timely notice will be published in the 
    Federal Register.
    
    ADDRESSES: Comments should be sent to: J. Elmer Bortzer, Chief, 
    Regulation Development Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), United 
    States Environmental Protection Agency, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, 
    Chicago, Illinois 60604.
        Copies of the State's submittal are available for inspection at the 
    following address: (It is recommended that you telephone John 
    Summerhays at (312) 886-6067, before visiting the Region 5 Office.) 
    U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, Air and Radiation 
    Division (AR-18J), 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604.
    
    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John Summerhays, Regulation 
    Development Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), U.S. Environmental 
    Protection Agency,
    
    [[Page 3651]]
    
    Region 5, Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 886-6067.
    
    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    
    I. Background
    
        The State's submittal addresses emissions at the Fluid bed 
    Catalytic Cracking Unit (FCCU) at Marathon Oil Company's refinery in 
    Robinson, in Crawford County, Illinois. The FCCU uses catalyst in 
    particle form to convert heavier petroleum materials into lighter, more 
    valuable products. At issue are the quantity of particles that may be 
    emitted from this unit. The normal emission limit for this unit, 
    according to an equation based on the weight of material input to the 
    process under normal capacity operation, is about 84 pounds per hour. 
    The variance requested by the company and granted by the State 
    authorizes emissions of 450 pounds per hour for the relevant 3-month 
    period.
        The circumstances leading to the company's variance request 
    involved discovery of evidence that emissions from the FCCU were 
    exceeding the unit's limit and suggesting problems with the cyclones at 
    the unit. Repair of the cyclones requires a month-long shutdown of the 
    FCCU, which would dramatically reduce production of gasoline. The 
    company argued that allowance to defer remedying the problems was 
    needed to avoid undue hardship on the company, because immediate repair 
    would be less efficient (due to difficulties of working on hot 
    equipment in hot weather and due to reduced preparation for repairs) 
    and would eliminate gasoline production for much of the peak driving 
    season. The company sought the variance until the maintenance shutdown 
    that was already scheduled for October 1996 (subsequently rescheduled 
    to commence September 5, 1996).
    
    II. Review of Submittal
    
        Crawford County is designated unclassifiable for PM10. 
    Consequently, given that the variance would be a temporary relaxation 
    of the State Implementation Plan (SIP), the principal review criterion 
    is whether the variance has been demonstrated not to threaten continued 
    attainment of the national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS).
        The company provided limited modeling to demonstrate the impact of 
    the variance. This modeling used the Industrial Source Complex Model to 
    simulate potential impacts of the FCCU, using relevant plume release 
    characteristics and using meteorological data from Terre Haute, 
    Indiana. This modeling estimated the impact of 450 pounds per hour of 
    emissions of total suspended particulate matter, which was assumed to 
    include 13.5 percent or 60.75 pounds per hour of PM10 
    emissions. The estimate impact of these emissions was a peak 24-hour 
    average PM10 impact of 1.8 micrograms per cubic meter 
    (g/m\3\) and a peak annual average PM10 impact of 
    0.13 g/m\3\. These impacts are well below the 24-hour 
    PM10 standard of 150 g/m \3\ and the annual 
    PM10 standard of 50 g/m\3\.
        An important issue not adequately addressed by the company was 
    whether the addition of the FCCU impact to the impacts of other 
    relevant sources would cause concentrations above the NAAQS. The State 
    addressed this issue in part by examining PM10 air quality 
    data at its nearest monitoring site, approximately 50 miles northwest, 
    in Charleston, Coles County, Illinois. No exceedances had been recorded 
    at this site. The State indicated that no other facilities with 
    significant emissions were present near the facility, but the State did 
    not address the impacts of other emission points within the Marathon 
    refinery. Also, unfortunately, neither the company nor the State 
    provided a copy of the inputs or outputs of the modeling or otherwise 
    provided full details of the analysis, most notably with respect to 
    switches used (e.g. for stack tip downwash). Nevertheless, it is 
    reasonable to presume that any deviations from recommended approaches 
    to these unaddressed issues would not change the general magnitude of 
    FCCU's estimated impact.
        USEPA in its review considered other readily available information. 
    USEPA examined the concentrations observed at the Coles County 
    monitoring site from 1994 to 1996, which included a peak 24-hour 
    average of 47 g/m \3\ and a 3-year average of 18 g/m 
    \3\. USEPA also examined concentrations in Vigo County, Indiana, 
    approximately 45 miles to the north-northeast, where the highest 24-
    hour average concentration in 1994 to 1996 among several sites was 75 
    g/m \3\, and the highest 3-year average was 29 g/m 
    \3\. USEPA further examined emissions data submitted by Illinois to the 
    national emissions data base. This data base shows estimated plant 
    total emissions of particulate matter of about 700 tons per year, or 
    about 160 pounds per hour. Much of these emissions are from combustion 
    sources (e.g. heaters); thus, a high fraction of the total particulate 
    matter emissions will be PM10. Also, plumes for these other 
    units are likely to be hotter and higher than the FCCU plume. 
    Therefore, it is reasonable to assume that complete modeling of the 
    emissions of this facility would show impacts in the same order of 
    magnitude as those found for the FCCU. Since the addition of even ten 
    times the modeled FCCU impact to concentrations monitored at available 
    monitoring sites is well below the air quality standards, it is 
    reasonable to conclude that the emissions allowed under the variance 
    requested by Marathon would not cause violations of the NAAQS.
        Ordinarily, USEPA would expect the source or the State to provide a 
    more thorough analysis of whether a requested variance might cause a 
    violation of the NAAQS. However, special circumstances in this case 
    give USEPA adequate assurances that the NAAQS will not be violated. 
    First, and most importantly, a substantial attainment margin exists, 
    such that attainment would likely be shown even if a more complete 
    analysis of various aspects of this issue were to show substantially 
    greater concentrations. Second, although the nearest monitors are 
    relatively distant, the various locations are expected to encounter 
    similar air quality as would be found near the Marathon facility. 
    Third, the temporary nature of the variance means that emissions are 
    potentially elevated for a much shorter period than the five years 
    modeled, such that the likelihood of violations is reduced, which in a 
    qualitative way supports a conclusion that the variance will not 
    threaten attainment.
    
    III. Today's Action
    
        USEPA is approving the variance adopted by the Illinois Pollution 
    Control Board on November 21, 1996, for the Marathon Oil Company 
    refinery near Robinson, Illinois. This variance provides a temporary 
    emissions limit of 450 pounds per hour for the FCCU at this facility.
        A noteworthy characteristic of this variance is that the period for 
    which the variance applies is wholly in the past. Therefore, aside from 
    judging whether the variance is approvable, USEPA must also judge 
    whether the variance warrants inclusion as a codified element of the 
    Illinois SIP. USEPA is undertaking an effort to revise its presentation 
    of SIPs in a manner that more clearly identifies the enforceable 
    elements of each SIP. Part of this effort is to eliminate referencing 
    of variances that have expired long ago and thus are no longer of 
    interest. The variance for Marathon alters the limitation to be 
    enforced for approximately three months in 1996 but has no effect on 
    the current regulations governing emissions at this facility. 
    Consequently, USEPA is not codifying the variance for Marathon as part 
    of the Illinois SIP. Nevertheless, for USEPA enforcement purposes, the 
    emissions limitation that applies to
    
    [[Page 3652]]
    
    Marathon's FCCU for the June 14 to September 5, 1996, period is the 
    limitation given in the State's variance rather than the otherwise 
    applicable limitation in the State's regulations.
        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 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.
    
    IV. Administrative Requirements
    
        The Office of Management and Budget has 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. This 
    action affects a only one source and therefore does not affect a 
    substantial number of small entities.
        Under section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995, 
    USEPA must undertake various actions in association with 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. 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 the private sector, result 
    from this action.
        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 March 27, 1998. 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, Particulate 
    matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
    
        Dated: January 8, 1998.
    Michelle D. Jordan,
    Acting Regional Administrator, Region V.
    [FR Doc. 98-1763 Filed 1-23-98; 8:45 am]
    BILLING CODE 6560-50-U
    
    
    

Document Information

Effective Date:
3/27/1998
Published:
01/26/1998
Department:
Environmental Protection Agency
Entry Type:
Rule
Action:
Direct Final Rule.
Document Number:
98-1763
Dates:
This action is effective on March 27, 1998 unless USEPA receives written adverse or critical comments by February 25, 1998. If the effective date is delayed, timely notice will be published in the Federal Register.
Pages:
3650-3652 (3 pages)
Docket Numbers:
IL160-1a, FRL-5951-6
PDF File:
98-1763.pdf
CFR: (1)
40 CFR 52