94-1963. Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Minnesota  

  • [Federal Register Volume 59, Number 19 (Friday, January 28, 1994)]
    [Unknown Section]
    [Page ]
    From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
    [FR Doc No: 94-1963]
    
    
    [Federal Register: January 28, 1994]
    
    
    =======================================================================
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------
    
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
    
    40 CFR Part 52
    
    [MN-14-1; FRL-4830-2]
    
    
    Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Minnesota
    
    AGENCY: United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA).
    
    ACTION: Proposed rule.
    
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------
    
    SUMMARY: In this action, the USEPA is proposing to disapprove the 
    revision to Minnesota's State Implementation Plan (SIP) for sulfur 
    dioxide (SO2) for the Dakota County/Pine Bend area of Air Quality 
    Control Region 131. Assuming no other substantive, adverse public 
    comments are received, the USEPA will proceed with a final approval of 
    the submittal when the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) 
    addresses the concerns detailed in this notice and submits the 
    Administrative Orders to USEPA before the end of the 30-day comment 
    period. The USEPA's action is based upon a revision request which was 
    submitted by the State to satisfy the requirements of the Clean Air 
    Act. The revisions are the result of a call for SIP revision issued by 
    USEPA on December 5, 1984, based on monitored violations. The revisions 
    in the Minnesota submittal are in the form of non-expiring Findings and 
    Orders for Koch Refining Company and Koch Sulfuric Acid Unit, 
    Continental Nitrogen and Resources Company, and Northern States Power 
    Company-Inver Hills Generating Facility.
    DATES: Comments on this requested revision and on the proposed USEPA 
    action must be received by February 28, 1994.
    
    ADDRESSES: Written comments should be addressed to: William L. 
    MacDowell, Chief, Regulation Development Section, Air Enforcement 
    Branch (AE-17J), United States Environmental Protection Agency, Region 
    5, Air and Radiation Division, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, 
    Illinois 60604.
    
    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Randy Robinson, Air Enforcement 
    Branch, Regulation Development Section (AE-17J), U.S. Environmental 
    Protection Agency, Region 5, Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 353-6713.
    
    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    
    I. Background
    
        USEPA published the designation of Air Quality Control Region 
    (AQCR) 131 as a primary nonattainment area for SO2 on March 3, 
    1978, and October 5, 1978. In response to Part D requirements of the 
    Clean Air Act, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) submitted a 
    final SO2 plan on August 4, 1980. USEPA published its final rule 
    approving and promulgating the Minnesota Part D SIP for SO2 for 
    AQCR 131 on April 8, 1981 (46 FR 20996). On December 5, 1984 (49 FR 
    47488), USEPA issued a call for SIP revisions for the Minnesota 
    SO2 SIP for Dakota County declaring the SIP inadequate based on 
    1982 monitored violations. The SIP call required that the MPCA submit a 
    revision to the Twin Cities SO2 SIP demonstrating attainment of 
    the SO2 National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) in the Pine 
    Bend Area by September 1985.
        The promulgation of a Good Engineering Practice stack height rule, 
    along with difficulties negotiating a control strategy with Koch 
    Refining Company, and the selection of an appropriate computer model, 
    delayed the submittal. On September 10, 1987, the MPCA submitted 
    revisions to the operating permits for five sources and requested 
    redesignation to attainment for all of AQCR 131 except the Pine Bend 
    and St. Paul Park areas.
        As a result of numerous USEPA comments, MPCA withdrew the Pine Bend 
    SO2 SIP while passage of the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments delayed 
    action on the rest of the SO2 revisions for AQCR 131.
        On August 3, 1992, USEPA received from MPCA a revision to the 
    SO2 plan for the Dakota County/Pine Bend area of AQCR 131. The 
    submittal consisted of administrative materials demonstrating that the 
    State had adopted the revision as required and that a public hearing 
    was held. The submittal also contained administrative orders and 
    technical support for Koch Refining Company and Koch Sulfuric Acid 
    Plant, Continental Nitrogen and Resources Corporation, and Northern 
    States Power-Inver Hills Generating Facility. The rest of AQCR 131, 
    including the St. Paul Park Area, are being addressed in separate 
    rulemakings.
        On February 16, 1993, USEPA received an amendment to the original 
    administrative order for Koch Refining Company. The amendment revises 
    the completion dates for construction and operation of a new stack and 
    control equipment.
    
    II. Analysis of State Submittal
    
        This section will provide a review of:
    
        (1) The attainment demonstration modeling methodology for the 
    sources in the area;
        (2) Specific aspects of the administrative orders (AOs); and
        (3) Whether the submittal meets the requirements of section 172 of 
    the Clean Air Act.
    
    Modeling Methodology
    
        The short-term dispersion modeling was performed using the 
    Industrial Source Complex Short-term (ISCST version 90346) model. 
    Dispersion modeling for annual impacts was performed using the 
    Industrial Source Complex Long-Term (ISCLT version 90008) model. All 
    modeling was conducted in accordance with applicable guidance in the 
    ``Guideline on Air Quality Models (Revised) (1986),'' and ``Supplement 
    A (1987).'' The dispersion modeling reflects USEPA Good Engineering 
    Practice stack height regulations where applicable. The modeling also 
    incorporated urban dispersion coefficients using 1973-1977 Minneapolis/
    St. Paul hourly surface meteorological data and St. Cloud mixing height 
    data. These years were used to maintain consistency with the original 
    SO2 SIP. Although there is no reason to believe the 1973-1977 
    meteorological data is not representative of current meteorological 
    conditions in the Dakota County area, it is suggested that future SIP 
    revision modeling incorporate the five most recent years of available 
    meteorological data, as is stated in the guidance. Combined SO2 
    impacts resulting from modeling Koch Refinery, Koch Sulfuric Acid Unit, 
    Continental Nitrogen Resource Corporation, and Northern States Power, 
    were calculated at 549 receptors, with model resolution ranging from 
    1,000 meters near grid boundaries to 100 meters near hotspot locations.
        Screening modeling was used initially to identify all events with 
    the potential for an exceedance of the Ambient Air Quality Standards. 
    These critical events were further processed using refined modeling 
    techniques to determine if the NAAQS for SO2 were protected. 
    Several operating scenarios were modeled. The highest, second-highest 
    predicted concentrations for the 3-hour and 24-hour averaging times, 
    including background, were 965.1 and 361.6 g/m3, 
    respectively. Annual average impacts were predicted by using a refined 
    modeling approach. The maximum annual predicted concentration, 
    including background, was 69.1 g/m3.
        Additional short-term modeling investigated interstate impacts at 
    distances between 10 and 50 km from an MPCA monitor site. The Wisconsin 
    border is approximately 25 km to the east of the Koch Refinery 
    facility. Modeling was performed using worst-case emission parameters. 
    The modeling results demonstrated that Dakota County SO2 emissions 
    do not prevent attainment or maintenance of the NAAQS in any other 
    State.
    
    General Statutory Requirements
    
        The purpose of this section is to discuss whether the submittal 
    meets the statutory requirements set forth in the Clean Air Act. The 
    Pine Bend area of Dakota County, Minnesota is designated nonattainment 
    for the primary NAAQS for SO2. As a result, SO2 nonattainment 
    area plans must meet the requirements of subpart 1 of part D of title I 
    of the Clean Air Act, particularly section 172(c).
        Section 172(c)(1) states that part D plans must require reasonably 
    available control measures (RACM), (e.g., RACT). The definition of RACT 
    for SO2 is that control technology which is necessary to achieve 
    the NAAQS. The Minnesota submittal includes modeling which, if comments 
    are adequately addressed, demonstrates that the Pine Bend area of 
    Dakota County will achieve attainment of the SO2 NAAQS with the 
    control measures fully implemented by April 1, 1993. This satisfies the 
    RACM requirements of the Clean Air Act.
        Section 172(c)(2) states that plans shall require reasonable 
    further progress. The term ``reasonable further progress'' is defined 
    in section 171(B)(1) as ``such annual incremental reductions in 
    emission of the relevant air pollutant as are required by this part or 
    may reasonably be required by the Administrator for the purpose of 
    ensuring attainment of the applicable NAAQS by the applicable data.'' 
    The Minnesota submittal provides for attainment of the NAAQS by April 
    1, 1993.
        Section 172(c)(3) requires a suitable emission inventory. A 
    suitable inventory of SO2 emissions in the Pine Bend nonattainment 
    area was provided in Appendix D of the submittal.
        Section 172(c)(4) mandates that any stationary source growth margin 
    included in the submittal be expressly identified and quantified. The 
    submittal provides for a zero growth margin.
        Section 172(c)(5) mandates a suitable permit program for new and 
    modified major stationary sources. A new source permitting program for 
    nonattainment areas has been submitted to USEPA by MPCA and is 
    currently undergoing review. It will be addressed in a separate 
    rulemaking. The Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) program 
    is delegated to Minnesota and a general permitting rule has been SIP 
    approved.
        Section 172(c)(6) requires enforceable limitations sufficient to 
    provide for attainment. Some enforceability concerns associated with 
    the submittal are detailed in the next section. If these concerns are 
    adequately addressed, the limitations will be sufficient to provide for 
    attainment.
        Section 172(c)(7) mandates satisfaction of section 110(a)(2). A 
    primary requirement of section 110(a)(2) is that the State adopt its 
    limitations following a suitable opportunity for public comment. The 
    MPCA certifies that a public hearing was held on May 27, 1992.
        Section 172(c)(8) states that the Administrator, in some 
    circumstances, may allow the use of equivalent modeling emission 
    inventory and planning procedures. In the Dakota County submittal, no 
    ``equivalent techniques'' were used for modeling, emission inventory, 
    and planning procedures.
        Section 172(c)(9) requires the plan to provide for implementation 
    of specific measures to be undertaken if the area fails to make 
    reasonable further progress, or to attain the primary NAAQS by the 
    attainment date applicable under this part (i.e. contingency measures). 
    In the event of nonattainment of the SO2 NAAQS, the MPCA has the 
    authority to enforce all provisions of the AOs, as well as all 
    applicable State and Federal rules and regulations.
    
    Administrative Order Details
    
        The purpose of this section is to provide details on the individual 
    AOs and state any comments that apply. These comments, provided by 
    Region 5, must be adequately addressed before final approval of the SIP 
    revision for Dakota County can be published.
    Continental Nitrogen and Resources Corporation (CNRC)
        The Rosemount CNRC facility has three boilers which discharge 
    SO2 emissions into the atmosphere. The Company is required to 
    limit emissions of SO2 from each of the 3 emission points to 1.5 
    pounds of SO2 per million British Thermal Units (lbs/mmBTU). In 
    addition, the three boilers may not operate at a heat input greater 
    than that listed in Exhibit 1 of the AO.
        The Company is authorized to burn only natural gas and #6 fuel oil 
    in the three boilers. The Company may not burn #6 fuel oil with greater 
    than 1.5 percent sulfur by weight. Other restrictions include a limit 
    of no more than 16,000 gallons of #6 fuel oil per 24-hour period 
    (midnight to midnight), no more than 70,833 gallons of #6 fuel oil per 
    month on a monthly, 12-month rolling average, and the Company cannot 
    burn #6 fuel oil at more than two of the boilers at any one time.
        Compliance with the limitations shall be demonstrated through 
    sampling and analyzing the #6 fuel oil for sulfur content and heating 
    value in accordance with approved ASTM methods. Also the Company shall 
    measure the total gallons of #6 fuel oil burned at each emission unit. 
    The Company is required to keep appropriate records to allow for 
    determination of compliance with the order.
        Region 5 Comments:
        The emission limits in the administrative order are written as 
    pounds of SO2 per million British Thermal Units (lbs/mmBTU). None 
    of the limits have an averaging time associated with them. This leads 
    to the assumption that the limits exist on an instantaneous basis. If 
    this is the case, the administrative order should state as such. 
    Otherwise, other appropriate averaging times should be applied to the 
    emission limits.
        The administrative order, Part V.B.2.b.1 & 2, states, in part, that 
    the Company must retain records containing information on sulfur 
    content and heating value. The administrative order must include a 
    formula to relate this information to the emission limit in order to 
    determine compliance.
    Northern States Power
        There are six distillate and residual oil fired gas turbines at the 
    Northern States Power (NSP) facility which discharge sulfur dioxide 
    into the atmosphere. The Company is limited to 1.1 lbs of SO2/
    mmBTU from each of the 6 emission units. Also, the Company may not 
    operate the 6 gas turbines at greater than the rated heat input 
    described in Exhibit 1 of the AO.
        The Company is authorized to burn only distillate and residual fuel 
    oil in each of the gas turbines, and the fuel oil sulfur content may 
    not exceed 1.0 percent by weight. In addition, the Company may not burn 
    more than 8.75 million gallons of fuel oil per month on a 12-month 
    rolling average.
        Compliance with the limitations shall be demonstrated through 
    either sampling and analyzing the fuel for sulfur content and heating 
    value in accordance with approved ASTM methods, or obtaining and 
    retaining a fuel supplier certification. Also, the Company is to 
    measure the total gallons of fuel oil burned at each emission unit both 
    on a 3-hour basis, and a monthly, 12-month rolling average basis. The 
    Company is required to keep appropriate records to allow for 
    determination of compliance with the order.
        Region 5 Comments:
        The emission limits in the administrative order are written as lbs/
    mmBTU. None of the limits have an averaging time associated with them. 
    This leads to the assumption that the limits exist on an instantaneous 
    basis. If this is the case, the administrative order should state as 
    such. Otherwise, other appropriate averaging times should be applied to 
    the emission limits.
        The Company is required to keep records on percent sulfur of the 
    fuel, and heating value of the fuel. The administrative order, Part 
    IV.B.2.a., does not specify a formula which would convert this data to 
    a lbs/mmBTU basis. This is necessary since the emission limits are in 
    lbs/mmBTU units. A formula is also required in the Annual Reports 
    section of the administrative order (Part V.B.).
        Part of the demonstration of compliance with emission and operating 
    limits involves obtaining and maintaining a fuel supplier 
    certification. The administrative order, Part I.D.1.a.4., states that 
    the certification must include the method used to determine the sulfur 
    content of the fuel oil. It must be made clear that the method used 
    must be an approved ASTM method as listed in 40 CFR part 60, appendix 
    A, method 19, Sec. 5.2.2.
    Koch Refining Company
        The AO for Koch Refining includes a compliance schedule for 
    required modifications at various locations around the facility. Each 
    modification activity is accompanied by completion dates. All of the 
    activities had been completed at the time the submittal was sent to 
    USEPA.
        The emission limits for the Refinery are listed in the AO and cover 
    the Sulfur Reduction Unit (SRU) 1/2 facility, the Sulfur Reduction Unit 
    3 and 4 facility, the Sulfur Reduction Unit 5 facility, the FCC 
    facility emission points 5, 6, and 8, the Oil Separation and Waste 
    Treatment Plant (OSWTP), the Platformer facility, and the Powerformer 
    facility. The table lists emission limitations for each applicable 
    SO2 standard averaging time, 3-hour, 24-hour, and annual. The 3-
    hour average is based on three consecutive one-hour periods, the 24-
    hour is based on 24 consecutive one-hour periods, and the annual is 
    based on a 12-month rolling average.
        The emission limits for the Koch Sulfuric Acid Unit (KSAU) facility 
    are listed in Table 3 of the AO and cover Absorber emission points 
    numbers 1 and 3. However, emission point 1 becomes inoperational when 
    emission point 3 begins operation. Again, the applicable averaging 
    times are based the same as for the Refinery limits mentioned above.
        Koch Refinery may burn refinery fuel oil, from the refinery fuel 
    oil distribution system, only at select locations. The fuel oil limits 
    on quantity and sulfur content are specified in Table 2 and Table 2a of 
    the AO. The Refinery may burn refinery fuel gas at specified locations. 
    The Company may not put fuel gas into the refinery fuel gas 
    distribution system which contains greater that 0.10 grains of hydrogen 
    sulfide per dry standard cubic foot of gas. The diesel fuel used shall 
    not have a sulfur content greater than 0.1 percent by weight.
        Fuel restrictions at the KSAU facility limit the Boiler to burning 
    only refinery fuel gas, propane, or commercial natural gas. The 
    hydrogen sulfide content of refinery fuel gas burned at KSAU cannot 
    exceed 0.10 grains of hydrogen sulfide per dry standard cubic foot of 
    gas.
        Compliance with the various limitations and restrictions applied to 
    Koch Refinery are detailed in the AO. The compliance demonstration 
    include calculations, monitoring, record keeping, diesel fuel 
    certification, and stack tests. Compliance with the emission limits at 
    KSAU also consist of calculations, monitoring, and data and record 
    keeping.
        Region 5 Comments:
        Flares nos. 5, 6, and 7 may only use gases from Refinery operations 
    when the gases are from pressure relief, from upsets of Refinery 
    process equipment, or are required for equipment maintenance (Part 
    II.B.6.C.). At all other times the flares must burn natural gas. 
    Information must be provided to justify not limiting these sources and 
    not including them in the modeling.
        Compliance for emission points 348, 458, and 459, is to be based on 
    initial stack tests as specified in Table 1, note #4. Some method needs 
    to be specified for determining future compliance.
        The administrative order states in Part V.C.2. that the company 
    shall conduct performance stack tests to determine compliance with the 
    emission limitations and fuel restrictions outlined in the order as 
    required by the Commissioner. Stack tests must also be able to be 
    required by appropriate USEPA personnel.
        Exhibit 2-page 3 discusses the startup incinerators for SRU 3 and 
    SRU 4. These startup incinerators operate when tail gas bypasses the 
    Shell Claus Offgas Treatment (SCOT) Units and SCOT Unit incinerators. 
    Information must be provided to justify not limiting or modeling these 
    emission sources.
        On page 9 of Exhibit 2, emission point 17 is listed as an active 
    emission source. However, in Exhibit 2, Attachment 6 emission point 17 
    has a rated input of 0.0 mmBTU/hr. Also, emission point 17 was not 
    included in the modeling demonstration. If #17 is shutdown, it must be 
    removed from reference in the administrative order.
        On page 8 of Exhibit 5, the Company is required to measure the 
    amount of hydrogen sulfide in sour water tank purge gas by analysis 
    once per calendar quarter. The limit on hydrogen sulfide in sour water 
    tank purge gas is 162 parts per million as a 3-hour average. We would 
    request than analysis be conducted with increased frequency (e.g., 
    daily).
    
    III. Proposed Rulemaking Action and Solicitation of Public Comment
    
        The USEPA is proposing disapproval of the Minnesota SIP revision 
    for SO2 for the Dakota County/Pine Bend area of AQCR 131, 
    contained in the Administrative Orders for Koch Refining Company and 
    Koch Sulfuric Acid Unit, Continental Nitrogen and Resources Company, 
    and Northern States Power Company-Inver Hills Generating Facility. 
    However, if the above comments, detailed in this notice, are adequately 
    addressed in revisions to this plan, and those revisions are submitted 
    to USEPA by the end of the 30-day comment period, then, assuming no 
    other substantive, adverse public comments are received, USEPA will 
    proceed with a final rulemaking approving the SIP revision as a whole 
    including the supplemental submittal. If at the end of the 30-day 
    comment period, the issues are still unresolved, final rulemaking 
    disapproving the SIP revision will be promulgated.
        Public comments are solicited on the requested SIP revision and on 
    USEPA's proposal to disapprove. Public comments received by February 
    28, 1994, will be considered in the development of USEPA's final 
    rulemaking action.
        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 2 action by the Regional 
    Administrator under the procedures published in the Federal Register on 
    January 19, 1989, (54 FR 2214-2225). On January 6, 1989, the Office of 
    Management and Budget (OMB) waived Table 2 and 3 SIP revisions (54 FR 
    2222) from the requirements of section 3 of Executive Order 12291 for a 
    period of 2 years. USEPA has submitted a request for a permanent waiver 
    for Table 2 and 3 SIP revisions. OMB has agreed to continue the 
    temporary waiver until such time as it rules on USEPA's request. This 
    request continues in effect under Executive Order 12866 which 
    superseded Executive Order 12291 on September 30, 1993.
        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.
        The USEPA's disapproval of the State request under section 110 and 
    subchapter I, part D of the Clean Air Act does not affect any existing 
    requirements applicable to small entities. Any pre-existing Federal 
    requirements remain in place after this disapproval. Federal 
    disapproval of the State submittal does not affect its state-
    enforceability. Moreover, USEPA's disapproval of the submittal does not 
    impose any new Federal requirements. Therefore, USEPA certifies that 
    this disapproval action does not have a significant impact on a 
    substantial number of small entities because it does not remove 
    existing requirements nor does it impose any new Federal requirements.
    
    List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
    
        Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Reporting and 
    recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides.
    
        Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401-7671q.
    
        Dated: December 23, 1993.
    Valdas V. Adamkus,
    Regional Administrator.
    [FR Doc. 94-1963 Filed 1-27-94; 8:45 am]
    BILLING CODE 6560-50-F
    
    
    

Document Information

Published:
01/28/1994
Department:
Environmental Protection Agency
Entry Type:
Uncategorized Document
Action:
Proposed rule.
Document Number:
94-1963
Dates:
Comments on this requested revision and on the proposed USEPA action must be received by February 28, 1994.
Pages:
0-0 (None pages)
Docket Numbers:
Federal Register: January 28, 1994, MN-14-1, FRL-4830-2
CFR: (1)
40 CFR 52