[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 157 (Monday, August 16, 1999)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 44408-44411]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-21012]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[MN 48-01-7273a; FRL-6416-8]
Approval and Promulgation of State Implementation Plan; Minnesota
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Direct final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We are approving a December 31, 1998, request from the
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) for new air pollution control
requirements for the Minnesota sulfur dioxide (SO2) State
Implementation Plan (SIP) for Marathon Ashland Petroleum LLC
(Marathon). These requirements were submitted in the form of an
Administrative Order (Order) and include revisions associated with the
addition of a new stack, revised emission limits for numerous sources,
and other changes. The revisions result in an overall decrease in
allowable SO2 emissions from the facility. The new
requirements have been evaluated through a computerized modeling
analysis and have shown that they will attain and maintain the National
Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) for SO2.
DATES: This direct final rule is effective on October 15, 1999, without
further notice, unless we receive relevant adverse written comments by
September 15, 1999. If we receive adverse comments, we will publish a
timely withdrawal of the direct final rule in the Federal Register and
inform the public that this rule will not take effect.
ADDRESSES: Send written comments to: Carlton T. Nash, Chief, Regulation
Development Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago,
Illinois, 60604. You may inspect copies of the documents relevant to
this action during normal business hours at the following location:
Regulation Development Section, Air Programs Branch, (AR-18J), U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard,
Chicago, Illinois, 60604.
Please contact Randall Robinson at (312) 353-6713 before visiting
the Region 5 office.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Randall Robinson, Meteorologist,
Regulation Development Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard,
Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 353-6713.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This Supplementary Information section is
organized as follows:
I. Introduction
What Action Is EPA Taking Today?
Who Is Affected by This Action?
What Information Did the State Submit in Its Request?
What Are the National Ambient Air Quality Standards?
What Is an Administrative Order?
How Did the State Support Its Request for Marathon?
How Does This Action Change the Administrative Order for Marathon?
Why Is the Request Approvable?
II. EPA Action
III. Administrative Requirements
I. Introduction
What Action Is EPA Taking Today?
In this action, we are approving a revision to the Minnesota
SO2 SIP for Marathon. The revision is referred to as
Amendment Four and amends the Order for Marathon to reflect revisions
associated with the addition of a new stack and revised emission limits
for numerous sources. Other changes included in Amendment Four are
discussed later in this document and more fully in the technical review
document.
Who Is Affected by This Revision?
The revision to Minnesota's SIP for SO2 is site-specific
and, thus, only affects Marathon.
What Information Did the State Submit In Its Request?
On December 31, 1998, the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA)
submitted to EPA a site-specific SO2 SIP revision request
for Marathon. The SIP revision for Marathon was submitted in the form
of an Order amendment, and referred to as Amendment Four. Amendment
Four revises the present Order for Marathon and replaces prior
amendments, Amendment Two and Three, by incorporating changes in
response to EPA comments on Amendment Two and Amendment Three. The MPCA
had previously submitted Amendment Two and Amendment Three to EPA on
November 26, 1996, and October 17, 1997, respectively. EPA provided
comments to MPCA regarding Amendment Two and Amendment Three, but did
not take any other action on those amendments to the administrative
order.
The 30-day public notice for the Order amendment, Amendment Four,
appeared in the St. Paul Pioneer Press on March 4, 1998. No one from
the public commented on the proposed revisions or requested a public
hearing.
What Are the National Ambient Air Quality Standards?
The EPA has established concentration levels for each of six
pollutants, called criteria pollutants, that are protective of human
health (primary standard) and welfare (secondary standard). The primary
NAAQS for SO2 is 0.03 parts per million (ppm) annual
arithmetis mean, and 0.14 ppm maximum 24-hour average concentration,
not to be exceeded more than once per calendar year. The secondary
NAAQS for SO2 is 0.50 ppm maximum 3-hour average
concentration, not to be exceeded more than once per calendar year. See
40 CFR 50.4.
What Is an Administrative Order?
Each state is obligated by section 110(a) of the Act, 42 U.S.C.
7410, to develop a plan which provides for ``implementation,
maintenance, and enforcement'' of the NAAQS promulgated by EPA. An
Order is a mechanism which the state uses to enforce applicable
requirements established either by State or Federal law. The Orders are
used to enforce requirements needed to meet the applicable NAAQS.
How Did the State Support Its Request for Marathon?
The MPCA provided EPA with a computerized modeling attainment
demonstration. The modeling analysis was required to evaluate whether
the air impacts from the proposed revisions will still provide for
attainment of the NAAQS for SO2. Details of the analysis are
presented below.
Air Quality Model
The analysis utilized the Industrial Source Complex Model-Short
Term (ISCST3) model. (The Integrated Gaussian Model (IGM), which has
been demonstrated to be equivalent to ISCST3, was used to obtain source
contributions.) ISCST3 is recommended for regulatory applications for
estimating short-term impacts from complicated sources (i.e., sources
with special problems such as aerodynamic downwash). The ISCST3 model
also contains the COMPLEX-I algorithms
[[Page 44409]]
which allow for the prediction of ambient air impacts at receptors
above stack top (i.e., complex terrain). Additionally, the ISCST3 model
automatically implements the intermediate terrain policy which requires
the user to predict concentrations on an hour-by-hour basis at
receptors above stack top but below plume height using both a simple
terrain model (ISCST3) and a complex terrain model (COMPLEX-I) and
select the highest for each hour. This option was executed for the
Marathon modeling.
Modeling Inputs
The SIP submittal revision submitted by the MPCA is specific to
Marathon. The total ambient air impact from the revisions at the
Company is the sum of the modeled impact from Company sources, modeled
background sources from the Twin Cities area, and an unmodeled
background value based on monitoring data. The value of the unmodeled
background concentration is based on an analysis of historic monitored
concentrations and has been used and approved in previous
SO2 SIP revisions. Marathon is located in the Mississippi
River valley with bluffs exceeding the height of Marathon stacks.
Consequently, weather data collected on-site was used to ensure
representativeness. The modeling analysis used one year of
meteorological data (1988) collected from a tower located at the
facility. Concentrations were calculated over a receptor grid which
featured 100 meter resolution. Concentrations calculated inside the
fenced property boundary were not used in the analysis.
The modeling analysis used emission estimates based on maximum
allowable emission rates (pounds of sulfur dioxide/hour and pounds of
sulfur dioxide/mmBTU) and maximum design capacities (mmBTUs/hour).
Stacks exceeding allowable good engineering practice stack height (GEP)
were modeled using the calculated GEP height. Plume downwash due to
building wake effects was also included in the analysis. The modeling
was conducted in accordance with the general recommendations included
in the Guideline on Air Quality Models, 40 Code of Federal Regulations
part 51, appendix W. The results of the modeling are presented in the
table below.
High-Second-High Modeled Sulfur Dioxide Concentrations
[Micrograms/cubic meter]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total
concentration
Averaging time marathon+all NAAQS
background
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Annual.................................. 65.1 80
24-hour................................. 359.4 365
3-hour.................................. 946.5 1300
------------------------------------------------------------------------
How Does This Action Change the Administrative Order for Marathon?
Amendment Four includes the following primary changes: (1)
installation of a new sulfur reduction unit exhaust stack and
subsequent rebuilding of one of two existing tail-gas incinerators, (2)
a revised table of emission limits for various process and combustion
equipment.
The table below lists the Emission Unit and the new emission
limits, in pounds per hour and pounds per million British thermal units
(BTU's) for those sources with revised emission limits.
New Emission Limit
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Emission unit lb/hr lb/mmBTU
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Process Steam Boiler.......................... 1.08 0.03
Crude Charge Heater........................... 34.0 0.2834
Crude Vacuum Heater........................... 1.20 0.03
Distillate Unifier Heater..................... 1.41 0.03
Naphtha Unifier Heater........................ 1.95 0.03
Platformer Charge Heater...................... 1.95 0.03
Platformer Interheater #1..................... 1.68 0.03
Asphalt Oxidizer.............................. (*) ...........
Crude Charge.................................. 52.2 0.90
Crude Charge Preflash A (New)................. 0.89 0.03
Crude Charge Preflash B (New)................. 0.89 0.03
Platformer Heater #2.......................... 1.08 0.03
Guard Case Reactor............................ 1.70 0.03
Reactor Heaters #1 & 2........................ 2.10 0.03
Reactor Heaters #4 & 4E....................... 0.63 0.03
Reactor Heaters #3 & 4W....................... 1.05 0.03
Reactor Charge Heater......................... 1.38 0.03
Product Stripper Re-boiler.................... 0.78 0.03
Reformer Heaters.............................. 3.48 0.03
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Removed.
Significant decreases in the pounds per hour emission limits occur at
the crude charge heater (old limit=108 lb/hr), crude vacuum heater (old
limit=23.4 lb/hr), and the crude charge plus preflash (old limit=105.5
lb/hr). Minor increases, less than 1 pound per hour, occur at other
sources, mainly the heaters. Overall, the total allowable pounds per
hour emissions have dropped from 6325 tons per year to 5698 tons per
year.
The existing SIP for Marathon included emission limits specified
during periods when the Shell Claus Offgas Treatment (SCOT) unit and
the amine reduction unit (ARU) were undergoing regular scheduled
maintenance. These maintenance period limits have been removed in
Amendment Four. The limits associated with normal operating conditions
and any other New Source Performance Standard (NSPS) limits apply at
all times.
Other notable changes included in Amendment Four include:
(1) A requirement to keep records of calculated SO2
emissions in pounds per hour.
(2) The addition of a diesel engine to pump water to the Alky unit
during an emergency accidental release. Maximum emissions of 0.48 pound
per hour SO2.
(3) A restriction on steam air decoking more than one emission unit
at the same time.
(4) Changing fuel oil sampling from a daily sample to a requirement
to sample after receiving a transfer of fuel into their fuel supply
tank, and a change from a weekly analysis of heating value of the fuel
oil to quarterly.
(5) Changes to other operating limits (Exhibits 1.1 and 1.4)
Boiler 5--36.0 mmBTU/hr
Distillate Unifier Heater--47.0 mmBTU/hr
Naphtha Unifier Heater--65.0 mmBTU/hr
Platformer Charge Heater--65.0 mmBTU/hr
Platformer Interheater--56.0 mmBTU/hr
Crude Charge--58.0 mmBTU/hr
Crude Charge Pre--29.7 mmBTU/hr
Crude Charge Pre--29.7 mmBTU/hr
Platformer Heater #2--36.0 mmBTU/hr
Reactor Heaters 3 & 4W--35.0 mmBTU/hr
Modeled heat input values were added to the maximum heat input column
(6) Changes to stack parameters (Exhibit 1.7).
[[Page 44410]]
Modeled flow rates and temperatures were added
(7) Changes not requiring a modification of the Administrative
Order.
Language was added which would allow certain changes to be made at
the facility without obtaining a modified Order. A modification to the
Order is not needed if the modification does not:
(A) Exceed any of the limits in Part I of the Order,
(B) Effect the stack parameters described in Exhibit 1.7, unless
the change is made to a unit that no longer will be allowed to burn
fuel oil (fuel oil supply disconnected),
(C) Result in an increase of 2.28 pounds of SO2 per hour
or more at any new unit.
Based on the modeled attainment demonstration submitted with the
revision, these changes should not threaten the NAAQS. The limits on
modifications identified in the Order should ensure that significant
changes at the facility cannot occur without additional modeling
showing that the NAAQS are protected. Additionally, language in the
Order states that regardless of whether a modification of the order is
required, the Company shall obtain a permit amendment if required by
state or Federal law.
(8) Recordkeeping revisions.
An additional requirement to record the time period when burning
fuel oil in New Source Performance Standard (NSPS) units.
(9) Two new continuous monitoring systems were installed to
determine hydrogen sulfide content of commercial gas received from
Northern States Power. These systems were installed at the crude heater
and the reformer heaters.
(10) Name change from Ashland Petroleum Company to Marathon Ashland
Petroleum, LLC.
(11) Property access restrictions. The company is required to
maintain a fence to restrict public access around it's boundaries.
Other restrictions on operations, fuel use, and fuel quality remain
in effect and unchanged from the previously Federally approved Order.
The general compliance methodology consists of continuous emission
monitors (CEMS), continuous monitoring systems (CMS), and fuel sampling
and analysis.
Why Is the Request Approvable?
After review of the SIP revision request, EPA finds that Amendment
Four meets the applicable requirements of Clean Air Act section 110(a)
and that the revisions in Amendment Four have been shown to be
protective of the applicable NAAQS.
II. EPA Action
EPA is approving the requested revision to the Minnesota
SO2 SIP for Marathon. The EPA is publishing this action
without prior proposal because EPA views this as a noncontroversial
revision and anticipates no adverse comments. However, in a separate
document in this Federal Register publication, the EPA is proposing to
approve the SIP revision in case written adverse comments are filed.
This action will become effective without further notice unless the
Agency receives relevant adverse written comments within 30 days from
the date of publication. Should the Agency receive adverse comments, it
will publish a final rule informing the public that this action will
not take effect. Any parties interested in commenting on this action
should do so at this time.
III. Administrative Requirements
A. Executive Order 12866
The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted this
regulatory action from Executive Order (E.O.) 12866, entitled
``Regulatory Planning and Review.''
B. Executive Order 12875: Enhancing Intergovernmental Partnerships
Under E.O. 12875, EPA may not issue a regulation that is not
required by statute and that creates a mandate upon a state, local, or
tribal government, unless the Federal government provides the funds
necessary to pay the direct compliance costs incurred by those
governments. If the mandate is unfunded, EPA must provide to the Office
of Management and Budget a description of the extent of EPA's prior
consultation with representatives of affected state, local, and tribal
governments, the nature of their concerns, copies of written
communications from the governments, and a statement supporting the
need to issue the regulation. In addition, E.O. 12875 requires EPA to
develop an effective process permitting elected officials and other
representatives of state, local, and tribal governments ``to provide
meaningful and timely input in the development of regulatory proposals
containing significant unfunded mandates.'' Today's rule does not
create a mandate on state, local or tribal governments. The rule does
not impose any enforceable duties on these entities. Accordingly, the
requirements of section 1(a) of E.O. 12875 do not apply to this rule.
C. Executive Order 13045
Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety
Risks (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), applies to any rule that: (1) is
determined to be ``economically significant'' as defined under E.O.
12866, and (2) concerns an environmental health or safety risk that EPA
has reason to believe may have a disproportionate effect on children.
If the regulatory action meets both criteria, the Agency must evaluate
the environmental health or safety effects of the planned rule on
children, and explain why the planned regulation is preferable to other
potentially effective and reasonably feasible alternatives considered
by the Agency. EPA interprets E.O. 13045 as applying only to those
regulatory actions that are based on health or safety risks, such that
the analysis required under section 5-501 of the Order has the
potential to influence the regulation.
This action is not subject to E.O. 13045 because it approves a
state rule implementing a previously promulgated health or safety-based
Federal standard, and preserves the existing level of pollution control
for the affected areas.
D. Executive Order 13084: Consultation and Coordination With Indian
Tribal Governments
Under E.O. 13084, EPA may not issue a regulation that is not
required by statute, that significantly affects or uniquely affects the
communities of Indian tribal governments, and that imposes substantial
direct compliance costs on those communities, unless the Federal
government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct compliance
costs incurred by the tribal governments. If the mandate is unfunded,
EPA must provide to the Office of Management and Budget, in a
separately identified section of the preamble to the rule, a
description of the extent of EPA's prior consultation with
representatives of affected tribal governments, a summary of the nature
of their concerns, and a statement supporting the need to issue the
regulation. In addition, E.O. 13084 requires EPA to develop an
effective process permitting elected and other representatives of
Indian tribal governments ``to provide meaningful and timely input in
the development of regulatory policies on matters that significantly or
uniquely affect their communities.'' Today's rule does not
significantly or uniquely affect the communities of Indian tribal
governments. Accordingly, the
[[Page 44411]]
requirements of section 3(b) of E.O. 13084 do not apply to this rule.
E. Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an agency
to conduct a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to
notice and comment rulemaking requirements unless the agency certifies
that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities. Small entities include small
businesses, small not-for-profit enterprises, and small governmental
jurisdictions. This final rule will not have a significant impact on a
substantial number of small entities because SIP 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
create any new requirements, I certify that this action will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
Moreover, due to the nature of the Federal-State relationship under the
Clean Air Act, preparation of flexibility analysis would constitute
Federal inquiry into the economic reasonableness of state action. The
Clean Air Act forbids EPA to base its actions concerning SIPs on such
grounds. Union Electric Co., v. U.S. EPA, 427 U.S. 246, 255-66 (1976);
42 U.S.C. 7410(a)(2).
F. 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
annual costs to State, local, or tribal governments in the aggregate;
or to 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 approval action promulgated does not
include a Federal mandate that may result in estimated annual 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.
G. Submission to Congress and the Comptroller General
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. EPA will submit 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 United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This rule is not a ``major'' rule as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).
H. Petitions for Judicial Review
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 October 15, 1999. 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, Sulfur dioxide.
Dated: July 22, 1999
Jerri-Anne Garl,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 5.
Part 52, chapter I, title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is
amended as follows:
PART 52--[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Subpart Y--Minnesota
2. Section 52.1220 is amended by adding paragraph (c)(49) to read
as follows:
Sec. 52.1220 Identification of plan
(c) * * *
(49) Approval--On December 31, 1998, the Minnesota Pollution
Control Agency submitted a request for a revision to the Minnesota
sulfur dioxide (SO2) State Implementation Plan (SIP) for
Marathon Ashland Petroleum LLC (Marathon). The site-specific SIP
revision for Marathon was submitted in the form of an Administrative
Order (Order), and referred to as Amendment Four.
(i) Incorporation by reference.
(A) For Marathon Ashland Petroleum, LLC, located in St. Paul Park,
Minnesota:
(1) Amendment Four to the administrative order, dated and effective
December 22, 1998, and submitted December 31, 1998.
(ii) Additional material.
(A) A letter from Peder A. Larson to David Ullrich, dated December
31, 1998, submitting Amendment Four for Marathon Ashland Petroleum,
LLC.
[FR Doc. 99-21012 Filed 8-13-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
