[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 170 (Friday, September 2, 1994)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-21695]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: September 2, 1994]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[MN20-1-5880; FRL-5064-2]
Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Minnesota
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: On December 11, 1992, the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
(MPCA) submitted proposed revisions to its State Implementation Plan
(SIP) for sulfur dioxide (SO2). In the proposed revisions, MPCA is
attempting to demonstrate attainment and maintenance of the National
Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for SO2 as required by
Sections 110 and 172 of the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. 7410 and 7502. The
submittal consists of Administrative Orders representing the St. Paul
Park/Ashland area of Air Quality Control Region (AQCR) 131. In this
action, USEPA is proposing to disapprove the State's submittal based on
enforceability and attainment demonstration concerns. The MPCA must
address the concerns detailed in this action and submit the
Administrative Order to USEPA before the end of the 30-day comment
period. If no other substantive, adverse comments are received and MPCA
adequately responds the USEPA's concerns before the end of the 30-day
comment period, USEPA intends to proceed with a direct final approval
of the submittal. If, however, the concerns are not adequately
addressed before that time, USEPA will finalize the disapproval. The
direct final rulemaking would provide an opportunity for the public to
comment on the final rulemaking action.
DATES: Comments on this requested revision and on the proposed USEPA
action must be received by October 3, 1994.
ADDRESSES: Copies of the SIP revision request and USEPA's analysis are
available for inspection at the following address: (It is recommended
that you telephone Randy Robinson at 312 353-6713, before visiting the
Region 5 office.) U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, Air
and Radiation Division, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois
60604.
Written comments should be sent to: William L. MacDowell, Chief,
Regulation Development Section, Air Enforcement Branch (AE-17J), U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago,
Illinois 60604.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Randy Robinson, Regulation Development
Section, Air Enforcement Branch (AE-17J), U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Region 5, Chicago, Illinois 60604.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Summary of State Submittal
On December 11, 1992, the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA)
submitted a revision to the State Implementation Plan (SIP) for sulfur
dioxide (SO2) in Air Quality Control Region (AQCR) 131 to the
United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). The seven-county
metropolitan area (AQCR 131) has been designated, by the USEPA, as
nonattainment for SO2 (40 C.F.R. 81.324). The submittal is
intended to demonstrate attainment of the National Ambient Air Quality
Standards (NAAQS) for SO2 in AQCR 131 for the area surrounding the
Ashland Petroleum Company. The remainder of the area (Dakota County/
Pine Bend and the rest of the Twin Cities) is being addressed in
separate rulemakings.
Background
The USEPA published the designation of AQCR 131 as a primary
nonattainment area for SO2 on March 3, 1978 (43 FR 8962). The 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 20997). The MPCA
submitted a request for redesignation to attainment of AQCR 131, except
for the Pine Bend area of Dakota County, on September 2, 1983. The
redesignation request included permits for several facilities, as well
as, monitoring data and dispersion modeling intended to support the
request.
The USEPA requested several revisions to the permits and compliance
data included in the 1983 submittal. In addition, the Stack Height Rule
promulgated on July 8, 1985, required the State to review all existing
emission limitations to determine whether any of these limitations had
been affected by stack height credit above Good Engineering Practice
(GEP) stack height or by other dispersion techniques. As a result of
this review, MPCA determined that Ashland Petroleum Company (in
addition to NSP-Riverside, and Koch Refining Company-Pine Bend) would
require additional permit revisions due to modeled violations using the
reduced creditable stack heights.
Given the numerous changes which had occurred since the original
redesignation request was submitted in 1983, the submittal was
withdrawn by the MPCA. A new SIP revision for Ashland Refining Company
was submitted on June 30, 1987. A SIP revision and redesignation
request for the remainder of AQCR 131, excluding the Pine Bend area of
Dakota County, was submitted by the MPCA on September 10, 1987. The
MPCA later withdrew the June 30, 1987, SIP revision because Ashland
Refining Company could not meet one of the emission limits listed in
the permit.
On December 11, 1992, the MPCA submitted a SIP revision for
SO2 for the St. Paul Park/Ashland area of AQCR 131. The submittal
includes an Administrative Order for Ashland Petroleum Company--St.
Paul Park Refinery, in addition to dispersion modeling and technical
support intended to show that the limits in the Administrative Order
are sufficient to attain the NAAQS for SO2 in the AQCR 131
nonattainment area near Ashland Petroleum Company.
II. Attainment Demonstration Review
This section will provide a general description of the State
submittal followed by USEPA's review of the attainment demonstration,
including modeling specifics of the Administrative Order for the
Ashland Petroleum Company. A more detailed description of the
Administrative Order and the attainment demonstration is included in
the technical support document associated with this action.
Description of State Emission Inventory
The emission units at the Ashland Refining Company--St. Paul Park
facility that discharge sulfur dioxide to the atmosphere are: three
process steam boilers, 27 process heaters, one fluidized catalytic
cracker regenerator, two sulfur recovery units with a common Shell
Claus Offgas Treatment (SCOT) tailgas unit, two diesel generators and
heater decoking operations. Specific emission limits and operating
limits are listed in the administrative order for these sources. In
addition, sulfur control limits are applied to the diesel fuel and
hydrogen sulfide limits are applied to the refinery gas. Compliance
with the emission limitations and operating restrictions shall be
demonstrated through the combined use of continuous emission monitors
(CEMS) designed to measure SO2 emissions, continuous monitoring
systems (CMS) that record fuel flowrate, and hydrogen sulfide content,
and regular fuel analysis and supplier certification to determine the
sulfur content and heating value of the fuel oil and diesel fuel. A
stack test will be used to determine initial compliance at Emission
Point 15 (SRU's and SCOT, and boilers 4 & 6). It has been determined,
based on guidance in the ``General Preamble for Future Proposed
Rulemakings,'' published in the Federal Register on April 16, 1992 (57
FR 13498), that the compliance methods listed above provide for
continuous compliance monitoring.
Description of State General Modeling Methodology
The modeling techniques used in the demonstration are based on the
modeling guidelines in place at the time the analyses were performed
(i.e., ``Guideline on Air Quality Models, (Revised),'' July 1986,
including ``Supplement A,'' July 1987).
Model
The dispersion modeling conducted for this demonstration was
performed using the Industrial Source Complex Short-Term (ISCST) model
(version 90346) for calculation of the 24-hour, 3-hour, and annual
concentrations. The model was run using the regulatory default option
and urban mode 3 (McElroy-Pooler) dispersion coefficients. Although a
land use analysis around Ashland Refining Company would classify the
area as rural, urban dispersion coefficients were applied based on the
results of a preliminary model/monitor comparison study which indicated
that the available rural models underpredict ambient concentrations. To
assure attainment, MPCA found it necessary to apply the more
conservative urban dispersion coefficients. The State did not use the
most recent version of the Industrial Source Complex model, known as
ISC2. The MPCA had completed the modeling to determine appropriate SIP
limits before the ISC2 model was released. Therefore, based on USEPA
guidance concerning grandfathering in the January 2, 1985, memorandum
from Joseph A. Tikvart, Chief, Source Receptor Analysis Branch, to the
Regional Modeling Contacts, the use of the ISCS2 version 90346 model is
acceptable for this particular submittal. Future modeling of the AQCR
131 area will need to be conducted using the ISC2 model.
Meteorological Data
The analysis used 1 year of on-site meteorological data (1988). As
a comparison, the MPCA conducted supplemental modeling using 1973-1977
Minneapolis Airport surface meteorological data, and St. Cloud mixing
height data. The results showed that the on-site meteorological data
resulted in higher predicted 3-hour and 24-hour concentrations.
However, both data sets produced concentrations demonstrating modeled
attainment of the SO2 NAAQS. Background concentrations of SO2
from sources not included in the modeling inventory were determined
based on consideration of previous background values. Historic
monitoring data (1984) was considered in ascertaining the SO2
unmodeled background concentration. The modeling inventory also
included many minor sources whose collective contributions were
classified in the submittal as ``background.'' These modeled
``background'' values, along with the monitored values, were included
in the critical concentrations identified in the attainment
demonstration.
Receptor Grid
The sulfur impacts were calculated over a 4-kilometer by 4-
kilometer area with 100 meter resolution. Terrain effects were
considered. Complex terrain impacts were determined by using the
COMPLEX1 model run in the VALLEY mode. The predicted 24-hour
concentrations for the complex run was less than the ISCST simple
terrain run; therefore, ISCST results were used for establishing the
SO2 emission limits in Ashland's Administrative Order.
GEP Determinations
All Ashland Refinery stacks were modeled using the lesser of the
actual stack height or 65 meters. Building downwash was not
incorporated in the original attainment demonstration because MPCA
maintained the stack heights at the facility were sufficiently high to
avoid downwash. The USEPA requested, and received from the State,
documentation demonstrating that the significant sources at the
facility were not subject to building downwash.
Interstate Impacts
Section 110(a)(2) of the Clean Air Act requires that the Minnesota
SIP prohibit emissions which would prevent attainment or maintenance of
the NAAQS in any other State. The Wisconsin border is approximately 40
kilometers (km) to the east of the sources included in this attainment
demonstration. For each source which was explicitly modeled in this
submittal, attainment in the adjacent State was demonstrated through
supplemental dispersion modeling. This modeling showed either
decreasing or steady concentration gradients in the direction of the
adjacent State and demonstrated that SO2 emissions allowed in
Minnesota would not prevent attainment or maintenance of the National
Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) in Wisconsin.
Comments
The USEPA has identified deficiencies in the Ashland Petroleum
Company Administrative Order that the MPCA must adequately address
before the USEPA can proceed with a final approval. The deficiencies
are presented in the following comments.
(1) On page 6, under the definition of 24-hour average, the word
``quality'' must be replaced by the word ``quantity.''
(2) On page 9, Section I.C.2. states that ``the company is allowed
to conduct decoking operations at each process heater not more than 72
hours in each calendar quarter.'' However, the modeling demonstration
appears to have based the decoking emissions on operations restricted
to 72 hours per year. The restriction in the order must reflect the
same operating hours as the attainment demonstration (72 hours per
year).
(3) On page 10, Section I.C.4.a.2. limits the amount of hydrogen
sulfide in the refinery gas to no more than 162 ppm as an average for
any consecutive 3-hour period. In the order, this limit does 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.'' The emissions used in the modeled
attainment demonstration for the refinery gas sources appear to be
based on the hydrogen sulfide limit on the refinery gas. Allowing
exemptions to the hydrogen sulfide limit during the time periods
mentioned above may jeopardize the SO2 standards.
The ``Guideline on Air Quality Models (Revised), including
Supplement A,'' dated June 1987, allows exclusion of emissions due to
malfunctions from the modeling demonstration. The non-malfunction
related time periods either must be removed from paragraph I.C.4.a.2.
or it must be shown that the SO2 standards are not violated during
these periods.
(4) On page 28, Section VI.D., the order states that ``no facility
shall be permitted to operate if it experiences an unreasonable
breakdown frequency of control equipment.'' This provision is
unenforceable and must be removed.
(5) On page 29, Section VI.G., references to more stringent
requirements must be removed. The final sentence should read ``To the
extent that any Federal or State statute, rule, permit, order,
stipulation agreement, consent decree or schedule of compliance now in
force or subsequently issued imposes limits and requires actions
additional to those required in this Order, the Company shall comply
with the additional requirements of the Federal or State statute, rule,
permit, order, stipulation agreement, consent decree, or schedule of
compliance.''
(6) A recent USEPA enforcement inspection of the facility showed
that a bypass route is available for emissions from the sulfur
reduction units 1 and 2. When the bypass is utilized, emissions do not
go through the tail gas unit or the incinerator and are not monitored.
There is no information in the order or the technical support which
discusses potential emissions, the reason for bypass, or frequency of
use of this bypass route. It is reasonable to expect that the short-
term SO2 National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) may be in
jeopardy during bypass operations. Information must be provided which
demonstrates that the SO2 NAAQS are not violated when using the
bypass associated with the sulfur reduction units. The information must
include why bypass routes are used, the frequency of use, and the
associated sulfur emissions. In addition, bypass information must be
included in the notification requirements listed under Section V.C.
(7) In Exhibit 2, Section E.1., should be entitled ``Sources not
subject to New Source Performance Standards.'' Also, in Section
E.1.a.1. and 2, should state the testing capacity may be ``specified by
the MPCA and/or USEPA.''
Further comments are documented in the Technical Support Document
(TSD), dated March 18, 1994.
Section 172 Requirements
Air Quality Control Region 131 is designated as a nonattainment
area for the primary NAAQS for sulfur dioxide. As a result, sulfur
dioxide nonattainment area plans 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; Proposed Rule; published April 16, 1992 at 57 FR
13498.
Section 172(c)(1) states that plans must require reasonably
available control measures (RACT). The General Preamble states that
``the definition of RACT for SO2 is that control technology which
is necessary to achieve the NAAQS.'' Minnesota's submittal includes air
dispersion modeling designed to show that, when the comments are
adequately addressed, the area will achieve attainment of the SO2
NAAQS with the control measures fully implemented, and therefore
satisfy the RACT requirement of Section 172(c)(1).
Section 172(c)(2) states that plans shall require reasonable
further progress. The term ``reasonable further progress'' is defined
in Section 171(1) as ``such annual incremental reductions in emissions
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 date.'' These
measures are not applicable because the Administrative Order ensures
attainment of the SO2 NAAQS by February 1994.
Section 172(c)(3) requires a suitable emission inventory. A
suitable inventory of SO2 emissions was included in the submittal.
Section 172(c)(4) mandates that any stationary source growth margin
included in the SIP must be expressly identified and quantified. Zero
growth margin was provided for in the submittal.
Section 172(c)(5) mandates a suitable permit program for new and
modified major stationary sources. A new source permitting program for
nonattainment areas was approved on April 28, 1994 (59 FR 21939).
Section 172(c)(6) requires enforceable limitations sufficient to
provide for attainment. The Administrative Order provides emission
limitations, operating requirements, and compliance schedules. When the
concerns identified previously in this action are adequately addressed,
the plan will then demonstrate, through air dispersion modeling, that
the fully implemented control measures achieve attainment of the
SO2 NAAQS.
Section 172(c)(7) mandates satisfaction of Section 110(a)(2).
Principal among the requirements of Section 110(a)(2) are requirements
that the State adopt its limitations following a suitable opportunity
for public comment. The MPCA Commissioner has certified that the public
hearing was noticed on November 9, 1992, and was held on December 15,
1992. Section 172(c)(8) states that the Administrator, in some
circumstances, may allow the use of equivalent modeling emission
inventory, and planning procedures. MPCA did not seek this
authorization.
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 (i.e., contingency measures), or to attain
the primary NAAQS by the attainment date applicable under this part.
The General Preamble, referenced above, provides guidance on SIP
requirements for SO2 nonattainment areas. It discusses contingency
measures for SO2 and states that it is unlikely for an area to
implement SO2 controls and fail to attain the NAAQS. Therefore,
USEPA interprets ``contingency measures'' for SO2 to include the
ability to rely on comprehensive State programs to identify violations
and to provide for compliance and enforcement. Minnesota Stat.
Sec. 115.071 provides that the provisions issued by the MPCA may be
enforced by various means. The orders also contain reporting
requirements necessary to determine compliance. Given this information,
it has been determined that the submittal contains appropriate
contingency measures.
III. Proposed Rulemaking Action
The USEPA is proposing to disapprove the Minnesota SIP revision for
SO2 for the St. Paul Park/Ashland area of AQCR 131. However, if
the above comments, detailed in this action, 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 intends to
publish a direct 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 October 3,
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). A revision to the SIP processing
review tables was approved by the Acting Administrator for the Office
of Air and Radiation on October 4, 1993 (Michael Shapiro's memorandum
to Regional Administrators). A future notice will inform the general
public of these tables. Under the revised tables, this action remains
classified as Table 2. 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. Small
entities include small businesses, small not-for-profit enterprises,
and government entities with jurisdiction over populations of less than
50,000.
USEPA's disapproval of the State request under Section 110 and
Subchapter I, Part D of the CAA does not affect any existing
requirements applicable to small entities. Any pre-existing Federal
requirements remaining in place after this disapproval. Federal
disapproval of the State submittal does not affect its state
enforceability. Moreover, USEPA's 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
Air Pollution Control, Environmental protection, Incorporation by
Reference, Reporting and record keeping requirements, Sulfur dioxide.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401-7671(q).
Dated: August 22, 1994.
Valdas V. Adamkus,
Regional Administrator.
[FR Doc. 94-21695 Filed 9-1-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
