Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Minnesota

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