Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Minnesota

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[MN14-2-6324; FRL-5058-4]

Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Minnesota

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: In this action, the United States Environmental Protection

Agency (USEPA) is approving revisions to Minnesota's State

Implementation Plan (SIP) for sulfur dioxide (SO2) for the Dakota

County/Pine Bend area of Air Quality Control Region (AQCR) 131. The

USEPA's action is based upon a revision request which was submitted by

the State on July 29, 1992, to satisfy the requirements of the Clean

Air Act. The submittal consisted of Administrative Orders (AOs) for the

following facilities: Continental Nitrogen and Resources Company,

Northern States Power-Inver Hills Generating facility, and Koch

Refining Company and Sulfuric Acid Unit.

EFFECTIVE DATE: This final rule becomes effective on October 11, 1994.

ADDRESSES: Copies of the SIP revision, and other materials relating to

this rulemaking are available for inspection at the following address:

(It is recommended that you telephone Randy Robinson, (312) 353-6713,

before visiting the Region 5 Office.) United States Environmental

Protection Agency, Region 5, Air and Radiation Division, 77 West

Jackson Boulevard (AE-17J), Chicago, Illinois 60604.

A copy of this revision request to the Minnesota SO2 SIP is

available for inspection at the following address: Air Docket 6102,

United States Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M Street, SW.,

Washington, DC 20460.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Randy Robinson, Air Enforcement

Branch, Regulation Development Section (AE-17J), United States

Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, Chicago, Illinois 60604,

(312) 353-6713.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

On August 3, 1992, USEPA received from the Minnesota Pollution

Control Agency (MPCA) a revision to the SO2 plan for the Dakota

County/Pine Bend area of AQCR 131. This area has been designated, by

USEPA, as nonattainment for SO2. The revisions were submitted by

the MPCA as a means of demonstrating attainment of the National Ambient

Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for SO2. The USEPA proposed to

disapprove the originally submitted SIP revisions on January 28, 1994

(59 FR 4016). However, that notice of proposed rulemaking stated that

if the issues identified within were satisfactorily addressed by the

State by the end of the 30-day comment period, and if no other

significant adverse comments were received, USEPA would proceed with a

final approval. The issues were adequately addressed by the State and

the revised AOs were submitted to USEPA on February 25, 1994. No public

comments were received on the January 28, 1994, proposed action.

This final rule presents a brief summary of State submittal,

discusses how USEPA identified issues were addressed, and describes

USEPA's final action.

II. Submittal Summary

The State submittal, dated July 29, 1992 and received on August 3,

1992, consisted of revisions to the Minnesota SO2 SIP in the form

of administrative orders (AOs), along with technical support

information, for the following facilities in the Dakota County/Pine

Bend area: Koch Refining Company and Koch Sulfuric Acid Plant,

Continental Nitrogen and Resources Corporation, and Northern States

Power-Inver Hills Generating Facility. An amendment to the original AO

for Koch Refining Company, dated February 11, 1993, revised the

completion dates for construction and operation of a new stack and

control equipment.

Specific issues regarding the July 29, 1992, submittal were

identified in a June 4, 1993, letter from George Czerniak, Chief, Air

Enforcement Branch, USEPA, to David Thornton, Program Administrator,

Program Development and Air Analysis Section, Division of Air Quality,

MPCA. The issues were also detailed in the notice of proposed

rulemaking (59 FR 4016). In response to those issues, the MPCA

submitted revised AOs and administrative materials to USEPA. The

revisions affected Continental Nitrogen and Resources Corporation,

Northern States Power-Inver Hills Facility, and Koch Refining Company

and will be discussed in more detail below.

Attainment Demonstration

Section 172(c)(6) of the Clean Air Act requires that revisions

include enforceable emission limitations and other control measures,

means or techniques, necessary to provide for attainment of the

applicable NAAQS. The State submittal demonstrated attainment through

the use of air dispersion modeling. The primary guidance for such

demonstrations is the ``Guideline on Air Quality Models (Revised)''

(1986), Supplement A (1987), and Supplement B (1993), which specifies

the criteria for selection of dispersion models and for estimation of

emissions and other model inputs. In accordance with that guidance, the

dispersion modeling conducted for the three administrative orders in

this submittal was performed using the Industrial Source Complex Short-

term (ISCST) model (version 90346) for calculation of the 24-hour and

3-hour concentrations, and the Long-term (ISCLT) model (version 90008)

for calculation of the annual concentrations. The analysis used urban

dispersion coefficients, five years of National Weather Service

meteorological data (surface data from the Minneapolis/St. Paul airport

and upper air data from St. Cloud), regulatory default parameters, and

receptors spaced at 100 meter intervals at areas of maximum impact. The

emissions used in the modeling demonstration were based on the maximum

emissions allowed at each facility. The modeled concentrations, plus

background concentrations and growth margins, showed attainment with

the 3-hour, 24-hour, and annual NAAQS.

Compliance

The administrative orders for the facilities each contain sections

detailing how compliance is to be determined. The methods used include

continuous emissions monitors (CEMS), stack testing conducted in

accordance with Reference Methods 1 through 4, 6, 6a, or 6b, and

regular fuel sampling and fuel supplier certification. The USEPA has

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 these compliance methods are adequate to

provide for SO2 compliance monitoring at the affected facilities.

III. State Responses to USEPA Comments

The following section discusses the principal revisions made by the

State and submitted to USEPA on February 25, 1994, in response to USEPA

comments detailed in the notice of proposed rulemaking.

For the Continental Nitrogen and Resources Corporation: an

averaging time was added for the emission limit, and a formula was

added which specified how to determine compliance with the emission

limits based on the fuel recordkeeping requirements.

For the Northern States Power-Inver Hills Facility: an averaging

time was added for the emission limit, a formula was added which

specified how to determine compliance with the emission limits based on

the fuel recordkeeping requirements, and an American Society for

Testing and Materials (ASTM) method was added for determining sulfur

content of the fuel oil. Additionally, a diesel engine generator was

added to the AO and was subject to an emission limit and a fuel quality

limit.

For the Koch Refining Company: a section of the AO was revised to

allow USEPA to require stack tests, a table was added to the AO which

details emission limits that apply during maintenance of the SCOT units

associated with SRU 3, 4, and 5, compliance with these limits is

detailed in the revisions made to Exhibit 5, a method for determining

the amount of H2S in the sour water tank purge gas and sulfur

degassing gas for use in establishing an upper limit was added to the

order. Additionally, supplemental technical support information was

submitted which addressed comments pertaining to sources which were not

included in the original modeling demonstration.

IV. Public Comment/USEPA Response

There were no public comments received on the notice of proposed

rulemaking published on January 28, 1994.

V. Rulemaking Action

The original SO2 SIP revisions submitted to USEPA on July 29,

1992, for the Dakota County/Pine Bend area of AQCR 131, and the

supplemental amendments, dated February 11, 1993, and February 25,

1994, satisfy the general requirements for implementation plans as

detailed in section 110(a)(2) of the Clean Air Act and also the

nonattainment area plan requirements listed in subpart I of part D of

subchapter I of the Clean Air Act. The February 25, 1994, submittal

satisfactorily addressed the issues identified in the January 28, 1994,

notice of proposed rulemaking. Consequently, given that no other

comments on the proposed rulemaking were received, USEPA is taking

final action to approve Minnesota's SO2 SIP revision submittals

for the above specified area of AQCR 131.

The enforceable element of the State's submittals are the

administrative orders for three facilities in AQCR 131. The

codification portion of this notice identifies the effective dates of

the administrative orders and the names and locations of the facilities

covered. This final action incorporates into the SIP and makes

federally enforceable the administrative orders for: (1) Continental

Nitrogen and Resources Corporation; (2) Northern States Power-Inver

Hills Facility; and (3) Koch Refining Company and Koch Sulfuric Acid

Plant.

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.

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 impose any new requirements, I certify

that it does not have a significant impact on any small entities

affected. Moreover, due to the nature of the Federal-State relationship

under the Clean Air Act, preparation of a regulatory flexibility

analysis would constitute Federal inquiry into the economic

reasonableness of State action. The Clean Air Act forbids USEPA to base

its actions concerning SIPs on such grounds. Union Electric Co. v.

USEPA. 427 U.S. 246, 256-66 (1976); 42 U.S.C. 7410(a)(2).

Nothing in this action should be construed as permitting, allowing

or establishing a precedent for any future request for revision to any

SIP. The 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 makes final the action proposed at 59 FR 4016. The

USEPA received no adverse public comment on the proposed action. As a

direct result, the Regional Administrator has reclassified this action

from Table 2 to a Table 3 under the processing procedures published in

the Federal Register on January 19, 1989 (54 FR 2214-2225), as revised

by an October 4, 1993 memorandum from Michael H. Shapiro, Acting

Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation. On January 6, 1989, the

Office of Management and Budget (OMB) waived Table 2 and Table 3 SIP

revisions (54 FR 2222) from the requirements of section 3 of Executive

Order 22291 for a period of 2 years. The USEPA has submitted a request

for a permanent waiver for Table 2 and 3 SIP revisions. The 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 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 November 8, 1994. 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) of the Clean Air

Act.)

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Reporting and

record keeping requirements, Sulfur oxides.

Note-Incorporation by reference of the State Implementation Plan

for the State of Minnesota was approved by the Director of the

Federal Register on July 1, 1982.

Dated: August 15, 1994.

Valdas V. Adamkus,

Regional Administrator.

40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

PART 52--[AMENDED]

1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401-7671q.

Subpart Y--Minnesota

2. Section 52.1220 is amended by adding paragraph (c)(35) to read

asfollows:

Sec. 52.1220 Identification of plan.

* * * * *

(c) * * *

(35) On July 29, 1992, February 11, 1993, and February 25, 1994,

the State of Minnesota submitted revisions to its State Implementation

Plans (SIPs) for sulfur dioxide for Dakota County Pine Bend area of Air

Quality Control Region (AQCR) 131.

(i) Incorporation by reference.

(A) For Continental Nitrogen and Resources Corporation, located in

Rosemount, Dakota County, Minnesota:

(1) An administrative order, dated and effective July 28, 1992,

submitted July 29, 1992.

(2) Amendment One to the administrative order, dated and effective

February 25, 1994, submitted February 25, 1994.

(B) For Northern States Power Company, Inver Hills Generating

Facility, located in Dakota County, Minnesota:

(1) An administrative order, dated and effective July 28, 1992,

submitted July 29, 1992.

(2) Amendment one to the administrative order, dated and effective

February 25, 1994, submitted February 25, 1994.

(C) For Koch Refining Company and Koch Sulfuric Acid Unit, located

in the Pine Bend area of Rosemount, Dakota County, Minnesota:

(1) An administrative order, identified as Amendment One to

Findings and Order by Stipulation, dated and effective March 24, 1992,

submitted July 29, 1992.

(2) Amendment two to the administrative order, dated and effective

January 22, 1993, submitted February 11, 1993.

(3) Amendment three to the administrative order, dated and

effective February 25, 1994, submitted February 25, 1994.

(ii) Additional material.

(A) A letter from Charles Williams to Valdas Adamkus dated July 29,

1992, with enclosures providing technical support (e.g., computer

modeling) for the revisions to the administrative orders for three

facilities.

(B) A letter from Charles Williams to Valdas Adamkus dated February

11, 1993, submitting Amendment Two to the administrative order for Koch

Refining Company.

(C) A letter from Charles Williams to Valdas Adamkus dated February

25, 1994, with enclosures providing technical support for amendments to

administrative orders for three facilities.

[FR Doc. 94-22238 Filed 9-8-94; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-F