# Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Minnesota > Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more. URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/fr%3A94-22238 ## Record - **Collection:** Federal Register - **Document type:** Uncategorized Document - **Published:** September 9, 1994 ## Text 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 --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/fr%3A94-22238. Public record. Not legal advice.