Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Minnesota

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[MN12-1-6110; FRL-4858-4]

Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Minnesota

AGENCY: United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The USEPA is approving revisions to Minnesota's State

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

Quality Control Region (AQCR) 131 area (excluding the Pine Bend area of

Dakota County and the St. Paul Park/Ashland area), which were submitted

to USEPA on May 29, 1992. These SIP revisions were submitted by the

State of Minnesota 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

September 13, 1993. 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

submitted to the USEPA on July 12, 1993. No comments were received on

the September 13, 1993, proposed action. Consequently, the USEPA is

fully approving the SO2 SIP revisions for AQCR 131.

EFFECTIVE DATE: This final rule becomes effective on May 16, 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.)

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, Air and Radiation

Division, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604.

A copy of today's revision to the Minnesota SIP is available for

inspection at:

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Air Docket, 6102, 401 M

Street, SW., Washington, DC 20460.

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

On May 29, 1992, the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA)

submitted to the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA),

revisions to the State Implementation Plan (SIP) for sulfur dioxide

(SO2) in Air Quality Control Region (AQCR) 131. The seven-county

metropolitan area (AQCR 131) has been designated, by the USEPA, as

nonattainment for SO2. This submittal was intended to demonstrate

attainment of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for

SO2in AQCR 131, excluding an area surrounding the SO2

emission sources at Ashland Petroleum Company, and an area surrounding

the SO2 emission sources at and near Koch Refining Company,

located in Dakota County. These two sources and the surrounding areas

were subject to separate submittals and are addressed in separate

rulemakings.

On September 13, 1993, a document was published in the Federal

Register (58 FR 47840) which proposed disapproval of the SO2 SIP

revision for AQCR 131. The proposed notice discussed the State

submittal, including background information, attainment demonstration,

specific aspects of each administrative order, USEPA comments regarding

the administrative orders, comparison of submittal with sections 110

and 172 requirements, and proposed rulemaking action. The disapproval

was based on the issues which had been identified in the notice by the

USEPA. However, the action also stated that if the issues were

satisfactorily addressed by the end of the 30-day comment period, and

if no adverse comments were received, the USEPA would proceed with a

final approval. This final rule will present a brief summary of the

State submittal, detail how the USEPA identified issues were addressed,

and present our recommendation for final approval.

II. Submittal Summary

The SO2 SIP revisions submitted by the MPCA for the AQCR 131

area consisted primarily of administrative orders issued to five

facilities: (1) Minneapolis Energy Center, Inc.; (2) Northern States

Power Company; (3) FMC and U.S. Navy (FMC has since changed its name to

Armament Systems Division of United Defense, L.P.); (4) GAF

Corporation; and (5) Federal-Hoffman, Incorporated. The administrative

orders contained emission limits, operating restrictions, compliance

methodologies, and reporting and recordkeeping requirements. Technical

support was also submitted which justified the limits and restrictions

in the administrative orders as well as explained the methodology used

to demonstrate attainment.

Attainment Demonstration

Section 172(c)(6) 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, 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 five 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. 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 annual impacts were calculated in the original 1987

submittal using the Climatological Dispersion Model (CDM 2.0). 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 five 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 are the administrative order revisions made by the

State and submitted to USEPA on July 12, 1993, in response to USEPA

comments detailed in the notice of proposed rulemaking. In addition,

the administrative order for FMC Corporation and U.S. Navy was again

revised on March 26, 1993 and an official SIP revision package was sent

to the USEPA at that time. Those revisions will also be discussed in

this section.

Federal Hoffman, Inc.

(1) A formula was added to the administrative order which

calculates an emission rate in pounds of sulfur dioxide per million

British Thermal Units (lbs/mmBtu) from information on percent sulfur,

density of the fuel oil, theoretical sulfur to sulfur dioxide

availability, and the heating value.

(2) It was made clear in the administrative order that the emission

limits on emission points 82, 83, and 84, apply to each point and not

the group.

(3) The method used to determine the sulfur content of fuel oil is

now clearly identified as an approved American Society for Testing and

Materials (ASTM) method.

FMC and U.S. Navy

(1) In response to a concern about monthly analysis of fuel oil for

waste oil or waste solvents, the administrative order was changed so

that every time the Company adds waste oil or waste solvents to the

fuel oil, the resulting fuel oil will be sampled and analyzed.

(2) The method used to determine sulfur content of the fuel oil is

now clearly identified as an approved ASTM method.

(3) A formula was added to the administrative order which

calculates an emission rate in lbs/mmBtu from information on percent

sulfur, fuel oil coefficients for the type of fuel being burned, and

the heating value.

Additional changes to the FMC and U.S. Navy order were requested in

a March 26, 1993, SIP revision package submitted by the State. The

changes included the addition, in Exhibit 1 of the administrative

order, of distillate oil as a fuel type for boilers 1 through 13 (these

boilers are also allowed to burn residual oil), three diesel generators

were added as emission points to Exhibit 1 (these diesel generators

were included in the modeled attainment demonstration), name changes

for boilers 1A, 1B, and 2A, and associated changes to Part I.C.E of the

administrative order which specifies operating restrictions during the

decommission of boilers 1 through 17 and their replacement with three

new boilers.

GAF Building Materials Corporation

(1) The administrative order increases the sampling and analyzing

frequency of the mixture of No. 6 fuel oil and knockout oil (a

petroleum based by-product) from a monthly to a weekly basis. If, after

six months, the sulfur content of the mixture is less than 1.3 percent,

monthly sampling will be considered sufficient.

(2) The administrative order now contains a formula for use in

calculating an emission rate in lbs/mmBtu from the recorded sulfur

content and heating value information.

(3) The method used to determine sulfur content of the fuel oil and

asphalt are specifically identified as approved ASTM methods. A

revision was also made to the recordkeeping section of the

administrative order requiring the Company to keep records on the

mixture of fuel oil and knockout oil.

Northern States Power

(1) The annual emission limit on emission point 3 has been

revised and is now based on a daily, 365-day rolling average.

(2) Minor language changes were made to clarify that testing

conditions and operating capacities may be specified by the MPCA and/or

the USEPA, and that the company shall obtain a permit amendment if

required by State or Federal regulation.

(3) A comment regarding the need for a formula in the order was

addressed by the use of continuous emission monitors (CEMS) at the

facility. The CEMS provide emissions data in lbs/mmBtu and lbs/hour.

The section in the administrative order discussing the operation and

maintenance of the CEMS was revised to reflect a new date for beginning

stack flow monitoring. This was requested by the Company due to

equipment installation problems and subsequent delays.

(4) An additional revision was made to the administrative order

limiting the types of fuel the Company is authorized to burn.

Minneapolis Energy Center, Inc.

(1) In response to an USEPA comment regarding emission limits on

operating scenarios not included in the original administrative order,

the State has revised the order to include limits on all possible

operating scenarios at the facility. Dispersion modeling was submitted

to support the additional limits. Also, information was included in the

administrative order for determining compliance when an operating

scenario changes in the middle of an averaging period.

(2) A formula was added to the administrative order to be used for

calculating sulfur dioxide emissions in lbs/hr based on data regarding

fuel flow, fuel density and percent sulfur.

(3) The administrative order was revised to require recordkeeping

during periods of time when natural gas supplies are interrupted and

the Facility is burning distillate oil.

(4) The emission units for emission point number 1 were changed to

correctly reflect Boilers 1, 2, and 3.

(5) An emergency diesel generator was added to the emission units

included in the administrative order. The generator is limited to 0.5

lbs of sulfur dioxide/mmBtu. The generator was included in the

supplementary dispersion modeling attainment demonstration noted in 1)

above.

IV. Public Comment/USEPA Response

There were no comments received on the notice of proposed

rulemaking published on September 13, 1993.

V. Rulemaking Action

The SO2 SIP revisions submitted to USEPA for AQCR 131 (except

the Pine Bend area of Dakota County and the St. Paul Park/Ashland area)

dated May 29, 1992, and the supplemental amendments dated, March 26,

1993, and July 12, 1993, 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

1 of part D of title I of the Clean Air Act. The July 12, 1993,

submittal satisfactorily addressed the issues identified in the

September 13, 1993, 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 five facilities in AQCR 131. The codification

portion of this document 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) FMC

Corporation and U.S. Navy; (2) Federal Hoffman, Incorporated; (3)

Northern States Power-Riverside Plant; (4) GAF Corporation; and (5)

Minneapolis Energy Center, Incorporated.

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. 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 58 FR 47840. As

noted elsewhere in this action, USEPA received no adverse public

comment on the proposed action. Consequently, this action has been

reclassified from Table 2 to Table 3 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 Assistant Administrator for Office of Air

and Radiation on October 4, 1993 (Michael Shapiro's memorandum to

Regional Administrators). A future document will inform the general

public of these tables. 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 waiver until such

time as it rules on USEPA's request. This request continued in effect

under Executive Order 12866 which superceded 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 June 13, 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).)

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by

reference, Reporting and recordkeeping 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: March 21, 1994.

Valdas V. Adamkus,

Regional Administrator.

Part 52, chapter I, title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations,is

amended as follows:

PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS

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)(30) to read

asfollows.

Sec. 52.1220 Identification of plan.

* * * * *

(c) * * *

(30) On June 4, 1992, March 30, 1993, and July 15, 1993, the State

of Minnesota submitted revisions to its State Implementation Plans

(SIPs) for sulfur dioxide for Air Quality Control Region (AQCR) 131

(excluding the Dakota County Pine Bend area and an area around Ashland

Refinery in St. Paul Park).

(i) Incorporation by reference.

(A) An administrative order, received on June 4, 1992, for FMC

Corporation and U.S. Navy, located in Fridley, Anoka County, Minnesota.

The administrative order became effective on May 27, 1992. Amendment

One, which was received on March 30, 1993, became effective on March 5,

1993. Amendment Two, which was received on July 15, 1993, became

effective on June 30, 1993.

(B) An administrative order, received on June 4, 1992, for Federal

Hoffman, Incorporated, located in Anoka, Anoka County, Minnesota. The

administrative order became effective on May 27, 1992. Amendment one,

received on July 15, 1993, became effective on June 30, 1993.

(C) An administrative order, received on June 4, 1992, for GAF

Building Materials Corporation (Asphalt Roofing Products Manufacturing

Facility) located at 50 Lowry Avenue, Minneapolis, Hennepin County,

Minnesota. The administrative order became effective on May 27, 1992.

Amendment One, received on July 15, 1993, became effective on June 30,

1993.

(D) An administrative order, received on June 4, 1992, for Northern

States Power Company-Riverside Generating Plant, located in

Minneapolis, Hennepin County, Minnesota. The administrative order

became effective on May 27, 1992. Amendment One, received on July 15,

1993, became effective on June 30, 1993.

(E) An administrative order for Minneapolis Energy Center, received

on July 15, 1993, Inc.'s Main Plant, Baker Boiler Plant, and the Soo

Line Boiler Plant all located in Minneapolis, Hennepin County,

Minnesota. The administrative order became effective on June 30, 1993.

(ii) Additional material.

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

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

modeling) for the revisions to the administrative orders for five

facilities.

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

26, 1993, with enclosures providing technical support for an amendment

to the administrative order for FMC Corporation and U.S. Navy.

(C) A letter from Charles Williams to Valdas Adamkus dated July 12,

1993, with enclosures providing technical support for amendments to

administrative orders for four facilities and a reissuance of the

administrative order to Minneapolis Energy Center, Inc.

[FR Doc. 94-8813 Filed 4-13-94; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-F