Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Minnesota

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[MN20-2-6751a; FRL-5135-7]

Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Minnesota

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Direct final rule.

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

SUMMARY: In this action, the United States Environmental Protection

Agency (USEPA) is granting direct final approval of proposed revisions

to Minnesota State Implementation Plan (SIP) for sulfur dioxide

(SO2) for the St. Paul Park area of Air Quality Control Region

131. The revisions were contained in a formal submittal dated December

11, 1992, and a formal amendment submitted on September 30, 1994.

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

the State to satisfy the requirements of the Clean Air Act.

DATES: This action will be effective March 20, 1995, unless notice is

received by February 17, 1995, that someone wishes to submit adverse or

critical comments. If the effective date is delayed, timely notice will

be published in the Federal Register.

ADDRESSES: Written comments should be addressed to: William L.

MacDowell, Chief, Regulation Development Section, Air Enforcement

Branch (AE-17J), United States Environmental Protection Agency, 77 West

Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604.

Copies of the SIP revision request and USEPA's analysis are

available for public inspection during normal business hours at the

following addresses: United States Environmental Protection Agency,

Region 5, Air and Radiation Division, 77 West Jackson Boulevard (AE-

17J), Chicago, Illinois 60604; and Office of Air and Radiation (OAR),

Docket and Information Center (Air Docket 6102) room M1500, 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, Region 5, Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 353-

6713.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Summary of State Submittal

On December 11, 1992, the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA)

submitted proposed revisions to its SIP for SO2 for the St. Paul

Park area of Air Quality Control Region 131. The submittal also

contained technical information to support demonstration and

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

SO2. On September 2, 1994 (59 FR 45653) the USEPA proposed to

disapprove the MPCA submittal based on several enforceability and

attainment demonstration issues. However, that notice also stated that

if the MPCA adequately addressed the concerns before the end of the 30-

day comment period, and if no other substantive, adverse comments were

received, USEPA would proceed with a direct final approval. On

September 30, 1994, the MPCA submitted a revised proposed SIP, along

with technical information, addressing the issues raised in the

proposed disapproval. The notice of proposed rulemaking (59 FR 45653)

contained a comprehensive discussion of the history of the submittal,

the attainment demonstration, the requirements of section 172 of the

CAA, 42 U.S.C. 7502, and the issues identified by USEPA concerning

enforceability and attainment demonstration aspects of the submittal.

This notice of direct final rulemaking will summarize the major items

of the submittal as well as provide information as to how the September

30, 1994, MPCA submittal addressed the issues identified in the

proposed rulemaking.

Background

The USEPA published the designation of AQCR 131 as a primary

nonattainment area for SO2 on March 3, 1978 (43 FR 8692). The MPCA

submitted a final SO2 plan on August 4, 1980. The 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). AQCR 131,

however, has not been redesignated to attainment. The promulgation of

the Stack Height Rule on July 8, 1985, required the MPCA to review

existing emission limitations to determine if any sources were affected

by the new Rule. The MPCA determined that Ashland Petroleum Company,

located in the St. Paul Park area of AQCR 131, would require additional

permit revisions due to modeled violations using the reduced creditable

stack heights.

In response to the modeled violations, the MPCA submitted a

proposed SIP revision for SO2 for the St. Paul Park area on

December 11, 1992. The submittal included an administrative order for

the Ashland Petroleum Company-St. Paul Park Refinery, in addition to

dispersion modeling and technical support intended to show that the

limits are sufficient to attain and maintain the NAAQS for SO2. A

subsequent revision, containing an amended administrative order for

Ashland Petroleum Company and additional technical support, was

submitted on September 30, 1994.

II. Submittal Review Summary

This section will provide a summary of USEPA's review of the

attainment demonstration and administrative order for Ashland Petroleum

Company. A more detailed description is contained in the notice of

proposed rulemaking (59 FR 45653) and in the technical support document

associated with this action.

Modeling Methodology

Section 172(c)(6) of the Clean Air Act requires that plan 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 administrative order in the

submittal was performed using the Industrial [[Page 3545]] Source

Complex Short-term (ISCST) model (version 90346) for calculation of the

3-hour, 24-hour, and annual average concentrations. The model used the

regulatory default option, urban mode 3 (McElroy-Pooler) dispersion

coefficients, one year of on-site meteorological surface data with

upper air data from St. Cloud, Minnesota, and receptors spaced at 100

meter intervals at areas of maximum predicted impact. The emissions

used in the modeling were based on the maximum emissions allowed at

each source. The modeled concentrations, plus monitored background

concentrations, showed attainment with the 3-hour, 24-hour, and annual

NAAQS.

Issue Resolution

As stated previously, several issues were identified in the

original December 1992 submittal. The issues were detailed in the

September 2, 1994, notice of proposed disapproval. The issues and how

they were addressed in the amended submittal sent to USEPA on September

30, 1994, are discussed below.

(1) The definition of 24-hour average was incorrect. It has been

revised to correctly define the 24-hour average as the quantity of

pollutant emitted during any 24 consecutive hours divided by 24.

(2) There was a discrepency between the modeling demonstration and

the administrative order as to the number of allowable hours during

which the Company is allowed to conduct decoking operations. The number

of allowable decoking hours in the administrative order was changed to

reflect what was used in the modeled attainment demonstration.

(3) The limit on hydrogen sulfide in the refinery gas of 162 parts

per million, as written in the original administrative order, did 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. An USEPA concern was that allowing

these exemptions may jeopardize the SO2 standards since these

scenarios were not included in the attainment demonstration. The

amended administrative order removes all of the exemptions except for

regularly scheduled maintenance and repair of the tailgas recovery unit

and the amine regenerating unit. Air dispersion modeling, following the

modeling guidance, was conducted to demonstrate that the SO2 NAAQS

are not violated during these periods. This information was submitted

with the amended order that included revised emission limits and

recordkeeping requirements which are effective during these scheduled

maintenance and repair periods.

(4) A provision in the original administrative order stated that no

facility be allowed to operate if it experienced an unreasonable

breakdown freqency of control equipment. This provision was determined

to be unenforceable and was removed.

(5) The original administrative order stated that to the extent

that additional requirements were imposed upon the Company, the Company

shall comply with the more stringent requirements. This presented an

enforceability issue and the language was revised to read that the

Company shall also comply with the additional requirements.

(6) An issue was raised regarding air quality impacts when the

tailgas unit is bypassed. This issue was addressed through the

dispersion modeling conducted for the scheduled maintenance scenarios

discussed above. The modeling indicated that when the tailgas unit is

being bypassed, the standards are not violated. Recordkeeping

requirements remain in effect during these bypass periods and emissions

are monitored by continuous emission monitors.

(7) The amended administrative order revised a section title to

apply to sources not subject to New Source Performance Standards.

Additionally, the amended administrative order revised testing language

to state that testing capacity may be specified by USEPA as well as by

the MPCA.

Section 172 Requirements

Air Quality Control Region 131 is designated as a nonattainment

area for the primary NAAQS for sulfur dioxide. Sulfur dioxide

nonattainment areas 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 at 57 FR 13498 (April 16, 1992). The USEPA has

determined that the State submittal meets the applicable requirements

of section 172. A detailed justification of this determination is

provided in the September 2, 1994, notice of proposed rulemaking. 59 FR

45653.

Public Comments

A public comment period was associated with the notice of proposed

rulemaking. No comments were received.

III. Rulemaking Action

This action has evaluated the approvability of the Minnesota

SO2 SIP revision submittal for the St. Paul Park area of Air

Quality Control Region 131. It has been determined that the submittal

meets the applicable requirements of the Clean Air Act. Therefore,

USEPA is granting direct final approval.

Because USEPA considers this action noncontroversial and routine,

we are approving it through direct final rulemaking. The action will

become effective on March 20, 1995, unless notice is received by

February 17, 1995, that someone wishes to submit adverse or critical

comments. If the effective date is delayed, timely notice will be

published in the Federal Register.

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 3 action by the Regional

Administrator under the 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. The Office of Management and Budget 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.

State Implementation Plan 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,

[[Page 3546]] 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

(S.Ct. 1976); 42 U.S.C. 7410(a)(2).

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 March 20, 1995. 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: December 16, 1994.

Valdas V. Adamkus,

Regional Administrator.

Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations, chapter I, part 52, 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.

2. Section 52.1220 is amended by adding paragraph (c)(38) to read

as follows:

Sec. 52.1220 Identification of plan.

* * * * *

(c) * * *

(38) On December 22, 1992 and September 30, 1994, the State of

Minnesota submitted revisions to its State Implementation Plans (SIPs)

for sulfur dioxide for the St. Paul Park area of Air Quality Control

Region (AQCR) 131.

(i) Incorporation by reference.

(A) For Ashland Petroleum Company, located in St. Paul Park,

Minnesota:

(1) An administrative order, dated and effective December 15, 1992,

submitted December 22, 1992.

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

September 30, 1994, submitted September 30, 1994.

(ii) Additional material.

(A) A letter from Charles Williams to Valdas Adamkus dated December

22, 1992, with enclosures providing technical support (e.g., computer

modeling) for the revision to the administrative order for Ashland

Petroleum Company.

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

September 30, 1994, with enclosures, submitting Amendment One to the

administrative order for Ashland Petroleum Company.

* * * * *

[FR Doc. 95-1083 Filed 1-17-95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P