Approval and Promulgation of State Implementation Plan; Minnesota

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[MN 48-01-7273a; FRL-6416-8]

Approval and Promulgation of State Implementation Plan; Minnesota

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

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

SUMMARY: We are approving a December 31, 1998, request from the

Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) for new air pollution control

requirements for the Minnesota sulfur dioxide (SO2) State

Implementation Plan (SIP) for Marathon Ashland Petroleum LLC

(Marathon). These requirements were submitted in the form of an

Administrative Order (Order) and include revisions associated with the

addition of a new stack, revised emission limits for numerous sources,

and other changes. The revisions result in an overall decrease in

allowable SO2 emissions from the facility. The new

requirements have been evaluated through a computerized modeling

analysis and have shown that they will attain and maintain the National

Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) for SO2.

DATES: This direct final rule is effective on October 15, 1999, without

further notice, unless we receive relevant adverse written comments by

September 15, 1999. If we receive adverse comments, we will publish a

timely withdrawal of the direct final rule in the Federal Register and

inform the public that this rule will not take effect.

ADDRESSES: Send written comments to: Carlton T. Nash, Chief, Regulation

Development Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago,

Illinois, 60604. You may inspect copies of the documents relevant to

this action during normal business hours at the following location:

Regulation Development Section, Air Programs Branch, (AR-18J), U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard,

Chicago, Illinois, 60604.

Please contact Randall Robinson at (312) 353-6713 before visiting

the Region 5 office.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Randall Robinson, Meteorologist,

Regulation Development Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard,

Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 353-6713.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This Supplementary Information section is

organized as follows:

I. Introduction

What Action Is EPA Taking Today?

Who Is Affected by This Action?

What Information Did the State Submit in Its Request?

What Are the National Ambient Air Quality Standards?

What Is an Administrative Order?

How Did the State Support Its Request for Marathon?

How Does This Action Change the Administrative Order for Marathon?

Why Is the Request Approvable?

II. EPA Action

III. Administrative Requirements

I. Introduction

What Action Is EPA Taking Today?

In this action, we are approving a revision to the Minnesota

SO2 SIP for Marathon. The revision is referred to as

Amendment Four and amends the Order for Marathon to reflect revisions

associated with the addition of a new stack and revised emission limits

for numerous sources. Other changes included in Amendment Four are

discussed later in this document and more fully in the technical review

document.

Who Is Affected by This Revision?

The revision to Minnesota's SIP for SO2 is site-specific

and, thus, only affects Marathon.

What Information Did the State Submit In Its Request?

On December 31, 1998, the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA)

submitted to EPA a site-specific SO2 SIP revision request

for Marathon. The SIP revision for Marathon was submitted in the form

of an Order amendment, and referred to as Amendment Four. Amendment

Four revises the present Order for Marathon and replaces prior

amendments, Amendment Two and Three, by incorporating changes in

response to EPA comments on Amendment Two and Amendment Three. The MPCA

had previously submitted Amendment Two and Amendment Three to EPA on

November 26, 1996, and October 17, 1997, respectively. EPA provided

comments to MPCA regarding Amendment Two and Amendment Three, but did

not take any other action on those amendments to the administrative

order.

The 30-day public notice for the Order amendment, Amendment Four,

appeared in the St. Paul Pioneer Press on March 4, 1998. No one from

the public commented on the proposed revisions or requested a public

hearing.

What Are the National Ambient Air Quality Standards?

The EPA has established concentration levels for each of six

pollutants, called criteria pollutants, that are protective of human

health (primary standard) and welfare (secondary standard). The primary

NAAQS for SO2 is 0.03 parts per million (ppm) annual

arithmetis mean, and 0.14 ppm maximum 24-hour average concentration,

not to be exceeded more than once per calendar year. The secondary

NAAQS for SO2 is 0.50 ppm maximum 3-hour average

concentration, not to be exceeded more than once per calendar year. See

40 CFR 50.4.

What Is an Administrative Order?

Each state is obligated by section 110(a) of the Act, 42 U.S.C.

7410, to develop a plan which provides for ``implementation,

maintenance, and enforcement'' of the NAAQS promulgated by EPA. An

Order is a mechanism which the state uses to enforce applicable

requirements established either by State or Federal law. The Orders are

used to enforce requirements needed to meet the applicable NAAQS.

How Did the State Support Its Request for Marathon?

The MPCA provided EPA with a computerized modeling attainment

demonstration. The modeling analysis was required to evaluate whether

the air impacts from the proposed revisions will still provide for

attainment of the NAAQS for SO2. Details of the analysis are

presented below.

Air Quality Model

The analysis utilized the Industrial Source Complex Model-Short

Term (ISCST3) model. (The Integrated Gaussian Model (IGM), which has

been demonstrated to be equivalent to ISCST3, was used to obtain source

contributions.) ISCST3 is recommended for regulatory applications for

estimating short-term impacts from complicated sources (i.e., sources

with special problems such as aerodynamic downwash). The ISCST3 model

also contains the COMPLEX-I algorithms

[[Page 44409]]

which allow for the prediction of ambient air impacts at receptors

above stack top (i.e., complex terrain). Additionally, the ISCST3 model

automatically implements the intermediate terrain policy which requires

the user to predict concentrations on an hour-by-hour basis at

receptors above stack top but below plume height using both a simple

terrain model (ISCST3) and a complex terrain model (COMPLEX-I) and

select the highest for each hour. This option was executed for the

Marathon modeling.

Modeling Inputs

The SIP submittal revision submitted by the MPCA is specific to

Marathon. The total ambient air impact from the revisions at the

Company is the sum of the modeled impact from Company sources, modeled

background sources from the Twin Cities area, and an unmodeled

background value based on monitoring data. The value of the unmodeled

background concentration is based on an analysis of historic monitored

concentrations and has been used and approved in previous

SO2 SIP revisions. Marathon is located in the Mississippi

River valley with bluffs exceeding the height of Marathon stacks.

Consequently, weather data collected on-site was used to ensure

representativeness. The modeling analysis used one year of

meteorological data (1988) collected from a tower located at the

facility. Concentrations were calculated over a receptor grid which

featured 100 meter resolution. Concentrations calculated inside the

fenced property boundary were not used in the analysis.

The modeling analysis used emission estimates based on maximum

allowable emission rates (pounds of sulfur dioxide/hour and pounds of

sulfur dioxide/mmBTU) and maximum design capacities (mmBTUs/hour).

Stacks exceeding allowable good engineering practice stack height (GEP)

were modeled using the calculated GEP height. Plume downwash due to

building wake effects was also included in the analysis. The modeling

was conducted in accordance with the general recommendations included

in the Guideline on Air Quality Models, 40 Code of Federal Regulations

part 51, appendix W. The results of the modeling are presented in the

table below.

High-Second-High Modeled Sulfur Dioxide Concentrations

[Micrograms/cubic meter]

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

Total

concentration

Averaging time marathon+all NAAQS

background

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

Annual.................................. 65.1 80

24-hour................................. 359.4 365

3-hour.................................. 946.5 1300

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

How Does This Action Change the Administrative Order for Marathon?

Amendment Four includes the following primary changes: (1)

installation of a new sulfur reduction unit exhaust stack and

subsequent rebuilding of one of two existing tail-gas incinerators, (2)

a revised table of emission limits for various process and combustion

equipment.

The table below lists the Emission Unit and the new emission

limits, in pounds per hour and pounds per million British thermal units

(BTU's) for those sources with revised emission limits.

New Emission Limit

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

Emission unit lb/hr lb/mmBTU

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

Process Steam Boiler.......................... 1.08 0.03

Crude Charge Heater........................... 34.0 0.2834

Crude Vacuum Heater........................... 1.20 0.03

Distillate Unifier Heater..................... 1.41 0.03

Naphtha Unifier Heater........................ 1.95 0.03

Platformer Charge Heater...................... 1.95 0.03

Platformer Interheater #1..................... 1.68 0.03

Asphalt Oxidizer.............................. (*) ...........

Crude Charge.................................. 52.2 0.90

Crude Charge Preflash A (New)................. 0.89 0.03

Crude Charge Preflash B (New)................. 0.89 0.03

Platformer Heater #2.......................... 1.08 0.03

Guard Case Reactor............................ 1.70 0.03

Reactor Heaters #1 & 2........................ 2.10 0.03

Reactor Heaters #4 & 4E....................... 0.63 0.03

Reactor Heaters #3 & 4W....................... 1.05 0.03

Reactor Charge Heater......................... 1.38 0.03

Product Stripper Re-boiler.................... 0.78 0.03

Reformer Heaters.............................. 3.48 0.03

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

* Removed.

Significant decreases in the pounds per hour emission limits occur at

the crude charge heater (old limit=108 lb/hr), crude vacuum heater (old

limit=23.4 lb/hr), and the crude charge plus preflash (old limit=105.5

lb/hr). Minor increases, less than 1 pound per hour, occur at other

sources, mainly the heaters. Overall, the total allowable pounds per

hour emissions have dropped from 6325 tons per year to 5698 tons per

year.

The existing SIP for Marathon included emission limits specified

during periods when the Shell Claus Offgas Treatment (SCOT) unit and

the amine reduction unit (ARU) were undergoing regular scheduled

maintenance. These maintenance period limits have been removed in

Amendment Four. The limits associated with normal operating conditions

and any other New Source Performance Standard (NSPS) limits apply at

all times.

Other notable changes included in Amendment Four include:

(1) A requirement to keep records of calculated SO2

emissions in pounds per hour.

(2) The addition of a diesel engine to pump water to the Alky unit

during an emergency accidental release. Maximum emissions of 0.48 pound

per hour SO2.

(3) A restriction on steam air decoking more than one emission unit

at the same time.

(4) Changing fuel oil sampling from a daily sample to a requirement

to sample after receiving a transfer of fuel into their fuel supply

tank, and a change from a weekly analysis of heating value of the fuel

oil to quarterly.

(5) Changes to other operating limits (Exhibits 1.1 and 1.4)

Boiler 5--36.0 mmBTU/hr

Distillate Unifier Heater--47.0 mmBTU/hr

Naphtha Unifier Heater--65.0 mmBTU/hr

Platformer Charge Heater--65.0 mmBTU/hr

Platformer Interheater--56.0 mmBTU/hr

Crude Charge--58.0 mmBTU/hr

Crude Charge Pre--29.7 mmBTU/hr

Crude Charge Pre--29.7 mmBTU/hr

Platformer Heater #2--36.0 mmBTU/hr

Reactor Heaters 3 & 4W--35.0 mmBTU/hr

Modeled heat input values were added to the maximum heat input column

(6) Changes to stack parameters (Exhibit 1.7).

[[Page 44410]]

Modeled flow rates and temperatures were added

(7) Changes not requiring a modification of the Administrative

Order.

Language was added which would allow certain changes to be made at

the facility without obtaining a modified Order. A modification to the

Order is not needed if the modification does not:

(A) Exceed any of the limits in Part I of the Order,

(B) Effect the stack parameters described in Exhibit 1.7, unless

the change is made to a unit that no longer will be allowed to burn

fuel oil (fuel oil supply disconnected),

(C) Result in an increase of 2.28 pounds of SO2 per hour

or more at any new unit.

Based on the modeled attainment demonstration submitted with the

revision, these changes should not threaten the NAAQS. The limits on

modifications identified in the Order should ensure that significant

changes at the facility cannot occur without additional modeling

showing that the NAAQS are protected. Additionally, language in the

Order states that regardless of whether a modification of the order is

required, the Company shall obtain a permit amendment if required by

state or Federal law.

(8) Recordkeeping revisions.

An additional requirement to record the time period when burning

fuel oil in New Source Performance Standard (NSPS) units.

(9) Two new continuous monitoring systems were installed to

determine hydrogen sulfide content of commercial gas received from

Northern States Power. These systems were installed at the crude heater

and the reformer heaters.

(10) Name change from Ashland Petroleum Company to Marathon Ashland

Petroleum, LLC.

(11) Property access restrictions. The company is required to

maintain a fence to restrict public access around it's boundaries.

Other restrictions on operations, fuel use, and fuel quality remain

in effect and unchanged from the previously Federally approved Order.

The general compliance methodology consists of continuous emission

monitors (CEMS), continuous monitoring systems (CMS), and fuel sampling

and analysis.

Why Is the Request Approvable?

After review of the SIP revision request, EPA finds that Amendment

Four meets the applicable requirements of Clean Air Act section 110(a)

and that the revisions in Amendment Four have been shown to be

protective of the applicable NAAQS.

II. EPA Action

EPA is approving the requested revision to the Minnesota

SO2 SIP for Marathon. The EPA is publishing this action

without prior proposal because EPA views this as a noncontroversial

revision and anticipates no adverse comments. However, in a separate

document in this Federal Register publication, the EPA is proposing to

approve the SIP revision in case written adverse comments are filed.

This action will become effective without further notice unless the

Agency receives relevant adverse written comments within 30 days from

the date of publication. Should the Agency receive adverse comments, it

will publish a final rule informing the public that this action will

not take effect. Any parties interested in commenting on this action

should do so at this time.

III. Administrative Requirements

A. Executive Order 12866

The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted this

regulatory action from Executive Order (E.O.) 12866, entitled

``Regulatory Planning and Review.''

B. Executive Order 12875: Enhancing Intergovernmental Partnerships

Under E.O. 12875, EPA may not issue a regulation that is not

required by statute and that creates a mandate upon a state, local, or

tribal government, unless the Federal government provides the funds

necessary to pay the direct compliance costs incurred by those

governments. If the mandate is unfunded, EPA must provide to the Office

of Management and Budget a description of the extent of EPA's prior

consultation with representatives of affected state, local, and tribal

governments, the nature of their concerns, copies of written

communications from the governments, and a statement supporting the

need to issue the regulation. In addition, E.O. 12875 requires EPA to

develop an effective process permitting elected officials and other

representatives of state, local, and tribal governments ``to provide

meaningful and timely input in the development of regulatory proposals

containing significant unfunded mandates.'' Today's rule does not

create a mandate on state, local or tribal governments. The rule does

not impose any enforceable duties on these entities. Accordingly, the

requirements of section 1(a) of E.O. 12875 do not apply to this rule.

C. Executive Order 13045

Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety

Risks (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), applies to any rule that: (1) is

determined to be ``economically significant'' as defined under E.O.

12866, and (2) concerns an environmental health or safety risk that EPA

has reason to believe may have a disproportionate effect on children.

If the regulatory action meets both criteria, the Agency must evaluate

the environmental health or safety effects of the planned rule on

children, and explain why the planned regulation is preferable to other

potentially effective and reasonably feasible alternatives considered

by the Agency. EPA interprets E.O. 13045 as applying only to those

regulatory actions that are based on health or safety risks, such that

the analysis required under section 5-501 of the Order has the

potential to influence the regulation.

This action is not subject to E.O. 13045 because it approves a

state rule implementing a previously promulgated health or safety-based

Federal standard, and preserves the existing level of pollution control

for the affected areas.

D. Executive Order 13084: Consultation and Coordination With Indian

Tribal Governments

Under E.O. 13084, EPA may not issue a regulation that is not

required by statute, that significantly affects or uniquely affects the

communities of Indian tribal governments, and that imposes substantial

direct compliance costs on those communities, unless the Federal

government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct compliance

costs incurred by the tribal governments. If the mandate is unfunded,

EPA must provide to the Office of Management and Budget, in a

separately identified section of the preamble to the rule, a

description of the extent of EPA's prior consultation with

representatives of affected tribal governments, a summary of the nature

of their concerns, and a statement supporting the need to issue the

regulation. In addition, E.O. 13084 requires EPA to develop an

effective process permitting elected and other representatives of

Indian tribal governments ``to provide meaningful and timely input in

the development of regulatory policies on matters that significantly or

uniquely affect their communities.'' Today's rule does not

significantly or uniquely affect the communities of Indian tribal

governments. Accordingly, the

[[Page 44411]]

requirements of section 3(b) of E.O. 13084 do not apply to this rule.

E. Regulatory Flexibility Act

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an agency

to conduct a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to

notice and comment rulemaking requirements unless the agency certifies

that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a

substantial number of small entities. Small entities include small

businesses, small not-for-profit enterprises, and small governmental

jurisdictions. This final rule will not have a significant impact on a

substantial number of small entities because 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

create any new requirements, I certify that this action will not have a

significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

Moreover, due to the nature of the Federal-State relationship under the

Clean Air Act, preparation of flexibility analysis would constitute

Federal inquiry into the economic reasonableness of state action. The

Clean Air Act forbids EPA to base its actions concerning SIPs on such

grounds. Union Electric Co., v. U.S. EPA, 427 U.S. 246, 255-66 (1976);

42 U.S.C. 7410(a)(2).

F. Unfunded Mandates

Under section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

(``Unfunded Mandates Act''), signed into law on March 22, 1995, EPA

must prepare a budgetary impact statement to accompany any proposed or

final rule that includes a Federal mandate that may result in estimated

annual costs to State, local, or tribal governments in the aggregate;

or to private sector, of $100 million or more. Under section 205, EPA

must select the most cost-effective and least burdensome alternative

that achieves the objectives of the rule and is consistent with

statutory requirements. Section 203 requires EPA to establish a plan

for informing and advising any small governments that may be

significantly or uniquely impacted by the rule.

EPA has determined that the approval action promulgated does not

include a Federal mandate that may result in estimated annual costs of

$100 million or more to either State, local, or tribal governments in

the aggregate, or to the private sector. This Federal action approves

pre-existing requirements under State or local law, and imposes no new

requirements. Accordingly, no additional costs to State, local, or

tribal governments, or to the private sector, result from this action.

G. Submission to Congress and the Comptroller General

The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the

Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally

provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating

the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,

to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the

United States. EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other

required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of

Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior

to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot

take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal

Register. This rule is not a ``major'' rule as defined by 5 U.S.C.

804(2).

H. Petitions for Judicial Review

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 October 15, 1999. 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, Sulfur dioxide.

Dated: July 22, 1999

Jerri-Anne Garl,

Acting Regional Administrator, Region 5.

Part 52, chapter I, title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations 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 et seq.

Subpart Y--Minnesota

2. Section 52.1220 is amended by adding paragraph (c)(49) to read

as follows:

Sec. 52.1220 Identification of plan

(c) * * *

(49) Approval--On December 31, 1998, the Minnesota Pollution

Control Agency submitted a request for a revision to the Minnesota

sulfur dioxide (SO2) State Implementation Plan (SIP) for

Marathon Ashland Petroleum LLC (Marathon). The site-specific SIP

revision for Marathon was submitted in the form of an Administrative

Order (Order), and referred to as Amendment Four.

(i) Incorporation by reference.

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

Minnesota:

(1) Amendment Four to the administrative order, dated and effective

December 22, 1998, and submitted December 31, 1998.

(ii) Additional material.

(A) A letter from Peder A. Larson to David Ullrich, dated December

31, 1998, submitting Amendment Four for Marathon Ashland Petroleum,

LLC.

[FR Doc. 99-21012 Filed 8-13-99; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P