[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 11 (Wednesday, January 18, 1995)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 3544-3546]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-1083]



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


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 
(SO<INF>2) 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 SO<INF>2 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 
SO<INF>2. 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 SO<INF>2 on March 3, 1978 (43 FR 8692). The MPCA 
submitted a final SO<INF>2 plan on August 4, 1980. The USEPA published 
its final rule approving and promulgating the Minnesota Part D SIP for 
SO<INF>2 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 SO<INF>2 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 SO<INF>2. 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 SO<INF>2 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 SO<INF>2 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 
SO<INF>2 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