Document ID: EPA-R05-OAR-2008-0240-0002
Agency: epa
Document Type: Rule
Title: Direct Final Approval of the Minnesota SO2 SIP Revision for Rochester Public Utilities, Cascade Creek Facility
Posted Date: 2009-04-24T04:00Z

[Federal Register: April 24, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 78)]
[Rules and Regulations]               
[Page 18638-18641]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr24ap09-9]                         

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R05-OAR-2008-0240; FRL-8896-5]

 
Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; 
Minnesota

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is approving a site specific revision to the Minnesota 
sulfur dioxide (SO2) State Implementation Plan (SIP) for the 
Rochester Public Utility's Cascade Creek Generating Facility (Cascade 
Creek), located in the city of Rochester, Olmsted County, Minnesota. On 
March 5, 2008, the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) requested 
that EPA approve certain portions of a joint Title I/Title V document 
into the Minnesota SO2 SIP for the Cascade Creek facility. 
This SIP revision includes the addition of two new oil and gas fired 
turbines and modification of the starter engine on the No. 1 turbine. 
This SIP revision will show reduced emissions of SO2 from 
this facility and the SO2 National Ambient Air Quality 
Standards (NAAQS) will be maintained in the area. Because the 
SO2 emission limits are being reduced, the air quality of 
Olmsted County will be protected.

DATES: This direct final rule will be effective June 23, 2009, unless 
EPA receives adverse comments by May 26, 2009. If adverse comments are 
received, EPA will publish a timely withdrawal of the direct final rule 
in the Federal Register informing the public that the rule will not 
take effect.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R05-
OAR-2008-0240, by one of the following methods:
    1. http://www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for 
submitting comments.
    2. E-mail: mooney.john@epa.gov.
    3. Fax: (312) 692-2551.
    4. Mail: John M. Mooney, Chief, Criteria Pollutant Section, Air 
Programs Branch (AR-18J), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 77 West 
Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604.
    5. Hand Delivery: John M. Mooney, Chief, Criteria Pollutant 
Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), U.S. Environmental Protection 
Agency, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. Such 
deliveries are only accepted during the Regional Office normal hours of 
operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of 
boxed information. The Regional Office official hours of business are 
Monday through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding Federal 
holidays.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R05-OAR-
2008-0240. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included 
in the public docket without change and may be made available online at 
http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information 
provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be 
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose 
disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you 
consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through http://
www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The http://www.regulations.gov Web site 
is an ``anonymous access'' system, which means EPA will not know your 
identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of 
your comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without 
going through http://www.regulations.gov your e-mail address will be 
automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is 
placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you 
submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name 
and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any 
disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to 
technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA 
may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid 
the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of 
any defects or viruses.
    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the http://
www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some 
information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information 
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such 
as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy. 
Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically 
in http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Environmental 
Protection Agency, Region 5, Air and Radiation Division, 77 West 
Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. This Facility is open from 
8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding Federal 
holidays. We recommend that you telephone Gilberto Alvarez, 
Environmental Scientist, at (312) 886-6143 before visiting the Region 5 
office.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gilberto Alvarez, Environmental 
Scientist, Criteria Pollutant Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), 
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson 
Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 886-6143, 
alvarez.gilberto@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document whenever ``we,'' 
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean EPA. This supplementary information 
section is arranged as follows:

I. What Is EPA Approving?
II. What Is the Background for This Action?
III. What Is EPA's Analysis of the State Submission?
IV. What Are the Environmental Effects of This Action?
V. What Action Is EPA Taking?
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. What Is EPA Approving?

    EPA is approving into the SO2 SIP for Minnesota a joint 
Title I/Title V document for the Rochester Public Utility's Cascade 
Creek Facility (Cascade Creek), located in Rochester, Olmsted County, 
Minnesota. This SIP amendment approval will replace the current Title I 
SIP conditions under Air Emission Permit No. 00000610-001.

II. What Is the Background for This Action?

A. What Prior SIP Actions Are Pertinent to This Action?

    Cascade Creek is an electrical generation facility consisting of 
three combustion turbines and a diesel starter engine. The facility was 
identified as a culpable source in the Rochester area at the time the 
area was designated as nonattainment for the SO2 NAAQS. The 
facility is now part of the SIP to maintain attainment of the 
SO2 NAAQS in the Rochester area. On February 7, 2008, the 
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) issued an Air Emission Permit 
No. 10900020-003 to Rochester Public Utilities. The permit is a joint 
Title I/Title V document and will replace Permit No. 00000610-001, the 
joint document currently approved into the SIP. Air Permit Nos. 
10900020-001 and 002 were adopted at the state level, but the joint 
documents were not submitted to EPA for approval into the SIP. These 
permits authorized the modification of the existing turbine to allow 
for burning of natural gas and distillate fuel oil and established 
facility-wide Federally-enforceable

[[Page 18639]]

emission limits that restrict potential emissions to less than major 
source levels under the Federal Prevention of Significant Deterioration 
and New Source Review programs. These changes are being addressed 
through EPA's action on joint Title I/Title V document 10900020-003. 
Because the facility is located in the Rochester/Olmsted County 
SO2 maintenance area, changes to the facility's operations 
must be submitted to EPA as SIP revisions.

B. What Are the Revisions to the SIP?

    The revision involves changes to Cascade Creek's current operating 
conditions and revisions to the applicable SO2 SIP 
conditions currently listed in the Joint Title I/Title V document and 
incorporated into Minnesota's SIP. The facility has accepted fuel 
sulfur content limits that reduce SO2 beyond previously 
permitted levels. This SIP revision also includes the addition of two 
new oil and gas fired turbines and modification of the starter engine 
on the No. 1 turbine.

C. Has Public Notice Been Provided?

    Minnesota published public notices for the Cascade Creek Facility 
on December 20, 2007. No comments were received during the comment 
period which ended on February 4, 2008. In the public notices, 
Minnesota stated it would hold a public hearing if one were requested 
during the comment period. This follows the alternative public 
participation process EPA approved on June 5, 2006 (71 FR 32274). For 
limited types of SIP revisions that the public has shown little 
interest in, a public hearing is not automatically required. If anyone 
requests a public hearing during the comment period, Minnesota will 
hold a public hearing. Because no one requested a public hearing, 
Minnesota did not hold a public hearing for this SIP revision.

D. What Are Title I Conditions and Joint Title I/Title V Documents?

    SIP control measures were contained in permits issued to culpable 
sources in Minnesota until 1990 when EPA determined that limits in 
state-issued permits are not Federally-enforceable because the permits 
expire. Minnesota then issued permanent Administrative Orders to 
culpable sources in nonattainment areas from 1991 to February of 1996.
    Minnesota's consolidated permitting regulations, approved into the 
state SIP on May 2, 1995 (60 FR 21447), include the term ``Title I 
condition'' which was written, in part, to satisfy EPA requirements 
that SIP control measures remain permanent. A ``Title I condition'' is 
defined as ``any condition based on source-specific determination of 
ambient impacts imposed for the purposes of achieving or maintaining 
attainment with the national ambient air quality standard and which was 
part of the state implementation plan approved by EPA or submitted to 
the EPA pending approval under section 110 of the act * * *.'' The rule 
also states that ``Title I conditions and the permittee's obligation to 
comply with them, shall not expire, regardless of the expiration of the 
other conditions of the permit.'' Further, ``any Title I condition 
shall remain in effect without regard to permit expiration or 
reissuance, and shall be restated in the reissued permit.''
    Minnesota has initiated using joint Title I/Title V documents as 
the enforceable document for imposing emission limitations and 
compliance requirements in SIPs. The SIP requirements in joint Title I/
Title V documents submitted by MPCA are cited as ``Title I 
conditions,'' therefore ensuring that SIP requirements remain permanent 
and enforceable. EPA reviewed the state's procedure for using joint 
Title I/Title V documents to implement site-specific SIP requirements 
and found it to be acceptable under both Titles I and V of the Clean 
Air Act (CAA) (July 3, 1997 letter from David Kee, EPA, to Michael J. 
Sandusky, MPCA). Further, a June 15, 2006, letter from EPA to MPCA 
clarifies procedures to transfer requirements from Administrative 
Orders to joint Title I/Title V documents.

III. What Is EPA's Analysis of the State Submission?

    Cascade Creek owned units included in the SO2 SIP for 
the Rochester area. The facility has accepted fuel sulfur content 
limits that reduced SO2 beyond previously permitted levels. 
This SIP revision also includes the addition of two new oil and gas 
fired turbines and modification of the starter engine on the No. 1 
turbine.
    A modeling analysis conducted for the Cascade Creek Facility SIP 
revision showed that incorporating a reduced fuel oil sulfur limit 
resulted in less total SO2 impacts from operation of the 
modified three-turbine system, as opposed to the single-turbine system. 
Additionally, modeling shows that the location of the significant 
impact area is much smaller for the modified facility and does not 
include any new areas. Based on these modeled results, MPCA concluded 
that the addition of the two new turbines did not jeopardize NAAQS 
attainment.

IV. What Are the Environmental Effects of This Action?

    Due to the decrease in fuel oil sulfur content, overall emissions 
of SO2 will decrease from current SIP conditions. Thus, the 
Rochester area in Minnesota is expected to remain in attainment of the 
SO2 NAAQS.
    SO2 causes breathing difficulties and aggravation of 
existing cardiovascular disease. It is also a precursor of acid rain 
and fine particulate matter formation. Sulfate particles are a major 
cause of visibility impairment in the United States. Acid rain damages 
lakes and streams, impairing aquatic life, and causes damage to 
buildings, sculptures, statues and monuments. SO2 also 
causes the loss of chlorophyll leading to vegetation damage.

V. What Action Is EPA Taking?

    EPA is approving site specific revisions to the Minnesota 
SO2 SIP for the Cascade Creek Facility, located in the city 
of Rochester, Olmsted County, Minnesota. Specifically, EPA is only 
approving into the SIP those portions of the joint Title I/Title V 
document cited as ``Title I condition: State Implementation Plan for 
SO2.''
    We are publishing this action without prior proposal because we 
view this as a noncontroversial amendment and anticipate no adverse 
comments. However, in the proposed rules section of this Federal 
Register publication, we are publishing a separate document that will 
serve as the proposal to approve the state plan if relevant adverse 
written comments are filed. This rule will be effective June 23, 2009 
without further notice unless we receive relevant adverse written 
comments by May 26, 2009. If we receive such comments, we will withdraw 
this action before the effective date by publishing a subsequent 
document that will withdraw the final action. All public comments 
received will then be addressed in a subsequent final rule based on the 
proposed action. The EPA will not institute a second comment period. 
Any parties interested in commenting on this action should do so at 
this time. If we do not receive any comments, this action will be 
effective June 23, 2009.

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP 
submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable 
Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in 
reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices,

[[Page 18640]]

provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this 
action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and 
does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state 
law. For that reason, this action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to 
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order 
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the 
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact 
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory 
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or 
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded 
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have Federalism implications as specified in 
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based 
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to 
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the 
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent 
with the CAA; and
     Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to 
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental 
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under 
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, this rule does not have tribal implications as 
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), 
because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in 
the state, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct 
costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.
    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 action 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 action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 
804(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 June 23, 2009. Filing a 
petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule 
does not affect the finality of this action 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, Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and recordkeeping 
requirements, Sulfur oxides.

    Dated: April 9, 2009.
Bharat Mathur,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 5.

0
40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

PART 52--[AMENDED]

0
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

Subpart Y--Minnesota

0
2. In Sec.  52.1220 the table in paragraph (d) is amended by revising 
the entry for ``Rochester Public Utilities, Cascade Creek Combustion'' 
to read as follows:

Sec.  52.1220  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (d) * * *

                                                     EPA-Approved Minnesota Source-Specific Permits
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Name of source             Permit No.           State effective date                EPA approval date                     Comments
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                                      * * * * * * *
Rochester Public Utilities,         100900020-003  12/28/07.........................  4/24/09, [Insert page number      Only conditions cited as ``Title
 Cascade Creek Combustion.                                                             where the document begins].       I condition: SIP for SO2
                                                                                                                         NAAQS.''

                                                                      * * * * * * *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 18641]]

[FR Doc. E9-9368 Filed 4-23-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P