[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 19 (Friday, January 28, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page ]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-1963]
[Federal Register: January 28, 1994]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[MN-14-1; FRL-4830-2]
Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Minnesota
AGENCY: United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: In this action, the USEPA is proposing to disapprove the
revision to Minnesota's State Implementation Plan (SIP) for sulfur
dioxide (SO2) for the Dakota County/Pine Bend area of Air Quality
Control Region 131. Assuming no other substantive, adverse public
comments are received, the USEPA will proceed with a final approval of
the submittal when the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA)
addresses the concerns detailed in this notice and submits the
Administrative Orders to USEPA before the end of the 30-day comment
period. The USEPA's action is based upon a revision request which was
submitted by the State to satisfy the requirements of the Clean Air
Act. The revisions are the result of a call for SIP revision issued by
USEPA on December 5, 1984, based on monitored violations. The revisions
in the Minnesota submittal are in the form of non-expiring Findings and
Orders for Koch Refining Company and Koch Sulfuric Acid Unit,
Continental Nitrogen and Resources Company, and Northern States Power
Company-Inver Hills Generating Facility.
DATES: Comments on this requested revision and on the proposed USEPA
action must be received by February 28, 1994.
ADDRESSES: Written comments should be addressed to: William L.
MacDowell, Chief, Regulation Development Section, Air Enforcement
Branch (AE-17J), United States Environmental Protection Agency, Region
5, Air and Radiation Division, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago,
Illinois 60604.
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
USEPA published the designation of Air Quality Control Region
(AQCR) 131 as a primary nonattainment area for SO2 on March 3,
1978, and October 5, 1978. In response to Part D requirements of the
Clean Air Act, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) submitted a
final SO2 plan on August 4, 1980. USEPA published its final rule
approving and promulgating the Minnesota Part D SIP for SO2 for
AQCR 131 on April 8, 1981 (46 FR 20996). On December 5, 1984 (49 FR
47488), USEPA issued a call for SIP revisions for the Minnesota
SO2 SIP for Dakota County declaring the SIP inadequate based on
1982 monitored violations. The SIP call required that the MPCA submit a
revision to the Twin Cities SO2 SIP demonstrating attainment of
the SO2 National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) in the Pine
Bend Area by September 1985.
The promulgation of a Good Engineering Practice stack height rule,
along with difficulties negotiating a control strategy with Koch
Refining Company, and the selection of an appropriate computer model,
delayed the submittal. On September 10, 1987, the MPCA submitted
revisions to the operating permits for five sources and requested
redesignation to attainment for all of AQCR 131 except the Pine Bend
and St. Paul Park areas.
As a result of numerous USEPA comments, MPCA withdrew the Pine Bend
SO2 SIP while passage of the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments delayed
action on the rest of the SO2 revisions for AQCR 131.
On August 3, 1992, USEPA received from MPCA a revision to the
SO2 plan for the Dakota County/Pine Bend area of AQCR 131. The
submittal consisted of administrative materials demonstrating that the
State had adopted the revision as required and that a public hearing
was held. The submittal also contained administrative orders and
technical support for Koch Refining Company and Koch Sulfuric Acid
Plant, Continental Nitrogen and Resources Corporation, and Northern
States Power-Inver Hills Generating Facility. The rest of AQCR 131,
including the St. Paul Park Area, are being addressed in separate
rulemakings.
On February 16, 1993, USEPA received an amendment to the original
administrative order for Koch Refining Company. The amendment revises
the completion dates for construction and operation of a new stack and
control equipment.
II. Analysis of State Submittal
This section will provide a review of:
(1) The attainment demonstration modeling methodology for the
sources in the area;
(2) Specific aspects of the administrative orders (AOs); and
(3) Whether the submittal meets the requirements of section 172 of
the Clean Air Act.
Modeling Methodology
The short-term dispersion modeling was performed using the
Industrial Source Complex Short-term (ISCST version 90346) model.
Dispersion modeling for annual impacts was performed using the
Industrial Source Complex Long-Term (ISCLT version 90008) model. All
modeling was conducted in accordance with applicable guidance in the
``Guideline on Air Quality Models (Revised) (1986),'' and ``Supplement
A (1987).'' The dispersion modeling reflects USEPA Good Engineering
Practice stack height regulations where applicable. The modeling also
incorporated urban dispersion coefficients using 1973-1977 Minneapolis/
St. Paul hourly surface meteorological data and St. Cloud mixing height
data. These years were used to maintain consistency with the original
SO2 SIP. Although there is no reason to believe the 1973-1977
meteorological data is not representative of current meteorological
conditions in the Dakota County area, it is suggested that future SIP
revision modeling incorporate the five most recent years of available
meteorological data, as is stated in the guidance. Combined SO2
impacts resulting from modeling Koch Refinery, Koch Sulfuric Acid Unit,
Continental Nitrogen Resource Corporation, and Northern States Power,
were calculated at 549 receptors, with model resolution ranging from
1,000 meters near grid boundaries to 100 meters near hotspot locations.
Screening modeling was used initially to identify all events with
the potential for an exceedance of the Ambient Air Quality Standards.
These critical events were further processed using refined modeling
techniques to determine if the NAAQS for SO2 were protected.
Several operating scenarios were modeled. The highest, second-highest
predicted concentrations for the 3-hour and 24-hour averaging times,
including background, were 965.1 and 361.6 g/m3,
respectively. Annual average impacts were predicted by using a refined
modeling approach. The maximum annual predicted concentration,
including background, was 69.1 g/m3.
Additional short-term modeling investigated interstate impacts at
distances between 10 and 50 km from an MPCA monitor site. The Wisconsin
border is approximately 25 km to the east of the Koch Refinery
facility. Modeling was performed using worst-case emission parameters.
The modeling results demonstrated that Dakota County SO2 emissions
do not prevent attainment or maintenance of the NAAQS in any other
State.
General Statutory Requirements
The purpose of this section is to discuss whether the submittal
meets the statutory requirements set forth in the Clean Air Act. The
Pine Bend area of Dakota County, Minnesota is designated nonattainment
for the primary NAAQS for SO2. As a result, SO2 nonattainment
area plans must meet the requirements of subpart 1 of part D of title I
of the Clean Air Act, particularly section 172(c).
Section 172(c)(1) states that part D plans must require reasonably
available control measures (RACM), (e.g., RACT). The definition of RACT
for SO2 is that control technology which is necessary to achieve
the NAAQS. The Minnesota submittal includes modeling which, if comments
are adequately addressed, demonstrates that the Pine Bend area of
Dakota County will achieve attainment of the SO2 NAAQS with the
control measures fully implemented by April 1, 1993. This satisfies the
RACM requirements of the Clean Air Act.
Section 172(c)(2) states that plans shall require reasonable
further progress. The term ``reasonable further progress'' is defined
in section 171(B)(1) as ``such annual incremental reductions in
emission of the relevant air pollutant as are required by this part or
may reasonably be required by the Administrator for the purpose of
ensuring attainment of the applicable NAAQS by the applicable data.''
The Minnesota submittal provides for attainment of the NAAQS by April
1, 1993.
Section 172(c)(3) requires a suitable emission inventory. A
suitable inventory of SO2 emissions in the Pine Bend nonattainment
area was provided in Appendix D of the submittal.
Section 172(c)(4) mandates that any stationary source growth margin
included in the submittal be expressly identified and quantified. The
submittal provides for a zero growth margin.
Section 172(c)(5) mandates a suitable permit program for new and
modified major stationary sources. A new source permitting program for
nonattainment areas has been submitted to USEPA by MPCA and is
currently undergoing review. It will be addressed in a separate
rulemaking. The Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) program
is delegated to Minnesota and a general permitting rule has been SIP
approved.
Section 172(c)(6) requires enforceable limitations sufficient to
provide for attainment. Some enforceability concerns associated with
the submittal are detailed in the next section. If these concerns are
adequately addressed, the limitations will be sufficient to provide for
attainment.
Section 172(c)(7) mandates satisfaction of section 110(a)(2). A
primary requirement of section 110(a)(2) is that the State adopt its
limitations following a suitable opportunity for public comment. The
MPCA certifies that a public hearing was held on May 27, 1992.
Section 172(c)(8) states that the Administrator, in some
circumstances, may allow the use of equivalent modeling emission
inventory and planning procedures. In the Dakota County submittal, no
``equivalent techniques'' were used for modeling, emission inventory,
and planning procedures.
Section 172(c)(9) requires the plan to provide for implementation
of specific measures to be undertaken if the area fails to make
reasonable further progress, or to attain the primary NAAQS by the
attainment date applicable under this part (i.e. contingency measures).
In the event of nonattainment of the SO2 NAAQS, the MPCA has the
authority to enforce all provisions of the AOs, as well as all
applicable State and Federal rules and regulations.
Administrative Order Details
The purpose of this section is to provide details on the individual
AOs and state any comments that apply. These comments, provided by
Region 5, must be adequately addressed before final approval of the SIP
revision for Dakota County can be published.
Continental Nitrogen and Resources Corporation (CNRC)
The Rosemount CNRC facility has three boilers which discharge
SO2 emissions into the atmosphere. The Company is required to
limit emissions of SO2 from each of the 3 emission points to 1.5
pounds of SO2 per million British Thermal Units (lbs/mmBTU). In
addition, the three boilers may not operate at a heat input greater
than that listed in Exhibit 1 of the AO.
The Company is authorized to burn only natural gas and #6 fuel oil
in the three boilers. The Company may not burn #6 fuel oil with greater
than 1.5 percent sulfur by weight. Other restrictions include a limit
of no more than 16,000 gallons of #6 fuel oil per 24-hour period
(midnight to midnight), no more than 70,833 gallons of #6 fuel oil per
month on a monthly, 12-month rolling average, and the Company cannot
burn #6 fuel oil at more than two of the boilers at any one time.
Compliance with the limitations shall be demonstrated through
sampling and analyzing the #6 fuel oil for sulfur content and heating
value in accordance with approved ASTM methods. Also the Company shall
measure the total gallons of #6 fuel oil burned at each emission unit.
The Company is required to keep appropriate records to allow for
determination of compliance with the order.
Region 5 Comments:
The emission limits in the administrative order are written as
pounds of SO2 per million British Thermal Units (lbs/mmBTU). None
of the limits have an averaging time associated with them. This leads
to the assumption that the limits exist on an instantaneous basis. If
this is the case, the administrative order should state as such.
Otherwise, other appropriate averaging times should be applied to the
emission limits.
The administrative order, Part V.B.2.b.1 & 2, states, in part, that
the Company must retain records containing information on sulfur
content and heating value. The administrative order must include a
formula to relate this information to the emission limit in order to
determine compliance.
Northern States Power
There are six distillate and residual oil fired gas turbines at the
Northern States Power (NSP) facility which discharge sulfur dioxide
into the atmosphere. The Company is limited to 1.1 lbs of SO2/
mmBTU from each of the 6 emission units. Also, the Company may not
operate the 6 gas turbines at greater than the rated heat input
described in Exhibit 1 of the AO.
The Company is authorized to burn only distillate and residual fuel
oil in each of the gas turbines, and the fuel oil sulfur content may
not exceed 1.0 percent by weight. In addition, the Company may not burn
more than 8.75 million gallons of fuel oil per month on a 12-month
rolling average.
Compliance with the limitations shall be demonstrated through
either sampling and analyzing the fuel for sulfur content and heating
value in accordance with approved ASTM methods, or obtaining and
retaining a fuel supplier certification. Also, the Company is to
measure the total gallons of fuel oil burned at each emission unit both
on a 3-hour basis, and a monthly, 12-month rolling average basis. The
Company is required to keep appropriate records to allow for
determination of compliance with the order.
Region 5 Comments:
The emission limits in the administrative order are written as lbs/
mmBTU. None of the limits have an averaging time associated with them.
This leads to the assumption that the limits exist on an instantaneous
basis. If this is the case, the administrative order should state as
such. Otherwise, other appropriate averaging times should be applied to
the emission limits.
The Company is required to keep records on percent sulfur of the
fuel, and heating value of the fuel. The administrative order, Part
IV.B.2.a., does not specify a formula which would convert this data to
a lbs/mmBTU basis. This is necessary since the emission limits are in
lbs/mmBTU units. A formula is also required in the Annual Reports
section of the administrative order (Part V.B.).
Part of the demonstration of compliance with emission and operating
limits involves obtaining and maintaining a fuel supplier
certification. The administrative order, Part I.D.1.a.4., states that
the certification must include the method used to determine the sulfur
content of the fuel oil. It must be made clear that the method used
must be an approved ASTM method as listed in 40 CFR part 60, appendix
A, method 19, Sec. 5.2.2.
Koch Refining Company
The AO for Koch Refining includes a compliance schedule for
required modifications at various locations around the facility. Each
modification activity is accompanied by completion dates. All of the
activities had been completed at the time the submittal was sent to
USEPA.
The emission limits for the Refinery are listed in the AO and cover
the Sulfur Reduction Unit (SRU) 1/2 facility, the Sulfur Reduction Unit
3 and 4 facility, the Sulfur Reduction Unit 5 facility, the FCC
facility emission points 5, 6, and 8, the Oil Separation and Waste
Treatment Plant (OSWTP), the Platformer facility, and the Powerformer
facility. The table lists emission limitations for each applicable
SO2 standard averaging time, 3-hour, 24-hour, and annual. The 3-
hour average is based on three consecutive one-hour periods, the 24-
hour is based on 24 consecutive one-hour periods, and the annual is
based on a 12-month rolling average.
The emission limits for the Koch Sulfuric Acid Unit (KSAU) facility
are listed in Table 3 of the AO and cover Absorber emission points
numbers 1 and 3. However, emission point 1 becomes inoperational when
emission point 3 begins operation. Again, the applicable averaging
times are based the same as for the Refinery limits mentioned above.
Koch Refinery may burn refinery fuel oil, from the refinery fuel
oil distribution system, only at select locations. The fuel oil limits
on quantity and sulfur content are specified in Table 2 and Table 2a of
the AO. The Refinery may burn refinery fuel gas at specified locations.
The Company may not put fuel gas into the refinery fuel gas
distribution system which contains greater that 0.10 grains of hydrogen
sulfide per dry standard cubic foot of gas. The diesel fuel used shall
not have a sulfur content greater than 0.1 percent by weight.
Fuel restrictions at the KSAU facility limit the Boiler to burning
only refinery fuel gas, propane, or commercial natural gas. The
hydrogen sulfide content of refinery fuel gas burned at KSAU cannot
exceed 0.10 grains of hydrogen sulfide per dry standard cubic foot of
gas.
Compliance with the various limitations and restrictions applied to
Koch Refinery are detailed in the AO. The compliance demonstration
include calculations, monitoring, record keeping, diesel fuel
certification, and stack tests. Compliance with the emission limits at
KSAU also consist of calculations, monitoring, and data and record
keeping.
Region 5 Comments:
Flares nos. 5, 6, and 7 may only use gases from Refinery operations
when the gases are from pressure relief, from upsets of Refinery
process equipment, or are required for equipment maintenance (Part
II.B.6.C.). At all other times the flares must burn natural gas.
Information must be provided to justify not limiting these sources and
not including them in the modeling.
Compliance for emission points 348, 458, and 459, is to be based on
initial stack tests as specified in Table 1, note #4. Some method needs
to be specified for determining future compliance.
The administrative order states in Part V.C.2. that the company
shall conduct performance stack tests to determine compliance with the
emission limitations and fuel restrictions outlined in the order as
required by the Commissioner. Stack tests must also be able to be
required by appropriate USEPA personnel.
Exhibit 2-page 3 discusses the startup incinerators for SRU 3 and
SRU 4. These startup incinerators operate when tail gas bypasses the
Shell Claus Offgas Treatment (SCOT) Units and SCOT Unit incinerators.
Information must be provided to justify not limiting or modeling these
emission sources.
On page 9 of Exhibit 2, emission point 17 is listed as an active
emission source. However, in Exhibit 2, Attachment 6 emission point 17
has a rated input of 0.0 mmBTU/hr. Also, emission point 17 was not
included in the modeling demonstration. If #17 is shutdown, it must be
removed from reference in the administrative order.
On page 8 of Exhibit 5, the Company is required to measure the
amount of hydrogen sulfide in sour water tank purge gas by analysis
once per calendar quarter. The limit on hydrogen sulfide in sour water
tank purge gas is 162 parts per million as a 3-hour average. We would
request than analysis be conducted with increased frequency (e.g.,
daily).
III. Proposed Rulemaking Action and Solicitation of Public Comment
The USEPA is proposing disapproval of the Minnesota SIP revision
for SO2 for the Dakota County/Pine Bend area of AQCR 131,
contained in the Administrative Orders for Koch Refining Company and
Koch Sulfuric Acid Unit, Continental Nitrogen and Resources Company,
and Northern States Power Company-Inver Hills Generating Facility.
However, if the above comments, detailed in this notice, are adequately
addressed in revisions to this plan, and those revisions are submitted
to USEPA by the end of the 30-day comment period, then, assuming no
other substantive, adverse public comments are received, USEPA will
proceed with a final rulemaking approving the SIP revision as a whole
including the supplemental submittal. If at the end of the 30-day
comment period, the issues are still unresolved, final rulemaking
disapproving the SIP revision will be promulgated.
Public comments are solicited on the requested SIP revision and on
USEPA's proposal to disapprove. Public comments received by February
28, 1994, will be considered in the development of USEPA's final
rulemaking action.
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 2 action by the Regional
Administrator under the procedures published in the Federal Register on
January 19, 1989, (54 FR 2214-2225). 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
temporary waiver until such time as it rules on USEPA's request. This
request continues in effect under Executive Order 12866 which
superseded Executive Order 12291 on September 30, 1993.
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.
The USEPA's disapproval of the State request under section 110 and
subchapter I, part D of the Clean Air Act does not affect any existing
requirements applicable to small entities. Any pre-existing Federal
requirements remain in place after this disapproval. Federal
disapproval of the State submittal does not affect its state-
enforceability. Moreover, USEPA's disapproval of the submittal does not
impose any new Federal requirements. Therefore, USEPA certifies that
this disapproval action does not have a significant impact on a
substantial number of small entities because it does not remove
existing requirements nor does it impose any new Federal requirements.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401-7671q.
Dated: December 23, 1993.
Valdas V. Adamkus,
Regional Administrator.
[FR Doc. 94-1963 Filed 1-27-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-F