[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 72 (Thursday, April 14, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-8813]


[[Page Unknown]]

[Federal Register: April 14, 1994]


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


ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52

[MN12-1-6110; FRL-4858-4]

 

Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Minnesota

AGENCY: United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The USEPA is approving revisions to Minnesota's State 
Implementation Plan (SIP) for sulfur dioxide (SO2) for the Air 
Quality Control Region (AQCR) 131 area (excluding the Pine Bend area of 
Dakota County and the St. Paul Park/Ashland area), which were submitted 
to USEPA on May 29, 1992. These SIP revisions were submitted by the 
State of Minnesota as a means of demonstrating attainment of the 
National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for SO2. The USEPA 
proposed to disapprove the originally submitted SIP revisions on 
September 13, 1993. However, that notice of proposed rulemaking stated 
that if the issues identified within were satisfactorily addressed by 
the State by the end of the 30-day comment period, and if no other 
significant adverse comments were received, USEPA would proceed with a 
final approval. The issues were adequately addressed by the State and 
submitted to the USEPA on July 12, 1993. No comments were received on 
the September 13, 1993, proposed action. Consequently, the USEPA is 
fully approving the SO2 SIP revisions for AQCR 131.

EFFECTIVE DATE: This final rule becomes effective on May 16, 1994.

ADDRESSES: Copies of the SIP revision and other materials relating to 
this rulemaking are available for inspection at the following address: 
(It is recommended that you telephone Randy Robinson, (312) 353-6713, 
before visiting the Region 5 Office.)
    U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, Air and Radiation 
Division, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604.
    A copy of today's revision to the Minnesota SIP is available for 
inspection at:

    U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Air Docket, 6102, 401 M 
Street, SW., Washington, DC 20460.

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

    On May 29, 1992, the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) 
submitted to the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), 
revisions to the State Implementation Plan (SIP) for sulfur dioxide 
(SO2) in Air Quality Control Region (AQCR) 131. The seven-county 
metropolitan area (AQCR 131) has been designated, by the USEPA, as 
nonattainment for SO2. This submittal was intended to demonstrate 
attainment of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for 
SO2in AQCR 131, excluding an area surrounding the SO2 
emission sources at Ashland Petroleum Company, and an area surrounding 
the SO2 emission sources at and near Koch Refining Company, 
located in Dakota County. These two sources and the surrounding areas 
were subject to separate submittals and are addressed in separate 
rulemakings.
    On September 13, 1993, a document was published in the Federal 
Register (58 FR 47840) which proposed disapproval of the SO2 SIP 
revision for AQCR 131. The proposed notice discussed the State 
submittal, including background information, attainment demonstration, 
specific aspects of each administrative order, USEPA comments regarding 
the administrative orders, comparison of submittal with sections 110 
and 172 requirements, and proposed rulemaking action. The disapproval 
was based on the issues which had been identified in the notice by the 
USEPA. However, the action also stated that if the issues were 
satisfactorily addressed by the end of the 30-day comment period, and 
if no adverse comments were received, the USEPA would proceed with a 
final approval. This final rule will present a brief summary of the 
State submittal, detail how the USEPA identified issues were addressed, 
and present our recommendation for final approval.

II. Submittal Summary

    The SO2 SIP revisions submitted by the MPCA for the AQCR 131 
area consisted primarily of administrative orders issued to five 
facilities: (1) Minneapolis Energy Center, Inc.; (2) Northern States 
Power Company; (3) FMC and U.S. Navy (FMC has since changed its name to 
Armament Systems Division of United Defense, L.P.); (4) GAF 
Corporation; and (5) Federal-Hoffman, Incorporated. The administrative 
orders contained emission limits, operating restrictions, compliance 
methodologies, and reporting and recordkeeping requirements. Technical 
support was also submitted which justified the limits and restrictions 
in the administrative orders as well as explained the methodology used 
to demonstrate attainment.

Attainment Demonstration

    Section 172(c)(6) requires that 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, 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 five administrative orders in this submittal was 
performed using the Industrial Source Complex Short-term (ISCST) model 
(version 90346) for calculation of the 24-hour and 3-hour 
concentrations. The analysis used urban dispersion coefficients, five 
years of National Weather Service meteorological data (surface data 
from the Minneapolis/St. Paul airport and upper air data from St. 
Cloud), regulatory default parameters, and receptors spaced at 100 
meter intervals at areas of maximum impact. The emissions used in the 
modeling demonstration were based on the maximum emissions allowed at 
each facility. The annual impacts were calculated in the original 1987 
submittal using the Climatological Dispersion Model (CDM 2.0). The 
modeled concentrations, plus background concentrations and growth 
margins, showed attainment with the 3-hour, 24-hour, and annual NAAQS.

Compliance

    The administrative orders for the five facilities each contain 
sections detailing how compliance is to be determined. The methods used 
include continuous emissions monitors (CEMS), stack testing conducted 
in accordance with Reference Methods 1 through 4, 6, 6a, or 6b, and 
regular fuel sampling and fuel supplier certification. The USEPA has 
determined, based on guidance in the ``General Preamble for Future 
Proposed Rulemakings,'' published in the Federal Register on April 16, 
1992 (57 FR 13498), that these compliance methods are adequate to 
provide for SO2 compliance monitoring at the affected facilities.

III. State Responses to USEPA Comments

    The following are the administrative order revisions made by the 
State and submitted to USEPA on July 12, 1993, in response to USEPA 
comments detailed in the notice of proposed rulemaking. In addition, 
the administrative order for FMC Corporation and U.S. Navy was again 
revised on March 26, 1993 and an official SIP revision package was sent 
to the USEPA at that time. Those revisions will also be discussed in 
this section.

Federal Hoffman, Inc.

    (1) A formula was added to the administrative order which 
calculates an emission rate in pounds of sulfur dioxide per million 
British Thermal Units (lbs/mmBtu) from information on percent sulfur, 
density of the fuel oil, theoretical sulfur to sulfur dioxide 
availability, and the heating value.
    (2) It was made clear in the administrative order that the emission 
limits on emission points 82, 83, and 84, apply to each point and not 
the group.
    (3) The method used to determine the sulfur content of fuel oil is 
now clearly identified as an approved American Society for Testing and 
Materials (ASTM) method.

FMC and U.S. Navy

    (1) In response to a concern about monthly analysis of fuel oil for 
waste oil or waste solvents, the administrative order was changed so 
that every time the Company adds waste oil or waste solvents to the 
fuel oil, the resulting fuel oil will be sampled and analyzed.
    (2) The method used to determine sulfur content of the fuel oil is 
now clearly identified as an approved ASTM method.
    (3) A formula was added to the administrative order which 
calculates an emission rate in lbs/mmBtu from information on percent 
sulfur, fuel oil coefficients for the type of fuel being burned, and 
the heating value.
    Additional changes to the FMC and U.S. Navy order were requested in 
a March 26, 1993, SIP revision package submitted by the State. The 
changes included the addition, in Exhibit 1 of the administrative 
order, of distillate oil as a fuel type for boilers 1 through 13 (these 
boilers are also allowed to burn residual oil), three diesel generators 
were added as emission points to Exhibit 1 (these diesel generators 
were included in the modeled attainment demonstration), name changes 
for boilers 1A, 1B, and 2A, and associated changes to Part I.C.E of the 
administrative order which specifies operating restrictions during the 
decommission of boilers 1 through 17 and their replacement with three 
new boilers.

GAF Building Materials Corporation

    (1) The administrative order increases the sampling and analyzing 
frequency of the mixture of No. 6 fuel oil and knockout oil (a 
petroleum based by-product) from a monthly to a weekly basis. If, after 
six months, the sulfur content of the mixture is less than 1.3 percent, 
monthly sampling will be considered sufficient.
    (2) The administrative order now contains a formula for use in 
calculating an emission rate in lbs/mmBtu from the recorded sulfur 
content and heating value information.
    (3) The method used to determine sulfur content of the fuel oil and 
asphalt are specifically identified as approved ASTM methods. A 
revision was also made to the recordkeeping section of the 
administrative order requiring the Company to keep records on the 
mixture of fuel oil and knockout oil.

Northern States Power

    (1) The annual emission limit on emission point 3 has been 
revised and is now based on a daily, 365-day rolling average.
    (2) Minor language changes were made to clarify that testing 
conditions and operating capacities may be specified by the MPCA and/or 
the USEPA, and that the company shall obtain a permit amendment if 
required by State or Federal regulation.
    (3) A comment regarding the need for a formula in the order was 
addressed by the use of continuous emission monitors (CEMS) at the 
facility. The CEMS provide emissions data in lbs/mmBtu and lbs/hour. 
The section in the administrative order discussing the operation and 
maintenance of the CEMS was revised to reflect a new date for beginning 
stack flow monitoring. This was requested by the Company due to 
equipment installation problems and subsequent delays.
    (4) An additional revision was made to the administrative order 
limiting the types of fuel the Company is authorized to burn.

Minneapolis Energy Center, Inc.

    (1) In response to an USEPA comment regarding emission limits on 
operating scenarios not included in the original administrative order, 
the State has revised the order to include limits on all possible 
operating scenarios at the facility. Dispersion modeling was submitted 
to support the additional limits. Also, information was included in the 
administrative order for determining compliance when an operating 
scenario changes in the middle of an averaging period.
    (2) A formula was added to the administrative order to be used for 
calculating sulfur dioxide emissions in lbs/hr based on data regarding 
fuel flow, fuel density and percent sulfur.
    (3) The administrative order was revised to require recordkeeping 
during periods of time when natural gas supplies are interrupted and 
the Facility is burning distillate oil.
    (4) The emission units for emission point number 1 were changed to 
correctly reflect Boilers 1, 2, and 3.
    (5) An emergency diesel generator was added to the emission units 
included in the administrative order. The generator is limited to 0.5 
lbs of sulfur dioxide/mmBtu. The generator was included in the 
supplementary dispersion modeling attainment demonstration noted in 1) 
above.

IV. Public Comment/USEPA Response

    There were no comments received on the notice of proposed 
rulemaking published on September 13, 1993.

V. Rulemaking Action

    The SO2 SIP revisions submitted to USEPA for AQCR 131 (except 
the Pine Bend area of Dakota County and the St. Paul Park/Ashland area) 
dated May 29, 1992, and the supplemental amendments dated, March 26, 
1993, and July 12, 1993, satisfy the general requirements for 
implementation plans as detailed in section 110(a)(2) of the Clean Air 
Act and also the nonattainment area plan requirements listed in subpart 
1 of part D of title I of the Clean Air Act. The July 12, 1993, 
submittal satisfactorily addressed the issues identified in the 
September 13, 1993, notice of proposed rulemaking. Consequently, given 
that no other comments on the proposed rulemaking were received, USEPA 
is taking final action to approve Minnesota's SO2 SIP revision 
submittals for the above specified area of AQCR 131.
    The enforceable element of the State's submittals are the 
administrative orders for five facilities in AQCR 131. The codification 
portion of this document identifies the effective dates of the 
administrative orders and the names and locations of the facilities 
covered. This final action incorporates into the SIP and makes 
federally enforceable the administrative orders for: (1) FMC 
Corporation and U.S. Navy; (2) Federal Hoffman, Incorporated; (3) 
Northern States Power-Riverside Plant; (4) GAF Corporation; and (5) 
Minneapolis Energy Center, Incorporated.
    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.
    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 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, 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 (1976); 42 U.S.C. 7410(a)(2).
    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 makes final the action proposed at 58 FR 47840. As 
noted elsewhere in this action, USEPA received no adverse public 
comment on the proposed action. Consequently, this action has been 
reclassified from Table 2 to Table 3 by the Regional Administrator 
under the procedures published in the Federal Register on January 19, 
1989, (54 FR 2214-2225). A revision to the SIP processing review tables 
was approved by the Acting Assistant Administrator for Office of Air 
and Radiation on October 4, 1993 (Michael Shapiro's memorandum to 
Regional Administrators). A future document will inform the general 
public of these tables. 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 waiver until such 
time as it rules on USEPA's request. This request continued in effect 
under Executive Order 12866 which superceded Executive Order 12291 on 
September 30, 1993.
    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 13, 1994. 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: March 21, 1994.
Valdas V. Adamkus,
Regional Administrator.

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

Subpart Y--Minnesota

    2. Section 52.1220 is amended by adding paragraph (c)(30) to read 
asfollows.


Sec. 52.1220  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (30) On June 4, 1992, March 30, 1993, and July 15, 1993, the State 
of Minnesota submitted revisions to its State Implementation Plans 
(SIPs) for sulfur dioxide for Air Quality Control Region (AQCR) 131 
(excluding the Dakota County Pine Bend area and an area around Ashland 
Refinery in St. Paul Park).
    (i) Incorporation by reference.
    (A) An administrative order, received on June 4, 1992, for FMC 
Corporation and U.S. Navy, located in Fridley, Anoka County, Minnesota. 
The administrative order became effective on May 27, 1992. Amendment 
One, which was received on March 30, 1993, became effective on March 5, 
1993. Amendment Two, which was received on July 15, 1993, became 
effective on June 30, 1993.
    (B) An administrative order, received on June 4, 1992, for Federal 
Hoffman, Incorporated, located in Anoka, Anoka County, Minnesota. The 
administrative order became effective on May 27, 1992. Amendment one, 
received on July 15, 1993, became effective on June 30, 1993.
    (C) An administrative order, received on June 4, 1992, for GAF 
Building Materials Corporation (Asphalt Roofing Products Manufacturing 
Facility) located at 50 Lowry Avenue, Minneapolis, Hennepin County, 
Minnesota. The administrative order became effective on May 27, 1992. 
Amendment One, received on July 15, 1993, became effective on June 30, 
1993.
    (D) An administrative order, received on June 4, 1992, for Northern 
States Power Company-Riverside Generating Plant, located in 
Minneapolis, Hennepin County, Minnesota. The administrative order 
became effective on May 27, 1992. Amendment One, received on July 15, 
1993, became effective on June 30, 1993.
    (E) An administrative order for Minneapolis Energy Center, received 
on July 15, 1993, Inc.'s Main Plant, Baker Boiler Plant, and the Soo 
Line Boiler Plant all located in Minneapolis, Hennepin County, 
Minnesota. The administrative order became effective on June 30, 1993.
    (ii) Additional material.
    (A) A letter from Charles Williams to Valdas Adamkus dated May 29, 
1992, with enclosures providing technical support (e.g., computer 
modeling) for the revisions to the administrative orders for five 
facilities.
    (B) A letter from Charles Williams to Valdas Adamkus dated March 
26, 1993, with enclosures providing technical support for an amendment 
to the administrative order for FMC Corporation and U.S. Navy.
    (C) A letter from Charles Williams to Valdas Adamkus dated July 12, 
1993, with enclosures providing technical support for amendments to 
administrative orders for four facilities and a reissuance of the 
administrative order to Minneapolis Energy Center, Inc.
[FR Doc. 94-8813 Filed 4-13-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-F