[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 174 (Friday, September 9, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-22238]


[[Page Unknown]]

[Federal Register: September 9, 1994]


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


ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52

[MN14-2-6324; FRL-5058-4]

 

Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Minnesota

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: In this action, the United States Environmental Protection 
Agency (USEPA) is approving revisions to Minnesota's State 
Implementation Plan (SIP) for sulfur dioxide (SO2) for the Dakota 
County/Pine Bend area of Air Quality Control Region (AQCR) 131. The 
USEPA's action is based upon a revision request which was submitted by 
the State on July 29, 1992, to satisfy the requirements of the Clean 
Air Act. The submittal consisted of Administrative Orders (AOs) for the 
following facilities: Continental Nitrogen and Resources Company, 
Northern States Power-Inver Hills Generating facility, and Koch 
Refining Company and Sulfuric Acid Unit.

EFFECTIVE DATE: This final rule becomes effective on October 11, 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.) United States Environmental 
Protection Agency, Region 5, Air and Radiation Division, 77 West 
Jackson Boulevard (AE-17J), Chicago, Illinois 60604.
    A copy of this revision request to the Minnesota SO2 SIP is 
available for inspection at the following address: Air Docket 6102, 
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 Agency, Region 5, Chicago, Illinois 60604, 
(312) 353-6713.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    On August 3, 1992, USEPA received from the Minnesota Pollution 
Control Agency (MPCA) a revision to the SO2 plan for the Dakota 
County/Pine Bend area of AQCR 131. This area has been designated, by 
USEPA, as nonattainment for SO2. The revisions were submitted by 
the MPCA 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 January 28, 1994 
(59 FR 4016). 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 
the revised AOs were submitted to USEPA on February 25, 1994. No public 
comments were received on the January 28, 1994, proposed action.
    This final rule presents a brief summary of State submittal, 
discusses how USEPA identified issues were addressed, and describes 
USEPA's final action.

II. Submittal Summary

    The State submittal, dated July 29, 1992 and received on August 3, 
1992, consisted of revisions to the Minnesota SO2 SIP in the form 
of administrative orders (AOs), along with technical support 
information, for the following facilities in the Dakota County/Pine 
Bend area: Koch Refining Company and Koch Sulfuric Acid Plant, 
Continental Nitrogen and Resources Corporation, and Northern States 
Power-Inver Hills Generating Facility. An amendment to the original AO 
for Koch Refining Company, dated February 11, 1993, revised the 
completion dates for construction and operation of a new stack and 
control equipment.
    Specific issues regarding the July 29, 1992, submittal were 
identified in a June 4, 1993, letter from George Czerniak, Chief, Air 
Enforcement Branch, USEPA, to David Thornton, Program Administrator, 
Program Development and Air Analysis Section, Division of Air Quality, 
MPCA. The issues were also detailed in the notice of proposed 
rulemaking (59 FR 4016). In response to those issues, the MPCA 
submitted revised AOs and administrative materials to USEPA. The 
revisions affected Continental Nitrogen and Resources Corporation, 
Northern States Power-Inver Hills Facility, and Koch Refining Company 
and will be discussed in more detail below.

Attainment Demonstration

    Section 172(c)(6) of the Clean Air Act 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 (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 three 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, and the Long-term (ISCLT) model (version 90008) 
for calculation of the annual 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 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 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 section discusses the principal revisions made by the 
State and submitted to USEPA on February 25, 1994, in response to USEPA 
comments detailed in the notice of proposed rulemaking.
    For the Continental Nitrogen and Resources Corporation: an 
averaging time was added for the emission limit, and a formula was 
added which specified how to determine compliance with the emission 
limits based on the fuel recordkeeping requirements.
    For the Northern States Power-Inver Hills Facility: an averaging 
time was added for the emission limit, a formula was added which 
specified how to determine compliance with the emission limits based on 
the fuel recordkeeping requirements, and an American Society for 
Testing and Materials (ASTM) method was added for determining sulfur 
content of the fuel oil. Additionally, a diesel engine generator was 
added to the AO and was subject to an emission limit and a fuel quality 
limit.
    For the Koch Refining Company: a section of the AO was revised to 
allow USEPA to require stack tests, a table was added to the AO which 
details emission limits that apply during maintenance of the SCOT units 
associated with SRU 3, 4, and 5, compliance with these limits is 
detailed in the revisions made to Exhibit 5, a method for determining 
the amount of H2S in the sour water tank purge gas and sulfur 
degassing gas for use in establishing an upper limit was added to the 
order. Additionally, supplemental technical support information was 
submitted which addressed comments pertaining to sources which were not 
included in the original modeling demonstration.

IV. Public Comment/USEPA Response

    There were no public comments received on the notice of proposed 
rulemaking published on January 28, 1994.

V. Rulemaking Action

    The original SO2 SIP revisions submitted to USEPA on July 29, 
1992, for the Dakota County/Pine Bend area of AQCR 131, and the 
supplemental amendments, dated February 11, 1993, and February 25, 
1994, 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 I of part D of 
subchapter I of the Clean Air Act. The February 25, 1994, submittal 
satisfactorily addressed the issues identified in the January 28, 1994, 
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 three facilities in AQCR 131. The 
codification portion of this notice 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) Continental 
Nitrogen and Resources Corporation; (2) Northern States Power-Inver 
Hills Facility; and (3) Koch Refining Company and Koch Sulfuric Acid 
Plant.
    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. The 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 59 FR 4016. The 
USEPA received no adverse public comment on the proposed action. As a 
direct result, the Regional Administrator has reclassified this action 
from Table 2 to a Table 3 under the processing 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. On January 6, 1989, the 
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) waived Table 2 and Table 3 SIP 
revisions (54 FR 2222) from the requirements of section 3 of Executive 
Order 22291 for a period of 2 years. The USEPA has submitted a request 
for a permanent waiver for Table 2 and 3 SIP revisions. The 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 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 November 8, 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) of the Clean Air 
Act.)

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Reporting and 
record keeping 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: August 15, 1994.
Valdas V. Adamkus,
Regional Administrator.

    40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

PART 52--[AMENDED]

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


    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401-7671q.

Subpart Y--Minnesota

    2. Section 52.1220 is amended by adding paragraph (c)(35) to read 
asfollows:


Sec. 52.1220  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (35) On July 29, 1992, February 11, 1993, and February 25, 1994, 
the State of Minnesota submitted revisions to its State Implementation 
Plans (SIPs) for sulfur dioxide for Dakota County Pine Bend area of Air 
Quality Control Region (AQCR) 131.
    (i) Incorporation by reference.
    (A) For Continental Nitrogen and Resources Corporation, located in 
Rosemount, Dakota County, Minnesota:
    (1) An administrative order, dated and effective July 28, 1992, 
submitted July 29, 1992.
    (2) Amendment One to the administrative order, dated and effective 
February 25, 1994, submitted February 25, 1994.
    (B) For Northern States Power Company, Inver Hills Generating 
Facility, located in Dakota County, Minnesota:
    (1) An administrative order, dated and effective July 28, 1992, 
submitted July 29, 1992.
    (2) Amendment one to the administrative order, dated and effective 
February 25, 1994, submitted February 25, 1994.
    (C) For Koch Refining Company and Koch Sulfuric Acid Unit, located 
in the Pine Bend area of Rosemount, Dakota County, Minnesota:
    (1) An administrative order, identified as Amendment One to 
Findings and Order by Stipulation, dated and effective March 24, 1992, 
submitted July 29, 1992.
    (2) Amendment two to the administrative order, dated and effective 
January 22, 1993, submitted February 11, 1993.
    (3) Amendment three to the administrative order, dated and 
effective February 25, 1994, submitted February 25, 1994.
    (ii) Additional material.
    (A) A letter from Charles Williams to Valdas Adamkus dated July 29, 
1992, with enclosures providing technical support (e.g., computer 
modeling) for the revisions to the administrative orders for three 
facilities.
    (B) A letter from Charles Williams to Valdas Adamkus dated February 
11, 1993, submitting Amendment Two to the administrative order for Koch 
Refining Company.
    (C) A letter from Charles Williams to Valdas Adamkus dated February 
25, 1994, with enclosures providing technical support for amendments to 
administrative orders for three facilities.
[FR Doc. 94-22238 Filed 9-8-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-F