[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 16 (Monday, January 26, 1998)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 3650-3652]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-1763]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[IL160-1a; FRL-5951-6]


Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Illinois

AGENCY: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA).

ACTION: Direct Final Rule.

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

SUMMARY: On August 20, 1997, Illinois submitted a variance to allow 
Marathon Oil to emit particulate matter in increased quantities from 
June 14, 1996, to September 5, 1996, to allow the company to defer 
repairs of its control equipment until a scheduled system shutdown. The 
submittal included modeling to indicate that the temporary emissions 
increase would not be expected to cause a violation of air quality 
standards. USEPA is approving this variance because air quality 
standards continue to be protected.

DATES: This action is effective on March 27, 1998 unless USEPA receives 
written adverse or critical comments by February 25, 1998. If the 
effective date is delayed, timely notice will be published in the 
Federal Register.

ADDRESSES: Comments should be sent to: J. Elmer Bortzer, Chief, 
Regulation Development Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), United 
States Environmental Protection Agency, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, 
Chicago, Illinois 60604.
    Copies of the State's submittal are available for inspection at the 
following address: (It is recommended that you telephone John 
Summerhays at (312) 886-6067, before visiting the Region 5 Office.) 
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, Air and Radiation 
Division (AR-18J), 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John Summerhays, Regulation 
Development Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), U.S. Environmental 
Protection Agency,

[[Page 3651]]

Region 5, Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 886-6067.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    The State's submittal addresses emissions at the Fluid bed 
Catalytic Cracking Unit (FCCU) at Marathon Oil Company's refinery in 
Robinson, in Crawford County, Illinois. The FCCU uses catalyst in 
particle form to convert heavier petroleum materials into lighter, more 
valuable products. At issue are the quantity of particles that may be 
emitted from this unit. The normal emission limit for this unit, 
according to an equation based on the weight of material input to the 
process under normal capacity operation, is about 84 pounds per hour. 
The variance requested by the company and granted by the State 
authorizes emissions of 450 pounds per hour for the relevant 3-month 
period.
    The circumstances leading to the company's variance request 
involved discovery of evidence that emissions from the FCCU were 
exceeding the unit's limit and suggesting problems with the cyclones at 
the unit. Repair of the cyclones requires a month-long shutdown of the 
FCCU, which would dramatically reduce production of gasoline. The 
company argued that allowance to defer remedying the problems was 
needed to avoid undue hardship on the company, because immediate repair 
would be less efficient (due to difficulties of working on hot 
equipment in hot weather and due to reduced preparation for repairs) 
and would eliminate gasoline production for much of the peak driving 
season. The company sought the variance until the maintenance shutdown 
that was already scheduled for October 1996 (subsequently rescheduled 
to commence September 5, 1996).

II. Review of Submittal

    Crawford County is designated unclassifiable for PM10. 
Consequently, given that the variance would be a temporary relaxation 
of the State Implementation Plan (SIP), the principal review criterion 
is whether the variance has been demonstrated not to threaten continued 
attainment of the national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS).
    The company provided limited modeling to demonstrate the impact of 
the variance. This modeling used the Industrial Source Complex Model to 
simulate potential impacts of the FCCU, using relevant plume release 
characteristics and using meteorological data from Terre Haute, 
Indiana. This modeling estimated the impact of 450 pounds per hour of 
emissions of total suspended particulate matter, which was assumed to 
include 13.5 percent or 60.75 pounds per hour of PM10 
emissions. The estimate impact of these emissions was a peak 24-hour 
average PM10 impact of 1.8 micrograms per cubic meter 
(g/m\3\) and a peak annual average PM10 impact of 
0.13 g/m\3\. These impacts are well below the 24-hour 
PM10 standard of 150 g/m \3\ and the annual 
PM10 standard of 50 g/m\3\.
    An important issue not adequately addressed by the company was 
whether the addition of the FCCU impact to the impacts of other 
relevant sources would cause concentrations above the NAAQS. The State 
addressed this issue in part by examining PM10 air quality 
data at its nearest monitoring site, approximately 50 miles northwest, 
in Charleston, Coles County, Illinois. No exceedances had been recorded 
at this site. The State indicated that no other facilities with 
significant emissions were present near the facility, but the State did 
not address the impacts of other emission points within the Marathon 
refinery. Also, unfortunately, neither the company nor the State 
provided a copy of the inputs or outputs of the modeling or otherwise 
provided full details of the analysis, most notably with respect to 
switches used (e.g. for stack tip downwash). Nevertheless, it is 
reasonable to presume that any deviations from recommended approaches 
to these unaddressed issues would not change the general magnitude of 
FCCU's estimated impact.
    USEPA in its review considered other readily available information. 
USEPA examined the concentrations observed at the Coles County 
monitoring site from 1994 to 1996, which included a peak 24-hour 
average of 47 g/m \3\ and a 3-year average of 18 g/m 
\3\. USEPA also examined concentrations in Vigo County, Indiana, 
approximately 45 miles to the north-northeast, where the highest 24-
hour average concentration in 1994 to 1996 among several sites was 75 
g/m \3\, and the highest 3-year average was 29 g/m 
\3\. USEPA further examined emissions data submitted by Illinois to the 
national emissions data base. This data base shows estimated plant 
total emissions of particulate matter of about 700 tons per year, or 
about 160 pounds per hour. Much of these emissions are from combustion 
sources (e.g. heaters); thus, a high fraction of the total particulate 
matter emissions will be PM10. Also, plumes for these other 
units are likely to be hotter and higher than the FCCU plume. 
Therefore, it is reasonable to assume that complete modeling of the 
emissions of this facility would show impacts in the same order of 
magnitude as those found for the FCCU. Since the addition of even ten 
times the modeled FCCU impact to concentrations monitored at available 
monitoring sites is well below the air quality standards, it is 
reasonable to conclude that the emissions allowed under the variance 
requested by Marathon would not cause violations of the NAAQS.
    Ordinarily, USEPA would expect the source or the State to provide a 
more thorough analysis of whether a requested variance might cause a 
violation of the NAAQS. However, special circumstances in this case 
give USEPA adequate assurances that the NAAQS will not be violated. 
First, and most importantly, a substantial attainment margin exists, 
such that attainment would likely be shown even if a more complete 
analysis of various aspects of this issue were to show substantially 
greater concentrations. Second, although the nearest monitors are 
relatively distant, the various locations are expected to encounter 
similar air quality as would be found near the Marathon facility. 
Third, the temporary nature of the variance means that emissions are 
potentially elevated for a much shorter period than the five years 
modeled, such that the likelihood of violations is reduced, which in a 
qualitative way supports a conclusion that the variance will not 
threaten attainment.

III. Today's Action

    USEPA is approving the variance adopted by the Illinois Pollution 
Control Board on November 21, 1996, for the Marathon Oil Company 
refinery near Robinson, Illinois. This variance provides a temporary 
emissions limit of 450 pounds per hour for the FCCU at this facility.
    A noteworthy characteristic of this variance is that the period for 
which the variance applies is wholly in the past. Therefore, aside from 
judging whether the variance is approvable, USEPA must also judge 
whether the variance warrants inclusion as a codified element of the 
Illinois SIP. USEPA is undertaking an effort to revise its presentation 
of SIPs in a manner that more clearly identifies the enforceable 
elements of each SIP. Part of this effort is to eliminate referencing 
of variances that have expired long ago and thus are no longer of 
interest. The variance for Marathon alters the limitation to be 
enforced for approximately three months in 1996 but has no effect on 
the current regulations governing emissions at this facility. 
Consequently, USEPA is not codifying the variance for Marathon as part 
of the Illinois SIP. Nevertheless, for USEPA enforcement purposes, the 
emissions limitation that applies to

[[Page 3652]]

Marathon's FCCU for the June 14 to September 5, 1996, period is the 
limitation given in the State's variance rather than the otherwise 
applicable limitation in the State's regulations.
    Nothing in this action should be construed as permitting, allowing 
or establishing a precedent for any future request for revision to any 
SIP. Each request for revision to the SIP shall be considered 
separately in light of specific technical, economic, and environmental 
factors and in relation to relevant statutory and regulatory 
requirements.

IV. Administrative Requirements

    The Office of Management and Budget has 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. This 
action affects a only one source and therefore does not affect a 
substantial number of small entities.
    Under section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995, 
USEPA must undertake various actions in association with any proposed 
or final rule that includes a Federal mandate that may result in 
estimated costs to state, local, or tribal governments in the 
aggregate; or to the private sector, of $100 million or more. This 
Federal action approves pre-existing requirements under state or local 
law, and imposes no new requirements. Accordingly, no additional costs 
to state, local, or tribal governments, or the private sector, result 
from this action.
    Under section 307(b)(1) of the Act, petitions for judicial review 
of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for 
the appropriate circuit by March 27, 1998. 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, Particulate 
matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: January 8, 1998.
Michelle D. Jordan,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region V.
[FR Doc. 98-1763 Filed 1-23-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-U