[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 157 (Monday, August 16, 1999)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 44408-44411]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-21012]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[MN 48-01-7273a; FRL-6416-8]


Approval and Promulgation of State Implementation Plan; Minnesota

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

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

SUMMARY: We are approving a December 31, 1998, request from the 
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) for new air pollution control 
requirements for the Minnesota sulfur dioxide (SO2) State 
Implementation Plan (SIP) for Marathon Ashland Petroleum LLC 
(Marathon). These requirements were submitted in the form of an 
Administrative Order (Order) and include revisions associated with the 
addition of a new stack, revised emission limits for numerous sources, 
and other changes. The revisions result in an overall decrease in 
allowable SO2 emissions from the facility. The new 
requirements have been evaluated through a computerized modeling 
analysis and have shown that they will attain and maintain the National 
Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) for SO2.

DATES: This direct final rule is effective on October 15, 1999, without 
further notice, unless we receive relevant adverse written comments by 
September 15, 1999. If we receive adverse comments, we will publish a 
timely withdrawal of the direct final rule in the Federal Register and 
inform the public that this rule will not take effect.

ADDRESSES: Send written comments to: Carlton T. Nash, Chief, Regulation 
Development Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), U.S. Environmental 
Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, 
Illinois, 60604. You may inspect copies of the documents relevant to 
this action during normal business hours at the following location: 
Regulation Development Section, Air Programs Branch, (AR-18J), U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, 
Chicago, Illinois, 60604.
    Please contact Randall Robinson at (312) 353-6713 before visiting 
the Region 5 office.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Randall Robinson, Meteorologist, 
Regulation Development Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, 
Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 353-6713.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This Supplementary Information section is 
organized as follows:

I. Introduction

What Action Is EPA Taking Today?
Who Is Affected by This Action?
What Information Did the State Submit in Its Request?
What Are the National Ambient Air Quality Standards?
What Is an Administrative Order?
How Did the State Support Its Request for Marathon?
How Does This Action Change the Administrative Order for Marathon?
Why Is the Request Approvable?

II. EPA Action

III. Administrative Requirements

I. Introduction

What Action Is EPA Taking Today?

    In this action, we are approving a revision to the Minnesota 
SO2 SIP for Marathon. The revision is referred to as 
Amendment Four and amends the Order for Marathon to reflect revisions 
associated with the addition of a new stack and revised emission limits 
for numerous sources. Other changes included in Amendment Four are 
discussed later in this document and more fully in the technical review 
document.

Who Is Affected by This Revision?

    The revision to Minnesota's SIP for SO2 is site-specific 
and, thus, only affects Marathon.

What Information Did the State Submit In Its Request?

    On December 31, 1998, the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) 
submitted to EPA a site-specific SO2 SIP revision request 
for Marathon. The SIP revision for Marathon was submitted in the form 
of an Order amendment, and referred to as Amendment Four. Amendment 
Four revises the present Order for Marathon and replaces prior 
amendments, Amendment Two and Three, by incorporating changes in 
response to EPA comments on Amendment Two and Amendment Three. The MPCA 
had previously submitted Amendment Two and Amendment Three to EPA on 
November 26, 1996, and October 17, 1997, respectively. EPA provided 
comments to MPCA regarding Amendment Two and Amendment Three, but did 
not take any other action on those amendments to the administrative 
order.
    The 30-day public notice for the Order amendment, Amendment Four, 
appeared in the St. Paul Pioneer Press on March 4, 1998. No one from 
the public commented on the proposed revisions or requested a public 
hearing.

What Are the National Ambient Air Quality Standards?

    The EPA has established concentration levels for each of six 
pollutants, called criteria pollutants, that are protective of human 
health (primary standard) and welfare (secondary standard). The primary 
NAAQS for SO2 is 0.03 parts per million (ppm) annual 
arithmetis mean, and 0.14 ppm maximum 24-hour average concentration, 
not to be exceeded more than once per calendar year. The secondary 
NAAQS for SO2 is 0.50 ppm maximum 3-hour average 
concentration, not to be exceeded more than once per calendar year. See 
40 CFR 50.4.

What Is an Administrative Order?

    Each state is obligated by section 110(a) of the Act, 42 U.S.C. 
7410, to develop a plan which provides for ``implementation, 
maintenance, and enforcement'' of the NAAQS promulgated by EPA. An 
Order is a mechanism which the state uses to enforce applicable 
requirements established either by State or Federal law. The Orders are 
used to enforce requirements needed to meet the applicable NAAQS.

How Did the State Support Its Request for Marathon?

    The MPCA provided EPA with a computerized modeling attainment 
demonstration. The modeling analysis was required to evaluate whether 
the air impacts from the proposed revisions will still provide for 
attainment of the NAAQS for SO2. Details of the analysis are 
presented below.
Air Quality Model
    The analysis utilized the Industrial Source Complex Model-Short 
Term (ISCST3) model. (The Integrated Gaussian Model (IGM), which has 
been demonstrated to be equivalent to ISCST3, was used to obtain source 
contributions.) ISCST3 is recommended for regulatory applications for 
estimating short-term impacts from complicated sources (i.e., sources 
with special problems such as aerodynamic downwash). The ISCST3 model 
also contains the COMPLEX-I algorithms

[[Page 44409]]

which allow for the prediction of ambient air impacts at receptors 
above stack top (i.e., complex terrain). Additionally, the ISCST3 model 
automatically implements the intermediate terrain policy which requires 
the user to predict concentrations on an hour-by-hour basis at 
receptors above stack top but below plume height using both a simple 
terrain model (ISCST3) and a complex terrain model (COMPLEX-I) and 
select the highest for each hour. This option was executed for the 
Marathon modeling.
Modeling Inputs
    The SIP submittal revision submitted by the MPCA is specific to 
Marathon. The total ambient air impact from the revisions at the 
Company is the sum of the modeled impact from Company sources, modeled 
background sources from the Twin Cities area, and an unmodeled 
background value based on monitoring data. The value of the unmodeled 
background concentration is based on an analysis of historic monitored 
concentrations and has been used and approved in previous 
SO2 SIP revisions. Marathon is located in the Mississippi 
River valley with bluffs exceeding the height of Marathon stacks. 
Consequently, weather data collected on-site was used to ensure 
representativeness. The modeling analysis used one year of 
meteorological data (1988) collected from a tower located at the 
facility. Concentrations were calculated over a receptor grid which 
featured 100 meter resolution. Concentrations calculated inside the 
fenced property boundary were not used in the analysis.
    The modeling analysis used emission estimates based on maximum 
allowable emission rates (pounds of sulfur dioxide/hour and pounds of 
sulfur dioxide/mmBTU) and maximum design capacities (mmBTUs/hour). 
Stacks exceeding allowable good engineering practice stack height (GEP) 
were modeled using the calculated GEP height. Plume downwash due to 
building wake effects was also included in the analysis. The modeling 
was conducted in accordance with the general recommendations included 
in the Guideline on Air Quality Models, 40 Code of Federal Regulations 
part 51, appendix W. The results of the modeling are presented in the 
table below.

         High-Second-High Modeled Sulfur Dioxide Concentrations
                        [Micrograms/cubic meter]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                               Total
                                           concentration
             Averaging time                marathon+all        NAAQS
                                            background
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Annual..................................            65.1              80
24-hour.................................           359.4             365
3-hour..................................           946.5            1300
------------------------------------------------------------------------

How Does This Action Change the Administrative Order for Marathon?

    Amendment Four includes the following primary changes: (1) 
installation of a new sulfur reduction unit exhaust stack and 
subsequent rebuilding of one of two existing tail-gas incinerators, (2) 
a revised table of emission limits for various process and combustion 
equipment.
    The table below lists the Emission Unit and the new emission 
limits, in pounds per hour and pounds per million British thermal units 
(BTU's) for those sources with revised emission limits.

                           New Emission Limit
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 Emission unit                     lb/hr       lb/mmBTU
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Process Steam Boiler..........................         1.08         0.03
Crude Charge Heater...........................         34.0       0.2834
Crude Vacuum Heater...........................         1.20         0.03
Distillate Unifier Heater.....................         1.41         0.03
Naphtha Unifier Heater........................         1.95         0.03
Platformer Charge Heater......................         1.95         0.03
Platformer Interheater #1.....................         1.68         0.03
Asphalt Oxidizer..............................          (*)  ...........
Crude Charge..................................         52.2         0.90
Crude Charge Preflash A (New).................         0.89         0.03
Crude Charge Preflash B (New).................         0.89         0.03
Platformer Heater #2..........................         1.08         0.03
Guard Case Reactor............................         1.70         0.03
Reactor Heaters #1 & 2........................         2.10         0.03
Reactor Heaters #4 & 4E.......................         0.63         0.03
Reactor Heaters #3 & 4W.......................         1.05         0.03
Reactor Charge Heater.........................         1.38         0.03
Product Stripper Re-boiler....................         0.78         0.03
Reformer Heaters..............................         3.48        0.03
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Removed.

Significant decreases in the pounds per hour emission limits occur at 
the crude charge heater (old limit=108 lb/hr), crude vacuum heater (old 
limit=23.4 lb/hr), and the crude charge plus preflash (old limit=105.5 
lb/hr). Minor increases, less than 1 pound per hour, occur at other 
sources, mainly the heaters. Overall, the total allowable pounds per 
hour emissions have dropped from 6325 tons per year to 5698 tons per 
year.
    The existing SIP for Marathon included emission limits specified 
during periods when the Shell Claus Offgas Treatment (SCOT) unit and 
the amine reduction unit (ARU) were undergoing regular scheduled 
maintenance. These maintenance period limits have been removed in 
Amendment Four. The limits associated with normal operating conditions 
and any other New Source Performance Standard (NSPS) limits apply at 
all times.
    Other notable changes included in Amendment Four include:
    (1) A requirement to keep records of calculated SO2 
emissions in pounds per hour.
    (2) The addition of a diesel engine to pump water to the Alky unit 
during an emergency accidental release. Maximum emissions of 0.48 pound 
per hour SO2.
    (3) A restriction on steam air decoking more than one emission unit 
at the same time.
    (4) Changing fuel oil sampling from a daily sample to a requirement 
to sample after receiving a transfer of fuel into their fuel supply 
tank, and a change from a weekly analysis of heating value of the fuel 
oil to quarterly.
    (5) Changes to other operating limits (Exhibits 1.1 and 1.4)

Boiler 5--36.0 mmBTU/hr
Distillate Unifier Heater--47.0 mmBTU/hr
Naphtha Unifier Heater--65.0 mmBTU/hr
Platformer Charge Heater--65.0 mmBTU/hr
Platformer Interheater--56.0 mmBTU/hr
Crude Charge--58.0 mmBTU/hr
Crude Charge Pre--29.7 mmBTU/hr
Crude Charge Pre--29.7 mmBTU/hr
Platformer Heater #2--36.0 mmBTU/hr
Reactor Heaters 3 & 4W--35.0 mmBTU/hr
Modeled heat input values were added to the maximum heat input column

    (6) Changes to stack parameters (Exhibit 1.7).

[[Page 44410]]

    Modeled flow rates and temperatures were added
    (7) Changes not requiring a modification of the Administrative 
Order.
    Language was added which would allow certain changes to be made at 
the facility without obtaining a modified Order. A modification to the 
Order is not needed if the modification does not:
    (A) Exceed any of the limits in Part I of the Order,
    (B) Effect the stack parameters described in Exhibit 1.7, unless 
the change is made to a unit that no longer will be allowed to burn 
fuel oil (fuel oil supply disconnected),
    (C) Result in an increase of 2.28 pounds of SO2 per hour 
or more at any new unit.
    Based on the modeled attainment demonstration submitted with the 
revision, these changes should not threaten the NAAQS. The limits on 
modifications identified in the Order should ensure that significant 
changes at the facility cannot occur without additional modeling 
showing that the NAAQS are protected. Additionally, language in the 
Order states that regardless of whether a modification of the order is 
required, the Company shall obtain a permit amendment if required by 
state or Federal law.
    (8) Recordkeeping revisions.
    An additional requirement to record the time period when burning 
fuel oil in New Source Performance Standard (NSPS) units.
    (9) Two new continuous monitoring systems were installed to 
determine hydrogen sulfide content of commercial gas received from 
Northern States Power. These systems were installed at the crude heater 
and the reformer heaters.
    (10) Name change from Ashland Petroleum Company to Marathon Ashland 
Petroleum, LLC.
    (11) Property access restrictions. The company is required to 
maintain a fence to restrict public access around it's boundaries.
    Other restrictions on operations, fuel use, and fuel quality remain 
in effect and unchanged from the previously Federally approved Order. 
The general compliance methodology consists of continuous emission 
monitors (CEMS), continuous monitoring systems (CMS), and fuel sampling 
and analysis.

Why Is the Request Approvable?

    After review of the SIP revision request, EPA finds that Amendment 
Four meets the applicable requirements of Clean Air Act section 110(a) 
and that the revisions in Amendment Four have been shown to be 
protective of the applicable NAAQS.

II. EPA Action

    EPA is approving the requested revision to the Minnesota 
SO2 SIP for Marathon. The EPA is publishing this action 
without prior proposal because EPA views this as a noncontroversial 
revision and anticipates no adverse comments. However, in a separate 
document in this Federal Register publication, the EPA is proposing to 
approve the SIP revision in case written adverse comments are filed. 
This action will become effective without further notice unless the 
Agency receives relevant adverse written comments within 30 days from 
the date of publication. Should the Agency receive adverse comments, it 
will publish a final rule informing the public that this action will 
not take effect. Any parties interested in commenting on this action 
should do so at this time.

III. Administrative Requirements

A. Executive Order 12866

    The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted this 
regulatory action from Executive Order (E.O.) 12866, entitled 
``Regulatory Planning and Review.''

B. Executive Order 12875: Enhancing Intergovernmental Partnerships

    Under E.O. 12875, EPA may not issue a regulation that is not 
required by statute and that creates a mandate upon a state, local, or 
tribal government, unless the Federal government provides the funds 
necessary to pay the direct compliance costs incurred by those 
governments. If the mandate is unfunded, EPA must provide to the Office 
of Management and Budget a description of the extent of EPA's prior 
consultation with representatives of affected state, local, and tribal 
governments, the nature of their concerns, copies of written 
communications from the governments, and a statement supporting the 
need to issue the regulation. In addition, E.O. 12875 requires EPA to 
develop an effective process permitting elected officials and other 
representatives of state, local, and tribal governments ``to provide 
meaningful and timely input in the development of regulatory proposals 
containing significant unfunded mandates.'' Today's rule does not 
create a mandate on state, local or tribal governments. The rule does 
not impose any enforceable duties on these entities. Accordingly, the 
requirements of section 1(a) of E.O. 12875 do not apply to this rule.

C. Executive Order 13045

    Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety 
Risks (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), applies to any rule that: (1) is 
determined to be ``economically significant'' as defined under E.O. 
12866, and (2) concerns an environmental health or safety risk that EPA 
has reason to believe may have a disproportionate effect on children. 
If the regulatory action meets both criteria, the Agency must evaluate 
the environmental health or safety effects of the planned rule on 
children, and explain why the planned regulation is preferable to other 
potentially effective and reasonably feasible alternatives considered 
by the Agency. EPA interprets E.O. 13045 as applying only to those 
regulatory actions that are based on health or safety risks, such that 
the analysis required under section 5-501 of the Order has the 
potential to influence the regulation.
    This action is not subject to E.O. 13045 because it approves a 
state rule implementing a previously promulgated health or safety-based 
Federal standard, and preserves the existing level of pollution control 
for the affected areas.

D. Executive Order 13084: Consultation and Coordination With Indian 
Tribal Governments

    Under E.O. 13084, EPA may not issue a regulation that is not 
required by statute, that significantly affects or uniquely affects the 
communities of Indian tribal governments, and that imposes substantial 
direct compliance costs on those communities, unless the Federal 
government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct compliance 
costs incurred by the tribal governments. If the mandate is unfunded, 
EPA must provide to the Office of Management and Budget, in a 
separately identified section of the preamble to the rule, a 
description of the extent of EPA's prior consultation with 
representatives of affected tribal governments, a summary of the nature 
of their concerns, and a statement supporting the need to issue the 
regulation. In addition, E.O. 13084 requires EPA to develop an 
effective process permitting elected and other representatives of 
Indian tribal governments ``to provide meaningful and timely input in 
the development of regulatory policies on matters that significantly or 
uniquely affect their communities.'' Today's rule does not 
significantly or uniquely affect the communities of Indian tribal 
governments. Accordingly, the

[[Page 44411]]

requirements of section 3(b) of E.O. 13084 do not apply to this rule.

E. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an agency 
to conduct a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to 
notice and comment rulemaking requirements unless the agency certifies 
that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a 
substantial number of small entities. Small entities include small 
businesses, small not-for-profit enterprises, and small governmental 
jurisdictions. This final rule will not have a significant impact on a 
substantial number of small entities because 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 
create any new requirements, I certify that this action will not have a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. 
Moreover, due to the nature of the Federal-State relationship under the 
Clean Air Act, preparation of flexibility analysis would constitute 
Federal inquiry into the economic reasonableness of state action. The 
Clean Air Act forbids EPA to base its actions concerning SIPs on such 
grounds. Union Electric Co., v. U.S. EPA, 427 U.S. 246, 255-66 (1976); 
42 U.S.C. 7410(a)(2).

F. Unfunded Mandates

    Under section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 
(``Unfunded Mandates Act''), signed into law on March 22, 1995, EPA 
must prepare a budgetary impact statement to accompany any proposed or 
final rule that includes a Federal mandate that may result in estimated 
annual costs to State, local, or tribal governments in the aggregate; 
or to private sector, of $100 million or more. Under section 205, EPA 
must select the most cost-effective and least burdensome alternative 
that achieves the objectives of the rule and is consistent with 
statutory requirements. Section 203 requires EPA to establish a plan 
for informing and advising any small governments that may be 
significantly or uniquely impacted by the rule.
    EPA has determined that the approval action promulgated does not 
include a Federal mandate that may result in estimated annual costs of 
$100 million or more to either State, local, or tribal governments in 
the aggregate, or to the private sector. 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 to the private sector, result from this action.

G. Submission to Congress and the Comptroller General

    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 rule 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 rule is not a ``major'' rule as defined by 5 U.S.C. 
804(2).

H. Petitions for Judicial Review

    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 October 15, 1999. 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, Sulfur dioxide.

    Dated: July 22, 1999
Jerri-Anne Garl,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 5.

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

Subpart Y--Minnesota

    2. Section 52.1220 is amended by adding paragraph (c)(49) to read 
as follows:


Sec. 52.1220  Identification of plan

    (c) * * *
    (49) Approval--On December 31, 1998, the Minnesota Pollution 
Control Agency submitted a request for a revision to the Minnesota 
sulfur dioxide (SO2) State Implementation Plan (SIP) for 
Marathon Ashland Petroleum LLC (Marathon). The site-specific SIP 
revision for Marathon was submitted in the form of an Administrative 
Order (Order), and referred to as Amendment Four.
    (i) Incorporation by reference.
    (A) For Marathon Ashland Petroleum, LLC, located in St. Paul Park, 
Minnesota:
    (1) Amendment Four to the administrative order, dated and effective 
December 22, 1998, and submitted December 31, 1998.
    (ii) Additional material.
    (A) A letter from Peder A. Larson to David Ullrich, dated December 
31, 1998, submitting Amendment Four for Marathon Ashland Petroleum, 
LLC.
[FR Doc. 99-21012 Filed 8-13-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P