[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 138 (Thursday, July 19, 2007)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 39568-39570]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-13789]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA-R05-OAR-2006-0772; FRL-8439-7]
Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
Minnesota
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: EPA is approving revisions to the Minnesota State
Implementation Plan (SIP) for sulfur dioxide (SO2).
Specifically, the revisions involve Flint Hills Resources, L.P. (Flint
Hills) of Dakota County, Minnesota. In these revisions, Flint Hills is
expanding operations at its petroleum refinery. To account for the
increased SO2 emissions from the expansion, Flint Hills is
closing its sulfuric acid plant. An analysis of the revisions shows
that air quality in the area will be protected after the modifications
are made at the facility. Minnesota has also included additional
monitoring requirements in the revisions. EPA proposed approval of this
revision on April 9, 2007. One comment was received on the proposed
rule, but the comment did not involve the proposed revision. The
comment is addressed in this action.
DATES: This final rule is effective on August 20, 2007.
ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID
No. EPA-R05-OAR-2006-0772. All documents in the docket are listed on
the www.regulations.gov Web site. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, i.e., Confidential Business
Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted
by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is
not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available only in hard
copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available either
electronically through www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, Air and Radiation Division,
77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. This facility is
open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding
Federal holidays. We recommend that you telephone Matt Rau,
Environmental Engineer, (312) 886-6524 before visiting the Region 5
office.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Matt Rau, Environmental Engineer,
Criteria Pollutant Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), Environmental
Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago,
Illinois 60604, (312) 886-6524, [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document whenever ``we,''
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean EPA. This supplementary information
section is arranged as follows:
I. What Is the Background for This Action?
II. What Is EPA's Analysis of the State Submission?
III. What Comments Were Received?
IV. What Are the Environmental Effects of This Action?
V. What Action Is EPA Taking Today?
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
[[Page 39569]]
I. What Is the Background for This Action?
Flint Hills operates a petroleum refinery in the Minneapolis-Saint
Paul metropolitan area. Flint Hills is expanding its crude oil
processing operations. The expansion will increase the crude oil unit's
gasoline production capacity from 100,000 to 150,000 barrels per day.
Minnesota amended its Findings and Order to allow the revisions
necessary for the expansion. This is the eighth amendment to the Flint
Hills Findings and Order.
Minnesota held a public hearing regarding Findings and Order
Amendment Eight on May 25, 2006. No comments on the Flint Hills
revisions were received at the public meeting or during the 30 day
public comment period.
EPA proposed approval of the SIP revision on April 9, 2007 (72 FR
17461-63). The comment period closed on May 9, 2007. One comment from
the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (PCA) was received. It is
addressed in Section III.
II. What Is EPA's Analysis of the State Submission?
Minnesota included air dispersion modeling results in its
submission. The modeling analysis includes all Flint Hills SO2
emissions sources, including the additional and modified sources. Other
significant SO2 sources in the area were also included. The
modeling analysis examined the impact of the revisions on the SO2
air quality standards. The primary SO2 National Ambient Air
Quality Standard (NAAQS) has both an annual and 24-hour averaging
period. The secondary NAAQS has a 3-hour averaging period.
Flint Hills used the ISCST3 dispersion model in the regulatory
mode. Five years of surface meteorological data from the Minneapolis-
Saint Paul International Airport and upper air data from Saint Cloud
were used. Building downwash effects from the new and existing
structures were accounted for in the modeling. The analysis found that
the predicted annual SO2 concentration is 38.5 [mu]g/m\3\
compared to the standard of 80 [mu]g/m\3\. The modeled 24-hour level of
266.8 [mu]g/m\3\ is under the 365 [mu]g/m\3\ NAAQS. Similarly, the
predicted 3-hour average is 726.2 [mu]g/m\3\ which is under the
secondary standard of 1300 [mu]g/m\3\.
III. What Comments Were Received?
One comment from the Minnesota PCA was received during the comment
period. Minnesota PCA requested EPA to rescind the Administrative Order
which established emission limits at the Continental Nitrogen &
Resource Corporation (Continental Nitrogen) facility. Information on
this company's removal of its boilers was included in the Flint Hills
submission. Minnesota PCA has requested that EPA rescind the
Administrative Order for the Continental Nitrogen boilers. EPA will
address this request in a separate action.
The comment does not involve the proposed revisions to the emission
limits for Flint Hills. The outcome of the requested revision for
Continental Nitrogen will not affect the Flint Hills revision because
the Continental Nitrogen boilers are permanently disconnected. The
emissions reduction from Continental Nitrogen has already occurred and
is not dependent on EPA action.
IV. What Are the Environmental Effects of This Action?
Sulfur dioxide causes breathing difficulties and aggravation of
existing cardiovascular disease. It is also a precursor of acid rain
and fine particulate matter formation. Sulfate particles are a major
cause of visibility impairment in America. Acid rain damages lakes and
streams impairing aquatic life and causes damage to buildings,
sculptures, statues, and monuments. Sulfur dioxide also causes the loss
of chloroform leading to vegetation damage.
The expansion of the Flint Hills facility includes an additional
unit and revised limits on several units at the refinery that result in
higher SO2 emissions. The projected increase in SO2
emissions from this project is 315 tons per year. However, overall
SO2 emissions from Flint Hills will be reduced after the
modifications. When considering all sources at the facility there is no
increase in SO2 emissions, in fact there is a projected
decrease of 99.6 tons per year. Therefore, the ``net emissions
increase'' is below the Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD)
significant threshold for SO2 of 40 tons per year. This
project is not subject to PSD requirements.
The effects of the expansion were analyzed. Both the projected
SO2 emissions from the Flint Hills facility and the
reductions from other area facilities were considered. That analysis
showed that the maximum predicted ambient SO2 concentrations
are below the primary and secondary NAAQS. This indicates that public
health and welfare in Dakota County, Minnesota will be protected. The
additional monitoring requirements placed on the heater combusting the
fuel gas from the 45 mix drum will also help protect the air quality by
continuously checking the sulfur dioxide emissions from this unit.
Corrective action can be taken should the emissions rise above the
unit's limit.
V. What Action Is EPA Taking Today?
EPA is approving revisions to SO2 emissions regulations
for Flint Hills Resources, L.P. of Dakota County, Minnesota. The
revisions authorize adding a new heater, modifying two heaters, and
additional monitoring requirements.
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review
Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this
action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' and, therefore, is
not subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget.
Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
Because it is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under
Executive Order 12866 or a ``significant regulatory action,'' this
action is also not subject to Executive Order 13211, ``Actions
Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001).
Regulatory Flexibility Act
This action merely approves State law as meeting Federal
requirements and imposes no additional requirements beyond those
imposed by State law. Accordingly, the Administrator certifies that
this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C.
601 et seq.).
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
Because this rule approves pre-existing requirements under state
law and does not impose any additional enforceable duty beyond that
required by State law, it does not contain any unfunded mandate or
significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4).
Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal
Governments
This rule also does not have tribal implications because it will
not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on
the relationship
[[Page 39570]]
between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the
distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal
Government and Indian tribes, as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65
FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
Executive Order 13132: Federalism
This action also does not have Federalism implications because it
does not have substantial direct effects on the states, on the
relationship between the national government and the states, or on the
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of
government, as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August
10, 1999). This action merely approves a state rule implementing a
Federal standard, and does not alter the relationship or the
distribution of power and responsibilities established in the Clean Air
Act.
Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental Health
and Safety Risks
This rule also is not subject to Executive Order 13045 ``Protection
of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks'' (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997), because it approves a state rule implementing a
Federal Standard.
National Technology Transfer Advancement Act
In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. In
this context, in the absence of a prior existing requirement for the
state to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS), EPA has no authority
to disapprove a SIP submission for failure to use VCS. It would thus be
inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when it reviews a SIP
submission, to use VCS in place of a SIP submission that otherwise
satisfies the provisions of the Clean Air Act. Thus, the requirements
of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply.
Paperwork Reduction Act
This rule does not impose an information collection burden under
the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
et seq.).
Congressional Review Act
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 action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).
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 September 17, 2007. 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, Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Sulfur oxides.
Dated: July 5, 2007.
Bharat Mathur,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 5.
0
For the reasons stated in the preamble, part 52, chapter I, of title 40
of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:
PART 52--[AMENDED]
0
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Subpart Y--Minnesota
2. In Sec. 52.1220, the table in paragraph (d) is amended by
revising the entry for ``Flint Hills Resources, L.P.'' to read as
follows:
Sec. 52.1220 Identification of plan.
* * * * *
(d) * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
State
Name of source Permit No. effective date EPA approval date Comments
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
Flint Hills Resources, L.P. .............. 7/14/06 8/20/07, [insert page Amendment Eight to
(formerly Koch Petroleum). number where the Findings and Order.
document begins].
* * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * *
[FR Doc. E7-13789 Filed 7-18-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P