Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; MN, 48864-48867 [2010-19822]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
48864
*
*
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 155 / Thursday, August 12, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
*
*
*
[FR Doc. 2010–19819 Filed 8–11–10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA–R05–OAR–2010–0035; FRL–9187–5]
Approval and Promulgation of Air
Quality Implementation Plans; MN
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Direct final rule.
AGENCY:
EPA is approving Minnesota’s
request to amend its State
Implementation Plan (SIP) for sulfur
dioxide (SO2). The Minnesota Pollution
Control Agency (MPCA) submitted the
SIP revision request to EPA on
November 23, 2009, and supplemented
it on March 3, 2010. EPA’s approval
revises SIP requirements applicable to
Saint Mary’s Hospital, located in
Rochester, Minnesota, by adding a 2500
kilowatt (KW) reciprocating internal
combustion engine (RICE) electric
generator and reducing the allowable
diesel fuel sulfur content for two
existing RICE electric generators. The
revision also includes administrative
changes in the identification of
emissions units. These revisions are
included in a joint Title I/Title V
document for Saint Mary’s Hospital,
which replaces the document currently
approved into the SIP for the facility.
These revisions will result in reducing
the SO2 impact in the Rochester area,
and strengthen the existing SO2 SIP.
DATES: This direct final rule will be
effective October 12, 2010, unless EPA
receives adverse comments by
September 13, 2010. If adverse
comments are received, EPA will
publish a timely withdrawal of the
direct final rule in the Federal Register
informing the public that the rule will
not take effect.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments,
identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R05–
OAR–2010–0035, by one of the
following methods:
1. https://www.regulations.gov: Follow
the on-line instructions for submitting
comments.
2. E-mail: bortzer.jay@epa.gov.
3. Fax: (312) 629–2054.
4. Mail: Jay Bortzer, Chief, Air
Programs Branch (AR–18J), U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, 77
West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago,
Illinois 60604.
5. Hand Delivery: Jay Bortzer, Chief,
Air Programs Branch (AR–18J), U.S.
WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with RULES
SUMMARY:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:11 Aug 11, 2010
Jkt 220001
Environmental Protection Agency, 77
West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago,
Illinois 60604. Such deliveries are only
accepted during the Regional Office
normal hours of operation, and special
arrangements should be made for
deliveries of boxed information. The
Regional Office official hours of
business are Monday through Friday,
8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. excluding Federal
holidays.
Instructions: Direct your comments to
Docket ID No. EPA–R05–OAR–2010–
0035. EPA’s policy is that all comments
received will be included in the public
docket without change and may be
made available online at https://
www.regulations.gov, including any
personal information provided, unless
the comment includes information
claimed to be Confidential Business
Information (CBI) or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Do not submit information that you
consider to be CBI or otherwise
protected through https://
www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The
https://www.regulations.gov Web site is
an ‘‘anonymous access’’ system, which
means EPA will not know your identity
or contact information unless you
provide it in the body of your comment.
If you send an e-mail comment directly
to EPA without going through https://
www.regulations.gov your e-mail
address will be automatically captured
and included as part of the comment
that is placed in the public docket and
made available on the Internet. If you
submit an electronic comment, EPA
recommends that you include your
name and other contact information in
the body of your comment and with any
disk or CD–ROM you submit. If EPA
cannot read your comment due to
technical difficulties and cannot contact
you for clarification, EPA may not be
able to consider your comment.
Electronic files should avoid the use of
special characters, any form of
encryption, and be free of any defects or
viruses.
Docket: All documents in the docket
are listed in the https://
www.regulations.gov index. Although
listed in the index, some information is
not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other
information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Certain other
material, such as copyrighted material,
will be publicly available only in hard
copy. Publicly available docket
materials are available either
electronically in 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
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding
Federal holidays. We recommend that
you telephone Charles Hatten,
Environmental Engineer, at (312) 886–
6031 before visiting the Region 5 office.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Charles Hatten, Environmental
Engineer, Control Strategies Section, Air
Programs Branch (AR–18J),
Environmental Protection Agency,
Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard,
Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 886–6031,
hatten.charles@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Throughout this document whenever
‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ or ‘‘our’’ is used, we mean
EPA. This supplementary information
section is arranged as follows:
I. General Information
II. What revision did the State request be
incorporated into the SIP?
III. What is EPA’s analysis of the State
submission?
IV. What action is EPA taking?
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. General Information
A. Does this action apply to me?
This action applies only to the Saint
Mary’s Hospital, located at 1216 Second
St., Rochester, Minnesota (Olmsted
County).
B. Has public notice been provided?
Minnesota published a public notice
of the revisions to the SIP on August 22,
2009. The comment period began on
August 23, 2009, and ended on
September 23, 2009. In the public
notice, Minnesota stated it would hold
a public hearing if one were requested
during the comment period. This
follows the alternative public
participation process EPA approved on
June 5, 2006 (71 FR 32274). For limited
types of SIP revisions that the public
has shown little interest in, a public
hearing is not automatically required.
Because no one requested a public
hearing, Minnesota did not hold a
public hearing.
Background
Saint Mary’s Hospital is a tertiary care
hospital which includes several
buildings located on a 49 acre campus.
The Saint Mary’s Hospital is owned and
operated by the Mayo Foundation. The
facility is a culpable source located in
the Rochester area’s nonattainment plan
for the SO2 National Ambient Air
Quality Standard (NAAQS). However,
the area currently meets the NAAQS for
SO2, and was officially redesignated as
attainment on May 8, 2001. (66 FR
14087)
The primary emission units at the
facility are three identical fossil fuel-
E:\FR\FM\12AUR1.SGM
12AUR1
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 155 / Thursday, August 12, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
fired boilers (Nos. 1, 2, and 3), which
exhaust through a common stack; one
cogeneration turbine; and two
emergency RICE generators. Each boiler
burns natural gas as fuel with distillate
oil as a backup fuel. The cogeneration
turbine burns only natural gas. One of
the RICE generators burns only distillate
oil; the other can burn distillate oil or
operate in a dual-fuel mode (95%
natural gas and 5% distillate oil/very
low sulfur diesel).
Saint Mary’s Hospital is planning to
make a physical change to the facility by
adding a new RICE electric generator.
The facility will also be required to
reduce the allowable diesel fuel sulfur
content for two existing emergency RICE
electric generators. The State provided a
modeling analysis of the effect of the
changes at the facility on local SO2.
Below, in Section III, a more detailed
discussion of the modeling analysis and
its results can be found.
II. What revision did the State request
be incorporated into the SIP?
The State has requested that EPA
approve, as a revision to the Minnesota
SIP, a new joint Title I/Title V
document that incorporates: (1)
Administrative changes in the
identification of emission units, (2) the
installation a 2500 KW RICE electric
generator, and (3) a reduction in the
allowable diesel fuel sulfur content for
two existing RICE electric generators.
WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with RULES
A. What prior SIP actions are pertinent
to this action?
The facility has been subject to a
federally enforceable permit
incorporated into Minnesota’s SIP as a
joint Title I/Title V document,
containing requirements for ensuring
the attainment of the NAAQS for SO2.
As a result, the facility is subject to fuel
usage limitations to restrict the total
facility SO2 emissions.
B. What are Title I conditions and Joint
Title I/Title V documents?
SIP control measures were contained
in permits issued to culpable sources in
Minnesota until 1990 when EPA
determined that limits in state-issued
permits are not federally enforceable
because the permits expire. Minnesota
then issued permanent Administrative
Orders to culpable sources in
nonattainment areas from 1991 to
February of 1996.
Minnesota’s consolidated permitting
regulations, approved into the SIP on
May 2, 1995 (60 FR 21447), includes the
term ‘‘Title I condition’’ which was
written, in part, to satisfy EPA
requirements that SIP control measures
remain permanent. A ‘‘Title I condition’’
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:11 Aug 11, 2010
Jkt 220001
is defined as ‘‘any condition based on
source-specific determination of
ambient impacts imposed for the
purposes of achieving or maintaining
attainment with the national ambient air
quality standard and which was part of
the state implementation plan approved
by EPA or submitted to the EPA
pending approval under section 110 of
the act * * *.’’ The rule also states that
‘‘Title I conditions and the permittee’s
obligation to comply with them, shall
not expire, regardless of the expiration
of the other conditions of the permit.’’
Further, ‘‘any Title I condition shall
remain in effect without regard to
permit expiration or reissuance, and
shall be restated in the reissued permit.’’
Minnesota has initiated using joint
Title I/Title V documents as the
enforceable document for imposing
emission limitations and compliance
requirements in SIPs. The SIP
requirements in joint Title I/Title V
documents submitted by MPCA are
cited as ‘‘Title I conditions,’’ therefore
ensuring that SIP requirements remain
permanent and enforceable. EPA
reviewed the State’s procedure for using
joint Title I/Title V documents to
implement site-specific SIP
requirements and found it to be
acceptable under both Titles I and V of
the Clean Air Act (July 3, 1997, letter
from David Kee, EPA, to Michael J.
Sandusky, MPCA). Further, a June 15,
2006, letter from EPA to MPCA clarifies
procedures to transfer requirements
from Administrative Orders to joint
Title I/Title V documents.
III. What is EPA’s analysis of the State
submission?
This SIP revision replaces the joint
Title I/Title V document currently
approved into the SIP for Saint Mary’s
Hospital with a new joint Title I/Title V
document, Air Permit No. 10900008–
003. The new joint document includes
administrative changes in the
identification of emission units, adds a
2500 KW RICE electric generator, and
reduces the allowable diesel fuel sulfur
content for two existing RICE electric
generators.
Administrative Changes
The new joint document reflects
administrative changes in how the
emission units are described. Boilers 1,
2, and 3 were listed in the joint
document previously issued to Saint
Mary’s Hospital and identified as
EU038, EU039, and EU040. In the new
joint document, Air Permit No.
10900008–003, these boilers are now
identified as EU001, EU002, and EU003.
Correspondingly, the two existing
emergency RICE generators, which were
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
48865
previously identified as EU0041 and
EU0042, are now identified as EU005
and EU006.
New Electric Generator
The amendment to the SIP allows the
installation of a new RICE electric
generator. The new RICE generator,
identified as EU012, is a 2500 kilowatt
non-emergency compression ignition
diesel engine subject to 40 CFR part 60,
subpart IIII, for 2007 model year engines
with displacement less than 10 liters per
cylinder. In § 60.4207 of 40 CFR part 60,
subpart IIII, the new electric generator is
subject to a requirement to burn only
diesel fuel with a sulfur content of less
than 500 parts per million (ppm) by
weight. This represents a limit of 0.05%
sulfur by weight. Further, as of October
1, 2010, this diesel fuel oil limit will
decrease to 15 ppm by weight (0.0015%
sulfur by weight). This new diesel fuel
oil limit is imposed by 40 CFR 80.510
upon owners or operators of new
engines subject to 40 CFR part 60,
subpart IIII, and is listed as a SIP
condition to ensure that it will not
exceed this Federal standard.
In addition to the above said
requirements, the SO2 emissions for
new RICE generator will be limited to
1.52 tons per year based upon an
operational restriction of 2045 hours per
year.
Reduced SO2 Limits
The existing boilers, cogeneration
turbine, and generators are subject to
fuel sulfur limits in order to comply
with the NAAQS requirements for SO2.
As noted above, the cogeneration
turbine burns only natural gas, and
therefore is not subject to any Title I SIP
conditions for SO2. The SO2 SIP
emission limits for the boilers are
unchanged. The boilers must burn only
natural gas and low-sulfur distillate
fuel, less than 0.5% sulfur by weight.
The existing generators have been
subject to a requirement to burn
distillate oil with sulfur content less
than 0.41% by weight. In order to add
the new generator and ensure that the
emissions from the facility remain at or
below current SIP levels, Saint Mary’s
Hospital agreed to align the fuel sulfur
requirements of the existing generators
with the new generator. Thus, the
existing generators will be subject to the
same requirements as the new generator;
namely, a requirement to burn only
diesel fuel with a sulfur content of less
than 500 ppm by weight. This new limit
of 0.05% sulfur by weight is
considerably lower than the old limit of
0.41% sulfur by weight, resulting in a
decrease in the amount of SO2
emissions from the existing generators
E:\FR\FM\12AUR1.SGM
12AUR1
48866
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 155 / Thursday, August 12, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
by a factor of 8.2 (0.41/0.05). Further,
the diesel fuel oil limit for the existing
generators will decrease to 15 ppm by
weight (0.0015% sulfur by weight) as of
October 1, 2010, which is the same as
the limit imposed on the new generator
by 40 CFR 80.510.
Modeling
The SIP revision does not include any
increases in SO2 emission limits but,
because some of the changes being made
to the facility may affect the release and
dispersion of SO2 emissions, Saint
Mary’s Hospital performed an air
quality analysis to address the facility’s
impact on the SO2 NAAQS. The facility
was modeled both with and without the
new generator. The modeling was done
with the AERMOD air dispersion model
using meteorological data from 1986 to
1990, and included flagpole receptors in
downtown Rochester. The high-first-
high results for each standard averaging
time (1 hour, 3 hour, 24 hour, and
annual) were compared for the two
scenarios at each receptor. With the
addition of the 500 ppm by weight fuel
oil sulfur content for the two existing
generators, the results showed
equivalent or decreased ambient
impacts from the facility at each
receptor, even after the installation of
the new generator.
TABLE—HIGH-SECOND-HIGH AMBIENT SO2 CONCENTRATION FROM FACILITY
Modeled concentration (μg/m3)
Averaging time
Background
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
Total
Standard
Max
Facility Prior to Modification
1-hour .......................................................
3-hour .......................................................
24-hour .....................................................
Annual ......................................................
328
244
124
21
318
253
134
21
337
249
110
20
317
269
127
21
336
250
132
20
337
269
134
21
26
13
5
3
363
282
139
24
1300
1300
365
60
319
238
125
13
320
262
125
15
26
13
5
3
346
275
130
18
1300
1300
365
60
Facility After Modification
1-hour .......................................................
3-hour .......................................................
24-hour .....................................................
Annual ......................................................
301
237
109
15
WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with RULES
The modeling shows that the highsecond-high impacts from the facility
will decrease due to the changes from
this SIP revision: the installation of the
new generator and the decreased fuel oil
sulfur limits on the two existing
generators. This assures that ambient air
quality will be protected.
IV. What action is EPA taking?
EPA is approving the revision to
Minnesota’s SIP to replace the joint
Title I/Title V document currently
approved into the SIP for Saint Mary’s
Hospital with a new joint Title I/Title V
document, Air Permit No. 10900008–
003. The new joint document includes
administrative changes in the
identification of emission units, adds a
2,500 KW RICE electric generator, and
reduces the allowable diesel fuel sulfur
content for two existing RICE electric
generators. In approving this joint Title
I/Title V document, EPA is
incorporating into the SIP only those
requirements in the joint document
labeled as ‘‘Title I Condition: SIP for SO2
NAAQS.’’
Since this SIP revision will decrease
SO2 impacts in the Rochester area, Saint
Mary’s revision will strengthen the
existing SO2 SIP.
We are publishing this action without
prior proposal because we view this as
a noncontroversial amendment and
anticipate no adverse comments.
However, in the proposed rules section
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:11 Aug 11, 2010
Jkt 220001
300
245
117
15
320
242
94
14
303
262
121
14
of this Federal Register publication, we
are publishing a separate document that
will serve as the proposal to approve the
state plan if relevant adverse written
comments are filed. This rule will be
effective October 12, 2010 without
further notice unless we receive relevant
adverse written comments by September
13, 2010. If we receive such comments,
we will withdraw this action before the
effective date by publishing a
subsequent document that will
withdraw the final action. All public
comments received will then be
addressed in a subsequent final rule
based on the proposed action. EPA will
not institute a second comment period.
Any parties interested in commenting
on this action should do so at this time.
If we do not receive any comments, this
action will be effective October 12,
2010.
V. Statutory and Executive Order
Reviews
Under the Clean Air Act, the
Administrator is required to approve a
SIP submission that complies with the
provisions of the Clean Air Act and
applicable Federal regulations. 42
U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus,
in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA’s
role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of
the Clean Air Act. Accordingly, this
action merely approves state law as
meeting Federal requirements and does
PO 00000
Frm 00010
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
not impose additional requirements
beyond those imposed by state law. For
that reason, this action:
• Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory
action’’ subject to review by the Office
of Management and Budget under
Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735,
October 4, 1993);
• Does not impose an information
collection burden under the provisions
of the Paperwork Reduction Act
(44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
• Is certified as not having a
significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities
under the Regulatory Flexibility Act
(5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
• 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);
• Does not have Federalism
implications as specified in Executive
Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10,
1999);
• Is not an economically significant
regulatory action based on health or
safety risks subject to Executive Order
13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
• Is not a significant regulatory action
subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR
28355, May 22, 2001);
• Is not subject to requirements of
Section 12(d) of the National
Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because
E:\FR\FM\12AUR1.SGM
12AUR1
48867
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 155 / Thursday, August 12, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
application of those requirements would
be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act;
and
• Does not provide EPA with the
discretionary authority to address, as
appropriate, disproportionate human
health or environmental effects, using
practicable and legally permissible
methods, under Executive Order 12898
(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
In addition, this rule does not have
tribal implications as specified by
Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249,
November 9, 2000), because the SIP is
not approved to apply in Indian country
located in the state, and EPA notes that
it will not impose substantial direct
costs on tribal governments or preempt
tribal law.
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 action 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 October 12, 2010.
Filing a petition for reconsideration by
the Administrator of this final rule does
not affect the finality of this action 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 dioxide.
Dated: August 2, 2010.
Bharat Mathur,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 5.
■
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 et seq.
Subpart Y—Minnesota
2. In § 52.1220 the table in paragraph
(d) is amended by revising the entry for
‘‘Saint Mary’s Hospital’’ to read as
follows:
■
§ 52.1220
*
Identification of plan.
*
*
(d) * * *
*
*
EPA-APPROVED MINNESOTA SOURCE-SPECIFIC PERMITS
Name of source
*
*
St. Mary’s Hospital .......................
*
*
*
*
10900008–003
*
*
*
*
*
[FR Doc. 2010–19822 Filed 8–11–10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 300
[EPA–HQ–SFUND–1987–0002; FRL–9188–8]
National Oil and Hazardous Substance
Pollution Contingency Plan; National
Priorities List: Deletion of the Rogers
Road Municipal Landfill Superfund Site
Environmental Protection
Agency.
ACTION: Direct final rule.
WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with RULES
AGENCY:
The Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) Region 6 is publishing a
direct final notice of deletion of the
Rogers Road Municipal Landfill
Superfund Site (Site), located near
Jacksonville, Pulaski County, Arkansas
SUMMARY:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
State
effective
date
Permit No.
15:11 Aug 11, 2010
Jkt 220001
EPA approval date
*
03/01/10
Comments
*
08/12/10, [Insert page number
where the document begins].
*
*
Only conditions cited as ‘‘Title I
condition:
SIP
for
SO2
NAAQS.’’
*
*
from the National Priorities List (NPL).
The NPL, promulgated pursuant to
Section 105 of the Comprehensive
Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act
(CERCLA) of 1980, as amended, is an
appendix of the National Oil and
Hazardous Substances Pollution
Contingency Plan (NCP). This direct
final deletion is being published by EPA
with the concurrence of the State of
Arkansas, through the Arkansas
Department of Environmental Quality
(ADEQ), because EPA has determined
that all appropriate response actions
under CERCLA, other than operation,
maintenance, and five-year reviews,
have been completed. However, this
deletion does not preclude future
actions under Superfund.
DATES: This direct final rule will be
effective October 12, 2010 unless EPA
receives adverse comments by
September 13, 2010. If adverse
comments are received, EPA will
publish a timely withdrawal of the
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
*
*
direct final notice of deletion in the
Federal Register informing the public
that the deletion will not take effect.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments,
identified by Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–
SFUND–1987–0002 by one of the
following methods:
https://www.regulations.gov (Follow
the on-line instructions for submitting
comments)
E-mail: walters.donn@epa.gov.
Fax: 214–665–6660
Mail: Donn Walters, Community
Involvement, U.S. EPA Region 6 (6SF–
TS), 1445 Ross Avenue, Dallas, TX
75202–2733, (214) 665–6483 or 1–800–
533–3508.
Hand Delivery: Donn Walters,
Community Involvement, U.S. EPA
Region 6 (6SF–TS), 1445 Ross Avenue,
Dallas, TX 75202–2733. Such deliveries
are only accepted during the Docket’s
normal hours of operation, and special
arrangements should be made for
deliveries of boxed information.
E:\FR\FM\12AUR1.SGM
12AUR1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 155 (Thursday, August 12, 2010)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 48864-48867]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-19822]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA-R05-OAR-2010-0035; FRL-9187-5]
Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; MN
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Direct final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: EPA is approving Minnesota's request to amend its State
Implementation Plan (SIP) for sulfur dioxide (SO2). The
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) submitted the SIP revision
request to EPA on November 23, 2009, and supplemented it on March 3,
2010. EPA's approval revises SIP requirements applicable to Saint
Mary's Hospital, located in Rochester, Minnesota, by adding a 2500
kilowatt (KW) reciprocating internal combustion engine (RICE) electric
generator and reducing the allowable diesel fuel sulfur content for two
existing RICE electric generators. The revision also includes
administrative changes in the identification of emissions units. These
revisions are included in a joint Title I/Title V document for Saint
Mary's Hospital, which replaces the document currently approved into
the SIP for the facility. These revisions will result in reducing the
SO2 impact in the Rochester area, and strengthen the
existing SO2 SIP.
DATES: This direct final rule will be effective October 12, 2010,
unless EPA receives adverse comments by September 13, 2010. If adverse
comments are received, EPA will publish a timely withdrawal of the
direct final rule in the Federal Register informing the public that the
rule will not take effect.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R05-
OAR-2010-0035, by one of the following methods:
1. https://www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for
submitting comments.
2. E-mail: bortzer.jay@epa.gov.
3. Fax: (312) 629-2054.
4. Mail: Jay Bortzer, Chief, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago,
Illinois 60604.
5. Hand Delivery: Jay Bortzer, Chief, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J),
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 77 West Jackson Boulevard,
Chicago, Illinois 60604. Such deliveries are only accepted during the
Regional Office normal hours of operation, and special arrangements
should be made for deliveries of boxed information. The Regional Office
official hours of business are Monday through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 4:30
p.m. excluding Federal holidays.
Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R05-OAR-
2010-0035. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change and may be made available online at
https://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you
consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through https://www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The https://www.regulations.gov Web site
is an ``anonymous access'' system, which means EPA will not know your
identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of
your comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without
going through https://www.regulations.gov your e-mail address will be
automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is
placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you
submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name
and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any
disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to
technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA
may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid
the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of
any defects or viruses.
Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the https://www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy.
Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically
in 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 Charles Hatten, Environmental Engineer,
at (312) 886-6031 before visiting the Region 5 office.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Charles Hatten, Environmental
Engineer, Control Strategies Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J),
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard,
Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 886-6031, hatten.charles@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document whenever ``we,''
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean EPA. This supplementary information
section is arranged as follows:
I. General Information
II. What revision did the State request be incorporated into the
SIP?
III. What is EPA's analysis of the State submission?
IV. What action is EPA taking?
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. General Information
A. Does this action apply to me?
This action applies only to the Saint Mary's Hospital, located at
1216 Second St., Rochester, Minnesota (Olmsted County).
B. Has public notice been provided?
Minnesota published a public notice of the revisions to the SIP on
August 22, 2009. The comment period began on August 23, 2009, and ended
on September 23, 2009. In the public notice, Minnesota stated it would
hold a public hearing if one were requested during the comment period.
This follows the alternative public participation process EPA approved
on June 5, 2006 (71 FR 32274). For limited types of SIP revisions that
the public has shown little interest in, a public hearing is not
automatically required. Because no one requested a public hearing,
Minnesota did not hold a public hearing.
Background
Saint Mary's Hospital is a tertiary care hospital which includes
several buildings located on a 49 acre campus. The Saint Mary's
Hospital is owned and operated by the Mayo Foundation. The facility is
a culpable source located in the Rochester area's nonattainment plan
for the SO2 National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS).
However, the area currently meets the NAAQS for SO2, and was
officially redesignated as attainment on May 8, 2001. (66 FR 14087)
The primary emission units at the facility are three identical
fossil fuel-
[[Page 48865]]
fired boilers (Nos. 1, 2, and 3), which exhaust through a common stack;
one cogeneration turbine; and two emergency RICE generators. Each
boiler burns natural gas as fuel with distillate oil as a backup fuel.
The cogeneration turbine burns only natural gas. One of the RICE
generators burns only distillate oil; the other can burn distillate oil
or operate in a dual-fuel mode (95% natural gas and 5% distillate oil/
very low sulfur diesel).
Saint Mary's Hospital is planning to make a physical change to the
facility by adding a new RICE electric generator. The facility will
also be required to reduce the allowable diesel fuel sulfur content for
two existing emergency RICE electric generators. The State provided a
modeling analysis of the effect of the changes at the facility on local
SO2. Below, in Section III, a more detailed discussion of
the modeling analysis and its results can be found.
II. What revision did the State request be incorporated into the SIP?
The State has requested that EPA approve, as a revision to the
Minnesota SIP, a new joint Title I/Title V document that incorporates:
(1) Administrative changes in the identification of emission units, (2)
the installation a 2500 KW RICE electric generator, and (3) a reduction
in the allowable diesel fuel sulfur content for two existing RICE
electric generators.
A. What prior SIP actions are pertinent to this action?
The facility has been subject to a federally enforceable permit
incorporated into Minnesota's SIP as a joint Title I/Title V document,
containing requirements for ensuring the attainment of the NAAQS for
SO2. As a result, the facility is subject to fuel usage
limitations to restrict the total facility SO2 emissions.
B. What are Title I conditions and Joint Title I/Title V documents?
SIP control measures were contained in permits issued to culpable
sources in Minnesota until 1990 when EPA determined that limits in
state-issued permits are not federally enforceable because the permits
expire. Minnesota then issued permanent Administrative Orders to
culpable sources in nonattainment areas from 1991 to February of 1996.
Minnesota's consolidated permitting regulations, approved into the
SIP on May 2, 1995 (60 FR 21447), includes the term ``Title I
condition'' which was written, in part, to satisfy EPA requirements
that SIP control measures remain permanent. A ``Title I condition'' is
defined as ``any condition based on source-specific determination of
ambient impacts imposed for the purposes of achieving or maintaining
attainment with the national ambient air quality standard and which was
part of the state implementation plan approved by EPA or submitted to
the EPA pending approval under section 110 of the act * * *.'' The rule
also states that ``Title I conditions and the permittee's obligation to
comply with them, shall not expire, regardless of the expiration of the
other conditions of the permit.'' Further, ``any Title I condition
shall remain in effect without regard to permit expiration or
reissuance, and shall be restated in the reissued permit.''
Minnesota has initiated using joint Title I/Title V documents as
the enforceable document for imposing emission limitations and
compliance requirements in SIPs. The SIP requirements in joint Title I/
Title V documents submitted by MPCA are cited as ``Title I
conditions,'' therefore ensuring that SIP requirements remain permanent
and enforceable. EPA reviewed the State's procedure for using joint
Title I/Title V documents to implement site-specific SIP requirements
and found it to be acceptable under both Titles I and V of the Clean
Air Act (July 3, 1997, letter from David Kee, EPA, to Michael J.
Sandusky, MPCA). Further, a June 15, 2006, letter from EPA to MPCA
clarifies procedures to transfer requirements from Administrative
Orders to joint Title I/Title V documents.
III. What is EPA's analysis of the State submission?
This SIP revision replaces the joint Title I/Title V document
currently approved into the SIP for Saint Mary's Hospital with a new
joint Title I/Title V document, Air Permit No. 10900008-003. The new
joint document includes administrative changes in the identification of
emission units, adds a 2500 KW RICE electric generator, and reduces the
allowable diesel fuel sulfur content for two existing RICE electric
generators.
Administrative Changes
The new joint document reflects administrative changes in how the
emission units are described. Boilers 1, 2, and 3 were listed in the
joint document previously issued to Saint Mary's Hospital and
identified as EU038, EU039, and EU040. In the new joint document, Air
Permit No. 10900008-003, these boilers are now identified as EU001,
EU002, and EU003. Correspondingly, the two existing emergency RICE
generators, which were previously identified as EU0041 and EU0042, are
now identified as EU005 and EU006.
New Electric Generator
The amendment to the SIP allows the installation of a new RICE
electric generator. The new RICE generator, identified as EU012, is a
2500 kilowatt non-emergency compression ignition diesel engine subject
to 40 CFR part 60, subpart IIII, for 2007 model year engines with
displacement less than 10 liters per cylinder. In Sec. 60.4207 of 40
CFR part 60, subpart IIII, the new electric generator is subject to a
requirement to burn only diesel fuel with a sulfur content of less than
500 parts per million (ppm) by weight. This represents a limit of 0.05%
sulfur by weight. Further, as of October 1, 2010, this diesel fuel oil
limit will decrease to 15 ppm by weight (0.0015% sulfur by weight).
This new diesel fuel oil limit is imposed by 40 CFR 80.510 upon owners
or operators of new engines subject to 40 CFR part 60, subpart IIII,
and is listed as a SIP condition to ensure that it will not exceed this
Federal standard.
In addition to the above said requirements, the SO2
emissions for new RICE generator will be limited to 1.52 tons per year
based upon an operational restriction of 2045 hours per year.
Reduced SO2 Limits
The existing boilers, cogeneration turbine, and generators are
subject to fuel sulfur limits in order to comply with the NAAQS
requirements for SO2. As noted above, the cogeneration
turbine burns only natural gas, and therefore is not subject to any
Title I SIP conditions for SO2. The SO2 SIP
emission limits for the boilers are unchanged. The boilers must burn
only natural gas and low-sulfur distillate fuel, less than 0.5% sulfur
by weight.
The existing generators have been subject to a requirement to burn
distillate oil with sulfur content less than 0.41% by weight. In order
to add the new generator and ensure that the emissions from the
facility remain at or below current SIP levels, Saint Mary's Hospital
agreed to align the fuel sulfur requirements of the existing generators
with the new generator. Thus, the existing generators will be subject
to the same requirements as the new generator; namely, a requirement to
burn only diesel fuel with a sulfur content of less than 500 ppm by
weight. This new limit of 0.05% sulfur by weight is considerably lower
than the old limit of 0.41% sulfur by weight, resulting in a decrease
in the amount of SO2 emissions from the existing generators
[[Page 48866]]
by a factor of 8.2 (0.41/0.05). Further, the diesel fuel oil limit for
the existing generators will decrease to 15 ppm by weight (0.0015%
sulfur by weight) as of October 1, 2010, which is the same as the limit
imposed on the new generator by 40 CFR 80.510.
Modeling
The SIP revision does not include any increases in SO2
emission limits but, because some of the changes being made to the
facility may affect the release and dispersion of SO2
emissions, Saint Mary's Hospital performed an air quality analysis to
address the facility's impact on the SO2 NAAQS. The facility
was modeled both with and without the new generator. The modeling was
done with the AERMOD air dispersion model using meteorological data
from 1986 to 1990, and included flagpole receptors in downtown
Rochester. The high-first-high results for each standard averaging time
(1 hour, 3 hour, 24 hour, and annual) were compared for the two
scenarios at each receptor. With the addition of the 500 ppm by weight
fuel oil sulfur content for the two existing generators, the results
showed equivalent or decreased ambient impacts from the facility at
each receptor, even after the installation of the new generator.
Table--High-Second-High Ambient SO2 Concentration From Facility
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Modeled concentration ([mu]g/m\3\)
Averaging time ------------------------------------------------------ Background Total Standard
1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 Max
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Facility Prior to Modification
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1-hour..................................................... 328 318 337 317 336 337 26 363 1300
3-hour..................................................... 244 253 249 269 250 269 13 282 1300
24-hour.................................................... 124 134 110 127 132 134 5 139 365
Annual..................................................... 21 21 20 21 20 21 3 24 60
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Facility After Modification
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1-hour..................................................... 301 300 320 303 319 320 26 346 1300
3-hour..................................................... 237 245 242 262 238 262 13 275 1300
24-hour.................................................... 109 117 94 121 125 125 5 130 365
Annual..................................................... 15 15 14 14 13 15 3 18 60
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The modeling shows that the high-second-high impacts from the
facility will decrease due to the changes from this SIP revision: the
installation of the new generator and the decreased fuel oil sulfur
limits on the two existing generators. This assures that ambient air
quality will be protected.
IV. What action is EPA taking?
EPA is approving the revision to Minnesota's SIP to replace the
joint Title I/Title V document currently approved into the SIP for
Saint Mary's Hospital with a new joint Title I/Title V document, Air
Permit No. 10900008-003. The new joint document includes administrative
changes in the identification of emission units, adds a 2,500 KW RICE
electric generator, and reduces the allowable diesel fuel sulfur
content for two existing RICE electric generators. In approving this
joint Title I/Title V document, EPA is incorporating into the SIP only
those requirements in the joint document labeled as ``Title I
Condition: SIP for SO2 NAAQS.''
Since this SIP revision will decrease SO2 impacts in the
Rochester area, Saint Mary's revision will strengthen the existing
SO2 SIP.
We are publishing this action without prior proposal because we
view this as a noncontroversial amendment and anticipate no adverse
comments. However, in the proposed rules section of this Federal
Register publication, we are publishing a separate document that will
serve as the proposal to approve the state plan if relevant adverse
written comments are filed. This rule will be effective October 12,
2010 without further notice unless we receive relevant adverse written
comments by September 13, 2010. If we receive such comments, we will
withdraw this action before the effective date by publishing a
subsequent document that will withdraw the final action. All public
comments received will then be addressed in a subsequent final rule
based on the proposed action. EPA will not institute a second comment
period. Any parties interested in commenting on this action should do
so at this time. If we do not receive any comments, this action will be
effective October 12, 2010.
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a
SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Clean Air Act
and applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a).
Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act.
Accordingly, this action merely approves state law as meeting Federal
requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those
imposed by state law. For that reason, this action:
Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
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);
Does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because
[[Page 48867]]
application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the Clean
Air Act; and
Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
In addition, this rule does not have tribal implications as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000),
because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in
the state, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct
costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.
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 action 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 October 12, 2010. Filing a
petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule
does not affect the finality of this action 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 dioxide.
Dated: August 2, 2010.
Bharat Mathur,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 5.
0
40 CFR part 52 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
0
2. In Sec. 52.1220 the table in paragraph (d) is amended by revising
the entry for ``Saint Mary's Hospital'' to read as follows:
Sec. 52.1220 Identification of plan.
* * * * *
(d) * * *
EPA-Approved Minnesota Source-Specific Permits
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
State effective
Name of source Permit No. date EPA approval date Comments
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
St. Mary's Hospital.............. 10900008-003 03/01/10 08/12/10, [Insert Only conditions
page number where cited as ``Title I
the document condition: SIP for
begins]. SO2 NAAQS.''
* * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2010-19822 Filed 8-11-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
