[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 81 (Thursday, April 26, 2018)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 18255-18257]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-08807]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R05-OAR-2017-0099 FRL-9977-21--Region 5]


Air Plan Approval; Minnesota; Flint Hills Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) 
Revision

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to 
approve a revision to the Minnesota sulfur dioxide (SO2) 
State Implementation Plan (SIP) for the Flint Hills Resources, LLC Pine 
Bend Refinery (FHR) as submitted on February 8, 2017. The proposed SIP 
revision pertains to the introduction and removal of certain equipment 
at the refinery as well as amendments to certain emission limits, 
resulting in an overall decrease of SO2 emissions from FHR.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before May 29, 2018.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R05-
OAR-2017-0099 at https://www.regulations.gov or via email to 
[email protected]. For comments submitted at Regulations.gov, 
follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, 
comments cannot be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. For either 
manner of submission, EPA may publish any comment received to its 
public docket. Do not submit electronically any information you 
consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other 
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia 
submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written 
comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and 
should include discussion of all points you wish to make. EPA will 
generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of 
the primary submission (i.e. on the web, cloud, or other file sharing 
system). For additional submission methods, please contact the person 
identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. For the full 
EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia 
submissions, and general guidance on making effective comments, please 
visit https://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Anthony Maietta, Environmental 
Protection Specialist, Control Strategies Section, Air Programs Branch 
(AR-18J), Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson 
Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 353-8777, 
[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 SIP revision?
    a. Coker Replacement
    b. #4 Hydrogen Plant Reformer--30H401 Furnace
    c. Diesel Fire Water Pump at #4 Cooling Tower
    d. #3 Crude/Coker Improvements
    e. Cleanup
III. SO2 SIP and Emissions Impacts
IV. What action is EPA proposing?
V. Incorporation by Reference
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. What is the background for this action?

    FHR operates an oil refinery located in the Pine Bend Area of 
Rosemount, Dakota County, Minnesota. On February 8, 2017, the Minnesota 
Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) submitted a request to EPA to approve 
into the Minnesota SIP the conditions cited as ``Title I Condition: 40 
CFR 50.4(SO2 SIP); Title I Condition: 40 CFR 51; Title I 
Condition: 40 CFR pt. 52, subp. Y'' in FHR's revised joint Title I/
Title V document, Permit No. 03700011-101 \1\ (joint document 101). 
Joint document 101 contains measures for FHR to implement changes that 
improve technology at the plant and increase efficiency through new and 
existing equipment, as well as clarifying amendments to the document's 
language. MPCA posted joint document 101 for public comment in the 
Minnesota State Register on November 21, 2016, and the comment period 
ended on December 23, 2016. MPCA received no comments on the document.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ In 1995, EPA approved consolidated permitting regulations 
into the Minnesota SIP. (60 FR 21447, May 2, 1995). The consolidated 
permitting regulations included the term ``Title I condition'' which 
was written, in part, to satisfy EPA requirements that SIP control 
measures remain permanent and enforceable. A ``Title I condition'' 
is defined, in part, as ``any condition based on source specific 
determination of ambient impacts imposed for the purpose of 
achieving or maintaining attainment with a national ambient air 
quality standard and which was part of a [SIP] approved by the EPA 
or submitted to the EPA pending approval under section 110 of the 
act. . .'' MINN. R. 7007.1011 (2013). The regulations also state 
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.'' MINN. R. 
7007.0450 (2007). Minnesota has initiated using the joint Title I/
Title V document as the enforceable document for imposing emission 
limitations and compliance requirements in SIPs. The SIP 
requirements in the joint Title I/Title V document 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 Title I and Title V of the Clean Air Act (July 
3, 1997 letter from David Kee, EPA, to Michael J. Sandusky, MPCA).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. What is EPA's analysis of the SIP revision?

    Joint document 101, issued by MPCA on January 13, 2017, contains 
amended SIP conditions that, when combined, provide FHR with the 
ability to more efficiently upgrade hydrocarbons that are distilled 
from FHR's crude units into transportation fuels, primarily diesel. The 
amended SIP conditions allow FHR to increase fuel production and 
operate more efficiently and closer to the facility's overall 
distillation capacity. See Table 1 at the end of our review for a list 
of detailed changes to SO2 allowable emissions limits 
associated with this action. The amended SIP conditions in joint 
document 101 include:

a. Coker Replacement.

    A coker replacement project consists of the installation of a new 
coker process unit (#4 Coker Unit Charge Heater/EQUI1456) into joint 
document 101. The new #4 Coker will replace the #1 and #2 Cokers, which 
will be permanently retired. In addition to their retirement, the SIP 
condition that lists the decoking scenario in which the #1 and #2 
cokers' associated process units

[[Page 18256]]

operate simultaneously with 21H1 Steam/Air Heater Decoking unit (EQUI 
493) and 21H2 Steam/Air Heater Decoking unit (EQUI 494) is being 
removed from joint document 101.

b. #4 Hydrogen Plant Reformer--30H401 Furnace.

    The allowable SO2 emissions limit on the 30H401 furnace 
for the #4 Hydrogen Plant Reformer is being lowered. This is because 
the originally approved allowable SO2 limit for the heater 
assumed that it would operate on refinery fuel gas. Since start-up, the 
unit has primarily been operated on pressure swing adsorption offgas, 
which originates as a natural gas ahead of the reformer and does not 
contain sulfur. Because of the dual-fuel operation of the heater, its 
allowable SO2 limit has been reduced to meet actual 
operating conditions.

c. Diesel Fire Water Pump at #4 Cooling Tower.

    The diesel fire water pump at the #4 cooling tower was 
decommissioned and so its SO2 emission limits are removed 
from joint document 101.

d. #3 Crude/Coker Improvements.

    Improvements to the #3 crude/coker that were incorporated as 
``Title I Condition: 40 CFR 50.4(SO2 SIP); Title I 
Condition: 40 CFR 51; Title I Condition: 40 CFR pt. 52, subp. Y'' 
conditions in a previous joint Title I/Title V document (Permit No. 
03700011-010) have been completed and as a result, SIP conditions for 
three process heaters (EQUI495/EU034, EQUI496/EU035, and EQUI500/EU040) 
and two process heaters for steam-air decoking activities (EQUI498/
EU037 and EQUI499/EU038) are being removed from joint document 101.

e. Cleanup.

    MPCA also requested to remove from the Minnesota SIP an emission 
limit for the ammonium thiosulfate process unit that was erroneously 
labeled as a ``Title I Condition: 40 CFR 50.4(SO2 SIP); 
Title I Condition: 40 CFR 51; Title I Condition: 40 CFR pt. 52, subp. 
Y'' condition in the prior joint Title I/Title V document, Permit No. 
3700011-12 (joint document 12). EPA had approved joint document 12 into 
the Minnesota SIP on June 27, 2016 (81 FR 41447). The state-based 
SO2 limit for EQUI574 at condition 5.162.4 in joint document 
12 are revised to be labeled a ``Minn. R. 7009.0080'' Title V condition 
in joint document 101. This is acceptable because the federal 
SO2 standards are still contained in joint document 101 and 
the erroneous condition incorporated into joint document 12 at 81 FR 
41447 does not affect FHR's ability to meet the SO2 NAAQS.

III. SO2 SIP and Emissions Impacts

    Joint document 101 removes SIP conditions for equipment that have 
been approved for shutdown and decommissioning in joint document 12, 
and that have been decommissioned from FHR and are no longer necessary. 
Joint document 101 also strengthens the Minnesota SIP by requiring new 
or more stringent limits on equipment. As shown in Table 1, for the 3-
hour, 24-hour, and annual SO2 standards, allowable emissions 
are decreased by 95.402 lb/hr, 95.402 lb/hr, and 249.169 tpy, 
respectively, from the impact of the revisions to joint document 101. 
Joint document 101 becomes effective upon the effective date of EPA's 
approval of MPCA's February 8, 2017, request.

                  Table 1--Summary of Changes to Allowable SO2 Emissions in Joint Document 101
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                     Change to
                                                                                   allowable in      Change to
                              Unit                                  Section in     lb/hr  (1-hr    allowable in
                                                                      permit         and 24-hr     tpy  (annual
                                                                                    standards)       standard)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
COMG 28/GP 011/Diesel engines w/SIP conditions..................          5.23.3          -0.002          -0.009
EQUI 471/EU 296/#4 Hydrogen Plant Reformer--Refining Equipment..         5.122.4           -69.4          -243.3
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
                                                                         5.122.8            22.7            79.7
EQUI 495/EU 034/#3 Coker Heater--Process Heater.................         5.133.1           -12.7           -44.6
EQUI496/EU 035/#3 Coker Heater--Process Heater..................         5.134.1            -9.4           -13.4
EQUI 498/EU 037/Steam/Air Heater Decooking 23H-1--Process Heater         5.135.1           -20.2           -4.26
EQUI 500/EU 040/#3 Crude Unit Charge Heater--Process Heater.....         5.137.1           -19.5           -54.3
EQUI 1456/EQUI 24H-1/no description.............................        5.163.13            13.1              31
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
    Total Change................................................  ..............         -95.402        -249.169
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Joint document 101 is approvable because EPA's review of the 
revised document shows that reductions of allowable SIP-based 
SO2 emissions, and strengthening of the Minnesota SIP will 
occur through corrections, clarifications, and revisions made since 
approval of joint document 12.

IV. What action is EPA proposing?

    EPA is proposing to approve a revision to Minnesota's 
SO2 SIP for FHR, as submitted by MPCA on February 8, 2017, 
and reflected in conditions labeled ``Title I Condition: 40 CFR 
50.4(SO2 SIP); Title I Condition: 40 CFR 51; Title I 
Condition: 40 CFR pt. 52, subp. Y'' in joint document 101.

V. Incorporation by Reference

    In this rule, EPA proposes to include in a final EPA rule 
regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance 
with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, EPA proposes to incorporate by 
reference all the conditions in Minnesota Permit No. 03700011-101 cited 
as ``Title I Condition: 40 CFR 50.4(S02 SIP); Title I Condition: 40 CFR 
51; Title I Condition: 40 CFR pt. 52, subp. Y'', effective January 13, 
2017. EPA has made, and will continue to make, these documents 
generally available through www.regulations.gov, and at the EPA Region 
5 Office (please contact the person identified in the ``For Further 
Information Contact'' section of this preamble for more information).

VI. 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

[[Page 18257]]

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 Orders 12866 (58 
FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
     Is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 2, 
2017) regulatory action because SIP approvals are exempted under 
Executive Order 12866;
     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 (Public Law 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 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, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian 
reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has 
demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian 
country, the rule does not have tribal implications and will not impose 
substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as 
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).

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: April 18, 2018.
Cathy Stepp,
Regional Administrator, Region 5.
[FR Doc. 2018-08807 Filed 4-25-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


