[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 9 (Thursday, January 13, 2011)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 2263-2267]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-337]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA-R05-OAR-2010-0675; FRL-9250-8]
Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
Minnesota; Gopher Resource, LLC
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Direct final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: EPA is approving a request submitted by the Minnesota
Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) on July 29, 2010, to revise the
Minnesota State Implementation Plan (SIP) for lead (Pb) under the Clean
Air Act (CAA). The State has submitted a joint Title I/Title V document
(joint document) in the form of Air Emission Permit No. 03700016-003,
and has requested that the conditions laid out with the citation
``Title I Condition: SIP for Lead NAAQS'' replace an existing
Administrative Order (Order) as the enforceable SIP conditions for
Gopher Resource, LLC. The existing Order was approved by EPA on October
18, 1994. MPCA's July 29, 2010, revisions were meant to satisfy the
maintenance requirements for the 1978 Pb National Ambient Air Quality
Standard (NAAQS), promulgated at 1.5 micrograms per cubic meter, or 1.5
[mu]g/m3.
DATES: This direct final rule will be effective March 14, 2011, unless
EPA receives adverse comments by February 14, 2011. 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-2010-0675, by one of the following methods:
1. http://www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for
submitting comments.
2. E-mail: [email protected].
3. Fax: (312) 692-2551.
4. Mail: John Mooney, Chief, Attainment Planning and Maintenance
Section (AR-18J), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 77 West Jackson
Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604.
5. Hand Delivery: John Mooney, Chief, Attainment Planning and
Maintenance Section (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
[[Page 2264]]
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-
2010-0675. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change and may be made available online at
http://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 http://www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The http://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 http://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 http://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 http://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 Andy Chang, Environmental
Engineer, at (312) 886-0258 before visiting the Region 5 office.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Andy Chang, Environmental Engineer,
Attainment Planning and Maintenance Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-
18J), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson
Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 886-0258, [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. Background
A. When and why did the State make this submittal?
B. Did the State hold public hearings for this submittal?
II. What is EPA's analysis of MPCA's submittal?
A. Gopher Resource, LLC, and General SIP Conditions
B. Emissions Units, Processes, and Limits
C. Stack Emissions Testing
D. Consistency With the Existing Order
E. Rescission of the Order.
III. What action is EPA taking?
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. Background
A. When and why did the State make this submittal?
MPCA submitted this revision to the Minnesota SIP on July 29, 2010.
Air Emission Permit No. 03700016-003 was submitted as a joint document,
and MPCA requested that the conditions labeled ``Title I Condition: SIP
for Lead NAAQS'' serve as the enforceable SIP conditions for the Gopher
Resource, LLC, (Gopher) facility. The State's submittal, as well as
EPA's analysis of the submittal elements, will be discussed in
subsequent sections of this document.
Portions of Dakota County were designated as nonattainment for the
1978 Pb NAAQS on January 6, 1992. It was found that Gopher was the
primary source of elevated Pb levels in the area. Gopher was formerly
known as Gopher Smelting and Refining Company, and the change to Gopher
Resource, LLC will be discussed in Section IIA, below.
EPA approved a request to redesignate Dakota County as attainment
for the 1978 Pb NAAQS on October 18, 1994. The redesignation request
was part of a SIP revision which also included a maintenance plan in
accordance with section 175A of the CAA, as interpreted by a September
4, 1992, EPA memorandum entitled, ``Procedures for Processing Requests
to Redesignate Areas to Attainment.'' EPA also approved the Order for
Gopher on October 18, 1994. This Order was originally issued by MPCA
for the facility on June 22, 1993, and contained emissions limits and
other requirements ensuring attainment of the 1978 Pb NAAQS.
Section 175A(b) of the CAA required MPCA to submit an update to its
maintenance plan, which the agency did on November 18, 2002. On this
date, the State also submitted a request to replace the existing Order
with a joint document, in this case, a permit. This concept does not
set any new precedent, because Minnesota routinely houses the
conditions necessary to attain and maintain the NAAQS in facility
permits. The required SIP conditions are denoted as, ``Title I
Condition: SIP for (pollutant) NAAQS.'' However, EPA did not act on the
submittal because, among other things, the revisions to the SIP for
Gopher removed contingency measures from the maintenance plan.
On November 19, 2007, MPCA formally withdrew the request to replace
the Order with the joint document, but asked that EPA consider the
maintenance plan update, which EPA approved on June 3, 2008 (73 FR
31614). On November 16, 2010, the Administrator of EPA signed
designations for Pb nonattainment areas for the 2008 Pb NAAQS, for
those areas exceeding 0.15 [mu]g/m3. A subsequent Federal
Register notice published on November 22, 2010 (75 FR 71033), confirmed
that portions of Eagan, located in Dakota County, and identical to the
current maintenance area for the 1978 Pb NAAQS, are in nonattainment
for the 2008 Pb NAAQS. However, the 1978 Pb NAAQS remains in effect for
the Eagan area until December 31, 2011. MPCA's July 29, 2010, requested
revisions are meant to address only the maintenance requirements of the
1978 Pb NAAQS.
MPCA has worked closely with EPA to form a joint document that
meets all the requirements to replace the existing Order as the
enforceable SIP conditions for the Gopher facility. As previously
mentioned, Minnesota houses all conditions necessary to attain and
maintain the NAAQS in facility permits through a joint document. The
conditions of this joint document are established under Minnesota's
Clean Air Act Title I authority and Title V permitting authority. The
State's July 29, 2010, submittal from MPCA is the Title V permit for
Gopher Resource, LLC, with appropriately denoted Title I SIP
conditions. This joint document will replace the existing Order, and
although this SIP revision has been submitted in conjunction with
reissuance of the facility's operating permit, this action will focus
only on the relevant changes to the facility's Title I SIP conditions
for Pb.
[[Page 2265]]
B. Did the State hold public hearings for this submittal?
The public notice for the joint document and associated SIP
revision was published in the St. Paul Pioneer Press on February 17,
2010. The public notice period for the joint document began on February
18, 2010, and lasted until March 19, 2010. MPCA did not receive a
request to hold a public hearing, but did receive comments on the
reissuance of the Title V permit. However, none of the comments that
MPCA received were applicable to the maintenance requirements for the
1978 Pb NAAQS, and no changes to the joint document were made as a
result of the comments.
II. What is EPA's analysis of MPCA's submittal?
A. Gopher Resource, LLC, and General SIP Conditions
The existing Order refers to the facility as ``Gopher Smelting and
Refining Company,'' whereas the joint document submitted by MPCA on
July 29, 2010, correctly identifies the facility as ``Gopher Resource,
LLC.'' This change reflects only a change of ownership structure,
whereas the actual ownership remained largely unchanged. General SIP
conditions, such as those that describe when facility changes require a
SIP revision, have been reworded or clarified to fit with MPCA's
current format for such conditions. Additional conditions that allowed
the facility a choice in compliance options in the Order have been
updated to reflect the compliance choice made by Gopher. Lastly, the
joint document organizes and names emissions units differently than the
Order, thereby reflecting current operations. Aligning the current name
of the facility into the SIP prevents potential confusion as to the
correct name of the facility, and the enforceable conditions in the
joint document now apply to the same properly designated entity on both
the State and Federal levels. Therefore, EPA finds the updated name of
Gopher Resource, LLC, to be approvable. The changes to the general SIP
conditions as outlined in the joint document pertain to format only;
these changes ensure that MPCA has been consistent with other joint
documents, and because there are no significant emissions changes that
stem from formatting, rewording, or clarifications, EPA finds these
revisions to be approvable. Gopher has selected a set of compliance
options based on EPA regulations and guidelines, or based on the
previously approved Order, and therefore, EPA finds these changes to be
approvable. Organizing emissions units to reflect current operations
aligns State and Federal nomenclature; therefore, EPA finds these
changes to be approvable.
B. Emissions Units, Processes, and Limits
The State-submitted joint document contains updated emissions units
and processes that reflect current operations. Flue dust agglomeration
is no longer a process at Gopher, nor does there exist a central vacuum
system. The existing Order refers to six refining kettles instead of
the ten that are currently in operation; these ten kettles are
reflected in the joint document. These kettles vent to the main stack
SV003, and although there has been a change in the specifics of the
emissions units, the emissions limits for SV003 in the joint document
are identical to those found in the Order. Therefore, EPA does not
expect a net effect on the emissions exiting at SV003, nor does EPA
expect a violation of the 1978 Pb NAAQS to occur as a result of these
added units.
Gopher has added two additional Torit dust collectors that collect
fugitive Pb emissions from raw material handling, the battery breaking
dock, material transfer rooms, and the furnace areas. These dust
collectors exhaust into the new Torit stack SV008, and the purpose of
these collectors is to control dust that was observed to ``leak'' from
various points, i.e., it was assumed that the dust at these new
collectors was going into Torit stack SV002. Emissions that were
assumed to be entering the SV002 in their entirety are now being split
between SV002 and SV008.
MPCA performed a modeling analysis showing that the added Torit
stack SV008 would not result in negative ambient impacts. The modeling
shows that the area of maximum impact, on a monthly average level, is
0.78 [mu]g/m3. Monitoring data from Air Quality System
ID 270370465 has corroborated compliance with the 1978 Pb
NAAQS; the highest quarterly average recorded between 2007 and 2009
(consistent with the form of the 1978 Pb NAAQS) was 0.70 [mu]g/
m3. Available data from 2010 have demonstrated compliance
with the 1978 Pb NAAQS as well. Based on the static emission limits, as
well as supporting modeling and monitoring data, EPA finds the
requested revisions concerning emissions units, processes, and limits
to be approvable.
C. Stack Emissions Testing
MPCA requested in the joint document that the stack testing
frequency be changed from once every year to once every two years. The
basis of the request is found in the Amendments to the National
Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) From Secondary
Lead Smelting (62 FR 32209). The amendments affirm that if a compliance
test shows a source emitted Pb compounds at 1.0 milligram of lead per
dry standard cubic meter (0.00044 grains of lead per dry standard cubic
foot) or less during the time of the compliance test, the owner or
operator of the lead smelter would be allowed up to 24 calendar months
from the previous compliance test to conduct the next annual compliance
test for Pb compounds. MPCA submitted emissions test reports from 2006
and 2008; the highest average concentration was recorded in 2006 at the
main stack, and the concentration was .16 milligrams of lead per dry
standard cubic meter. This value is 16% of the bi-annual stack testing
frequency threshold. The facility has been complying with the NESHAP
for secondary lead smelters since December 23, 1997, and to the extent
that the NESHAP requirements are more stringent than the requirements
contained in the SIP, EPA approves Gopher's request for bi-annual stack
testing.
D. Consistency With the Existing Order
EPA did not act on MPCA's November 18, 2002, joint document because
provisions in that document would remove contingency plan elements from
the maintenance plan. In its July 29, 2010, submittal, MPCA included
contingency plans and associated record keeping requirements identical
to those found in the Order. EPA finds the inclusion of contingency
measures in the joint document to be appropriate and necessary in
conjunction with section 175A(d) of the CAA.
Significant changes have been discussed in detail already, and EPA
has determined that any other minor deviations from the existing Order
are de minimis. For example, MPCA requested that mobile equipment
traffic be allowed on non-paved areas for maintenance and inspection
purposes. These activities are not expected to have a negative impact
on the surrounding ambient air quality.
EPA finds that all elements included in the existing Order are
included in the July 29, 2010, joint document. Adopting the joint
document in lieu of the Order should not result in any applicability,
emissions, or otherwise detrimental gaps. EPA also expects the Eagan
area of Dakota County to continue to meet the 1978 Pb NAAQS.
[[Page 2266]]
E. Rescission of the Order
On July 27, 2010, MPCA revoked the Order and subsequent amendments
to the Order. For the reasons discussed in previous sections, the joint
document submitted by MPCA on July 29, 2010, is appropriate and
sufficient to serve as the only document that contains SIP conditions
for Gopher Resource, LLC. As such, EPA finds it appropriate to rescind
the original Order from the SIP.
III. What action is EPA taking?
EPA is approving a joint Title I/Title V document submitted by MPCA
for Gopher Resource, LLC. The conditions labeled, ``Title I Condition:
SIP for Lead'' will replace the existing Order as the enforceable SIP
conditions for the facility. Specifically, these conditions can be
found in Air Emission Permit No. 03700016-003. The joint document
includes elements necessary for Dakota County to continue meeting the
1978 Pb NAAQS. EPA is simultaneously rescinding the existing Order from
the 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 March 14, 2011
without further notice unless we receive relevant adverse written
comments by February 14, 2011. 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; therefore, 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 March 14, 2011.
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA 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 CAA. 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 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 CAA, petitions for judicial review
of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for
the appropriate circuit by March 14, 2011. 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. Parties with objections to this direct final rule are
encouraged to file a comment in response to the parallel notice of
proposed rulemaking for this action published in the Proposed Rules
section of today's Federal Register, rather than file an immediate
petition for judicial review of this direct final rule, so that EPA can
withdraw this direct final rule and address the comment in the proposed
rulemaking. 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, Lead, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Dated: December 29, 2010.
Susan Hedman,
Regional Administrator, Region 5.
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 removing
the entry for ``Gopher Smelting and Refining Company'' and adding an
entry for ``Gopher Resource, LLC'' in its place to read as follows:
Sec. 52.1220 Identification of plan.
* * * * *
(d) * * *
[[Page 2267]]
EPA-Approved Minnesota Source-Specific Permits
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
State effective
Name of source Permit No. date EPA approval date Comments
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
Gopher Resource, LLC............. 03700016-003 06/29/10 01/13/11, [Insert Only conditions
page number where cited as ``Title I
the document condition: SIP for
begins]. Lead NAAQS.''
* * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2011-337 Filed 1-12-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P