[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 209 (Monday, October 28, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 55573-55577]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-26557]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 62
[TX-7-1-5220a; FRL-5629-5]
Approval and Promulgation of State Air Quality Plans for
Designated Facilities and Pollutants, Texas; Control of Sulfuric Acid
Mist Emissions From Existing Sulfuric Acid Production Plants and Total
Reduced Sulfur From Existing Kraft Pulp Mills
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
[[Page 55574]]
ACTION: Direct final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This document approves the Texas plan for controlling sulfuric
acid mist emissions from existing sulfuric acid production plants and
for controlling total reduced sulfur (TRS) from existing kraft pulp
mills. The plans were submitted to fulfill the requirements of section
111(d) of the Clean Air Act (the Act), and regulations promulgated
thereunder. The plans consist of the document: Texas Air Control Board
Plan for the Control of Sulfuric Acid Mist, Total Reduced Sulfur, and
Fluoride Emissions from Existing Facilities; and sections 112.41 to
112.47 (for control of sulfuric acid) and sections of 112.51 to 112.59
(for control of total reduced sulfur) of Texas Regulation II (31 TAC
Chapter 112) Control of Air Pollution from Sulfur Compounds. These
plans were adopted by the State of Texas on May 12, 1989, and submitted
by the Governor to the EPA in a letter dated August 21, 1989.
DATES: This action is effective on December 27, 1996, unless notice is
postmarked by November 27, 1996 that someone wishes to submit adverse
or critical comments. If the effective date is delayed, timely notice
will be published in the Federal Register.
ADDRESSES: Comments should be mailed to Thomas H. Diggs, Chief, Air
Planning Section (6PD-L), EPA Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue, Dallas, Texas
75202-2733. Copies of the State's plan and other information relevant
to this action are available for inspection during normal hours at the
following locations:
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 6, Air Planning Section (6PD-
L), 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 700, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733
Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center, Environmental
Protection Agency, 401 M Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20460
Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission, Air Quality Program,
12124 Park 35 Circle, Austin, Texas 78753
Anyone wishing to review this plan at the EPA office is asked to
contact the person below to schedule an appointment 24 hours in
advance.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lt. Mick Cote, Air Planning Section
(6PD-L), Environmental Protection Agency, Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue,
Dallas, Texas 75202-2733, telephone (214) 665-7219.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
The State of Texas submitted to the EPA on August 21, 1989, plans
for controlling sulfuric acid mist from sulfuric acid plants and for
controlling TRS from kraft pulp mills. The plans were developed to meet
the requirements of section 111(d) of the Act.
Under section 111(d) of the Act, the EPA established procedures
whereby States submit plans to control existing sources of designated
pollutants. Designated pollutants are defined as pollutants which are
not included on a list published under section 108(a) of the Act (i.e.,
National Ambient Air Quality Standard pollutants), but to which a
standard of performance for new sources applies under section 111.
Under section 111(d), emission standards are to be adopted by the
States and submitted to the EPA for approval. The standards limit the
emissions of designated pollutants from existing facilities which, if
new, would be subject to the New Source Performance Standards (NSPS).
Such facilities are called designated facilities.
The procedures under which States submit these plans to control
existing sources are defined in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR);
specifically subpart B of 40 CFR part 60. According to subpart B, the
States are required to develop plans within Federal guidelines for the
control of designated pollutants. The EPA publishes guidelines
documents for development of State emission standards along with the
promulgation of any NSPS for a designated pollutant. These guidelines
apply to designated pollutants and include information such as a
discussion of the pollutant's effects, description of control
techniques and their effectiveness, costs and potential impacts. Also
as guidance for the States, recommended emission limits and times for
compliance are set forth, and control equipment which will achieve
these emission limits are identified. In subpart B, two types of
designated pollutants are discussed. One type of designated pollutant
is the type that may cause or contribute to the endangerment of public
health. The other type of designated pollutant is a welfare-related
pollutant, for which adverse effects on public health have not been
demonstrated. The emission guidelines for health-related pollutants
(such as sulfuric acid mist) are promulgated (in 40 CFR part 60) while
emission guidelines for welfare-related pollutants appear only in the
applicable guideline document.
For welfare-related pollutants such as TRS, States have the option
of balancing emission guidelines, times for compliance, and other
information provided in a guideline document against other factors of
public concern in the establishment of emission standards, compliance
schedules and variances, as long as the guidelines document and public
hearing information are considered and all the other requirements of
subpart B are met. Therefore, States have greater flexibility in
establishing plans for the control of TRS. Factors other than
technology and costs can be considered in developing a TRS control
plan.
II. Analysis of State Submittal
A. Texas Plan for Sulfuric Acid Mist Emissions From Existing Sulfuric
Acid Production Plants
Sulfuric acid mist is considered a health-related pollutant. The
EPA published guidance entitled Final Guideline Document: Control of
Sulfuric Acid Mist Emissions from Existing Sulfuric Acid Production
Units (EPA-450/2-77-019 (NTIS: PB-274-085)), in September 1977. The
final section 111(d) emission standard was promulgated October 18, 1977
(42 FR 55796), and codified in the CFR at 40 CFR subpart C, sections
60.30 to 60.34. The standard was moved to a new subpart Cb, Emission
Guidelines and Compliance Times for Sulfuric Acid Production Units, on
February 11, 1991 (56 FR 5525).
The emission guideline specified in 40 CFR 60, subpart Cb, for
sulfuric acid production units at designated facilities, is 0.25 grams
sulfuric acid mist (as measured by Method 8 of appendix A of 40 CFR
part 60) per kilogram of sulfuric acid produced (0.5 pounds per ton),
the production being expressed as 100 percent sulfuric acid.
The State of Texas submitted to the EPA on August 21, 1989, a
section 111(d) plan for controlling sulfuric acid mist from existing
sulfuric acid plants. The plan was adopted by the TACB on May 12, 1989.
The plan consists of the document Texas Air Control Board Plan for the
Control of Sulfuric Acid Mist, Total Reduced Sulfur, and Fluoride
Emissions from Existing Facilities; and sections 112.41 to 112.47,
Control of Sulfuric Acid, of Texas Regulation II (31 TAC Chapter 112)
Control of Air Pollution from Sulfur Compounds as revised May 12, 1989.
The EPA has reviewed the plan and developed an evaluation report
1, which is based on
[[Page 55575]]
the requirements of section 111(d) of the Act of 1977, as amended, 40
CFR part 60 subpart B and the EPA guideline document titled Final
Guideline Document: Control of Sulfuric Acid Mist Emissions from
Existing Sulfuric Acid Production Units (EPA-450/2-77-019 (NTIS: PB-
274-085)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Evaluation Report for Texas 111(d) Plan for the Control of
Sulfuric Acid Mist from Existing Sulfuric Acid Production Plants.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The State of Texas has ten designated sulfuric acid plants. These
are: Diamond-Shamrock Corporation in Sunray; Amoco Oil Company in Texas
City; E. I. duPont de Nemours & Company, Inc., in La Porte; Mobil
Mining and Minerals in Pasadena; Rohm and Haas, Texas Inc., in Deer
Park; Stauffer Chemical Company in Baytown; Stauffer Chemical Company
in Houston; Olin Corporation in Beaumont; Stauffer Chemical Company in
Pasadena; and Stauffer Chemical Company in Fort Worth. The last two
have been inactive since 1984 and 1982, respectively.
The emission limits in the Texas plan are the same as those
required in subpart Cb. Subpart Cb requires plants to be capable of
attaining the specified level of emissions within 17 months after the
effective date of a State emission standard. The State plan was
effective May 12, 1989, and designated sources were required to be in
compliance by July 31, 1990. Therefore, compliance schedules are not
required to be submitted.
B. Texas Plan for TRS Emissions From Existing Kraft Pulp Mills
The TRS consists of the sulfur compounds hydrogen sulfide, methyl
mercaptan, dimethyl sulfide, and dimethyl disulfide, all of which are
commonly emitted by kraft pulp mills. Although these TRS emissions have
no demonstrated adverse effects on human health at low concentrations;
they can corrode or tarnish exposed copper, zinc, and silver and
discolor paints containing heavy metal slats, e.g., lead. More
importantly perhaps, TRS emissions have a distinctly unpleasant odor
which may adversely affect property values and economic development in
the vicinity of kraft pulp mills.
On February 23, 1978 (43 FR 7566), the EPA promulgated, at 40 CFR
60 subpart BB, NSPS for eight affected facilities or emission sources
in the kraft pulping industry. These sources are: recovery furnace,
digester system, multiple-effect evaporator system, lime kiln, brown
stock washer system, black liquor oxidation system, smelt dissolving
tank, and condensate stripper system. In relevant part, the NSPS
designated TRS as a welfare-related pollutant to be controlled.
Subsequently, in March 1979, the EPA issued guidance entitled Kraft
Pulping, Control of TRS Emissions from Existing Mills (EPA-450/2-78-
003b (NTIS: PB-296-135)), for use by the States when developing
regulations. On May 20, 1986 (51 FR 18538), the EPA amended the NSPS to
allow a higher level of TRS emissions from smelt dissolving tanks. The
NSPS for emissions from smelt dissolving tanks was changed from 0.0084
to 0.016 grams/kilogram black liquor solids (BLS) as hydrogen sulfide.
The State of Texas submitted to the EPA on August 21, 1989, a
section 111(d) plan for controlling TRS from kraft pulp mills. The plan
was adopted by the TACB on May 12, 1989. The plan consists of the
document: Texas Air Control Board Plan for the Control of Sulfuric Acid
Mist, Total Reduced Sulfur, and Fluoride Emissions from Existing
Facilities and sections 112.51 to 112.59, Control of Total Reduced
Sulfur (TRS), of Texas Regulation II (31 TAC Chapter 112) Control of
Air Pollution from Sulfur Compounds as revised May 12, 1989. The EPA
has reviewed the plan and developed an evaluation report 2, which
is based on the requirements of section 111(d) of the Clean Air Act of
1977, as amended, 40 CFR part 60 subpart B and the EPA guideline
document titled Kraft Pulping: Control of TRS Emissions from Existing
Mills.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Evaluation Report for Texas 111(d) Plan for the Control of
Total Reduced Sulfur (TRS) from Existing Kraft Pulp Mills.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The State of Texas has six designated kraft pulp mills. These are:
Simpson Paper company in Pasadena; Champion International in Sheldon;
Temple-Eastex, Inc. in Evadale; Champion International in Lufkin;
International Paper Company in Domino; and Inland-Orange, Inc. in
Orange.
The Texas section 111(d) Plan for TRS emissions from existing kraft
pulp mills has the same emission limits as specified in the guideline
document. The emission limit for smelt dissolving tanks is 0.016 grams/
kilogram BLS, the same as the 1986 NSPS.
One concern was raised by the EPA during the review of the TRS
regulation during the State comment period. This concern was the
allowance for the State's approval of an alternate emission limitation
if a facility submitted its request to the State before July 31, 1990.
This provision is included in Section 112.53 of Texas Regulation II.
The EPA stated that the concept of allowing for alternate emission
limitation was acceptable; our concern was that the regulation did not
require approval of an alternate emission limitation by the EPA.
Texas committed in their response to satisfy the administrative
requirements outlined in 40 CFR part 60, regarding formal 111(d) plan
revisions, and to complete, prior to submission to the EPA, a technical
review regarding the application for an alternate emission limit. The
State, in their evaluation of testimony, stated that the EPA would have
the opportunity to comment at public hearings. Although this response
did not fully address our concerns, this issue is now a moot point,
since no facility submitted an application for an alternate emission
limit before July 31, 1990. Therefore, this issue does not stand in the
way of approval of the State's plan.
All kraft pulp mills in Texas were required to be in compliance
with the recovery furnace emissions limit by July 31, 1992, and all
other applicable emission limits by July 31, 1991. Therefore no
compliance schedules are required.
III. Final Action
The EPA is publishing this action without prior proposal because
the Agency views this as a noncontroversial amendment and anticipates
no adverse comments. However, in a separate document in this Federal
Register publication, the EPA is proposing to approve this plan should
adverse or critical comments be filed. This action will be effective
December 27, 1996 unless, by November 27, 1996, adverse or critical
comments are received.
If the EPA receives such comments, this action will be withdrawn
before the effective date by publishing a subsequent action that will
withdraw the final action. All public comments received will be
addressed in a subsequent final rule based on this action serving as a
proposed rule. The EPA will not institute a second comment period on
this action. Any parties interested in commenting on this action should
do so at this time. If no such comments are received, the public is
advised that this action will be effective December 27, 1996.
Nothing in this action should be construed as permitting or
allowing or establishing a precedent for any future request for
revision to any State plan. Each request for revision to the State plan
shall be considered separately in light of specific technical,
economic, and environmental factors and in relation to relevant
statutory and regulatory requirements.
[[Page 55576]]
IV. Administrative Requirements
A. Executive Order (E.O.) 12866
This action has been classified as a Table 3 action for signature
by the Regional Administrator under the procedures published in the
Federal Register on January 19, 1989 (54 FR 2214-2225), as revised by a
July 10, 1995, memorandum from Mary Nichols, Assistant Administrator
for Air and Radiation. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has
exempted this regulatory action from E.O. 12866 review.
B. Regulatory Flexibility Act
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 600 et seq., the EPA
must prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis assessing the impact of
any proposed or final rule on small entities. See 5 U.S.C. 603 and 604.
Alternatively, the EPA may certify that the rule will not have a
significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. Small
entities include small businesses, small not-for-profit enterprises,
and government entities with jurisdiction over populations of less than
50,000.
State plan approvals under section 111 of the Act do not create any
new requirements but simply approve requirements that the State is
already imposing. Therefore, because the Federal State plan approval
does not impose any new requirements, I certify that it does not have a
significant impact on any small entities affected. Moreover, due to the
nature of the Federal-State relationship under the Act, preparation of
a flexibility analysis would constitute Federal inquiry into the
economic reasonableness of State action. The Act forbids the EPA to
base its actions concerning SIPs on such grounds. See Union Electric
Co. v. U.S. EPA, 427 U.S. 246, 255-66 (1976); 42 U.S.C. 7410(a)(2).
C. Unfunded Mandates
Under section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
(Unfunded Mandates Act), signed into law on March 22, 1995, the EPA
must prepare a budgetary impact statement to accompany any proposed or
final rule that includes a Federal mandate that may result in estimated
costs to State, local, or tribal governments in the aggregate; or to
private sector, of $100 million or more. Under section 205, the EPA
must select the most cost-effective and least burdensome alternative
that achieves the objectives of the rule and is consistent with
statutory requirements. Section 203 requires the EPA to establish a
plan for informing and advising any small governments that may be
significantly or uniquely impacted by the rule.
The EPA has determined that the approval action promulgated does
not include a Federal mandate that may result in estimated costs of
$100 million or more to either State, local, or tribal governments in
the aggregate, or to the private sector. This Federal action approves
preexisting requirements under State or local law, and imposes no new
Federal requirements. Accordingly, no additional costs to State, local,
or tribal governments, or to the private sector, result from this
action.
D. Submission to Congress and the General Accounting Office
Under 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A) as added by the Small Business
Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, the EPA submitted a report
containing this rule and other required information to the U.S. Senate,
the U.S. House of Representatives and the Comptroller General of the
General Accounting Office prior to publication of this rule in today's
Federal Register. This rule is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5
U.S.C. 804(2).
E. Petitions for Judicial Review
Under section 307(b)(1) of the Act, petitions for judicial review
of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for
the appropriate circuit by December 27, 1996. Filing a petition for
reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect
the finality of this rule for the purposes of judicial review nor does
it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be
filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action.
This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its
requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 62
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Air pollution control, Intergovernmental relations, Paper and paper
products industry, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfuric
acid plants, Sulfuric oxides.
Dated: September 30, 1996.
Jerry Clifford,
Acting Regional Administrator.
40 CFR Part 62 is amended as follows:
PART 62--[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for Part 62 is revised to read as
follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401-7642.
2. Part 62 is amended by adding Subpart SS to read as follows:
Subpart SS--Texas
Plan for the Control of Designated Pollutants From Existing Facilities
(Section 111(d) Plan)
Sec.
62.10850 Identification of plan.
Sulfuric Acid Mist From Existing Sulfuric Acid Plants
62.10860 Identification of sources.
Total Reduced Sulfur From Existing Kraft Pulp Mills
62.10870 Identification of sources.
Subpart SS--Texas
Plan for the Control of Designated Pollutants From Existing Facilities
(Section 111(d) Plan)
Sec. 62.10850 Identification of Plan.
(a) Identification of plan. Texas Plan for Control of Designated
Pollutants from Existing Facilities (111(d)Plan).
(b) The plan was officially submitted as follows:
(1) Control of sulfuric acid mist from existing sulfuric acid
production plants as adopted by the Texas Air Control Board (TACB) on
May 12, 1989, and submitted by the Governor in a letter dated August
21, 1989.
(2) Control of total reduced sulfur from existing kraft pulp mills
as adopted by the Texas Air Control Board (TACB) on May 12, 1989, and
submitted by the Governor in a letter dated August 21, 1989.
(c) Designated facilities. The plan applies to existing facilities
in the following categories of sources:
(1) Sulfuric acid production plants.
(2) Kraft Pulp Mills.
Sulfuric Acid Mist From Existing Sulfuric Acid Plants
Sec. 62.10860 Identification of sources.
(a) Identification of sources. The plan includes the following
sulfuric acid production plants:
(1) Diamond-Shamrock Corporation in Sunray, Texas.
(2) Amoco Oil Company in Texas City, Texas.
(3) E.I. duPont de Nemours & Company, Inc. in La Porte, Texas.
(4) Mobil Mining and Minerals in Pasadena, Texas.
(5) Rohm and Haas, Texas Inc. in Deer Park, Texas.
(6) Stauffer Chemical Company in Baytown, Texas.
(7) Stauffer Chemical Company in Houston, Texas.
(8) Olin Corporation in Beaumont, Texas.
[[Page 55577]]
(9) Stauffer Chemical Company in Pasadena, Texas.
(10) Stauffer Chemical Company in Fort Worth, Texas.
Total Reduced Sulfur From Existing Kraft Pulp Mills
Sec. 62.10870 Identification of source.
(a) Identification of sources. The plan includes the following
kraft pulp mills:
(1) Simpson Paper Company in Pasadena, Texas.
(2) Champion International in Sheldon, Texas.
(3) Temple-Eastex, Inc. in Evadale, Texas.
(4) Champion International in Lufkin, Texas.
(5) International Paper Company in Domino, Texas.
(6) Inland-Orange, Inc. in Orange, Texas.
[FR Doc. 96-26557 Filed 10-25-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P