[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