[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 106 (Thursday, June 3, 1999)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 29793-29796]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-13800]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[TX83-1-7340a; FRL-6349-9]
Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
Texas; Revision to the State Implementation Plan (SIP) Addressing
Sulfur Dioxide in Harris County
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Direct final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We are approving two revised Commission Orders modifying the
sulfur dioxide (SO2) allowable emissions at two stationary
sources in Harris County, Texas. The Orders are separate, enforceable
agreements between Simpson Pasadena Paper Company, Lyondel-Citgo
Refining Company, and the Texas Natural Resource Conservation
Commission (TNRCC). This action will incorporate these two Orders into
the federally approved State Implementation Plan (SIP). The intention
of this action is to regulate SO2 emissions in accordance
with the requirements of the Clean Air Act, as amended in 1990 (the
Act).
DATES: This action is effective on August 2, 1999 without further
notice, unless EPA receives relevant adverse comments by July 6, 1999.
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: Written comments must be submitted to Mr. Thomas Diggs,
Chief of Air Planning Section, EPA Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite
1200 (6PD-L), Dallas, Texas 75202-2733. Copies of the technical support
document are available for public review at the EPA Region 6 office
during normal business hours. Copies of documents relative to this
action are available for public inspection during normal business hours
at the following locations. The interested persons wanting to examine
these documents should make an appointment with the appropriate office
at least 24 hours before the visiting day.
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 6, Air Planning Section, 1445
Ross Avenue, Suite 1200, 6PD-L, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733, telephone
(214) 665-7214.
Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission, 12100 Park 35 Circle,
Austin, Texas 78753, telephone (512) 239-1461.
Documents which are incorporated by reference are available for
public inspection at the Air and Radiation Docket and Information
Center, Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M Street, S.W.,
Washington, D.C. 20460.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Petra Sanchez, Air Planning
Section, (6PD-L), Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division,
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite
1200, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733, telephone: (214) 665-6686.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
I. Background Information
A. What Action is EPA Taking in This Rulemaking?
B. Why Were Changes In Emission Rates Necessary?
C. What Is A SIP?
D. What Are the Procedural Requirements Texas Must Follow for
EPA Approval?
E. What Are the Health Effects Associated With This Criteria
Pollutant?
F. What Are the NAAQS for SO2?
II. Final Action
III. Administrative Requirements
I. Background Information
A. What Action Is EPA Taking in This Rulemaking?
The EPA is adopting two Agreed Commission Orders containing new
emission limits at two facilities into the Harris County SIP for
SO2. The facilities are Simpson Pasadena Paper Company
located at North Shaver Street at
[[Page 29794]]
Washburn Tunnel in Houston, Texas, and Lyondel-Citgo Refining Company,
located at 12000 Lawndale, also in Houston, Texas. Changes to the
emission limits were approved by the TNRCC through ``Agreed Commission
Orders.'' This action adopts these Orders into the SIP and makes them
federally enforceable. In the original SIP for Harris County, emission
limits were developed for thirteen non-permitted sources, including
Simpson and Lyondel. The EPA approved the Harris County SIP on March 6,
1995 (60 FR 12125), and the contents in the unrevised portions of the
SIP remain the same. The reader is referred to this Federal Register
document for additional background.
B. Why Were Changes in Emission Rates Necessary?
Lyondel-Citgo Refining Company (LCR)
The LCR revision corrects a minor technical problem found with the
calculation for the SO2 emission rate. In the original 1994,
SIP submittal, hourly LCR allowable emission rates used for dispersion
modeling calculated the annual average fuel gas rates instead of the
LCR grandfathered firing rates, resulting in a maximum fuel gas
hydrogen sulfide concentration of 160 parts per million (ppm) by
volume. The annual average fuel gas emission rates were incorrectly
converted to an hourly rate without taking into consideration
grandfathered maximum hourly limits for the emission source. Adjusting
the emission rates, however, would cause the combined emissions to rise
from 199.42 to 263.39 pounds per hour (lbs/hr). Lyondel-Citgo Refining
Company, therefore, submitted a request to modify their Agreed
Commission Order to reflect their corrected emission rates. The
request, with the supporting documentation and a revised dispersion
modeling analysis to increase the SO2 emission rates, was
further evaluated by the TNRCC and then by EPA. The analysis
demonstrates that the new emission rates from LCR will not cause a
violation of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for
SO2.
The modeling results predict worst-case concentrations for the 3-
hour, 24-hour, and annual averaging periods of 908 ug/m3,
(for the secondary 3-hour), 336 ug/m3, (for the primary 24-
hour standard) and 78 ug/m3, (for the primary annual
standard) respectively. All concentrations are below the applicable
NAAQS of 1300 ug/m3, 365 ug/m3, and 80 ug/
m3 respectively.
The Industrial Source Complex Short-Term 3 model, and 5 years of
meteorological data (i.e., 1981 through 1985) from the Houston
Intercontinental surface station and the Lake Charles upper-air station
were used for the analysis. Two emission inventories were used in the
modeling, based on the original inventory provided by HRM and its
contractor, Radian Incorporated. The second scenario used the updated
inventory submitted by LCR. The differences from the first and second
scenarios were observed, with respect to the 3-hour, 24-hour and annual
SO2 NAAQS. In addition, the differences from the first and
second scenarios were added as an increment to the original Radian
model results. The results predicted concentrations below the
SO2 NAAQS.
Simpson Pasadena Paper Company
Of the seven emission points identified in the original Commission
Order for Simpson Pasadena, the largest is the No.6 Kraft Recovery
Boiler (SN15, 400 pounds of SO2 per hour). Simpson Pasadena
submitted a request to modify their order by raising the emission limit
on the No. 6 Kraft Recovery Boiler from 400 pounds/hour (lbs/hr) to 600
lbs/hr, when Boiler No. 7 is not operating. As a result, the maximum
allowable SO2 emissions from the two furnaces would decrease
from 650 lbs/hr (400 and 250 lbs/hr, for No. 6 and No. 7, respectively)
to 600 lbs/hr for one furnace. The revised order allows for this
averaging on a permanent basis, whenever maintenance or malfunctions
occur. Simpson Pasadena, however, is still responsible for notifying
the TNRCC office whenever these temporary changes in emissions will
occur, and provide an approximate duration time.
The air quality impact analysis submitted with the SIP revision
request demonstrated that the net change in emissions from 650 lbs/hr
to 600 lbs/hr would not cause or contribute to a violation of the
SO2 NAAQS.
The modeling approach was conducted in two phases. The first phase
compared the predicted concentrations from the net change in emissions
to the applicable SO2 significance levels to determine if
the modification was significant. The impacts were above the
significance levels for the 3-hour and 24-hour averaging periods. Thus
the second phase, a full analysis, was conducted using the complete
emission inventory from the original attainment demonstration.
The modeling results predict worst-case concentrations for the 3-
hour and 24-hour averaging periods of 691 micrograms/cubic meter (ug/
m3) and 227 ug/m3, respectively. These
concentrations demonstrated they were below the applicable NAAQS.
C. What Is a SIP?
Section 110 of the Act requires states to develop air pollution
regulations and control strategies to ensure that State air quality
meets the NAAQS established by the EPA. These ambient standards are
established under section 109 of the Act and they address six criteria
pollutants: carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide, ozone, lead, particulate
matter and sulfur dioxide.
Each State must submit these regulations and control strategies to
us for approval and incorporation into the federally enforceable SIP.
Each State has a SIP designed to protect its air quality. These SIPs
can be extensive, containing regulations, enforceable emission limits,
emission inventories, monitoring networks, and modeling demonstrations.
The Texas SIP contains various ``Agreed Commission Orders'' (Orders) to
meet the SIP requirements and other State statutory requirements. The
Orders are developed to contain specific conditions for a particular
source and can provide specific conditions such as, emission limits,
hours of operation, record keeping requirements, production rates,
compliance demonstration requirements, etc., for a particular source.
Once the Orders are adopted into the SIP, they become federally
enforceable.
D. What Are the Procedural Requirements Texas Must Follow for EPA
Approval?
The Act requires States to observe certain procedural requirements
while developing SIPs for submission to the EPA. Section 110(l) of the
Act requires that a revision to a SIP must be adopted by such State
after reasonable notice and public hearing. The EPA must also determine
whether a submittal is complete and warrants further action (see
section 110(k)(1) and 57 FR 13565). The EPA's completeness criteria for
SIP submittals are found at 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part
51, appendix V. The submittal was determined to be administratively
complete by EPA through a cover letter to the Governor of Texas on
April 18, 1997.
The State of Texas held a public hearing on March 31, 1997, for
public comment on these rule revisions. The SIP revision was then
submitted by the Governor of Texas to the EPA by cover letter dated May
29, 1997. While there are no SO2 nonattainment areas in
Texas, the SIP must demonstrate
[[Page 29795]]
attainment and maintenance of the NAAQS.
All State regulations and supporting information approved by the
EPA under section 110 of the Act are incorporated into the federally
approved SIP. Records of such SIP actions are maintained in the 40 CFR
part 52. The actual State regulations which were approved are not
reproduced in their entirety in the CFR but are ``incorporated by
reference,'' which means that the EPA has approved a given State
regulation with a specific effective date.
E. What Are the Health Effects Associated With This Criteria Pollutant?
Sulfur dioxide belongs to the family of sulfur oxide gases. These
gases are formed when fuel containing sulfur, such as coal and oil, is
burned and during metal smelting, and other industrial process. Sulfur
dioxide is a rapidly-diffusing reactive gas that is very soluble in
water. Sulfur dioxide and oxides of nitrogen are the major precursors
to acidic deposition (acid rain), and are associated with the
acidification of lakes and streams, corrosion of buildings and
monuments. They are also associated with reduced visibility. Sulfur
dioxide in the Houston area is emitted principally from combustion, or
processing, of sulfur-containing fossil fuels and ores. At elevated
concentrations, sulfur dioxide can adversely affect human health. The
major health concerns associated with exposure to high concentrations
of SO2 include effects on breathing, respiratory illness,
alterations in the lungs' defenses, and aggravation of existing
cardiovascular disease. Sulfur dioxide can also produce damage to the
foliage of trees and agricultural crops.
F. What Are the NAAQS for SO2?
The primary national ambient air quality standard for sulfur
oxides, measured as SO2, is 0.14 ppm, or 365 ug/
m3, averaged over a period of 24 hours and not to be
exceeded more than once per year, and an annual standard of 0.030 ppm,
or 80 ug/m3, never to be exceeded. The secondary standard
for SO2 is 0.50 ppm, or 1300 ug/m3 averaged over
a three-hour period. The secondary standard may not be exceeded more
than once per year.
II. Final Action
The EPA has evaluated the submitted Agreed Orders and their
provisions along with the modeling demonstration to support the revised
emission limits and has determined that they are consistent with the
Act, EPA regulations, and EPA policy. Therefore, the revised Agreed
Order Nos. 94-15 for Lyondel-Citgo, Refining Company, Ltd., and 94-22
for Simpson Pasadena Paper Company are being approved under section
110(k)(3) of the Act as meeting the requirements of section 110(a) and
are acceptable revisions to the SIP. 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 the proposed rules section of this Federal Register
publication, the EPA is publishing a separate document that will serve
as the proposal to approve the State Plan should relevant adverse
comments be filed. This rule will be effective August 2, 1999 without
further notice unless, by July 6, 1999, relevant adverse comments are
received. If EPA receives such comments, this action will be withdrawn
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. The
EPA will not institute a second comment period. 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 August 2, 1999.
Nothing in this action should be construed as permitting or
allowing or establishing a precedent for any future implementation
plan. Each request for revision to the state implementation plan shall
be considered separately in light of specific technical, economic, and
environmental factors and in relation to relevant statutory and
regulatory requirements.
III. Administrative Requirements
A. Executive Order (E.O.) 12866
The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted this
regulatory action from E.O. 12866, entitled ``Regulatory Planning and
Review.''
B. Executive Order 12875
Under E.O. 12875, EPA may not issue a regulation that is not
required by statute and that creates a mandate upon a state, local, or
tribal government, unless the Federal government provides the funds
necessary to pay the direct compliance costs incurred by those
governments, or EPA consults with those governments. If EPA complies by
consulting, E.O. 12875 requires EPA must provide to the OMB a
description of the extent of EPA's prior consultation with
representatives of affected State, local and tribal governments, the
nature of their concerns, copies of any written communications from the
governments, and a statement supporting the need to issue the
regulation. In addition, E.O. 12875 requires EPA to develop an
effective process permitting elected officials and other
representatives of State, local, and tribal governments ``to provide
meaningful and timely input in the development of regulatory proposals
containing significant unfunded mandates.'' Today's rule does not
create a mandate on State, local or tribal governments. The rule does
not impose any enforceable duties on these entities. Accordingly, the
requirements of section 1(a) of E.O. 12875 do not apply to this rule.
C. Executive Order 13045
Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety
Risks (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), applies to any rule that: (1) Is
determined to be ``economically significant'' as defined under E.O.
12866, and (2) concerns an environmental health or safety risk that EPA
has reason to believe may have a disproportionate effect on children.
If the regulatory action meets both criteria, the Agency must evaluate
the environmental health or safety effects of the planned rule on
children, and explain why the planned regulation is preferable to other
potentially effective and reasonably feasible alternatives considered
by the Agency.
This rule is not subject to E.O. 13045 because it does not involve
decisions intended to mitigate environmental health or safety risks.
D. Executive Order 13084
Under E.O. 13084, EPA may not issue a regulation that is not
required by statute, that significantly affects or uniquely affects the
communities of Indian tribal governments, and that imposes substantial
direct compliance costs on those communities, unless the Federal
government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct compliance
costs incurred by the tribal governments, or EPA consults with those
governments. If EPA complies by consulting, E.O. 13084 requires EPA to
provide to OMB in a separately identified section of the preamble to
the rule, a description of the extent of EPA's prior consultation with
representatives of affected tribal governments, a summary of the nature
of their concerns, and a statement supporting the need to issue the
regulation. In addition, E.O. 13084 requires EPA to develop an
effective process permitting elected officials and other
representatives of Indian tribal governments ``to provide meaningful
and timely input in the development of regulatory policies on
[[Page 29796]]
matters that significantly or uniquely affect their communities.''
Today's rule does not significantly or uniquely affect the communities
of Indian tribal governments. Accordingly, the requirements of section
3(b) of E.O. 13084 do not apply to this rule.
E. Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Regulatory Flexibility Act 5 U.S.C. 600 et seq. generally
requires an agency to conduct a regulatory flexibility analysis of any
rule subject to notice and comment rulemaking requirements unless the
agency certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities. Small entities
include small businesses, small not-for-profit enterprises, and small
governmental jurisdictions. This final rule will not have a significant
impact on a substantial number of small entities because SIP approvals
under section 110 and subchapter I, part D of the Act do not create any
new requirements but simply approve requirements that the State is
already imposing. Therefore, because the Federal SIP approval does not
create any new requirements, I certify that this action will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
Moreover, due to the nature of the Federal-State relationship under the
Act, preparation of flexibility analysis would constitute Federal
inquiry into the economic reasonableness of state action. The Act
forbids EPA to base its actions concerning SIPs on such grounds. Union
Electric Co., v. U.S. EPA, 427 U.S. 246, 255-66 (1976); 42 U.S.C.
7410(a)(2).
F. Unfunded Mandates
Under section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995,
(Unfunded Mandates Act), signed into law on March 22, 1995, EPA must
prepare a budgetary impact statement to accompany any proposed or final
rule that includes a Federal mandate that may result in estimated
annual costs to State, local, or tribal governments in the aggregate;
or to private sector, of $100 million or more. Under section 205, 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 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 annual 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 pre-existing requirements under State or local law, and
imposes no new requirements. Accordingly, no additional costs to State,
local, or tribal governments, or to the private sector, result from
this action.
G. Submission to Congress and the Comptroller General
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. The EPA will submit 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 United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. This rule is not a
``major'' rule as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).
H. 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 August 2, 1999.
Filing a petition for reconsideration with 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).)
Lists of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
Reference, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur dioxide.
Dated: April 14, 1999.
Sammuel Coleman,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 6.
40 CFR Part 52 of the Code of Federal Regulations 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 SS--Texas
2. Section 52.2270 is amended by adding paragraph (116) to read as
follows:
Sec. 52.2270 Identification of plan.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(116) A revision to the Texas State Implementation Plan (SIP) to
include two modified Agreed Orders limiting sulfur dioxide
(SO2) allowable emissions at two facilities in Harris
County, submitted by the Governor by cover letter dated May 29, 1997.
(i) Incorporation by reference.
(A) TNRCC Docket No. 96-1188-AIR Order Modifying Commission Order
No. 94-15 for Lyondel-Citgo Refining Company, LTD., as adopted by the
TNRCC on June 29, 1994, and modified on July 31, 1996;
(B) TNRCC Docket No. 96-1187-AIR, Order Modifying Commission Order
No. 94-22 for Simpson Pasadena Paper Company, as adopted by the TNRCC
on June 29, 1994, and modified on July 31, 1996.
(ii) Additional material.
TNRCC submittal to the EPA dated May 29, 1997, entitled,
``Revisions to the SIP Concerning Sulfur Dioxide in Harris County.''
[FR Doc. 99-13800 Filed 6-2-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P