[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 43 (Monday, March 6, 1995)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 12125-12128]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-5352]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[TX-47-1-6705a; FRL-5161-5]
Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
Texas; Revision to the State Implementation Plan Addressing Sulfur
Dioxide in Harris County
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Direct final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This action approves a revision to the Texas State
Implementation Plan (SIP) to include Agreed Orders limiting sulfur
dioxide (SO2) allowable emissions at certain nonpermitted
facilities in Harris County, Texas. By approving these Agreed Orders
into the Texas SIP, along with approving a modeling demonstration
showing attainment for the SO2 National Ambient Air Quality
Standards (NAAQS) in Harris County, and acknowledging that Harris
County has more than two years of quality assured SO2 monitoring
data showing no violations of the SO2 NAAQS, the EPA will not, at
this time, designate Harris County, Texas nonattainment for the
SO2 NAAQS.
DATES: This final rule is effective on May 5, 1995 unless adverse or
critical comments are received by April 5, 1995. If the effective date
is delayed, timely notice will be published in the Federal Register
(FR).
ADDRESSES: Written comments on this action should be addressed to Mr.
Thomas H. Diggs, Chief, Planning Section, at the EPA Regional Office
listed below. Copies of the documents relevant 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 twenty-four hours before the visiting day.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 6, Air Programs Branch
(6T-A), 1445 Ross Avenue, suite 700, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Air and Radiation Docket and
Information Center, 401 M Street, SW., Washington, DC 20460
Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission, 12124 Park 35
Circle, Austin, Texas 78753.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Mark Sather, Planning Section (6T-
AP), Air Programs Branch (6T-A), USEPA Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue,
Dallas, Texas 75202-2733, telephone (214) 665-7258.
[[Page 12126]] SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
Four violations of the primary 24-hour SO2 NAAQS of 365 ug/
m3 (0.14 parts per million) were recorded at a single monitoring
site (Houston Regional Monitoring Network (HRM) monitoring site #3)
located near the Houston Ship Channel in Harris County, Texas, during
1986, 1988, and 1990. The 24-hour SO2 NAAQS only allows one
exceedance of the 365 ug/m3 standard per calendar year. Each
additional exceedance is considered a violation of the NAAQS. Due to
the monitoring violations and a modeling study conducted in 1987 by
Science Applications International Corporation, under contract with the
EPA Region 6, which predicted SO2 NAAQS exceedances in a portion
of Harris County, the EPA declared, in an FR document dated April 22,
1991 (56 FR 16274), that Harris County was under consideration as a
potential new SO2 nonattainment area.
In response to the recommended redesignation, Radian Corporation,
which represented the HRM, worked with the Texas Natural Resource
Conservation Commission (TNRCC) to obtain reductions in SO2
allowable emissions from certain Houston industries. Radian then
modeled the revised allowable SO2 emission inventory to determine
if the area would attain the SO2 NAAQS. By achieving these
emission reductions, making them federally enforceable, and executing
an in-depth modeling study, HRM sought to demonstrate that Harris
County was in attainment for SO2, and could thus avoid being
redesignated to nonattainment. The EPA agreed to defer its final
decision regarding nonattainment for Harris County, and granted the
TNRCC, HRM, and the involved Harris County industries time to complete
the modeling analysis, and also allowed the TNRCC to put in place
enforceable restrictions on the new SO2 emission rates (i.e.
through Agreed Orders).
Analysis of State Submission
A. Procedural Background
The Clean Air Act (the Act) requires states to observe certain
procedural requirements in developing implementation plans for
submission to the EPA. Section 110(a)(2) of the Act provides that each
implementation plan submitted by a state must be adopted after
reasonable notice and public hearing. Section 110(l) of the Act
similarly provides that each revision to an implementation plan
submitted by a state under the Act must be adopted by such state after
reasonable notice and public hearing. The EPA also must determine
whether a submittal is complete and therefore warrants further EPA
review and action (see section 110(k)(1) and 57 FR 13565). The EPA's
completeness criteria for SIP submittals are set out at 40 Code of
Federal Regulations (CFR) part 51, appendix V. The EPA attempts to make
completeness determinations within 60 days of receiving a submission.
However, a submittal is deemed complete by operation of law if a
completeness determination is not made by the EPA six months after
receipt of the submission.
The State of Texas held a public hearing on March 31, 1994, to
entertain public comment on a proposed Texas SIP revision containing
the following elements: (1) An example Agreed Order limiting SO2
allowable emissions; (2) a modeling demonstration showing SO2
NAAQS attainment for Harris County; and (3) supporting narrative
information. Subsequent to the public hearing and consideration of
hearing comments, the SIP revision, containing 13 Agreed Orders, was
adopted by the State on June 29, 1994. The SIP revision was submitted
by the Governor to the EPA by cover letter dated August 3, 1994.
The SIP revision package was reviewed by the EPA to determine
completeness shortly after its submittal, in accordance with the
completeness criteria set out at 40 CFR part 51, appendix V. A letter
dated September 20, 1994, was forwarded to the Governor finding the
submittal complete and indicating the next steps to be taken in the
review process.
B. Review of State SIP Revision
The Texas SIP Revision for Harris County contained, as outlined
above, modeling analyses demonstrating SO2 NAAQS attainment for
Harris County (3-hour, 24-hour, and annual), Agreed Orders limiting
SO2 allowable emissions at 13 nonpermitted companies in Harris
County, and supporting narrative information. The modeling analyses
used a revised allowable emission inventory obtained through an
SO2 emissions reduction plan involving many Houston industries. As
a result of the reduction plan, about 94,000 tons per year of
federally-enforceable SO2 allowable emissions reductions were
obtained in Harris County, thereby decreasing the original areawide
SO2 allowable emissions inventory from about 287,000 tons per year
to about 193,000 tons per year.
A review of the worst case scenario modeling presented in the SIP
showed no exceedances of the SO2 NAAQS (i.e. no exceedances at any
of the receptors in the modeling grid). The modeling protocol and
procedures, approved by the EPA and consistent with the EPA's
``Guideline on Air Quality Models (Revised)'' (July, 1986), used the
EPA's Industrial Source Complex Short Term 2 model (most current
version at the time of modeling) and five years of meteorological data
(1981-1985) from the Houston International Airport with Lake Charles,
Louisiana upper air data. A value of 3.5 ug/m3 was used as the 24-
hour background value, based on an evaluation of background monitored
values and the area source contribution to the total emission
inventory. Further, no violations of the SO2 NAAQS have occurred
at any Harris County area monitoring site since calendar year 1990. It
is important to note that an SO2 violation is defined as more than
one exceedance of the 3-hour or 24-hour SO2 NAAQS, or an
exceedance of the annual SO2 NAAQS. Only one exceedance of the 24-
hour SO2 NAAQS, in 1991, has been recorded in Harris County since
calendar year 1990. For SO2 NAAQS attainment, at least 8 calendar
quarters (2 years) of data with no violations of the NAAQS is required.
For further details on the modeling analyses and monitoring data,
please reference the Technical Support Document (TSD) and the State
submittal located at the EPA Region 6 office listed above.
The Agreed Orders were reviewed for consistency with the EPA
enforceability guidance (i.e., the September 23, 1987, memorandum from
J. Craig Potter regarding SIP enforceability), and with40 CFR part 60.
The provisions of the Agreed Orders clearly identify each subject
company, which all contain unpermitted SO2 sources. Each Order,
effective June 29, 1994, also sets SO2 maximum allowable emissions
limits, and recordkeeping, reporting and compliance monitoring
requirements, including continuous emission monitoring requirements.
Six facilities requested approval of an equivalent method of monitoring
SO2 emissions: Crown Central Petroleum Corporation, Exxon Company
USA, Lyondell Citgo Refining Company, LTD., Mobil Mining and Minerals
Company (Mobil), Phibro Energy USA, Inc., and Shell Chemical/Oil. On
June 28, 1994, the Executive Director of the TNRCC approved the
alternate method requests. The EPA is also granting in this FR document
approval for each of the alternative monitoring proposals. The
equivalent monitoring method proposed by all of [[Page 12127]] the
companies, except Mobil, was to use a continuous emission monitor (CEM)
to measure the concentration of hydrogen sulfide in the fuel gas that
is fed to the combustion units listed in Attachment A of the respective
Orders. In addition, it was also proposed by all companies, except
Mobil, to use the maximum fuel capacity of the combustion units listed
in Attachment A of the respective Orders as part of the calculations to
demonstrate compliance with the maximum allowable emission rates in the
event there is no fuel feed meter on a combustion unit or in the event
the fuel feed meter is out of operation or malfunctioning. Mobil
requested approval of an alternative CEM quality assurance program, and
an alternative monitoring method for a small emission point. For
further details on the Agreed Orders, please reference the TSD and the
State submittal located at the EPA Region 6 office listed above.
Final Action
The EPA is approving a revision to the Texas SIP submitted by the
Governor of Texas by cover letter dated August 3, 1994, in order to
make federally enforceable Agreed Orders to limit SO2 allowable
emissions at 13 nonpermitted facilities in Harris County. By approving
these Agreed Orders into the Texas SIP, along with approving the
modeling demonstration showing attainment for the SO2 NAAQS in
Harris County, and acknowledging that Harris County has more than 2
years of quality assured SO2 data showing no violations, EPA will
not undertake the process to designate Harris County, Texas as
nonattainment for the SO2 NAAQS at this time.
The EPA has reviewed this revision to the Texas SIP and is
approving the revision as submitted. 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 the SIP revision should adverse or
critical comments be filed. Thus, this action will be effective May 5,
1995 unless, by April 5, 1995, notice is received that adverse or
critical comments will be submitted.
If such notice is received, 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 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 May 5, 1995.
Nothing in this action should be construed as permitting or
allowing or establishing a precedent for any future request for
revision to any SIP. Each request for revision to the SIP shall be
considered separately in light of specific technical, economic, and
environmental factors, and in relation to relevant statutory and
regulatory requirements.
Miscellaneous
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 (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.
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 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 regulatory 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
(Union Electric Co. vs. U.S. E.P.A., 427 U.S. 246, 256-66 (1976); 42
U.S.C. 7410(a)(2)).
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 May 5, 1995. 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)).
Executive Order
The Office of Management and Budget has exempted this action from
review under Executive Order 12866.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur dioxide.
Note: Incorporation by reference of the SIP for the State of
Texas was approved by the Director of the Federal Register on July
1, 1982.
Dated: February 14, 1995.
William B. Hathaway,
Acting Regional Administrator.
40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:
PART 52--[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401-7671q.
Subpart SS--Texas
2. Section 52.2270 is amended by adding paragraph (c)(93) to read
as follows:
Sec. 52.2270 Identification of plan.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(93) A revision to the Texas State Implementation Plan (SIP) to
include agreed orders limiting sulfur dioxide (SO2) allowable
emissions at certain nonpermitted facilities in Harris County, and to
include a modeling demonstration showing attainment of the SO2
National Ambient Air Quality Standards, was submitted by the Governor
by cover letter dated August 3, 1994.
(i) Incorporation by reference.
(A) Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission (TNRCC) Order
No. 94-09, as adopted by the TNRCC on June 29, 1994.
(B) TNRCC Order No. 94-10 for Anchor Glass Container, as adopted by
the TNRCC on June 29, 1994.
(C) TNRCC Order No. 94-11 for Crown Central Petroleum Corporation,
as adopted by the TNRCC on June 29, 1994.
(D) TNRCC Order No. 94-12 for Elf Atochem North America, Inc., as
adopted by the TNRCC on June 29, 1994.
(E) TNRCC Order No. 94-13 for Exxon Company USA, as adopted by the
TNRCC on June 29, 1994.
(F) TNRCC Order No. 94-14 for ISK Biosciences Corporation, as
adopted by the TNRCC on June 29, 1994.
(G) TNRCC Order No. 94-15 for Lyondell Citgo Refining Company,
LTD., as adopted by the TNRCC on June 29, 1994.
(H) TNRCC Order No. 94-16 for Lyondell Petrochemical Company, as
adopted by the TNRCC on June 29, 1994. [[Page 12128]]
(I) TNRCC Order No. 94-17 for Merichem Company, as adopted by the
TNRCC on June 29, 1994.
(J) TNRCC Order No. 94-18 for Mobil Mining and Minerals Company, as
adopted by the TNRCC on June 29, 1994.
(K) TNRCC Order No. 94-19 for Phibro Energy USA, Inc., as adopted
by the TNRCC on June 29, 1994.
(L) TNRCC Order No. 94-20 for Shell Chemical and Shell Oil, as
adopted by the TNRCC on June 29, 1994.
(M) TNRCC Order No. 94-21 for Shell Oil Company, as adopted by the
TNRCC on June 29, 1994.
(N) TNRCC Order No. 94-22 for Simpson Pasadena Paper Company, as
adopted by the TNRCC on June 29, 1994.
(ii) Additional material.
(A) May 27, 1994, letter from Mr. Norman D. Radford, Jr. to the
TNRCC and the EPA Region 6 requesting approval of an equivalent method
of monitoring sulfur in fuel and an equivalent method of determining
compliance.
(B) June 28, 1994, letter from Anthony C. Grigsby, Executive
Director, TNRCC, to Crown Central Petroleum Corporation, approving an
alternate monitoring and compliance demonstration method.
(C) June 28, 1994, letter from Anthony C. Grigsby, Executive
Director, TNRCC, to Exxon Company USA, approving an alternate
monitoring and compliance demonstration method.
(D) June 28, 1994, letter from Anthony C. Grigsby, Executive
Director, TNRCC, to Lyondell Citgo Refining Co., LTD., approving an
alternate monitoring and compliance demonstration method.
(E) June 28, 1994, letter from Anthony C. Grigsby, Executive
Director, TNRCC, to Phibro Energy, USA, Inc., approving an alternate
monitoring and compliance demonstration method.
(F) June 28, 1994, letter from Anthony C. Grigsby, Executive
Director, TNRCC, to Shell Oil Company, approving an alternate
monitoring and compliance demonstration method.
(G) June 8, 1994, letter from Mr. S. E. Pierce, Mobil Mining and
Minerals Company, to the TNRCC requesting approval of an alternative
quality assurance program.
(H) June 28, 1994, letter from Anthony C. Grigsby, Executive
Director, TNRCC, to Mobil Mining and Minerals Company, approving an
alternative quality assurance program.
(I) August 3, 1994, narrative plan addressing the Harris County
Agreed Orders for SO2, including emission inventories and modeling
analyses (i.e. the April 16, 1993, report entitled ``Evaluation of
Potential 24-hour SO2 Nonattainment Area in Harris County, Texas-
Phase II'' and the June, 1994, addendum).
(J) TNRCC certification letter dated June 29, 1994, and signed by
Gloria Vasquez, Chief Clerk, TNRCC.
[FR Doc. 95-5352 Filed 3-3-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-F
