[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 117 (Monday, June 19, 1995)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 31915-31917]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-14852]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[TX-37-1-6323a; FRL-5161-9]
Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
Texas; Alternative Emission Control Plan For Shell Oil Company, Deer
Park, TX
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Direct final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: In this action, the EPA is approving the alternative emission
reduction (bubble) plan for the Shell Oil Company's Deer Park
manufacturing complex as a revision to the Texas State Implementation
Plan (SIP). The bubble plan uses the emission reduction credit (ERC)
from volatile organic compound (VOC) reductions at an analyzer vent in
lieu of controlling VOC emissions from three vacuum vents. The bubble
plan was reviewed for consistency with the EPA's Emissions Trading
Policy Statement (ETPS) published in the Federal Register on December
4, 1986.
DATES: This action will become effective on August 18, 1995 unless
adverse or critical comments are received by July 19, 1995. If the
effective date is delayed, timely notice will be published in the
Federal Register.
ADDRESSES: Written comments on this action should be addressed to Mr.
Guy Donaldson, Acting 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, TX 75202-2733.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Air and Radiation Docket and
Information Center, 401 M Street, S.W., Washington, DC 20460.
Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission, 12124 Park 35 Circle,
Austin, Texas 78753.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Leila Yim Surratt or Mr. Herb
Sherrow, Planning Section (6T-AP), Air Programs Branch, EPA Region 6,
1445 Ross Avenue, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733, telephone (214) 665-7214.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
On July 26, 1993, the Governor of Texas submitted a request to
revise the Texas SIP to include an alternative emission reduction plan
for the Shell Oil Manufacturing Complex located in Deer Park, Texas.
Due to VOC Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT) fix-up
changes required by the 1990 Clean Air Act (CAA), the Texas Air Control
Board (TACB), which is now known as the Texas Natural Resource
Conservation Commission, adopted revisions to its Regulation V on May
10, 1991, eliminating the exemption of sources with emissions of less
than 100 pounds per day from RACT requirements. As a result of this
action, Shell was required to install a 90 percent control technology
on three vacuum vents. These vents emit a total of 36 pounds of VOC per
year (0.018 tons per year (TPY)). The vast majority of the vent stream
emissions are composed of steam and air. Instead of controlling
emissions from these three vents, Shell proposed to use an emission
reduction from an analyzer vent located at its Alkylation Plant. The
analyzer vent reduction is not required by any State or Federal rule,
regulation, permit condition, board order, or court order. 1.05 TPY of
VOC emission reduction was achieved from the analyzer vent by
physically limiting the maximum flow rate through the vent from 4.2 TPY
of VOC to 3.15 TPY. The reduced flow was made permanent by replacing
the metering valves and adding flow restrictors.
II. Applicable EPA Policies
On December 4, 1986 (51 FR 43814), the EPA issued the final ETPS,
containing the criteria by which emissions trades will be evaluated. As
indicated in the ETPS, it is the policy of the EPA to encourage
emissions trades to achieve more flexible, rapid, and efficient
attainment of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards. It describes
emissions trading, sets out general principles that the EPA uses to
evaluate emissions trades under the CAA, and expands opportunities for
States and industry to use these less costly control approaches. A
source may secure ERCs by meeting each of the applicable requirements
of the final ETPS. Generally, only reductions which are surplus,
enforceable, permanent, and quantifiable can qualify as ERCs. In
addition, the ETPS lays out more stringent baseline and additional 20
percent emission reduction requirements if the trade occurs in a
nonattainment area needing but lacking an approved attainment
demonstration.
On April 7, 1994 (59 FR 16710), the EPA issued the final Economic
Incentive Program (EIP) rule which sets forth general principles for a
broad range of EIPs which States may pursue. Through the EIP rule, the
Agency encourages the development of EIPs that will assist States in
meeting air quality management goals through flexible approaches which
allow for less costly control strategies, and which provide stronger
incentives for the development and implementation of innovative
emission reduction technology. In the preamble to the EIP rule (59 FR
16690), the EPA addresses the relationship between the EIP and the
ETPS. The preamble clarifies that the provisions of the ETPS which
apply to trading between existing sources represent one particular
model for how States could design an EIP. Therefore, an application for
an emissions trade or bubble that meets the requirements of the ETPS,
[[Page 31916]] will be deemed to meet the requirements of the EIP.
Shell Oil Company's Deer Park Manufacturing bubble application was
developed to meet the requirements of the ETPS. Therefore, the EPA has
evaluated the emissions trade against the ETPS requirements.
III. Analysis
The following items are the basis for approval of the Texas SIP
revision. Please refer to the EPA's Technical Support Document and the
Texas SIP submittal for more detailed information.
A. Valid Emission Reduction Credits
As required by the ETPS, to be valid for trading purposes, an
emission reduction must be surplus, enforceable, permanent, and
quantifiable. The EPA believes the emission reduction from the analyzer
vent meets these criteria.
First, the emission reduction from the analyzer vent is surplus.
The analyzer vent is not subject to any State or Federal regulation.
The emissions rate of 4.2 TPY is low enough to be exempt from the
State's vent gas rule.
Second, the emission reduction was made enforceable through State
Board Order number 93-11 which specifies the terms of the emissions
trade.
Third, the emission reduction is permanent since the flow through
the analyzer vent was physically reduced by changing the metering
valves and adding flow restrictors.
Finally, the emission reduction is quantifiable. The annual
emissions for the analyzer vent were from the 1991 Air Emissions
Inventory Reportable Quantities based on information from historical
flow settings. The annual emissions from the three vacuum vents were
based on engineering estimates and measurements.
Because the emission reduction from the analyzer vent is surplus,
enforceable, permanent, and quantifiable, the EPA believes that the
emission reduction associated with this bubble is valid for use as an
ERC.
B. More Stringent Baseline and 20 Percent Reduction Requirements
As discussed above, the ETPS also requires more stringent baselines
and an additional 20 percent emission reduction if the trade occurs in
a nonattainment area needing but lacking an approved attainment
demonstration. This trade occurs in the Houston-Galveston severe ozone
nonattainment area, which does not currently have an approved
attainment demonstration which is required under section 182(c)(2)(A)
of the CAA. This trade complies with the more stringent baseline and
the 20 percent additional emission reduction requirements. As described
more fully in the Technical Support Document, the 1.05 TPY emission
reduction from the analyzer vent more than compensates for the 0.016
TPY emission reduction that was required from the three uncontrolled
vacuum vents.
C. Procedural Background
The CAA requires States to observe certain procedural requirements
in developing implementation plans and plan revisions for submission to
the EPA. Section 110(a)(2) of the CAA provides that each implementation
plan submitted by a State must be adopted after reasonable notice and
public hearing.1 Section 110(l) of the CAA similarly provides that
each revision to an implementation plan submitted by a State under the
CAA must be adopted by such State after reasonable notice and public
hearing. Public notice on the proposed Shell bubble was published in
the Houston ozone nonattainment area in accordance with the State of
Texas' public notice requirements. The State held a public hearing on
the proposed regulations on March 9, 1993. The Shell bubble was adopted
by the State on June 18, 1993, and was submitted through the Governor
to the EPA on July 26, 1993, as a proposed revision to the SIP.
\1\ Also Section 172(c)(7) of the CAA requires that plan
provisions for nonattainment areas meet the applicable provisions of
Section 110(a)(2).
IV. Final Action
In this action, the EPA is approving the alternative emission
reduction (bubble) plan for the Shell Oil Company's Deer Park
Manufacturing Complex, which was adopted by the TACB on June 18, 1993,
in Board Order 93-11, and submitted to the EPA by the Governor of Texas
in a letter dated July 26, 1993.
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 August 18, 1995 unless, by July 19, 1995, 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 notice 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 August 18, 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.
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
CAA 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 CAA,
preparation of a regulatory flexibility analysis would constitute
federal inquiry into the economic reasonableness of State action. The
CAA forbids the EPA to base its actions concerning SIPs on such grounds
(Union Electric Co. v. 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 CAA, petitions for judicial review
of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for
the appropriate circuit by August 18, 1995. Filing a petition for
reconsideration of this final rule by the Administrator does not affect
the finality of this rule for purposes of judicial review; nor does it
extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be
filed, or postpone the effectiveness of this action. This action may
not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements (see
section 307(b)(2)).
The Office of Management and Budget has exempted this action from
review under Executive Order 12866. [[Page 31917]]
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Air pollution control, Hydrocarbons, Incorporation by reference,
Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic
compounds.
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 9, 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)(95) to read
as follows:
Sec. 52.2270 Identification of plan.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(95) Alternative emission reduction (bubble) plan for the Shell Oil
Company's Deer Park manufacturing complex submitted to the EPA by the
Governor of Texas in a letter dated July 26, 1993.
(i) Incorporation by reference.
(A) TACB Order 93-11, as adopted by the TACB on June 18, 1993.
(B) SIP narrative entitled, ``Site-Specific State Implementation
Plan,'' section IV.H.1.b., attachment (4), entitled, ``Alternate
Emission Reduction (``Bubble'') Plan Provisions for Uncontrolled
Vacuum-Producing Vents, Shell Oil Company, Deer Park Manufacturing
Complex, HG-0659-W,'' adopted by the TACB on June 18, 1993.
(ii) Additional material.
(A) SIP narrative entitled, ``Site-Specific State Implementation
Plan,'' section IV.H.1.b., adopted by the TACB on June 18, 1993.
(B) TACB certification letter dated July 5, 1993, and signed by
William R. Campbell, Executive Director, TACB.
[FR Doc. 95-14852 Filed 6-16-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
