Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; State of Missouri

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[MO-18-1-6024A; FRL-5263-9]

Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; State of

Missouri

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: This document takes final action to approve the State

[[Page 39852]]

Implementation Plan (SIP) submitted by the state of Missouri for the

purpose of bringing about the attainment of the National Ambient Air

Quality Standard (NAAQS) for lead. The SIP was submitted by the state

to satisfy certain Federal requirements for an approvable nonattainment

area lead SIP for the Doe Run primary and secondary lead smelter near

Bixby, Missouri (Doe Run-Buick).

DATES: This action will be effective October 3, 1995 unless by

September 5, 1995 adverse or critical comments are received.

ADDRESSES: Copies of the documents relevant to this action are

available for public inspection during normal business hours at the:

Environmental Protection Agency, Air Branch, 726 Minnesota Avenue,

Kansas City, Kansas 66101; and EPA Air & Radiation Docket and

Information Center, 401 M Street, SW., Washington, DC 20460.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lisa V. Haugen at (913) 551-7877.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

The Doe Run Company acquired the primary lead facility near Bixby,

Missouri (Doe Run-Buick), on November 16, 1986. Doe Run produced

primary lead throughout 1987 and part of 1988. Violations of the NAAQS

for lead were recorded in the first two calendar quarters of 1988. In

the later part of 1988, Doe Run ceased operating the Doe Run-Buick

facility as a primary smelter. Subsequent to 1988, various parts of the

facility were operated intermittently to support production at Doe

Run's Herculaneum, Missouri, primary smelter. Though air quality

monitors indicated that ambient concentrations exceeded 1.5 g/

m\3\ for some 24-hour periods, the quarterly lead standard was not

violated during this intermittent operating scenario. Doe Run continues

to utilize various pieces of equipment associated with the primary

operation in conjunction with the company's colocated secondary lead

smelting operation which began production in 1991. Although the most

recent violations of the lead NAAQS occurred during the first two

calendar quarters of 1988, there were no enforceable limitations which

precluded the facility from operating in a fashion that had previously

contributed to violations of the standard.

On November 5, 1990, the EPA issued a call for a revision to the

Missouri SIP in response to the 1988 violations of the NAAQS for lead

in the vicinity of Doe Run-Buick. The SIP revision was due by December

31, 1991. On November 6, 1991, EPA promulgated a nonattainment

designation for the area surrounding the Doe Run-Buick facility under

the authority of sections 107(d)(1) and (5) of the Clean Air Act (CAA).

Upon promulgation of the nonattainment designation, a state must

prepare a revision to the SIP in accordance with the requirements of

section 172 of the CAA, showing how the area will be brought into

attainment. As a result of EPA's promulgation of the nonattainment

designation, a full Part D SIP revision for Doe Run-Buick became due on

July 6, 1993.

On July 2, 1993, the state of Missouri submitted an SIP revision

addressing the applicable Part D requirements of the CAA relating to

lead for the Doe Run-Buick smelter. The submission provided control

measures to be implemented if the primary smelting facility resumed

operations. The SIP also provided some restrictions on the use of the

primary blast furnace and the refinery facilities used in conjunction

with the secondary smelting operations. The July 1993 SIP revision was

adopted by the Missouri Air Conservation Commission (MACC), after

proper notice and public hearing, on June 29, 1993.

In a letter dated September 30, 1993, EPA informed the state that

the proposed Special Provisions amendment to Missouri rule 10 CSR 10-

6.120 was not approvable. The proposed amendment would allow the sinter

plant to be operated in conjunction with the secondary smelting

operation. As the modeling analysis of the current mode of operations

did not include emissions from the primary smelter's sinter machine,

there was no demonstration of attainment for the proposed operating

scenario.

On October 7, 1993, EPA notified the state that the SIP revision

lacked several elements necessary to meet EPA's completeness criteria,

and that it contained several elements which were not approvable. In an

effort to resolve these problems, a meeting was held on October 18 and

19, 1993, among representatives from EPA, MDNR, and the Doe Run

Company. In a November 15, 1993, letter, MDNR committed to make the

needed corrections to the SIP and amend 10 CSR 10-6.120, and submit

them to EPA by April 1994. In December 1993, EPA determined that

sufficient progress was not being made in rectifying the deficiencies

in the Buick SIP. A finding of incompleteness was sent to the Governor

of Missouri on January 4, 1994.

The required changes to the SIP were adopted by the MACC at a

public hearing held on March 31, 1994. Final changes to Missouri rule

10 CSR 10-6.120 were adopted by the MACC, after proper notice and

public hearing, on April 28, 1994, and became effective on August 28,

1994.

The state submitted supplemental material to EPA on June 30, 1994.

This subsequent submittal still lacked the plot plan showing the

location of the fencing installed around the Buick facility, which was

one deficiency previously noted by EPA. It was also noted that the

Consent Order contained an error in the wording of Contingency Measure

number 2. The correct wording had been included in a February 23, 1994,

letter from EPA, forwarding our comments on the draft Consent Order,

during the state's public comment period. The inclusion of the needed

language was agreed upon at a meeting between MDNR staff and EPA on

March 22, 1994. However, due to clerical error, the language in the

March 31, 1994, Consent Order was incorrect. A new Consent Order, which

included the correct language, was signed by the MACC on September 29,

1994, and submitted to EPA on November 23, 1994, along with the missing

plot plan. EPA deemed the SIP revision complete on December 15, 1994.

The finding of completeness stopped the section 179 sanctions clock

initiated by EPA's January 4, 1994, finding of incompleteness.

The July 2, 1993, SIP, as revised and adopted in March 1994, and

the revised September 29, 1994, Consent Order, satisfy the Part D

requirements of the CAA. The revised plan also contains a control

strategy to be implemented if the primary smelting facility resumes

operation. Dispersion modeling demonstrates that these control measures

would result in attainment of the NAAQS for lead. As the area is

currently attaining the lead NAAQS, the attainment date is the

effective date of the SIP--March 31, 1994. The amendments to Missouri

rule 10 CSR 10-6.120 contain emission limits for stack sources and

fugitive sources for both the current mode of operation (the secondary

smelter), and emission limits effective upon resumption of the

smelter's primary production of lead.

II. Criteria for Approval

This SIP revision was reviewed using the criteria established by

the CAA. The requirements for all SIPs are contained in section

110(a)(2) of the CAA. Subpart 1 of Part D of Title I of the CAA, and in

particular section 172(c), specifies the provisions necessitated by

designation of an area as nonattainment for any of the NAAQS. Further

guidance and criteria are set forth in Subpart 5 of Part D, the

``General Preamble for the

[[Page 39853]]

Implementation of Title I of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990'' (57

FR 13498), and in the ``Addendum to the General Preamble for the

Implementation of Title I of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990'' (58

FR 67748).

III. Review of State Submittal

A. Control Strategy

The 1992 emissions inventory (EI) is the baseline EI for this SIP

revision. The SIP includes a list of control measures, which are to be

installed and implemented before the Buick primary smelter is operated

to process lead concentrate and produce primary lead. As an additional

control measure, Missouri amended rule 10 CSR 10-6.120 to include

emission and throughput limits for the secondary smelting operation.

Air dispersion modeling was used to determine that the controls were

sufficient to attain the lead NAAQS.

Appendix F of the SIP contains the June 24, 1993, Consent Order

which sets forth the administrative requirements for the implementation

of the control measures. Appendix G contains amended Missouri rule 10

CSR 10-6.120, which establishes enforceable emission and throughput

limits for both the primary smelting operation and the secondary

smelting operation.

B. Attainment Demonstration

Section 192(a) of the CAA requires that SIPs must provide for

attainment of the lead NAAQS as expeditiously as practicable, but not

later than five years from the date of an area's nonattainment

designation. The lead nonattainment designation for the area

surrounding the Doe Run-Buick facility was effective on January 6,

1992; therefore, the latest attainment date permissible by statute

would be January 6, 1997. As the area is currently attaining the lead

NAAQS, the attainment date is the effective date of the SIP, March 31,

1994. This meets the statutory requirement.

The Industrial Source Complex Long-Term Model (ISCLT2) was used to

demonstrate attainment and maintenance of the lead NAAQS for the two

operating scenarios. The procedures recommended in EPA's Guideline on

Air Quality Models (Revised), EPA 450/2-78-027R, July 1986, and

Supplement A to the Guideline on Air Quality Models (Revised), EPA 450/

2-78-027R, July 1987, were followed.

C. EI and Air Quality Data

Section 172(c)(3) of the CAA requires that nonattainment plan

provisions include a comprehensive, accurate, current inventory of

actual emissions from all sources of relevant pollutants in the

nonattainment area.

The 1992 emissions inventory is the baseline EI for this SIP

revision. This inventory was quantified through stack testing, worker

exposure data, evaluation of equipment and procedures, EPA emission

estimation methods, and engineering judgement. The attainment scenario

EIs were derived from the baseline inventory.

The state submittal provides a historical summary of the air

quality from the third calendar quarter of 1982 through the fourth

calendar quarter of 1992. Since the second calendar quarter of 1988, at

which time the primary smelting operation ceased, there have been no

exceedances of the quarterly lead standard at any of the monitoring

locations.

D. Reasonably Available Control Measures (RACM) (Including Reasonably

Available Control Technology (RACT))

The submittal must contain provisions to ensure that RACM

(including RACT) are implemented (see section 172(c)(1) of the CAA).

See 57 FR 13549 and 58 FR 67748 for EPA's interpretation of RACM and

RACT requirement.

A 1991 six-volume study conducted by Fluor Daniel, Inc. represents

an RACT survey of the Buick facility. The report contains a study of

various process technology, and a review of the existing facilities and

operating practices. The controls at the Buick smelter were found to be

RACT for all stack and process fugitive emission sources.

An RACM survey was conducted in accord with 57 FR 18072, EPA's

guidance with respect to the selection of fugitive dust control

measures. Three of the five suggested measures were found to be

applicable to the Buick facility. The SIP adequately documents the

reasons for which each measure was selected or rejected. Each selected

measure is included in the Buick Work Practice Manual and, in accord

with the June 24, 1993, Consent Order found in Appendix F of the SIP,

will be implemented upon the resumption of lead concentrate processing

and primary lead production.

E. Reasonable Further Progress (RFP)

The SIP must provide for RFP [see section 172(c)(2) of the Act].

The control measures for the Buick smelter are to be in place and

operational before the smelter resumes the primary production of lead

as set forth in the July 24, 1993, Consent Order found in Appendix F of

the SIP. EPA believes this meets the requirements for RFP for lead

SIPs, as discussed in the ``Addendum to the General Preamble for the

Implementation of Title I of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990'' (58

FR 67748).

F. New Source Review (NSR)

Missouri rule 10 CSR 10-6.020 identifies the current specific

descriptions of the lead nonattainment areas in Missouri. These areas

include the city of Herculaneum in Jefferson County, and the Dent,

Liberty, and Arcadia townships in Iron County. 10 CSR 10-6.020 is

utilized in conjunction with 10 CSR 10-6.060 which requires a permit

for construction of, or major modification to, an installation with

potential to annually emit 100 tons or more of a nonattainment

pollutant, or a permit for a modification with potential to annually

emit 100 tons or more of a nonattainment pollutant. Because these

provisions include requirements for all nonattainment areas and are not

limited to lead, EPA is acting on the provisions in a separate

rulemaking.

G. Contingency Measures

As provided in section 172(c)(9) of the CAA, all nonattainment area

SIPs that demonstrate attainment must include contingency measures.

Contingency measures should consist of other available measures that

are not part of the area's control strategy. These measures must take

effect without further action by the state or EPA, upon a determination

that the area has failed to meet RFP or attain the lead NAAQS by the

applicable attainment date.

The contingency measures included in the July 2, 1993, SIP

submittal were determined to be inadequate to address possible air

quality violations at the Buick facility for both the primary and

secondary smelting operations. EPA notified the state, in an October 7,

1993, letter, that the SIP revision did not contain contingency

measures which adequately addressed the requirements of section

172(c)(9). EPA requested that contingency measures be developed which

would address sources that modeling indicates contribute to maximum

predicted concentrations. MDNR and Doe Run agreed to the required

changes at meetings held October 18 and 19, 1993. The changes to the

SIP were adopted by the MACC, after proper notice and public hearing,

on March 31, 1994.

The contingency measures in the SIP will be invoked if, beginning

with the calendar quarter following the attainment date, an exceedance

of the lead NAAQS is recorded. MDNR will

[[Page 39854]]

notify Doe Run-Buick of the exceedance, and implementation of all of

the contingency measures will begin within 60 days from Doe Run's

receipt of that notification.

H. Enforceability

All measures and other elements in the SIP must be enforceable by

the state and EPA (see sections 172(c)(6), 110(a)(2)(A), and 57 FR

13556). The state submittal includes a Consent Order entered into by

the state and the Company which contains all of the control and

contingency measures, with enforceable dates for implementation.

The submittal also includes an amendment to Missouri rule 10 CSR

10-6.120 which establishes emission limits for all stack emissions and

production limits from the lead production processes for each operating

scenario. Missouri rule 10 CSR 10-6.120 contains provisions which are

applicable to other lead smelters in the state. EPA proposes approval

of this rule only as it relates to Doe Run-Buick. Any EPA actions on

this rule with regard to other lead smelters will occur through

separate Federal Register rulemakings.

A Buick Work Practice Manual is also included with the SIP

revision. The Work Practice Manual serves as an enforcement document

for the state and EPA. These work practices are designed to limit the

fugitive emissions at the facility, and are enforced through

recordkeeping requirements. Noncompliance with the established work

practices is a violation of Missouri rule 10 CSR 10-6.120. EPA approves

the Work Practice Manual with the understanding that any change to the

Work Practice Manual requires a revision to the Missouri SIP.

IV. Implications of This Action

This SIP revision will significantly impact the current SIP. The

modeling performed in support of the SIP revision indicates that the

emissions control strategy will result in attainment of the NAAQS for

lead upon resumption of primary lead production. The modeling also

indicates that, while operating as a secondary smelter, no additional

controls are required to ensure that emissions remain below the NAAQS

for lead. In addition, Missouri rule 10 CSR 10-6.120 has been amended

such that emission limits for all stack sources and production limits

for lead production processes have been established for each operating

scenario.

EPA ACTION: By this action EPA approves Missouri's July 2, 1993; June

30, 1994; and November 23, 1994, submittals. This SIP revision meets

the requirements of section 110 and Part D of the Clean Air Act and 40

CFR Part 51.

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 the Federal

Register publication, the EPA is proposing to approve the SIP revision

should adverse or critical comments be filed.

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.

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., EPA

must prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis assessing the impact of

any proposed or final rule on small entities (5 U.S.C. Secs. 603 and

604). Alternatively, 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, EPA certifies 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 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 (S.Ct. 1976);

42 U.S.C. 7410(a)(2)).

The Office of Management and Budget has exempted these actions from

review under Executive Order 12866.

Unfunded Mandates

Under Sections 202, 203, and 205 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform

Act of 1995 (``Unfunded Mandates Act''), signed into law on March 22,

1995, EPA must undertake various actions in association with proposed

or final rules that include a Federal mandate that may result in

estimated costs of $100 million or more to the private sector, or to

state, local, or tribal governments in the aggregate.

Through submission of this SIP, the state and any affected local

governments have elected to adopt the program provided for under

section 110 of the CAA. These rules may bind state and local

governments to perform certain actions and also require the private

sector to perform certain duties. To the extent that the rules being

finalized for approval by this action will impose new requirements,

sources are already subject to these regulations under state law.

Accordingly, no additional costs to state or local governments, or to

the private sector, result from this final action. EPA has also

determined that this final action does not include a mandate that may

result in estimated costs of $100 million or more to state or local

governments in the aggregate or to the private sector.

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 October 3, 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).)

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by

reference, Intergovernmental relations, Lead, Reporting and

recordkeeping requirements.

Dated: July 11, 1995.

Dennis Grams, P.E.,

Regional Administrator.

Part 52, chapter I, title 40 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. 7401-7671q.

[[Page 39855]]

Subpart AA--Missouri

2. Section 52.1320 is amended by adding paragraph (c)(89) to read

as follows:

Sec. 52.1320 Identification of plan.

* * * * *

(c) * * *

(89) In submittals dated July 2, 1993; June 30, 1994; and November

23, 1994, the Missouri Department of Natural Resources (MDNR) submitted

a State Implementation Plan (SIP) to satisfy Federal requirements for

an approvable nonattainment area lead SIP for the Doe Run primary and

secondary smelter near Bixby, Missouri (Doe Run-Buick). Although

Missouri rule 10 CSR 10-6.120 contains requirements which apply

statewide to primary lead smelting operations, EPA takes action on this

rule insofar as it pertains to the Doe Run-Buick facility. Plan

revisions to address the other lead smelters in the state are under

development.

(i) Incorporation by reference.

(A) Revised regulation 10 CSR 10-6.120 (section (2)(C), section

(4)) entitled Restriction of Emissions of Lead from Primary Smelter-

Refinery Installations, effective August 28, 1994.

(B) Consent Order, entered into between the Doe Run Company and

MDNR, dated July 2, 1993.

(C) Consent Order amendment, signed by the Doe Run Company on

August 30, 1994, and by MDNR on November 23, 1994.

(ii) Additional material.

(A) The Doe Run-Buick Work Practice Manual submitted on July 2,

1993. EPA approves the Work Practice manual with the understanding that

any subsequent changes to the Work Practice Manual will be submitted as

SIP revisions.

(B) Revisions to the Doe Run-Buick Work Practice Manual submitted

on June 30, 1994.

[FR Doc. 95-19215 Filed 8-3-95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P