Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; State of Missouri

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[MO-015-1015a; FRL-5682-5]

Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; State of

Missouri

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The EPA is approving the Asarco Glover, Missouri, lead

emission control plan submitted by the state of Missouri on August 14,

1996. The plan was submitted by the state to satisfy certain

requirements under the Clean Air Act (CAA) to reduce lead emissions

sufficient to bring the Glover area into attainment with the National

Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) for lead.

DATES: This action is effective May 5, 1997 unless by April 4, 1997

adverse or critical comments are received. If the effective date is

delayed, timely notice will be published in the Federal Register.

ADDRESSES: Copies of the documents relevant to this action are

available for public inspection during normal business hours at the:

Environmental Protection Agency, Air Planning and Development Branch,

726 Minnesota Avenue, Kansas City, Kansas 66101; and the EPA Air &

Radiation Docket and Information Center, 401 M Street, SW., Washington,

DC 20460.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Josh Tapp at (913) 551-7606.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

Currently, the only significant source of lead contributing to

violations of the lead NAAQS in the Glover area is a primary lead

smelter owned and operated by the American Smelting and Refining

Company (Asarco). The smelter processes lead concentrate recovered from

lead mines into pure lead or lead compounds to meet its customer's

specifications. The facility's refining capacity is approximately

140,000 tons of refined lead per year.

The original Glover lead State Implementation Plan (SIP) was

approved by the EPA in 1981.

Subsequent to SIP approval, the EPA conducted modeling which

predicted continued violations of the standard. Asarco and Missouri

prepared several SIP revisions; however, these revisions were not

approved because modeling still showed violations in some areas defined

as ``ambient air.'

[[Page 9971]]

In 1987, the state began to record violations of the lead standard

three miles from the facility. These data prompted Region VII to

request more monitors in closer proximity to the source. On November 5,

1990, the EPA requested that the state of Missouri revise the SIP for

this facility based on modeling conducted for 1983 through 1987, and

based on monitored violations during 1988, 1989, and 1990.

On November 6, 1991, the EPA designated the Liberty and Arcadia

Townships which surround the Glover facility as nonattainment for lead.

This designation became effective on January 6, 1992.

The attainment plan was required to be submitted 18 months after

the designation or by July 6, 1993. The state failed to make the

required submission and on August 2, 1993, the EPA notified the

Governor by letter of this fact. This notice initiated sanctions clocks

in accordance with section 179 of the CAA and the Federal

Implementation Plan (FIP) clock in accordance with section 110 of the

CAA.

Under section 179 of the CAA, the EPA must impose sanctions on a

nonattainment area for which the state has failed to submit a plan

which has been determined complete by the EPA. The first of two

sanctions must be implemented within 18 months after the date of the

finding (or in this case, not later than January 2, 1995), and the

second sanction must be implemented within 6 months after the

implementation of the first sanction (or in this case, not later than

August 2, 1995).

On August 4, 1994 (59 FR 39832), the EPA published a rulemaking

which identifies the order of sanctions as follows: the first sanction

to be imposed is the 2:1 offset sanction which requires 2:1 offsets for

emission increases of the nonattainment pollutant from certain new or

modified major sources within the nonattainment area; the second

sanction to be imposed is the highway funding sanction. Under this

sanction, Federal highway funds are withheld from the nonattainment

area, unless the funds are for exempt projects.

Furthermore, section 110(c) of the Act obligates the EPA to

promulgate a FIP within two years of a finding that the state has

failed to submit the required plan. The EPA must approve a plan

submitted by the state in order to stop the FIP clock.

In a January 27, 1995, letter, the EPA notified the Governor of the

imposition of the mandatory offset sanction on February 2, 1995,

barring a complete submission. And in an August 1, 1995, letter, the

EPA notified the Governor of the imposition of the mandatory highway

funding sanction on August 2, 1995, barring a complete submission.

Both sanctions were imposed until September 18, 1996, when the EPA

was able to find that the state's August 14, 1996, submittal was

complete, thus lifting the sanctions.

II. Criteria for Approval

The state's August 14, 1996, submission 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 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 control strategy must contain provisions to ensure that

Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT), including Reasonably

Available Control Measures (RACM), for area sources are implemented

(see section 172(c)(1) of the CAA). See 57 FR 13549 and 58 FR 67748 for

the EPA's interpretation of RACM and RACT requirements.

The state's selection of control strategies for the SIP was based

on an evaluation of controls provided to the state by Asarco and its

contractors. In this study, Asarco evaluated 19 fugitive emission

control strategies and 29 process and stack-related control strategies.

Asarco selected what it considered to be the most implementable and

cost-effective options from this list which would bring the area into

attainment with the lead NAAQS. The state concurred with Asarco's

assessment that these controls constituted RACT. Detailed information

regarding Asarco's control option selection process can be found in the

EPA's technical support document (TSD).

The attainment modeling assisted Asarco and the state in focusing

the control strategy by indicating which sources or groups of sources

were the greatest contributors to the ambient concentrations.

Sinter plan fugitive emissions were identified as the single

largest contributor to the violations with an estimated contribution of

91 percent. The sinter plant scrubber stack, the sinter plan

ventilation baghouse stack, and the in-plant roads were also identified

as significant contributors.

The sinter plant is the first process point for the lead

concentrate at the lead smelter. Fugitive emissions from the sinter

plant building are created by sources inside the building as well as by

losses from point source ventilation systems. Emissions caused by

material conveyance, crushing, and screening exit the building through

open sides and roof monitors. This plan requires increased efficiency

of materials handling by the reduction of transfer steps, and the

enclosure and ventilation of the sinter plant.

The sinter plant scrubber cleans ventilation gases from the

crushing and mixing of virgin feedstock for the sinter machine. The

emissions from the scrubber currently exit the roof of the sinter

building through the wet scrubber stack. The plan requires that these

gases, once processed by the scrubber, be routed to the sinter machine

updraft fans to be used as process air for the sinter feedstock bed.

The gases will ultimately be captured by the sinter machine ventilation

hoods and routed to the process gas baghouse.

The sinter plant wheelabrator ventilation baghouse cleans the point

source ventilation gases from the crushing and sorting of sinter

produced from the sinter machine. These gases exit the roof of the

sinter building through the baghouse stack. This plan will require that

baghouse gases be rerouted to the intake of the sinter machine updraft

fans to be used as process gases and ultimately collected by the sinter

machine hoods and routed to the process gas baghouse.

Finally, the plan requires compliance with state and Federally

approved work practices to minimize fugitive emissions from in-plant

roadways, stockpiles, baghouse unloading, and other sources. These work

practices require additional trafficway paving, sweeping, dust

supression, and materials handling practices to reduce fugitive

emissions.

Once approved, these work practices may be modified only through

Federal approval of a SIP revision.

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 Liberty and

Arcadia Townships became effective on January

[[Page 9972]]

6, 1992; therefore, the latest attainment date permissible by statute

is January 6, 1997.

The Industrial Source Complex Short-Term Model was used to

demonstrate attainment and maintenance of the lead NAAQS. The

procedures recommended in the 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. This modeling predicts attainment of the Federal

lead standard by January 1, 1997, with the implementation of the

control strategy. See the TSD for more information.

C. Emission Inventory 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.

Asarco, the state, and the EPA undertook a comprehensive study to

develop an accurate baseline emission inventory and dispersion model.

This inventory was quantified through stack testing, evaluation of

equipment and procedures, the EPA emission estimation methods, and

engineering judgment. The attainment emission inventory was derived

from the baseline inventory with the control strategy applied. Both

inventories are included in the state's submittal.

The state's submittal also provides a historical summary of the air

quality data for the Glover area collected from 1984 through the most

current quarter.

D. Reasonable Further Progress (RFP)

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

The state's Consent Decree specifies an implementation schedule which

requires a logical stepwise implementation of emissions control

projects. This schedule results in a continual decrease of lead

emissions through the implementation of the last projects, scheduled to

be completed by December 31, 1996. The EPA believes that the RFP

demonstration meets the requirements of section 172(c)(2) and the

relevant guidelines in the ``Addendum to the General Preamble for the

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

FR 67748).

E. New Source Review (NSR)

Section 172(c)(5) requires that nonattainment areas be subject to

the NSR permitting requirements of section 173. Missouri NSR

regulations were originally approved pursuant to Part D of the Act on

May 9, 1980 (45 FR 30626). The 1990 Amendments to the Act added other

requirements pursuant to the review and approval of new and modified

sources. Missouri incorporated these requirements into its regulations,

and the EPA approved this SIP revision on February 29, 1996 (61 FR

7714). Therefore, the state's rules presently meet the requirements of

sections 172(c)(5) and 173. The EPA proposed changes to the Part D NSR

regulations on July 23, 1996 (61 FR 38250). Missouri may be required to

revise its NSR regulations to conform to the final EPA requirements,

when finalized.

F. Contingency Measures

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

SIPs must include contingency measures. Contingency measures should

consist of specific emission control measures that are not part of the

area's control strategy. These measures must take effect without

further action by the state or the EPA, upon a determination that the

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

attainment date.

There are seven contingency measures established in item 2.C. of

the state's Consent Decree. These measures are: (1) construct and

utilize a truck wash, (2) expand the in-plant road sprinkler system,

(3) withdraw unloading building air for sinter plant make-up air, (4)

comply with more stringent stack emission limitations, (5) cool lead

bullion pots before dumping into receiving kettles, (6) modify refinery

skims handling in blast furnace area, and (7) increase efficiency of

sinter plant ventilation baghouse. In accordance with the Consent

Decree, contingency measure number 1 would be implemented by Asarco

within 30 days from receipt of notice by Missouri that the area failed

to attain the standard. In the case that an additional violation is

recorded, measures 2, 3, and 4 would be implemented in the following

quarter and, in the case that a further violation is recorded, measures

5, 6, and 7 would be implemented. No triggers were set for contingency

measure implementation in the case that the area failed to maintain

RFP, based on circumstances unique to this lead SIP. The plan was

adopted by the state well into Asarco's implementation of the control

strategy, and the impending attainment date would not allow much

evaluation of Asarco's maintenance of RFP by the state prior to the

statutory deadline for attainment of the standard.

G. Enforceability

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

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

13556). The state submittal includes rule 10 CSR 10-6.120 and Consent

Decree Case No. CV596-98CC, which contain all of the control and

contingency measures, with enforceable dates for implementation. This

Consent Decree also contains language regarding stipulated penalties.

While the EPA is approving this language, Federal enforcement actions

and related activities would be initiated by the EPA pursuant to its

authority under the CAA.

As mentioned above, a Work Practice Manual was also included in the

state's submission as an integral part of the enforceable plan to

achieve attainment of the standard. 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 the state's rule and the terms of the

Consent Decree. The 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 revise 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 by January 1, 1997.

V. Final Action

Pursuant to sections 110 and 172 of the CAA, this is a direct final

action which approves the lead plan submitted by the state of Missouri

on August 14, 1996, in response to the designation of the Liberty and

Arcadia Townships as nonattainment for lead. This SIP revision meets

the requirements of section 110 and Part D of Title I of the CAA 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 this Federal

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

should adverse or critical comments be filed. This action is effective

May 5, 1997 unless, by April 4, 1997, adverse or critical comments are

received.

If the EPA receives such comments, this action will be withdrawn

before the effective date by publishing a

[[Page 9973]]

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

is effective May 5, 1997.

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.

VI. 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 has exempted

this regulatory action from E.O. 12866 review.

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5. U.S.C. Sec. 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, the Administrator

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 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 (S.Ct. 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 proposed 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 CAA, petitions for judicial review

of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for

the appropriate circuit by May 5, 1997. 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, Particulate matter,

Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

Dated: January 16, 1997.

Dennis Grams,

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.

Subpart AA--Missouri

2. Section 52.1320 is amended by adding paragraph (c)(95) to read

as follows:

Sec. 52.1320 Identification of plan.

* * * * *

(c) * * *

(95) Plan revisions were submitted by the Missouri Department of

Natural Resources on August 14, 1996, which reduce lead emissions from

the Asarco primary lead smelter located within the lead nonattainment

area defined by the boundaries of the Liberty and Arcadia Townships

located in Iron County, Missouri.

(i) Incorporation by reference.

(A) Rule 10 CSR 10-6.120, Restriction of Emissions of Lead From

Primary Lead Smelter--Refinery Installations, except subsection 2(B)

and 2(C), and section 4, effective June 30, 1996.

(B) Consent Decree Case Number CV596-98CC, STATE OF MISSOURI ex.

rel. Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon and the Missouri Department of Natural

Resources v. ASARCO, INC., Missouri Lead Division, effective July 30,

1996, with Exhibits A, C, D, E, F, and G.

(ii) Additional material.

(A) Narrative SIP material submitted on August 14, 1996. This

submittal includes the emissions inventory and the attainment

demonstration.

[FR Doc. 97-5132 Filed 3-4-97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P