[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 150 (Friday, August 4, 1995)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 39851-39855]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-19215]



=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

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