Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; State of Missouri; 2013 Missouri State Implementation Plan for the 2008 Lead Standard, 42991-42999 [2014-17480]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 142 / Thursday, July 24, 2014 / Proposed Rules
implications under Executive Order
13132. This proposed AD would not
have a substantial direct effect on the
States, on the relationship between the
national Government and the States, or
on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various
levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I
certify that the proposed regulation:
(1) Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory
action’’ under Executive Order 12866,
(2) Is not a ‘‘significant rule’’ under
the DOT Regulatory Policies and
Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26,
1979),
(3) Will not affect intrastate aviation
in Alaska to the extent that it justifies
making a regulatory distinction, and
(4) Will not have a significant
economic impact, positive or negative,
on a substantial number of small entities
under the criteria of the Regulatory
Flexibility Act.
(d) Unsafe Condition
List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39
(g) Alternative Methods of Compliance
(AMOCs)
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation
safety, Incorporation by reference,
Safety.
The Proposed Amendment
Accordingly, under the authority
delegated to me by the Administrator,
the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part
39 as follows:
PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS
DIRECTIVES
1. The authority citation for part 39
continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
§ 39.13
[Amended]
2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by
removing airworthiness directive (AD)
98–07–07, Amendment 39–10426 (63
FR 18119, April 14, 1998), and adding
the following new AD:
■
Rolls-Royce plc: Docket No. FAA–2014–
0433; Directorate Identifier 94–ANE–39–
AD.
pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
(a) Comments Due Date
We must receive comments by September
22, 2014.
(b) Affected ADs
This AD supersedes AD 98–07–07,
Amendment 39–10426 (63 FR 18119, April
14, 1998).
(c) Applicability
This AD applies to all Rolls-Royce plc (RR)
RB211–535E4–37, RB211–535E4–B–37, and
RB211–535E4–C–37 turbofan engines with
low-pressure (LP) fuel filter-to-high-pressure
(HP) fuel pump tube assembly, part number
(P/N) UL16692, AE709623–1, 163521538, or
163521545, installed.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
14:12 Jul 23, 2014
Jkt 232001
This AD was prompted by reports of fuel
leaks that have resulted in a number of
engine in-flight shutdowns. We are issuing
this AD to prevent loss of fuel supply to the
engine, which could lead to an in-flight
shutdown of one or more engines, loss of
thrust control, and damage to the airplane.
(e) Compliance
Comply with this AD within the
compliance times specified, unless already
done.
(1) After the effective date of this AD,
remove from service all LP fuel filter-to-HP
fuel pump tube assemblies, P/Ns UL16692,
AE709623–1, 163521538, and 163521545, at
the next part removal or during the next
engine shop visit, whichever occurs first.
(2) Reserved.
(f) Definition
For the purpose of this AD, an ‘‘engine
shop visit’’ is the induction of an engine into
the shop for maintenance.
The Manager, Engine Certification Office,
may approve AMOCs for this AD. Use the
procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19 to make
your request.
(h) Related Information
(1) For more information about this AD,
contact Kenneth Steeves, Aerospace
Engineer, Engine Certification Office, FAA,
Engine & Propeller Directorate, 12 New
England Executive Park, Burlington, MA
01803; phone: 781–238–7765; fax: 781–238–
7199; email: kenneth.steeves@faa.gov.
(2) Refer to MCAI European Aviation
Safety Agency AD 2014–0123, dated May 15,
2014, for more information. You may
examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the
Internet at https://www.regulations.gov by
searching for and locating it in Docket No.
FAA–2014–0433.
(3) For service information identified in
this AD, contact Rolls-Royce plc, Corporate
Communications, P.O. Box 31, Derby,
England, DE248BJ; phone: 011–44–1332–
242424; fax: 011–44–1332–249936; email:
https://www.rolls-royce.com/contact/civil_
team.jsp; Web site: https://
www.aeromanager.com.
(4) You may view this service information
at the FAA, Engine & Propeller Directorate,
12 New England Executive Park, Burlington,
MA. For information on the availability of
this material at the FAA, call 781–238–7125.
Issued in Burlington, Massachusetts, on
July 16, 2014.
Thomas Boudreau,
Acting Assistant Directorate Manager, Engine
& Propeller Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2014–17461 Filed 7–23–14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–13–P
PO 00000
Frm 00003
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
42991
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA–R07–OAR–2014–0448; FRL–9914–27–
Region 7]
Approval and Promulgation of
Implementation Plans; State of
Missouri; 2013 Missouri State
Implementation Plan for the 2008 Lead
Standard
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
The Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) proposes to grant full
approval of Missouri’s attainment
demonstration State Implementation
Plan (SIP) for the lead National Ambient
Air Quality Standard (NAAQS)
nonattainment area of Herculaneum,
Missouri submitted on April 18, 2013.
The applicable standard addressed in
this action is the lead NAAQS
promulgated by EPA in 2008. EPA
believes that the SIP submitted by the
state satisfies the applicable
requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA)
identified in EPA’s 2008 Final Rule and
will bring the area into attainment of the
0.15 microgram per cubic meter (ug/m3)
lead NAAQS in the Herculaneum,
Missouri area.
In this action, EPA also proposes
approval of a revision to the Missouri
SIP related to the 2007 Consent
Judgment which was previously
approved into the Missouri SIP as part
of an attainment demonstration for the
1978 lead NAAQS. This revision was
submitted to EPA on November 21,
2011.
SUMMARY:
Comments must be received on
or before August 25, 2014.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments,
identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R07–
OAR–2014–0448, by one of the
following methods:
1. www.regulations.gov: Follow the
on-line instructions for submitting
comments.
2. Email: hertzwu.sara@epa.gov.
3. Mail, Hand Delivery or Courier:
Sara Hertz Wu, Environmental
Protection Agency, Air Planning and
Development Branch, 11201 Renner
Boulevard, Lenexa, Kansas 66219.
Instructions: Direct your comments to
Docket ID No. EPA–R07–OAR–2014–
0448. EPA’s policy is that all comments
received will be included in the public
docket without change and may be
made available online at
www.regulations.gov, including any
personal information provided, unless
DATES:
E:\FR\FM\24JYP1.SGM
24JYP1
pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
42992
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 142 / Thursday, July 24, 2014 / Proposed Rules
the comment includes information
claimed to be Confidential Business
Information (CBI) or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Do not submit information that you
consider to be CBI or otherwise
protected through www.regulations.gov
or email. The www.regulations.gov Web
site is an ‘‘anonymous access’’ system,
which means EPA will not know your
identity or contact information unless
you provide it in the body of your
comment.
If you send an email comment
directly to EPA without going through
www.regulations.gov, your email
address will be automatically captured
and included as part of the comment
that is placed in the public docket and
made available on the Internet. If you
submit an electronic comment, EPA
recommends that you include your
name and other contact information in
the body of your comment and with any
disk or CD–ROM you submit. If EPA
cannot read your comment due to
technical difficulties and cannot contact
you for clarification, EPA may not be
able to consider your comment.
Electronic files should avoid the use of
special characters, any form of
encryption, and be free of any defects or
viruses.
Docket. All documents in the
electronic docket are listed in the
www.regulations.gov index. Although
listed in the index, some information is
not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other
information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Certain other
material, such as copyrighted material,
will be publicly available only in hard
copy. Publicly available docket
materials are available either
electronically in www.regulations.gov or
in hard copy at the Environmental
Protection Agency, Air Planning and
Development Branch, 11201 Renner
Boulevard, Lenexa, Kansas. EPA
requests that you contact the person
listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT section to schedule your
inspection. The interested persons
wanting to examine these documents
should make an appointment with the
office at least 24 hours in advance.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sara
Hertz Wu at (913) 551–7316, or email
her at hertzwu.sara@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Throughout this document ‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’
or ‘‘our’’ refer to EPA.
Table of Contents
I. What is being addressed in this document?
II. Have the requirements for the approval of
a SIP revision been met?
III. What action is EPA taking?
IV. Background
VerDate Mar<15>2010
14:12 Jul 23, 2014
Jkt 232001
V. Technical Review of the Attainment
Demonstration SIP Related to the 2008
Lead NAAQS
A. Facility Description
B. Model Selection, Meteorological and
Emissions Inventory Input Data
C. Modeling Analysis
1. Base Case Analysis
2. Future Case Analysis
D. Control Strategy
E. Reasonably Available Control Measures
(RACM) Including Reasonably Available
Control Technology (RACT) and
Reasonable Further Progress (RFP)
F. Attainment Demonstration
G. New Source Review (NSR)
H. Contingency Measures
I. Enforceability
VI. Review of Submittal Related to the 1978
Lead NAAQS
VII. Proposed Action
VIII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. What is being addressed in this
document?
In this document, EPA is addressing
Missouri’s attainment demonstration
SIP for the lead NAAQS nonattainment
area of Herculaneum, Missouri. The
applicable standard addressed in this
action is the lead NAAQS promulgated
by EPA in 2008. EPA believes that the
SIP submitted by the state satisfies the
applicable requirements of the CAA
identified in EPA’s Final Rule (73 FR
66964, October 15, 2008), and
demonstrates attainment of the 0.15
microgram per cubic meter (ug/m3) lead
NAAQS in the Herculaneum, Missouri
area.
In this document, EPA is also
addressing a revision to the Missouri
SIP related to the 2007 Consent
Judgment which was previously
approved in the Missouri SIP as part of
an attainment demonstration for the
1978 lead NAAQS (77 FR 9529,
February 17, 2012).
II. Have the requirements for the
approval of a SIP revision been met?
The state submission has met the
public notice requirements for SIP
submissions in accordance with 40 CFR
51.102. The submission also satisfied
the completeness criteria of 40 CFR part
51, appendix V. In addition, the revision
meets the substantive SIP requirements
of the CAA, including section 110 and
implementing regulations.
III. What action is EPA taking?
EPA is proposing to grant full
approval of Missouri’s attainment
demonstration SIP for the 2008 lead
NAAQS. We are also proposing to
approve a revision to the Missouri SIP
related to the 1978 lead NAAQS. We are
processing this as a proposed action
because we are soliciting comments on
this proposed action. Final rulemaking
PO 00000
Frm 00004
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
will occur after consideration of any
comments.
IV. Background
EPA established the NAAQS for lead
on October 5, 1978 (43 FR 46246). The
1978 NAAQS for lead is set at a level
of 1.5 ug/m3 of air, averaged over a
calendar quarter. The Herculaneum,
Missouri area is designated
nonattainment for the 1978 lead
NAAQS. EPA’s most recent approved
revision to Missouri’s State
Implementation Plan to address the
1978 lead NAAQS was on February 7,
2012 (77 FR 9529).1
On October 15, 2008, EPA established
a new lead NAAQS of 0.15 ug/m3 of air,
measured as a rolling three-month
average. (73 FR 66964). On November
22, 2010, EPA designated the City of
Herculaneum as nonattainment for the
2008 lead NAAQS. (75 FR 71033).2
Under Section 191(a) of the CAA,
Missouri is required to submit to EPA
an attainment demonstration SIP
revision for lead and to demonstrate the
nonattainment area will reach
attainment of the 2008 lead NAAQS no
later than five years from the date of the
nonattainment area designation.
This rulemaking proposes approval of
Missouri’s SIP to bring the Herculaneum
area into attainment for the 2008 lead
NAAQS. This rulemaking also proposes
approval of an amendment to the 2007
Consent Judgment previously approved
in Missouri’s SIP related to the 1978
lead NAAQS.
V. Technical Review of the Attainment
Demonstration SIP for the 2008 Lead
NAAQS
A. Facility Description
The Doe Run-Herculaneum facility
opened in 1892 and, at the time of the
nonattainment designation, was the
only primary lead smelter operating in
the United States. The primary lead
smelting process begins with lead
concentrate. Doe Run-owned mining
and milling operations located in
southeastern Missouri are the primary
source of Doe Run-Herculaneum’s lead
ore and lead concentrate. Lead
concentrate, typically 45 percent to 50
percent lead by weight, is mined from
underground ore deposits. The ore
which contains about six percent lead
by weight, is crushed and then
processed into lead concentrate at the
mills. Lead concentrate contains
1 A complete history of EPA’s approval of
numerous Missouri SIPs addressing the 1978 lead
NAAQS can be found at 75 FR 52701.
2 EPA also designated portions of Iron, Dent, and
Reynolds Counties as nonattainment for the 2008
lead NAAQS. 75 FR 71033. Those nonattainment
areas will be addressed in a separate action.
E:\FR\FM\24JYP1.SGM
24JYP1
pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 142 / Thursday, July 24, 2014 / Proposed Rules
approximately 75 percent lead by
weight. Lead concentrate was
previously transported from the mines/
mills to the Herculaneum smelter by
rail, but since 2002 has been transported
exclusively by truck to Herculaneum.
Once delivered to the Herculaneum
primary lead smelter, the process of
smelting the lead concentrate into high
purity lead can be divided into three
main steps: Sintering, reducing
(smelting), and refining.
The Doe Run smelter was limited to
the production of 130,000 tons of
refined lead per year based on a 12month rolling average period pursuant
to the terms of a Consent Decree
applicable to the Herculaneum Facility
entered into by Doe Run, Missouri, and
EPA in the United States District Court
in the Eastern District of Missouri, Case
No. 4:10–cv–01895–JCH on December
21, 2011 (2011 Consent Decree).
On December 31, 2013, pursuant to
the terms of the 2011 Consent Decree,
Doe Run permanently ceased operations
of the sintering plant. On April 30,
2014, the 2011 Consent Decree also
required Doe Run to permanently cease
smelting operations and retire the blast
furnaces; however, Doe Run ceased
operation of the blast furnaces on
December 31, 2013, concurrently with
the cessation of operation of the
sintering plant. The only active leadprocessing units that may remain after
shutdown are related to refining
operations in the Refinery and Strip
Mill building.
The Refinery building is attached to
the blast furnace building and is
currently used for refining, drossing,
and casting operations. The Strip Mill is
a hot rolling mill used to turn cast
refined lead into long, continuous strips
of flat rolled lead as required by certain
customers. These units are addressed in
the state’s SIP control strategy and are
discussed in more detail in section V.D.
of this document.
In order to maintain operational
flexibility at the Refinery and Strip Mill
units, at Doe Run’s request, Missouri
has included two possible operating
scenarios for Doe Run in its SIP. These
scenarios are referred to as ‘‘Scenario A’’
and ‘‘Scenario B’’ and are described in
more detail in this document.
On February 24, 2011, Doe Run
requested a permit from Missouri to
construct a pyrometallurgical
technology that would have
substantially reduced lead emissions
than the previous smelter, sintering, and
blast furnace operations. The 2007
Consent Judgment, approved as part of
Missouri’s SIP for the 1978 lead
NAAQS, prohibited construction of new
lead emitting processes within the Doe
VerDate Mar<15>2010
14:12 Jul 23, 2014
Jkt 232001
Run property fenceline. Doe Run
requested a revision to the 2007 Consent
Judgment to allow for the construction
of this new low-lead emitting process
next to the existing smelter within the
property fenceline. On November 14,
2011, Missouri issued the construction
permit, revised the 2007 Consent
Judgment for the new pyrometallurgical
technology, and submitted a SIP
revision to EPA on November 21, 2011.
This requested revision is addressed in
Section VI of this document. To date,
Doe Run has not constructed this new
technology.
B. Model Selection, Meteorological and
Emissions Inventory Input Data
Missouri conducted air dispersion
modeling to evaluate the effectiveness of
the proposed control strategy. The
model, AERMOD, was utilized and is
EPA’s preferred model for
demonstrating attainment of the lead
NAAQS. AERMOD estimates the
combined ambient impact of sources by
simulating Gaussian dispersion of
emissions plumes. Emission rates, wind
speed and direction, atmospheric
mixing heights, terrain, plume rise from
stack emissions, initial dispersion
characteristics of fugitive sources,
particle size and density are all factors
considered by the model when
estimating ambient impacts. Missouri
performed two dispersion modeling
analyses for the 2008 lead NAAQS for
the Herculaneum area. One was an
analysis of current conditions to ensure
the model is performing adequately
(base case). The second analysis
examined the effectiveness of proposed
emission controls (future case). The
results of these analyses will be
discussed in more detail in section V.C.
of this document.
Missouri used the meteorological data
from the meteorological monitoring
network maintained by Doe Run
pursuant to the 2007 Consent Judgment
that is part of the Missouri SIP for the
1978 lead NAAQS. Doe Run collected
site-specific wind speed and direction
data for at least five years. Missouri
selected one year of representative
meteorological data for use in the
model. The upper air station at Lincoln,
Illinois was used to gather upper level
air data including information on the
vertical temperature, moisture and wind
characteristics of the atmosphere. This
data set provided confidence that the
controls selected for the attainment
demonstration will be effective over a
large variety of meteorological
conditions. The meteorological data
were run through AERMOD’s preprocessors to make the data usable by
the model.
PO 00000
Frm 00005
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
42993
As required by Section 172(c)(3) of
the CAA, a revised emission inventory
was developed for this nonattainment
area. The geographic boundary of the
nonattainment area is the city of
Herculaneum, located in Jefferson
County, Missouri. The emission
inventory data are specifically for lead
emissions. While lead particulate may
be estimated as a portion of PM10
emissions, only lead emissions are
presented in the inventory. A single
point source (Doe Run) drives the lead
inventory for the nonattainment area,
but other sources, such as non-point and
mobile sources were described in the
emissions inventory for completeness.
Doe Run, as a Title V (Part 70) source
is required to submit its emissions
inventory annually. Therefore, the
emissions inventory includes the 2011
inventory which was the most recent
inventory available for the facility at the
time of the development of the state’s
plan. Nonpoint and mobile source
emissions are from the 2008 National
Emissions Inventory (NEI), a dataset
prepared triennially through state, tribal
and EPA cooperation.
The 2011 lead emission totals for Doe
Run Herculaneum are 21.11 tons per
year. There are no other point sources
in the Herculaneum nonattainment area
that have reported lead emissions to
Missouri. The 2008 NEI for nonpoint
and mobile source emissions show that
these sources combined comprise
approximately 0.15 percent of point
source emissions total and therefore
were not included in the modeling
exercise as discreet sources. Emissions
from nonpoint and mobile sources are
included in the background
concentration.
In accordance with 40 CFR Part 51,
appendix W, background concentrations
must be considered when determining
NAAQS compliance. Background
concentrations are intended to include
impacts attributable to natural sources,
nearby sources (excluding the dominant
source(s)), and unidentified sources.
The calculated background
concentration includes all sources of
lead not already included in the model
run script. The background
concentration includes distant sources
of lead, which may have originally
derived from the plant, or reentreinment
of naturally occurring lead in the
atmosphere.
In general, the background value is
calculated by averaging the monitored
concentrations at monitor sites outside
the area of immediate dominant source
impact and on days when the
predominant wind direction was not
blowing from the dominant source to
the monitors. Missouri began with all
E:\FR\FM\24JYP1.SGM
24JYP1
42994
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 142 / Thursday, July 24, 2014 / Proposed Rules
monitored days and identified days
with no measured one-hour average
wind direction from the smelter. Each
monitor was examined in conjunction
with an acceptable wind fan and the
concentrations are averaged on days
with no predominant winds from the
facility. The resulting concentration
from all the monitors in the evaluation
is the background concentration for the
area.
The days selected for the calculation
match the model study period.
Therefore, EPA agrees that the
calculated value represents the best
estimate of background after all
improvements from the 2007 SIP
revision for the 1978 lead NAAQS (2007
SIP Revision) were implemented.
Additional information can be found in
the Missouri SIP, Section 4.3.
pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
C. Modeling Analysis
1. Base Case Analysis
As discussed above, Missouri used
the AERMOD dispersion model to run
two analyses, the base case and the
future case. The base case evaluated a
reasonable estimate of maximum
potential emissions to account for
contributing sources based on normal
facility operations. The base case model
analysis used the modeling completed
for the attainment demonstration for the
1978 lead NAAQS. See 73 FR 58913.
Missouri, EPA, and Doe Run agreed that
the modeling done in 2007 could be
used if the monitoring data verified the
SIP attainment demonstration for the
1978 lead NAAQS. Missouri compared
the 2007 script used for the model and
the current conditions at the
Herculaneum facility. Actual emissions
data from the Missouri Emissions
Inventory System (MOEIS), monitoring
data, and information from the smelter
were all reviewed and Missouri verified
there were no changes to any processes
or controls at the facility that would
invalidate the 2007 script.
The only changes that occurred
between the SIP revision for the 1978
lead NAAQS and the current year were
changes to the monitoring network and
the fenceline. These changes affected
only the receptor grid and did not have
any effect on the current facility
emission points, rates or controls.
Additional information regarding the
model used can be found in the docket
for this action.
Results from the SIP revision’s
attainment demonstration for the 1978
lead NAAQS predicted that, after all
control measures were installed, the
maximum 3-month rolling average
would be 1.492 ug/m3. Missouri found
that the maximum 3-month rolling
VerDate Mar<15>2010
14:12 Jul 23, 2014
Jkt 232001
average measured at the Main Street
monitor was 1.160 ug/m3 in April 2009.
Because the attainment demonstration
modeling was done with worst case
scenario emission rates, it is expected
that the actual monitoring values would
be somewhat less than the predicted
value. The monitoring data confirm the
accuracy and reliability of the model’s
inputs and results. EPA agrees with
Missouri’s determination that a separate
base case performance run was not
necessary for the SIP revision for the
2008 lead NAAQS because the results
would be virtually identical to those
obtained in the attainment
demonstration for the 1978 lead
NAAQS.
2. Future Case Analysis
The future case analysis evaluated the
control strategies of the SIP revision for
the 1978 lead NAAQS pursuant to the
existing Federally enforceable
requirements that are applicable to the
facility as well as the enforceable 2013
Consent Judgment between Missouri
and Doe Run. See appendix O, Missouri
SIP. The future case dispersion
modeling is the attainment
demonstration used to verify that the
proposed control strategies will bring
the Herculaneum Lead Nonattainment
Area into compliance with the 2008
lead NAAQS.
Missouri selected January 2009 to
December 2009 as the base year because
all emission reduction projects required
by the SIP revision for the 1978 lead
NAAQS had been completed. That base
year inventory utilizes the emission
rates that relate to specific emission
activities at the Doe Run facility.
Emission points in the model reflect the
release points for these emissions (for
example, a stack), not the location of the
process unit that emitted the pollutant.
An emission rate for each point source
was obtained from the best available
information.
For the stack, emissions were
validated by stack test data, which
measure actual lead emissions released
from the stack. For other emission rates,
such as fugitive emissions, sampling
information was used, if available. If
sampling information was not available,
emission rates were calculated based on
known factors such as soil lead content,
best available estimates such as traffic
counts, or AP–42 guidelines.3 For truck
haul road emissions, truck traffic counts
were used.
Based on the good engineering
practice (GEP) requirements for stack
3 AP–42, Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission
Factors, Fifth Edition, https://www.epa.gov/ttnchie1/
ap42.
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
heights (40 CFR 51.1(ii)), the main stack
at Doe Run was modeled at 100.75
meters in the base case model run. For
the attainment year demonstration, no
emissions will be vented to the main
stack, therefore, none of the stacks
contained within the attainment year
model input files exceed 65 meters. All
of the proposed stacks meet the GEP
stack height requirements. Additional
information regarding the future case
year model inputs can be found in
Section 4.2 of the Missouri SIP and
Appendices H–M. EPA agrees with the
modeling conducted by Missouri for its
future case analysis.
D. Control Strategy
In order to bring Herculaneum back
into attainment of the 2008 Lead
NAAQS, Missouri developed a control
strategy for Doe Run-Herculaneum. One
element of the control strategy is the
shutdown of the blast furnaces and
sinter plant, which has already occurred
and part of the Federally enforceable
2011 Consent Decree, and requires no
additional action by Missouri to
implement into the attainment
demonstration. The significant
reductions from the shutdowns are
expected to be the greatest source of
emission reductions for the
nonattainment area. Missouri’s control
strategy addresses the remaining lead
emissions from the Strip Mill and
Refinery and fugitive lead emissions
generated from sources such as trucks
transporting the material into the
facility using haul roads.
Despite not being able to produce
refined lead from ore concentrates after
the shutdown at Herculaneum, Doe Run
told Missouri that it may continue to
operate some processes at the Strip Mill
and Refinery. Missouri worked with Doe
Run to develop two potential operating
scenarios, ‘‘Scenario A’’ and ‘‘Scenario
B.’’ To address operation under
Scenarios A and B, Missouri and Doe
Run-Herculaneum developed a Consent
Judgment (hereinafter referred to as the
2013 Consent Judgment; found at
Missouri SIP, Appendix O) as a means
to establish enforceable emission and
production limits, controls, operating
parameters, and contingency measures
to reduce lead emissions from point,
area, and fugitive lead dust sources in
support of achieving attainment of the
2008 lead NAAQS as soon as practicable
following the shutdown of the blast
furnaces and sinter plant. The 2013
Consent Judgment was submitted as part
of Missouri’s attainment demonstration
SIP for the 2008 lead NAAQS.
Following the shutdown of the sinter
plant and blast furnace under the 2011
Consent Decree, the Strip Mill is subject
E:\FR\FM\24JYP1.SGM
24JYP1
pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 142 / Thursday, July 24, 2014 / Proposed Rules
to a production limit of a three-month
rolling average of 3,750 tons of lead
produced.
The Refinery is subject to a
production limit of a three month
rolling average of 21,250 tons of lead
produced after the shutdown of the
sinter plant and blast furnace under the
2011 Consent Decree. The process at the
Refinery building, if retained, will be
more appropriately re-characterized as a
re-melter. The building would consist of
re-melting, casting and alloy-mixing to
meet end-user demand from refined
lead brought to the facility from
elsewhere.
Scenario A requires that unless
superseded in the 2013 Consent
Judgment, all applicable provisions
from previous SIP revisions shall
remain in effect. Therefore, operations
at the current Refinery building shall
continue to comply with the building
ventilation/particle containment,
capture and control campaign outlined
in the 2007 SIP Revision and 2009 SIP
Supplement for the 1978 lead NAAQS
See 73 FR 58913; 75 FR 52701; and 77
FR 9529.
Additionally, if operations at the
Refinery building are retained after the
2011 Consent Decree shutdown date,
the 2013 Consent Judgment provides
that Baghouses #8 and #9 shall be
subject to an emission limit of 3.5 lb of
lead/24 hours. The shutdown under the
2011 Consent Decree eliminates
Baghouse #7. The new emission limit
represents a significant reduction from
previous emissions.
The 2013 Consent Judgment
prescribes a stack testing regimen to
demonstrate compliance with the
emission limits under conditions of
representative production. Further, if
Doe Run chooses to operate under
Scenario A, the Refinery production
limit of a three-month rolling average of
21,250 tons of lead produced remains in
effect.
Doe Run will operate under Scenario
B if it becomes cost effective to increase
production at the current Refinery
building. In Scenario B, all operating
parameters used in Scenario A will
remain in effect, except that the
production limit at the Refinery will be
increased to a three-month rolling
average of 62,500 tons of lead produced.
All the kettle heat stack emissions must
be routed to Baghouse #9 with an
accompanying increase in baghouse
capacity. As described below, an
increase in capacity at Baghouse #9 is
also listed as a contingency measure. If
Doe Run chooses to operate under
Scenario B, the modification to the
baghouse must occur before
implementation as a contingency
VerDate Mar<15>2010
14:12 Jul 23, 2014
Jkt 232001
measure and the remaining contingency
measures will be triggered in a different
order, as discussed in Section V.H.,
below and as outlined in the Missouri
SIP, Section 8 and Appendix O.
Baghouse #9 will be subject to an
emission limit of 3.5 pounds of lead per
day under Scenario B.
The 2013 Consent Judgment specifies
that under either operating scenario Doe
Run could shrink the current fenceline
to a minimum distance outlined by the
modeled attainment concentration
isopleths 4/ambient air quality boundary
or ‘‘zone of public access preclusion,’’
surrounding the remaining process
building as outlined in the Missouri SIP.
See section V.H. of this document.
Pursuant to the 2013 Consent Judgment,
Doe Run must notify Missouri of any
proposed changes to the fenceline, but
if the changes to the fenceline are not
less than the ‘‘zone of public access
preclustion,’’ the changes to do not
require a formal SIP revision.
Missouri determined that allowing
Doe Run the flexibility to modify or
establish a new fenceline within a
modeled attainment boundary will
benefit the community by expediting
any future redevelopment/land reuse
plans.
Although the main smelting
operations are shutdown under the 2011
Consent Decree, Missouri expects some
emissions to be generated by the trucks
transporting refined lead products to
and from the facility via haul roads. Doe
Run continues to be subject to any terms
of the previously approved SIP for the
1978 lead NAAQS standard that are not
specifically superseded by the 2013
Consent Judgment, including provisions
related to the control of fugitive
emissions. Two of the contingency
measures discussed in section V.H.,
below, also address fugitive emissions.
Further, under the 2013 Consent
Judgment, Missouri will continue to
utilize its lead monitoring site network
in accordance with the 2013 Missouri
Ambient Air Quality Monitoring Plan,
which was approved by EPA on
November 22, 2013. Doe Run will
continue to collect data from all of these
monitors until EPA has formally
designated the Herculaneum
nonattainment area as attainment for
lead, until Doe Run no longer owns or
operates the property, when Doe Run
ceases operations of air emission units
pursuant to the 2011 Consent Decree, or
upon approval by Missouri that
continued monitoring is not necessary.
4 Isopleths are lines connection receptor points of
the same value, in this case: The same maximum
lead air concentration equal to the standard.
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
42995
Doe Run will also continue operation
of two continuous particulate samplers
located at the Broad Street monitoring
site and the ‘‘City Hall’’ monitoring site.
The 2013 Consent Judgment requires
Doe Run to report quarterly to Missouri
(1) any day that exceeds a reported
concentration of 0.5 ug/m3 of lead; or (2)
any day that exceeds a reported
concentration of 0.15 ug/m3 of lead and
that falls on every sixth day national
monitoring schedule. The analysis shall
include a review of the continuous
particulate monitoring, the daily
ambient concentrations, wind speed and
direction data, precipitation data, a
summary of process throughputs, an
identification of malfunctions, process
upsets or other conditions that may be
expected to contribute to ambient
impact, and a summary of the analyses
as described above.
Doe Run will continue to collect data
from all of these monitors until EPA has
formally designated the Herculaneum
nonattainment area as attainment for
lead, until Doe Run no longer owns or
operates the property, when Doe Run
ceases operations of air emission units
pursuant to the 2011 Consent Decree, or
upon approve by Missouri that
continued monitoring is not necessary.
Doe Run has been collecting
meteorological monitoring under its
previously approved SIP. Following the
shutdown of the sinter plant and blast
furnace pursuant to the 2011 Consent
Decree, Doe Run will no longer be
required to collect data at the forty (40)
meter station, provided a year of
additional data has been collected and
no future emissions units will vent to
the main stack. Doe Run will only be
required to operate one ten (10) meter
meteorological station, the location of
which must be approved by Missouri.
Meteorological monitoring will be
conducted pursuant to a quality
assurance project plan, which must be
approved by Missouri. Doe Run will
continue to conduct meteorological
monitoring until EPA has formally
designated the Herculaneum
nonattainment area as attainment for
lead, until Doe Run no longer owns or
operates the property, when Doe Run
ceases operations of air emission units
pursuant to the 2011 Consent Decree, or
upon approval by Missouri that
continued monitoring is not necessary.
EPA believes that Missouri’s control
strategy implemented through the 2013
Consent Judgment will bring the area
into attainment of the 2008 Lead
NAAQS.
E:\FR\FM\24JYP1.SGM
24JYP1
pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
42996
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 142 / Thursday, July 24, 2014 / Proposed Rules
E. Reasonably Available Control
Measures (RACM) Including Reasonably
Available Control Technology (RACT)
and Reasonable Further Progress (RFP)
Section 172(c)(1) of the CAA requires
nonattainment areas to implement all
RACM, including emissions reductions
through the adoption of RACT, as
expeditiously as practicable. EPA
interprets this as requiring all
nonattainment areas to consider all
available controls and to implement all
measures that are determined to be
reasonably available, except that
measures which will not assist the area
to more expeditiously attain the
standard are not required to be
implemented.5 In March 2012, EPA
issued guidance titled, ‘‘Implementation
of Reasonably Available Control
Measures (RACM) for Controlling Lead
Emissions’’ (RACM Guidance).6
Section 172(c)(2) of the CAA requires
areas designated as nonattainment for
criteria pollutants to include a
demonstration of Reasonable Further
Progress (RFP) in attainment
demonstrations. Section 171(1) of the
CAA defines RFP as annual incremental
reductions in emissions of the relevant
air pollutants as required by Part D, or
emission reductions that may
reasonably be required by EPA to ensure
attainment of the applicable NAAQS by
the applicable date. Part D does not
include specific RFP requirements for
lead.
Missouri performed a RACM analysis
in compliance with the RACM
Guidance. As stated in the final lead
NAAQS rule, RFP is satisfied by the
strict adherence to a compliance
schedule which is expected to
periodically yield significant emission
reductions. Missouri has determined
that the shutdown of the sinter plant by
December 31, 2013, and the blast
furnace by April 30, 2014, addresses
both RACM and RFP based on the
significant decrease in emissions that
will result from these shutdowns. In
addition, Scenarios A and B, which
include production limits, emission
limits for the remaining processes, and
an optional scenario of re-routing kettle
heat stacks to a baghouse will further
reduce the potential emissions from the
facility. Scenarios A and B have been
modeled and meet the lead NAAQS and
also comply with RACM and RFP.
The shutdown of the sinter and blast
furnace are discrete control measures
that have already occurred. All known
significant sources of lead emissions
5 See 58 FR 67751, Dec. 22 1993, for a discussion
of this interpretation as it relates to lead.
6 https://www.epa.gov/oar/lead/pdfs/
2012ImplementationGuide.pdf.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
14:12 Jul 23, 2014
Jkt 232001
have been eliminated, controlled, or
ruled out as being ineffective or not
viable, consistent with EPA’s RACT
Guidance.
The control strategy is not staggered
or phased, therefore, ambient air quality
concentrations are expected to drop at
or below attainment levels immediately
after implementation of the control
strategy. RFP is addressed by the control
strategy occurring in a timeframe
consistent with the CAA and the 2011
Consent Decree. Further, as a result of
the shutdown of the sintering plant and
blast furnace, all of the nonattainment
area’s ambient air quality monitors are
reporting Pb concentrations below the
2008 lead NAAQS for the three-month
rolling average for January through
March 2014. See https://
www.dnr.mo.gov/env/apcp/docs/
leadmonitordata.pdf.
EPA proposes to approve Missouri’s
SIP as meeting sections 172(c)(1) and
(c)(2) of the CAA.
F. Attainment Demonstration
CAA Section 172 requires a state to
submit a plan for each of its
nonattainment areas that demonstrates
attainment of the applicable ambient air
quality standard as expeditiously as
practicable, but no later than the
specified attainment date. This
demonstration should consist of four
parts: (1) Technical analyses that locate,
identify, and quantify sources of
emissions that are contributing to
violations of the lead NAAQS; (2)
analyses of future year emissions
reductions and air quality improvement
resulting from already-adopted national,
state, and local programs and from
potential new state and local measures
to meet the RACT, RACM, and RFP
requirements in the area; (3) adopted
emissions reduction measures with
schedules for implementation and (4)
contingency measures required under
section 172(c)(9) of the CAA.
The requirements for the first two
parts are described in the sections on
emissions inventories and RACM/
RACT, above and in the sections on air
quality modeling and the attainment
demonstration that follows immediately
below. Requirements for the third and
fourth parts are described in the
sections on the control strategy and the
contingency measures, respectively.
As stated in section V.C.2, above the
future case dispersion modeling is the
attainment demonstration used to verify
that the proposed control strategies will
bring the area into attainment. In order
to determine whether the planned
emission reduction strategies will result
in attainment of the NAAQS, the
modeled maximum lead air
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
concentration (based on a rolling threemonth average) is added to the
calculated background lead
concentration of 0.032 ug/m3 for each
scenario. See section V.B. The sum is
the predicted maximum three-month
rolling average lead air concentration.
During the attainment model run,
with receptors spaced 50-meters apart at
the current fenceline, Scenario A (as
described in section V.D.) resulted in a
modeled maxmimum three-month
rolling average lead concentration of
0.117 ug/m3. Scenario B (as described in
section V.D.) modeled a maximum
three-month rolling average lead
concentration of 0.098 ug/m3.
The model successfully demonstrates
attainment of the 2008 Lead NAAQS
(0.15 ug/m3) for both operating
scenarios based on the implementation
of the required control measures as
described above. The differences
between the attainment year and base
year emissions rates are based on
changes to the plant operations and
what operations will remain in the
future. All of the process points
associated with the sintering and blast
furnaces will be removed. Fugitive
emissions from these buildings will be
greatly reduced by the removal of these
processes. Several haul roads were
eliminated and re-routed due to the
changes.
The haul roads will no longer go
through the old city center, but enter
from the south over a new bridge on
Joachim Creek. In addition, the
remaining emission points and rates for
the Strip Mill, Refinery and Kettle Heat
Stacks will be changed to reflect the
emission and production limits at the
facility for both scenarios, as well as the
elimination of the kettle heat stack
stream in modeled Scenario B.
In response to public comment,
Missouri refined the same attainment
model run by placing receptors inside
the current fenceline at 10-meter
spacing to determine the modeled
attainment concentration isopleths and
to establish new non-ambient zones for
both scenarios. When conducting this
refined modeling, the non-ambient zone
for Scenario A includes the entire nonambient zone for Scenario B and is
slightly larger. Therefore, the nonambient zone for Scenario A established
the attainment boundary/zone of public
access preclusion at the Strip Mill and
Refinery buildings. These minimum
distances are enforceable through the
2013 Consent Judgment.
The modeling results demonstrate a
margin of safety through conservative
background model input assumptions.
See Missouri SIP, section 6, appendices
H–M, O.
E:\FR\FM\24JYP1.SGM
24JYP1
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 142 / Thursday, July 24, 2014 / Proposed Rules
EPA conducted an independent
review of Missouri’s modeling and
proposes to approve Missouri’s SIP as
meeting section 172 of the CAA.
pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
G. New Source Review (NSR)
Within the CAA, Part D of Title I
requires SIP submittals to include a
permit program for the construction and
operation of new and modified major
stationary sources. The current
definition of nonattainment areas in
Missouri, which for lead includes the
city of Herculaneum, Missouri, is
provided in Missouri rule 10 CSR 10–
6.020. For installations in a
nonattainment area, Missouri rule 10
CSR 10–6.060 requires a permit for
construction of, or major modification
to, an installation with potential to
annually emit one hundred (100) tons or
more of a nonattainment pollutant, or a
permit for a modification at a major
source with potential to annually emit
one thousand two hundred (1,200)
pounds of lead. Both rules have
previously been approved by EPA as
part of the SIP, as meeting the
requirements of section 173 of the CAA,
and EPA implementing rules at 40 CFR
51.165. See 78 FR 19602; 78 FR 37457.
H. Contingency Measures
As required by CAA section 172(c)(9),
the SIP submittal includes contingency
measures to be implemented if EPA
determines that the area has failed to
make reasonable further progress or if
the area fails to attain the NAAQS by
December 2015. If the air quality data
for any three-month rolling period after
the implementation of the production
and emission limits identified in the
2013 Consent Judgment exceeds the
0.15 ug/m3 three-month rolling average
lead standard, Doe Run shall implement
the contingency measures set forth in
the 2013 Consent Judgment. Missouri
may also require implementation of
contingency measures if Doe Run fails
to implement the control strategy
projects in accordance with the 2013
Consent Judgment.
The 2013 Consent Judgment contains
the following contingency measures:
Project 1: Increased in-plant road
cleaning; Project 2: Fugitive Emission
Reduction Study; Project 3: Route
emissions from Refinery kettle heat
stacks to Baghouse #9; Project 4: Route
Baghouse #9 emissions to the main
stack; Project 5: Additional filtered
ventilation to the Strip Mill building.
The contingency measures will be
completed on an as-needed basis in the
order listed. For example, Project 1
would be implemented after notification
from Missouri of a first NAAQS
violation that is monitored for three
VerDate Mar<15>2010
14:12 Jul 23, 2014
Jkt 232001
calendar months after the
implementation of the control measures
identified in the 2013 Consent
Judgment. Project 2 would be
implemented after notification from
Missouri of a violation that is monitored
three rolling calendar months after the
completion of the first contingency
project in the time frame set forth for
that project. Project 3 would be
implemented after notification from
Missouri of a violation that is monitored
three rolling calendar months after the
completion of the second contingency
project in the time frame set forth for
that project. Project 3 is the same as the
control measure for Scenario B so if this
project is implemented as a control
measure, Project 4 would be triggered in
its place. Project 3 would be
implemented after notification from
Missouri of a violation that is monitored
three rolling calendar months after the
completion of the third contingency
project in the time frame set forth for
that project. Project 5 would be
implemented after notification from
Missouri of a violation that is monitored
three rolling calendar months after the
completion of the fourth contingency
project in the time frame set forth for
that project. The 2013 Consent
Judgment contains a procedure for
submitting additional new contingency
measures when they are completed.
Additional information, including
emissions reductions expected from the
proposed contingency measures, can be
found in the Missouri SIP, Section 8.
Doe Run must notify Missouri within
ten days of completion of any
contingency measure. Sixty days after
completion, Doe Run will propose an
additional qualified contingency
measures to be added to the 2013
Consent Judgment, which will become
part of the 2013 Consent Judgment and
fully enforceable upon approval by
Missouri. These additional contingency
measures will also be subject to EPA
approval as part of the SIP. Doe Run
may also substitute new control(s) for
the identified contingency measure(s) if
Doe Run identifies and demonstrates to
Missouri and EPA’s satisfaction that the
alternative control measure(s) would
achieve attainment with the 2008 Lead
NAAQS. The 2013 Consent Judgment
also allows Doe Run to change the order
of implementation for contingency
measures and time frames for
completion upon approval by Missouri.
Changes to contingency measures
would require a public hearing at the
state level and EPA approval as a formal
SIP revision. Until such time as EPA
approves any substitute measure, the
measures included in the approved SIP
will be the enforceable measure. EPA
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
42997
does not intend to approve any
substitutions that cannot be
implemented in the same timeframe as
the original measure. These measures
will help ensure compliance with the
2008 Lead NAAQS as well as meet the
requirements of Section 172(c)(9) of the
CAA.
EPA proposes to approve Missouri’s
SIP as meeting section 172(c)(9) of the
CAA.
I. Enforceability
As specified in section 172(c)(6) and
section 110(a)(2)(A) of the CAA, and 57
FR 13556, all measures and other
elements in the SIP must be enforceable
by the state and EPA. The enforceable
document included in Missouri’s SIP
submittal is the 2013 Consent Judgment.
The 2013 Consent Judgment contains all
control and contingency measures with
enforceable dates for implementation.
The only exception relates to the
Federally enforceable dates found in the
2011 Consent Decree. The 2013 Consent
Judgment also includes monitoring,
recordkeeping, and reporting
requirements to ensure that the control
and contingency measures are met. The
state adopted the 2013 Consent
Judgment into Missouri’s state
regulations on June 19, 2013, making it
state-enforceable. Upon EPA approval of
the SIP submission, the 2013 Consent
Judgment will become state and
Federally enforceable, and enforceable
by citizens under section 304 of the
CAA.
We note that the 2013 Consent
Judgment also contains provisions for
stipulated penalties should Doe Run fail
to comply with provisions of the 2013
Consent Judgment. The 2011 Consent
Decree also contains stipulated penalty
provisions. EPA is not bound by the
state’s 2013 Consent Judgment
penalties, and would enforce against
violations of this document under
section 113 of the CAA or other Federal
authorities, rather than the 2013
Consent Judgment, if EPA approves the
2013 Consent Judgment, as proposed
today, into the SIP.
EPA proposes to approve Missouri’s
SIP as meeting sections 172(c)(6) and
110(a)(2)(A) of the CAA, and 57 FR
13556.
VI. Review of Submittal Related to the
1978 Lead NAAQS
On November 21, 2011, Missouri
submitted a SIP revision related to a
Consent Judgment that was previously
approved by EPA as part of Missouri’s
SIP for the 1978 lead NAAQS. (77 FR
9529). The Missouri SIP related to the
1978 lead NAAQS, which includes the
2007 Consent Judgment, currently
E:\FR\FM\24JYP1.SGM
24JYP1
42998
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 142 / Thursday, July 24, 2014 / Proposed Rules
pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
prohibits construction of new lead
emission processes within the Doe Run
property fenceline. Missouri is
requesting that EPA approve a revision
to that 2007 Consent Judgment. In order
to allow Doe Run to construct a new
low-lead emitting technology at the site,
the 2007 Consent Judgment must be
revised.
Missouri has submitted for approval a
revision to Section 2.B.1. of the 2007
Consent Judgment to state that Doe Run
shall not relocate any existing
pyrometallurgical lead smelting,
sintering, or blast furnace operations or
construct any new pyrometallurgical
lead smelting, sintering, or blast furnace
operations in the fenceline. The other
provisions of the 2007 Consent
Judgment would remain in effect unless
superseded by the 2013 Consent
Judgment. Missouri has appropriately
modeled all potential operating
scenarios for compliance with the 1978
and 2008 lead NAAQS. This revision to
the 2007 Consent Judgment does not
impact the modeling analyses to show
attainment of the 1978 or 2008 lead
NAAQS.
The 2007 Consent Judgment was
previously approved in Missouri’s SIP.
The revision to the 2007 Consent
Judgment, if approved by EPA, will be
Federally enforceable under section
172(c)(6) and section 110(a)(2)(A) of the
CAA.
The revision meets the requirements
of section 110 of the CAA, therefore,
EPA proposes to approve this revision
of the Missouri SIP.
VII. Proposed Action
EPA is proposing to grant full
approval of Missouri’s attainment
demonstration SIP for the 2008 Lead
National Ambient NAAQS
nonattainment area of Herculaneum,
Missouri. EPA believes that the SIP
submitted by the state satisfies the
applicable requirements of the CAA
identified in EPA’s Final Rule (73 FR
66964 October 15, 2008), and will result
in attainment of the 0.15 ug/m3 lead
NAAQS in the Herculaneum, Missouri
area. In this action, EPA also proposes
to approve a revision to the Missouri
SIP related to the 2007 Consent
Judgment which was previously
approved into the Missouri SIP as part
of an attainment demonstration for the
1978 lead NAAQS (77 FR 9529).
VIII. Statutory and Executive Order
Reviews
Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR
51735, October 4, 1993), this action is
not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ and
therefore is not subject to review under
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 (76
VerDate Mar<15>2010
14:12 Jul 23, 2014
Jkt 232001
FR 3821, January 21, 2011). This action
is also not subject to Executive Order
13211, ‘‘Actions Concerning Regulations
That Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use’’ (66 FR 28355, May
22, 2001). This action merely approves
state law as meeting Federal
requirements and imposes no additional
requirements beyond those imposed by
state law. Accordingly, the
Administrator certifies that this rule
will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small
entities under the Regulatory Flexibility
Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). Because this
rule approves pre-existing requirements
under state law and does not impose
any additional enforceable duty beyond
that required by state law, it does not
contain any unfunded mandate or
significantly or uniquely affect small
governments, as described in the
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
(Pub. L. 104–4).
This rule also does not have tribal
implications because it will not have a
substantial direct effect on one or more
Indian tribes, on the relationship
between the Federal Government and
Indian tribes, or on the distribution of
power and responsibilities between the
Federal Government and Indian tribes,
as specified by Executive Order 13175
(65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This
action also does not have Federalism
implications because it does not have
substantial direct effects on the States,
on the relationship between the national
government and the States, or on the
distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various
levels of government, as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255,
August 10, 1999). Thus Executive Order
13132 does not apply to this action.
This action merely approves a state rule
implementing a Federal standard, and
does not alter the relationship or the
distribution of power and
responsibilities established in the CAA.
This rule also is not subject to Executive
Order 13045, ‘‘Protection of Children
from Environmental Health Risks and
Safety Risks’’ (62 FR 19885, April 23,
1997) because it approves a state rule
implementing a Federal standard.
In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA’s
role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of
the CAA. In this context, in the absence
of a prior existing requirement for the
State to use voluntary consensus
standards (VCS), EPA has no authority
to disapprove a state submission for
failure to use VCS. It would thus be
inconsistent with applicable law for
EPA when it reviews a state submission,
to use VCS in place of a state
submission that otherwise satisfies the
PO 00000
Frm 00010
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
provisions of the CAA. Thus, the
requirements of section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and
Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C.
272 note) do not apply. This action does
not impose an information collection
burden under the provisions of the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). Burden is defined
at 5 CFR 1320.3(b).
The Congressional Review Act, 5
U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small
Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides
that before a rule may take effect, the
agency promulgating the rule must
submit a rule report, which includes a
copy of the rule, to each House of the
Congress and to the Comptroller General
of the United States. EPA will submit 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 United
States prior to publication of the rule in
the Federal Register.
A major rule cannot take effect until
60 days after it is published in the
Federal Register. This action is not a
‘‘major rule’’ as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(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 September 22, 2014. 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. Parties with
objections to this direct final rule are
encouraged to file a comment in
response to the parallel notice of
proposed rulemaking for this action
published in the proposed rules section
of today’s Federal Register, rather than
file an immediate petition for judicial
review of this direct final rule, so that
EPA can withdraw this direct final rule
and address the comment in the final
rulemaking. 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, Carbon monoxide,
Incorporation by reference,
Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen
dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter,
Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile
organic compounds.
E:\FR\FM\24JYP1.SGM
24JYP1
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 142 / Thursday, July 24, 2014 / Proposed Rules
pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Dated: July 14, 2014.
Karl Brooks,
Regional Administrator, Region 7.
New Jersey Avenue SE., West Building
Ground Floor, Room W12–140,
Washington, DC 20590–0001.
• Hand Delivery or Courier: West
[FR Doc. 2014–17480 Filed 7–23–14; 8:45 am]
Building Ground Floor, Room W12–140,
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., between
9 a.m. and 5 p.m. ET, Monday through
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Friday, except Federal holidays.
• Fax: (202) 493–2251.
Regardless of how you submit your
National Highway Traffic Safety
comments, you should mention the
Administration
docket number identified in the heading
of this document.
49 CFR Part 574
Instructions: For detailed instructions
[Docket No. NHTSA–2014–0084]
on submitting comments and additional
information on the rulemaking process,
RIN 2127–AL54
see the Public Participation heading of
Tire Identification and Recordkeeping
the Supplementary Information section
of this document. Note that all
AGENCY: National Highway Traffic
comments received will be posted
Safety Administration (NHTSA),
without change to https://
Department of Transportation.
www.regulations.gov, including any
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking
personal information provided. Please
(NPRM).
see the Privacy Act heading below.
Privacy Act: Anyone is able to search
SUMMARY: The tire identification number
the electronic form of all comments
(TIN), which must appear on virtually
received into any of our dockets by the
all new and retreaded motor vehicle
name of the individual submitting the
tires sold in the United States, plays an
important role in identifying which tires comment (or signing the comment, if
submitted on behalf of an association,
are subject to recall and remedy
business, labor union, etc.). You may
campaigns for safety defects and
review DOT’s complete Privacy Act
noncompliances. This document
Statement in the Federal Register
proposes two amendments to the TIN.
published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR
First, because NHTSA is running out of
19477–78).
two-symbol codes to identify new tire
Docket: For access to the docket to
plants, NHTSA is proposing to expand
read background documents or
the first portion of the TIN, known as
comments received, go to https://
the manufacturer identifier, from two
www.regulations.gov. Follow the online
symbols to three for manufacturers of
instructions for accessing the dockets.
new tires. This amendment would
substantially increase the number of
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For
unique combinations of characters that
technical issues, you may contact Chris
can be used to identify individual
Wiacek, Office of Crash Avoidance
manufacturers of new tires. Second,
Standards, by telephone at (202) 366–
NHTSA is proposing to standardize the
4801. For legal issues, you may contact
length of the tire identification number
David Jasinski, Office of the Chief
to eliminate confusion that could arise
Counsel, by telephone at (202) 366–
from the variable length of tire
2992, and by fax at (202) 366–3820. You
identification numbers. This NPRM
may send mail to both of these officials
would standardize the length of the TIN at the National Highway Traffic Safety
at 13 symbols for new tires and 7
Administration, 1200 New Jersey
symbols for retreaded tires, making it
Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.
easier to identify a TIN from which a
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
symbol is missing.
I. Background
DATES: Submit comments on or before
August 25, 2014.
In January 1971, the agency
established a requirement in 49 CFR
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments
electronically to the docket identified in part 574 for a tire identification number
the heading of this document by visiting (TIN) that must be labeled on one
sidewall of each tire that is newly
the following Web site:
manufactured or retreaded.1 The
• Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to
purpose of the TIN is to facilitate
https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the
notification of purchasers of defective or
online instructions for submitting
noncompliant tires. Furthermore, the
comments.
Alternatively, you can file comments
information contained in the TIN may
using the following methods:
be used by consumers to obtain
• Mail: Docket Management Facility:
1 36 FR 1196 (Jan. 26, 1971).
U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200
VerDate Mar<15>2010
14:12 Jul 23, 2014
Jkt 232001
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
42999
information about the tire such as the
actual manufacturer of the tire (in the
case of a tire sold under a different
brand) and the date of manufacture. Part
574 also provides for the registration of
tires, including the collection of the TIN
and the contact information of
purchasers of tires, to enable
manufacturers to notify tire owners of
recalls.
From its adoption in 1971, the TIN
has consisted of up to four groups of
symbols. The first group of symbols
identifies the manufacturer of the tire.
Each tire plant has its own identifier;
thus, one tire manufacturer may have
multiple codes. Although part 574 has
referred to this grouping as the
manufacturer’s identification mark, it
may also be known informally as a
‘‘plant code.’’ For new tires, this code
consists of two symbols and for
retreaded tires, the code consists of
three symbols. This plant code is
assigned to new manufacturers and
retreaders who contact NHTSA and
provide contact information and
information about what types of tires
they are producing.
The second and third groupings
provide information about the tire itself.
The second grouping is up to two
characters and identifies the tire size.
Although the original TIN requirement
had a list of tire sizes and two-symbol
codes, the agency has since left it to
manufacturers to determine their own
codes and provide decoding information
to NHTSA upon request.
The third grouping may be used at the
manufacturer’s option to provide any
other significant characteristics of the
tire. Except for cases in which a tire is
manufactured for a brand name owner,
the third grouping is not required. As
with the second grouping, a
manufacturer must maintain
information regarding the code used and
provide it to NHTSA upon request.
The fourth and final grouping is the
date code, which identifies the week
and year during which the tire was
manufactured. Although this code was
originally three symbols, it has been
expanded to four symbols. The first two
symbols have always represented the
week of manufacture. For example, ‘‘01’’
signifies that the tire was manufactured
during the first full week of the year,
‘‘02’’ signifies that the tire was
manufactured during the second full
week of the year, and so on. The third
and fourth symbols (originally only one
symbol) must be the last two digits of
the year of manufacture.
The TIN is required to be marked on
at least one sidewall of each tire that is
manufactured or retreaded.
Manufacturers must use one of 30
E:\FR\FM\24JYP1.SGM
24JYP1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 142 (Thursday, July 24, 2014)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 42991-42999]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-17480]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA-R07-OAR-2014-0448; FRL-9914-27-Region 7]
Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; State of
Missouri; 2013 Missouri State Implementation Plan for the 2008 Lead
Standard
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) proposes to grant
full approval of Missouri's attainment demonstration State
Implementation Plan (SIP) for the lead National Ambient Air Quality
Standard (NAAQS) nonattainment area of Herculaneum, Missouri submitted
on April 18, 2013. The applicable standard addressed in this action is
the lead NAAQS promulgated by EPA in 2008. EPA believes that the SIP
submitted by the state satisfies the applicable requirements of the
Clean Air Act (CAA) identified in EPA's 2008 Final Rule and will bring
the area into attainment of the 0.15 microgram per cubic meter (ug/
m\3\) lead NAAQS in the Herculaneum, Missouri area.
In this action, EPA also proposes approval of a revision to the
Missouri SIP related to the 2007 Consent Judgment which was previously
approved into the Missouri SIP as part of an attainment demonstration
for the 1978 lead NAAQS. This revision was submitted to EPA on November
21, 2011.
DATES: Comments must be received on or before August 25, 2014.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R07-
OAR-2014-0448, by one of the following methods:
1. www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for
submitting comments.
2. Email: hertzwu.sara@epa.gov.
3. Mail, Hand Delivery or Courier: Sara Hertz Wu, Environmental
Protection Agency, Air Planning and Development Branch, 11201 Renner
Boulevard, Lenexa, Kansas 66219.
Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R07-OAR-
2014-0448. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change and may be made available online at
www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided,
unless
[[Page 42992]]
the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential Business
Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted
by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI or
otherwise protected through www.regulations.gov or email. The
www.regulations.gov Web site is an ``anonymous access'' system, which
means EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you
provide it in the body of your comment.
If you send an email comment directly to EPA without going through
www.regulations.gov, your email address will be automatically captured
and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket
and made available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic
comment, EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact
information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you
submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties
and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to
consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special
characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or
viruses.
Docket. All documents in the electronic docket are listed in the
www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy.
Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically
in www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Environmental Protection
Agency, Air Planning and Development Branch, 11201 Renner Boulevard,
Lenexa, Kansas. EPA requests that you contact the person listed in the
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to schedule your inspection.
The interested persons wanting to examine these documents should make
an appointment with the office at least 24 hours in advance.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sara Hertz Wu at (913) 551-7316, or
email her at hertzwu.sara@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document ``we,'' ``us,'' or
``our'' refer to EPA.
Table of Contents
I. What is being addressed in this document?
II. Have the requirements for the approval of a SIP revision been
met?
III. What action is EPA taking?
IV. Background
V. Technical Review of the Attainment Demonstration SIP Related to
the 2008 Lead NAAQS
A. Facility Description
B. Model Selection, Meteorological and Emissions Inventory Input
Data
C. Modeling Analysis
1. Base Case Analysis
2. Future Case Analysis
D. Control Strategy
E. Reasonably Available Control Measures (RACM) Including
Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT) and Reasonable
Further Progress (RFP)
F. Attainment Demonstration
G. New Source Review (NSR)
H. Contingency Measures
I. Enforceability
VI. Review of Submittal Related to the 1978 Lead NAAQS
VII. Proposed Action
VIII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. What is being addressed in this document?
In this document, EPA is addressing Missouri's attainment
demonstration SIP for the lead NAAQS nonattainment area of Herculaneum,
Missouri. The applicable standard addressed in this action is the lead
NAAQS promulgated by EPA in 2008. EPA believes that the SIP submitted
by the state satisfies the applicable requirements of the CAA
identified in EPA's Final Rule (73 FR 66964, October 15, 2008), and
demonstrates attainment of the 0.15 microgram per cubic meter (ug/m\3\)
lead NAAQS in the Herculaneum, Missouri area.
In this document, EPA is also addressing a revision to the Missouri
SIP related to the 2007 Consent Judgment which was previously approved
in the Missouri SIP as part of an attainment demonstration for the 1978
lead NAAQS (77 FR 9529, February 17, 2012).
II. Have the requirements for the approval of a SIP revision been met?
The state submission has met the public notice requirements for SIP
submissions in accordance with 40 CFR 51.102. The submission also
satisfied the completeness criteria of 40 CFR part 51, appendix V. In
addition, the revision meets the substantive SIP requirements of the
CAA, including section 110 and implementing regulations.
III. What action is EPA taking?
EPA is proposing to grant full approval of Missouri's attainment
demonstration SIP for the 2008 lead NAAQS. We are also proposing to
approve a revision to the Missouri SIP related to the 1978 lead NAAQS.
We are processing this as a proposed action because we are soliciting
comments on this proposed action. Final rulemaking will occur after
consideration of any comments.
IV. Background
EPA established the NAAQS for lead on October 5, 1978 (43 FR
46246). The 1978 NAAQS for lead is set at a level of 1.5 ug/m\3\ of
air, averaged over a calendar quarter. The Herculaneum, Missouri area
is designated nonattainment for the 1978 lead NAAQS. EPA's most recent
approved revision to Missouri's State Implementation Plan to address
the 1978 lead NAAQS was on February 7, 2012 (77 FR 9529).\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ A complete history of EPA's approval of numerous Missouri
SIPs addressing the 1978 lead NAAQS can be found at 75 FR 52701.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On October 15, 2008, EPA established a new lead NAAQS of 0.15 ug/
m\3\ of air, measured as a rolling three-month average. (73 FR 66964).
On November 22, 2010, EPA designated the City of Herculaneum as
nonattainment for the 2008 lead NAAQS. (75 FR 71033).\2\ Under Section
191(a) of the CAA, Missouri is required to submit to EPA an attainment
demonstration SIP revision for lead and to demonstrate the
nonattainment area will reach attainment of the 2008 lead NAAQS no
later than five years from the date of the nonattainment area
designation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ EPA also designated portions of Iron, Dent, and Reynolds
Counties as nonattainment for the 2008 lead NAAQS. 75 FR 71033.
Those nonattainment areas will be addressed in a separate action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This rulemaking proposes approval of Missouri's SIP to bring the
Herculaneum area into attainment for the 2008 lead NAAQS. This
rulemaking also proposes approval of an amendment to the 2007 Consent
Judgment previously approved in Missouri's SIP related to the 1978 lead
NAAQS.
V. Technical Review of the Attainment Demonstration SIP for the 2008
Lead NAAQS
A. Facility Description
The Doe Run-Herculaneum facility opened in 1892 and, at the time of
the nonattainment designation, was the only primary lead smelter
operating in the United States. The primary lead smelting process
begins with lead concentrate. Doe Run-owned mining and milling
operations located in southeastern Missouri are the primary source of
Doe Run-Herculaneum's lead ore and lead concentrate. Lead concentrate,
typically 45 percent to 50 percent lead by weight, is mined from
underground ore deposits. The ore which contains about six percent lead
by weight, is crushed and then processed into lead concentrate at the
mills. Lead concentrate contains
[[Page 42993]]
approximately 75 percent lead by weight. Lead concentrate was
previously transported from the mines/mills to the Herculaneum smelter
by rail, but since 2002 has been transported exclusively by truck to
Herculaneum. Once delivered to the Herculaneum primary lead smelter,
the process of smelting the lead concentrate into high purity lead can
be divided into three main steps: Sintering, reducing (smelting), and
refining.
The Doe Run smelter was limited to the production of 130,000 tons
of refined lead per year based on a 12-month rolling average period
pursuant to the terms of a Consent Decree applicable to the Herculaneum
Facility entered into by Doe Run, Missouri, and EPA in the United
States District Court in the Eastern District of Missouri, Case No.
4:10-cv-01895-JCH on December 21, 2011 (2011 Consent Decree).
On December 31, 2013, pursuant to the terms of the 2011 Consent
Decree, Doe Run permanently ceased operations of the sintering plant.
On April 30, 2014, the 2011 Consent Decree also required Doe Run to
permanently cease smelting operations and retire the blast furnaces;
however, Doe Run ceased operation of the blast furnaces on December 31,
2013, concurrently with the cessation of operation of the sintering
plant. The only active lead-processing units that may remain after
shutdown are related to refining operations in the Refinery and Strip
Mill building.
The Refinery building is attached to the blast furnace building and
is currently used for refining, drossing, and casting operations. The
Strip Mill is a hot rolling mill used to turn cast refined lead into
long, continuous strips of flat rolled lead as required by certain
customers. These units are addressed in the state's SIP control
strategy and are discussed in more detail in section V.D. of this
document.
In order to maintain operational flexibility at the Refinery and
Strip Mill units, at Doe Run's request, Missouri has included two
possible operating scenarios for Doe Run in its SIP. These scenarios
are referred to as ``Scenario A'' and ``Scenario B'' and are described
in more detail in this document.
On February 24, 2011, Doe Run requested a permit from Missouri to
construct a pyrometallurgical technology that would have substantially
reduced lead emissions than the previous smelter, sintering, and blast
furnace operations. The 2007 Consent Judgment, approved as part of
Missouri's SIP for the 1978 lead NAAQS, prohibited construction of new
lead emitting processes within the Doe Run property fenceline. Doe Run
requested a revision to the 2007 Consent Judgment to allow for the
construction of this new low-lead emitting process next to the existing
smelter within the property fenceline. On November 14, 2011, Missouri
issued the construction permit, revised the 2007 Consent Judgment for
the new pyrometallurgical technology, and submitted a SIP revision to
EPA on November 21, 2011. This requested revision is addressed in
Section VI of this document. To date, Doe Run has not constructed this
new technology.
B. Model Selection, Meteorological and Emissions Inventory Input Data
Missouri conducted air dispersion modeling to evaluate the
effectiveness of the proposed control strategy. The model, AERMOD, was
utilized and is EPA's preferred model for demonstrating attainment of
the lead NAAQS. AERMOD estimates the combined ambient impact of sources
by simulating Gaussian dispersion of emissions plumes. Emission rates,
wind speed and direction, atmospheric mixing heights, terrain, plume
rise from stack emissions, initial dispersion characteristics of
fugitive sources, particle size and density are all factors considered
by the model when estimating ambient impacts. Missouri performed two
dispersion modeling analyses for the 2008 lead NAAQS for the
Herculaneum area. One was an analysis of current conditions to ensure
the model is performing adequately (base case). The second analysis
examined the effectiveness of proposed emission controls (future case).
The results of these analyses will be discussed in more detail in
section V.C. of this document.
Missouri used the meteorological data from the meteorological
monitoring network maintained by Doe Run pursuant to the 2007 Consent
Judgment that is part of the Missouri SIP for the 1978 lead NAAQS. Doe
Run collected site-specific wind speed and direction data for at least
five years. Missouri selected one year of representative meteorological
data for use in the model. The upper air station at Lincoln, Illinois
was used to gather upper level air data including information on the
vertical temperature, moisture and wind characteristics of the
atmosphere. This data set provided confidence that the controls
selected for the attainment demonstration will be effective over a
large variety of meteorological conditions. The meteorological data
were run through AERMOD's pre-processors to make the data usable by the
model.
As required by Section 172(c)(3) of the CAA, a revised emission
inventory was developed for this nonattainment area. The geographic
boundary of the nonattainment area is the city of Herculaneum, located
in Jefferson County, Missouri. The emission inventory data are
specifically for lead emissions. While lead particulate may be
estimated as a portion of PM10 emissions, only lead
emissions are presented in the inventory. A single point source (Doe
Run) drives the lead inventory for the nonattainment area, but other
sources, such as non-point and mobile sources were described in the
emissions inventory for completeness. Doe Run, as a Title V (Part 70)
source is required to submit its emissions inventory annually.
Therefore, the emissions inventory includes the 2011 inventory which
was the most recent inventory available for the facility at the time of
the development of the state's plan. Nonpoint and mobile source
emissions are from the 2008 National Emissions Inventory (NEI), a
dataset prepared triennially through state, tribal and EPA cooperation.
The 2011 lead emission totals for Doe Run Herculaneum are 21.11
tons per year. There are no other point sources in the Herculaneum
nonattainment area that have reported lead emissions to Missouri. The
2008 NEI for nonpoint and mobile source emissions show that these
sources combined comprise approximately 0.15 percent of point source
emissions total and therefore were not included in the modeling
exercise as discreet sources. Emissions from nonpoint and mobile
sources are included in the background concentration.
In accordance with 40 CFR Part 51, appendix W, background
concentrations must be considered when determining NAAQS compliance.
Background concentrations are intended to include impacts attributable
to natural sources, nearby sources (excluding the dominant source(s)),
and unidentified sources. The calculated background concentration
includes all sources of lead not already included in the model run
script. The background concentration includes distant sources of lead,
which may have originally derived from the plant, or reentreinment of
naturally occurring lead in the atmosphere.
In general, the background value is calculated by averaging the
monitored concentrations at monitor sites outside the area of immediate
dominant source impact and on days when the predominant wind direction
was not blowing from the dominant source to the monitors. Missouri
began with all
[[Page 42994]]
monitored days and identified days with no measured one-hour average
wind direction from the smelter. Each monitor was examined in
conjunction with an acceptable wind fan and the concentrations are
averaged on days with no predominant winds from the facility. The
resulting concentration from all the monitors in the evaluation is the
background concentration for the area.
The days selected for the calculation match the model study period.
Therefore, EPA agrees that the calculated value represents the best
estimate of background after all improvements from the 2007 SIP
revision for the 1978 lead NAAQS (2007 SIP Revision) were implemented.
Additional information can be found in the Missouri SIP, Section 4.3.
C. Modeling Analysis
1. Base Case Analysis
As discussed above, Missouri used the AERMOD dispersion model to
run two analyses, the base case and the future case. The base case
evaluated a reasonable estimate of maximum potential emissions to
account for contributing sources based on normal facility operations.
The base case model analysis used the modeling completed for the
attainment demonstration for the 1978 lead NAAQS. See 73 FR 58913.
Missouri, EPA, and Doe Run agreed that the modeling done in 2007 could
be used if the monitoring data verified the SIP attainment
demonstration for the 1978 lead NAAQS. Missouri compared the 2007
script used for the model and the current conditions at the Herculaneum
facility. Actual emissions data from the Missouri Emissions Inventory
System (MOEIS), monitoring data, and information from the smelter were
all reviewed and Missouri verified there were no changes to any
processes or controls at the facility that would invalidate the 2007
script.
The only changes that occurred between the SIP revision for the
1978 lead NAAQS and the current year were changes to the monitoring
network and the fenceline. These changes affected only the receptor
grid and did not have any effect on the current facility emission
points, rates or controls. Additional information regarding the model
used can be found in the docket for this action.
Results from the SIP revision's attainment demonstration for the
1978 lead NAAQS predicted that, after all control measures were
installed, the maximum 3-month rolling average would be 1.492 ug/m\3\.
Missouri found that the maximum 3-month rolling average measured at the
Main Street monitor was 1.160 ug/m\3\ in April 2009. Because the
attainment demonstration modeling was done with worst case scenario
emission rates, it is expected that the actual monitoring values would
be somewhat less than the predicted value. The monitoring data confirm
the accuracy and reliability of the model's inputs and results. EPA
agrees with Missouri's determination that a separate base case
performance run was not necessary for the SIP revision for the 2008
lead NAAQS because the results would be virtually identical to those
obtained in the attainment demonstration for the 1978 lead NAAQS.
2. Future Case Analysis
The future case analysis evaluated the control strategies of the
SIP revision for the 1978 lead NAAQS pursuant to the existing Federally
enforceable requirements that are applicable to the facility as well as
the enforceable 2013 Consent Judgment between Missouri and Doe Run. See
appendix O, Missouri SIP. The future case dispersion modeling is the
attainment demonstration used to verify that the proposed control
strategies will bring the Herculaneum Lead Nonattainment Area into
compliance with the 2008 lead NAAQS.
Missouri selected January 2009 to December 2009 as the base year
because all emission reduction projects required by the SIP revision
for the 1978 lead NAAQS had been completed. That base year inventory
utilizes the emission rates that relate to specific emission activities
at the Doe Run facility. Emission points in the model reflect the
release points for these emissions (for example, a stack), not the
location of the process unit that emitted the pollutant. An emission
rate for each point source was obtained from the best available
information.
For the stack, emissions were validated by stack test data, which
measure actual lead emissions released from the stack. For other
emission rates, such as fugitive emissions, sampling information was
used, if available. If sampling information was not available, emission
rates were calculated based on known factors such as soil lead content,
best available estimates such as traffic counts, or AP-42
guidelines.\3\ For truck haul road emissions, truck traffic counts were
used.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ AP-42, Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors, Fifth
Edition, https://www.epa.gov/ttnchie1/ap42.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Based on the good engineering practice (GEP) requirements for stack
heights (40 CFR 51.1(ii)), the main stack at Doe Run was modeled at
100.75 meters in the base case model run. For the attainment year
demonstration, no emissions will be vented to the main stack,
therefore, none of the stacks contained within the attainment year
model input files exceed 65 meters. All of the proposed stacks meet the
GEP stack height requirements. Additional information regarding the
future case year model inputs can be found in Section 4.2 of the
Missouri SIP and Appendices H-M. EPA agrees with the modeling conducted
by Missouri for its future case analysis.
D. Control Strategy
In order to bring Herculaneum back into attainment of the 2008 Lead
NAAQS, Missouri developed a control strategy for Doe Run-Herculaneum.
One element of the control strategy is the shutdown of the blast
furnaces and sinter plant, which has already occurred and part of the
Federally enforceable 2011 Consent Decree, and requires no additional
action by Missouri to implement into the attainment demonstration. The
significant reductions from the shutdowns are expected to be the
greatest source of emission reductions for the nonattainment area.
Missouri's control strategy addresses the remaining lead emissions from
the Strip Mill and Refinery and fugitive lead emissions generated from
sources such as trucks transporting the material into the facility
using haul roads.
Despite not being able to produce refined lead from ore
concentrates after the shutdown at Herculaneum, Doe Run told Missouri
that it may continue to operate some processes at the Strip Mill and
Refinery. Missouri worked with Doe Run to develop two potential
operating scenarios, ``Scenario A'' and ``Scenario B.'' To address
operation under Scenarios A and B, Missouri and Doe Run-Herculaneum
developed a Consent Judgment (hereinafter referred to as the 2013
Consent Judgment; found at Missouri SIP, Appendix O) as a means to
establish enforceable emission and production limits, controls,
operating parameters, and contingency measures to reduce lead emissions
from point, area, and fugitive lead dust sources in support of
achieving attainment of the 2008 lead NAAQS as soon as practicable
following the shutdown of the blast furnaces and sinter plant. The 2013
Consent Judgment was submitted as part of Missouri's attainment
demonstration SIP for the 2008 lead NAAQS.
Following the shutdown of the sinter plant and blast furnace under
the 2011 Consent Decree, the Strip Mill is subject
[[Page 42995]]
to a production limit of a three-month rolling average of 3,750 tons of
lead produced.
The Refinery is subject to a production limit of a three month
rolling average of 21,250 tons of lead produced after the shutdown of
the sinter plant and blast furnace under the 2011 Consent Decree. The
process at the Refinery building, if retained, will be more
appropriately re-characterized as a re-melter. The building would
consist of re-melting, casting and alloy-mixing to meet end-user demand
from refined lead brought to the facility from elsewhere.
Scenario A requires that unless superseded in the 2013 Consent
Judgment, all applicable provisions from previous SIP revisions shall
remain in effect. Therefore, operations at the current Refinery
building shall continue to comply with the building ventilation/
particle containment, capture and control campaign outlined in the 2007
SIP Revision and 2009 SIP Supplement for the 1978 lead NAAQS See 73 FR
58913; 75 FR 52701; and 77 FR 9529.
Additionally, if operations at the Refinery building are retained
after the 2011 Consent Decree shutdown date, the 2013 Consent Judgment
provides that Baghouses 8 and 9 shall be subject to
an emission limit of 3.5 lb of lead/24 hours. The shutdown under the
2011 Consent Decree eliminates Baghouse 7. The new emission
limit represents a significant reduction from previous emissions.
The 2013 Consent Judgment prescribes a stack testing regimen to
demonstrate compliance with the emission limits under conditions of
representative production. Further, if Doe Run chooses to operate under
Scenario A, the Refinery production limit of a three-month rolling
average of 21,250 tons of lead produced remains in effect.
Doe Run will operate under Scenario B if it becomes cost effective
to increase production at the current Refinery building. In Scenario B,
all operating parameters used in Scenario A will remain in effect,
except that the production limit at the Refinery will be increased to a
three-month rolling average of 62,500 tons of lead produced. All the
kettle heat stack emissions must be routed to Baghouse 9 with
an accompanying increase in baghouse capacity. As described below, an
increase in capacity at Baghouse 9 is also listed as a
contingency measure. If Doe Run chooses to operate under Scenario B,
the modification to the baghouse must occur before implementation as a
contingency measure and the remaining contingency measures will be
triggered in a different order, as discussed in Section V.H., below and
as outlined in the Missouri SIP, Section 8 and Appendix O. Baghouse
9 will be subject to an emission limit of 3.5 pounds of lead
per day under Scenario B.
The 2013 Consent Judgment specifies that under either operating
scenario Doe Run could shrink the current fenceline to a minimum
distance outlined by the modeled attainment concentration isopleths
\4\/ambient air quality boundary or ``zone of public access
preclusion,'' surrounding the remaining process building as outlined in
the Missouri SIP. See section V.H. of this document. Pursuant to the
2013 Consent Judgment, Doe Run must notify Missouri of any proposed
changes to the fenceline, but if the changes to the fenceline are not
less than the ``zone of public access preclustion,'' the changes to do
not require a formal SIP revision.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Isopleths are lines connection receptor points of the same
value, in this case: The same maximum lead air concentration equal
to the standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Missouri determined that allowing Doe Run the flexibility to modify
or establish a new fenceline within a modeled attainment boundary will
benefit the community by expediting any future redevelopment/land reuse
plans.
Although the main smelting operations are shutdown under the 2011
Consent Decree, Missouri expects some emissions to be generated by the
trucks transporting refined lead products to and from the facility via
haul roads. Doe Run continues to be subject to any terms of the
previously approved SIP for the 1978 lead NAAQS standard that are not
specifically superseded by the 2013 Consent Judgment, including
provisions related to the control of fugitive emissions. Two of the
contingency measures discussed in section V.H., below, also address
fugitive emissions.
Further, under the 2013 Consent Judgment, Missouri will continue to
utilize its lead monitoring site network in accordance with the 2013
Missouri Ambient Air Quality Monitoring Plan, which was approved by EPA
on November 22, 2013. Doe Run will continue to collect data from all of
these monitors until EPA has formally designated the Herculaneum
nonattainment area as attainment for lead, until Doe Run no longer owns
or operates the property, when Doe Run ceases operations of air
emission units pursuant to the 2011 Consent Decree, or upon approval by
Missouri that continued monitoring is not necessary.
Doe Run will also continue operation of two continuous particulate
samplers located at the Broad Street monitoring site and the ``City
Hall'' monitoring site. The 2013 Consent Judgment requires Doe Run to
report quarterly to Missouri (1) any day that exceeds a reported
concentration of 0.5 ug/m\3\ of lead; or (2) any day that exceeds a
reported concentration of 0.15 ug/m\3\ of lead and that falls on every
sixth day national monitoring schedule. The analysis shall include a
review of the continuous particulate monitoring, the daily ambient
concentrations, wind speed and direction data, precipitation data, a
summary of process throughputs, an identification of malfunctions,
process upsets or other conditions that may be expected to contribute
to ambient impact, and a summary of the analyses as described above.
Doe Run will continue to collect data from all of these monitors
until EPA has formally designated the Herculaneum nonattainment area as
attainment for lead, until Doe Run no longer owns or operates the
property, when Doe Run ceases operations of air emission units pursuant
to the 2011 Consent Decree, or upon approve by Missouri that continued
monitoring is not necessary.
Doe Run has been collecting meteorological monitoring under its
previously approved SIP. Following the shutdown of the sinter plant and
blast furnace pursuant to the 2011 Consent Decree, Doe Run will no
longer be required to collect data at the forty (40) meter station,
provided a year of additional data has been collected and no future
emissions units will vent to the main stack. Doe Run will only be
required to operate one ten (10) meter meteorological station, the
location of which must be approved by Missouri. Meteorological
monitoring will be conducted pursuant to a quality assurance project
plan, which must be approved by Missouri. Doe Run will continue to
conduct meteorological monitoring until EPA has formally designated the
Herculaneum nonattainment area as attainment for lead, until Doe Run no
longer owns or operates the property, when Doe Run ceases operations of
air emission units pursuant to the 2011 Consent Decree, or upon
approval by Missouri that continued monitoring is not necessary.
EPA believes that Missouri's control strategy implemented through
the 2013 Consent Judgment will bring the area into attainment of the
2008 Lead NAAQS.
[[Page 42996]]
E. Reasonably Available Control Measures (RACM) Including Reasonably
Available Control Technology (RACT) and Reasonable Further Progress
(RFP)
Section 172(c)(1) of the CAA requires nonattainment areas to
implement all RACM, including emissions reductions through the adoption
of RACT, as expeditiously as practicable. EPA interprets this as
requiring all nonattainment areas to consider all available controls
and to implement all measures that are determined to be reasonably
available, except that measures which will not assist the area to more
expeditiously attain the standard are not required to be
implemented.\5\ In March 2012, EPA issued guidance titled,
``Implementation of Reasonably Available Control Measures (RACM) for
Controlling Lead Emissions'' (RACM Guidance).\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ See 58 FR 67751, Dec. 22 1993, for a discussion of this
interpretation as it relates to lead.
\6\ https://www.epa.gov/oar/lead/pdfs/2012ImplementationGuide.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 172(c)(2) of the CAA requires areas designated as
nonattainment for criteria pollutants to include a demonstration of
Reasonable Further Progress (RFP) in attainment demonstrations. Section
171(1) of the CAA defines RFP as annual incremental reductions in
emissions of the relevant air pollutants as required by Part D, or
emission reductions that may reasonably be required by EPA to ensure
attainment of the applicable NAAQS by the applicable date. Part D does
not include specific RFP requirements for lead.
Missouri performed a RACM analysis in compliance with the RACM
Guidance. As stated in the final lead NAAQS rule, RFP is satisfied by
the strict adherence to a compliance schedule which is expected to
periodically yield significant emission reductions. Missouri has
determined that the shutdown of the sinter plant by December 31, 2013,
and the blast furnace by April 30, 2014, addresses both RACM and RFP
based on the significant decrease in emissions that will result from
these shutdowns. In addition, Scenarios A and B, which include
production limits, emission limits for the remaining processes, and an
optional scenario of re-routing kettle heat stacks to a baghouse will
further reduce the potential emissions from the facility. Scenarios A
and B have been modeled and meet the lead NAAQS and also comply with
RACM and RFP.
The shutdown of the sinter and blast furnace are discrete control
measures that have already occurred. All known significant sources of
lead emissions have been eliminated, controlled, or ruled out as being
ineffective or not viable, consistent with EPA's RACT Guidance.
The control strategy is not staggered or phased, therefore, ambient
air quality concentrations are expected to drop at or below attainment
levels immediately after implementation of the control strategy. RFP is
addressed by the control strategy occurring in a timeframe consistent
with the CAA and the 2011 Consent Decree. Further, as a result of the
shutdown of the sintering plant and blast furnace, all of the
nonattainment area's ambient air quality monitors are reporting Pb
concentrations below the 2008 lead NAAQS for the three-month rolling
average for January through March 2014. See https://www.dnr.mo.gov/env/apcp/docs/leadmonitordata.pdf.
EPA proposes to approve Missouri's SIP as meeting sections
172(c)(1) and (c)(2) of the CAA.
F. Attainment Demonstration
CAA Section 172 requires a state to submit a plan for each of its
nonattainment areas that demonstrates attainment of the applicable
ambient air quality standard as expeditiously as practicable, but no
later than the specified attainment date. This demonstration should
consist of four parts: (1) Technical analyses that locate, identify,
and quantify sources of emissions that are contributing to violations
of the lead NAAQS; (2) analyses of future year emissions reductions and
air quality improvement resulting from already-adopted national, state,
and local programs and from potential new state and local measures to
meet the RACT, RACM, and RFP requirements in the area; (3) adopted
emissions reduction measures with schedules for implementation and (4)
contingency measures required under section 172(c)(9) of the CAA.
The requirements for the first two parts are described in the
sections on emissions inventories and RACM/RACT, above and in the
sections on air quality modeling and the attainment demonstration that
follows immediately below. Requirements for the third and fourth parts
are described in the sections on the control strategy and the
contingency measures, respectively.
As stated in section V.C.2, above the future case dispersion
modeling is the attainment demonstration used to verify that the
proposed control strategies will bring the area into attainment. In
order to determine whether the planned emission reduction strategies
will result in attainment of the NAAQS, the modeled maximum lead air
concentration (based on a rolling three-month average) is added to the
calculated background lead concentration of 0.032 ug/m\3\ for each
scenario. See section V.B. The sum is the predicted maximum three-month
rolling average lead air concentration.
During the attainment model run, with receptors spaced 50-meters
apart at the current fenceline, Scenario A (as described in section
V.D.) resulted in a modeled maxmimum three-month rolling average lead
concentration of 0.117 ug/m\3\. Scenario B (as described in section
V.D.) modeled a maximum three-month rolling average lead concentration
of 0.098 ug/m\3\.
The model successfully demonstrates attainment of the 2008 Lead
NAAQS (0.15 ug/m\3\) for both operating scenarios based on the
implementation of the required control measures as described above. The
differences between the attainment year and base year emissions rates
are based on changes to the plant operations and what operations will
remain in the future. All of the process points associated with the
sintering and blast furnaces will be removed. Fugitive emissions from
these buildings will be greatly reduced by the removal of these
processes. Several haul roads were eliminated and re-routed due to the
changes.
The haul roads will no longer go through the old city center, but
enter from the south over a new bridge on Joachim Creek. In addition,
the remaining emission points and rates for the Strip Mill, Refinery
and Kettle Heat Stacks will be changed to reflect the emission and
production limits at the facility for both scenarios, as well as the
elimination of the kettle heat stack stream in modeled Scenario B.
In response to public comment, Missouri refined the same attainment
model run by placing receptors inside the current fenceline at 10-meter
spacing to determine the modeled attainment concentration isopleths and
to establish new non-ambient zones for both scenarios. When conducting
this refined modeling, the non-ambient zone for Scenario A includes the
entire non-ambient zone for Scenario B and is slightly larger.
Therefore, the non-ambient zone for Scenario A established the
attainment boundary/zone of public access preclusion at the Strip Mill
and Refinery buildings. These minimum distances are enforceable through
the 2013 Consent Judgment.
The modeling results demonstrate a margin of safety through
conservative background model input assumptions. See Missouri SIP,
section 6, appendices H-M, O.
[[Page 42997]]
EPA conducted an independent review of Missouri's modeling and
proposes to approve Missouri's SIP as meeting section 172 of the CAA.
G. New Source Review (NSR)
Within the CAA, Part D of Title I requires SIP submittals to
include a permit program for the construction and operation of new and
modified major stationary sources. The current definition of
nonattainment areas in Missouri, which for lead includes the city of
Herculaneum, Missouri, is provided in Missouri rule 10 CSR 10-6.020.
For installations in a nonattainment area, Missouri rule 10 CSR 10-
6.060 requires a permit for construction of, or major modification to,
an installation with potential to annually emit one hundred (100) tons
or more of a nonattainment pollutant, or a permit for a modification at
a major source with potential to annually emit one thousand two hundred
(1,200) pounds of lead. Both rules have previously been approved by EPA
as part of the SIP, as meeting the requirements of section 173 of the
CAA, and EPA implementing rules at 40 CFR 51.165. See 78 FR 19602; 78
FR 37457.
H. Contingency Measures
As required by CAA section 172(c)(9), the SIP submittal includes
contingency measures to be implemented if EPA determines that the area
has failed to make reasonable further progress or if the area fails to
attain the NAAQS by December 2015. If the air quality data for any
three-month rolling period after the implementation of the production
and emission limits identified in the 2013 Consent Judgment exceeds the
0.15 ug/m\3\ three-month rolling average lead standard, Doe Run shall
implement the contingency measures set forth in the 2013 Consent
Judgment. Missouri may also require implementation of contingency
measures if Doe Run fails to implement the control strategy projects in
accordance with the 2013 Consent Judgment.
The 2013 Consent Judgment contains the following contingency
measures: Project 1: Increased in-plant road cleaning; Project 2:
Fugitive Emission Reduction Study; Project 3: Route emissions from
Refinery kettle heat stacks to Baghouse 9; Project 4: Route
Baghouse 9 emissions to the main stack; Project 5: Additional
filtered ventilation to the Strip Mill building.
The contingency measures will be completed on an as-needed basis in
the order listed. For example, Project 1 would be implemented after
notification from Missouri of a first NAAQS violation that is monitored
for three calendar months after the implementation of the control
measures identified in the 2013 Consent Judgment. Project 2 would be
implemented after notification from Missouri of a violation that is
monitored three rolling calendar months after the completion of the
first contingency project in the time frame set forth for that project.
Project 3 would be implemented after notification from Missouri of a
violation that is monitored three rolling calendar months after the
completion of the second contingency project in the time frame set
forth for that project. Project 3 is the same as the control measure
for Scenario B so if this project is implemented as a control measure,
Project 4 would be triggered in its place. Project 3 would be
implemented after notification from Missouri of a violation that is
monitored three rolling calendar months after the completion of the
third contingency project in the time frame set forth for that project.
Project 5 would be implemented after notification from Missouri of a
violation that is monitored three rolling calendar months after the
completion of the fourth contingency project in the time frame set
forth for that project. The 2013 Consent Judgment contains a procedure
for submitting additional new contingency measures when they are
completed.
Additional information, including emissions reductions expected
from the proposed contingency measures, can be found in the Missouri
SIP, Section 8.
Doe Run must notify Missouri within ten days of completion of any
contingency measure. Sixty days after completion, Doe Run will propose
an additional qualified contingency measures to be added to the 2013
Consent Judgment, which will become part of the 2013 Consent Judgment
and fully enforceable upon approval by Missouri. These additional
contingency measures will also be subject to EPA approval as part of
the SIP. Doe Run may also substitute new control(s) for the identified
contingency measure(s) if Doe Run identifies and demonstrates to
Missouri and EPA's satisfaction that the alternative control measure(s)
would achieve attainment with the 2008 Lead NAAQS. The 2013 Consent
Judgment also allows Doe Run to change the order of implementation for
contingency measures and time frames for completion upon approval by
Missouri.
Changes to contingency measures would require a public hearing at
the state level and EPA approval as a formal SIP revision. Until such
time as EPA approves any substitute measure, the measures included in
the approved SIP will be the enforceable measure. EPA does not intend
to approve any substitutions that cannot be implemented in the same
timeframe as the original measure. These measures will help ensure
compliance with the 2008 Lead NAAQS as well as meet the requirements of
Section 172(c)(9) of the CAA.
EPA proposes to approve Missouri's SIP as meeting section 172(c)(9)
of the CAA.
I. Enforceability
As specified in section 172(c)(6) and section 110(a)(2)(A) of the
CAA, and 57 FR 13556, all measures and other elements in the SIP must
be enforceable by the state and EPA. The enforceable document included
in Missouri's SIP submittal is the 2013 Consent Judgment. The 2013
Consent Judgment contains all control and contingency measures with
enforceable dates for implementation. The only exception relates to the
Federally enforceable dates found in the 2011 Consent Decree. The 2013
Consent Judgment also includes monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting
requirements to ensure that the control and contingency measures are
met. The state adopted the 2013 Consent Judgment into Missouri's state
regulations on June 19, 2013, making it state-enforceable. Upon EPA
approval of the SIP submission, the 2013 Consent Judgment will become
state and Federally enforceable, and enforceable by citizens under
section 304 of the CAA.
We note that the 2013 Consent Judgment also contains provisions for
stipulated penalties should Doe Run fail to comply with provisions of
the 2013 Consent Judgment. The 2011 Consent Decree also contains
stipulated penalty provisions. EPA is not bound by the state's 2013
Consent Judgment penalties, and would enforce against violations of
this document under section 113 of the CAA or other Federal
authorities, rather than the 2013 Consent Judgment, if EPA approves the
2013 Consent Judgment, as proposed today, into the SIP.
EPA proposes to approve Missouri's SIP as meeting sections
172(c)(6) and 110(a)(2)(A) of the CAA, and 57 FR 13556.
VI. Review of Submittal Related to the 1978 Lead NAAQS
On November 21, 2011, Missouri submitted a SIP revision related to
a Consent Judgment that was previously approved by EPA as part of
Missouri's SIP for the 1978 lead NAAQS. (77 FR 9529). The Missouri SIP
related to the 1978 lead NAAQS, which includes the 2007 Consent
Judgment, currently
[[Page 42998]]
prohibits construction of new lead emission processes within the Doe
Run property fenceline. Missouri is requesting that EPA approve a
revision to that 2007 Consent Judgment. In order to allow Doe Run to
construct a new low-lead emitting technology at the site, the 2007
Consent Judgment must be revised.
Missouri has submitted for approval a revision to Section 2.B.1. of
the 2007 Consent Judgment to state that Doe Run shall not relocate any
existing pyrometallurgical lead smelting, sintering, or blast furnace
operations or construct any new pyrometallurgical lead smelting,
sintering, or blast furnace operations in the fenceline. The other
provisions of the 2007 Consent Judgment would remain in effect unless
superseded by the 2013 Consent Judgment. Missouri has appropriately
modeled all potential operating scenarios for compliance with the 1978
and 2008 lead NAAQS. This revision to the 2007 Consent Judgment does
not impact the modeling analyses to show attainment of the 1978 or 2008
lead NAAQS.
The 2007 Consent Judgment was previously approved in Missouri's
SIP. The revision to the 2007 Consent Judgment, if approved by EPA,
will be Federally enforceable under section 172(c)(6) and section
110(a)(2)(A) of the CAA.
The revision meets the requirements of section 110 of the CAA,
therefore, EPA proposes to approve this revision of the Missouri SIP.
VII. Proposed Action
EPA is proposing to grant full approval of Missouri's attainment
demonstration SIP for the 2008 Lead National Ambient NAAQS
nonattainment area of Herculaneum, Missouri. EPA believes that the SIP
submitted by the state satisfies the applicable requirements of the CAA
identified in EPA's Final Rule (73 FR 66964 October 15, 2008), and will
result in attainment of the 0.15 ug/m\3\ lead NAAQS in the Herculaneum,
Missouri area. In this action, EPA also proposes to approve a revision
to the Missouri SIP related to the 2007 Consent Judgment which was
previously approved into the Missouri SIP as part of an attainment
demonstration for the 1978 lead NAAQS (77 FR 9529).
VIII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this
action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' and therefore is not
subject to review under Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 (76 FR 3821,
January 21, 2011). This action is also not subject to Executive Order
13211, ``Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001). This
action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and
imposes no additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law.
Accordingly, the Administrator certifies that this rule will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities
under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). Because
this rule approves pre-existing requirements under state law and does
not impose any additional enforceable duty beyond that required by
state law, it does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4).
This rule also does not have tribal implications because it will
not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on
the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or
on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal
Government and Indian tribes, as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65
FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This action also does not have Federalism
implications because it does not have substantial direct effects on the
States, on the relationship between the national government and the
States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the
various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64
FR 43255, August 10, 1999). Thus Executive Order 13132 does not apply
to this action. This action merely approves a state rule implementing a
Federal standard, and does not alter the relationship or the
distribution of power and responsibilities established in the CAA. This
rule also is not subject to Executive Order 13045, ``Protection of
Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks'' (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997) because it approves a state rule implementing a
Federal standard.
In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. In this
context, in the absence of a prior existing requirement for the State
to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS), EPA has no authority to
disapprove a state submission for failure to use VCS. It would thus be
inconsistent with applicable law for EPA when it reviews a state
submission, to use VCS in place of a state submission that otherwise
satisfies the provisions of the CAA. Thus, the requirements of section
12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995
(15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply. This action does not impose an
information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). Burden is defined at 5
CFR 1320.3(b).
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. EPA will submit 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 United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register.
A major rule cannot take effect until 60 days after it is published
in the Federal Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined
by 5 U.S.C. 804(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 September 22, 2014. 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.
Parties with objections to this direct final rule are encouraged to
file a comment in response to the parallel notice of proposed
rulemaking for this action published in the proposed rules section of
today's Federal Register, rather than file an immediate petition for
judicial review of this direct final rule, so that EPA can withdraw
this direct final rule and address the comment in the final rulemaking.
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, Carbon monoxide,
Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen
dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds.
[[Page 42999]]
Dated: July 14, 2014.
Karl Brooks,
Regional Administrator, Region 7.
[FR Doc. 2014-17480 Filed 7-23-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
