Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; State of Missouri, 52701-52708 [2010-21446]

Agencies

• ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 166 (Friday, August 27, 2010)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 52701-52708]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-21446]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R07-OAR-2008-0538; FRL-9193-8]


Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; State of 
Missouri

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Supplemental proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA proposes to grant full approval of Missouri's attainment 
demonstration State Implementation Plan (SIP) and control strategy for 
the lead National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) nonattainment 
area of Herculaneum, Missouri. This proposed action supplements the 
proposed conditional approval published by EPA on October 8, 2008, and 
explains why EPA now believes full approval is appropriate. The 
applicable standard addressed in this action is the lead NAAQS 
promulgated by EPA in 1978. EPA believes that the SIP submitted by the 
state satisfies the applicable requirements of the Clean Air Act 
identified in EPA's October 2008 proposal, and demonstrates attainment 
of the 1.5 microgram per cubic meter ([mu]g/m\3\) lead NAAQS in the 
Herculaneum, Missouri area. This action does not address any 
obligations which Missouri may have relative to the revised lead NAAQS 
promulgated by EPA in 2008.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before September 27, 2010.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R07-
OAR-2008-0538, by one of the following methods:
    1. www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for 
submitting comments.
    2. E-mail: jay.michael@epa.gov.
    3. Mail: Michael Jay, Environmental Protection Agency, Air Planning 
and Development Branch, 901 North 5th Street, Kansas City, Kansas 
66101.
    4. Hand Delivery or Courier: Deliver your comments to: Michael Jay, 
Environmental Protection Agency, Air Planning and Development Branch, 
901 North 5th Street, Kansas City, Kansas 66101.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R07-OAR-
2008-0538. 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 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 e-mail. 
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 e-
mail comment directly to EPA without going through www.regulations.gov, 
your e-mail 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, 901 North 5th Street, 
Kansas City, 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: Michael Jay at (913) 551-7460, or e-
mail him at jay.michael@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document ``we,'' ``us,'' or 
``our'' refer to EPA.

Table of Contents

I. Background
    A. The SIP Process
    1. What is a SIP?
    2. What is the Federal approval process for a SIP?
    3. What does Federal approval of a state regulation mean to me?
    B. Background for the Proposal
II. Summary of the State Submittal
    1. Plant Ventilation Design
    2. Ventilation Study Objectives
    3. Ventilation Study Results
    4. Ventilation Limits
    5. Ongoing Ventilation Testing and Reporting Requirements
    6. Winter Construction Work Practices Manual Modification
    7. Enforceability
III. Proposed Action
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

[[Page 52702]]

I. Background

A. The SIP Process

1. What is a SIP?
    Section 110 of the Clean Air Act (CAA or Act) requires states to 
develop air pollution regulations and control strategies to ensure that 
state air quality meets the national ambient air quality standards 
established by EPA. These ambient standards are established under 
section 109 of the CAA, and they currently address six criteria 
pollutants. These pollutants are: Carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide, 
ozone, lead, particulate matter, and sulfur dioxide.
    Each state must submit these regulations and control strategies to 
us for approval and incorporation into the Federally-enforceable SIP. 
Each Federally-approved SIP protects air quality primarily by 
addressing air pollution at its point of origin. These SIPs can be 
extensive, containing state regulations or other enforceable documents 
and supporting information such as emission inventories, monitoring 
networks, and modeling demonstrations.
2. What is the Federal approval process for a SIP?
    In order for state regulations to be incorporated into the 
Federally-enforceable SIP, states must formally adopt the regulations 
and control strategies consistent with state and Federal requirements. 
This process generally includes a public notice, public hearing, public 
comment period, and a formal adoption by a state-authorized rulemaking 
body.
    Once a state rule, regulation, or control strategy is adopted, the 
state submits it to EPA for inclusion into the Federally-approved SIP. 
We must provide public notice and seek additional public comment 
regarding the proposed Federal action on the state submission. If 
adverse comments are received, they must be addressed prior to any 
final Federal action by EPA.
    All state regulations and supporting information approved by EPA 
under section 110 of the CAA are incorporated into the Federally-
approved SIP. Records of such SIP actions are maintained in the Code of 
Federal Regulations (CFR) at Title 40, Part 52, entitled Approval and 
Promulgation of Implementation Plans. The actual state regulations 
which are approved are not reproduced in their entirety in the CFR 
outright but are incorporated by reference, which means that EPA has 
approved a given state regulation with a specific effective date.
3. What does Federal approval of a state regulation mean to me?
    Enforcement of the state regulation before and after it is 
incorporated into the Federally-approved SIP is primarily a state 
responsibility. However, after the regulation is Federally approved, 
EPA is authorized to take enforcement action against violators. 
Citizens are also offered legal recourse to address violations as 
described in section 304 of the CAA.

B. Background for the Proposal

    The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) established the National 
Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) for lead on October 5, 1978 (43 FR 
46246). The 1978 NAAQS for lead is set at a level of 1.5 micrograms 
([mu]g) of lead per cubic meter (m\3\) of air, averaged over a calendar 
quarter. The Herculaneum, Missouri area is designated nonattainment for 
the 1978 lead NAAQS. On November 12, 2008, EPA revised the lead NAAQS 
(73 FR 66964), lowering the level to 0.15 [mu]g/m\3\ calculated over a 
three-month rolling average. Missouri is required to bring any 
nonattainment areas into attainment of the 2008 lead NAAQS according to 
the timeline established in the Clean Air Act and in the November 12, 
2008 final rulemaking. The final rulemaking also specifies that the 1.5 
[mu]g/m\3\ standard will not be revoked for any current nonattainment 
area until the affected area submits, and EPA approves, an attainment 
demonstration which addresses the attainment of the new 0.15 [mu]g/m\3\ 
Pb NAAQS. EPA has not yet designated areas with respect to the 2008 
NAAQS.
    This rulemaking proposes approval of the Missouri SIP to bring the 
Herculaneum area into attainment of the 1.5 [mu]g/m\3\ NAAQS. However, 
although EPA believes this SIP is directionally correct in terms of 
achieving reductions in lead emissions, this proposed action does not 
address any future obligation of the state to address the revised 
standard.
    During the 1980s and 1990s, Missouri submitted and EPA approved a 
number of SIP revisions for lead to address ambient lead concentrations 
in various areas of the state. One such area was Herculaneum, Missouri, 
where a primary lead smelter has been in operation since 1892. The 
primary lead smelter is currently owned and operated by the Doe Run 
Resources Company (hereafter referred to as ``Doe Run''). Doe Run-
Herculaneum is the only currently operating primary lead smelter in the 
United States.
    The Herculaneum area was designated nonattainment for lead in 1991 
(56 FR 56694, November 6, 1991, codified at 40 CFR 81.326), pursuant to 
new authorities provided by the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990. The 
state also became subject to new SIP requirements under part D, Title I 
of the Act, added by the 1990 amendments. A revised SIP meeting the 
part D requirements was subsequently submitted in 1994. The plan 
established June 30, 1995, as the date by which the Herculaneum area 
was to attain compliance with the lead standard. However, the plan did 
not result in attainment of the standard and monitored ambient air lead 
concentrations in the Herculaneum area continued to show exceedances of 
the standard. Therefore, on August 15, 1997, after taking and 
responding to public comments, EPA published a notice in the Federal 
Register (62 FR 43647) finding that the Herculaneum nonattainment area 
had failed to attain the lead standard by the June 30, 1995, deadline.
    On January 10, 2001, Missouri submitted a revised SIP to EPA for 
the Herculaneum area. The SIP contained control measures to reduce lead 
emissions to attain the standard, including building enclosure and 
ventilation projects, implementation of work practice standards, 
process throughput restrictions and hours of operation limitations. As 
required by section 172(c)(9) of the Act, the plan also included 
contingency measures to be implemented in the event that there were 
future exceedances of the lead standard in Herculaneum. These consisted 
of additional building enclosures and process controls, and a 
production curtailment measure. A 2000 Work Practices Manual, 2001 
Consent Judgment, and Missouri rule 10 CSR 10-6.120 ``Restriction of 
Emissions of Lead from Specific Lead Smelter-Refinery Installations'' 
were also included as part of the SIP submittal. The SIP established 
August 14, 2002, as the attainment date for the area. The plan included 
permitting, monitoring, and reporting requirements, an emissions 
inventory, implementation of all reasonably available control measures 
as expeditiously as practicable, provided for attainment of the NAAQS 
as demonstrated using modeling, provisions for reasonable further 
progress and implementation of contingency measures, and assurances 
that the state would be able to implement the plan, thereby satisfying 
the CAA section 172(c) nonattainment plan provision requirements. EPA

[[Page 52703]]

approved the SIP on April 16, 2002 (67 FR 18497).
    Doe Run and the Missouri Department of Natural Resources (MDNR) 
operate co-located monitors at the Main Street/City Hall monitoring 
location, and in several other lead monitoring locations in the 
nonattainment area. These monitors are used to show whether or not the 
area is in attainment of the standard. Following the August 2002 
attainment date, the Herculaneum area monitored attainment of the lead 
standard for 10 consecutive calendar quarters. In 2005, air quality 
monitors in the area again reported exceedances of the 1.5 [mu]g/m\3\ 
lead NAAQS in the first two calendar quarters in 2005. Monitored values 
are quality assured by MDNR and properly entered into the Air Quality 
System, EPA's repository for ambient air monitoring data. The values 
for the first two quarters of 2005 exceed the 1.5 [mu]g/m\3\ lead 
standard and, therefore, constitute violations of the standard for each 
quarter.
    In accordance with the plan approved in 2002, a violation would 
trigger implementation of a contingency measure. The first set of 
contingency measures, consisting of additional building enclosures and 
process controls, was fully implemented by Doe Run prior to any 
monitored exceedances of the lead NAAQS. The second contingency 
measure, a production curtailment, was implemented following exceedance 
of the lead standard in the first and second calendar quarters of 2005. 
Despite implementation of all contingency measures, air monitors in 
Herculaneum recorded values above the 1.5 [mu]g/m\3\ lead standard in 
the third quarter of 2005.
    Because the exceedance recorded in the third quarter of 2005 
occurred despite implementation of all the control measures contained 
in the SIP, including all contingency measures developed and 
implemented to address exceedances, EPA proposed a SIP call on December 
19, 2005 (70 FR 75093). The SIP call proposed to find the SIP 
substantially inadequate to attain and maintain the NAAQS for lead and 
proposed to require the state to revise the lead SIP for Herculaneum.
    EPA finalized the SIP call on April 14, 2006 (71 FR 19432). The SIP 
call notified the state of EPA's finding that the SIP was substantially 
inadequate to provide for attainment and maintenance of the lead NAAQS 
in Herculaneum, and required the state to submit a revised SIP. Section 
110(k)(5) of the CAA provides that after EPA makes a finding that a 
plan is substantially inadequate, it may establish a reasonable 
deadline for correcting the deficiencies, but the date can be no later 
than 18 months after the state is notified of the finding. Based on a 
number of considerations detailed in the final rule, the SIP call 
required submission of the revisions within twelve months following 
date of signature of the final rulemaking.
    Along with a deadline for SIP submittal by the state to EPA, the 
final SIP call established the date by which the state must demonstrate 
attainment of the standard in Herculaneum. Sections 110(k)(5) and 
172(d) of the Act provide that EPA may adjust any SIP deadlines that 
are applicable under the Act, except that the attainment date may not 
be adjusted unless it has elapsed. For Herculaneum, the attainment date 
had been August 2002 (five years after the state was notified that the 
area failed to attain). The attainment date had elapsed, and the area 
was not attaining the standard. The attainment date could therefore be 
adjusted pursuant to section 110(k)(5) and section 172(d) of the Act, 
and the state was required to provide a plan for attainment as 
expeditiously as practicable. Based on information described in the 
final SIP call rule, EPA established an attainment date of April 7, 
2008, two years from the date of signature of the final rulemaking. 
MDNR formally commented in support of the timelines contained in the 
SIP call, including the SIP submittal deadline and attainment date.
    EPA required MDNR to submit several specific plan elements to EPA 
in order to correct the inadequacy of the SIP. These specific elements 
were: (1) A revised emissions inventory, (2) a modeling demonstration 
showing what reductions would be needed to bring the area back into 
attainment of the lead NAAQS, (3) adoption of measures to achieve the 
reductions determined necessary by the modeled attainment 
demonstration, with enforceable schedules for implementing the measures 
as expeditiously as practicable, and (4) contingency measures meeting 
the requirements of Section 172(c)(9) of the CAA.
    MDNR completed its revision to the SIP, and on April 26, 2007, the 
Missouri Air Conservation Commission approved the SIP revision after 
completing the required public notification, public hearing and comment 
period. On May 31, 2007, EPA received Missouri's revised SIP for the 
Herculaneum area. MDNR submitted supplemental information to EPA on 
March 19, 2008.
    On October 8, 2008, EPA proposed conditional approval of Missouri's 
SIP submission (see 73 FR 58913). EPA stated that the proposal to 
conditionally approve the SIP was due to the lack of enforceable 
conditions associated with one of the control measures. It provided a 
process to establish ventilation requirements, but MDNR had not yet 
specified these requirements. The ventilation study and resulting 
enforceable conditions and reduction in building fugitive emissions are 
significant elements of the proposed control strategy, and these 
projected emissions reductions contribute significantly to the control 
strategy modeling showing attainment. EPA did not believe it was 
appropriate to give full approval to the SIP until the ventilation 
study and associated enforceable conditions were submitted by the 
state, reviewed by EPA, and made available for public comment. EPA 
proposed conditional approval of the SIP as it provided substantial 
progress toward improving air quality, and the state asserted that it 
would adopt and submit the missing elements to EPA no later than one 
year following any EPA approval of the plan.
    In the proposed conditional approval notice, EPA indicated that if 
Missouri submitted adequate ventilation control provisions prior to EPA 
taking final action on the proposed conditional approval, EPA would 
publish a supplemental proposed rule relating to those provisions, 
which might include a proposal to fully approve the SIP revision. EPA 
received the SIP revision addressing ventilation controls on September 
3, 2009, following adoption by the Missouri Air Conservation Commission 
on July 29, 2009. EPA believes that the SIP revision contains 
enforceable ventilation conditions to ensure adequate building particle 
capture. Our technical review of the submission is detailed below. With 
the addition of this September 3, 2009 SIP supplemental revision, EPA 
proposes full approval of Missouri's SIP to bring Herculaneum into 
attainment of the 1.5 [mu]g/m\3\ lead NAAQS.
    Since the SIP call was issued in April 2006, Herculaneum air 
monitors have recorded additional exceedances of the quarterly lead 
NAAQS. In total, since the third calendar quarter of 2002, exceedances 
have occurred in the first, second, and third quarters of 2005; first, 
third, and fourth quarters of 2006; second and third quarters of 2007; 
and the first quarter of 2008. The SIP submittal establishes April 7, 
2008, as the attainment date and requires implementation of all 
measures required for attainment by that date. Since the first quarter 
of 2008, Herculaneum has not exceeded the 1.5 [mu]g/m\3\ NAAQS.
    EPA received one set of comments on the proposed conditional 
approval. EPA

[[Page 52704]]

will respond to this set of comments, as well as any additional 
comments relating to this supplemental proposal, at the time EPA takes 
final action. In this proposed action, EPA seeks comments on the 
state's September 3, 2009, submission, particularly on the ventilation 
requirements, and on EPA's supplemental proposal to fully approve the 
state's attainment demonstration and control strategy SIP for 
Herculaneum. EPA believes that it has already provided adequate 
opportunity for comment on the other aspects of the SIP submittal (the 
May 31, 2007, submission) in its October 8, 2008, proposed rulemaking.

II. Summary of the State Submittal

    The October 8, 2008, proposed conditional approval (73 FR 58913) 
contains extensive discussion on Missouri's SIP submittal received to 
that point. The proposed action includes discussion on model selection, 
meteorological and emissions inventory input data, modeling results, 
control strategy, contingency measures, and enforceability, among other 
elements. For information on these elements, please refer to the 
October 8, 2008 Federal Register (73 FR 58913) and associated docket.
    The September 3, 2009 SIP revision supplements the May 2007 SIP, 
and meets the last outstanding requirements of the 2007 Consent 
Judgment. The Consent Judgment contains control requirements, 
associated implementation schedules, and contingency measures, and is 
included as an enforceable document under the SIP. One of the Consent 
Judgment controls requires Doe Run to execute a ventilation study for 
the Sinter Building, Blast Furnace Building, and Refinery Building. 
Building openings, ventilation sources with either continuous or 
varying rates of operation, and a procedure for measuring inflow into 
the buildings must be identified within the study. The study must also 
include enforceable conditions developed to ensure that particles 
emitted within the process buildings are being appropriately captured 
by the ventilation systems.
    The ventilation study works together with door closure and building 
siding inspection requirements to achieve an overall objective, or 
control measure, of effective building enclosure. By minimizing 
building openings and ensuring adequate ventilation, the buildings will 
be operated and maintained in such a fashion as to minimize fugitive 
emissions from the buildings. The SIP requires this overall building 
enclosure control measure, and also requires adequate ventilation in 
each of the process buildings under the ventilation study element. The 
control strategy modeling attributes a control efficiency to the 
overall building enclosure control measure, and this control efficiency 
is included in all attainment demonstration calculations.
    EPA believes that the September 3, 2009 supplemental SIP submittal 
contains the necessary enforceable conditions associated with the 
ventilation study to ensure that the ventilation-related control 
measures are met. MDNR and Doe Run conducted a series of tests to 
ensure adequate inflow at specific ventilation rates. These rates are 
proposed as enforceable conditions. MDNR has also revised the Work 
Practices Manual to include additional recordkeeping, compliance 
monitoring, and corrective action requirements associated with building 
ventilation. In addition, MDNR has revised the Work Practices Manual to 
include language to minimize the occurrence of construction when 
temperatures are below 39 degrees Fahrenheit. This should decrease 
construction when the plant watering system, a control measure to 
decrease in-plant road dust, cannot be operated. The supplemental SIP 
includes Work Practices Manual revision language (Attachment E in the 
docket), as well as a new Consent Judgment attachment (Attachment M in 
the docket). The submittal of the Work Practices Manual language as 
part of the supplemental SIP constitutes an official revision to the 
Work Practices Manual. These revisions will be enforceable by EPA if 
approved into the SIP.
1. Plant Ventilation Design
    The smelter at Herculaneum has three process buildings: The Sinter 
Building, the Blast Furnace Building, and the Refinery Building. Each 
building contains ventilation for specific process units as well as 
baghouses that service the overall buildings.
    The Sinter Building contains a number of baghouses and process 
ventilation systems. Once concentrate is delivered from the mines and 
mills to the smelter, the concentrate is processed through the sinter 
plant. The concentrate is mixed and crushed with other feedstock 
materials such as silica, iron ore, and limestone fluxes. Recycled 
process material such as returned sinter, blast furnace slag, and 
baghouse fume may also be added to this mixture to produce the sinter 
feed. A thin layer of sinter feed enters the sinter machine and is 
ignited by a series of natural gas burners. A main sinter feed layer is 
then laid on top of this ignition layer. This layered sinter bed enters 
the updraft portion of the sinter machine, where air is drawn across 
the sinter bed from the bottom to the top, driving the thermal 
reaction. The lead sulfide contained in the feed is oxidized, producing 
lead oxide and releasing sulfur dioxide. Off-gasses from the sintering 
process are sent to a baghouse which removes particulate matter. The 
off-gasses continue on to the acid plant where sulfur dioxide is 
recovered as sulfuric acid. The sinter machine produces a continuous 
feed of sinter cake (also called sinter roast) which is crushed and 
sorted by size. The larger pieces are transported to the blast furnace 
or to temporary storage, while the undersized pieces return to the mix 
room to await reprocessing through the sinter machine.
    Baghouses servicing the Mix Drum, Crusher, Cooler, Cage Paktor, 
76'' Smooth Rolls, and conveyor CV22 capture and scrub air (remove 
particles) from specific parts of the sintering process. The 6 
Baghouse scrubs the air that circulates within the Sinter Building 
itself. Flows from all seven of these units combine to be released out 
of the main stack. This combined flow is termed the Sinter Plant 
Combination Trail. Within the Sinter Building the sinter machine wheel 
tunnel also has its own dedicated ventilation system. This system 
prevents hot gases containing lead particles from escaping out the 
sides of the conveyor while the sinter feed is processed through the 
sinter machine. Air captured by the sinter machine wheel tunnel 
ventilation system is sent to the 3 Baghouse for scrubbing. 
Air is also pulled from the top of the conveyor into the 3 
Baghouse. After being treated in the Acid Plant, off-gases from the 
sinter machine join the stream of scrubbed air emerging from the 
3 Baghouse. This entire stream is then sent through the main 
stack. See ``Sinter Building Ventilation Diagram'' in the docket for a 
visual depiction of this ventilation system.
    After processing through the Sinter Building, sinter cake is 
smelted in Doe Run-Herculaneum's two blast furnaces. The sinter cake is 
mixed with coke and other feed materials and transferred to the top of 
a furnace. Air feeds through the bottom of the furnace, resulting in 
coke combustion. The coke combustion heats the sinter cake to 
approximately 3,000 degrees Fahrenheit and produces carbon monoxide. 
The carbon monoxide reacts with lead and other metal oxides to produce 
molten lead, waste slag, and carbon dioxide. The lead bullion settles 
to the bottom of the furnace, where it is tapped into holding pots and 
transferred to the drossing area for further refining.

[[Page 52705]]

The slag (a sand-like byproduct with small amounts of lead, copper, 
zinc, and other materials) floats to the top of the furnace, is tapped 
off and either recycled into the sinter feed or transported to the slag 
storage area at the south end of the facility.
    Air pulled from the conveyor (CV) 10 Grizzley, CV10, CV11, CV12, 
CV13, CV14, the Scale Belt, Crow's Nest, ``D'' Kettle, and Furnace 
Front is sent to the 5 Baghouse. Air from the CV leg is sent 
to the 8 Baghouse for scrubbing, while air from the Blast 
Furnace feed floor goes to the 6 Baghouse. General air that 
circulates throughout the Blast Furnace Building and is not captured by 
any process ventilation is sent to the 7 Baghouse. (See 
``Blast Furnace Building Ventilation Diagram'' in the docket for a 
visual depiction of this ventilation system.)
    After the blast furnace, molten lead bullion is transferred to one 
of four large drossing kettles where it is allowed to cool. As the 
bullion cools, copper, nickel, and other impurities are skimmed from 
the surface layer. Next, the decopperized lead is transferred to a 
series of natural gas-heated refining kettles where additional 
impurities are removed.
    Kettles 1, 2, 3, 9, 10 and 11 have their own ventilation systems 
which capture emissions that may escape during the heating, separation, 
and skimming processes. Each kettle ventilation system feeds into the 
8 Baghouse, where the air collected from the kettles is 
scrubbed for particulate. The air that circulates within the Refinery 
Building itself is pulled into the 9 Baghouse for scrubbing 
before exiting out a stack. (See ``Refinery Building Ventilation 
Diagram'' in the docket for a visual depiction of this ventilation 
system.)
2. Ventilation Study Objectives
    Under the 2007 Consent Judgment, Doe Run was required to conduct a 
ventilation study to establish enforceable flow rates and/or fan 
amperes to ensure adequate particle capture within the smelter's 
process buildings. (See, Section 2.A.20 of the 2007 Consent Judgment, 
included in the docket.)
    As described in the October 8, 2008, proposed conditional approval 
rulemaking (73 FR 58913), data from Herculaneum has shown that building 
fugitives (air that escapes out of the building without first being 
processed through a control device, such as a baghouse) can 
significantly impact the concentration of lead in ambient air in 
Herculaneum. The objective of the ventilation study is to minimize 
building fugitives by ensuring the ventilation systems within each 
process building are sufficient to adequately capture particles 
released within the process buildings. Also, the ventilation study 
identifies flow rate or fan amperage requirements sufficient to 
minimize building fugitives. These flow rates and fan amperes must then 
be made enforceable.
    In order to show the ventilation systems are adequate, Doe Run 
tested inflow at all building openings. The face velocity of 200 fpm 
has been identified as a critical velocity in the capture of 
particulates by the American Society of Heating, Refrigeration, and 
Air-Conditioning Engineers. EPA Method 204, ``Criteria For and 
Verification of a Permanent or Temporary Total Enclosure,'' also 
requires that ``the average facial velocity (FV) of air through all 
natural draft openings (NDOs) shall be at least 3,600 m/hr (200 fpm). 
The direction of air flow through all NDO's shall be into the 
enclosure.'' A face velocity of 200 fpm at all building openings is 
therefore used to verify that ventilation is adequate to ensure 
particulates are not escaping out of building openings. Doe Run 
demonstrated that it achieves a 200 feet per minute (fpm) inflow at all 
building openings when the ventilation systems are run at the proposed 
minimum flows.
    Before setting minimum flows, the critical ventilation points of 
interest were identified. Doe Run's process building ventilation 
systems have many components. To ensure adequate building ventilation, 
Doe Run measured fans or groups of fans whose proper operation would 
provide sufficient draft to achieve the required inflow. In some 
instances, Doe Run was able to directly measure ventilation flow rates. 
In these cases, a flow rate requirement was set instead of a fan 
amperage requirement. For the Sinter Building, the key points of 
measurement are the sinter machine wheel tunnel flow, 3 
Baghouse flow just after it exits the 3 Baghouse (after the 
flow from the Acid Plant joins the 3 Baghouse flow), the 
6 Baghouse flow, and the Sinter Plant Combination flow. For 
the Blast Furnace Building, the 5 Baghouse, 6 
Baghouse, 7 Baghouse, and 8 Baghouse flows are 
critical. In the Refinery Building, the critical flows include the 
8 Baghouse and 9 Baghouse.
3. Ventilation Study Results
    To identify building openings, Doe Run created a list of all doors, 
both man doors (less than 35 square feet) and equipment doors (more 
than 35 square feet). The doorways are identified in Attachment J1, J2, 
and K of the docket. To ensure that particles are not escaping out of 
the buildings when the doors were open, Doe Run tested at each doorway. 
Inflow testing was conducted in accordance with the Standard Operating 
Procedure (SOP) for Building Inflow Testing Utilizing Hand-Held 
Anemometers. (A copy of the SOP is attached to the Attachment E, Work 
Practices Manual Revision document in the docket.)
    Doe Run undertook several flow testing campaigns. Data from these 
campaigns are included in the docket (see Attachments C1-C3). Some 
doors initially did not meet the 200 fpm inflow requirement. Doe Run 
modified these doors by permanently sealing or weather-stripping the 
doors to prevent particles from escaping. Some doors that were 
initially identified were found to be inappropriate for an inflow test. 
For example, doors such as B24 open to a different, enclosed part of 
the building and not to the outside air (see ``Summary of Sinter 
Building Door Inflows'' and ``Summary of Blast Furnace and Refinery 
Building Door Inflows''). The first floor of the mix room is part of 
the Sinter Plant first floor. A portion of the wall separating the 
first floor mix room from the Sinter Plant first floor has been 
removed. This allows the 6 Baghouse to pull in and scrub air 
from the first floor of the mix room together with the rest of the 
Sinter Building's general air. Unmodified first floor mix room doors 
would therefore be subject to the 200 fpm inflow requirement. MDNR 
characterizes the second floor of the mixing room as a large settling 
chamber. Most second-floor mix room doors were not subject to inflow 
testing. Second floor mix room doors are infrequently used; the door 
most commonly used is door S16, which is the only connection between 
the second floor mix room and the Sinter Plant Building (see Attachment 
J2 in the docket). The second floor mix room therefore does not use the 
Sinter Building's ventilation, nor does it have a ventilation system of 
its own. Therefore, door S16 will be subject to inflow tests, to verify 
that air is flowing into the Sinter Plant Building at 200 fpm or more. 
The remaining mix room doors S8-S15, S17 and S18 will not be subject to 
inflow testing. See Attachment J1 in the docket for a Sinter Building 
door diagram.
    During the final testing campaign, Doe Run held the fan amperes and 
flow rates for the critical ventilation systems steady while measuring 
doorway inflows. The final testing campaign for the Blast Furnace and 
Refinery Buildings took place on March 26, 2009. As shown in Attachment 
L in the docket for this rulemaking, all doorways met

[[Page 52706]]

the 200 fpm inflow requirement when Baghouse 7 fan was at 210 
amperes or higher, Baghouse 8 fan was at about 73 amperes or 
higher, and Baghouse 9 fan was about 163 amperes or higher. 
Under the 2007 Consent Judgment, 5 Baghouse is required to 
meet a 300,000 actual cubic feet per minute (acfm) flow rate, and 
6 Baghouse must meet a minimum 50,000 acfm flow rate. 
Together, these account for all of the critical ventilation systems for 
the Blast Furnace Building and the Refinery Building.
    The final testing campaign for the Sinter Building took place May 
12 and 13, 2009. Because of the batch nature of the sintering process, 
there are periods when the sinter machine is not in use. When 
operating, the sinter machine runs at about 500 degrees Fahrenheit, 
greatly heating the air around it and thus affecting air flow. It was 
therefore necessary to create two ventilation scenarios: One for when 
the sinter machine was operating and heating the air in the building, 
and a second for when the sinter machine was not operating and the air 
from the sinter building is much cooler. Doe Run tested both scenarios 
in May 2009. As shown in ``Summary: Sinter Building Door Inflows'' in 
the docket, all non-modified doors were above the 200 fpm inflow 
requirement when the Sinter Plant Combination Trail was above 169,000 
acfm. To test the non-production scenario, Doe Run tested select doors 
and found a flow rate of 100,000 acfm to be adequate.
    In addition to the Sinter Plant Combination Trail, there are three 
other critical flows within the Sinter Building. The 6 
Baghouse is required by the Consent Judgment to meet a minimum flow 
rate of 50,000 acfm. Doe Run additionally created a minimum 70 fan 
amperage requirement for the 6 Baghouse. The Consent Judgment 
also requires the 3 Baghouse to meet a minimum flow rate of 
225,000 acfm, and the sinter wheel tunnel to meet a 15,000 acfm flow 
rate. Doe Run studied the relationship between flow and fan amperes for 
the sinter wheel tunnel. They found that a minimum fan amperage of 58 
will maintain a 15,000 acfm flow (see Attachment H). Doe Run will be 
required to maintain a minimum of 58 amperes at the sinter wheel 
tunnel.
4. Ventilation Limits
    From the results gathered during the Ventilation Study, MDNR 
adopted the following ventilation flow rate and fan amperage limits:
    Sinter Plant Combination Trail Production period minimum = 169,000 
acfm;
    Sinter Plant Combination Trail Non-Production minimum \1\ = 100,000 
acfm;
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The Sinter Plant Combination Trail flow requirement switches 
to the Non-Production 100,000 acfm minimum requirement when both the 
sinter machine and feed belt motors measure zero amps.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    6 Baghouse Fan = 70 amps;
    7 Baghouse Fan = 210 amps;
    8 Baghouse Fan = 73 amps;
    9 Baghouse Fan = 163 amps;
    Sinter Wheel Tunnel Ventilation Fan \2\ = 58 amps.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ The Sinter Wheel tunnel damper will be welded into place.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Work Practices Manual revision and the 2007 Consent Judgment 
allow ventilation equipment to be shut down for maintenance work being 
performed on the ventilation or related process units. The shut downs 
must be logged and recorded. The Work Practices Manual revision also 
allows ventilation systems to be shut down if all lead manufacturing 
process units within a given building have been turned off and all 
corresponding production has ceased for at least 24 consecutive hours, 
unless the Consent Judgment contains other specifications.
    The 2007 Consent Judgment contains other specification for the 
sinter machine wheel tunnel, 3 Baghouse, 5 Baghouse, 
and 6 Baghouse. It requires the sinter machine wheel tunnel to 
be operated at 15,000 acfm regardless of sinter machine operation. It 
requires 3 Baghouse flow to be maintained at a minimum 225,000 
acfm, 5 Baghouse flow at a minimum of 300,000 acfm, and 
6 Baghouse flow to be maintained at a minimum of 50,000 acfm. 
All flow rates are to be maintained at all times, including times when 
the Blast Furnace is not operational. Doe Run is required to comply 
with these requirements. These limits are incorporated into the Doe Run 
Herculaneum Work Practices Manual and are currently enforceable by MDNR 
as requirements thereof.
    Limits resulting from the Ventilation Study for the 3 
Baghouse, 5 Baghouse and 6 Baghouse are the same as 
the flow requirements already present in the 2007 Consent Judgment.
5. Ongoing Ventilation Testing and Reporting Requirements
    The Work Practices Manual revision requires an automatic data 
logging system to record the following information at least once every 
minute: Fan amperes from the sinter machine wheel tunnel, 6, 
7, 8, and 9 Baghouses; and flow rates from 
5 Baghouse, 6 Baghouse, the combined 3 
Baghouse/Acid Plant trail, and the Sinter Plant Combination Trail.
    The data logger will set off a ``warning alarm'' should any three 
consecutive minutes of data be below the applicable limit. The operator 
will then troubleshoot and work to bring the flow or fan amperage back 
into compliance with the limit. The data logger will trigger an 
``actionable alarm'' should any fifteen consecutive minutes of data be 
below the applicable limit. Doe Run will produce a detailed log of the 
event and all actions taken to restore flow. Corrective action must be 
taken as quickly as possible, including the shut down of all processes 
within the affected building if necessary to prevent lead-bearing 
emissions from escaping. Within 24 hours of restoration of operations, 
a flow test must be conducted at the point(s) where the ventilation 
system failed.
    Each calendar quarter, Doe Run must conduct an inflow test of all 
applicable doors and openings. Testing will be done in accordance with 
the SOP included as part of the Work Practices Manual revision. If a 
man door shows inflow below 200 fpm, the door must be permanently 
sealed or replaced with a double door chamber system. These projects 
must be completed no later than three months following the low-flow 
measurement. Once the doors are modified in this fashion, they will not 
be subject to future inflow tests. Doe Run may petition MDNR to use an 
alternative method of addressing low-flow doors. MDNR will consider the 
petition only if the proposal is submitted in writing within 30 days of 
the low-flow measurement. The petition must outline the particle 
capture benefit from the alternative door project, and state why 
permanent sealing or a double door chamber system are not feasible or 
appropriate. If an equipment door shows inflow below 200 fpm, Doe Run 
must install heavy-duty industrial clear vinyl strip curtains within 
two months of the low-flow measurement. Inflow measurements are still 
required in doorways with vinyl strip curtains. Doe Run may petition 
MDNR to use an alternative method to address a non-compliant door. The 
same timing and analytical requirements apply to the equipment door 
petition as exist for the man door petition. If an equipment door is 
modified and measures low-flow again within a year of modification, Doe 
Run will propose a project to MDNR to significantly reduce the outflow 
of air emissions from the door in question. See the Work Practices 
Manual revision (Attachment E) for more details.
    All data associated with the ventilation study Work Practices

[[Page 52707]]

Manual requirements must be maintained for at least five years, and 
made available to MDNR upon request. Doe Run must submit a quarterly 
report to MDNR summarizing any 15 minute alarms and associated 
corrective actions. The report must also include results from the 
quarterly inflow study. For a list of which doors are subject to inflow 
testing, see docket document ``Summary of Sinter Plant Building Door 
Inflows'' and ``Summary of Blast Furnace and Refinery Building Door 
Inflows.'' If Doe Run measures any inflows less than 200 fpm, the 
report must identify these and provide a schedule for modifying the 
doors. Any changes to doorways as a result of previous inflow studies 
will also be reported. In addition, Doe Run's quarterly report must 
describe any actions taken or recommendations to prevent ventilation 
system shutdowns or to improve corrective action responses. If MDNR 
determines a more timely or effective procedure is possible, Doe Run 
must submit a written update to the Work Practices Manual for MDNR's 
approval. The underlying ventilation requirements remain in effect 
pending MDNR approval of any updates or revisions. If EPA approves this 
SIP revision, including the provisions of the Work Practices Manual and 
Consent Judgment, any subsequent changes must also be approved by EPA 
as revisions to the SIP.
    Once a year, Doe Run is required to conduct the flow testing 
campaign again, and address any issues identified. Ventilation systems 
discussed in the Work Practices Manual revision (Attachment E) may only 
be altered to improve capture and control of emissions. Improvement 
plans must be submitted and approved by MDNR before any improvement 
project may take place. Any unauthorized modification that affects the 
flow rate, fan amperes, or capture and control of emissions within the 
Sinter Building, Blast Furnace Building, or Refinery Building 
ventilation systems is a violation of the Work Practices Manual and 
Consent Judgment.
    Finally, if an ambient air quality monitor in Herculaneum monitors 
a quarterly value over 1.4 micrograms per cubic meter, Doe Run must 
conduct a fluid modeling study of flow patterns within the process 
buildings. This study would determine if additional ventilation is 
appropriate and if so, where the ventilation unit(s) should be 
positioned. Doe Run must complete the study within three months of 
receipt of the quarterly monitoring value.
6. Winter Construction Work Practices Manual Modification
    In the first quarter of 2008, prior to the April 2008 attainment 
date in the SIP submittal, ambient air monitors in Herculaneum recorded 
values well over the 1.5 microgram per cubic meter lead NAAQS. Doe Run 
determined the cause was in-plant road dust stirred up by construction-
related activities. Because the activities took place in weather below 
39 degrees Fahrenheit, Doe Run was not able to run its watering system 
to control the in-plant road dust.
    To prevent this problem in the future, MDNR has modified the Work 
Practices Manual. The additional language requires projects to be 
suspended if they have the potential to cause fugitive emissions and 
water cannot be used for dust suppression due to cold weather. It also 
prompts Doe Run to plan construction projects such that deadlines do 
not occur during cold weather periods.
7. Enforceability
    As specified in section 172(c)(6) and section 110(a)(2)(A) of the 
CAA, all measures and other elements in the SIP must be enforceable by 
the state and EPA. Enforceable documents included in Missouri's SIP 
submittal are the May 2007 Consent Judgment, January 2007 Work 
Practices Manual, and the Consent Judgment and Work Practices Manual 
modifications submitted to EPA on September 3, 2009. The Consent 
Judgment contains all control and contingency measures with enforceable 
dates for implementation. The Consent Judgment also includes 
monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements to ensure that 
the control and contingency measures are met. The Work Practices Manual 
includes the requirements of the Consent Judgment, as well as specific 
operating procedures and additional reporting requirements. The state 
adopted the original documents into Missouri's state regulations on 
April 26, 2007, and adopted the modifications on July 29, 2009, making 
them state-enforceable. Upon EPA approval of the SIP submission, both 
documents would become state and federally enforceable, and enforceable 
by citizens under section 304 of the Act. As described above in the 
discussion of specific ventilation requirements, EPA believes the 
ventilation requirements in the Consent Judgment and Work Practices 
Manual as revised are enforceable and meet the requirements of the CAA. 
We further note that values below the required fan amperage or flow 
rate may constitute a violation; the alarm mechanisms laid out in the 
Work Practices Manual do not prevent MDNR or EPA from finding Doe Run 
in violation of it and SIP requirements. EPA previously requested 
comments on the enforceability of the SIP submitted in its October 8, 
2008 proposed conditional approval. We are now requesting comments 
specifically relating to the ventilation requirements which are the 
subject of this notice.
    We also noted in the October 2008 proposal that the Consent 
Judgment contains provisions for stipulated penalties and sanctions 
should Doe Run fail to comply with provisions of the Consent Judgment 
or Work Practices Manual. EPA is not bound by the state's Consent 
Judgment penalties, and would enforce against violations of these 
documents under section 113 of the Clean Air Act or other Federal 
authorities, rather than the Consent Judgment, if it approves the 
Consent Judgment and Work Practices Manual into the SIP.

III. Proposed Action

    EPA proposes approval of Missouri's attainment demonstration SIP 
and associated control measures for the 1978 lead National Ambient Air 
Quality Standards in the nonattainment area of Herculaneum, Missouri. 
The ventilation requirements contained within the revised SIP minimize 
the potential for building fugitives escaping into the outside air, and 
the winter construction Work Practices Manual modification minimizes 
the potential for uncontrolled lead emissions associated with cold-
weather construction activities. EPA proposes full approval of the SIP 
as it demonstrates attainment of the 1.5 [micro]g/m\3\ lead NAAQS, and 
fulfills the requirements of the Clean Air Act. The rationale for this 
proposed action is stated in the October 8, 2008, proposed conditional 
approval and in this supplemental proposal. As stated previously, EPA 
requests comments on the September 3, 2009 supplemental submittal, and 
on EPA's proposed full approval of the 2007, 2008, and 2009 submittals.

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a 
SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and 
applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). 
Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state 
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, 
this proposed action merely approves state law as meeting Federal

[[Page 52708]]

requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those 
imposed by state law. For that reason, this proposed action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to 
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order 
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the 
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact 
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory 
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     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);
     Does not have Federalism implications as specified in 
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based 
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to 
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the 
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent 
with the Clean Air Act; and
     Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to 
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental 
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under 
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, this rule does not have tribal implications as 
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), 
because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in 
the state, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct 
costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide, 
Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Lead, Nitrogen 
dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping 
requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds.

    Dated: August 17, 2010.
Karl Brooks,
Regional Administrator, Region 7.
[FR Doc. 2010-21446 Filed 8-26-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P