Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 104 / Monday, June 1, 2015 / Proposed Rules 30965 

(e) Compliance 

Comply with this AD within the 

compliance times specified, unless already 

done. For the engines listed in paragraph 

(c)(1) of this AD: 

(1) At each LPT overhaul after the effective 

date of this AD remove from service the LPT 

4th stage IAS, P/N 51N038. 

(2) At each engine shop visit after the 

effective date of this AD, remove from service 

the LPT 4th stage IAS, P/N 51N038, if it has 

more than 10,900 cycles since new. 

(f) Installation prohibition 

(1) Do not install any LPT 4th stage IAS, 

P/N 51N038, with more than 0 flight cycles 

on any engine listed in paragraph (c)(1) of 

this AD. 

(2) Do not install on any engine listed in 

paragraphs (c)(2) of this AD, any LPT 4th 

stage IAS, P/N 51N038, which was 

previously installed on any engine listed in 

paragraph (c)(1) of this AD. 

(g) Definitions 

For the purposes of this AD: 

(1) An LPT overhaul is defined as 

maintenance which involves disassembly of 

the LPT rotor module. 

(2) An ‘‘engine shop visit’’ is the induction 

of an engine into the shop for maintenance 

involving the separation of pairs of major 

mating engine flanges (lettered flanges). The 

separation of engine flanges solely for the 

purpose of transportation without subsequent 

engine maintenance does not constitute an 

engine shop visit. 

(h) Alternative Methods of Compliance 

(AMOCs) 

The Manager, Engine Certification Office, 

FAA, may approve AMOCs for this AD. Use 

the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19 to 

make your request. You may email your 

request to: ANE–AD–AMOC@faa.gov. 

(i) Related Information 

(1) For more information about this AD, 

contact Katheryn Malatek, Aerospace 

Engineer, Engine Certification Office, FAA, 

Engine & Propeller Directorate, 12 New 

England Executive Park, Burlington, MA 

01803; phone: 781–238–7747; fax: 781–238– 

7199; email: katheryn.malatek@faa.gov. 

(2) PW Alert Service Bulletin No. PW4G– 

100–A72–254, dated December 12, 2014, can 

be obtained from PW using the contact 

information in paragraph (i)(3) of this AD. 

(3) For service information identified in 

this AD, contact Pratt & Whitney Division, 

400 Main St., East Hartford, CT 06108; 

phone: (860) 565–8770; fax: (860) 565–4503. 

(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 

May 13, 2015. 

Colleen M. D’Alessandro, 

Assistant Directorate Manager, Engine & 

Propeller Directorate, Aircraft Certification 

Service. 

[FR Doc. 2015–12663 Filed 5–29–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R07–OAR–2015–0223; FRL–9928–53– 

Region 7] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; 

Missouri; 2013 Missouri State 

Implementation Plan for the 2008 Lead 

Standard 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency. 

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 2008 lead National 

Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) 

nonattainment of the Viburnum Trend 

area in portions of Iron, Dent and 

Reynolds Counties, Missouri, submitted 

on April 18, 2013. EPA believes that the 

SIP submitted by the State satisfies the 

applicable requirements of the Clean Air 

Act (CAA) identified in EPA’s Final 

Rule published on October 15, 2008, 

and will bring the area into attainment 

of the 0.15 microgram per cubic meter 

(ug/m3) lead NAAQS in the Viburnum 

Trend, Missouri area. 

In this action, EPA also proposes 

approval of a revision to the Missouri 

SIP to incorporate an amendment to an 

existing Missouri statute to restrict lead 

emissions from specific sources. The 

amendment revises certain throughput 

and emissions limits applicable to the 

Doe Run Buick Resource Recycling 

Facility (BRRF) in the Viburnum Trend 

lead nonattainment area. Approval of 

this rule will ensure consistency 

between the state and Federallyapproved rules, and ensure Federal 

enforceability of the revised state rule. 

This revision was submitted to EPA on 

October 30, 2009. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before July 1, 2015 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R07– 

OAR–2015–0223, by one of the 

following methods: 

1. www.regulations.gov: Follow the 

on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

2. Email: doolan.stephanie@epa.gov. 

3. Mail, Hand Delivery or Courier: 

Stephanie Doolan, 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–2015– 

0223. 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 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 EPA, 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: 

Stephanie Doolan at (913) 551–7719, or 

by email at doolan.stephanie@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? 


rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
30966 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 104 / Monday, June 1, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

1See email from Wendy Vit, Air Quality Planning 

Section Chief for the Missouri Department of 

Natural Resources, to Michael Jay, Chief of 

Atmospheric Programs Section, Air Planning and 

Development Branch of EPA Region 7, dated March 

4, 2015, available in the Docket. 

2EPA also designated city of Herculaneum, 

Missouri, as nonattainment for the 2008 lead 

NAAQS. 75 FR 71033. This nonattainment area has 

been addressed in a separate action. 79 FR 62574. 

3The former Herculaneum primary lead smelter 

ceased lead smelting operations on December 31, 

2013, pursuant to the terms of the 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 (2011 Consent 

Decree) on December 21, 2011. 

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 

1. BRRF Process Description 

2. Mines/Mills Process Description 

B. Model Selection, Meteorological and 

Emissions Inventory Input Data 

C. Modeling Results 

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 Revision to Missouri Rule 

Restricting Lead Emissions From 

Specific Lead Smelter-Refinery 

Installations 

A. Background 

B. Analysis of Production and Emissions 

Limits 

C. Work Practice Manual (WPM) 

D. Reporting and Record Keeping 

E. Test Methods 

VII. Proposed Action 

I. What is being addressed in this 

document? 

In this document, EPA is addressing 

Missouri’s attainment demonstration 

SIP for the 2008 lead NAAQS 

nonattainment in the Viburnum Trend 

Missouri area. 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 will bring the area into 

attainment of the 0.15 microgram per 

cubic meter (ug/m3) lead NAAQS in the 

Viburnum Trend lead nonattainment 

area. 

In this action, EPA is also addressing 

a revision to the Missouri SIP to 

approve portions of a revision to the 

State of Missouri Code of State 

Regulations (CSR) 10–6.120, 

‘‘Restriction of Emissions of Lead from 

Specific Lead Smelter-Refinery 

Installations’’. This revision pertains to 

throughput limits applicable to the 

BRRF, which is the primary source of 

lead emissions in the Viburnum Trend 

nonattainment area. Pursuant to a 

withdrawal request from Missouri,1 EPA 

is taking action on specific portions 

Missouri rule 10 CSR 6.120. Missouri 

rule 10 CSR 6.120, as it pertains to the 

Buick Resources Recycling Facility, was 

previously approved in the Missouri 

SIP. See 69 FR 51953. The Viburnum 

Trend SIP addressed in this proposed 

action relies upon portions of the 

revision to 10 CSR 6.120. 

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 portions of a revision to 

Missouri rule 10 CSR 6.120, ‘‘Restriction 

of Emissions of Lead from Specific Lead 

Smelter-Refinery Installations’’. EPA is 

proposing this action in order to solicit 

comments. Final rulemaking will occur 

after consideration of any comments 

received. 

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 micrograms per cubic meter (ug/ 

m3) of air, averaged over a calendar 

quarter. The Viburnum Trend area is 

designated as attainment for the 1978 

lead NAAQS. 

On October 15, 2008, EPA established 

a new lead NAAQS of 0.15 ug/m3 in air, 

measured as a rolling three-month 

average. (73 FR 66964). On November 

22, 2010, the Buick/Viburnum Trend 

area was designated as nonattainment 

for the 2008 lead NAAQS. (75 FR 

71033).2 Under sections 191(a) and 

192(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. 

Missouri rule 10 CSR 10–6.120 

’’Restriction of Emissions of Lead from 

Specific Lead Smelter—Refinery 

Installations’’ establishes lead stack 

emissions limits and testing and 

recordkeeping requirements at specific 

lead smelters including the 

Herculaneum facility 3 in Herculaneum, 

Missouri, and BRRF in Boss, Missouri. 

The Buick/Viburnum Trend lead 

NAAQS attainment SIP relies upon the 

requirements imposed by Missouri rule 

10 CSR 10–6.120, with the exception of 

those requirements withdrawn by 

Missouri. In addition, the approval of 

the production limits for BRRF relies 

upon the modeling demonstration 

proposed in the Viburnum Trend area 

lead NAAQS attainment SIP, therefore, 

approval of the two SIP revisions are 

proposed concurrently herein. 

V. Technical Review of the Attainment 

Demonstration SIP Related to the 2008 

Lead NAAQS 

A. Facility Description 

1. BRRF Process Description 

There are four lead-emitting sources 

contributing to the Buick/Viburnum 

Trend lead nonattainment area: BRRF; 

the Buick Mine and Mill; the Casteel 

Mine; and K & D Crushing. BRRF 

operates as a secondary smelter of lead, 

lead-containing materials including 

spent lead acid batteries, lead bullets 

and shot, lead-containing glass from 

cathode ray tubes, and lead-based paint 

chips from lead abatement projects. The 

Buick Mine and Mill, located to the 

south of BRRF, conducts subsurface 

mining and ore processing. The Casteel 

Mine, located to the north of BRRF, also 

conducts subsurface mining. K & D 

Crushing, also located to the north of 

BRRF, conducts ore crushing at the 

surface of the Casteel Mine. Crushed 

and concentrated lead-containing ore 

was formerly processed at the 

Herculaneum primary lead smelter, but 

since that facility ceased primary lead 

smelting in December 2013, the ore gets 

shipped out of the U.S. for overseas 

processing. 

As stated above, BRRF is located in 

the Buick/Viburnum Trend 

nonattainment area. BRRF’s production 

limit is limited to 175,000 tons of total 

lead production each year pursuant to 

Missouri Rule 10 CSR 6.120(3)(B)2. The 

majority of the lead recycled by BRRF 

is from spent automotive and industrial 

batteries. 

Lead-bearing items, primarily postconsumer lead-acid batteries, arrive at 


rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 104 / Monday, June 1, 2015 / Proposed Rules 30967 

4AP–42, Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission 

Factors, Fifth Edition, http://www.epa.gov/ttnchie1/ 

ap42/. 

the facility by truck. Spent batteries are 

stored in a battery bunker until 

processed in a shredder. Battery acid 

(weak sulfuric acid) is drained during 

shredding, collected in storage tanks 

and neutralized using calcium 

hydroxide. The shredded batteries are 

placed in a vibrating feeder in route to 

a conveyor belt to the hammer mill. The 

hammer mill pounds the material into 

smaller pieces. 

Batteries contain metal grids, lead 

posts, plastic casing and other 

components, separators and lead sulfate 

paste. The paste is removed by washing 

through a set of screens for further 

processing. The batteries further 

undergo a separation process under 

which lead and metal parts are 

separated from the plastic and other 

debris. The lead and metal parts are 

primarily fed to the reverberatory 

furnace, but also may be fed to the blast 

furnace. The plastic and other debris are 

skimmed off and sent to recycling 

facilities. 

The lead sulfate paste is passed 

through a filter press and neutralized 

with hydrated lime to form calcium 

sulfate, then heated at extremely high 

temperatures in the reverberatory 

furnace to produce soft antimonial lead 

bullion and reverberatory slag. Sulfur 

emissions from the reverberatory 

furnace are controlled by a dry, flue gas 

desulfurization scrubber that introduces 

lime and water to the reverberatory flue 

gas in a reaction and forms gypsum, 

which is removed from the gas stream 

by a polishing baghouse. The 

reverberatory slag is fed to the blast 

furnace to recover the antimonial lead. 

The Missouri SIP submittal contains a 

process flow diagram that details the 

emission point sources throughout the 

process that were included in the 

modeling. 

2. Mines/Mills Process Description 

Modeling analysis conducted by 

Missouri determined that the Buick 

Mine and Mill, the Casteel Mine, and 

the K & D Crushing operations 

contribute significantly to the monitored 

violation of the 2008 Lead NAAQS at 

the air monitor. There are other mining 

and milling operations in the Viburnum 

Trend area, but these operations were 

not found to contribute significantly to 

the Lead NAAQS violation. Emissions 

from the Doe Run mining and milling 

operations are primarily in the form of 

fugitives from the processing of lead 

containing rock until it becomes a wet 

concentrate that is shipped to other 

customers. The process is described in 

greater detail as follows. 

Mining begins with the subsurface 

drilling and blasting of dolomite rock 

which contains varying amounts of lead 

sulfide, zinc sulfide, and copper-iron 

sulfide minerals. At the Casteel mine, 

the ore is hauled to the skip pocket ‘‘as 

blasted,’’ with no underground 

crushing. At the surface, the coarse ore 

is crushed by K & D Crushing, a 

contractor to Doe Run, into smaller 

pieces. The crushed ore is hauled to 

other Doe Run facilities, most frequently 

to the Buick Mine and Mill. 

At the Buick Mine and Mill, ore is 

hauled from the active mining faces to 

a central crusher where it is crushed 

down to approximately eight inch 

pieces. The ore is hoisted to the surface 

then conveyed to further on-site 

crushing and screening operations. After 

being crushed aboveground to less than 

5/8-inch in size, the ore subjected to wet 

milling, and grinding with rods and ball 

mills until a coarse powder in a wet 

slurry is produced. The wet slurry 

further undergoes wet cyclone and 

floatation separation into lead sulfide, 

zinc sulfide and copper sulfide 

components. 

The concentrated sulfides further 

undergo dewatering to produce a 

concentrate that formerly was shipped 

to the Herculaneum primary lead 

smelter. As stated above, the 

Herculaneum facility ceased operations 

smelting operations in December 2013; 

thus, the concentrate is shipped 

overseas to primary lead smelting 

operations or to other customers. 

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 Viburnum Trend nonattainment 

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 

station approximately 0.8 miles south of 

BRRF, co-located with the Buick South 

non-ambient lead air quality monitor. 

EPA’s preference is for the use of five 

years of meteorological data to input the 

model (40 CFR part 51, appendix W, 

section 8.3.1.2); however, a minimum of 

one year of representative 

meteorological data are required. A 

detailed analysis of the meteorological 

data collected on-site concluded that 

only one consecutive year, from August 

2009 to July 2010, met the data quality 

requirements; thus, these surface level 

data were used to input the model. 

Wind speed and direction data from the 

on-site meteorological station were used 

to input the model, and surface 

temperature, humidity, and other 

information from the Farmington, 

Missouri, National Weather Service 

observation site were added to the BRRF 

wind observations. Finally, upper air 

data from the station at National 

Weather Service site in Springfield, 

Missouri, were used to input the model 

for the parameters including 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. 

As required by section 172(c)(3) of the 

CAA, a revised emission inventory was 

developed for this nonattainment area. 

Hourly emissions data from January 

2009 to October 2010 from BRRF and 

the Buick Mine and Mill were used to 

model the base case. Beginning in late 

2010, construction of emission control 

projects to control fugitive lead dust and 

sulfur dioxide (SO2) impacted the base 

case emissions and ambient air 

monitoring data, making them no longer 

representative of pre-control conditions. 

Emissions represented in the model are 

from release points, stack emissions 

validated by stack test data, and fugitive 

emissions calculated using field 

measurements wherever possible or 

estimated based on EPA’s AP–42 

guidelines.4

The 2011 lead emission totals for 

Viburnum Trend nonattainment area are 

listed in Table 1 below. As discussed 

above, the emissions from the other 

mine and mill operations in the 

Viburnum Trend area were not found to 


rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
30968 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 104 / Monday, June 1, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

significantly impact the lead 

concentrations reported at the violating 

ambient air monitor and therefore are 

not listed. 

Facility name Site name 

2011 

Emissions a

tons per year 

(tpy) 

BRRF .......................................................................................... Buick Smelter ............................................................................. 16.87 

Doe Run ..................................................................................... Buick Mine and Mill .................................................................... 1.07 

Doe Run ..................................................................................... Casteel Mine .............................................................................. 0.2 

K & D Crushing .......................................................................... Casteel Mine .............................................................................. 0.2 

Total Emissions ................................................................... ..................................................................................................... 18.34 

aEmissions reported to the Missouri Emissions Inventory System (MoEIS) database which are reported to EPA’s National Emissions Inventory 

(NEI) database, version 1, released September 30, 2013, found at http://www.epa.gov/ttnchie1/net/2011inventory.html. 

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 mining and milling 

and smelting operations, or naturally 

occurring lead in soils that has become 

re-entrained 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 

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 

dominant sources. The monitor site 

chosen for the background 

determination is the Oates monitor 

located 4.9 miles south of BRRF. The 

days selected for the calculation match 

the model study period. 

EPA conducted an independent 

analysis of the data from the Oates 

monitor and corresponding wind 

direction to verify the background 

concentration calculated by Missouri. 

Based on its independent analysis, EPA 

agrees that the calculated value 

represents a conservative estimate of 

background during the study period. 

Additional information can be found in 

the Missouri SIP, Section 4.3. 

C. Modeling Results 

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 monitoring, emissions and 

meteorological data from August 2009 

through July 2010. 

Results from the base case modeling 

were compared with actual monitoring 

data from the same time period to 

examine the reliability of the model. 

The statistical analysis was conducted 

using the coefficient of correlation, or 

R2. The correlation between modeling 

outputs under the base case and 

monitoring data was 0.8551 or greater, 

with 1.0 indicating 1:1 correlation, 

confirms the accuracy and reliability of 

the model’s inputs and results. EPA 

agrees with Missouri’s determination 

that the model is sufficiently reliable to 

predict that the control measures 

modeled in the attainment 

demonstration (see paragraph 5.C.2 

Future Case Analysis below) will result 

in monitored values below the 2008 

Lead NAAQS. 

2. Future Case Analysis 

The future case analysis evaluated the 

control strategies of the 2013 SIP 

revision pursuant to the existing 

Federally enforceable requirements that 

are applicable to the facility as well as 

the enforceable 2013 Consent Judgment 

between Missouri, BRRF and Doe Run. 

See appendix M, Missouri SIP. The 

future case dispersion modeling is the 

attainment demonstration used to verify 

that the proposed control strategies will 

bring the Buick/Viburnum Trend lead 

nonattainment area into compliance 

with the 2008 lead NAAQS. 

The differences between the base and 

future case emissions rates are based on 

the changes to the operations resulting 

from implementation of the control 

measures required by the 2013 Consent 

Judgment. The control measures are 

discussed in paragraph V.D, Control 

Strategy, below. 

Many of the emissions reduction 

projects that are necessary to meet the 

2008 Lead NAAQS were also required to 

be implemented by January 6, 2014, for 

compliance with the National Emissions 

Standard for Hazardous Air Pollutants 

(NESHAP) for Secondary Lead Smelting 

(77 FR 556, January 5, 2012). The 

Secondary Lead NESHAP, applicable to 

BRRF, requires, among other things, 

total enclosure and ventilation of lead 

processing and handling buildings to a 

negative pressure requirement of 0.02 

millimeters of mercury (mm Hg) and 

housekeeping procedures to reduce 

fugitive lead-containing dust. 

The secondary lead NESHAP, as fully 

implemented, is expected to result in a 

building capture efficiency of 

approximately 95 percent. EPA has 

allowed facilities to assume, on a sitespecific basis, a building fugitive 

capture efficiency of greater than 95 

percent upon demonstration that control 

measures exceed the requirements of the 

secondary lead NESHAP. In the case of 

BRRF, upon careful consideration of 

site-specific control measures, including 

the use of local exhaust ventilation 

devices (LEVs) and a demonstrated 

negative pressure in buildings 

exceeding 0.02 mm Hg, EPA agreed with 

Missouri that a building fugitives 

capture efficiency of 98 percent was 

appropriate to use in the modeling. This 

assumed 98 percent building capture 

efficiency impacts the modeled 

emissions rates as well as the estimated 

emissions reductions described in 

paragraph V.D, Control Strategy, below. 

A more detailed discussion of the 

building fugitives capture efficiency 

discussion may be found in section 6.2 

of Missouri’s SIP revision. 

The emissions rate reductions are 

expected to result in a monitored threeVerDate Sep<11>2014 12:29 May 29, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\01JNP1.SGM 01JNP1

rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 104 / Monday, June 1, 2015 / Proposed Rules 30969 

5See 58 FR 67751, December 22 1993, for a 

discussion of this interpretation as it relates to lead. 

month rolling average of 0.128 mg/m3

lead or less at the nearest ambient 

monitoring location. When added to the 

background concentration of 0.20 mg/

m3, the predicted maximum threemonth rolling average lead 

concentration is 0.148 mg/m3. By 

comparison, the 2008 Lead NAAQS is 

0.150 mg/m3. Therefore, Missouri’s 

modeling demonstrates attainment of 

the standard. 

EPA conducted an independent 

analysis to verify the predictions of 

Missouri’s modeling. EPA agrees with 

the modeling conducted by Missouri for 

its future case analysis. 

D. Control Strategy 

In order to bring the Viburnum Trend 

Area into attainment of the 2008 Lead 

NAAQS, Missouri developed and 

modeled a control strategy for point 

source (e.g., stack) and fugitive 

emissions from the four significant 

sources of lead in the nonattainment 

area. Section 5.1 of the Missouri SIP 

revision details the control measures 

and the estimated emissions reductions. 

Missouri, Doe Run and BRRF 

developed a Consent Judgment, found 

in the Missouri attainment 

demonstration SIP, appendix M, as a 

means to establish enforceable emission 

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. The 

2013 Consent Judgment was submitted 

as part of Missouri’s SIP for the 2008 

lead NAAQS. 

A brief description of the BRRF 

control measures and anticipated 

emissions reductions is as follows. 

a. By February 4, 2013, install a 

baghouse at the south refinery; this 

project is expected to reduce emissions 

by 98 percent. 

b. By February 4, 2013, relocate a 

baghouse from the sweat furnace to the 

blast furnace storage feed building; this 

project is expected to reduce emissions 

by 80 percent by totally enclosing the 

blast furnace feed material storage and 

handling, while emissions from the 

main stack will experience a slight 

increase from the relocation. 

c. By February 4, 2013, remove the 

rotary melter at the north refinery and 

connection of its baghouse to the north 

refinery process ducts; this represents 

an estimated 95 percent reduction in 

emissions from the previous process 

configuration. 

d. By February 4, 2013, install a truck 

tire wash system for outbound traffic; 

washing trucks is anticipated to reduce 

fugitive emissions by 95 percent. 

e. By February 4, 2013, install a pulsejet baghouse to improve reverberatory 

furnace process ventilation; this project 

is expected to reduce reverberatory 

stack emissions by 45 percent and 

fugitives by 98 percent. 

f. By February 4, 2013, install a dry 

lime SO2 scrubber to further process 

gases as they exit the pulse-jet baghouse; 

this measure is intended to control SO2, 

but will also reduce lead-containing 

particulates. 

g. By January 6, 2014, enclose the 

refinery, blast furnace, reverberatory 

furnace and dross plant buildings and 

install a baghouse to achieve the 

negative pressure requirement of the 

Secondary Lead Smelting MACT (40 

CFR 63, subpart X); the estimated 

reduction in overall emissions from 

these enclosures is expected to by 98 

percent. 

h. By December 31, 2013, install a 40- 

foot extension on the breaking 

separation and neutralization scrubber 

stack; the elevated stack height provides 

no net emissions decrease, but rather, 

greater dispersion of lead emissions that 

decreases the impact upon receptors 

within the nonattainment area. 

i. By December 31, 2013, construct a 

30,000 square foot building extension to 

the existing blast feed storage building 

enclosure; the estimated emissions 

reduction is included in item a. above. 

j. By October 31, 2014, install 

‘‘batwing’’ style ventilation covers to 

improve LEV capture efficiencies on 

refinery kettles; these covers contribute 

to the 98 percent emissions reduction in 

item g. above. 

k. By December 31, 2013, install quick 

closing powered doors at the north 

refinery warehouse, south refinery 

warehouse, and the entrance to the 

reverberatory feed storage building; this 

measure also contributes to the 98 

percent reduction in fugitives estimated 

for item g. above. 

These projects have all been 

completed. 

In addition to the control strategies 

required by the 2013 Consent Judgment, 

BRRF developed a baghouse Standard 

Operating Procedure (SOP) and a Work 

Practice Manual (WPM) to minimize 

lead emissions from operation and 

maintenance of all baghouses and to 

minimize fugitive dust emissions, 

respectively. The baghouse SOP is 

required by the Secondary Lead 

NESHAP and the WPM is required by 

both the Secondary Lead NESHAP and 

the Missouri rule 10 CSR 10–6.120. On 

December 18, 2012, (see appendix J of 

Missouri’s SIP revision) Missouri 

approved these documents. Although 

the baghouse SOP and WPM were 

prepared for compliance with the 

Secondary Lead NESHAP, and Missouri 

rule 10 CSR 10–6.120, the activities 

required therein support the attainment 

of the 2008 Lead NAAQS as well. 

The following is a list of the control 

measures required by Missouri’s 2013 

Consent Judgment for the Buick Mine 

and Mill, and the Casteel Mine. These 

control measures were implemented by 

Doe Run on or before June 1, 2013. 

a. Modify Buick Mine updraft vents 1, 

2, 3 and 6 to achieve a vertical release, 

defined as 45 degrees from horizontal or 

greater; this measure improves the 

dispersion of lead-containing 

particulates. 

b. Preclude public access at the 

Casteel Mine at a minimum distance 

provided for in the 2013 Consent 

Judgment. 

c. Preclude public access at Buick 

Mine updraft vents 1, 2, 3 and 6 at a 

minimum distance prescribed by the 

Consent Judgment. 

d. Preclude access to the Buick Mine 

and Mill at a minimum distance 

prescribed by the 2013 Consent 

Judgment. 

The 2011 Consent Decree between 

EPA, Missouri and Doe Run also 

requires enclosure of existing leadcontaining material storage areas, 

interior lead concentrate conveyors, 

lead filtering system and associated 

equipment, lead concentrate storage 

stockpile, and the truck loading area 

and scale at the Buick Mine and Mill. 

This project was completed on or before 

September 1, 2013. 

Based on EPA’s analysis of the 

attainment modeling and its outcomes, 

EPA believes that Missouri’s control 

strategy implemented pursuant to the 

2013 Consent Judgment will bring the 

Viburnum Trend area into attainment of 

the 2008 Lead NAAQS. 

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 Reasonably 

Available Control Technologies (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 


rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
30970 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 104 / Monday, June 1, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

6http://www.epa.gov/oar/lead/pdfs/

2012ImplementationGuide.pdf. 

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 existing controls and practices, 

combined with additional controls and 

practices required by the 2013 Consent 

Judgment, constitute RACM. The 

control measures have been modeled 

and demonstrated to achieve the lead 

NAAQS and also comply with RACM 

and RFP. 

In accordance with the Consent 

Judgment, all of the control measures for 

BRRF and the mines and mills have 

been installed to date. The secondary 

lead NESHAP requires BRRF to comply 

with control measures and work 

practices on or before January 6, 2014. 

Further, Missouri rule 10 CSR 10–6.120 

requires BRRF to implement the WPM 

and places production limits on the 

facility. Collectively, these control 

measures and practices exceed the 

requirements of EPA’s RACT Guidance. 

RFP is addressed by the control 

strategy occurring in a timeframe 

consistent with the CAA and the 2013 

Consent Judgment. Upon 

implementation of the control strategy 

and practices described above, ambient 

air quality concentrations are expected 

to drop at or below attainment levels 

immediately after implementation of the 

control strategy. Air monitoring data 

indicate that all of the nonattainment 

area’s ambient air quality monitors 

reported lead (Pb) concentrations below 

the 2008 lead NAAQS for the threemonth rolling average for February 

through May 2014. See http://

www.dnr.mo.gov/env/apcp/docs/

leadmonitordata.pdf. For the rolling 

calendar quarter of April through June 

2014, and May through July, the Buick 

North monitor violated the NAAQS due 

to a power outage on June 22, 2014, that 

impacted air pollution control 

equipment. This violation did not 

trigger contingency measures because 

the 2013 Consent Judgment does not 

require the facility to begin monitoring 

attainment of the lead NAAQS until the 

rolling calendar quarter following 

installation of all control measures, 

which is November 2014 through 

January 2015. For the rolling calendar 

quarters starting in July through 

December 2014, the facility is attaining 

the lead NAAQS. 

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 threemonth average) is added to the 

calculated background lead 

concentration of 0.020 mg/m3, the 

predicted maximum three-month rolling 

average lead concentration is 0.148 mg/ 

m3. By comparison, the 2008 Lead 

NAAQS is 0.150 mg/m3. Therefore, 

Missouri’s modeling demonstrates 

attainment of the standard. 

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 

Viburnum Trend area, 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. (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 RFP 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 

control measures identified in the 2013 

Consent Judgment exceeds the 0.15 ug/ 

m3 three-month rolling average lead 

standard, BRRF 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 

which apply to BRRF: 

a. Ventilate the reverberatory feed 

storage building with a minimum design 

to achieve a negative pressure of 0.02 

inches Hg within nine months’ notice 

from Missouri. 

b. Within a time frame to be 

determined by Missouri and BRRF, 

BRRF shall submit a work plan for a 

study to determine the best practices 

and best available control technology to 

achieve compliance with the 2008 Lead 

NAAQS. The study shall be completed 

and submitted to Missouri within 180 

days from Missouri’s approval of the 


rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 104 / Monday, June 1, 2015 / Proposed Rules 30971 

work plan. Within 60 days from receipt 

of the study, Missouri shall advise BRRF 

of whether the projects and timelines for 

implementation proposed by the study 

are acceptable. Upon Missouri’s 

approval or 60 days with no comment, 

the projects identified by the study shall 

be implemented in accordance with the 

timeline therein and shall become a 

fully enforceable part of the 2013 

Consent Judgment. 

c. Pave inbound truck parking lot 

within 18 months of notice from 

Missouri of a 2008 Lead NAAQS 

violation. 

d. Within a timeframe to be developed 

by Missouri and BRRF, BRRF shall 

submit and evaluation of the main 

baghouse capacity and will identify any 

projects that are deemed technically 

feasible and cost-effective to redistribute 

any excess capacity identified in the 

evaluation and for inclusion as 

contingency measures and provide an 

implementation timeframe. Within 60 

days of receipt of the evaluation, 

Missouri will advise BRRF whether the 

projects and timelines are acceptable. 

Upon approval or after 60 days, the 

projects identified in the baghouse 

capacity study shall become an 

enforceable part of the 2013 Consent 

Judgment. 

The contingency measures listed 

above shall be implemented upon notice 

from Missouri of a Lead NAAQS 

violation and shall be implemented in 

the order listed above for each 

subsequent Lead NAAQS violation 

should additional violations occur. 

BRRF must notify Missouri within ten 

(10) days of completion of any 

contingency measure. Sixty days (60) 

after completion, BRRF will propose an 

additional qualified contingency 

measure 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 or BRRF may also substitute 

new control(s) for the identified 

contingency measure(s) if Doe Run or 

BRRF 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 or BRRF 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 or 

BRRF 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. With regard to matters that 

are addressed by the 2011 Consent 

Decree, EPA may 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 in 

this action, 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 Revision to Missouri Rule 

Restricting Lead Emissions From 

Specific Lead Smelter-Refinery 

Installations 

A. Background 

Section 110 of the CAA requires states 

to develop air pollution regulations and 

control strategies to ensure that state air 

quality meets the NAAQS established 

by EPA. In order for the state regulations 

to be incorporated into the Federallyenforceable SIP, states must formally 

adopt the regulations and control 

strategies consistent with state and 

Federal requirements. States submit 

adopted rules and revisions to EPA for 

inclusion in the SIP. State rules and 

revisions approved by EPA under 

section 110 authority are incorporated 

into the Federally-approved and 

enforceable SIP. 

As discussed above in paragraph I, 

Background, Missouri rule 10 CSR 10– 

6.120 ‘‘Restriction of Emissions of Lead 

from Specific Lead Smelter—Refinery 

Installations’’, establishes lead 

emissions limits from stacks at specific 

lead smelters including the 

Herculaneum facility in Herculaneum, 

Missouri, and BRRF in Boss, Missouri. 

For enforceability, the Viburnum 

Trend area lead NAAQS attainment SIP 

relies upon the production limit 

imposed by Missouri rule 10 CSR 10– 

6.120, recordkeeping requirements, and 

test methods. The approval of the 

revision to the rule relies upon the 

modeling demonstration proposed in 

the lead NAAQS attainment SIP to 

demonstrate that the production limits 

will result in emissions limits that meet 

the standard. A technical analysis of the 

production limits proposed, reporting 

and recordkeeping requirements, and 

the test methods prescribed is 

conducted in the EPA Technical 

Support Document (TSD), which is 

included in the docket as materials 

relied upon for this proposed action. An 

abbreviated discussion of the 

information in the EPA TSD is 

discussed below. 

B. Analysis of Production and Emissions 

Limits 

As stated above, Missouri rule 10 CSR 

10–6.120(B)(2) limits production at 

BRRF to 175,000 tons of Pb per year, 

and is consistent with the limit imposed 

by the Prevention of Significant 

Deterioration (PSD) permit issued to the 

facility. However, the Pb emissions from 

the present operations are significantly 

less than the previous operational 

configuration in the PSD permit. This is 

due to the elimination of the Rotary 

Melter, and the addition of control 

measures listed in Section 5.1 of the SIP 


rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
30972 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 104 / Monday, June 1, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

7Missouri’s State Implementation Plan for the 

Jefferson County Lead Nonattainment Area and 

associated lead emissions limits for ongoing 

refinery operations at the Doe Run Refinery in 

Herculaneum, Missouri were approved by EPA on 

October 20, 2014. 79 FR 62574. 

document, including two new 

baghouses, enclosure of the facility’s 

process and materials handling areas 

under negative pressure to achieve the 

Secondary Lead NESHAP, and 

additional work practice standards also 

to comply with the NESHAP. 

The Viburnum Trend area lead 

NAAQS attainment SIP and supporting 

Consent Judgment specify Stack 

Emission Limits required to attain the 

2008 Pb NAAQS (see table 4, Stack 

Emission Limits). Although Missouri 

rule 10 CSR 10–6.120 establishes the 

maximum Pb production limit for BRRF 

rather than a specific emission 

limitation by stack, the Pb production 

limit, or throughput, correlates with the 

stack emission limits modeled in the 

SIP. The emissions limits by source are 

detailed in appendix H of the 

attainment demonstration SIP. 

The modeled total emissions in the 

attainment demonstration SIP are 

176,482 tons of Pb produced per year. 

Thus, the ‘‘Future’’ case modeling 

demonstrates that under conservative 

production rates (i.e., slightly higher 

than the maximum allowable by the 

revised Missouri rule), the facility still 

attains the 2008 Pb NAAQS. 

As discussed in paragraph V.C. above, 

EPA has conducted an independent 

analysis of Missouri’s attainment SIP 

modeling and has determined that the 

control measures will result in 

attainment of the 2008 lead NAAQS. 

The detailed analysis, contained in 

EPA’s TSD, of the Pb production limits 

for BRRF imposed by Missouri rule 10 

CSR 10–6.120 demonstrates that they 

correspond with the SIP control 

measures, expressed as stack emission 

limits, imposed by the Viburnum Trend 

area lead NAAQS attainment SIP and 

supporting Consent Judgment and will 

provide for attainment of the 2008 Pb 

NAAQS. As demonstrated above, the 

revision to the Missouri SIP does not 

interfere with attainment and reasonable 

further progress. 

Pursuant to the March 4, 2015, 

withdrawal request from Missouri, EPA 

is not taking action on Missouri rule 10 

CSR 10–6.120, General Provision 

(3)(B)1, which limits main stack, 

number 7 and 9 baghouse stack and 

number 8 baghouse stack lead emissions 

at the Doe Run primary lead smelterrefinery in Herculaneum, Missouri.7 In 

addition, EPA is not taking action on 

Missouri rule 10 CSR 10–6.120, General 

Provision (3)(B)2., which limits main 

stack lead emissions at BRRF to 0.00087 

grains per dry standard cubic feet (gr/

dscf) of air. Missouri has withdrawn its 

request for approval of these limits into 

the SIP because they no longer represent 

operating conditions at the facility and 

are higher than the secondary lead 

NESHAP, respectively. 

C. Work Practice Manual (WPM) 

Missouri rule 10 CSR 10–6.120(3)(C) 

contains the requirements for both the 

Herculaneum facility and BRRF to 

control fugitive emissions of lead from 

all process and area sources by work 

practices. The work practices are 

required to be submitted to the state in 

the form of a WPM for the state 

director’s review and approval. 

Any change to the WPM requires state 

director approval and the change shall 

not lessen the effectiveness of the 

fugitive emission reductions for the 

work practice involved. Written 

approval by the director is required 

before any change becomes effective. 

If the director determines that a 

change in the WPM is warranted, the 

state director shall notify the facility in 

writing. The facility must make the 

required change(s) within 30 days of 

written notice from the state director. 

The requirements for the WPM are 

consistent with the modeled controls of 

fugitive emissions in the Viburnum 

Trend area attainment SIP. The SIP 

relies on the Missouri rule for 

implementation of work practices 

contained in the approved manual. 

Therefore, EPA proposes to approve this 

portion of Missouri rule 10 CSR 10– 

6.120. 

D. Reporting and Record Keeping 

Missouri rule 10 CSR 10–6.120(4) 

contains the requirement for the 

Herculaneum facility and BRRF to keep 

records and files generated by the 

WPM’s implementation. The required 

records include records of inspections 

conducted of fugitive emissions control 

equipment such as hoods, air ducts and 

exhaust fans, and records that 

demonstrate compliance with the 

sampling methods required for stack 

testing discussed below. These records 

are required to be maintained at the 

facility for a minimum of two (2) years 

and shall be made available to the state 

director upon request. 

The requirements for the reporting 

and record keeping are necessary to 

determine that the facility is operating 

in accordance with the modeled 

controls of fugitive emissions in the 

Viburnum Trend area attainment SIP. 

The SIP relies on the Missouri rule for 

implementation of work practices 

contained in the approved manual 

which are documented by the reporting 

and record keeping requirements 

contained therein. Therefore, EPA 

proposes to approve this portion of 

Missouri rule 10 CSR 10–6.120. 

E. Test Methods 

Missouri rule 10 CSR 10–6.120(5) 

contains the required test methods for 

stack testing in accordance with the 

requirements for visible emissions 

contained in Missouri rule 10 CSR 10– 

6.030(9), for quantifying Pb in stack 

gases in accordance with Missouri rule 

10 CSR 10–6.030(12), and for measuring 

Pb in ambient air in accordance with 

Missouri rule 10 CSR 10–030(12). These 

methods have all been determined to 

comply with the equivalent EPA 

Methods 12 and 29 promulgated by 40 

CFR part 60 appendix A. 

The Test Methods required by the 

revised Missouri rule are necessary to 

determine that the facility is complying 

with the stack emission limits imposed 

by the Viburnum Trend Area attainment 

SIP. The SIP relies on the Missouri rule 

for the Test Methods and reporting of 

the results of testing to determine 

compliance. Therefore, EPA proposes to 

approve this portion of Missouri rule 10 

CSR 10–6.120. 

VII. Proposed Action 

EPA is proposing to grant full 

approval of Missouri’s attainment 

demonstration SIP for the Viburnum 

Trend 2008 lead NAAQS nonattainment 

area. EPA believes that the SIP 

submitted by Missouri 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

standard in the Viburnum Trend, 

Missouri, area. 

Pursuant to Missouri’s March 4, 2015, 

withdrawal request, EPA is not taking 

action on the Doe Run primary lead 

smelter-refinery emissions limits in 10 

CSR 10–6.120(3)(B)1. and table I, and 

the 0.00087 gr/dscf main stack 

emissions limit for BRRF in 10 CSR 10– 

6.120(3)(B)2. EPA proposes to approve 

the remaining portions of the revision to 

Missouri rule 10 CSR 10–6.120 as part 

of Missouri’s SIP. 

Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

In this action, EPA is proposing to 

include in a final EPA rule regulatory 

text that includes incorporation by 

reference. In accordance with the 

requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, EPA is 

proposing to incorporate by reference 

Missouri Rule 10 CSR 10–6.120 (with 

the exclusions of Paragraph 10–6.120 

(3)(B)1. and Table 1, and the 0.00087 gr/ 

dscf main stack emissions limit for 


rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 104 / Monday, June 1, 2015 / Proposed Rules 30973 

BRRF) described in the proposed 

amendments to 40 CFR part 52 set forth 

below. EPA has made, and will continue 

to make, these documents generally 

available electronically through 

www.regulations.gov and/or in hard 

copy at the appropriate EPA office (see 

the ADDRESSES section of this preamble 

for more information). 

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 

rulemaking 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 rulemaking would 

approve 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). 

The SIP is not approved to apply on 

any Indian reservation land or in any 

other area where EPA or an Indian tribe 

has demonstrated that a tribe has 

jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian 

country, the rule does not have tribal 

implications and will not impose 

substantial direct costs on tribal 

governments or preempt tribal law 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 rulemaking 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 proposed 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 July 31, 2015. Filing a petition 

for reconsideration by the Administrator 

of this proposed rule does not affect the 

finality of this rulemaking 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 future rule or action. 

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. 

Dated: May 19, 2015. 

Mark Hague, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region 7. 

For the reasons stated in the 

preamble, the EPA proposes to amend 

40 CFR part 52 as set forth below: 

PART 52—APPROVAL AND 

PROMULGATION OF 

IMPLEMENTATION PLANS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 52 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. 

Subpart AA—Missouri 

■ 2. In § 52. 1320 amend the table in 

paragraph (c) by revising the entry for 

Missouri Rule 10 CSR 10–6.120 and the 

table in paragraph (d) by adding new 

entry (29) to read as follows: 

§ 52.1320 Identification of plan. 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 


rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
30974 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 104 / Monday, June 1, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

EPA-APPROVED MISSOURI REGULATIONS

Missouri citation Title State effective 

date EPA approval date Explanation 

Missouri Department of Natural Resources 

*******

Chapter 6—Air Quality Standards, Definitions, Sampling and Reference Methods, and Air Pollution Control Regulations for the State of 

Missouri 

*******

10–6.120 ................. Restriction of Emissions of Lead from 

Specific Lead Smelter-Refinery Installations.

3/30/09 6/1/15 and [Insert 

Federal Register 

citation].

Paragraph (3)(B)1 and Table, Provision 

Pertaining to Limitations of Lead 

Emissions from Specific Installations, 

is not approved as part of the SIP. 

The requirement to limit main stack 

lead emissions at BRRF to 0.00087 

gr/dscf lead in Paragraph (3)(B)2 is 

not approved as part of the SIP. 

* * * * * * * 

* * * * * (d) * * * 

EPA-APPROVED MISSOURI SOURCE-SPECIFIC PERMITS AND ORDERS

Name of source Order/permit number State effective 

date EPA approval date Explanation 

*******

(29) Doe Run Buick Resource Recycling Facility.Consent Judgment 13IR–CC00016 7/29/13 6/1/15 and [Insert Federal Register citation] 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2015–13128 Filed 5–29–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R08–OAR–2012–0972, FRL–9928–52– 

Region 8] 

Promulgation of State Implementation 

Plan Revisions; Infrastructure 

Requirements for the 2008 Ozone, 2008 

Lead, and 2010 NO2 National Ambient 

Air Quality Standards; Colorado 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve 

elements of State Implementation Plan 

(SIP) revisions from the State of 

Colorado to demonstrate the State meets 

infrastructure requirements of the Clean 

Air Act (Act, CAA) for the National 

Ambient Air Quality Standards 

(NAAQS) promulgated for ozone on 

March 12, 2008; lead (Pb) on October 

15, 2008; and nitrogen dioxide (NO2) on 

January 22, 2010. Section 110(a) of the 

CAA requires that each state submit a 

SIP for the implementation, 

maintenance, and enforcement of each 

NAAQS promulgated by EPA. 

DATES: Written comments must be 

received on or before July 1, 2015. 

ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a 

docket for this action under Docket 

Identification Number EPA–R08–OAR– 

2012–0972. All documents in the docket 

are listed on the http://

www.regulations.gov Web site. Although 

listed in the index, some information 

may not be publicly available, i.e., 

Confidential Business Information or 

other information the disclosure of 

which is restricted by statute. Certain 

other material, such as copyrighted 

material, is not placed on the Internet 

and will be publicly available only in 

the hard copy form. Publicly available 

docket materials are available either 

electronically through http://

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at 

EPA Region 8, Office of Partnership and 

Regulatory Assistance, Air Program, 

1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, 

Colorado, 80202–1129. The EPA 

requests that you contact the individual 

listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT section to view the hard copy 

of the docket. The Regional Office’s 

official hours of business are Monday 

through Friday, 8:00 a.m.–4:00 p.m., 

excluding federal holidays. An 

electronic copy of the State’s SIP 

compilation is also available at http://

www.epa.gov/region8/air/sip.html. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Abby Fulton, Air Program, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency 

(EPA), Region 8, Mail Code 8P–AR, 

1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado 

80202–1129, 303–312–6563, 

fulton.abby@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. General Information 

What should I consider as I prepare my 

comments for EPA? 

1. Submitting Confidential Business 

Information (CBI). Do not submit CBI to 

EPA through http://www.regulations.gov 

or email. Clearly mark the part or all of 

the information that you claim to be 

CBI. For CBI information on a disk or 

CD–ROM that you mail to EPA, mark 


rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS