[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 43 (Wednesday, March 5, 1997)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 9970-9973]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-5132]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

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


Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; State of 
Missouri

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The EPA is approving the Asarco Glover, Missouri, lead 
emission control plan submitted by the state of Missouri on August 14, 
1996. The plan was submitted by the state to satisfy certain 
requirements under the Clean Air Act (CAA) to reduce lead emissions 
sufficient to bring the Glover area into attainment with the National 
Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) for lead.

DATES: This action is effective May 5, 1997 unless by April 4, 1997 
adverse or critical comments are received. If the effective date is 
delayed, timely notice will be published in the Federal Register.

ADDRESSES: Copies of the documents relevant to this action are 
available for public inspection during normal business hours at the: 
Environmental Protection Agency, Air Planning and Development Branch, 
726 Minnesota Avenue, Kansas City, Kansas 66101; and the EPA Air & 
Radiation Docket and Information Center, 401 M Street, SW., Washington, 
DC 20460.

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    Currently, the only significant source of lead contributing to 
violations of the lead NAAQS in the Glover area is a primary lead 
smelter owned and operated by the American Smelting and Refining 
Company (Asarco). The smelter processes lead concentrate recovered from 
lead mines into pure lead or lead compounds to meet its customer's 
specifications. The facility's refining capacity is approximately 
140,000 tons of refined lead per year.
    The original Glover lead State Implementation Plan (SIP) was 
approved by the EPA in 1981.
    Subsequent to SIP approval, the EPA conducted modeling which 
predicted continued violations of the standard. Asarco and Missouri 
prepared several SIP revisions; however, these revisions were not 
approved because modeling still showed violations in some areas defined 
as ``ambient air.'

[[Page 9971]]

    In 1987, the state began to record violations of the lead standard 
three miles from the facility. These data prompted Region VII to 
request more monitors in closer proximity to the source. On November 5, 
1990, the EPA requested that the state of Missouri revise the SIP for 
this facility based on modeling conducted for 1983 through 1987, and 
based on monitored violations during 1988, 1989, and 1990.
    On November 6, 1991, the EPA designated the Liberty and Arcadia 
Townships which surround the Glover facility as nonattainment for lead. 
This designation became effective on January 6, 1992.
    The attainment plan was required to be submitted 18 months after 
the designation or by July 6, 1993. The state failed to make the 
required submission and on August 2, 1993, the EPA notified the 
Governor by letter of this fact. This notice initiated sanctions clocks 
in accordance with section 179 of the CAA and the Federal 
Implementation Plan (FIP) clock in accordance with section 110 of the 
CAA.
    Under section 179 of the CAA, the EPA must impose sanctions on a 
nonattainment area for which the state has failed to submit a plan 
which has been determined complete by the EPA. The first of two 
sanctions must be implemented within 18 months after the date of the 
finding (or in this case, not later than January 2, 1995), and the 
second sanction must be implemented within 6 months after the 
implementation of the first sanction (or in this case, not later than 
August 2, 1995).
    On August 4, 1994 (59 FR 39832), the EPA published a rulemaking 
which identifies the order of sanctions as follows: the first sanction 
to be imposed is the 2:1 offset sanction which requires 2:1 offsets for 
emission increases of the nonattainment pollutant from certain new or 
modified major sources within the nonattainment area; the second 
sanction to be imposed is the highway funding sanction. Under this 
sanction, Federal highway funds are withheld from the nonattainment 
area, unless the funds are for exempt projects.
    Furthermore, section 110(c) of the Act obligates the EPA to 
promulgate a FIP within two years of a finding that the state has 
failed to submit the required plan. The EPA must approve a plan 
submitted by the state in order to stop the FIP clock.
    In a January 27, 1995, letter, the EPA notified the Governor of the 
imposition of the mandatory offset sanction on February 2, 1995, 
barring a complete submission. And in an August 1, 1995, letter, the 
EPA notified the Governor of the imposition of the mandatory highway 
funding sanction on August 2, 1995, barring a complete submission.
    Both sanctions were imposed until September 18, 1996, when the EPA 
was able to find that the state's August 14, 1996, submittal was 
complete, thus lifting the sanctions.

II. Criteria for Approval

    The state's August 14, 1996, submission was reviewed using the 
criteria established by the CAA. The requirements for all SIPs are 
contained in section 110(a)(2) of the CAA. Subpart 1 of Part D of Title 
I of the CAA, and in particular section 172(c), specifies the 
provisions necessitated by designation of an area as nonattainment for 
any of the NAAQS. Further guidance and criteria are set forth in 
Subpart 5 of Part D, the ``General Preamble for the Implementation of 
Title I of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990'' (57 FR 13498), and in 
the ``Addendum to the General Preamble for the Implementation of Title 
I of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990'' (58 FR 67748).

III. Review of State Submittal

A. Control Strategy

    The control strategy must contain provisions to ensure that 
Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT), including Reasonably 
Available Control Measures (RACM), for area sources are implemented 
(see section 172(c)(1) of the CAA). See 57 FR 13549 and 58 FR 67748 for 
the EPA's interpretation of RACM and RACT requirements.
    The state's selection of control strategies for the SIP was based 
on an evaluation of controls provided to the state by Asarco and its 
contractors. In this study, Asarco evaluated 19 fugitive emission 
control strategies and 29 process and stack-related control strategies. 
Asarco selected what it considered to be the most implementable and 
cost-effective options from this list which would bring the area into 
attainment with the lead NAAQS. The state concurred with Asarco's 
assessment that these controls constituted RACT. Detailed information 
regarding Asarco's control option selection process can be found in the 
EPA's technical support document (TSD).
    The attainment modeling assisted Asarco and the state in focusing 
the control strategy by indicating which sources or groups of sources 
were the greatest contributors to the ambient concentrations.
    Sinter plan fugitive emissions were identified as the single 
largest contributor to the violations with an estimated contribution of 
91 percent. The sinter plant scrubber stack, the sinter plan 
ventilation baghouse stack, and the in-plant roads were also identified 
as significant contributors.
    The sinter plant is the first process point for the lead 
concentrate at the lead smelter. Fugitive emissions from the sinter 
plant building are created by sources inside the building as well as by 
losses from point source ventilation systems. Emissions caused by 
material conveyance, crushing, and screening exit the building through 
open sides and roof monitors. This plan requires increased efficiency 
of materials handling by the reduction of transfer steps, and the 
enclosure and ventilation of the sinter plant.
    The sinter plant scrubber cleans ventilation gases from the 
crushing and mixing of virgin feedstock for the sinter machine. The 
emissions from the scrubber currently exit the roof of the sinter 
building through the wet scrubber stack. The plan requires that these 
gases, once processed by the scrubber, be routed to the sinter machine 
updraft fans to be used as process air for the sinter feedstock bed. 
The gases will ultimately be captured by the sinter machine ventilation 
hoods and routed to the process gas baghouse.
    The sinter plant wheelabrator ventilation baghouse cleans the point 
source ventilation gases from the crushing and sorting of sinter 
produced from the sinter machine. These gases exit the roof of the 
sinter building through the baghouse stack. This plan will require that 
baghouse gases be rerouted to the intake of the sinter machine updraft 
fans to be used as process gases and ultimately collected by the sinter 
machine hoods and routed to the process gas baghouse.
    Finally, the plan requires compliance with state and Federally 
approved work practices to minimize fugitive emissions from in-plant 
roadways, stockpiles, baghouse unloading, and other sources. These work 
practices require additional trafficway paving, sweeping, dust 
supression, and materials handling practices to reduce fugitive 
emissions.
    Once approved, these work practices may be modified only through 
Federal approval of a SIP revision.

B. Attainment Demonstration

    Section 192(a) of the CAA requires that SIPs must provide for 
attainment of the lead NAAQS as expeditiously as practicable, but not 
later than five years from the date of an area's nonattainment 
designation. The lead nonattainment designation for the Liberty and 
Arcadia Townships became effective on January

[[Page 9972]]

6, 1992; therefore, the latest attainment date permissible by statute 
is January 6, 1997.
    The Industrial Source Complex Short-Term Model was used to 
demonstrate attainment and maintenance of the lead NAAQS. The 
procedures recommended in the EPA's Guideline on Air Quality Models 
(Revised), EPA 450/2-78-027R, July 1986, and Supplement A to the 
Guideline on Air Quality Models (Revised), EPA 450/2-78-027R, July 
1987, were followed. This modeling predicts attainment of the Federal 
lead standard by January 1, 1997, with the implementation of the 
control strategy. See the TSD for more information.

C. Emission Inventory and Air Quality Data

    Section 172(c)(3) of the CAA requires that nonattainment plan 
provisions include a comprehensive, accurate, current inventory of 
actual emissions from all sources of relevant pollutants in the 
nonattainment area.
    Asarco, the state, and the EPA undertook a comprehensive study to 
develop an accurate baseline emission inventory and dispersion model. 
This inventory was quantified through stack testing, evaluation of 
equipment and procedures, the EPA emission estimation methods, and 
engineering judgment. The attainment emission inventory was derived 
from the baseline inventory with the control strategy applied. Both 
inventories are included in the state's submittal.
    The state's submittal also provides a historical summary of the air 
quality data for the Glover area collected from 1984 through the most 
current quarter.

D. Reasonable Further Progress (RFP)

    The SIP must provide for RFP [see section 172(c)(2) of the Act]. 
The state's Consent Decree specifies an implementation schedule which 
requires a logical stepwise implementation of emissions control 
projects. This schedule results in a continual decrease of lead 
emissions through the implementation of the last projects, scheduled to 
be completed by December 31, 1996. The EPA believes that the RFP 
demonstration meets the requirements of section 172(c)(2) and the 
relevant guidelines in the ``Addendum to the General Preamble for the 
Implementation of Title I of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990'' (58 
FR 67748).

E. New Source Review (NSR)

    Section 172(c)(5) requires that nonattainment areas be subject to 
the NSR permitting requirements of section 173. Missouri NSR 
regulations were originally approved pursuant to Part D of the Act on 
May 9, 1980 (45 FR 30626). The 1990 Amendments to the Act added other 
requirements pursuant to the review and approval of new and modified 
sources. Missouri incorporated these requirements into its regulations, 
and the EPA approved this SIP revision on February 29, 1996 (61 FR 
7714). Therefore, the state's rules presently meet the requirements of 
sections 172(c)(5) and 173. The EPA proposed changes to the Part D NSR 
regulations on July 23, 1996 (61 FR 38250). Missouri may be required to 
revise its NSR regulations to conform to the final EPA requirements, 
when finalized.

F. Contingency Measures

    As provided in section 172(c)(9) of the CAA, all nonattainment area 
SIPs must include contingency measures. Contingency measures should 
consist of specific emission control measures that are not part of the 
area's control strategy. These measures must take effect without 
further action by the state or the EPA, upon a determination that the 
area has failed to meet RFP or attain the lead NAAQS by the applicable 
attainment date.
    There are seven contingency measures established in item 2.C. of 
the state's Consent Decree. These measures are: (1) construct and 
utilize a truck wash, (2) expand the in-plant road sprinkler system, 
(3) withdraw unloading building air for sinter plant make-up air, (4) 
comply with more stringent stack emission limitations, (5) cool lead 
bullion pots before dumping into receiving kettles, (6) modify refinery 
skims handling in blast furnace area, and (7) increase efficiency of 
sinter plant ventilation baghouse. In accordance with the Consent 
Decree, contingency measure number 1 would be implemented by Asarco 
within 30 days from receipt of notice by Missouri that the area failed 
to attain the standard. In the case that an additional violation is 
recorded, measures 2, 3, and 4 would be implemented in the following 
quarter and, in the case that a further violation is recorded, measures 
5, 6, and 7 would be implemented. No triggers were set for contingency 
measure implementation in the case that the area failed to maintain 
RFP, based on circumstances unique to this lead SIP. The plan was 
adopted by the state well into Asarco's implementation of the control 
strategy, and the impending attainment date would not allow much 
evaluation of Asarco's maintenance of RFP by the state prior to the 
statutory deadline for attainment of the standard.

G. Enforceability

    All measures and other elements in the SIP must be enforceable by 
the state and the EPA (see sections 172(c)(6), 110(a)(2)(A), and 57 FR 
13556). The state submittal includes rule 10 CSR 10-6.120 and Consent 
Decree Case No. CV596-98CC, which contain all of the control and 
contingency measures, with enforceable dates for implementation. This 
Consent Decree also contains language regarding stipulated penalties. 
While the EPA is approving this language, Federal enforcement actions 
and related activities would be initiated by the EPA pursuant to its 
authority under the CAA.
    As mentioned above, a Work Practice Manual was also included in the 
state's submission as an integral part of the enforceable plan to 
achieve attainment of the standard. These work practices are designed 
to limit the fugitive emissions at the facility, and are enforced 
through recordkeeping requirements. Noncompliance with the established 
work practices is a violation of the state's rule and the terms of the 
Consent Decree. The EPA approves the Work Practice Manual with the 
understanding that any change to the Work Practice Manual requires a 
revision to the Missouri SIP.

IV. Implications of This Action

    This SIP revision will significantly revise the current SIP. The 
modeling performed in support of the SIP revision indicates that the 
emissions control strategy will result in attainment of the NAAQS for 
lead by January 1, 1997.

V. Final Action

    Pursuant to sections 110 and 172 of the CAA, this is a direct final 
action which approves the lead plan submitted by the state of Missouri 
on August 14, 1996, in response to the designation of the Liberty and 
Arcadia Townships as nonattainment for lead. This SIP revision meets 
the requirements of section 110 and Part D of Title I of the CAA and 40 
CFR Part 51.
    The EPA is publishing this action without prior proposal because 
the Agency views this as a noncontroversial amendment and anticipates 
no adverse comments. However, in a separate document in this Federal 
Register publication, the EPA is proposing to approve the SIP revision 
should adverse or critical comments be filed. This action is effective 
May 5, 1997 unless, by April 4, 1997, adverse or critical comments are 
received.
    If the EPA receives such comments, this action will be withdrawn 
before the effective date by publishing a

[[Page 9973]]

subsequent notice that will withdraw the final action. All public 
comments received will then be addressed in a subsequent final rule 
based on this action serving as a proposed rule. The EPA will not 
institute a second comment period on this action. Any parties 
interested in commenting on this action should do so at this time. If 
no such comments are received, the public is advised that this action 
is effective May 5, 1997.
    Nothing in this action should be construed as permitting or 
allowing or establishing a precedent for any future request for 
revision to any SIP. Each request for revision to the SIP shall be 
considered separately in light of specific technical, economic, and 
environmental factors, and in relation to relevant statutory and 
regulatory requirements.

VI. Administrative Requirements

A. Executive Order (E.O.) 12866

    This action has been classified as a Table 3 action for signature 
by the Regional Administrator under the procedures published in the 
Federal Register on January 19, 1989 (54 FR 2214-2225), as revised by a 
July 10, 1995, memorandum from Mary Nichols, Assistant Administrator 
for Air and Radiation. The Office of Management and Budget has exempted 
this regulatory action from E.O. 12866 review.

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5. U.S.C. Sec. 600 et seq., 
the EPA must prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis assessing the 
impact of any proposed or final rule on small entities (5 U.S.C. 603 
and 604). Alternatively, the EPA may certify that the rule will not 
have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. 
Small entities include small businesses, small not-for-profit 
enterprises, and government entities with jurisdiction over populations 
of less than 50,000.
    SIP approvals under section 110 and subchapter I, Part D of the CAA 
do not create any new requirements but simply approve requirements that 
the state is already imposing. Therefore, because the Federal SIP 
approval does not impose any new requirements, the Administrator 
certifies that it does not have a significant impact on any small 
entities affected. Moreover, due to the nature of the Federal-state 
relationship under the CAA, preparation of a regulatory flexibility 
analysis would constitute Federal inquiry into the economic 
reasonableness of state action. The CAA forbids the EPA to base its 
actions concerning SIPs on such grounds (Union Electric Co. v. U.S. 
E.P.A., 427 U.S. 246, 256-66 (S.Ct. 1976); 42 U.S.C. 7410(a)(2)).

C. Unfunded Mandates

    Under section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 
(``Unfunded Mandates Act''), signed into law on March 22, 1995, the EPA 
must prepare a budgetary impact statement to accompany any proposed or 
final rule that includes a Federal mandate that may result in estimated 
costs to state, local, or tribal governments in the aggregate; or to 
private sector, of $100 million or more. Under section 205, the EPA 
must select the most cost-effective and least burdensome alternative 
that achieves the objectives of the rule and is consistent with 
statutory requirements. Section 203 requires the EPA to establish a 
plan for informing and advising any small governments that may be 
significantly or uniquely impacted by the rule.
    The EPA has determined that the approval action proposed does not 
include a Federal mandate that may result in estimated costs of $100 
million or more to either state, local, or tribal governments in the 
aggregate, or to the private sector. This Federal action approves 
preexisting requirements under state or local law, and imposes no new 
Federal requirements. Accordingly, no additional costs to state, local, 
or tribal governments, or to the private sector, result from this 
action.

D. Submission to Congress and the General Accounting Office

    Under 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A) as added by the Small Business 
Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, the EPA submitted a report 
containing this rule and other required information to the U.S. Senate, 
the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the 
General Accounting Office prior to publication of this rule in today's 
Federal Register. This rule is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 
U.S.C. 804(2).

E. Petitions for Judicial Review

    Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review 
of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for 
the appropriate circuit by May 5, 1997. Filing a petition for 
reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect 
the finality of this rule for the purposes of judicial review, nor does 
it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be 
filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. 
This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its 
requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by 
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Lead, Particulate matter, 
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: January 16, 1997.
Dennis Grams,
Regional Administrator.

    Part 52, chapter I, title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is 
amended as follows:

PART 52--[AMENDED]

    1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401--7671q.

Subpart AA--Missouri

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


Sec. 52.1320  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (95) Plan revisions were submitted by the Missouri Department of 
Natural Resources on August 14, 1996, which reduce lead emissions from 
the Asarco primary lead smelter located within the lead nonattainment 
area defined by the boundaries of the Liberty and Arcadia Townships 
located in Iron County, Missouri.
    (i) Incorporation by reference.
    (A) Rule 10 CSR 10-6.120, Restriction of Emissions of Lead From 
Primary Lead Smelter--Refinery Installations, except subsection 2(B) 
and 2(C), and section 4, effective June 30, 1996.
    (B) Consent Decree Case Number CV596-98CC, STATE OF MISSOURI ex. 
rel. Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon and the Missouri Department of Natural 
Resources v. ASARCO, INC., Missouri Lead Division, effective July 30, 
1996, with Exhibits A, C, D, E, F, and G.
    (ii) Additional material.
    (A) Narrative SIP material submitted on August 14, 1996. This 
submittal includes the emissions inventory and the attainment 
demonstration.

[FR Doc. 97-5132 Filed 3-4-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P