Document ID: EPA-R07-OAR-2014-0448-0001
Agency: epa
Document Type: Proposed Rule
Title: Air Quality State Implementation Plans; Approvals and Promulgations: State of Missouri; 2013 Missouri State Implementation Plan for the 2008 Lead Standard
Posted Date: 2014-07-24T04:00Z

[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 142 (Thursday, July 24, 2014)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 42991-42999]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-17480]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R07-OAR-2014-0448; FRL-9914-27-Region 7]

Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; State of 
Missouri; 2013 Missouri State Implementation Plan for the 2008 Lead 
Standard

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) proposes to grant 
full approval of Missouri's attainment demonstration State 
Implementation Plan (SIP) for the lead National Ambient Air Quality 
Standard (NAAQS) nonattainment area of Herculaneum, Missouri submitted 
on April 18, 2013. The applicable standard addressed in this action is 
the lead NAAQS promulgated by EPA in 2008. EPA believes that the SIP 
submitted by the state satisfies the applicable requirements of the 
Clean Air Act (CAA) identified in EPA's 2008 Final Rule and will bring 
the area into attainment of the 0.15 microgram per cubic meter (ug/
m\3\) lead NAAQS in the Herculaneum, Missouri area.
    In this action, EPA also proposes approval of a revision to the 
Missouri SIP related to the 2007 Consent Judgment which was previously 
approved into the Missouri SIP as part of an attainment demonstration 
for the 1978 lead NAAQS. This revision was submitted to EPA on November 
21, 2011.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before August 25, 2014.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R07-
OAR-2014-0448, by one of the following methods:
    1. www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for 
submitting comments.
    2. Email: hertzwu.sara@epa.gov.
    3. Mail, Hand Delivery or Courier: Sara Hertz Wu, Environmental 
Protection Agency, Air Planning and Development Branch, 11201 Renner 
Boulevard, Lenexa, Kansas 66219.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R07-OAR-
2014-0448. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included 
in the public docket without change and may be made available online at 
www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided, 
unless

[[Page 42992]]

the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential Business 
Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted 
by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI or 
otherwise protected through www.regulations.gov or email. The 
www.regulations.gov Web site is an ``anonymous access'' system, which 
means EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you 
provide it in the body of your comment.
    If you send an email comment directly to EPA without going through 
www.regulations.gov, your email address will be automatically captured 
and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket 
and made available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic 
comment, EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact 
information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you 
submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties 
and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to 
consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special 
characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or 
viruses.
    Docket. All documents in the electronic docket are listed in the 
www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some 
information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information 
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such 
as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy. 
Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically 
in www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Environmental Protection 
Agency, Air Planning and Development Branch, 11201 Renner Boulevard, 
Lenexa, Kansas. EPA requests that you contact the person listed in the 
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to schedule your inspection. 
The interested persons wanting to examine these documents should make 
an appointment with the office at least 24 hours in advance.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sara Hertz Wu at (913) 551-7316, or 
email her at hertzwu.sara@epa.gov.

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

Table of Contents

I. What is being addressed in this document?
II. Have the requirements for the approval of a SIP revision been 
met?
III. What action is EPA taking?
IV. Background
V. Technical Review of the Attainment Demonstration SIP Related to 
the 2008 Lead NAAQS
    A. Facility Description
    B. Model Selection, Meteorological and Emissions Inventory Input 
Data
    C. Modeling Analysis
    1. Base Case Analysis
    2. Future Case Analysis
    D. Control Strategy
    E. Reasonably Available Control Measures (RACM) Including 
Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT) and Reasonable 
Further Progress (RFP)
    F. Attainment Demonstration
    G. New Source Review (NSR)
    H. Contingency Measures
    I. Enforceability
VI. Review of Submittal Related to the 1978 Lead NAAQS
VII. Proposed Action
VIII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. What is being addressed in this document?

    In this document, EPA is addressing Missouri's attainment 
demonstration SIP for the lead NAAQS nonattainment area of Herculaneum, 
Missouri. The applicable standard addressed in this action is the lead 
NAAQS promulgated by EPA in 2008. EPA believes that the SIP submitted 
by the state satisfies the applicable requirements of the CAA 
identified in EPA's Final Rule (73 FR 66964, October 15, 2008), and 
demonstrates attainment of the 0.15 microgram per cubic meter (ug/m\3\) 
lead NAAQS in the Herculaneum, Missouri area.
    In this document, EPA is also addressing a revision to the Missouri 
SIP related to the 2007 Consent Judgment which was previously approved 
in the Missouri SIP as part of an attainment demonstration for the 1978 
lead NAAQS (77 FR 9529, February 17, 2012).

II. Have the requirements for the approval of a SIP revision been met?

    The state submission has met the public notice requirements for SIP 
submissions in accordance with 40 CFR 51.102. The submission also 
satisfied the completeness criteria of 40 CFR part 51, appendix V. In 
addition, the revision meets the substantive SIP requirements of the 
CAA, including section 110 and implementing regulations.

III. What action is EPA taking?

    EPA is proposing to grant full approval of Missouri's attainment 
demonstration SIP for the 2008 lead NAAQS. We are also proposing to 
approve a revision to the Missouri SIP related to the 1978 lead NAAQS. 
We are processing this as a proposed action because we are soliciting 
comments on this proposed action. Final rulemaking will occur after 
consideration of any comments.

IV. Background

    EPA established the NAAQS for lead on October 5, 1978 (43 FR 
46246). The 1978 NAAQS for lead is set at a level of 1.5 ug/m\3\ of 
air, averaged over a calendar quarter. The Herculaneum, Missouri area 
is designated nonattainment for the 1978 lead NAAQS. EPA's most recent 
approved revision to Missouri's State Implementation Plan to address 
the 1978 lead NAAQS was on February 7, 2012 (77 FR 9529).\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ A complete history of EPA's approval of numerous Missouri 
SIPs addressing the 1978 lead NAAQS can be found at 75 FR 52701.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On October 15, 2008, EPA established a new lead NAAQS of 0.15 ug/
m\3\ of air, measured as a rolling three-month average. (73 FR 66964). 
On November 22, 2010, EPA designated the City of Herculaneum as 
nonattainment for the 2008 lead NAAQS. (75 FR 71033).\2\ Under Section 
191(a) of the CAA, Missouri is required to submit to EPA an attainment 
demonstration SIP revision for lead and to demonstrate the 
nonattainment area will reach attainment of the 2008 lead NAAQS no 
later than five years from the date of the nonattainment area 
designation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ EPA also designated portions of Iron, Dent, and Reynolds 
Counties as nonattainment for the 2008 lead NAAQS. 75 FR 71033. 
Those nonattainment areas will be addressed in a separate action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This rulemaking proposes approval of Missouri's SIP to bring the 
Herculaneum area into attainment for the 2008 lead NAAQS. This 
rulemaking also proposes approval of an amendment to the 2007 Consent 
Judgment previously approved in Missouri's SIP related to the 1978 lead 
NAAQS.

V. Technical Review of the Attainment Demonstration SIP for the 2008 
Lead NAAQS

A. Facility Description

    The Doe Run-Herculaneum facility opened in 1892 and, at the time of 
the nonattainment designation, was the only primary lead smelter 
operating in the United States. The primary lead smelting process 
begins with lead concentrate. Doe Run-owned mining and milling 
operations located in southeastern Missouri are the primary source of 
Doe Run-Herculaneum's lead ore and lead concentrate. Lead concentrate, 
typically 45 percent to 50 percent lead by weight, is mined from 
underground ore deposits. The ore which contains about six percent lead 
by weight, is crushed and then processed into lead concentrate at the 
mills. Lead concentrate contains

[[Page 42993]]

approximately 75 percent lead by weight. Lead concentrate was 
previously transported from the mines/mills to the Herculaneum smelter 
by rail, but since 2002 has been transported exclusively by truck to 
Herculaneum. Once delivered to the Herculaneum primary lead smelter, 
the process of smelting the lead concentrate into high purity lead can 
be divided into three main steps: Sintering, reducing (smelting), and 
refining.
    The Doe Run smelter was limited to the production of 130,000 tons 
of refined lead per year based on a 12-month rolling average period 
pursuant to the terms of a Consent Decree applicable to the Herculaneum 
Facility entered into by Doe Run, Missouri, and EPA in the United 
States District Court in the Eastern District of Missouri, Case No. 
4:10-cv-01895-JCH on December 21, 2011 (2011 Consent Decree).
    On December 31, 2013, pursuant to the terms of the 2011 Consent 
Decree, Doe Run permanently ceased operations of the sintering plant. 
On April 30, 2014, the 2011 Consent Decree also required Doe Run to 
permanently cease smelting operations and retire the blast furnaces; 
however, Doe Run ceased operation of the blast furnaces on December 31, 
2013, concurrently with the cessation of operation of the sintering 
plant. The only active lead-processing units that may remain after 
shutdown are related to refining operations in the Refinery and Strip 
Mill building.
    The Refinery building is attached to the blast furnace building and 
is currently used for refining, drossing, and casting operations. The 
Strip Mill is a hot rolling mill used to turn cast refined lead into 
long, continuous strips of flat rolled lead as required by certain 
customers. These units are addressed in the state's SIP control 
strategy and are discussed in more detail in section V.D. of this 
document.
    In order to maintain operational flexibility at the Refinery and 
Strip Mill units, at Doe Run's request, Missouri has included two 
possible operating scenarios for Doe Run in its SIP. These scenarios 
are referred to as ``Scenario A'' and ``Scenario B'' and are described 
in more detail in this document.
    On February 24, 2011, Doe Run requested a permit from Missouri to 
construct a pyrometallurgical technology that would have substantially 
reduced lead emissions than the previous smelter, sintering, and blast 
furnace operations. The 2007 Consent Judgment, approved as part of 
Missouri's SIP for the 1978 lead NAAQS, prohibited construction of new 
lead emitting processes within the Doe Run property fenceline. Doe Run 
requested a revision to the 2007 Consent Judgment to allow for the 
construction of this new low-lead emitting process next to the existing 
smelter within the property fenceline. On November 14, 2011, Missouri 
issued the construction permit, revised the 2007 Consent Judgment for 
the new pyrometallurgical technology, and submitted a SIP revision to 
EPA on November 21, 2011. This requested revision is addressed in 
Section VI of this document. To date, Doe Run has not constructed this 
new technology.

B. Model Selection, Meteorological and Emissions Inventory Input Data

    Missouri conducted air dispersion modeling to evaluate the 
effectiveness of the proposed control strategy. The model, AERMOD, was 
utilized and is EPA's preferred model for demonstrating attainment of 
the lead NAAQS. AERMOD estimates the combined ambient impact of sources 
by simulating Gaussian dispersion of emissions plumes. Emission rates, 
wind speed and direction, atmospheric mixing heights, terrain, plume 
rise from stack emissions, initial dispersion characteristics of 
fugitive sources, particle size and density are all factors considered 
by the model when estimating ambient impacts. Missouri performed two 
dispersion modeling analyses for the 2008 lead NAAQS for the 
Herculaneum area. One was an analysis of current conditions to ensure 
the model is performing adequately (base case). The second analysis 
examined the effectiveness of proposed emission controls (future case). 
The results of these analyses will be discussed in more detail in 
section V.C. of this document.
    Missouri used the meteorological data from the meteorological 
monitoring network maintained by Doe Run pursuant to the 2007 Consent 
Judgment that is part of the Missouri SIP for the 1978 lead NAAQS. Doe 
Run collected site-specific wind speed and direction data for at least 
five years. Missouri selected one year of representative meteorological 
data for use in the model. The upper air station at Lincoln, Illinois 
was used to gather upper level air data including information on the 
vertical temperature, moisture and wind characteristics of the 
atmosphere. This data set provided confidence that the controls 
selected for the attainment demonstration will be effective over a 
large variety of meteorological conditions. The meteorological data 
were run through AERMOD's pre-processors to make the data usable by the 
model.
    As required by Section 172(c)(3) of the CAA, a revised emission 
inventory was developed for this nonattainment area. The geographic 
boundary of the nonattainment area is the city of Herculaneum, located 
in Jefferson County, Missouri. The emission inventory data are 
specifically for lead emissions. While lead particulate may be 
estimated as a portion of PM10 emissions, only lead 
emissions are presented in the inventory. A single point source (Doe 
Run) drives the lead inventory for the nonattainment area, but other 
sources, such as non-point and mobile sources were described in the 
emissions inventory for completeness. Doe Run, as a Title V (Part 70) 
source is required to submit its emissions inventory annually. 
Therefore, the emissions inventory includes the 2011 inventory which 
was the most recent inventory available for the facility at the time of 
the development of the state's plan. Nonpoint and mobile source 
emissions are from the 2008 National Emissions Inventory (NEI), a 
dataset prepared triennially through state, tribal and EPA cooperation.
    The 2011 lead emission totals for Doe Run Herculaneum are 21.11 
tons per year. There are no other point sources in the Herculaneum 
nonattainment area that have reported lead emissions to Missouri. The 
2008 NEI for nonpoint and mobile source emissions show that these 
sources combined comprise approximately 0.15 percent of point source 
emissions total and therefore were not included in the modeling 
exercise as discreet sources. Emissions from nonpoint and mobile 
sources are included in the background concentration.
    In accordance with 40 CFR Part 51, appendix W, background 
concentrations must be considered when determining NAAQS compliance. 
Background concentrations are intended to include impacts attributable 
to natural sources, nearby sources (excluding the dominant source(s)), 
and unidentified sources. The calculated background concentration 
includes all sources of lead not already included in the model run 
script. The background concentration includes distant sources of lead, 
which may have originally derived from the plant, or reentreinment of 
naturally occurring lead in the atmosphere.
    In general, the background value is calculated by averaging the 
monitored concentrations at monitor sites outside the area of immediate 
dominant source impact and on days when the predominant wind direction 
was not blowing from the dominant source to the monitors. Missouri 
began with all

[[Page 42994]]

monitored days and identified days with no measured one-hour average 
wind direction from the smelter. Each monitor was examined in 
conjunction with an acceptable wind fan and the concentrations are 
averaged on days with no predominant winds from the facility. The 
resulting concentration from all the monitors in the evaluation is the 
background concentration for the area.
    The days selected for the calculation match the model study period. 
Therefore, EPA agrees that the calculated value represents the best 
estimate of background after all improvements from the 2007 SIP 
revision for the 1978 lead NAAQS (2007 SIP Revision) were implemented. 
Additional information can be found in the Missouri SIP, Section 4.3.

C. Modeling Analysis

1. Base Case Analysis
    As discussed above, Missouri used the AERMOD dispersion model to 
run two analyses, the base case and the future case. The base case 
evaluated a reasonable estimate of maximum potential emissions to 
account for contributing sources based on normal facility operations. 
The base case model analysis used the modeling completed for the 
attainment demonstration for the 1978 lead NAAQS. See 73 FR 58913. 
Missouri, EPA, and Doe Run agreed that the modeling done in 2007 could 
be used if the monitoring data verified the SIP attainment 
demonstration for the 1978 lead NAAQS. Missouri compared the 2007 
script used for the model and the current conditions at the Herculaneum 
facility. Actual emissions data from the Missouri Emissions Inventory 
System (MOEIS), monitoring data, and information from the smelter were 
all reviewed and Missouri verified there were no changes to any 
processes or controls at the facility that would invalidate the 2007 
script.
    The only changes that occurred between the SIP revision for the 
1978 lead NAAQS and the current year were changes to the monitoring 
network and the fenceline. These changes affected only the receptor 
grid and did not have any effect on the current facility emission 
points, rates or controls. Additional information regarding the model 
used can be found in the docket for this action.
    Results from the SIP revision's attainment demonstration for the 
1978 lead NAAQS predicted that, after all control measures were 
installed, the maximum 3-month rolling average would be 1.492 ug/m\3\. 
Missouri found that the maximum 3-month rolling average measured at the 
Main Street monitor was 1.160 ug/m\3\ in April 2009. Because the 
attainment demonstration modeling was done with worst case scenario 
emission rates, it is expected that the actual monitoring values would 
be somewhat less than the predicted value. The monitoring data confirm 
the accuracy and reliability of the model's inputs and results. EPA 
agrees with Missouri's determination that a separate base case 
performance run was not necessary for the SIP revision for the 2008 
lead NAAQS because the results would be virtually identical to those 
obtained in the attainment demonstration for the 1978 lead NAAQS.
2. Future Case Analysis
    The future case analysis evaluated the control strategies of the 
SIP revision for the 1978 lead NAAQS pursuant to the existing Federally 
enforceable requirements that are applicable to the facility as well as 
the enforceable 2013 Consent Judgment between Missouri and Doe Run. See 
appendix O, Missouri SIP. The future case dispersion modeling is the 
attainment demonstration used to verify that the proposed control 
strategies will bring the Herculaneum Lead Nonattainment Area into 
compliance with the 2008 lead NAAQS.
    Missouri selected January 2009 to December 2009 as the base year 
because all emission reduction projects required by the SIP revision 
for the 1978 lead NAAQS had been completed. That base year inventory 
utilizes the emission rates that relate to specific emission activities 
at the Doe Run facility. Emission points in the model reflect the 
release points for these emissions (for example, a stack), not the 
location of the process unit that emitted the pollutant. An emission 
rate for each point source was obtained from the best available 
information.
    For the stack, emissions were validated by stack test data, which 
measure actual lead emissions released from the stack. For other 
emission rates, such as fugitive emissions, sampling information was 
used, if available. If sampling information was not available, emission 
rates were calculated based on known factors such as soil lead content, 
best available estimates such as traffic counts, or AP-42 
guidelines.\3\ For truck haul road emissions, truck traffic counts were 
used.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ AP-42, Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors, Fifth 
Edition, http://www.epa.gov/ttnchie1/ap42.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Based on the good engineering practice (GEP) requirements for stack 
heights (40 CFR 51.1(ii)), the main stack at Doe Run was modeled at 
100.75 meters in the base case model run. For the attainment year 
demonstration, no emissions will be vented to the main stack, 
therefore, none of the stacks contained within the attainment year 
model input files exceed 65 meters. All of the proposed stacks meet the 
GEP stack height requirements. Additional information regarding the 
future case year model inputs can be found in Section 4.2 of the 
Missouri SIP and Appendices H-M. EPA agrees with the modeling conducted 
by Missouri for its future case analysis.

D. Control Strategy

    In order to bring Herculaneum back into attainment of the 2008 Lead 
NAAQS, Missouri developed a control strategy for Doe Run-Herculaneum. 
One element of the control strategy is the shutdown of the blast 
furnaces and sinter plant, which has already occurred and part of the 
Federally enforceable 2011 Consent Decree, and requires no additional 
action by Missouri to implement into the attainment demonstration. The 
significant reductions from the shutdowns are expected to be the 
greatest source of emission reductions for the nonattainment area. 
Missouri's control strategy addresses the remaining lead emissions from 
the Strip Mill and Refinery and fugitive lead emissions generated from 
sources such as trucks transporting the material into the facility 
using haul roads.
    Despite not being able to produce refined lead from ore 
concentrates after the shutdown at Herculaneum, Doe Run told Missouri 
that it may continue to operate some processes at the Strip Mill and 
Refinery. Missouri worked with Doe Run to develop two potential 
operating scenarios, ``Scenario A'' and ``Scenario B.'' To address 
operation under Scenarios A and B, Missouri and Doe Run-Herculaneum 
developed a Consent Judgment (hereinafter referred to as the 2013 
Consent Judgment; found at Missouri SIP, Appendix O) as a means to 
establish enforceable emission and production limits, controls, 
operating parameters, and contingency measures to reduce lead emissions 
from point, area, and fugitive lead dust sources in support of 
achieving attainment of the 2008 lead NAAQS as soon as practicable 
following the shutdown of the blast furnaces and sinter plant. The 2013 
Consent Judgment was submitted as part of Missouri's attainment 
demonstration SIP for the 2008 lead NAAQS.
    Following the shutdown of the sinter plant and blast furnace under 
the 2011 Consent Decree, the Strip Mill is subject

[[Page 42995]]

to a production limit of a three-month rolling average of 3,750 tons of 
lead produced.
    The Refinery is subject to a production limit of a three month 
rolling average of 21,250 tons of lead produced after the shutdown of 
the sinter plant and blast furnace under the 2011 Consent Decree. The 
process at the Refinery building, if retained, will be more 
appropriately re-characterized as a re-melter. The building would 
consist of re-melting, casting and alloy-mixing to meet end-user demand 
from refined lead brought to the facility from elsewhere.
    Scenario A requires that unless superseded in the 2013 Consent 
Judgment, all applicable provisions from previous SIP revisions shall 
remain in effect. Therefore, operations at the current Refinery 
building shall continue to comply with the building ventilation/
particle containment, capture and control campaign outlined in the 2007 
SIP Revision and 2009 SIP Supplement for the 1978 lead NAAQS See 73 FR 
58913; 75 FR 52701; and 77 FR 9529.
    Additionally, if operations at the Refinery building are retained 
after the 2011 Consent Decree shutdown date, the 2013 Consent Judgment 
provides that Baghouses 8 and 9 shall be subject to 
an emission limit of 3.5 lb of lead/24 hours. The shutdown under the 
2011 Consent Decree eliminates Baghouse 7. The new emission 
limit represents a significant reduction from previous emissions.
    The 2013 Consent Judgment prescribes a stack testing regimen to 
demonstrate compliance with the emission limits under conditions of 
representative production. Further, if Doe Run chooses to operate under 
Scenario A, the Refinery production limit of a three-month rolling 
average of 21,250 tons of lead produced remains in effect.
    Doe Run will operate under Scenario B if it becomes cost effective 
to increase production at the current Refinery building. In Scenario B, 
all operating parameters used in Scenario A will remain in effect, 
except that the production limit at the Refinery will be increased to a 
three-month rolling average of 62,500 tons of lead produced. All the 
kettle heat stack emissions must be routed to Baghouse 9 with 
an accompanying increase in baghouse capacity. As described below, an 
increase in capacity at Baghouse 9 is also listed as a 
contingency measure. If Doe Run chooses to operate under Scenario B, 
the modification to the baghouse must occur before implementation as a 
contingency measure and the remaining contingency measures will be 
triggered in a different order, as discussed in Section V.H., below and 
as outlined in the Missouri SIP, Section 8 and Appendix O. Baghouse 
9 will be subject to an emission limit of 3.5 pounds of lead 
per day under Scenario B.
    The 2013 Consent Judgment specifies that under either operating 
scenario Doe Run could shrink the current fenceline to a minimum 
distance outlined by the modeled attainment concentration isopleths 
\4\/ambient air quality boundary or ``zone of public access 
preclusion,'' surrounding the remaining process building as outlined in 
the Missouri SIP. See section V.H. of this document. Pursuant to the 
2013 Consent Judgment, Doe Run must notify Missouri of any proposed 
changes to the fenceline, but if the changes to the fenceline are not 
less than the ``zone of public access preclustion,'' the changes to do 
not require a formal SIP revision.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Isopleths are lines connection receptor points of the same 
value, in this case: The same maximum lead air concentration equal 
to the standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Missouri determined that allowing Doe Run the flexibility to modify 
or establish a new fenceline within a modeled attainment boundary will 
benefit the community by expediting any future redevelopment/land reuse 
plans.
    Although the main smelting operations are shutdown under the 2011 
Consent Decree, Missouri expects some emissions to be generated by the 
trucks transporting refined lead products to and from the facility via 
haul roads. Doe Run continues to be subject to any terms of the 
previously approved SIP for the 1978 lead NAAQS standard that are not 
specifically superseded by the 2013 Consent Judgment, including 
provisions related to the control of fugitive emissions. Two of the 
contingency measures discussed in section V.H., below, also address 
fugitive emissions.
    Further, under the 2013 Consent Judgment, Missouri will continue to 
utilize its lead monitoring site network in accordance with the 2013 
Missouri Ambient Air Quality Monitoring Plan, which was approved by EPA 
on November 22, 2013. Doe Run will continue to collect data from all of 
these monitors until EPA has formally designated the Herculaneum 
nonattainment area as attainment for lead, until Doe Run no longer owns 
or operates the property, when Doe Run ceases operations of air 
emission units pursuant to the 2011 Consent Decree, or upon approval by 
Missouri that continued monitoring is not necessary.
    Doe Run will also continue operation of two continuous particulate 
samplers located at the Broad Street monitoring site and the ``City 
Hall'' monitoring site. The 2013 Consent Judgment requires Doe Run to 
report quarterly to Missouri (1) any day that exceeds a reported 
concentration of 0.5 ug/m\3\ of lead; or (2) any day that exceeds a 
reported concentration of 0.15 ug/m\3\ of lead and that falls on every 
sixth day national monitoring schedule. The analysis shall include a 
review of the continuous particulate monitoring, the daily ambient 
concentrations, wind speed and direction data, precipitation data, a 
summary of process throughputs, an identification of malfunctions, 
process upsets or other conditions that may be expected to contribute 
to ambient impact, and a summary of the analyses as described above.
    Doe Run will continue to collect data from all of these monitors 
until EPA has formally designated the Herculaneum nonattainment area as 
attainment for lead, until Doe Run no longer owns or operates the 
property, when Doe Run ceases operations of air emission units pursuant 
to the 2011 Consent Decree, or upon approve by Missouri that continued 
monitoring is not necessary.
    Doe Run has been collecting meteorological monitoring under its 
previously approved SIP. Following the shutdown of the sinter plant and 
blast furnace pursuant to the 2011 Consent Decree, Doe Run will no 
longer be required to collect data at the forty (40) meter station, 
provided a year of additional data has been collected and no future 
emissions units will vent to the main stack. Doe Run will only be 
required to operate one ten (10) meter meteorological station, the 
location of which must be approved by Missouri. Meteorological 
monitoring will be conducted pursuant to a quality assurance project 
plan, which must be approved by Missouri. Doe Run will continue to 
conduct meteorological monitoring until EPA has formally designated the 
Herculaneum nonattainment area as attainment for lead, until Doe Run no 
longer owns or operates the property, when Doe Run ceases operations of 
air emission units pursuant to the 2011 Consent Decree, or upon 
approval by Missouri that continued monitoring is not necessary.
    EPA believes that Missouri's control strategy implemented through 
the 2013 Consent Judgment will bring the area into attainment of the 
2008 Lead NAAQS.

[[Page 42996]]

E. Reasonably Available Control Measures (RACM) Including Reasonably 
Available Control Technology (RACT) and Reasonable Further Progress 
(RFP)

    Section 172(c)(1) of the CAA requires nonattainment areas to 
implement all RACM, including emissions reductions through the adoption 
of RACT, as expeditiously as practicable. EPA interprets this as 
requiring all nonattainment areas to consider all available controls 
and to implement all measures that are determined to be reasonably 
available, except that measures which will not assist the area to more 
expeditiously attain the standard are not required to be 
implemented.\5\ In March 2012, EPA issued guidance titled, 
``Implementation of Reasonably Available Control Measures (RACM) for 
Controlling Lead Emissions'' (RACM Guidance).\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See 58 FR 67751, Dec. 22 1993, for a discussion of this 
interpretation as it relates to lead.
    \6\ http://www.epa.gov/oar/lead/pdfs/2012ImplementationGuide.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 172(c)(2) of the CAA requires areas designated as 
nonattainment for criteria pollutants to include a demonstration of 
Reasonable Further Progress (RFP) in attainment demonstrations. Section 
171(1) of the CAA defines RFP as annual incremental reductions in 
emissions of the relevant air pollutants as required by Part D, or 
emission reductions that may reasonably be required by EPA to ensure 
attainment of the applicable NAAQS by the applicable date. Part D does 
not include specific RFP requirements for lead.
    Missouri performed a RACM analysis in compliance with the RACM 
Guidance. As stated in the final lead NAAQS rule, RFP is satisfied by 
the strict adherence to a compliance schedule which is expected to 
periodically yield significant emission reductions. Missouri has 
determined that the shutdown of the sinter plant by December 31, 2013, 
and the blast furnace by April 30, 2014, addresses both RACM and RFP 
based on the significant decrease in emissions that will result from 
these shutdowns. In addition, Scenarios A and B, which include 
production limits, emission limits for the remaining processes, and an 
optional scenario of re-routing kettle heat stacks to a baghouse will 
further reduce the potential emissions from the facility. Scenarios A 
and B have been modeled and meet the lead NAAQS and also comply with 
RACM and RFP.
    The shutdown of the sinter and blast furnace are discrete control 
measures that have already occurred. All known significant sources of 
lead emissions have been eliminated, controlled, or ruled out as being 
ineffective or not viable, consistent with EPA's RACT Guidance.
    The control strategy is not staggered or phased, therefore, ambient 
air quality concentrations are expected to drop at or below attainment 
levels immediately after implementation of the control strategy. RFP is 
addressed by the control strategy occurring in a timeframe consistent 
with the CAA and the 2011 Consent Decree. Further, as a result of the 
shutdown of the sintering plant and blast furnace, all of the 
nonattainment area's ambient air quality monitors are reporting Pb 
concentrations below the 2008 lead NAAQS for the three-month rolling 
average for January through March 2014. See http://www.dnr.mo.gov/env/apcp/docs/leadmonitordata.pdf.
    EPA proposes to approve Missouri's SIP as meeting sections 
172(c)(1) and (c)(2) of the CAA.

F. Attainment Demonstration

    CAA Section 172 requires a state to submit a plan for each of its 
nonattainment areas that demonstrates attainment of the applicable 
ambient air quality standard as expeditiously as practicable, but no 
later than the specified attainment date. This demonstration should 
consist of four parts: (1) Technical analyses that locate, identify, 
and quantify sources of emissions that are contributing to violations 
of the lead NAAQS; (2) analyses of future year emissions reductions and 
air quality improvement resulting from already-adopted national, state, 
and local programs and from potential new state and local measures to 
meet the RACT, RACM, and RFP requirements in the area; (3) adopted 
emissions reduction measures with schedules for implementation and (4) 
contingency measures required under section 172(c)(9) of the CAA.
    The requirements for the first two parts are described in the 
sections on emissions inventories and RACM/RACT, above and in the 
sections on air quality modeling and the attainment demonstration that 
follows immediately below. Requirements for the third and fourth parts 
are described in the sections on the control strategy and the 
contingency measures, respectively.
    As stated in section V.C.2, above the future case dispersion 
modeling is the attainment demonstration used to verify that the 
proposed control strategies will bring the area into attainment. In 
order to determine whether the planned emission reduction strategies 
will result in attainment of the NAAQS, the modeled maximum lead air 
concentration (based on a rolling three-month average) is added to the 
calculated background lead concentration of 0.032 ug/m\3\ for each 
scenario. See section V.B. The sum is the predicted maximum three-month 
rolling average lead air concentration.
    During the attainment model run, with receptors spaced 50-meters 
apart at the current fenceline, Scenario A (as described in section 
V.D.) resulted in a modeled maxmimum three-month rolling average lead 
concentration of 0.117 ug/m\3\. Scenario B (as described in section 
V.D.) modeled a maximum three-month rolling average lead concentration 
of 0.098 ug/m\3\.
    The model successfully demonstrates attainment of the 2008 Lead 
NAAQS (0.15 ug/m\3\) for both operating scenarios based on the 
implementation of the required control measures as described above. The 
differences between the attainment year and base year emissions rates 
are based on changes to the plant operations and what operations will 
remain in the future. All of the process points associated with the 
sintering and blast furnaces will be removed. Fugitive emissions from 
these buildings will be greatly reduced by the removal of these 
processes. Several haul roads were eliminated and re-routed due to the 
changes.
    The haul roads will no longer go through the old city center, but 
enter from the south over a new bridge on Joachim Creek. In addition, 
the remaining emission points and rates for the Strip Mill, Refinery 
and Kettle Heat Stacks will be changed to reflect the emission and 
production limits at the facility for both scenarios, as well as the 
elimination of the kettle heat stack stream in modeled Scenario B.
    In response to public comment, Missouri refined the same attainment 
model run by placing receptors inside the current fenceline at 10-meter 
spacing to determine the modeled attainment concentration isopleths and 
to establish new non-ambient zones for both scenarios. When conducting 
this refined modeling, the non-ambient zone for Scenario A includes the 
entire non-ambient zone for Scenario B and is slightly larger. 
Therefore, the non-ambient zone for Scenario A established the 
attainment boundary/zone of public access preclusion at the Strip Mill 
and Refinery buildings. These minimum distances are enforceable through 
the 2013 Consent Judgment.
    The modeling results demonstrate a margin of safety through 
conservative background model input assumptions. See Missouri SIP, 
section 6, appendices H-M, O.

[[Page 42997]]

    EPA conducted an independent review of Missouri's modeling and 
proposes to approve Missouri's SIP as meeting section 172 of the CAA.

G. New Source Review (NSR)

    Within the CAA, Part D of Title I requires SIP submittals to 
include a permit program for the construction and operation of new and 
modified major stationary sources. The current definition of 
nonattainment areas in Missouri, which for lead includes the city of 
Herculaneum, Missouri, is provided in Missouri rule 10 CSR 10-6.020. 
For installations in a nonattainment area, Missouri rule 10 CSR 10-
6.060 requires a permit for construction of, or major modification to, 
an installation with potential to annually emit one hundred (100) tons 
or more of a nonattainment pollutant, or a permit for a modification at 
a major source with potential to annually emit one thousand two hundred 
(1,200) pounds of lead. Both rules have previously been approved by EPA 
as part of the SIP, as meeting the requirements of section 173 of the 
CAA, and EPA implementing rules at 40 CFR 51.165. See 78 FR 19602; 78 
FR 37457.

H. Contingency Measures

    As required by CAA section 172(c)(9), the SIP submittal includes 
contingency measures to be implemented if EPA determines that the area 
has failed to make reasonable further progress or if the area fails to 
attain the NAAQS by December 2015. If the air quality data for any 
three-month rolling period after the implementation of the production 
and emission limits identified in the 2013 Consent Judgment exceeds the 
0.15 ug/m\3\ three-month rolling average lead standard, Doe Run shall 
implement the contingency measures set forth in the 2013 Consent 
Judgment. Missouri may also require implementation of contingency 
measures if Doe Run fails to implement the control strategy projects in 
accordance with the 2013 Consent Judgment.
    The 2013 Consent Judgment contains the following contingency 
measures: Project 1: Increased in-plant road cleaning; Project 2: 
Fugitive Emission Reduction Study; Project 3: Route emissions from 
Refinery kettle heat stacks to Baghouse 9; Project 4: Route 
Baghouse 9 emissions to the main stack; Project 5: Additional 
filtered ventilation to the Strip Mill building.
    The contingency measures will be completed on an as-needed basis in 
the order listed. For example, Project 1 would be implemented after 
notification from Missouri of a first NAAQS violation that is monitored 
for three calendar months after the implementation of the control 
measures identified in the 2013 Consent Judgment. Project 2 would be 
implemented after notification from Missouri of a violation that is 
monitored three rolling calendar months after the completion of the 
first contingency project in the time frame set forth for that project. 
Project 3 would be implemented after notification from Missouri of a 
violation that is monitored three rolling calendar months after the 
completion of the second contingency project in the time frame set 
forth for that project. Project 3 is the same as the control measure 
for Scenario B so if this project is implemented as a control measure, 
Project 4 would be triggered in its place. Project 3 would be 
implemented after notification from Missouri of a violation that is 
monitored three rolling calendar months after the completion of the 
third contingency project in the time frame set forth for that project. 
Project 5 would be implemented after notification from Missouri of a 
violation that is monitored three rolling calendar months after the 
completion of the fourth contingency project in the time frame set 
forth for that project. The 2013 Consent Judgment contains a procedure 
for submitting additional new contingency measures when they are 
completed.
    Additional information, including emissions reductions expected 
from the proposed contingency measures, can be found in the Missouri 
SIP, Section 8.
    Doe Run must notify Missouri within ten days of completion of any 
contingency measure. Sixty days after completion, Doe Run will propose 
an additional qualified contingency measures to be added to the 2013 
Consent Judgment, which will become part of the 2013 Consent Judgment 
and fully enforceable upon approval by Missouri. These additional 
contingency measures will also be subject to EPA approval as part of 
the SIP. Doe Run may also substitute new control(s) for the identified 
contingency measure(s) if Doe Run identifies and demonstrates to 
Missouri and EPA's satisfaction that the alternative control measure(s) 
would achieve attainment with the 2008 Lead NAAQS. The 2013 Consent 
Judgment also allows Doe Run to change the order of implementation for 
contingency measures and time frames for completion upon approval by 
Missouri.
    Changes to contingency measures would require a public hearing at 
the state level and EPA approval as a formal SIP revision. Until such 
time as EPA approves any substitute measure, the measures included in 
the approved SIP will be the enforceable measure. EPA does not intend 
to approve any substitutions that cannot be implemented in the same 
timeframe as the original measure. These measures will help ensure 
compliance with the 2008 Lead NAAQS as well as meet the requirements of 
Section 172(c)(9) of the CAA.
    EPA proposes to approve Missouri's SIP as meeting section 172(c)(9) 
of the CAA.

I. Enforceability

    As specified in section 172(c)(6) and section 110(a)(2)(A) of the 
CAA, and 57 FR 13556, all measures and other elements in the SIP must 
be enforceable by the state and EPA. The enforceable document included 
in Missouri's SIP submittal is the 2013 Consent Judgment. The 2013 
Consent Judgment contains all control and contingency measures with 
enforceable dates for implementation. The only exception relates to the 
Federally enforceable dates found in the 2011 Consent Decree. The 2013 
Consent Judgment also includes monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting 
requirements to ensure that the control and contingency measures are 
met. The state adopted the 2013 Consent Judgment into Missouri's state 
regulations on June 19, 2013, making it state-enforceable. Upon EPA 
approval of the SIP submission, the 2013 Consent Judgment will become 
state and Federally enforceable, and enforceable by citizens under 
section 304 of the CAA.
    We note that the 2013 Consent Judgment also contains provisions for 
stipulated penalties should Doe Run fail to comply with provisions of 
the 2013 Consent Judgment. The 2011 Consent Decree also contains 
stipulated penalty provisions. EPA is not bound by the state's 2013 
Consent Judgment penalties, and would enforce against violations of 
this document under section 113 of the CAA or other Federal 
authorities, rather than the 2013 Consent Judgment, if EPA approves the 
2013 Consent Judgment, as proposed today, into the SIP.
    EPA proposes to approve Missouri's SIP as meeting sections 
172(c)(6) and 110(a)(2)(A) of the CAA, and 57 FR 13556.

VI. Review of Submittal Related to the 1978 Lead NAAQS

    On November 21, 2011, Missouri submitted a SIP revision related to 
a Consent Judgment that was previously approved by EPA as part of 
Missouri's SIP for the 1978 lead NAAQS. (77 FR 9529). The Missouri SIP 
related to the 1978 lead NAAQS, which includes the 2007 Consent 
Judgment, currently

[[Page 42998]]

prohibits construction of new lead emission processes within the Doe 
Run property fenceline. Missouri is requesting that EPA approve a 
revision to that 2007 Consent Judgment. In order to allow Doe Run to 
construct a new low-lead emitting technology at the site, the 2007 
Consent Judgment must be revised.
    Missouri has submitted for approval a revision to Section 2.B.1. of 
the 2007 Consent Judgment to state that Doe Run shall not relocate any 
existing pyrometallurgical lead smelting, sintering, or blast furnace 
operations or construct any new pyrometallurgical lead smelting, 
sintering, or blast furnace operations in the fenceline. The other 
provisions of the 2007 Consent Judgment would remain in effect unless 
superseded by the 2013 Consent Judgment. Missouri has appropriately 
modeled all potential operating scenarios for compliance with the 1978 
and 2008 lead NAAQS. This revision to the 2007 Consent Judgment does 
not impact the modeling analyses to show attainment of the 1978 or 2008 
lead NAAQS.
    The 2007 Consent Judgment was previously approved in Missouri's 
SIP. The revision to the 2007 Consent Judgment, if approved by EPA, 
will be Federally enforceable under section 172(c)(6) and section 
110(a)(2)(A) of the CAA.
    The revision meets the requirements of section 110 of the CAA, 
therefore, EPA proposes to approve this revision of the Missouri SIP.

VII. Proposed Action

    EPA is proposing to grant full approval of Missouri's attainment 
demonstration SIP for the 2008 Lead National Ambient NAAQS 
nonattainment area of Herculaneum, Missouri. EPA believes that the SIP 
submitted by the state satisfies the applicable requirements of the CAA 
identified in EPA's Final Rule (73 FR 66964 October 15, 2008), and will 
result in attainment of the 0.15 ug/m\3\ lead NAAQS in the Herculaneum, 
Missouri area. In this action, EPA also proposes to approve a revision 
to the Missouri SIP related to the 2007 Consent Judgment which was 
previously approved into the Missouri SIP as part of an attainment 
demonstration for the 1978 lead NAAQS (77 FR 9529).

VIII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this 
action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' and therefore is not 
subject to review under Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 (76 FR 3821, 
January 21, 2011). This action is also not subject to Executive Order 
13211, ``Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect 
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001). This 
action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and 
imposes no additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. 
Accordingly, the Administrator certifies that this rule will not have a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities 
under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). Because 
this rule approves pre-existing requirements under state law and does 
not impose any additional enforceable duty beyond that required by 
state law, it does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or 
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded 
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4).
    This rule also does not have tribal implications because it will 
not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on 
the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or 
on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal 
Government and Indian tribes, as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 
FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This action also does not have Federalism 
implications because it does not have substantial direct effects on the 
States, on the relationship between the national government and the 
States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the 
various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 
FR 43255, August 10, 1999). Thus Executive Order 13132 does not apply 
to this action. This action merely approves a state rule implementing a 
Federal standard, and does not alter the relationship or the 
distribution of power and responsibilities established in the CAA. This 
rule also is not subject to Executive Order 13045, ``Protection of 
Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks'' (62 FR 
19885, April 23, 1997) because it approves a state rule implementing a 
Federal standard.
    In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state 
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. In this 
context, in the absence of a prior existing requirement for the State 
to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS), EPA has no authority to 
disapprove a state submission for failure to use VCS. It would thus be 
inconsistent with applicable law for EPA when it reviews a state 
submission, to use VCS in place of a state submission that otherwise 
satisfies the provisions of the CAA. Thus, the requirements of section 
12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 
(15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply. This action does not impose an 
information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork 
Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). Burden is defined at 5 
CFR 1320.3(b).
    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the 
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally 
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating 
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, 
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the 
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other 
required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of 
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior 
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register.
    A major rule cannot take effect until 60 days after it is published 
in the Federal Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined 
by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).
    Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review 
of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for 
the appropriate circuit by September 22, 2014. Filing a petition for 
reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect 
the finality of this rule for the purposes of judicial review nor does 
it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be 
filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. 
Parties with objections to this direct final rule are encouraged to 
file a comment in response to the parallel notice of proposed 
rulemaking for this action published in the proposed rules section of 
today's Federal Register, rather than file an immediate petition for 
judicial review of this direct final rule, so that EPA can withdraw 
this direct final rule and address the comment in the final rulemaking. 
This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its 
requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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

[[Page 42999]]

    Dated: July 14, 2014.
Karl Brooks,
Regional Administrator, Region 7.
[FR Doc. 2014-17480 Filed 7-23-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P