[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
