[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 167 (Friday, August 28, 2015)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 52190-52194]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-21199]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA-R07-OAR-2015-0223; FRL-9933-09-Region 7]
Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
Missouri; 2013 Missouri State Implementation Plan for the 2008 Lead
Standard
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is taking final
action to
[[Page 52191]]
approve a revision to the State Implementation Plan (SIP) for the State
of Missouri. This final action will approve Missouri's SIP for the
Buick/Viburnum Trend lead National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS)
nonattainment area near Boss, Missouri. EPA proposed approval of this
plan on June 1, 2015. The applicable standard addressed in this action
is the lead NAAQS promulgated by EPA in 2008. EPA believes Missouri's
SIP 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 micrograms per cubic meter (ug/m\3\) lead NAAQS
in the Buick/Viburnum Trend, Missouri area.
In this action, EPA is also finalizing its approval of a revision
to the Missouri SIP to incorporate an amendment to an existing Missouri
regulation to restrict lead emissions from specific sources. The
amendment revises certain throughput and emissions limits applicable to
the Buick Resource Recycling Facility (BRRF) in the Buick/Viburnum
Trend lead nonattainment area. Approval of this rule ensures
consistency between the state and Federally-approved rules, and ensures
Federal enforceability of the revised state rule.
DATES: This final rule is effective on September 28, 2015.
ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID
No. EPA-R07-OAR-2015-0223. All documents in the docket are listed on
the www.regulations.gov Web site. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be
publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket
materials are available either electronically through
www.regulations.gov or at the Environmental Protection Agency, Air
Planning and Development Branch, 11201 Renner Boulevard, Lenexa, Kansas
66219. The Regional Office's official hours of business are Monday
through Friday, 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding Federal holidays. The
interested persons wanting to examine these documents should make an
appointment with the office at least 24 hours in advance.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Stephanie Doolan, Environmental
Protection Agency, Air Planning and Development Branch, 11201 Renner
Boulevard, Lenexa, Kansas 66219 at (913) 551-7719, or by email at
[email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document ``we,'' ``us,'' or
``our'' refer to EPA. This section provides additional information by
addressing the following:
I. What is being addressed in this document?
II. Have the requirements for approval of a SIP revision been met?
III. EPA's Response to Comments
IV. What action is EPA taking?
I. What is being addressed in this document?
In this document, EPA is granting final approval of Missouri's SIP
for the lead NAAQS nonattainment area of Buick/Viburnum Trend. The
applicable standard addressed in this action is the lead NAAQS
promulgated by EPA in 2008 (73 FR 66964). EPA is also granting final
approval to portions of a revision to the State of Missouri Code of
State Regulations (CSR) 10-6.120, ``Restriction of Emissions of Lead
from Specific Lead Smelter-Refinery Installations''. This revision
pertains to throughput limits applicable to the BRRF, which is the
primary source of lead emissions in the Buick/Viburnum Trend
nonattainment area. EPA's proposal containing the background
information for this action can be found at 80 FR 30965, June 1, 2015.
II. Have the requirements for 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, as explained above and in more detail in the technical
support document which is part of the docket, the revision meets the
substantive SIP requirements of the CAA, including Section 110 and
implementing regulations.
III. EPA's Response to Comments
The public comment period on EPA's proposed rule opened June 1,
2015, the date of its publication in the Federal Register, and closed
on July 1, 2015. During this period, EPA received one comment letter
from the Doe Run Resource Recycling Division dated July 1, 2015. The
comment letter and EPA's responses are summarized below.
Comment 1: The commenter states that in the June 1, 2015, proposed
approval that the nomenclature for the Buick/Viburnum Trend
nonattainment area is inconsistent. Doe Run requests that the term
``Buick/Viburnum Trend'' be used throughout. Doe Run also states that
the secondary lead smelter nomenclature is incorrectly stated as ``the
Doe Run Buick Resource Recycling Facility (BRRF)'' and requests EPA to
correct the nomenclature to use ``The Buick Resource Recycling Facility
(BRRF)'' throughout.
Response 1: This comment recommends typographical corrections to
the proposed rule that EPA has not relied upon in its decision making
for this final action, and EPA is therefore not changing its final
action based on this comment.
Comment 2: Doe Run states that the heading for section V.A.1. in
the proposal is titled ``BRRF Process Description,'' but that it
contains both the BRRF process description and a discussion of the mine
activities. Doe Run requests that the section be retitled as ``Buick/
Viburnum Trend Process Description.''
Response 2: See Response 1.
Comment 3: Doe Run notes that section V.A.1. states ``BRRF operates
as a secondary smelter of lead, lead-containing materials including
spent lead acid batteries, lead bullets and shot, lead-containing glass
from cathode ray tubes, and lead-based paint chips from lead abatement
projects.'' Doe Run requests that the statement be revised to more
accurately reflect the facility operations by stating that ``BRRF
operates as a secondary lead smelter of lead, utilizing lead-containing
materials including spent lead acid batteries, lead bullets and shot,
lead-containing glass from cathode ray tubes, lead-based paint chips
from lead abatement projects, and other lead bearing materials.''
Response 3: EPA notes that the process information provided in
section V of the proposal was reproduced from Missouri's attainment SIP
which was made available for a 30-day public comment period before the
document was submitted to EPA. EPA appreciates this comment as it
clarifies process-related information. However, this comment does not
substantively impact the decision to approve the attainment SIP, and
EPA is therefore not changing its proposed action based on this
comment.
Comment 4: Doe Run notes that in the first paragraph of section
V.A.1., EPA states that ``Crushed and concentrated lead containing ore
was formerly processed at the Herculaneum primary lead smelter, but
since that facility ceased primary lead smelting in December 2013, the
ore gets shipped out of the U.S. for overseas processing.'' Doe Run
requests this statement to instead read, ``The processed ore, called
lead concentrate was formerly processed at the Herculaneum primary lead
smelter, but since that facility ceased primary
[[Page 52192]]
lead smelting in December 2013, the lead concentrate is currently
shipped out of the U.S. for overseas processing.''
Response 4: Please see Response 3.
Comment 5: Doe Run requests that EPA revise the third paragraph of
section V.A.1. from ``BRRF's production is limited to 175,000 tons of
total lead production each year . . .'' to ``175,000 tons of total
refined lead production per year . . .''
Response 5: EPA disagrees. Section V.A.1. refers to the lead
production limit in Missouri regulation 10 Code of State Regulation
(CSR) 10-6.120, which states that ``This installation [BRRF] shall
limit total lead production to one hundred seventy-five thousand
(175,000) tons per year.'' 10 CSR 10-6.120 does not make a distinction
between total lead production and total refined lead production.
Comment 6: In paragraph three of section V.A.1., EPA states that
``Spent batteries are stored in a battery bunker until processed in a
shredder.'' Doe Run requests that the statement read: ``Spent batteries
are stored in the containerized storage area until processed in the
battery shredder.''
Response 6: Please see Response 3.
Comment 7: In section V.A.1., EPA states that ``The batteries
further undergo a separation process under which the lead and metal
parts are separated from the plastic and other debris.'' Doe Run
requests that this statement be revised as follows: ``The batteries
further undergo a separation process under which the lead and metal
parts are separated from the plastic and other materials.'' Doe Run
also requests EPA to change ``The plastic and other debris are skimmed
off and sent to recycling facilities'' to ``The plastic is skimmed off
and sent to recycling facilities.''
Response 7: Please see Response 3.
Comment 8: In section V.A.1, the fifth paragraph states that ``The
lead sulfate paste is passed through a filter press and neutralized
with hydrated lime to form calcium sulfate . . .'' Doe Run requests
that this statement be revised to read: ``The lead sulfate paste is
passed through a filter press . . .''
Response 8: Please see Response 3.
Comment 9: Regarding the first paragraph in section V.A.2, Doe Run
disagrees with EPA's statement that the annual lead emissions from the
Casteel Mine and the K & D Crushing Operations are ``significant'' to
the total emissions of 18.34 tons per year. Doe Run further requests a
change in EPA's statement from ``processing of lead containing rock
until it becomes wet concentrate that is shipped to other customers,''
to ``processing of lead containing rock to produce lead concentrate to
be shipped to customers.''
Response 9: The commenter makes two separate comments in its
``Ninth'' comment per the progression of its comment letter. For
consistency in numbering, EPA is also addressing these comments
together.
Regarding Doe Run's comment that the Casteel Mine and the K & D
Crushing Operations are not ``significant'' to the total emissions of
18.34 tons per year, EPA disagrees. In Section 3, Emissions Inventory,
of Missouri's attainment SIP, four facilities, including the Casteel
Mine and K & D Crushing, are listed that reported more than 0.01 tpy
lead for inventory years 2009 through 2011. Missouri has determined
that these facilities are significant and required modeling in order to
determine their impacts at the monitor. This comment does not
substantively impact the decision to approve the attainment SIP, and
EPA is therefore not changing its proposed action based on this
comment.
As summarized above, Doe Run has commented on the wording of the
third sentence in the first paragraph of section V.A.2. Please see
Response 1.
Comment 10: In the third paragraph of section V.A.2, EPA states
that ``At the Buick Mine and Mill, ore is hauled from the active mining
faces to a central crusher where it is crushed . . .'' Doe Run requests
this sentence to be revised to state, ``At the Buick Mine and Mill, ore
is hauled from the active mining faces to an underground central
crusher where it is crushed . . .''
Additionally, in this same paragraph, EPA states that ``After being
crushed aboveground to less than \5/8\-inch in size, the ore subjected
to wet milling and grinding with rods and ball mills . . .'' Doe Run
has requested the word ``is'' to be inserted between ``ore'' and
``subjected.''
Response 10: Please see Response 1.
Comment 11: In the fourth paragraph of section V.A.2., EPA states
``As stated above, the Herculaneum facility ceased operations smelting
operations in December 2013; thus, the concentrate is shipped overseas
to primary lead smelting operations or other customers.'' Doe Run
requests this sentence be revised to state ``As stated above, the
Herculaneum facility ceased smelting operations in December 2013; thus,
the concentrate is shipped overseas to customers' primary lead smelting
operations or other customers.''
Response 11: Please see Response 1.
Comment 12: Doe Run commented that ``mg/m\3\'' had been incorrectly
used in the proposal instead of ``[micro]g/m\3\'' throughout the
document.
Response 12: EPA checked the Federal Register proposed rule at
http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=EPA-R07-OAR-2015-0223-
0001 and found that the correct units, [micro]g/m\3\, were used. No
change is necessary.
Comment 13: Section V.D.f. states that ``By February 4, 2013,
install a dry lime SO2 scrubber to further process gases as
they exit the pulse-jet baghouse . . .'' Doe Run comments that this
statement does not accurately reflect the language of the Consent
Decree and it should read ``By February 4, 2013, install a dry lime
SO2 scrubber to further process the exit gas stream before
routing reverberatory furnace process to the main stack.''
Response 13: EPA agrees but notes that the requirement is not in
the Consent Decree but rather is found in paragraph V, item 6.F. of the
2013 Consent Judgment (appendix M of the attainment SIP). As stated in
the proposal, Section V.D. contains a brief discussion of the control
measures. This comment further describes those control measures, but
does not substantively impact the decision to approve the attainment
SIP, and EPA is therefore not changing its proposed action based on
this comment.
Comment 14: Doe Run comments that section V.D.i. references item
a.; however, it should reference item b.
Response 14: EPA agrees. EPA notes that Section 5.1, Consent
Judgment Measures, of Missouri's attainment SIP also references item A.
However, as depicted in the process flow diagram on page A-7 in
Appendix A of Missouri's attainment SIP, for the reverberatory furnace,
EPA notes that Doe Run is correct; the Dry Scrubber Baghouse CD37
follows the exit gases from the reverberatory furnace and is not part
of the South Refinery described in item a. (depicted on page A-9 of
Missouri's attainment SIP). This comment does not substantively impact
the decision to approve the attainment SIP, and EPA is therefore not
changing its proposed action based on this comment.
Comment 15: Section V.D.j. states that ``By October 31, 2014,
install ``batwing'' style ventilation covers to improve . . .'' Doe Run
requests that this language be revised to state ``By October 31, 2014,
install ``batwing'' style ventilation covers, or covers with equivalent
or better capture efficiency to improve . . .''
Response 15: As stated in the proposal, Section V.D. contains a
brief discussion of the control measures. This comment further
describes those control measures, but does not substantively
[[Page 52193]]
impact the decision to approve the attainment SIP, and EPA is therefore
not changing its proposed action based on this comment.
Comment 16: The fourth paragraph of section V. E. refers to the
``mines and mills.'' The statement should be revised to refer
specifically to the ``Buick Mine and Mill and the Casteel Mine.''
Response 16: Please see Response 1.
Comment 17: In section V.H.a., EPA states that the negative
pressure requirement is in ``inches Hg.'' Doe Run comments that the
correct units are ``mm Hg.''
Response 17: Please see Response 1.
Comment 18: Doe Run requests EPA to refer in the first paragraph of
section VI.B.to the limits of Missouri regulation 10-6.120 as ``175,000
tons of refined lead per year.'' Also, Doe Run comments that in section
VI.B. the proposal should consistently refer to ``lead'' rather than
``Pb.''
Response 18: With regard to 10 CSR 10-6.120, please see Response 5.
With regard to the use the words ``lead'' and ``Pb,'' interchangeably,
please see Response 1.
Comment 19: In the third paragraph of section VI.B., EPA states
that ``The modeled total emissions in the attainment demonstration SIP
are 176,482 tons of Pb produced per year.'' Doe Run requests that this
sentence be revised to state ``The modeled total emissions in the
attainment demonstration SIP are based on 176,482 tons of refined lead
produced per year.''
Response 19: EPA agrees that the sentence should indicate that the
``modeled total emissions in the attainment demonstration SIP are based
on 176,482 tons of lead produced per year. As discussed above in
Responses 5 and 18, the language ``refined'' is not found in the
Missouri regulation.
IV. What action is EPA taking?
EPA is taking final action to amend the Missouri SIP to approve
Missouri's SIP for the Buick/Viburnum Trend lead NAAQS nonattainment
area near Boss, Missouri. The applicable standard addressed in this
action is the lead NAAQS promulgated by EPA in 2008 (73 FR 66964). EPA
is also granting final approval to portions of a revision to the State
of Missouri CSR 10-6.120, ``Restriction of Emissions of Lead from
Specific Lead Smelter-Refinery Installations''.
Incorporation by Reference
In this action, EPA is finalizing regulatory text that includes
incorporation by reference. In accordance with the requirements of 1
CFR 51.5, EPA is finalizing the incorporation by reference of Missouri
Rule 10 CSR 10-6.120 (with the exclusions of Paragraph 10-6.120
(3)(B)1. and Table 1, and the 0.00087 gr/dscf main stack emissions
limit for BRRF) described in the amendments to 40 CFR part 52 set forth
below. EPA has made, and will continue to make, these documents
generally available electronically through www.regulations.gov and/or
at the appropriate EPA office (see the ADDRESSES section of this
preamble for more information).
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 rulemaking will not
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.).
Because this rulemaking would approve pre-existing requirements under
state law and does not impose any additional enforceable duty beyond
that required by state law, it does not contain any unfunded mandate or
significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4).
The SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or
in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a
tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does
not have tribal implications and will not impose substantial direct
costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as specified by
Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
This action also does not have Federalism implications because it
does not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the
relationship between the national government and the States, or on the
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of
government, as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August
10, 1999). Thus Executive Order 13132 does not apply to this action.
This action merely approves a state rule implementing a Federal
standard, and does not alter the relationship or the distribution of
power and responsibilities established in the CAA. This rulemaking also
is not subject to Executive Order 13045, ``Protection of Children from
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April 23,
1997) because it approves a state rule implementing a Federal standard.
In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. In this
context, in the absence of a prior existing requirement for the State
to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS), EPA has no authority to
disapprove a state submission for failure to use VCS. It would thus be
inconsistent with applicable law for EPA when it reviews a state
submission, to use VCS in place of a state submission that otherwise
satisfies the provisions of the CAA. Thus, the requirements of section
12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995
(15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply. This action does not impose an
information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). Burden is defined at 5
CFR 1320.3(b).
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this proposed rule
and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register.
A major rule cannot take effect until 60 days after it is published
in the Federal Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined
by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).
Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review
of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for
the appropriate circuit by October 27, 2015. Filing a petition for
reconsideration by the Administrator of this proposed rule does not
affect the finality of this rulemaking for the purposes of judicial
review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial
review may be filed, and shall not
[[Page 52194]]
postpone the effectiveness of such future rule or action.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide,
Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen
dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds.
Dated: August 18, 2015.
Mark Hague,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 7.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, EPA amends 40 CFR part 52
as set forth below:
PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS
0
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Subpart AA--Missouri
0
2. In Sec. 52. 1320 amend the table in paragraph (c) by revising the
entry for Missouri Rule 10 CSR 10-6.120 and the table in paragraph (d)
by adding entry (29) to read as follows:
Sec. 52.1320 Identification of plan.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
EPA-Approved Missouri Regulations
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
State effective
Missouri citation Title date EPA approval date Explanation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Missouri Department of Natural Resources
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chapter 6--Air Quality Standards, Definitions, Sampling and Reference Methods, and Air Pollution Control
Regulations for the State of Missouri
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
10-6.120....................... Restriction of 3/30/09 8/28/15 and Paragraph (3)(B)1 and
Emissions of Lead [Insert Federal Table, Provision
from Specific Register Pertaining to
Lead Smelter- citation]. Limitations of Lead
Refinery Emissions from
Installations. Specific
Installations, have
not been approved as
a part of the SIP.
The requirement to
limit main stack lead
emissions at BRRF to
0.00087 gr/dscf lead
in Paragraph (3)(B)2
has not been approved
as a part of the SIP.
* * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * *
(d) * * *
EPA-Approved Missouri Source-Specific Permits and Orders
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
State
Name of source Order/permit number effective date EPA approval date Explanation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Missouri Department of Natural Resources
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
(29) Doe Run Buick Resource Consent Judgment 7/29/13 8/28/15 [Insert ...................
Recycling Facility. 13IR-CC00016. Federal Register
citation]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2015-21199 Filed 8-27-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P