[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 39 (Monday, February 29, 2016)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 10182-10188]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-04083]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA-R07-OAR-2015-0835; FRL 9942-77-Region 7]
Approval of Air Quality Implementation Plans; 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) for the Exide Technologies Canon Hollow facility in
Forest City, Missouri, received by EPA on October 20, 2014. 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 Final Rule published on October 15, 2008 in the
Federal Register, and will bring the violating area into attainment of
the 0.15 microgram per cubic meter (ug/m\3\) lead NAAQS.
DATES: Comments must be received on or before March 30, 2016.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R07-
OAR-2015-0835, to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot
be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. The EPA may publish any
comment received to its public docket. Do not submit electronically any
information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI)
or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a
written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment
and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA
will generally not consider comments or comment contents located
outside of the primary submission (i.e. on the web, cloud, or other
file sharing system). For additional submission methods, the full EPA
public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions,
and general guidance on making effective comments, please visit http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.
Publicly available docket materials are available electronically at
www.regulations.gov and at EPA Region 7, 11201 Renner Boulevard,
Lenexa, Kansas 66219. Please schedule an appointment during normal
business hours with the contact listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT section.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Stephanie Doolan, Environmental
Protection Agency, Air Planning and Development Branch, 11201 Renner
Boulevard, Lenexa, Missouri 66219 at (913) 551-7719, or by email at
[email protected].
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 Compliance Plan for the 2008 Lead NAAQS
A. Facility Description
B. Model Selection, Meteorological and Emissions Inventory Input
Data
C. Control Strategy
D. Modeling Results
E. Attainment Demonstration
F. Contingency Measures
G. Enforceability
VI. Proposed Action
I. What is being addressed in this document?
In this document, EPA is addressing Missouri's request to approve a
revision to its SIP for violations of the lead NAAQS near the Exide
Technologies--Canon Hollow facility in Holt County, 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 will bring the
area into compliance with the 0.15 microgram per cubic meter (ug/m\3\)
lead NAAQS.
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 request for a
SIP revision to bring the area near the Exide-Canon Hollow facility
into compliance with the 2008 lead NAAQS. EPA is proposing this action
in order to solicit comments. Final rulemaking will occur after
consideration of any comments received.
IV. Background
EPA established the NAAQS for lead on October 5, 1978 (43 FR
46246). On October 15, 2008, EPA established a new lead NAAQS of 0.15
ug/m\3\ in air, measured as a rolling three-month average. (73 FR
66964).
The state historically conducted ambient air monitoring for lead at
the Exide Canon Hollow facility (formerly known as Schuylkill Metals)
under the 1978 lead NAAQS from 1990 to 2000. Ambient air monitoring
data from this time period indicated that the facility violated the
1978 standard one calendar quarter in 1994.
When the 2008 lead NAAQS was promulgated, the rulemaking required
states to conduct ambient air monitoring near facilities that reported
lead emissions of 1.0 tons per year (tpy) or greater. On December 27,
2010, EPA promulgated the Revisions to Lead Ambient Air Monitoring
Requirements
[[Page 10183]]
(75 FR 81126). This rulemaking lowered the standard to require states
to conduct ambient air monitoring near facilities that report lead
emissions greater than 0.5 tpy.
On May 19, 2011, EPA proposed revisions to the National Emissions
Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) for Secondary Lead
Smelters (76 FR 29031). In the supporting documentation for this
proposed rulemaking, the emissions for the Exide Canon Hollow facility
were estimated to be greater than 0.5 tpy. Based on this information,
on March 1, 2012, the state resumed its ambient air monitoring program
near the facility. Ambient air monitoring data for lead near the Exide
Canon Hollow facility for the three-month rolling quarterly average
ending in May 2012 indicated that the facility violated the 2008 lead
NAAQS.
On November 22, 2011, EPA finalized the second round of
designations for the 2008 lead NAAQS. (76 FR 72097). The ambient air
monitoring data for the Exide Canon Hollow facility showing a violation
of the NAAQS were not available in time for the facility to be
designated as nonattainment. Thus, the state, EPA and the facility
worked cooperatively to develop and implement a plan to bring the
facility into compliance with the 2008 lead NAAQS.
Concurrent with the development of the state's SIP revision, the
facility installed and is operating new air pollution control equipment
to comply with the revised NESHAP for Secondary Lead Smelting
promulgated by EPA on January 5, 2012, with a compliance date of
January 6, 2014. (77 FR 556).
Although the Exide Canon Hollow facility was not designated as a
nonattainment area, the provisions of sections 191(a) and 192(a) of the
CAA were followed by Missouri in developing and submitting to EPA a
Compliance Plan in this SIP revision that demonstrates attainment of
the 2008 lead NAAQS. The regulatory requirements of section 172 of the
CAA that require analysis of Reasonably Available Control Technologies
(RACT), Reasonably Available Control Measures (RACM), and demonstration
of Reasonable Further Progress (RFP) are not applicable because the
area was not designated as a nonattainment area. However, the RACT/RACM
guidance was relied upon in the development of the control technologies
and work practices implemented in this Compliance Plan. RFP was also
not directly applicable to this Compliance Plan because the strategy
was to attain the 2008 Lead NAAQS as expeditiously as possible without
a phased approach to the implementation of control measures. The
provisions of sections 172(c)(5) and 173 of the CAA regarding the
issuance of permits for construction and operation of new and modified
major sources located within the nonattainment area also do not apply.
The Compliance Plan requires contingency measures which are enforceable
by the Consent Judgment between Missouri and Exide that would take
effect in the event that the facility fails to attain the 2008 Lead
NAAQS.
V. Technical Review of the Compliance Plan for the 2008 Lead NAAQS
A. Facility Description
The lead-emitting source contributing to the 2008 lead NAAQS
violation at the state ambient air monitor is the Exide Canon Hollow
facility in Holt County, Missouri. A description of the operation of
this facility is presented below.
The Exide Canon Hollow facility is a secondary lead smelter located
in rural Holt County, Missouri, approximately four miles northwest of
Forest City, Missouri. Lead emissions result from breaking open used
batteries, smelting the lead, and refining, which includes casting and
alloying. Battery breaking is accomplished by crushing or cutting used
batteries in order to separate the lead from the spent acid and
plastic. Once separated, the lead is smelted in the blast furnace.
Molten lead is further refined in kettles to the purity needed for its
intended use and cast into molds for shipment to other facilities for
use in new battery manufacture.
The primary sources of lead emissions are the west wheelabrator
baghouse, which filters the exhaust from the blast furnace; the east
wheelabrator baghouse, which filters the exhaust from the blast furnace
ventilation hoods and the refining and casting operations exhaust; the
north negative pressure baghouse, which filters the ventilation from
the battery breaking and storage areas, the maintenance building, and
the kettle heat stacks; and the south negative pressure baghouse, which
filters the exhaust from the mixing room for the materials that will be
fed into the blast furnace, the storage room for the blast furnace feed
materials, the slag from the blast furnace and the area where it is
further processed for transport to an on-site landfill, and finished
lead storage prior to shipment to customers. The facility also uses an
acid demister to control the acid released when the batteries are
crushed. The acid demister acts to remove both acid and lead-containing
particulates released to the air from this operation.
The lead is released in particulate form and generally captured
within building structures or by air pollution control equipment, as
described above; however, some lead particulates escape to the ambient
air, despite facility process enclosures and the efficiency of air
pollution control equipment. Controls employed by the facility for
process fugitives include maintaining the process and storage buildings
under negative pressure to minimize the release of particulates and
local exhaust ventilation in the form of process vent hoods over
certain operations that generate more lead particulate.
Fugitive lead particulates are also generated from truck traffic
along the haul routes within the facility boundaries and wind-blown re-
entrainment of the dust.
B. Model Selection, Meteorological and Emissions Inventory Input Data
Missouri conducted air dispersion modeling to evaluate the
effectiveness of the proposed control strategy. The results of the air
model demonstrate attainment of the 2008 Lead NAAQS and the results
form the basis of the Compliance Plan which is the subject of this
proposed SIP revision. EPA conducted an independent review of the
modeling. The results of the modeling will be discussed in more detail
in section V.D. of this document.
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.
At the start of development of the Compliance Plan, there was no
on-site meteorological data for use in the model. EPA recommends the
use of five years of on-site meteorological data for the model (40 CFR
part 51, appendix W, section 8.3.1.2). In the absence of on-site or
nearby meteorological data, Missouri used the surface air
meteorological data from the Brenner Field Airport (KFNB) near Falls
City, Nebraska, about twenty two miles west of the Exide Canon Hollow
facility. Exide has agreed to collect on-site, quality-assured
meteorological data for use in future air dispersion modeling in a
settlement agreement separate from the Consent Judgment with Missouri
which is appendix C to the Compliance Plan. Upper air data for 2007 to
2011 from the Topeka, Kansas Airport Station (KTOP)
[[Page 10184]]
were selected for use in the model due to its proximity to both Brenner
Field Airport and the facility. EPA conducted a review of the
meteorological data used for the modeling and agreed with Missouri's
determination that, among the various options, data from these two
locations best represent meteorological conditions in the vicinity of
the facility. The meteorological data were run through AERMOD's pre-
processors to make the data usable by the model.
Using section 172(c)(3) of the CAA as a guideline, an emission
inventory was developed for the area violating the 2008 lead NAAQS. At
the Exide Canon Hollow facility, four specific point sources of lead
emissions were modeled: The acid demister (AD), which includes the
exhaust from the battery breaking and crushing operations; the
wheelabrator air pollution control system (EP01) which includes the
exhaust from the blast furnace, and refining and casting process vent
hoods; negative pressure baghouse 1 (BH01) which includes the exhaust
from the blast furnace and the refining and casting building fugitives
captured under negative pressure; and negative pressure baghouse 2
(BH02) which captures the fugitive particulates from all other
buildings required by the secondary lead NESHAP to be under negative
pressure. 40 CFR part 63, subpart X.
Missouri's air dispersion modeling used a lead emission rate for
the wheelabrator air pollution control system that is based on a
concentration of 1 milligram per dry standard cubic meter (mg/dscm),
which is the maximum allowed for any one lead source under the
secondary lead NESHAP. 40 CFR 63.543(a). The modeled emission rate is
higher than any previous stack test. The modeled emission rate for the
acid demister and negative pressure baghouse 1 is based on 0.2 mg/dscm
and the emission rate for negative pressure baghouse 2 is based on 0.17
mg/dscm lead, which is the facility-wide flow-weighted average of lead
compounds in vent gases required by the secondary lead NESHAP. 40 CFR
63.543(a). The actual emission rates for the other three sources are
expected to be less because the velocities used to develop the emission
rates in the model assumed that all three units were operating
simultaneously at 100 percent capacity. Historically, the facility has
not operated in this manner.
Fugitive sources of lead at the Exide facility include process
fugitives from the furnace, refining and casting that may escape
through openings in the facility buildings despite the negative
pressure requirements of the secondary lead NESHAP and vehicular
fugitives from truck haul routes. The fugitive emissions from buildings
were modeled as volume sources. Building process fugitives were
estimated with a 99 percent capture efficiency on the basis of total
building enclosures with negative pressure and local exhaust
ventilation (LEV).
Haul route fugitives were estimated using the Paved Roads section
of chapter 13.2.1 of EPA's AP-42 guidelines \1\ and modeled as area
sources. The secondary lead NESHAP requires total enclosure and
continuous ventilation of buildings in which processing and handling of
lead bearing particulates occurs. 40 CFR 63.544(a). Negative pressure
is required to be maintained in regulated buildings at measured values
of at least 0.13 milimeters (mm) mercury. 40 CFR 63.544(c)(1). The
secondary lead NESHAP also requires inward flow of air to be maintained
at all natural draft openings, including exterior building doors for
personnel and vehicular access. 40 CFR 63.544(c)(2). Missouri conducted
the modeling under the operating scenario that the facility would meet
the minimum standards of the secondary lead NESHAP. Building capture
efficiency and the capture efficiency for local exhaust ventilation
hoods were both assumed to be 95 percent.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ AP-42, Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors, Fifth
Edition, http://www.epa.gov/ttnchie1/ap42/.
\2\ EPA's Secondary Lead Smelting Background Information
Document for Proposed Standards, EPA 1994.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
or naturally occurring lead in soils that have become re-entrained in
the atmosphere. These distant sources may include historic deposition
from the facility.
A background value is typically calculated by averaging the
monitored concentrations of lead in air from an ambient air monitor
within the nonattainment area. Missouri calculated the background level
from monitoring data on days when the predominant wind direction was
not blowing from the facility toward the monitor. Missouri took the
additional approach of narrowing the data included in the calculation
by using only ambient monitoring data when winds originated from an arc
from 300 degrees to the northwest to 80 degrees northeast, with zero
degrees representing true north. Narrowing the data considered in the
calculation minimized the influence of re-entrained lead from state
Highway 111 to the south of the facility and Canon Hollow Road in the
background calculation. The model already accounts for the re-entrained
lead from these two traffic routes as area sources. Using this
approach, Missouri calculated a site-specific background value of 0.023
[micro]g/m.\3\
EPA conducted an independent review of the approach Missouri used
to calculate the area background value and agrees that the use of 0.023
[micro]g/m\3\ is representative for use in the modeling for attainment
of the NAAQS.
C. Control Strategy
The following describes the control strategy detailed in the
Compliance Plan for Exide's Canon Hollow facility to attain the 2008
lead NAAQS.
As discussed above, on May 19, 2011, EPA proposed revisions to the
NESHAP for Secondary Lead Smelters (76 FR 29031). The effective date of
the NESHAP is January 6, 2014. While Missouri's Compliance Plan was
developed to attain the NAAQS for lead as a criteria pollutant, the
NESHAP was developed to control emissions of lead as a Hazardous Air
Pollutant (HAP) under section 112 of the CAA. In order to comply with
the NESHAP, by January 6, 2014, the facility conducted the following:
Full enclosure of all buildings used for lead processing,
handling or storage, including product storage, and ventilation of
those buildings to control devices designed to capture lead
particulates;
construction of two new baghouses, the north and south
negative pressure baghouses, in order to maintain and ventilate the
total enclosures continuously to ensure negative pressure values of at
least 0.013 mm of mercury (0.007 inches of water);
lowered emissions for lead to a facility-wide flow-
weighted average of 0.2 mg/dcsm; and
established a fugitive dust control plan and implemented
work practice standards to reduce lead emissions which is provided as
appendix B to the Compliance Plan.
In addition to the controls required for compliance with the
secondary lead NESHAP, two additional control
[[Page 10185]]
measures are required to ensure NAAQS attainment, including stack
emission limits and truck traffic restrictions. These additional limits
are enforceable through a Consent Judgment between Missouri and Exide,
which is found in appendix A of the Compliance Plan. As discussed
above, the secondary lead NESHAP established a flow-weighted average of
0.2 mg/dcsm of lead for all stack emissions combined. For modeling
purposes, Missouri assigned each stack emissions source an individual
lead limit in pounds per hour (lb/hr). The pounds per hour limits are
the maximum emissions of lead with a margin of safety to prevent
exceedance of the secondary lead NESHAP limit of 0.2 mg/dcsm for all
stack emissions combined. Specifically, the individual stack emission
limits, contained in table 3 of the Compliance Plan and paragraph 7.E.
of the Consent Judgment, are provided below.
Table 1--Stack Emission Limits
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Emission source/ Emission rate
Emission point Control device description (lb/hr)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
AD..................................... Acid demister............ Battery break crusher 0.024
room.
EP01................................... Wheelabrator air Blast furnace, refinery & 0.322
pollution control system. casting process vent
hoods.
BH01................................... Negative pressure Blast furnace, refinery & 0.236
baghouse 1. casting building
negative pressure.
BH02................................... Negative pressure Other building negative 0.196
baghouse 2. pressure.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Compliance with the stack emissions rates listed above is required
by both the secondary lead NESHAP and paragraph 7.E of the Consent
Judgment with the following exceptions. If any stack test does not show
compliance with the limits listed above, Exide must retest the
noncompliant stack within 90 days after the receipt of the stack test
report or results. If the subsequent test shows compliance, the prior
exceedance will not be considered a violation of the Consent Judgment
and compliance testing will return to the schedule required by the
secondary lead NESHAP. 40 CFR part 63.543. Paragraph 7.G of the Consent
Judgment requires Exide to conduct record keeping and reporting in
accordance with the requirements of the secondary lead NESHAP. 40 CFR
part 63.550.
To further reduce lead-containing fugitive dust emissions to
achieve the 2008 Lead NAAQS, the Consent Judgment requires Exide to
limit truck traffic on haul routes. The limitations are route-specific
and are limited by the total number of trips per month and whether the
trips are ``restricted,'' meaning they are trips made during the
operating hours of 7 a.m. and 7 p.m., or ``unrestricted,'' which are
trips that are made along haul routes at any time during a 24-hour
period. The limitations placed on truck traffic are contained in
paragraph 7.F of the Consent Judgment and table 4 of the Compliance
Plan. Paragraph 7.G. of the Consent Judgment requires Exide to keep
records of truck traffic in order to demonstrate compliance with the
hours of operation and monthly frequency limits. The truck traffic
limitations were modeled as a part of the attainment demonstration.
Exide is also required by paragraph 7.C of the Consent Judgment to
further control lead-containing process fugitive emissions by operating
LEV's in the following areas: Blast furnace charging; furnace lead and
slag tapping; and refinery kettles. The use of the LEV's within a
negative pressure building increases the capture efficiency which may
be assumed in the model from 95 percent to 99 percent.
The Exide-Canon Hollow facility is also subject to controls in the
form of limitations on public access to areas that do not demonstrate
attainment of the 2008 Lead NAAQS. Air is considered ambient even
within the facility boundaries if the area is accessible to the public.
The facility is bifurcated by Canon Hollow Road, which is a public
roadway, and it has chosen to preclude public access to an area that is
smaller than its property boundaries. Pursuant to paragraph 7.D of the
Consent Judgment, Exide must maintain fencing or otherwise preclude
public access to areas on both the east and west sides of Canon Hollow
Road, including process areas, the facility parking lot and a hazardous
waste landfill. These areas are described in appendix A of the Consent
Judgment. Any change to the fenceline specified by the Consent Judgment
that would allow public access to the two preclusion areas requires
revised attainment demonstration modeling and a revision to the Consent
Judgment and SIP.
D. Modeling Results
A summary of Missouri's air dispersion modeling can be found in
section 5 of its Compliance Plan. AERMOD input and output files have
been provided as appendix F of the plan. The modeling was conducted to
determine the impacts of the worst-case lead emissions of the Exide-
Canon Hollow facility including the additive impact of an area
background of 0.023 [micro]g/m\3\ lead.
The results of the modeling demonstrate that with the control
strategy described above in paragraph V.C. above the facility will
attain the 2008 Lead NAAQS. At the point of maximum impact, which is
approximately 600 yards to the northwest of the lead processing
buildings on Exide property, the model predicts a lead concentration of
0.1498 [micro]g/m\3\, which is below the 2008 Lead NAAQS of 0.15
[micro]g/m\3\. As discussed above, the air in this area is ambient even
though it is still on facility property because it is outside the
fenceline and therefore accessible to the public.
It is important to note that the area of maximum impact in the
attainment demonstration modeling is to the northwest of the facility
operations; whereas, the Missouri ambient air monitor by which NAAQS
attainment is measured is to the southwest of the facility, on a levee
on the south side of Highway 111. The preferred ambient air monitoring
location would be near or at the location of maximum predicted impact;
however, the location does not meet regulatory siting criteria
specified by 40 CFR part 58. The area of maximum impact predicted by
the model contains large trees that block the air flow and the
transport of lead-containing particulate matter, and the terrain has a
steep incline which affects air flow and dispersion as well.
Although the location of the ambient air monitor is not optimum, it
has recorded violations of both the 1978 and 2008 lead NAAQS. As
discussed above, the facility resumed monitoring of lead concentrations
in March 1, 2012, and monitoring data for the three-month rolling
quarterly average ending in May
[[Page 10186]]
2012 indicated that the facility violated the 2008 lead NAAQS. However,
following completion of the installation and commencement of the
operation of the new negative pressure baghouses, the monitor has
recorded lead concentrations below the 0.15 [micro]g/m\3\ 2008 Lead
NAAQS since the rolling calendar quarter ending in January 2014. The
average lead concentration of all measurements at the ambient air
monitor from January 5, 2014, to the present is 0.025 [micro]g/m\3\,
which is less than 20 percent of the standard.
EPA reviewed and independently verified the modeling conducted by
Missouri. Based on EPA's analysis of the attainment modeling and its
outcomes, EPA believes that Missouri's control strategy will strengthen
the SIP and bring the violating area surrounding the Exide Canon Hollow
facility into attainment of the 2008 Lead NAAQS.
E. Attainment Demonstration
As discussed above in section IV, Background, the area surrounding
the facility violated the 2008 lead NAAQS, but the monitoring data were
not available in time to designate the area as nonattainment. Thus, the
violating area is not specifically subject to the attainment dates
required by the section 172(a)(2) of the CAA. However, the Compliance
Plan was prepared to achieve attainment of the applicable ambient air
quality standard as expeditiously as practicable rather than relying
upon the regulatory schedule set forth in section 172(a)(2). The
Compliance Plan meets the substantive requirements of an attainment
demonstration plan set forth in section 172(c) in that it addresses:
Implementation of RACM and RACT as expeditiously as practicable and
provides for the attainment of the NAAQS; provides a plan that meets
RFP toward NAAQS attainment; technical analyses that locate, identify,
and quantify sources of emissions that are contributing to violations
of the lead NAAQS; enforceable emissions limitations with schedules for
implementation; and contingency measures required to be implemented in
the event that the area fails to attain and maintain the NAAQS.
The Compliance Plan addresses RACM and RACT by requiring emissions
controls and work practices that meet or exceed the RACM guidance \3\
and the requirements of the secondary lead NESHAP. Specifically, the
stack emissions limits and limitations on truck traffic exceed the RACM
guidance and secondary lead NESHAP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ ``Guide to Developing Reasonably Achievable Control Measures
for Controlling Lead Emissions,'' (EPA-457/R-12-001), March 2012,
http://www3.epa.gov/airquality/lead/pdfs/2012ImplementationGuide.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The schedule contained within the Consent Judgment requires
compliance with the 2008 lead NAAQS within 180 days of the effective
date of Missouri's Consent Judgment. The effective date was October 10,
2014, and thus the compliance date for installation of all control
measures and implementation of work practices was April 10, 2015.
However, at the time Exide signed the Consent Judgment on September 24,
2014, the facility had installed all of the lead emission controls
required by paragraph 6 and implemented all of the work practices and
procedures required by the Standard Operating Procedures included in
attachment B of the Compliance Plan. As a result, the facility has been
monitoring compliance with the standard since January 2014. Provided
the facility continues to monitor attainment of the NAAQS, the facility
will meet the standard in February 2017.
The dispersion modeling is the attainment demonstration used to
verify that the control strategies will bring the area into attainment
of the 2008 Lead NAAQS. In order to determine whether the emission
reduction strategies will result in continued attainment of the NAAQS,
the modeled maximum lead concentration in ambient air (based on a
rolling three-month average) is added to the calculated background lead
concentration of 0.023 [micro]g/m\3\, then compared to the 2008 Lead
NAAQS which is 0.150 [micro]g/m\3\. As discussed above in paragraph
V.D, the dispersion modeling predicts the cumulative impacts of both
facilities, with the addition of background lead levels, meet the 2008
Lead NAAQS. The predicted maximum three-month rolling average lead
concentration is 0.1498 [micro]g/m\3\. Therefore, EPA proposes to
approve Missouri's modeling as it demonstrates attainment of the
standard.
F. Contingency Measures
Using the CAA section 172(c)(9) as guidance, the Compliance Plan
includes contingency measures to be implemented if EPA determines that
the area has failed to attain and maintain the standard beginning 180
days after Exide signed the Consent Judgment which was April 10, 2015.
The contingency measures are detailed in paragraph 9 of the Consent
Judgment.
The contingency measure strategy consists of two parts: The first
part is a measure to be implemented immediately following a rolling
calendar quarter that violates the 2008 lead NAAQS and the second part
is a study to identify the likely causes contributing to the violation
followed by the implementation of the most effective control measures
proposed in an action plan.
Immediately after notification of a monitored violation, Exide
shall increase the in-plant road cleaning to ten hours each working
day. Currently, plant roadways and parking lots are cleaned with wet
wash or vacuum cleaning at least twice a day between the hours of 7
a.m. and 7 p.m. per the Standard Operating Procedures in appendix B of
the Compliance Plan. The implementation of this contingency measure is
expected to prevent the re-entrainment of at least seven pounds of
lead-containing dust into the air per year. Exide may cease or modify
this increased road cleaning schedule only after a more effective
replacement measure has been identified and implemented as a result of
the fugitive dust control study in the second phase of the contingency
strategy.
Additional contingency measures identified by the study and
proposed for implementations will also be subject to EPA approval as
part of the SIP. Any future 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 measure included in the approved SIP, increased roadway
cleaning, will be the enforceable measure. These measures will help
ensure compliance with the 2008 lead NAAQS as well as meet the intent
of the requirements of section 172(c)(9) of the CAA.
EPA proposes to approve Missouri's recommended contingency measures
as meeting the intent of section 172(c)(9) of the CAA.
G. Enforceability
As specified in 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 Consent Judgment dated October 10, 2014. The Consent
Judgment contains all control and contingency measures with enforceable
dates for implementation. Upon EPA approval of the SIP submission,
Exide's Consent Judgment will become state and Federally enforceable,
and enforceable by citizens under section 304 of the CAA.
EPA proposes to approve Missouri's SIP as meeting section
110(a)(2)(A) of the CAA, and 57 FR 13556, and meeting the intent of
172(c)(6) of the CAA.
[[Page 10187]]
VI. Proposed Action
EPA is proposing to grant approval of Missouri's Compliance Plan as
it as it demonstrates attainment of the 2008 lead NAAQS in the area
surrounding the Exide Canon Hollow facility in Holt County, Missouri,
and strengthens Missouri's SIP. EPA believes that the Compliance Plan
and Consent Judgment submitted by the state satisfies the applicable
requirements of section 110 of the CAA and will result in attainment of
the 0.15 ug/m\3\ standard in the Holt County, Missouri, area.
Incorporation by Reference
In this rule, EPA is proposing to include in a final EPA rule
regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance
with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, EPA is proposing to incorporate by
reference the proposed amendments to 40 CFR part 52 set forth below.
EPA has made, and will continue to make, these documents generally
available electronically through www.regulations.gov and/or in hard
copy at the appropriate EPA office (see the ADDRESSES section of this
preamble for more information).
Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable
Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in
reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this
action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and
does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state
law. For that reason, this action:
Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review
by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58
FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
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);
does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the CAA; and
does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
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).
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. Section 804, however, exempts from section 801 the
following types of rules: Rules of particular applicability; rules
relating to agency management or personnel; and rules of agency
organization, procedure, or practice that do not substantially affect
the rights or obligations of non-agency parties. 5 U.S.C. 804(3).
Because this is a rule of particular applicability, EPA is not required
to submit a rule report regarding this action under section 801.
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 April 29, 2016. Filing a petition for
reconsideration by the Administrator of this proposed rule does not
affect the finality of this rulemaking for the purposes of judicial
review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial
review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such
future rule or action. This proposed 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, Lead, Nitrogen
dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds.
Dated: February 17, 2016.
Mark Hague,
Regional Administrator, Region 7.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, EPA proposes to amend 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. Amend Sec. 52.1320 by:
0
a. Adding entry (31) at the end of the table in paragraph(d); and
0
b. Adding entry (70) at the end of the table in paragraph (e).
The additions to read as follows:
* * * * *
Sec. 52.1320 Identification of Plan.
(d)* * *
[[Page 10188]]
EPA-Approved Missouri Source-Specific Permits and Orders
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
State
Name of source Order/Permit No. effective EPA Approval Explanation
date date
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
(31) Exide Technologies Canon Consent Judgment 10/10/14 2/29/16 and .................................
Hollow, MO. 14H0-CC00064. [Insert
Federal
Register
citation].
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(e) * * *
EPA-Approved Missouri Nonregulatory SIP Provisions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Applicable
Name of nonregulatory SIP geographic or State EPA Approval
provision nonattainment submittal date Explanation
area date
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
(70) Exide Technologies Forest City..... 10/15/14 2/29/16 and [EPA-R07-OAR-2015-0835; FRL 9942-
Compliance Plan 2008 lead [Insert 77-Region 7.
NAAQS. Federal
Register
citation].
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[FR Doc. 2016-04083 Filed 2-26-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P