Page 1 of 16 State and Public Comment Summary and Response Document on EPA’s Recommended Area Designations for the 2008 Lead Designation Recommendations EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2009

- 0443

November 1 6 , 2010Page 2 of 16 Table of Contents

List of Acron ym s
................................ ................................ ................................ ................ 3 1 Introduction

................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 4 2 Comments on Pb Initial Designations

– Round 1

................................ ................ 5 2.1 Comment on Region 3 Initial Designations

– Round 1

................................ ....... 5 2.2 Comment on Region 5 Initial Designations

– Round 1

................................ ..... 11 2.3 Comment on Region 6 Initial Designations

– Round 1

................................ ..... 12 2.4 Comment on Region 9 Initial Designations

– Round 1

................................ ..... 15Page 3 of 16 

### List of Acronyms

ACRONYM DEFINITIONS AQS Air Quality S ys tem CAA Clean Air Act CFR Code of Federal Regulations EPA Environmental Protection Agency FR Federal Register FEM Federal Equivalent Method FRM Federal Reference Method GADM Guideline on Air Qualit y Models MDL Method Detection Limit NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards OAQPS Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards PA DEP Pennsylvania Department of Environment Protection Pb Lead QA Quality Assured QC Quality Control SIP State Implementation Plan UTM Universal Transverse Mercator TSD Technical Support Document TSP Total Suspended Particulate TPY Tons Per Year μg/m 3 Micrograms Per Cubic Meter TCEQ Texas Commission on Environmental Quality U.S. United StatesPage 4 of 16



### 1 Introduction On October 15, 2008, United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA ) substantially

strengthened the National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS ) for lead (Pb) . The level of the 2008 Pb standards, set at 0.15 micrograms per cubic meter ( g/m 3 ) , is 10 times tighter than the previous standards. In conjunction with strengthening the Pb standards, EPA improved the existing Pb monitoring network b y requiring monitors to be placed in areas with sources, such as industrial facilities, that emit one ton or more per year (tp y) of Pb , and at other sites. States were expected to deploy these monitors by January 1, 2010. T he Clean Air Act (CAA) requires EPA to complete the process of designating areas as “nonattainment”, “attainment”, or “unclassifiable” wi thin two y ears of establishing a new or revised NAAQS. EPA may extend the designation process b y up to one ye ar if the agency has insufficient information to make these designations. Because the expanded Pb monitoring network will provide additional data for consideration next y ear, EPA has decided to take the additional y ear, and complete the Pb designations in two rounds. In the first round, which is being finalized today , EPA is designating as “nonattainment” any area that is violating the 2008 Pb standards based on data from the pre

- 2010 monitoring network. For all other areas, EPA is extending the deadline for designations b y up to one year so that data from the newl y deploy ed monitors can be considered in making appropriate designation decisions. EPA will complete the second round of Pb designations by October 15, 2011.
EPA elected to seek public comment during the designation process in order to gather additional information for EPA to consider before making final designations. On July 8, 2010, EPA published a notice in the Federal Register (75 FR 39254) inviting public comment on its responses to states and tribes until August 16, 2010. This document, together with the preamble to the final rule and the Technical Support Documents ( TSDs ) for the designations, presents the responses of EPA to the significant comments we received on our proposed designations. The responses presented in this document are intended to augment the responses to comments that appear in the preamble to the final rule and the TSD or to address comments not discussed in those documents.Page 5 of 16



### 2 Comments on Pb Initial Designations

– Round 1

2.1 Comment on Region 3 Initial Designations

– Round 1
Comment: The use of borough and township boundaries for drawing nonattainment areas was arbitrarily

defined. Instead, partial

- county nonattainment areas should be defined using ambient air monitoring data and air dispersion modeling. Any nonattainment area should be defined based on map coordinates referenced to the Universal Transverse Mercator (UTM) s ys tem and municipal boundaries as done by Gavin L. Biebuyck, Principal Consultant for Liberty Environmental, Inc. In other areas of the country , EPA defined nonatt ainment areas using methods other than municipal boundaries. The air dispersion modeling done for this comment still accepted and used the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (PA DEP) principle of drawing a nonattainment area to include all areas above 50% of the 2008 Lead National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS). This comment was submitted by : Gavin L . Biebuy ck, Principal Consultant for L iberty Environmental, Inc. in letters to the PA DEP dated October 21, 2009 and October 30, 2009; County of Berks, Penns ylvania Office of the Commissioners in their letter to EPA dated August 12, 2010; and Troy A. Greiss, Director of Environmental Health and Safet y, East Penn Manufacturing Co., Inc. in a letter to EPA dated August 13, 2010.

EPA’s R esponse: In the 2008 Lead (Pb) NAAQS rule, eight factors were given that can be analyzed to support an area designation decision either larger or smaller than the presumptive county boundary . (See 73 FR 67033 ) These eight factors are: (1) emissions in areas potentially

included versus excluded from the nonattainment area, (2) air quality in potentially

included versus excluded areas, (3) population density and degree of urbanization, including commercial development in included versus excluded areas, (4) expected growth (including extent, pattern and rate of growth), (5) meteorology (weather/transport patterns), (6) geograph y/topography (mountain ranges or other air basin boundaries), (7) jurisdictional boundaries (e.g., counties, air districts, reservat ions, etc.) and (8) level of control of emission sources. As noted in the preamble, some states, such as Penns yl vania, made a judgment that it was important to follow jurisdictional boundaries (particularl y where jurisdictional boundaries smaller than a c ounty exist). In other cases, states chose to rely primaril y on air dispersion modeling to determine the recommended boundaries for nonattainment areas. In each case, EPA reviewed the state recommendations and made modifications where necessary , in EPA’s judgment, to ensure that the nonattainment area satisfied the statutory requirements.Page 6 of 16

Comment: The Lyons Area should be designated “Unclassifiable” instead of “Nonattainment” based on the representativeness of the ambient monitoring data for lead in the area and based on recent data that have been collected and reported for this area. Since 2009, the ambient lead levels in this area have been below the 2008 lead NAAQS. East Penn Manufacturing believes that the 2006 to 2008 data should not be conside red for making nonattainment designation. This data does not represent the current lead levels in the Lyons area. This comment was submitted by : County of Berks, Penns ylvania Office of the Commissioners in their letter to EPA dated August 12, 2010; and Troy A. Greiss, Director of Environmental Health and Safet y, East Penn Manufacturing Co., Inc. in a letter to EPA dated August 13, 2010.

EPA’s Response: As discussed in the preamble and in the 2008 lead NAAQS rule, the form of the standard requires comparison of monitoring values from 36 3

- month rolling averages (i.e., three ye ars, plus two preceding months). In making these designations EPA considered data from 2007

- 2009. Section 107(d) requires EPA to designate areas as nonattainment if sufficient dat a exists to support such a designation. Accordingl y, where sufficient data is available to support a nonattainment designation, EPA does not have discretion to postpone designations or to exclude certain years from consideration in considering whether mon itored data results in a violation of the Pb NAAQS pursuant to 40 C.F.R. 50.16.

Comment: The argument used b y EPA to justify the inclusion of Kutztown does not appear to have technical merit. Small sources in Kutztown report smaller quantities of Pb emissions than those of lead sources located in adjacent municipalities and in adjacent counties. Clean data is recorded at Kutztown University

. This Comment was submitted by : County of Berks, Penns ylvania Office of the Commissioners in their letter to EPA dated August 12, 2010.

EPA’s Response: As stated in EPA’s technical support document for the Lyons Nonattainment area,
“ Based on its consideration of all the relevant, available information, as described above, EPA believes that the boundaries desc ribed herein encompass the entire area that doesPage 7 of 16

not meet (or that contributes to ambient air quality in a nearb y area that does not meet) the 2008 Pb NAAQS.” EPA determined that the sources in Kutztown contribute to the ambient air quality

in the Lyons N onattainment Area because of their proximity to the monitor that recorded the violation and because the nonattainment area encompasses them. The data collection methods used at the Kutztown University monitors do not follow the quality

assurance (QA) guid elines as stated in 40 CFR Part 58 Appendix A and cannot be used for comparison to the 2008 Pb NAAQS. The Pb monitor at Kutztown University

is full y operated by Kutztown University under the direction of an environmental consulting firm hired b y Berks Co unty . Although the Pb monitor being used at Kutztown University is a PA DEP Federal Reference Method (FRM) monitor, PA DEP does not collect the filter and does not QA or quality control (QC) an ywhere within the collection and analy sis process. Lastl y, PA DEP considers Kutztown University to be a partnership site, not a compliance site, because of the lack of QA/QC.

Comment: The proposed lead nonattainment area boundary for the North Reading Nonattainment Area should be expanded to include a portion of the City of Reading, based on modeling done by Gavin L. Biebu yc k the Berks County Commissioner’s consultant. This comment was submitted by : County of Berks, Penns ylvania Office of the Commissioners in their letter to EPA dated August 12, 2010.

EPA’s Response: Berks Count y did not submit details regarding the modeling analysis that was the basis for its proposed North Reading Pb Nonattainment Area. EPA’s proposed Pb nonattainment areas were based on documented modeling submitted by PA DEP as part of its Pb monitoring network design process. The figure in Attachment A of the August 12, 2010 comment letter submitted by the Berks County

Commissioners depicting Berks County ’s proposed nonattainment area notes that actual emissions (including estimated fu gitive emissions) and on

- site meteorological data were used to construct the modeled Pb contours that were the basis for Berks County’s proposed Pb nonattainment area. This figure, however, differs significantl y from previous modeling done b y the consultant, Gavin Biebu yc k, for the North Reading Pb Nonattainment Area recommendation submitted on October 19, 2009 to PA DEP during its public comment period for its Pb designation recommendations. The October 19, 2009 letter submitted to PA DEP does provide so me details regarding what model, sources and meteorological data were used to generate Figure 1’s model contours. Since the contours are substantiall y different in the two figures, EPA can only conclude that different modeling parameters were used in both instances. EPA, therefore, can not assess the validity of the modeling used to delineate Berks Count y’s proposed Pb nonattainment areas. Berks Count y’s proposed Pb nonattainment area appears to be drawn to exclude an industrial area in the northwest part of the City

of Reading.Page 8 of 16

Comment: Alsace Township should not be included in the North Reading Nonattainment Area because onl y a small part of the township has a modeled ambient Pb concentration in excess of half of the 2008 Pb NAAQS. The North Reading Nonattainment Area should be defined as a five

- sided pol ygon. This comment was submitted by : Frederick Ganster, Director Environment, Health, and Safet y for Exide Technologies in a letter to EPA dated August 12, 2010.

EPA’s Response: EPA accepts PA DE P’s recommendation of including areas modeled in exceedance of 50% of the 2008 Pb NAAQS as a conservative approach to designating nonattainment areas, since minor emissions such as fugitives were not modeled.

Comment: Monitors operated b y PA DEP were located on property that is owned and access

controlled by

East Penn Manufacturing. Thus, the Pb concentrations measured b y the two monitors do not represent concentrations to which the general public would be exposed. This comment was submitted by : East Penn Manufacturing in a letter to PA DEP in October 2009 (Attachment A of East Penn Manufacturing letter dated August 13, 2010); and Troy A. Greiss, Director of Environmental Health and Safet y, East Penn Manufacturing Co., Inc. in a letter to EPA dated August 13, 2010.

EPA’s Response: The Lyons East Pb monitor (AQS Site ID 42

- 011

- 0717) was established on January 1, 1982 near East Penn Manufacturing on the farm propert y of H. Silfies . East Penn acquired nearb y l and over subsequent ye ars for various purposes, eventually absorbing the Silfies farm in 1999, as approximated by PA DEP. The Pb monitor operated from this time on propert y owned b y East Penn, until it was recently relocated on January

1, 2010. However, EPA considers the monitor to have been located in ambient air throughout this period. The definition of ambient air is found in 40 CFR Part 50.1 (e), which defines ambient air as that portion of the atmosphere, external to bu ildings, to which the general public has access . While the East Penn facility does have partial fencing and a security checkpoint, vast portions of the propert y line are not fenced and have no ph ys ical barrier. The general public (including those who live in single family homes adjacent to the property line) has nothing to prevent them from entering thePage 9 of 16

propert y. This conclusion is consistent with EPA’s past practice in interpreting the term “ambient air.” A compilation of EPA OAQPS ambient air precedent documentation can be found at http://www.epa.gov/scram001/guidance/mch/ama4.txt

.

Comment: The revised Pb standard has a new form and new anal yt ical procedures that will result in much lower non

- detection levels. East Penn Manufacturi ng understands that EPA encouraged the use of existing Pb concentration data to make area designations wherever possible, even though the existing Pb concentration data includes non

- detect data at a 0.04 micrograms per cubic meter ( μ g/m 3 ) level rather than the revised non

detect level of 0.0075 μ g/m 3

. This comment was made by : Troy A. Greiss, Director of Environmental Health and Safet y, East Penn Manufacturing Co., Inc. in a letter to EPA dated August 13, 2010.

EPA’s Response: PA DEP currentl y uses the F ederal Equivalent Method (FEM) for Pb analy sis EQL

- 0592

- 086 entitled Determination of Lead Concentration in Ambient Particulate Matter by Inductively Coupled Argon Plasma

– Optical Emission Spectrometry (Commonwealth of Pennsylvania). This FEM was approve d in the Federal Register on May 15, 1992 (57 FR 20823)

. A method detection limit method (MDL) of no lower than 0.04 μ g/m 3 has been demonstrated based on Pb data entered b y PA DEP into the EPA Air Quality S ys tem (AQS) during the first quarter of 2010. Th e apparent MDL was corroborated b y PA DEP Environmental Group Manager Kirit Dalal who provided specific anal ys is calculations. Compared to the revised 0.15 μ g/m 3 2008 Pb NAAQS, the aforementioned MDL is relativel y high. However, EPA Region 3 can only use data as reported b y PA DEP. PA DEP is in the process of either revamping its Pb laboratory capabilities or utilizing an outside laboratory for future lead sample anal ys is. Either effort may

improve future Pb anal ys is MDL s. However, until that time, EPA Region 3 will continue to use the data in AQS as submitted by PA DEP for Pb NAAQS comparison.

Comment: East Penn Manufacturing had a collocated monitor that it ran from January 1, 2009 until August 31, 2009. This monitor showed attainment of the 2008 lead NAAQS, supporting an unclassifiable designation pending collection of additional lead monitoring data. The data collected by PA DEP was significantly higher than the data from the collocated East Penn Manufacturing monitor.
This comment was submitt ed by : East Penn Manufacturing in a letter to PA DEP in October 2009 (Attachment A of East Penn Manufacturing letter dated August 13, 2010); andPage 10 of 16

Troy A. Greiss, Director of Environmental Health and Safet y, East Penn Manufacturing Co., Inc. in a letter to EPA dated August 13, 2010.

EPA’s Response: Only data from monitors that follow the QA guidelines as stated in 40 CFR Part 58 Appendix A can be used for comparison to an y NAAQS. Although East Penn Manufacturing has situated Pb monitors adjacent to PA DEP ’s, data from those monitors cannot be used for NAAQS comparison because there is no evidence they satisfy the QA requirements of Appendix A. PA DEP monitors undergo rigorous QA procedures including measurement uncertainties (precision, bias, accuracy , co mpleteness, detectability) that cannot be verified for an y monitors not meeting the requirements of 40 CFR Part 58 Appendix A. Furthermore, as discussed above, as well as in the preamble and in the 2008 Pb NAAQS rule, the form of the standard requires co mparison of monitoring values from 36 3

- month rolling averages (i.e., three years, plus two preceding months). EPA does not have discretion to postpone designations or to exclude certain ye ars from consideration in considering whether monitored data result s in a violation of the Pb NAAQS pursuant to 40 C.F.R. 50.16.

Comment: The data relied upon to develop the design value for PA DEP Lyons East ambient Pb monitoring site were collected using sampling methodology and laboratory

anal yt ical techniques developed and implemented for the previous Pb NAAQS, and should be considered in context of the enhanced monitoring procedures that PA DEP intends to implement in the future. This comment was submitted by : East Penn Manufacturing in a letter to PA DEP in October 2009 (Attachment A of East Penn Manufacturing letter dated August 13, 2010).

EPA’s Response: The 2008 Pb NAAQS revision did not necessitate a change in Pb sampling methodologies. An y Total Suspended Particulate (TSP) sampler that meets the requirements of 40 CFR Part 50 Appendix B, Reference Method for the Determination of Suspended Particulate Matter in th e Atmosphere (High

- Volume Method), is acceptable for use as a FRM sampler for Pb

- TSP. Similarly , as noted in the preamble to the 2008 Pb NAAQS, it is not necessary to update or change Pb analytical techniques due to a change in the NAAQS. Reporting agenc ies throughout the country have continued to use the same Pb anal yt ical techniques with the institution of the new Pb NAAQS and have obtained MDLs at appropriate levels. MDL s are estimated in accordance with 40 CFR Part 136 Appendix B. It isPage 11 of 16

incumbent on the reporting agency , not EPA, to ensure that MDLs are appropriate in comparison to the NAAQS. All Pb data collected in the Lyons, PA area through December 31, 2009 at the discontinued monitoring sites (Ly ons East, AQS ID 42

- 011

- 0717 and Lyons South, AQS ID 42

- 011

- 005) and beginning January 1, 2010 at the new monitoring sites (Ly ons Park, AQS ID 42

- 011

- 0020 and Ly ons Boro, AQS ID 42

- 011

- 0021) will be used for NAAQS compliance and attainment determination.



### 2.2 Comment on Region 5 Initial Designations

– Ro und 1
Comment: The Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (I llinois EPA) commented regarding EPA’s intended modification to the designation boundaries recommended by Illinois which would designate an additional area referenced as Section 24 of Madison County as nonattainment. They

urged EPA to reconsider the decision to include this additional area, stating that no additional lead emission sources are in the added area and that including this additional area would establish a relativel y esoteric boundary
. The state alternativel y suggested, in the event EPA disagreed with its recommendation, that EPA include both Granite City Township and Venice Township in Madison County , in their entirety , in the lead nonattainment area. Illinois EPA stated that coi ncident jurisdictional boundaries, such as townships , would be helpful in articulating the boundary

of the nonattainment area. Granite City Township and Venice Township as the nonattainment area would still encompass the contributing emissions sources, as well as Section 24 of Madison County

.
EPA’s Response: EPA has concluded that it is necessary and appropriate to include the area to the south of the US Steel facility in the final nonattainment area based on meteorological data and the under predictin g tendencies of the modeling that was provided in the State’s recommendation. This expansion would capture all likely impacts from the emissions from the facility

on the surrounding area. Having determined that the boundary needs to be extended beyond the cit y limits of Granite City

in order to include all areas that do not meet the 2008 Pb NAAQS, EPA agrees that I llinois’ alternative recommendation appropriatel y encompasses the entire area of nonattainment. Additionally , I llinois EPA’s recommendation consists of well

delineated jurisdictional boundaries, which facilitates air quality planning for the area. Likewise, the revised recommendation clarifies and simplifies the boundaries of the final nonattainment area for interested parties. For these reasons, EPA is adopting Illinois’ alternative recommendation as the basis for the nonattainment boundaries for this area.Page 12 of 16



### 2. 3 Comment on Region 6 Initial Designations

– Round 1
E PA Region 6 re ceived comment letters from four sources: the Governor of Texas, the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ), the City of Frisco and Exide
Comment: Governor Rick Perry

of Texas provided comments on October 13, 2010 revising his October 14, 2009 recommendation for lead nonattainment boundary . In his letter, the Governor stated that he is revising his recommendation based on the facility ’s permit alter ation and the new modeling performed b y the TCEQ incorporating the facility ’s reduced permitted maximum allowable emission rates.

EPA’s Response: EPA appreciates comments from the Governor of Texas. After reviewing the facility ’s permit alteration and the reduced maximum allowable emission rates, and after reviewing TCEQ modeling approach and results, we agree with the Governor’s revised recommendation for boundaries for the nonattainment area.

Comment: TCEQ provided comments regarding one of the Pb monitors in Frisco. TCEQ said that at the time the monitoring data for monitor 480850009 was extracted from AQS the monitor was located on Exide company propert y behind a security fence and inaccessible to the public. The data from this monitor was incorr ectl y listed as ambient air data. Because the data from this monitor are non

- ambient, TCEQ recommended that reference to this monitor be removed from EPA’s Technical Support Document (TSD), and use only data from the other two monitors which represent amb ient air and provide adequate data to support EPA’s proposed nonattainment area.

EPA’s Response: EPA notes that the monitor in question is less than 5 feet from the chain link fence marking the propert y line at the monitor location. As such, its meas urements are considered representative of ambient air across the fenceline. As noted by

TCEQ, there are two other monitors in the area that have recorded measurements above the NAAQS for lead, so this data is not necessary for the nonattainment designati on. Furthermore, even if the data from 480850009 were not used for the purpose of determining attainment or nonattainment, the data from the monitor meets all of EPA’s QA requirements and EPA believes it would still be appropriate to use the data in evalu ating the proposed boundary of the nonattainment area and also in the future attainment plan. Therefore, we do not believe the reference to the data from monitor 480850009 should be removed from the TSD

.Page 13 of 16

EPA notes this monitor has been listed as a SLAMS monitor and the data has been reported b y the State as ambient data for the last three ye ars. EPA understands that Texas now believes the data from this monitor should be designated as non

- regulatory data

. This issue will be addressed through future discussions with the State.

Comment: Both Exide and the City

of Frisco provided comments that raised concerns with the size of EPA’s proposed nonattainment area. The boundary of the proposed nonattainment area was based on dispersion modeling performed b y TCEQ. In its letter, Exide said that TCEQ performed the modeling using the maximum hourly emission rate possible for a 3

- month period and drew the boundary of the non attainment area as a rectangle around the 0.15 μ g/m 3 isopleth. Exide asserts that using the hourly potential emission represents a worst case scenario and is overly conservative, while using annual potential emissions to perform the modeling would have provided a more appropriate boundary fo r the nonattainment area for a 3

- month average standard. In addition, Exide stated that there were no monitoring data available to support the inclusion of areas at the 0.15 μ g/m 3 isopleth predicted b y TCEQ modeling based on the maximum allowable hourly em ission rate. Exide indicated that TCEQ’s modeling is approximately 3 times higher at the monitor locations than the monitored values and modeling of actual annualized emission rates yields a value closer to the monitored value at one of the monitors. Exid e provided modeling results performed using annual emission rates which indicates the area above the 0.15 standard is smaller than the proposed nonattainment area. Exide also commented that they agreed with the factors used by EPA and TCEQ to define th e non - attainment areas that deviate from the presumptive county boundary

.
EPA’s Response: EPA appreciates comments from the City of Frisco and Exide. EPA’s proposed boundary of the nonattainment area was based on the recommendation from the State of Te xas. After promulgation of a new Standard, section 107 (d)(1)(A) of the CAA provides the opportunity

for the Governor of each State is to provide recommendations for all areas in the State as to whether the areas should be designated attainment, nonattainment or unclassifiable. EPA must consider these recommendations and provide the governor at least 120 day s notice if we intend to disagree with the State’s recommendation. EPA proposed to agree with the initial recommendation from Texas and as discussed above, the Governor provided revised recommendations in a letter dated October 13, 2010. Because of monitored levels that were higher than the new standard, Texas concluded a portion of Collin County in the vicinity

of the Exide facility

should be designated nonattainment. To establish the boundary of this nonattainment area, Texas performed air qualit y modeling. Air quality modeling is an appropriate appro ach forPage 14 of 16

establishing a boundary , as it can be used to estimate concentrations in areas without air quality monitors. In accepting Texas’ recommendation for the proposed boundary , EPA has reviewed TCEQ’s modeling and agreed that the TCEQ approach of using the maximum allowable lead emissions in performing the modeling was a reasonable approach. This ap proach is generally

consistent with 40 CFR Appendix W

– Guideline on Air Quality Models (GAQM). While the facility has not had emissions as high as its permit allowables on an annual basis in recent ye ars, it could operate at full capacity in the future. In fact, review of TCEQ’s emission inventory data for 2000

- 2008 indicates that Exide’s emissions have varied greatl y, with the annual maximum reported emissions being 3

- 4 times larger than the minimum annual emissions reported. With this level of variati on it seems the allowable emission rate are necessary to ensure that all potential emissions scenarios are covered. EPA also agrees that TCEQ’s use of a maximum allowable hourl y emission rate, rather than an annual rate, is reasonable, given that compliance with the standard is based on monitoring data collected on a once every 6 (1/6) day schedule, and these Pb monitoring data are then averaged to obtain monthly means. The monthly

means from each 3 month period are averaged to obtain rolling 3 month average data for comparison with the NAAQS. Using an annual rate could potentially

miss process variations that would b e captured in the monthl y or three month averages. As discussed below , TCEQ has lowered the emissions allowable under the source’s permit since EPA proposed nonattainment boundaries, so the emissions now being modeled are lower. With regard to Exide’s concerns that the model predicts higher values than the monitors, EPA notes that while the model did over predict at some monitors, the model showed good correlation with the maximum monitored value. The maximum modeled value was 1.42 μg/m 3 at a receptor located near the maximum monitored value of 1.26 μg/m 3 . EPA notes that there are difficulties in comparing modeling data with monitoring data. First, the modeling is based on 5 y ears of meteorological data from a time period earlier than the recent moni toring data referred to by the company . Using multiple y ears of weather data in the model is intended to mitigate y ear to y ear variations but wind patterns that impact modeled ambient concentrations can still vary somewhat. In addition, the large variatio n in emissions during the period further complicates the comparison of model and monitored results. In this case, the maximum modeled value is only 12.7% higher than the maximum monitored value from a different period. Further, the modeled maximum and mo nitored maximum are spatiall y identical. The modeling is well within EPA’s expectation for the accuracy of models. Exide’s representatives met with the Region 6 staff on September 23, 2010 to discuss the proposed nonattainment boundary . Exide’s plant manager stated that the facility was willing to alter their Title V permit and accept lower allowable emissions limit. On October 6, 2010 TCEQ issued Exide a revised permit that lowered the facility ’s maximum allowable hourly emission rate. The total hourly emission rates have been reduced significantly . TCEQ ran the air quality model with the revised emission rates. Modeling with the revised rates resulted in a smaller nonattainment area than previouslyPage 15 of 16

recommended b y the Governor. As a result the Govern or of Texas revised his recommendation for the nonattainment area boundaries in a letter sent to EPA on October 13, 2010. We have reviewed the approach that Texas has taken in developing the revised recommended boundary

for the nonattainment area, and the new modeling results and as discussed above, we agree with the revised Governor’s recommendation.

Comme nt: The City of Frisco provided comments opposing the proposed nonattainment area because it places private and public propert y within the proposed nonattainment area, which could have a negative impact on the use of that propert y. The Cit y al so disagrees with the use of potential to emit rates in the modeling and say s that the nonattainment boundary should have been determined based on actual emissio n data rather than theoretical computer modeling.

EPA’s Response: EPA appreciates the City of Frisco comments. As described, the boundary is based on modeling performed by TCEQ and submitted by the Governor of Texas. The modeling is based on the new m aximum allowable emission rates , which results in a smaller nonattainment area than originall y proposed . EPA is revising the nonattainment area boundary

based on the revised Governor’s recommendation letter. EPA has reviewed the approach taken by TCEQ an d believes it is reasonable. EPA’s primary concern in making designations is to protect the public health and welfare from harmful pollutants. The CAA requires that the designation identify an y area that does not meet (or that contributes to ambient air quality in a nearby

areas that does not meet) the 2008 Pb NAAQS. Effects on propert y values can not be a consideration is establishing the boundaries of a nonattainment area.



### 2.4 Comment on Region 9 Initial Designations

– Round 1
Comments: EPA received comments from Asarco, LLC, and six Arizona State/local government offices in response to our July 8, 2010 proposal to designate the Hay den, Arizona area as nonattainment. The commenters challenged our proposal and asserted that the monitoring data we relied upon was not collected in accordance with applicable quality assurance and quality

control (“QA/QC”) requirements. All of the State/local government offices who commented also asserted that the data EPA relied upon did not represent a risk to the public health, and that an unwarranted nonattainment designation could have significant adverse impacts on the local economies. One commenter also stated that the record does not support a nonattainment area extending beyond the immediate environs of the Hayden Smelter Complex, and asked that EPA, if it proceeds with the nonattainment designation, exclude the communities of Kearney and Dudley

ville from the nonattainment area.Page 16 of 16

EPA’s Response: Based on our evaluation of the monitoring data issues raised in these comments, we have determined that we do not have sufficient information to promulgate a nonattainment designation for the Hayden area at this time. The July

– September 2008 data that we obtained from the Hay den Maintenance Building monito r did not fully satisfy applicable QA/QC requirements including the collocated sampling requirement contained in 40 CFR part 58, Appendix A. Accordingl y, the data that our proposal relied upon did not fully

satisfy the requirements of 40 CFR part 50, Appe ndix R, for data used for comparisons with the Pb NAAQS. Because we do not currently have sufficient information to promulgate a nonattainment designation for the Hayden area, we are delaying our designation of the area for the Pb NAAQS until October 15, 2011.
New state

- operated Pb

- TSP monitors have since been installed in the Hayden area. EPA will evaluate data from these new monitors as part of our designation of the Hayden area in October 2011. If EPA intends to make a nonattainment designation for the area, EPA will also reevaluate the appropriate nonattainment area boundaries at th at time. Finally , before promulgating these designations for the Pb NAAQS, EPA will notify the State and the public and provide an opportunity to comment. As to the commenters’ assertions about public health and economic impacts, these are not factors that EPA considers as part of the designation process under CAA section 107(d)(1). Following promulgation of a NAAQS under section 109 of the Act, EPA is obligated under s ection 107(d)(1) to designate as nonattainment “any area that does not meet (or that contributes to ambient air quality in a nearb y area that does not meet)” the NAAQS for that pollutant. Thus, the appropriate inquiry for a designation under section 107(d )(1) is whether the area violates the NAAQS or contributes to violations of the NAAQS in a nearb y area. EPA does not at this point revisit the extensive evaluation of public health risks that it conducted in establishing the NAAQS under CAA sections 108 and 109 (see, e.g., preamble to Pb NAAQS final rule at 73 FR 66964, November 12, 2008), as section 107(d)(1) provides no such authority . Likewise, section 107(d)(1) does not authorize EPA to consider economic impacts during the designation process, as economic impacts are not relevant to the question whether the area violates the NAAQS or contributes to violations in a nearb y area. In both nonattainment and attainment (or unclassifiable) areas, however, the CAA generally allows EPA and States to consider economic impacts in determining wh at pollution controls should be implemented.