COMMONWEALTH OF PUERTO RICO

OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR

ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY BOARD

Sobre: 

Revision to the Lead SIP Requirements 

for the Arecibo Nonattainment Area

REPORT OF THE HEARING EXAMINER

TO THE HONORABLE GOVERNING BOARD:

Hereby appears the Hearing Officer Fernando Olivero Barreto and respectively submits for 

its consideration the following REPORT:

I. Introduction

On October 15, 2008, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) reviewed 

the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS), primary and secondary for lead of 1.5 

micrograms per cubic meter (μg/m3) to 0.15 μg/m3. According to Sections 110 (a)(1) and 110 (a)(2), 

each state is required to submit a plan providing for the implementation, maintenance, and 

enforcement of the new NAAQS promulgated or of a revision of NAAQS.

The Environmental Quality Board, in accordance with the authority conferred by its 

Enabling Act, Act Number 416 of September 22, 2004, as amended, known as the Environmental 

Public Policy Act, and in accordance with the applicable provisions of Act Number 170 of August 

12, 1998, as amended, known as the Uniform Administrative Procedure Act, has the intention to 

submit to the EPA, the Revision of the State Implementation Plan for the Lead Nonattainment 

Area in Arecibo, Puerto Rico (hereinafter, “SIP”). The main objective of the proposed action is to 

demonstrate the capacity of Puerto Rico to implement, maintain and comply with the NAAQS for 

lead in the nonattainment area aforementioned.

II. Determination of Non-Attainment Area by EPA for Pollutant Lead in Arecibo, 

Puerto Rico

On June of 2011, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) notified the 

Government of Puerto Rico its decision to designate the area of Arecibo, Puerto Rico as a 

noncompliance area for the reviewed lead standards.

IN RE:

State Implementation Plan for the Lead 

Nonattainment Area in Arecibo, Puerto 

Rico 

Environmetal Quality Board

Proponent
The reduction of the levels of lead pollution in the atmosphere is an important part of the 

concerted governmental action for attaining a clean and healthy environment. Lead exposure can 

cause a range of adverse health effects, especially in children. Low level lead exposure in early life of 

humans been related with effects to intellectual quotient, learning, memory and behavior.

On October 15, 2008, the EPA substantially strengthened the primary national ambient air 

quality standard for lead reducing it from 1.5 micrograms per cubic meter to a level of 0, 15 5 

micrograms per cubic meter. This norm is more stringent and offers broader protection against 

adverse health effects related to lead exposure for at-risk groups, including children. To provide 

increased protection against lead-related environmental and other welfare effects, the EPA adjusted 

the secondary lead NAAQS to be identical to the revised primary standard. EPA also determined that 

the pre-existing to 2008 ambient lead monitoring network was insufficient for determining whether 

multiple areas affected by lead emissions complied with the revised lead standards. Consequently, 

EPA established new criteria for sitting ambient lead monitors and new data collection requirements. 

The new monitors in compliance with the new requirements were required to begin operating on or 

before January 1, 2010.

The Clean Air Act requires EPA to complete the initial identification or designation of zones 

that comply or not with an air quality standard in particular, within the two year period after the 

promulgation of the new or revised National Air Quality Standards. If the Administrator does not 

have sufficient information to make these designations, the EPA has the authority to extend the 

designation process by up to one year.

In light of the new monitoring network, EPA completed the designations of areas affected by 

lead in two rounds. In the first round, published on November 16, 2010, EPA designated 16 areas of 

the United States and its territories as non-compliance areas with the ambient air quality standards for 

lead, based on data from the pre-2010 existing monitoring network. For the rest of the areas, EPA 

extended the term for designations by up to one year, so that data from the newly deployed monitors 

could be considered in the decision making of the corresponding designation.

On October 14, 2009, the Government of Puerto Rico requested EPA for the Arecibo area to 

be considered as a non-classifiable area. However, EPA denied said petition. Accordingly, EPA 

determined to classify the Arecibo area as a nonattainment area with the ambient air quality standards 

for lead.

The designated areas for Puerto Rico are the following: Non-Attainment Area (NAA) in a 4 

kilometers radius around The Battery Recycling Company, Inc. (TBRCI) in the Municipality of 

Arecibo, and Unclassified/Attainment Area for the rest of the Island. These designations were 

effective on December 31, 2011.

III. Harmful Effects from Lead to Public Health and Safety
According to the World Health Organization, lead is a toxic metal present naturally in the 

Earth’s crust. Its widespread use has resulted in a significant contamination of the environment in 

many parts of the world, a considerable level of human exposure and severe public health problems. 

Among the main sources of air pollution, mining, metallurgy manufacturing activities and recycling

stand out, and in some countries, the persistent use of paint and gasoline with lead. More than threequarters of the world lead consumption correspond to the manufacturing of lead-acid batteries for 

motor vehicles. However, this metal is also used in many other products, such as pigments, paints, 

welding, stained glass, glass dinnerware, ammunition, ceramic glazes, jewelry and toys, as well as some 

cosmetic products and traditional medications. Potable water channeled through lead piping or 

welding based on lead, may also contain lead. Nowadays, much of the lead traded in world markets is 

obtained through recycling.

Short-aged children are especially vulnerable to the toxic effects from lead, which could result 

in severe and permanent consequences in their health, particularly affecting the development of the 

brain and nervous system. Lead also causes lasting damages in adults, for example by increasing the 

risk of hypertension and renal lesions. In pregnant women, high levels of exposure to lead may cause 

miscarriage, stillbirth, premature birth and low weight at birth, and may cause malformations in the 

fetus. People may be exposed to lead in their jobs or their environment, mainly through:

 inhalation of lead particles generated by combustion of materials that contain this metal (e.g., 

during smelting, recycling in unsafe conditions, or lead paint stripping, or when using 

gasoline with lead); 

 ingestion of dust, water, or contaminated food (e.g., water channeled through lead pipes or 

food packed in containers with lead glaze or welded with this metal).

Young children are particularly vulnerable because, according to the source of pollution in 

question, they absorb amount of lead between 4 and 5 times greater than adults. As if this were not 

enough, their innate curiosity and custom, proper to their age, of placing things in their mouth, 

makes them more likely to suck and swallow objects containing lead or covered with this metal (e.g., 

contaminated dirt or dust, or flakes of paint with lead). This route of exposure is even greater in 

children with pica (persistent and compulsive desire of eating non-edible substances), who can pull 

out, and then swallow, for example, flakes of paint from walls, door frames or furniture. In some 

countries, the exposure of dirt and dust contaminated by lead due to recycling of batteries and mining 

has caused massive intoxications of lead to young children, thus numerous lives have already been 

taken. In others, including Puerto Rico, it has been medically confirmed lead pollution in 

considerable numbers of people, particularly children. In Puerto Rico, lead pollution comes mostly 

from exposure air, soil and dust containing lead.
Once inside the body, lead is distributed reaching the brain, liver, kidneys and bones, and is 

deposited in teeth and bones, where it accumulates through time. Lead stored in the bones can recirculate through the blood during pregnancy, with a consequent risk to the fetus. Malnourished 

children are more vulnerable to lead because their organisms tend to absorb greater quantities of this 

metal when lacking other nutrients, such as calcium. Groups exposed to greater risks are younger 

children (including fetuses in development) and the poor.

Lead has serious consequences to the health of children. If the level of exposure is high, it 

attacks the brain and the central nervous system, possibly causing a coma, convulsions and even 

death. Children who survive a severe poisoning may suffer various consequences, such as mental 

retardation or behavioral disorders. It has been found also that in weaker exposure levels without 

evident symptoms, previously considered free from risk, lead may cause diverse alterations in various 

systems of the human body. In children it affects, in particular, the development of the brain, which 

in turn implies a reduction of IQ, behavior changes - for example, decrease of ability of 

concentration and increase of anti-social behavior - and a lower school performance. Exposure to 

lead can also cause anemia, hypertension, renal dysfunction, immune toxicity and reproductive 

toxicity. It is believed that the neurological and behavioral effects associated with lead are irreversible. 

There is no level of concentration of lead in blood that can be considered risk-free. However, it has 

been confirmed that the higher the level of exposure to this metal, higher the increase of the diversity 

and severity of the symptoms and effects associated to it. Moreover, the blood concentrations that do 

not exceed 5 μg/dl -level until recently considered safe- can result in a decrease of the intelligence of 

the child, as well as behavioral problems and learning difficulties.

In light of the great risks that this pollutant presents to the health and safety of the residents of 

the area of Arecibo, Puerto Rico, the adequacy of the proposed implementation plan. 

IV. SIP Requirements

Sections 110 (a) (1) and (2) of the Clean Air Act (CAA), hereafter referred to as the 

Infrastructure State Implementation Plan (SIP) compel states to submit an implementation plan to 

the Administrator of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) that demonstrate its capacity 

to attain, maintain, and enforce each and every one of the national ambient air quality standards 

(NAAQS). Section 110(a) (1) of the Clean Air Act addresses the timing requirement for the 

submissions of any SIP revisions. Section 110(a) (2) details the required elements that the State needs 

to demonstrate its authority to implement the plan. Some of the elements of Section 110(a) (2) 

specifically address the obligation of states to demonstrate the capacity to attain, maintain, and 

enforce the air quality standards. These elements are compiled and submitted in what is referred as a 
State Implementation Plan (SIP) and are, but are not limited to air quality monitoring, data 

analysis, and reporting, resources, consulting, emergency procedures, and issues related to transport. 

Said Section provides the following:

"(2) Each implementation plan submitted by a State under this Act shall be adopted by the State after 

reasonable notice and public hearing. Each such plan shall-

 "(A) include enforceable emission limitations and other control measures, means, or techniques 

(including economic incentives such as fees, marketable permits, and auctions of emissions rights), as 

well as schedules and timetables for compliance, as may be necessary or appropriate to meet the 

applicable requirements of this Act; 

 "(B) Provide for establishment and operation of appropriate devices, methods, systems, and procedures 

necessary to- 

 "(i) monitor, compile, and analyze data on ambient air quality, and 

 "(ii) Upon request, make such data available to the Administrator; 

 "(C) include a program to provide for the enforcement of the measures described in subparagraph (A), 

and regulation of the modification and construction of any stationary source within the areas covered by 

the plan as necessary to assure that national ambient air quality standards are achieved, including a 

permit program as required in parts C and D; 

 "(D) Contain adequate provisions- 

 "(I) prohibiting, consistent with the provisions of this title, any source or other type of emissions activity 

within the State from emitting any air pollutant in amounts which will-

 "(I) contribute significantly to nonattainment in, or interfere with maintenance by, any other 

State with respect to any such national primary or secondary ambient air quality standard, or 

 "(II) Interfere with measures required to be included in the applicable implementation plan for any 

other State under part C to prevent significant deterioration of air quality or to protect visibility, 

 "(ii) Insuring compliance with the applicable requirements of sections 126 and 115 (relating to 

interstate and international pollution abatement);

 "(E) provide (i) necessary assurances that the State (or, except where the Administrator deems 

inappropriate, the general purpose local government or governments, or a regional agency designated by the 

State or general purpose local governments for such purpose) will have adequate personnel, funding, 

and authority under State (and, as appropriate, local) law to carry out such implementation plan (and is 

not prohibited by any provision of Federal or State law from carrying out such implementation 

plan or portion thereof), (ii) requirements that the State comply with the requirements respecting State 

boards under section 128, and (iii) necessary assurances that, where the State has relied on a local or 

regional government, agency, or instrumentality for the implementation of any plan provision, the State has 

responsibility for ensuring adequate implementation of such plan provision; 

 "(F) Require, as may be prescribed by the Administrator- 

 "(i) the installation, maintenance, and replacement of equipment, and the implementation of 

other necessary steps, by owners or operators of stationary sources to monitor emissions from such sources, 

 "(ii) periodic reports on the nature and amounts of emissions and emissions-related data from 

such sources, and 

 "(iii) Correlation of such reports by the State agency with any emission limitations or standards 

established pursuant to this Act, which reports shall be available at reasonable times for public inspection; 

 "(G) Provide for authority comparable to that in section 303 and adequate contingency plans to 

implement such authority; 

 "(H) Provide for revision of such plan- 

 "(i) from time to time as may be necessary to take account of revisions of such national primary or 

secondary ambient air quality standard or the availability of improved or more expeditious methods of 

attaining such standard, and

 "(ii) except as provided in paragraph (3)(C), whenever the Administrator finds on the basis 

of information available to the Administrator that the plan is substantially inadequate to attain 

the national ambient air quality standard which it implements or to otherwise comply with any additional 

requirements established under this Act;

 "(I) in the case of a plan or plan revision for an area designated as a 

nonattainment area, meet the applicable requirements of part D (relating to 

nonattainment areas); (Enfasis suplido)

 "(J) Meet the applicable requirements of section 121 (relating to consultation), section 127 (relating to 

public notification), and part C (relating to prevention of significant deterioration of air quality and visibility 

protection); 

 "(K) Provide for- 

 "(i) the performance of such air quality modeling as the Administrator may prescribe for the 

purpose of predicting the effect on ambient air quality of any emissions of any air pollutant for which 

the Administrator has established a national ambient air quality standard, and 

 "(ii) The submission, upon request, of data related to such air quality modeling to the Administrator; 

 "(L) Require the owner or operator of each major stationary source to pay to the permitting authority, as 

a condition of any permit required under this Act, a fee sufficient to cover-

 "(i) the reasonable costs of reviewing and acting upon any application for such a permit, and 
 "(ii) if the owner or operator receives a permit for such source, the reasonable costs of implementing 

and enforcing the terms and conditions of any such permit (not including any court costs or other costs 

associated with any enforcement action), until such fee requirement is superseded with respect to such sources 

by the Administrator's approval of a fee program under title V; and 

 "(M) Provide for consultation and participation by local political subdivisions affected by the plan."

V. Part D Standards Aplicable to the SIP for Non Compliance Area

The Clean Air Act (42 USC §§ 7401-7671) sets forth an integral regulatory scheme for the 

reduction and prevention of air pollution by the states and the federal government. (See, in general, 

Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. v. South Coast Air Quality Management Dist. (CDCal.2010) 694

F.Supp.2d 1092, 1096 (Natural Resources). The purpose of the plan is to achieve and maintain 

compliance with the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). (Ibid.) Every state is divided 

into “air quality control regions” separated as “attainment” or “nonattainment” whether the region is 

in compliance or in noncompliance with the NAAQS for the specified pollutants. (42 USC §§ 7407, 

subd (d), 7501, subd (2);.... 40 CFR § 81, subd (C)).

The NAAQS are maintained, in part, through “State Implementation Plans” or “SIP”, whose 

purpose is provide the specific control measures that are designed to achieve compliance with the 

NAAQS within the designated air quality control regions. (Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. v. South 

Coast Air Quality Management Dist., supra, 694 F.Supp.2d at page 1096; See also, Latino Issues 

Forum v. USEPA (9th Cir. 2009) 558 F. 3d 936, 938.) States must prepare and submit every 

proposed “State Implementation Plan” to EPA for review and approval. Once approved, the SIP has 

the force and effect of federal law. Una vez aprobado, el SIP adquiere fuerza y efecto de ley federal.

(Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. v. South Coast Air Quality Management Dist., supra, at page 1096). 

After approval, EPA can require revisions to an existing SIP if in any moment it determines that the 

SIP is substantially inadequate to achieve or maintain the NAAQS, or otherwise fails to comply with 

the Clean Air Act. 42 U.S.C. § 7410(k) (5). The required revisions by EPA for an existing SIP are 

commonly known as “SIP calls”. See e.g. Sierra Club v. Georgia Power Co., 443 F.3d 1346, 1348 (11th 

Cir.2006).

The SIP must contain certain types of control measures including, inter alia, emissions 

limitations, compliance schedules, monitoring requirements, and enforcement mechanisms. While the 

Clean Air Act dictates a number of general requirements for the content of the SIP, the states have 

substantial discretion to determine the specific air pollution control strategies in order to comply with 

the NAAQS. Ibid. In spite of this, a SIP for a nonattainment area must contain a “new source 

review” (NSR) program, setting forth the permit requirements that will be required to major emission 

sources, new or modified, within the area defined as nonattainment.

An aspect of the NSR is the requirement that a SIP for a nonattainment area must require that 

emission increases from new and modified major sources be offset by corresponding emissions 
reductions. See USC § 7503 (c). Provided that “offset” means a reduction of nonattainment pollutant 

emissions in an amount equal to, or somewhat greater than, the increase of emissions of the same 

pollutant from the new or modified source, or the new equipment intended to be installed in the 

modified. "A company might be allowed to create offsets, for example, by permanently shutting 

down a permitted SIP of equipment, or curtailing production or operating hours." Thus the case law 

provides that: "Once created, companies may also be able to ‘bank’ offsets, use them at a later time, 

and/or sell them to other companies.” (Natural Resources, supra, at p. 1097.)

The Clean Air Act (CAA) requires every state or territory within which there is located a 

noncompliance area for the lead pollutant, to submit a State Implementation Plan (SIP) that 

satisfactorily shows that measures will be taken for said denominated area to enter in compliance with 

the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). In case of the pollutant lead, the applicable 

NAAQS must be achieved as quickly as possible and at the latest 5 years after the effective date of 

the designation.

As previously described, lead is a natural metal that can be very harmful to human health. 

Precisely why it is one of the six common air pollutants regulated by the EPA using the NAAQS. 

The primary NAAQS are the criteria established by EPA that provide air pollution limits necessary 

for protecting human health, with an adequate margin of safety. The secondary NAAQS are intended 

to protect the public welfare (public welfare protection includes, for example, the effects on soil, 

water, crops, vegetation, manmade materials, animals, wildlife, and visibility).

However, given the nature of the toxicity of lead, the primary and secondary NAAQS for lead 

are identical. The CAA requires EPA to review the NAAQS every five years and, if necessary, update 

the regulations to ensure that they provide for adequate protection to health and welfare. 

The EPA established for the first time the standards of health for lead on October 5, 1978 (43 

FR 46246). At that time the lead NAAQS were set at a level of 1.5 micrograms per cubic meter of air 

(μg/m3), as an average during a quarter calendar. On October 15, 2008, EPA issued a revision of the 

standard, reducing its level in an order of magnitude, from 1.5 μg/m3 to 0.15 μg/m3. The average 

period was also revised, from a calendar quarter to a rolling three-month average. To comply with the 

new health standard of EPA, none of the three-month rolling average may exceed the standard of 

0.15 μg/m3 over a period of three consecutive years. The secondary standard was also revised, for it 

to be identical to the new primary standard. (For additional information of the 2008 NAAQS for lead 

revision see 73 FR 66964).

Section 107 (d) of the CAA requires states and the EPA to carry out an area designation 

process found to be in compliance or noncompliance with the NAAQS. An area that does not meet 
the standard, or an area contributing emissions to a close by noncompliance area with the standard, 

will be classified as non-compliance areas.

With the SIP under consideration, the EQB intends to comply with the obligations of a SIP for 

a noncompliance area for lead. As set out in the explanatory statement of the final review of the 

NAAQS of lead on November 12, 2008 (73 FR 66964), the SIP for an area of non-compliance must 

comply with the requirements of Subpart 1 of Part D of the Clean Air Act, including those specified 

in Section 172 (c). In addition to the aforementioned, the necessary compliance elements provided in 

§172 (c) that the plan must contain are the following:

 §172(c)(1): Measures for achievement and timely application of all the Reasonably Available 

Control Measures (RACM) and the Reasonably Available Control Technologies (RACT).

 §172 (c) (2): Establish the requirements for reasonable further progress (RFP) achieved by the 

adequate reduction of emissions and the establishment of deadlines for implementation.

 §172 (c) (3): Compile a complete, accurate and actual inventory of current emissions. 

 §172 (c) (4): Identify and quantify the emissions that will be permitted, in accordance with 

section 173 (a) (1) (B), since the construction/operation of the major or modified stationary 

source. Demonstrate that such emissions will be consistent with the RFP and the NAAQS.

 §172 (c) (5): Include provisions for implementing the requirements for new sources in the 

area of non-compliance.

 §172 (c) (6): Develop a strategy based on calendars and schedules to enforce the applicable 

emission limits or other measures of control necessary for the timely attainment of the 

NAAQS.

 §172 (c) (7): Comply with the applicable provisions of section 110 (a) (2) of the Clean Air 

Act.

 §172 (c) (8): This section allows the use of techniques equivalent to modeling, inventory of 

emissions or planning procedures (provided they are not less restrictive than any standard 

method laid out in the regulations.)

 §172 (c) (9): Provide for the implementation of contingency measures if the zone fails to 

achieve RFP or if the area does not reach the standard at the required date of compliance.

See California Communities Against Toxics v. South Coast Air Quality Management Dist., 2011 WL 

2937061, Cal. App. 2 Dist.

It should be added to the aforementioned that the SIP must establish that both existing and 

new facilities shall comply with the applicable requirements for the installation of the National 
Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Secondary Lead Smelting (MACT rule, 40 Code 

of Federal Regulations Part 36, Subpart X). This regulatory requirement is of imperative importance 

for the purpose of achieving compliance with the NAAQS before December 31, 2016.

The emissions inventory is normally produced at the beginning of the development process of 

the SIP to help identify potentially important sources. The various control measures (that incorporate 

RACT / RACM) included in the control strategy should consider implementation timeframes to 

ensure compliance with the RFP requirements and to ensure that the NAAQS are achieved as soon 

as possible. By law, the area should reach the standard within 5 years from the date of the noncompliance designation. In the case that concerns us, the designation of nonattainment was made 

effective on December 31, 2011, therefore the date of compliance may at the latest December 31, 

2016.

Demonstration of achievement must provide evidence that the overall control strategy is 

sufficient to achieve compliance with the NAAQS within the regulatory deadline. Demonstration of 

achievement is done through the use of quality air dispersion models, which are in compliance with 

the provisions of Appendix W of 40 CFR 51. The control strategy should also contain a description 

of the methods of implementation, including supervision procedures of compliance and handling of 

violations. (See 40 CFR 51 Subpart G).

V. Summary of Demonstration of Compliance by EQB with 

the Elements provided in Section 110(a)(2) according to the Proposed SIP 

In General

In accordance with the purposes expressed in the document under analysis, the review to the 

SIP is submitted in accordance with the requirements established in Sections 172 (b) and (c) of the 

Clean Air Act (CAA). With this new plan, EQB intends to demonstrate compliance with the 2008 

NAAQS for lead through the implementation and enforcement of control measures for existing lead

emission sources. Fundamentally, the plan contends as a strategy to ensure compliance the 

imposition of limitations and operational restrictions on permits issued by the EQB for new and 

existing sources in the nonattainment area. The plan sustains that the permits “issued” contain 

specific limitations and restrictions based on the National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air 

Pollutants (NESHAP) from Secondary Lead Smelting (40 CFR, Part 63, Subpart X), any applicable 

NESHAP, New Sources Performance Standards (NSPS) and/or Reasonably Available Control 

Technologies (RACT). Moreover, it asserts that the ambient air monitoring in the designated 

nonattainment area is used to demonstrate that the implementation of the control measures at the 

existing sources, maintain the lead emissions below the 2008 NAAQS for lead.

Enforceable Emission Limitations and Other Control Measures

The Plan includes applicable emission limitations and other control measures, means or 

techniques (including economic incentives such as fees, marketable permits, and auctions of 
emissions rights), as well as schedules and timetables for compliance, in order to comply with the 

requirements of Section 110(a)(2)(A) of CAA. It is asserted that the Regulation for the Control of 

Atmospheric Pollution (RCAP) of EQB establishes rules directed to compliance with the NAAQS 

and other air quality standards. These rules include formal systematic procedures for construction 

and operation permits that will meet the federal requirements. 

Any new and/or existing air emission source within the Nonattainment Area shall obtain a 

permit for the construction or operation of an emission source in accordance with Rules 203 and 204 

of the RCAP, as applicable. According with Rule 201 of RCAP, prior to the construction of the 

source, a location approval by the EQB must be obtained for the location or construction of any new 

major stationary source, or major modification or significant source of lead. An ambient air quality 

impact analysis is required, as part of the application for location approval (Rule 201 (D) of RCAP), 

for any proposed major source, major modification, or significant source of lead located in or 

significantly impacting a nonattainment area to demonstrate that the sources do not cause or 

contribute significantly to the air pollution in violation of the 2008 lead NAAQS or that do not 

exceed any other NAAQS. Also, such sources shall submit a Non-Attainment New Source Review 

(NANSR) or a Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) permit application to EPA-Region 2, 

since this is the entity with authority to issue the permits related to the previously mentioned 

preconstruction programs.

According to the dispersion model results, the major contributor to the lead NAAQS violations 

is TBRCI. The facility is a minor source of emissions but is subject to the NESHAP for Secondary 

Lead Smelting (40 CFR, Part 63, Subpart X) also known as Maximum Available Control Technology 

(MACT) for secondary lead smelters. This regulation requires sources to submit a Title V application 

(Section 63.51(c) of 40 CFR). The Title V application must be submitted in accordance with Part VI 

of the RCAP. The provisions of Subpart X apply to TBRCI for being secondary lead smelters and 

operate a reverberatory furnace, rotary furnace and refining kettles. The facility is also affected by the 

New Source Performance Standard (NSPS) for Secondary Lead Smelters (40 CFR Part 60, Subpart 

L) for operating a reverberatory furnace that commenced construction or modification after June 11, 

1973.

On January 5, 2012 EPA published the revised the NESHP for Secondary Lead Smelters 

(77FR556). The revised standard requires the implementation of new emission standards and require 

control for fugitive emissions. The compliance date for the new limit was January 6, 2014.

Reasonable Progress

Section 172(c) (2) of CAA requires nonattainment areas SIPs to include reasonable further 

progress (RFP) provisions. As stated in EPA’s final lead rule for the 2008 NAAQS for Lead (73 FR 

67039), effective January 12, 2009, RFP is satisfied by the strict adherence to an ambitious 
compliance schedule which is expected to periodically yield significant emission reductions or linear 

progress when appropriate. In addition, EQB does not intend to relax any control measures already 

implemented at TBRCI. To determine the RFP for lead, at a minimum, controls must be 

implemented expeditiously and accurate estimate of emissions reductions that will be achieved by 

controls measures should be quantified.

Para TBRCI, the potential emissions in 2011 were 1.2 ton/yr. These potential emissions are the 

same for subsequent years until the end of year 2013. With the implementation of the NESHAP for 

Secondary Lead Smelters the potential emission of the source will decrease to 0.3353 ton/yr with the 

installation of the required control measures. The projected emission for 2016 is 0.3353 ton/yr 

(Figure #2). This reduction is achievable if TBRCI meets the permit requirements, especially the 

control measures that include fugitive emission control using total enclosure of the process building, 

and stringent standards operating procedures for the control of fugitive dust (containing lead bearing 

material) according to MACT and NSPS applicable requirements.

Emission Sources Inventory

In order to evaluate the emissions in the Arecibo nonattainment area, and develop the strategy 

to achieve compliance with the NAAQS, the EQB prepared the baseline emission inventory baseline 

based on emission during year 2011. The municipalities in the baseline emission inventory are: 

Barceloneta, Ciales, Florida, Hatillo and Utuado. (See Figure 3 of the proposed SIP).

An emissions projection inventory with the lead emissions 2016 was used in the attainment 

modeling study. Potential lead emissions were used. The emissions projection inventory 2016 include 

the lead emissions of TBRCI and the background sources. Figure 3 shows the industries in the 

emissions projection inventory 2016.

The facilities that emit lead in Arecibo are TBRCI, Safetech Corporation, ANJ Airport and 

PREPA Cambalache. Energy Answers is planning to build a renewable energy plant nearby.

Two lead emission inventories were prepared. The 2011 Baseline Emission Inventory and the 

Emissions Projection Inventory 2016. The emissions projection inventory 2016 was used in the 

multi-source modeling scenario. See modeling protocol. Lead potential emissions or permit allowable 

rates were used in the emissions projection inventory. The emission inventory data are in the 

Appendixes.

Battery Recycling Company, Inc.

TBRCI is located in Cambalache Ward, PR-2 km 72.2 in Arecibo. This facility is dedicated to 

the recycling of lead batteries for the production of lead of different specifications. TBRCI processes 

145.21 tons per day of used lead batteries. Secondary lead is smelted at a rate of 83.04 tons per day. 

The furnaces product is placed in refining kettles to produce refined lead. TBRCI operation is 24 

hour per day, 7 days per week for 12 months per year, or approximately 8,760 hours per year. Process 
emissions from the kilns and each of the nine kettles are discharged to the atmosphere through two 

control devices. Emissions from the fuel combustion of the kilns are also discharged through the 

control device. The emissions from the fuel combustion at each of the nine kettles are discharged to 

the atmosphere through separate stacks. This facility is a minor source of emissions.

The Battery Recycling in Arecibo has lead emissions over 0.5 tons/yr. In June 2010 a source 

oriented air quality monitor installed by PREQB near this industry, captured a lead concentration that 

exceeded the new standard of 0.15μg/m3. The area was declared as non-attainment for the new lead 

standard in 2011.

The projected emission inventory has all the control measures established in federally 

enforceable requirements and the construction permit issued to TBRCI. The control measures that 

EQB required TBRCI were the enclosure of the main process building, use of sweepers and water 

sprinklers during the transport and movement of materials, a vehicle cleaning station and pavement 

of the roads inside the facility.

The potential emissions of lead were submitted by TBRC as part of the source minor 

construction permit process and reviewed by the Air Toxics Division. In order to have more accurate 

coordinates for dispersion modeling, a site-visit along with EQB geographic information system 

(GIS) personnel was conducted in order to take the coordinates and dimensions of the facility 

buildings and emission points.

TBRCI has three types of lead emission points the stack, the fugitive emissions from the main 

process building and the fugitive emissions due to the material handling and transport across the 

facility property. 

As previously stated, TBRCI is a minor source of emissions but is subject to the Secondary 

Lead Smelting NESHAP (40 CFR Part 63, Subpart X) and the NSPS for Secondary Lead Smelters 

(40 CFR Part 60, Subpart L). 

Safetech Corporation

Safetech Corporation is located at Lot #30, Santana Industrial Park, Arecibo, P.R. This facility 

is dedicated to the collection, temporary storage and disposal by incineration of commercial and 

industrial non-hazardous solid wastes. Safetech Corporation installed and operates a thermal oxidizer 

Ducons Incinerator Model. The actual hourly oxidation rate is 1,000 pounds for hour, 24 hr/day, 6.46 

day/week, approximate 4,032 tons / year of solid waste, type 0 and or 1. They are currently using 

propane as the auxiliary fuel at a rate of 21 gallons per hour. The fuel takes a maximum content of 

sulfur of 0.000167 per cent as a weight. The incinerator operates 8,064 hours per year.

Puerto Rico Electric Power Authority (PREPA), Cambalache Plant 

PREPA Cambalache consists of three simple cycle diesel turbines with a capacity of 898 

MMBtu/hr HHV and 847 MMBtu/hr LHV, each one. PREPA Cambalache operates at two levels: at 
base load (898 MMBtu/hr HHV and 847 MMBtu/hr LHV) and at spinning rapid reserve load (616 

MMBtu/hr HHV and 581 MMBtu/hr LHV). Part of the generated heat is recovered from the 

production of steam that is injected to the turbines to control the nitrogen oxide emissions (NOx). 

The facilities include a system of unloading, transference and storage of diesel in three tanks of 4.2 

million gallons, each one.

PREPA Cambalache is subject to the RCAP, the New Source Performance Standards for 

Stationary Gas Turbines (40 CFR Part 60, Subpart GG) and the Prevention of Significant 

Deterioration of Air Quality Standards for NOx, sulfur dioxide (SO2), sulfuric acid mist (H2SO4), 

carbon monoxide (CO), particulate matter (PM), particulate matter with a diameter of 10 

micrometers or less (PM10) and volatile organic compounds (VOC). The applicable requirements 

specific to all emission units are included in Section V of the Title V permit.

PREPA Cambalache is a major source for criteria pollutants because it has the potential to emit 

more than 100 tons/year of PM10, SO2, NOx, CO and VOC. It is also a major source for hazardous 

air pollutants because it has the potential to emit more than 10 ton/yr of nickel and formaldehyde 

and 25 ton/yr of a combination of hazardous air pollutants.

Energy Answers

On August 11, 2011, Energy Answers submitted a construction permit application and location 

approval to construct a municipal solid waste incinerator with energy recovery, also known as wastes 

to energy (WTE), at Bo. Cambalache, Road #2, km 72.8. The proposed locations was the location of 

the former Global Fibers Paper facility. Energy Answers, proposed the installation of two boilers, 

which will use municipal solid waste (MSW) as primary fuel. In addition, the facility requested the 

capacity to use Automotive-Shredder Residue (ASR), Tire-Derived Fuel (TDF) and Processed Urban 

Wood Waste (PUWW) as supplementary fuel, according to the permit application. The main 

emission source will consist of two municipal waste combustion units.

Energy Answers prepared an air quality impact analysis as part of its location approval and 

construction permit applications (Rules 201 and 203 of RCAP). According to the permit application, 

the lead emissions from the source do will not exceed the significant levels for modeling. However, 

given the lead sensitivity of the area, the EQB required as part of the permit application that the 

facility to include the air quality impact of lead emissions from the WTE. The evaluation of the air 

quality impact indicate that the lead emissions from the proposed source do not have a significant air 

quality impact.

Energy Answers is subject to pre-construction requirements under the PSD (40 CFR, Part 

52.21). The EPA issued the final PSD permit on April 10, 2014. If approved, the EQB construction 

permit will include the PSD permit conditions and all other applicable requirements and emission 

limits such as the Standards of Performance for Municipal Solid Waste Incinerators (40 CFR Part 60 
Subpart Eb); Standards of Performance for Electric Utility Steam Generating Units (40 CFR Part 60, 

Subpart Da); Standards of Performance for Stationary Compression Ignition Internal Combustion 

Engines (40 CFR Part 60, Subpart IIII); and the NESHAP for Stationary Reciprocating Internal 

Combustion Engines (40 CFR Part 63, Subpart ZZZZ). 

Air Quality Monitoring, Compilation, Data Analysis, and Reporting

EQB annually reviews the air monitoring network plan and makes it available for public 

participation. After the public participation period, comments are reviewed and incorporated, if 

necessary and the final plan is submitted to EPA for final approval as required by 40 CFR, Part 58. 

This Air Monitoring Network Plan meets the requirements of 40 CFR 58.10(a) (1). The purpose of 

this plan is to provide for the establishment and maintenance of an air quality monitoring system in 

Puerto Rico that consists of a network of SLAMS sites.

The new standard rule requires a source oriented monitor in all areas where the lead emissions 

are equal or more than 0.5 tons/yr. As part of the new air quality standard for lead, EQB operates 

two (2) lead (Pb) sites in the air-monitoring network for Arecibo. All Pb samplers are operated on a 

year-round basis and the measurements are sent quarterly to the EPA Air Quality System (AQS). The 

State and Local Air Monitoring Stations Pb sites use federal reference method monitors. The two 

sites located at Arecibo are 72-013-0001, and 72-013-0002 (requested by EPA) and are used to 

demonstrate compliance with the 2008 lead NAAQS. Figure #4 shows the location of the monitors.

The legal authority of Puerto Rico to monitor ambient air quality is found in Act No. 416 of 

September 22, 2004, Article 9(A) (4), et seq. 

Permits for New and Modified Major Stationary Sources

The location or construction of any new major stationary source, or major modification, or 

significant source shall obtain a location approval from the EQB Governing Board, prior to their 

construction in accordance with Rule 201 of RCAP. The Board shall notify the public of the location 

approval application. An application for location approval shall include information about alternative 
sites, size, production, processes, and environmental control techniques that demonstrate that 

benefits of the proposed source significantly outweigh the environmental and social costs imposed as 

a result of its location, construction, or modification. It shall also include an application for a permit 

to construct. The source shall submit a PSD applicability or non-applicability determination or 

NANSR to the EPA, which is the permitting authority for the PSD Program in Puerto Rico. As part 

of a Memorandum of Understanding signed between EQB and EPA, EQB will not issue a 

construction permit for a major source if EPA has not made a PSD applicability determination and 

has not issue the PSD pre-construction permit. PSD permit conditions must be included as part of 

EQB construction air permit.

The requirements for location approval are in this Rule 201. Rule 201 also requires that emission 

sources locating in or significantly impacting a nonattainment area have to be limited by means of the 

lowest achievable emission rate (LAER) for the relevant criteria pollutant. For emissions sources 

located in attainment areas, air pollutants emissions from the new major source, major modification, 

or significant source have to be limited by means of the best available control technology (BACT).

As part of the location approval, PREQB review construction permit application in accordance 

with Rule 203(A)(2) of the RCAP. The Board may impose any reasonable conditions upon the 

issuance of a permit to construct in order to guarantee the emission limitations of any applicable 

standard for the source or to comply with NAAQS. The location approval require a public review 

process with the construction permit draft, therefore all construction permit conditions are federally 

enforceable.

Enforcement and Stationary Source Permits

The RCAP establishes rules governing the enforcement of control measures, including 

attainment plans and permitting programs that regulate construction and modification of stationary 

sources. Additionally, EPA-Region 2 is responsible for the PSD and Non-Attainment NSR 

permitting program that contains requirements for sources of air pollutants in Puerto Rico. The 

sources affected by PSD and Non-Attainment NSR Program are subject to the Federal 

Implementation Plan PSD requirements in 40 CFR Section 52.21. The following parts of RCAP 

contain the rules relevant to these federal requirements:

PART I: GENERAL PROVISIONS

Rule 103: Source Monitoring, Record Keeping, Reporting, Sampling and Testing Methods; 

Rule 105: Malfunction; 

Rule 106: Test Method; 

Rule 107: Air Pollution Emergencies; 

Rule 108: Air Pollution Control Equipment; 

Rule 109: Notice of Violation; 

Rule 111: Applications, Hearings, Public Notice; 

Rule 112: Compliance Determination/Certification; 

Rule 115: Punishment; 

Rule 119: Derogation; 

PART II: APPROVAL AND PERMITS
Rule 201: Location Approval; 

Rule 202: Air Quality Impact Analysis; 

Rule 203: Permit to Construct a Source; 

Rule 204: Permit to Operate a Source; 

Rule 207: Continuing Responsibility for Compliance, 

PART IV: PROHIBITIONS,

PART V: FEES

Rule 501: Permit Fees; 

Rule 502: Excess Emissions Fees; 

Rule 503: Test Fees; 

Rule 504: Modification, and 

PART VI: OPERATIONS PERMITS RULES FOR TITLE V SOURCES.

On March 23, 1990, the EQB received the delegation of several NSPS and NESHAP. The 

delegation of the NSPS standards are codified in 40 CFR, Part 60, Section 60.4(b)(FF)(1). The 

delegation of the NESHAP standards are codified under 40 CFR Part 61, Section 60.4(b)(BBB). Full 

approval of the state operating programs required under Title V of the CAA and 40 CFR, Part 70, 

and the delegation of the promulgated Section 112 standards and programs was effective on March 

27, 1996 (62 FR7073). 

Enforcement is conducted at any stationary source affected by the Environmental Public Policy 

Act of Puerto Rico, the RCAP and the CAA. Once an enforcement action is initiated, Act No. 416-

2004 authorizes EQB to initiate and carry out until its resolution, any administrative or judicial 

action, to enforce compliance with the provisions of said law or any other adopted regulation.

EQB conducts Full Compliance Evaluations (FCE) and/or Partial Compliance Evaluations 

(PCE), inspections, investigations, and requests for information (RFI) in order to determine 

compliance with Act No. 416-2004, the CAA, the RCAP, and/or the permit conditions of any 

stationary emission source. This mechanism is conducted in accordance with the Enforcement 

Guidance for Air Emission Sources.

TRBCI requested and obtained a Title V operating permit shield (PFE-TV-3341-07-1005-

1692), which covers the operations of one furnace of 5 cubic meters (m3) capacity and five refining 

kettles. This permit shield was issued on December 29, 2008. This facility is subject to emission 

limitations in accordance with the MACT, NSPS and RCAP which are included in the original 

construction permit PFE-RA-07-0104-0018-I-II-C, issued on September 24, 2008.

PREQB issued a modification to the mentioned construction permit to include a new furnace 

with a capacity 10 cubic meters (m3) and four additional refining kettles for this kiln containing 

emissions limitation in accordance with the MACT, NSPS and RCAP. The control measures include 

fugitive emission control using total enclosure of the process building, and stringent standards 

operating procedures for the control of fugitive dust (containing lead bearing material) according to 

MACT.

Interestate Transport
EQB certifies that our emissions do not contribute to lead nonattainment in another state or 

interfere with maintenance of the NAAQS in another state. Puerto Rico is not located within the 

continental United States. There are no adjacent or nearby states or territories which have lead 

nonattainment areas.

In addition, the physical properties of Pb prevent Pb emissions from experiencing the same 

travel or formation phenomena as PM2.5 or ozone. More specifically, there is a sharp decrease in Pb 

concentrations, at least in the coarse fraction, as the distance from Pb source increases.

Stationary Source Emissions Monitoring and Reporting

In general, the monitoring and reporting requirements for stationary sources depends on 

applicable federal standards including General Provisions in existing NSPS and amended MACT and 

on the RCAP, as amended.

Rule 103 of the RCAP provides the authority to require monitoring for air pollutants as part of 

its emission sources permit program. Certain emission sources are required to submit annual 

emission inventories and periodic reporting of emissions, providing data that is used in air quality 

modeling to help the PREQB prepare its SIP revisions. Emissions data are available at reasonable 

times for public review. 

EQB may require the owner or operator of any source to install, operate, and maintain 

monitoring equipment; provide the necessary equipment and appurtenances for the sampling of fuels 

and emissions; sample ambient air quality; perform fuel analyses; establish and maintain records 

required to demonstrate compliance; and prepare periodic reports as the EQB shall deem necessary. 

In order to demonstrate compliance with air emission limits, the PREQB may, at a minimum, require 

the owner or operator of the source, at his own expense, to sample emissions from each stack or 

provide an equivalent alternative method, to monitor air emissions discharged to the atmosphere.

The following parts of the RCAP contain rules that are relevant to these federal requirements:

Part I: General Provisions 

Rule103: Source Monitoring, record keeping, reporting, sampling and testing Methods 

Rule 104: Emission data Available for Public Participation 

Rule 106: Test Methods 

Rule 108: Air Pollution Control Equipment 

Rule 109: Notice of Violation 

Rule 111: Applications, Hearings, Public Notice 

Rule 112: Compliance Determination/Certification) 

Part II: Approval and Permits 

Rule 201: Location Approval 

Rule 202: Air Limits Impact Analysis 

Rule 203: Permit to Construct a Source

The Battery Recycling Co. is required by the Secondary Lead MACT to measure process 

emissions using yearly performance test(to determine lead compounds emission limitation), process 

fugitive emission sources by ensuring differential pressure in the process building, and fugitive dust 

emissions according to standard operating procedures manual, which includes measures to control 

dust sources. All monitoring data shall be included as part of the required yearly performance test 
report, the annual compliance certification, and periodic reporting required by applicable reporting 

requirements. The facility shall retain records of all required monitoring data and support information 

for a period of 5 years from the date of the monitoring sample, measurement, report, or application. 

TBRCI shall retain at the facility, the SIP of all the records of required monitoring information 

including the following: the date, place as defined in the permit, and time of sampling or 

measurements; the date(s) analyses were performed; the company or entity that performed the 

analyses; the analytical techniques or methods used; the results of such analyses; and the operating 

conditions as existing at the time of sampling or measurement.

Contingency Measures

Section 172(c)(9) of CAA requires that state implementation plans include specific contingency 

measures to be undertaken if the area fails to make reasonable further progress or to attain the 2008 

lead NAAQS by the attainment date of December 31, 2016. 

Upon determination by EPA that the area has failed to achieve, or maintain RFP, or attain the 

lead NAAQS by the statutory attainment date, these contingency measures will take effect without 

further action by the State or the Administrator. The EPA interprets this provision to allow states to 

meet this requirement with control measures that have already been implemented but are not needed 

for attainment, and to allow for “minimal action” to be necessary prior to implementation of the 

measures see (73 FR 66964, at 67039). It should also contain trigger mechanisms with a specific 

schedule for implementation. The amount of reductions yielded by implementation of contingency 

measures should be quantified, and for a five-year plan, the measures should reduce emissions by 20 

percent of the total amount needed for attainment. Under certain circumstances, this amount may be 

derived by reference to reductions in ambient air concentrations (2008 lead NAAQS Implementation 

Q&A, July 8, 2011, EPA).

The emission inventory and dispersion models results identify TBRCI as the facility responsible 

for the violations to the NAAQS. Other facilities in the inventory has insignificant impact. Therefore 

a source specific contingency plan is required. Article 9(a)(7) of PREPA provides the authority to 

order persons causing or contributing to a condition which harms the environment and natural 

resources or which poses an imminent danger for the public health and safety, to immediately 

diminish or discontinue their actions. Also, Article 9(a)(8) of PREPA provides the authority to issue 

orders to do or forbear or to cease and desist so as to take the preventive or control measures that, in 

its judgment, are necessary to achieve the purposes of this Act and the regulations promulgated 

thereunder.

The following contingency measures will be implemented individually or in any combination if 

the 2008 lead NAAQS are not achieved by the attainment date of December 31, 2016:
I. After 6 months of the due date for the implementation of the control measures, and annually after 

that, the PREQB will conduct a compliance evaluation to ensure that the required controls are 

implemented. If the control are not implemented the PREQB will issue a Notice of Violation (NOV) 

according to Rule 109 of the RCAP. 

a. Within 3 months after the NOV, if the source does not show do not show progress or fails 

to implement the emission controls, under Article 9(a)(8) of the PREPPA, through a legal 

process the PREQB will order the facility to take control measures established in it 

construction permit and the federal regulation. 

b. As provided by Section 9(a)(12), if the facility fails to comply with the Order, the PREQB 

will resort to the court or Puerto Rico or United State of America in order to request the 

enforcement of any resolution or decision issued requiring immediate action to respond to an 

environmental emergency, and any remedy requested by the Board, through any civil action. 

II. If the NAAQS violation persist within the first year of the implementation of the control 

measures, as measured by the FRM monitor, the PREQB will verify that contingency Item I was 

accomplished, if so: 

a. After the dispersion model analysis the PREQB, as provided by Section 9(a)(8) of the 

PREPPA, will issue order to reduce emissions to the amount that the dispersion model 

projection demonstrates compliance with NAAQS. As part of the order the facility must 

develop a compliance plan that will include reduction lead emission reductions in the facility. 

The plan could include, but is not limited to the following: i. Emission reductions, 

ii. Additional total enclosure, 

iii. Modification of lead control devices, 

iv. Limitations in the operation of the source such a reduction in production or limitation in 

use of the oven and refining kettles. 

v. Limit the raw material that is loaded to the oven. 

vi. Increase frequency of cleaning plant roadway and paved areas, battery storage areas. 

vii. Review material handling procedures. 

b. The compliance plan will be reviewed and approved by the PREQB. 

c. Conduct and investigation with EPA to identify other sources not included in inventory 
III. After the implementation of the contingency Items I and II, if attainment is not achieved, 

as provided by Rule 113 of RCAP and Section 9(a)(7) of PREPPA, the PREQB will issue an 

order to immediately discontinue their operation. 

Also, PREQB may declare an air pollution alert, warning or emergency, and will determine that such 

condition requires immediate action for the protection of the health of human beings. The Board will 

order persons causing or contributing to the atmospheric pollution to reduce their emissions in order 

to eliminate such condition, or to immediately discontinue the emission of pollutants. In addition, the 

PREQB also maintains air pollution information in a form readily available to the public on the 

PREQB Website (http://www.EQB.gobierno.pr).

The following parts of RCAP contain rules relevant for this federal notification requirement under air 

emergencies: Part I: General Provisions, Rule 107: Air Pollution Emergencies.

Air Quality Modeling and Reporting

EQB has the authority to perform air modeling analyses to demonstrate attainment and to meet 

the NAAQS as required under the CAA. Inherent to this obligation is the authority for PR. Air 

quality modeling data is submitted as part of Puerto Rico’s relevant SIP submissions and through 

federal grant commitments. PREQB have the technical and human resources to conduct air quality 

modeling in order to assess the effect on ambient air quality of relevant pollutants emissions, and can 

provide relevant data as part of the permitting and NAAQS implementation process. PREQB already 

prepared the air quality modeling for the lead designation for Puerto Rico. This modeling was 

approved by the modeling personnel of EPA.

In January of 2010 a new source oriented lead air quality monitor was establish at Arecibo as 

part of the new air quality standard for lead of 0.15μg/m3. According with the data capture by this 

new lead monitor on June of 2010, the new NAAQS was exceeded. On June of 2011, EPA 

designated the Arecibo area as non-attainment for the lead rolling 3-month average NAAQS.

The preliminary modeling results indicate that the primary source causing the high lead 

concentration is TBRCI. The contribution of other lead emission sources in the area was 

insignificant. The multi-source modeling showed that TBRCI has the major contribution to the high 

monitoring concentration.

As part of this SIP to ensure attainment, PREQB prepared a multi-source modeling plan for 

Arecibo that includes the facilities that emit lead in the area such as TBRCI, PREPA Cambalache and 

other background sources included in the emission projections inventory 2016. Energy Answers is 

planning to build a renewable energy plant nearby Battery Recycling and their potential lead 
emissions were included in the attainment model. The air quality model is AERMOD and this is the 

current preferred EPA model for air quality modeling studies.

The emission projections inventory has all the control measures that PREQB required TBRCI 

as a permit condition. The control measures that PREQB required TBRCI are: the enclosure of the 

main process building, use of sweepers and water sprinklers during the transport and movement of 

materials, a vehicle cleaning station and pavement of the roads inside the facility. 

Major Stationary Source Permitting Fees

The EQB assesses annual fees that are sufficient to cover the Puerto Rico major source permit 

program costs. The EQB shall ensure that any fee required by this chapter will be used solely for 

permit program costs. When a source applies for a modification, administrative change or minor 

modification to the Title V permit, the source will pay per tonnage. The Governing Board of EQB 

has issued several Resolutions (R-97-47-1; R-03-13-23; RI-06-02; R-06-17-8) that provides for the 

annual payment of actual emissions based on a fixed rate by tonnage.

The following parts of the RCAP contain rules relevant for these federal requirements: Part VI: 

Operations Permits Rules for Title V Sources, Rule 610: Fee Determination and Certification. This 

Part VI of the RCAP was approved by EPA on February 26, 1996 (62 FR7073).

VI. Procedure

Once prepared the draft of the SIP by the Air Quality Area, determined on a preliminary 

basis that said document as described before satisfies the main objective of demonstrating the 

capacity of Puerto Rico to implement, maintain and enforce compliance with the NAAQS for lead.

As a result, it commenced the process for public consultation and final analysis in order to 

determine the origin of the approval of the final Plan, in compliance with the Environmental 

Public Policy Act, Act No. 9 of June 18, 1970, as amended, and in compliance with the rules of 

procedure provided in the Uniform Administrative Procedure Act, 3 L.P.R.A. 2181, and Rule 26 

of the Administrative Hearings Procedure of the Environmental Quality Board.

Pursuant to the provisions of law and regulation aforementioned, two (2) public notices were 

published in two (2) newspapers of general circulation announcing the intention on EQB regarding 

the Plan. The public notice included a description of the proposed amendments and it expressed the 

intention to approve it, as well as the time and date on which the public hearing was to be held for 

the participation of the public, interested or affected parties. It also provided the place and manner in 

which the relevant documents to the application could be reviewed, both physically and via the 

internet.

The Public Hearing was held on October 17, 2014 in Arecibo, Puerto Rico, in accordance 

with the provided information in the public notice. It was presided by the undersigned, Fernando 

Oliver Barreto, Esq., who was previously appointed by the Governing Board to receive comments 
from citizens, from EPA, the Air Quality Program and any other interested person, in order to 

render a report containing the process findings and appropriate recommendations to the procedure 

performed.

Multiple deponents appeared at the hearing. Also others appeared in writing, taking advantage 

of the extension of additional 30 days for submitting comments which was granted by the 

undersigned in attention to the requests formulated by persons who appeared in in the hearing. After 

the granted additional period passed and with the benefit of all comments received, including the 

recommendations of the Air Quality Area of the EQB, the matter is submitted for analysis and final 

disposal.

VII: Comments and Recommendations of the deponents and the

Air Quality Area (AQA) of the Environmental Quality Board

a. Comments from the public

The following summarizes the comments presented by citizens during the public hearings 

and during the additional period for participation granted by this Official Examiner.

Section of Environmental Law of the Legal Assistance Clinic of the Law School of the 

University of Puerto Rico

(A) The Clean Air Act and the Damages to Health caused by Lead 

1. As you know, this public hearing has been notified because the Environmental Quality Board 

in order to presumably get reviews on the Revision to the Lead State Implementation Plan 

Requirements for the Arecibo Lead Non-Attainment Area. The elaboration of this Plan is 

required to the Environmental Quality Board by Sections no (a) (l), no (a) (2) and 172 (a) to 

(l) of the Clean Air Act.

2. As we shall see, it is our basic conclusion that the Plan does not protect the health of the 

residents of Arecibo and, in addition, it does not meet the requirements of the Act and 

accordingly another that does comply should be submitted.

3. The Clean Air Act is a federal law designed to regulate the levels of pollution in the air at a 

national level. This law authorizes the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 

with the power to develop, and enforce, laws and regulations whose purpose is to protect the 

citizens of pollutants that are in the air, and that are considered hazardous to the health or 

welfare of the human being.

4. That is what the law requires EPA to establish the National Ambient Air Quality Standards, 

that are nothing more than environmental standards or maximum levels of a pollutant in the 

air, for pollutants like lead. 

5. The range of the harmful effects of lead are known since ancient times. This metal affects 

practically all organs and internal of the human body, and their physiological processes. 

Recently it has been documented the chronic toxic effects that lead, at levels once considered 
safe, has over the cardiovascular system, reproductive and the central nervous system 

development. Lead is distributed by the organism to the brain, liver, kidneys and bones, and 

is deposited where it is accumulated with the passing of time. Actually, there is no level of 

lead exposure that can effectively be considered safe.

6. The nature of the manifestations of toxicity depend not only on the magnitude of exposure, 

but also on the characteristics of the exposed person; the neurotoxicity of lead is most 

harmful to the developing fetus and children in growth than for adults. 

7. Lead has serious consequences on the health of children. If the degree of exposure is 

elevated, it affects, in particular, to the development of the brain and the central nervous 

system, and it can cause coma, convulsions and even death, which in turn implies a reduction 

of IQ, behavior changes -for example, decreased ability of concentration and increase of antisocial behavior- and a lower school performance. It is believed that the neurological and 

behavioral effects associated with lead are irreversible. On the other hand, it has been found 

also that at weaker exposure levels, formerly considered free from risk, lead can cause, 

without the development of evident symptoms, very different alterations in various systems 

of the human organism. In pregnant women, exposure to high levels of lead can cause 

pregnancy loss. In men, exposure to high levels can affect sperm production. Exposure to 

lead can also cause anemia, hypertension, renal dysfunction, immuno-toxicity and 

reproductive toxicity. 

8. As we mentioned, there is a level of concentration of lead in the blood that can be considered 

risk-free. It has been confirmed, however, that the higher is the level of exposure to this 

metal, the more increases the diversity and the severity of symptoms, and the associated 

effects to it. 

9. Before this factual picture, on October 15, 2008, the EPA revised its national ambient air 

quality standard for lead. "The new standard of 0.15 micrograms per cubic meter (0.15 

ug/m3) is ten times stronger than the previous standard of 1.5 ug/m". The EPA in addition 

to the pre-existing network of users for monitoring of lead in the environment was 

inadequate to determine whether many areas were complying with revised lead standards. 

Consequently, on December 27, 2010, the EPA also proposed new criteria and new data 

collection requirements, and reviewed the requirements for lead monitors in the environment 

to evaluate better compliance with the 2008 National Ambient Air Quality Standards for lead. 

(B)the Non-Attainment Area in Arecibo 

10. On November 22, 2011, the EPA notified the designation of the 2008 National Ambient Air 

Quality Standards for lead. This led the EPA to classify attainment and non-attainment áreas 

all through the United States and Puerto Rico. According to the executive summary of the 
State Implementation Plan (SIP), the majority of the Island of Puerto Rico was classified as 

an Attainment Area or it was not classified. However, it was designated a Non-Attainment 

Area, with a 4 kilometer radius around the Battery Recycling Company, Inc., in the 

Municipality of Arecibo. These designations were effective on December 31, 2011.

(C)SIP and Non-Attainment Area

11. As we mentioned, Sections 110 (a)(1) and (2) of the Clean Air Act require states to submit an 

implementation plan to the EPA Administrator that provides and demonstrates the state’s 

ability to implement, maintain, and enforce each National Ambient Air Quality Standard. 

Section 110(a)(1) of the CAA addresses the timing requirement for the submissions of any 

SIP revisions. Section 110(a)(2) lists the required elements for a state to demonstrate its 

capacity to implement, maintain and enforce the air quality standards.

12. As part of the implementation of the new requirements for monitoring of air on January 2010 

a monitor was installed in Arecibo which uses the Federal Reference Methods, near the 

Battery Recycling Company enterprise. On June 2010, according to data recollected by this 

new lead monitor, the new National Ambient Air Quality Standards were exceeded. 

13. The Environmental Quality Board (EQB) developed air dispersion modeling in order to 

analyze the destination and transport of lead air pollution in the municipality of Arecibo. The 

preliminary results of the model indicate that the primary source causing the concentration of 

lead, although is not the only one, is the Battery Recycling Company. Other sources of lead 

emissions in the area have a lower contribution. The refined model, using only the emissions 

of lead from the Battery Recycling Company, showed that the source has the greatest 

contribution to the high monitored concentration.

14. After the discussion with the EPA, and the analysis of all the sources of emission of lead that 

could impact the municipality of Arecibo, in June 2011 EPA designated a 4 kilometer radius 

around the Battery Recycling Company as a nonattainment area. 

15. Meanwhile, the company Energy Answers pretends to develop an incinerator in this area. As 

if it wasn't enough, the incinerator, a system that burns solid waste, is also a source that 

generates lead to environment. The proposed location for the establishment of the 

incinerator would contribute to the already excessive emissions of lead in this area. Therefore, 

the Puerto Rico Environmental Quality Board has created an State Implementation Plan 

which attempts to establish measures to control concentrations of lead in the contaminated 

area of Arecibo. 

(D)The SIP infringes the Clean Water Act requirements 

16. States must comply with Sections 171, 172 and 173 of the Clean Air Act (CM, for its acronym 

in English). Section 171 sets out the requirement of reasonable future progress, which 
represents an annual decrease of the magnitude of pollution emitted from a facility. The 

construction and operation of the Energy Answers facility is, therefore, inconsistent with the 

requirement embodied in this section since it will cause an increase in the magnitude of 

emissions of lead in the surrounding area to the Battery Recycling Company plant, which, as 

you know, is currently considered an area of non-attainment mainly due to the emissions 

from the Battery Recycling Company. The purpose of the implementation plan is reducing 

lead pollution in the environment, not to add a new source. 

17. In our opinion, neither are the requirement of Section l72 (c) (3) of the Clean Air Act met. As 

we expressed earlier, Section 172 (C) (3) of the Clean Air Act requires an inventory of existing 

sources that are currently emitting lead. As part of this inventory, it should be clear how 

much pollution is being emitted into the atmosphere, what control measures are going to be 

implemented and which will be the resulting inventory after putting such measures into 

effect. It provides that there will be an accurate and detailed list of the current inventory of 

emissions from all sources of atmospheric pollution in an area. 

18. The proposed SIP uses 2011 as the base year for the collection of the necessary data for the 

inventory. EQB includes the Energy Answers facility as one of the current emission sources 

of year 2011 in the pages 20 to 24 of its report, which is unacceptable and misleading. Energy 

Answers should not be included as part of the current inventory of emissions of year 2011 

because it is not, nor it was for that time, emitting pollutants into the air. Even, in Appendix 

A of the SIP, the Board includes a table showing emissions countless facilities for the year 

2011, but does not include Energy Answers. 

19. In this same table 1 of Appendix A, appears Battery Recycling as an existing source that 

currently emits lead. However, the line where it is mentioned the current emissions from 

Battery Recycling is in blank: i.e., this information is omitted. 

20. The EQB also includes Energy Answers in its inventory of projected emissions for 2016. It 

concludes that it does not expect an increase of emissions of lead in the area. We question 

this conclusion in attention to the inclusion of Energy Answers in the 2011 inventory. The 

language of page 68 of the report is confusing and can lead the average person to think that 

there will be no increase in lead emissions.

21. Pursuant to subsection 4 of Part C of Section 172, the SIP must expressly identify and 

quantify emissions from new facilities in the area. The EQB tries to do this by including a 

table detailing the potential emissions of lead from the Energy Answers facility in Appendix 

B. However, their discussion of emissions added by lead, in pages 23 and 24 can be classified 

as superficial. In these pages it is established that Energy Answers prepared an air quality 

impact analysis as part of its applications for location approval and construction permits. 
However, an air quality impact analysis is different from identifying and quantifying the 

emissions that will be allowed from the facility. That page does not stipulate anything about 

that. Therefore, we estimate prudent that the EQB gives an explanation of how can it justify 

introducing such a significant source of emission like this one in a non-attainment area. 

22. Even when using the provided figures by EQB regarding the permitted emissions to the 

facilities Battery Recycling Company and Energy Answers in 2016, it can be observed that the 

difference between them is minimum (0.33538 tons per year vs. 0.3063 tons per year, or 670.76 

pounds per year vs, 612.60 pounds per year). If the Battery Recycling Company facility, alone, has 

impacted the área enough so as to convert it to a non-attainment one, how could it be alleged 

that the introduction of a facility such as Energy Answers, which will approximately emit the 

same quantity of lead as Battery Recycling Company, to the non-attainment area is consistent 

with the reasonable future progress mandate set out in Section 171 of the Clean Air Act?

23. Subsection 9 of part C of the section 172 of the Clean Air Act provides that the SIP will 

include specific contingency measures to be taken in the event that the area does not achieve 

the reasonable future progress required by the Clean Air Act. EPA understands that these 

measures must provide reductions in emissions that is, at least, equivalent to the necessary 

reduction for the area to meet the required reasonable future progress for an entire year. 

24. However, the examples presented by the EQB in the part titled Contingency Measures-in pages 

29 and 31-are not the specific examples to which EPA refers in subsection 9 of part C of the 

section 172 of the Clean Air Act. As much, page 30 of the SIP establishes that: 

a. Within 3 months after the NOV, if the source does not show do not show progress or fails to 

implement the emission controls, under Article 9(a)(8) of the PREPPA, through a legal process the 

PREQB will order the facility to take control measures established in it construction permit and the 

federal regulation . 

25. This is not a measure of continence valid under the Clean Air Act. The law establishes that 

measures must be effective without any additional action by the State. The issuance of a 

Notice of Violation requires further action by the State. It is not clear what would be the 

contingencies measures included in the permits. 

26. By mandate of section 110, for a plan to be implemented, all citizens of the area must have be 

given reasonable notice and a public hearing ("reasonable notice and public hearing"). The 

Environmental Board is not fulfilling the criterion of reasonable notice and public hearing 

outlined in the section in the Clean Air Act since there are defects in the translation made by 

the EQB. The SIP expresses that the nonattainment area covers a radius of 4 miles around 

the Battery Recycling Company, when in the study conducted by a EPA established that they 

were 4 km. 
27. On the other hand, the SIP provides that the emissions of Energy Answers were taken into 

account and that on that basis some projections over the lead to be emitted were made. 

However, nowhere in the document is shown that information about the data used nor the 

projections made. There can be no such public participation without this information.

28. It is evident that the SIP is unable to establish an efficient plan with clear measures of how to 

reduce lead contamination. It does not include with specificity which are the media, 

techniques and control measures that will be implemented to convert the area into an 

attainment one. In addition, the SIP neither informs about the emissions of lead from Battery 

Recycling Company; i.e. is it has not fulfilled the requirement of lead emissions inventory. 

Finally, the information contained in the SIP is insufficient, incomplete and lacks precision, 

and at the same time, it does not meet several of the requirements established in the Clean 

Air Act. The Plan in no way tries to protect the health of the residents of Arecibo. 

(E) Solicitud de Remedios 

29. For all of the above, we respectfully request that a new State Implementation Plan is drafted 

and for the corresponding procedures for new hearings and receiving comments regarding 

the revision to the requirements of the revised version of such Plan to be carried out. 

María Rodríguez González, Madres de Negro

1. When, as in the case of Arecibo, the plan becomes obsolete because it has made a 

determination that an area is contaminated with one of the considered harmful pollutants, 

which are encoded in National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for 

Hazardous Waste Combustors (the "Hazardous Waste Combustor (NESHAP)"), 42 U.S.C. § 

7412, codified at 40 C.F.R. Part 63, Sub-part EE, it is required to amend the State 

Implementation Plan. 

2. In the Federal Register Vol. 76 No. 225, the Environmental Protection Agency, EPA, 

declared that an area comprising 4 kilometers radius of The Battery Recycling, Company Inc., 

hereinafter TBRCI, in Arecibo, is contaminated with lead in accordance with 40 CFR 51.117 

(a) (1). Arecibo was designated as contaminated with lead from November 22, 2011 and 

published in the Federal Register Vol. 76 No. 225. 

3. We expose that this proposed amendment of the lead SIP does not comply with the 

specifications and requirements to reduce the pollution of lead in Arecibo. It proposes a 

scheme that will take more than forty (40) years to meet the goal, or failing to never clean 

Arecibo from lead, when the maximum is set to five (5) years, since it is determined that the 

area is contaminated with lead. 

4. First, the Environmental Quality Board, EQB, has make available all environmental data to 

the community in compliance with 40 CFR 52.05. It has not done so. You cannot adequately 
participate in an state of ignorance. While the environmental data has not been provided and 

we do not know what EQB means when it claims it will reduce emissions by December 31, 

2016, we expose the issues that stand out from the proposal and that we understand are 

incorrect. 

5. The Clean Air Act has as a goal to establish a regulatory scheme to protect and promote the 

quality of the air resources of the American nation and safeguard security, public health, 

welfare, as well as the productive capacity of their citizens. 42 U.S.C. § 7401 (b) (1). 

NESHAPs, With that goal it is imposed the duty to review the SIP when there is a polluted 

area or "nonattainment", of lead. 

6. Lead and lead compounds fall under this scheme of review and EQB has a number of 

responsibilities related to this issue. The EPA portal exposes: "Requirements concerning 

control strategy demonstration are stated in 40 CFR 51.117 (a)." Lead non area SIPs must 

provide for the implementation of control measures for point and area source emissions of 

lead in order to demonstrate attainment of the NAAQS lead as expeditiously as practicable, 

but not later than the attainment date for the affected area..:' 

7. This proposed amendment to the Plan of implementation for lead contamination with lead in 

Arecibo suffers from several issues that will be displayed below, but which arise as a 

commitment on the part of the Environmental Quality Board, EQB, with the Government of 

the United States shown on page 16 of the SIP of lead submitted previously, now subject to 

amendment. That SIP establishes, that in accordance with the laws and regulations of the 

Clean Air Act, CAA, when a zone is of non-attainment, (i.e., one contaminated with lead) 

rests in the EPA the authority of issuing the construction permit for a new source. Such 

authority of the EPA comes from 42 USC 7503. 

8. The term area of non-compliance means any area that has exceeded the imposed limits for a 

pollutant as defined in the CAA, as per the meaning imposed by Section 7407 (d). The 

hazardous waste lead is regulated in 40 C.F.R.. 63.1203 (a) (3) and is one of those requiring a 

SIP. 

9. 42 USC 7105 (3) imposes the duty to review the plan and impose various requirements to the 

polluting sources. One of them is when an area is contaminated, impose technology that 

produces fewer emissions, LAER, where it is available : 

(3) The term "Lowest achievable emission rate" means for any source, that rate of emissions which 

reflects the most stringent emission Limitation which is contained in the implementation plan of any 

State for such c1ass or category of source, unless the owner or operator of the proposed source 

demonstrates that such Limitations are not achievable, or the most stringent emission limitation 

which is achieved in practice by such c1ass or category of source, whichever is more stringent. In no 
event shall the application of this term permit a proposed new or modified source to emit any pollutant 

in excess of the amount allowable under applicable new source standards of performance. 

10. Section 7502 (2) (a) imposes the duty to return the area to compliance in the five-year term 

since the administrator of EPA promulgates that an area is contaminated. This means that the 

term of fulfillment for this SIP must be November 21, 2016. 

11. This SIP proposal does not comply with all these requirements. The first requirement that 

has to be met is to identify all sources of emission. They express the requirements : 

"The point source inventory on which the summary of the baseline for Lead emission inventory is 

based must contain all sources that emit 0.5 or more tons of Lead per year.' 

12. In the ' tool kit' for lead EPA exposed: 

"EPA notes that 40 CFR 51.117(a) provides that states must include, as a part of their 

attainment modeling demonstration, an analysis showing that the SIP will attain and maintain the 

standard in areas in the vicinity of certain point sources that are emitting at the level of 25 tpy, and 

also in "any other area that has lead air concentrations in excess of the national ambient air quality 

standard concentration.' In doing the analysis, required under 40 CFR 51.1 17(a)(2), EPA 

expects the state will take into consideration all sources of lead emissions within the nonattainment 

area that may be required to be controlled, taking into consideration the attainment needs of the area. 

13. The requirement is to include any source that it is close to an area identified as contaminated 

with lead. The EPA in its definitions of what kind of industries are lead emission stations 

indicates: batteries of acid of lead, solder, alloys, covered wires, pigments, rust inhibitors, 

ammunition, glazed and plastic stabilizers. 

14. Industries in Arecibo that handle issues related to welding are EATON, General Electric, 

Thermo King, Saint Jude, , TBRCI. Those who manage stabilizing plastics are TBRCI (plastic 

slitting battery), Safetech, (burning pharmaceutical, biomedical waste containing plastic), 

Terra Nova (handles plastics and metals from discarded computers), General Electric 

(electroplating) Thermo King, (electroplating and chemical management) EATON, 

(electroplating and handling of chemicals) and Saint Jude (electroplating). The Arecibo airport 

emits fumes of aircraft gasoline containing a percentage of lead. Nowhere is accounted for 

emissions of diesel trucks that bring garbage to Safetech and emissions from aircraft gasoline 

in a rare equation are accounted in 037. For the incinerators of Abbot, Merck and Safetech 

several sources are accounted but only includes emissions from one of their sources. The 

same is done with other industries. EATON is placed in Barceloneta when the truth is that it 

is located in the Santana Industrial Park in Arecibo. The EQB numbers don't add up. 

15. The SIP expresses that Arecibo until 2013 has 6 sources of emission. That is incorrect. 

According to page 69 of the proposed amendment to the SIP there are ten (10) sources, not 
counting Energy Answers. This SIP intends to ignore information that EQB knows as well as 

the requirements of territorial extension that should contain. All of them have to be included 

if they emit to the air more than half a ton of lead. 

16. TBRCI is not a secondary lead smelter. It is a primary smelter for its level of operations, 

exceeding the 100 pounds of lead per year, and is the only one in all of the United States 

because Empire, which was the only lead smelter, was closed in 2013 for lead pollution. 

17. When views of the title V permit is celebrated in December 2012, for TBRCI it was referred 

the fact that for TBRCI they would be authorizing it 5 pots in its application for renewal of 

the permit, when the truth is that it has nine (9) according to their own documents. In this 

single SIP they quantified 3, which is incorrect, but that is not the only activity carried out 

TBRCI that releases lead. 

18. TBRCI carries out the activity to burn the post of lead that has been discarded by its use to 

melt it. By effect of Rule 405 (3) (c) (iii), that operation is incineration. The 40 CFR 60 defines 

metals of incineration of the following form: 

"Municipal waste combustor metals means metals and metal compounds emitted in the exhaust gases 

from municipal waste combustor units". 

19. TBRCI, to carry out its operations burns the post and that incineration releases lead and lead 

sulfate, which is a compound consisting of the posts that contain sulfuric acid from the 

discarded battery. The lead sulfate is released to the environment. They did not counted lead 

sulfate anywhere. And that is the greater operation of TBRCI. These activities must be 

included if they burn more than 25 pounds daily of batteries with posts that contain sulfuric 

acid. In this historic moment that it is closed it does not mean it is excluded because the 

amendment to the proposed SIP legitimizes its inclusion as a pollutant source in 2016. 

20. SIP violates 40 CFR 51.117 (a) (1) which regulates the inclusion of a new source in an area 

contaminated with lead. Energy Answers LLC had its location permission approved in 2010. 

After that it was determined that Arecibo is an area contaminated with lead. Since the EPA 

made that determination, to date, EQB has not assumed its responsibility to review the 

location permit although it lost effect in 2011 when it was determined that Arecibo is 

contaminated with lead. Nor has required Energy Answers to review its request, nor its 

environmental impact statement to temper it with the fact that Arecibo is contaminated with 

lead. The document of TBRCI submitted to the EQB in August 2014, reports that 

themselves, will emit, 99.24 tons of lead per year. If that is so, Energy Answers has remaining 

0.76 tons to reach 100 tons which requires the area of nonattainment maximum and this 

amount is divided between eight (8) additional sources. It is a gross violation. 
21. It is known that the area of impact of Energy Answers was already used to produce and store 

Agent Orange and other agents, during the Viet Nam war. Authorize an incinerator to 

Energy Answers without having weighed up its activities, is to declare war to the people of 

Puerto Rico because Arecibo has the dairy industry and the agricultural valley of Arecibo is 

the second largest in the island. 

22. The rules of New Source Review for Non-Attainment of the 40 CFR 51.117 (a) (1) are 

applicable to Energy Answers. Without having complied with that requirement they maintain 

the location permit, and during this period to submit comments to the SIP, in violation of the 

due process of law, it was announced that the construction permit was authorized. EQB acts 

to the detriment of the health of the population of Arecibo and in this amendment to the 

SIP, it is authorizing its inclusion expressing that it already qualifies to be included among the 

industries with emissions in Arecibo. 

23. Energy Answers in its application to operate before the EQB, which published on the portal 

of the Interamericana, mentioned lead as one of their sources of emissions starting their 

discharge to the atmosphere in a minimum of 420 pounds per year. 

24. The pretension of authorizing their operations among other ten sources of lead emissions is 

absurd because without Energy Answers as a transmitter the area has already exceeded lead 

levels. To include an additional industry throws away the goal of reduction of the lead which 

is supposed to be the goal of this SIP. According to the contract of EA, that goal is far away 

for 40 years. 

25. On the other hand, Energy Answers is not power generation plant, it is an incinerator in 

accordance with laws and regulations, both local and federal. Without being clear its lead 

fumes, it is expressed in this document that their emissions will be below 100 tons per year by 

combining ten (10) different sources including TBRCI, Safetech, Merck, Abbott, Pfizer, ANL 

Airport, EATON, Synergia and AEE. 

26. Arecibo airport uses fuel with high lead content and its air movement has not been identified, 

prior to establish the levels of pollution that exposes us. It is assumed that pollution of lead 

from this source will be a piston aircraft without having evidence that that is so. Without 

having notice of the amount of gallons of lead gasoline, it is discarded that their emissions 

exceed the lead levels. 

27. Safetech Carolina Corporation PFE-TV-4953-0?-1003-01, is an incinerator which operates in 

Arecibo without ever having celebrated any public hearing for its permit. It is rumored the 

owner of this Corporation is an employee of the EQB. A report of emissions to the EPA has 

never filed. He paid a fine in the case of court number CAA 022012-1011, continuation of 

the administrative case, CAA 113 because never made the performance tests. For that 
violation, he paid the insignificant sum of $2,500.00. However, this violation is not 

insignificant. It means that has never officially informed which their emissions are and stays 

in total non-compliance with state and federal laws. According to a story that Safetech 

published in Caribbean Business, (www.cb.pr/safetech). It is reported that they incinerated 

from the 1996 biomedical, pharmaceutical, biochemical and illegal drugs confiscated by the 

State. 

28. Pursuant to the amendment to the SIP it is reported that they operate with an alleged 

DUCON system for filtering. That filter according to their authorization document before 

the EQB what they filter is hydrochloric acid and not lead. 

29. In no place of their permit mentions, or appears, which technology will be operated to 

control the lead emissions. Also, it assumes no liability for lead emissions. It only admits in its 

table 6 (page 45) that it will have two lead emission sources identified as its "Multiple 

Chamber and Wet Scrubber". Its Title V permit application nothing refers to the amounts of 

lead emitted, nor responsibility for any of them, it refers to the limits in open violation of the 

laws. 

30. This proposed amendment to the SIP of lead erroneously expresses that Safetech has a single 

source of lead emissions when the proponent knows that in 2010 authorized Safetech two (2) 

sources of lead emissions. Nowhere is accounted for Safetech lead emissions and is intended 

to say that with only recognizing one of their two sources of lead emissions they will achieve 

a reduction of their emissions to reach compliance in 2016. 

31. The truth is that Safetech operates freely, without submitting to EPA emission reports since 

1996, as did TBRCI. It was not until that Energy Answers filed its request for operations, 14 

years later, these two industries submitted a request under the Title V. A Title V permit was 

authorized to both, burning hazardous waste in the case of TBRCI, impregnated lead poles of 

sulfuric acid and in the case of Safetech, biogenetic, biomedical, pharmaceuticals and drugs, 

without public hearings, attacking the life of arreciemos because the law states that an 

industry that operates a hazardous material as the lead has no permission for more than ten 

years. EQB staff acts with criminal intent in Arecibo. These industries, Safetech, TBRCI and 

Energy Answers have positioned the Governing Board of the EQB to handcuffs, or 

themselves, and there no existent agency in Puerto Rico that ensures the health and safety of 

the environment of Arecibo. 

32. It is interesting to notice that for TBRCI the EPA, after multiple cases of children 

contaminated with lead, CRIMINAL ACT, has imposed that their operations have to be 

encapsulated because there is no technology to filter out lead and avoid that emissions 

contaminated the surrounding area of its plant. Knowing that, in this proposal for 
amendment to the SIP the EQB expresses that the DUCON filter, (which is not to filter lead, 

but HCI), is going to filter. On the other hand, who has supervised that Safetech has installed 

that technology model DUCON C95-1361? Employees and residents of the contiguous 

urbanization express that it only counts with an oven and a fireplace and that is all thier 

technology. 

33. The levels authorized for Safetech are erroneous. That permission is uses as basis that the 

maximum level of lead to emit is. 04ppm when the maximum level is .015 micrograms per 

meter cubic. Since its authorization it contains a deffect that exposes the population to 

pollution. Title V permit with number PFE·TV·4953-07· 1003-0001 identifies that it will 

have two sources of emissions of lead with a maximum misuse of.04 PPM, according to table 

1. Nowhere in the SIP is found that EQB has updated the allowed quantities. EQB has 

allowed Safetech and TBRCI to operate outside the margins of the law and to contaminate 

without any supervision in violation of the NESHAPs. 

34. This level is the same authorized for TBRCI. That level of.04 allowed it to produce between 

30 and 60 tons/day of refined lead that produced up to more than ten microliters of lead in 

the blood of the Arecibo childhood and up to 900,000 micrograms of lead in carpets and 

furniture vehicles and homes of workers of TBRCI, as wells as Hardware Pajuil and other 

people in the area.

35. This exposed all Puerto Rico to take milk contaminated with lead because the dairies became 

contaminated. Nothing has been said about agricultural products produced in the Valley of 

Arecibo, which is the second largest in the island. We dare to say that if a study is made it will 

result that the people of Puerto Rico, is exposed to these vapors of lead as happened with 

milk, cheese, butter, yogurt and meat that occurred with cows from the two adjacent cattle 

farms.

36. On the other hand, the industry Safetech is identified with a single source of emissions of 

lead in the proposed amendment of the SIP, which increases the wrong amounts of lead in 

the area. Which is incorrect. This image is a true and accurate copy of the Safetech Title V 

permit. It represents that a CISWI has at least two sources of emissions of lead. 

37. In the SIP that authorizes that Safetech is included in the sources of emissions applied a 

single source of lead emissions. However, it has at least two, as shown in the copy of the page 

of their Title V permit. Neither in that permit, nor in the TBRCI, nor in the Energy Answers, 

nor the other seven sources assumes liability for the ash of these incinerators, and lead in the 

ash or slag of TBRCI. 

38. If this is so for Safetech which is a small incinerator, How many sources of emissions of lead 

will have Energy Answers? At a minimum it identifies its fuel system, their two spreader 
stokers, scrubbers system, its bottom ash system, fireplace and its fly ash, its system of 

carrying ashes, trucks and burning fuel from them and its wastewater system. 

39. On the other hand, Safetech was authorized for a system DUCON HC 96 10 P. Its 

application for renewal of permission of the 2014 reports an increase of that technology to 

allow larger quantities. Not reflected in the amendment of the SIP. The difference has not 

been accounted.

40. Again, they did it before for the location permit of Energy Answers, the amount of sources in 

a radius of 50 kilometres was not quantified. It is missing other emission sources such as 

SafetyKleen, Saint Jude, Therrno King, General Electric, etc. They seek to make it look that 

within communities in the radius of 4 kilometres remaining to the West, as Regional 

urbanization, Villa Serena, Victor Rojas 1, Victor Rojas 11, El Cotto, Villa Los Santos, 

Canyon, San Luis, Urbanización are paradise, Hato Arriba, herd down, Dominguito, plots 

Navas and Los Mora. It does not admit that these communities receive the impact of the 

pollution from all sources mentioned above as well as those of TBRCI, Safetech and Energy 

Answers.

41. There are not six sources as wrongly alleged in this proposed amendment to the SIP, there 

are ten, excluding those mentioned in the previous paragraph. The territorial limit which 

should identify are sources of emissions within a radius of 50 km. It does not take 

responsibility for emissions of lead from winds up, or winds down in the case of General

Electric, Therrno King, etc., which are located to the west of Arecibo, but which will also add 

emanations over people who live in Arecibo. 

42. "... Nonattainment NSR requirements include but are not limited to:

 Installation of Lowest Achievable Emissions Rate (LAER) control technology; 

 Offsetting new emissions with creditable emissions reductions; 

 A certification that all major sources owned and operated in the state by the same owner are in 

compliance with all applicable requirements under the CAA; 

 An alternatives analysis demonstrating that the benefits of the proposed source significantly 

outweigh the environmental and social costs imposed as a result of its location, construction, or 

modification; and 

 Public comment on a permit' ...." 

43. There is no requirement anywhere in the SIP of the LOWEST ACHIEVABLE EMISSIONS 

RATE CONTROL TECHNOLOGY, LAER, for any source, not even TBRCI which was 

fined in the case EPCRA-02-2011-4301, for managing without a permit, between 2005 and 

2007, more than 49 million pounds of lead and antimony 605,000 pounds.
44. This SIP is missing many things. First of all it mentions the federal level of 0.015 micrograms 

per cubic meter, (which is not written 0.15) for lead, but it does not express if the SIP of 

Puerto Rico is subject to that level. It would seem that arbitrarily it assumes that the limit is 

.04 when it isn't and it is a violation of the NESHAPs. If TBRCI and Safetech, to date are 

permitted to emit .04, that is almost three times higher than the federal level. It was emitting

that excessive amount, from 2008 to 2014, date in which TBRCI ceases to operate partially. 

We say partially because it is already being authorized to return to operate in this amendment 

to the SIP and listed as source of emissions in 2016. It neither expresses, in accordance with 

the Guide for "non-attainment" areas, what will be the Least Emission Available Rate 

Technology for TBRCI. In the documents they continue demanding the lower MACT 

standard. 

45. Arecibo had, at a minimum, ten sources of emissions until 2013. It is said that they are all 

minor sources. It appears from the EPA portal that TBRCI emitted up to 60 tons of lead per 

day.

(http://www.epa.gov/schools/guidelinestools/highlights/region2b.html.) 

46. On the requirements of the EPA, more than 100 tons per year is a major source. This SIP 

assumes no responsibility for any of their differences ranging from false representations to 

sums incorrectly done. It reaches the absurd to allege that with one new major source of 

emissions, the incinerator of Energy Answers, the goal of reducing the problem of lead in 

Arecibo will be achieved. It is a deceit. 

47. This SIP must identify if the industries are complying with the Clean Air Act. To do that job 

for what concerned us-that it is lead-the SIP has to express the levels of emissions based it in 

data collection, with calibrated instruments, that identifies which method approved by EPA 

has been implemented; for example Method 29, or x-ray of the filters-, and that has 

implemented a system of quality control .The national inventory of emissions for Puerto Rico 

has not been made, nor is it available for the public. There is nowhere to go to find emissions 

data. They present us with some data that lacks meaning because it is not known how it was 

collected. (omitted reference) 

48. The table on page 126 does not match. The sum on that page that amounts to .34729 as a 

final number of the alleged emissions is incorrect. It is absurd that this figure doesn’t match. 

Also the numbers of TBRCI do not add up, whose in their total sum their emissions to 99.24 

tons of refined lead annually, resulting from handling more than 47,252 tons of unrefined 

lead annually, reported in August 2014, its operations of nine (nine) pots, and not three as 

alleged in the SIP. 
49. It does not comply with the Act 226 of 2006 which imposes the duty to install, maintain and 

operate an environmental data bank with advanced technologies, with quality systems, 

implementation of standards of quality to industries and maintain the public informed of the 

fumes. The absence of these data makes the public participation to be only pro-forma.

50. The definition of significant emission is .06 tons per year. But in a contaminated area is 05. 

They are obliged to inform the public if Saint Jude manages lead in its pacemaker. This

industry has had cases by contamination with lead in other States.

51. It minimizes the effect of lead in the human being. Lead is highly toxic.

52. Must use examination of blood IEUBK model in children from six to eighty-four months, to 

identify how the levels of pollution are. The levels of lead in the water is not incorporated in 

this model. In Arecibo those levels exceed the standard of 0.015 ppb to one liter of water of 

the Safe Water Drinking Act. Measures reported by the Aqueducts and Sewers Authority are: 

5.5 ppbJI in 2011; 7.2 ppbJI for 2012 and 8.8 ppb/I for 2013. The goal of all this should be 

to establish a rule that do not expose children to a higher level of 5% of emissions on existing 

in their blood levels. 

53. It is not a reduction to the environment, but to the levels of lead in the blood of children so it 

does not reach ten microliters. That is another fact absent so we can express an opinion in 

this SIP. 

54. It is obligatory to conclude that for the existing levels of contamination in Arecibo a 

reduction of 20% the in water is insignificant because the first thing to do is clean. It is 

absurd to propose a SIP to authorize 10 polluting industries when what should be done is a 

cleaning and zero emissions. 

55. Section 192 (A) of CM establishes the limit of compliance in five years. Without extensions. 

It cannot authorize these industries and at the same time say that by 2016 the goal will be 

met. These views would then be an insult and would seek to get the consent of the people to 

be contaminated with lead including an additional source, Energy Answers Limited 

Responsibility Company, which before it did not contaminated us and that it is known that it 

will pollute with lead.

56. We cannot accept that due to the temporary closure of TBRCI the area is already clean, and 

ready to incorporate one new major source. 

Servicios Legales de Puerto Rico in representation of Jesús García Oyola, Wilfredo Vélez 

Hernández, and Carlos García Berríos.

1. The residents of communities in Arecibo and the districts and sectors included in the 

designated area as nonattainment are extremely concerned and affected by the situation of 
contamination with lead in this municipality. It is not for less. We know that lead is a 

substance that is toxic and dangerous to human beings. 

2. Lead can affect the neurological system and various organs of the body loke the kidneys, liver 

and others.

3. The Four kilometers area designated as of non-attainment for lead includes the districts and 

sectors of Islote, Domingo Ruiz, Los Llanos, Santana, Pueblo, Hato Arriba and Hato Abajo, 

Jarealito, Carrera 1 and 2, Planta, Los Caños and the Rodríguez Olmo Plots. Hundreds of 

people live there, including children and elderly, there are several elementary schools and 

Head Start programs. These people have been and will be directly affected by the emissions 

of lead. All residents of Arecibo, and Puerto Rico in general, we must be concerned about 

this situation.

4. Despite the importance of this issue, the EQB has not favored an effective participation to 

the community. For a start, needless to point out that the document in discussion is drafted 

in a technical language, inaccessible for the majority of the affected community. Also contains 

errors in the writing, including things as basic as if the area of nonattainment covers 4 miles 

or 4 kilometers, as well as discrepancies between the English version and the version in 

Spanish.

5. In addition, we have to signalize that the cost required to obtain copies of the document is 

unaffordable for many of us. Two weeks before the public hearing some neighbors attended 

the EQB Arecibo Office to request a copy of the document that would be discussed at the 

public hearing. 

6. On that occasion, they were asked fifty cents for each page, which represents a cost over 

$70.00. The official nor allowed the residents to take the document to photocopy it to 

another place where the copies are more affordable. These people, as most of the population, 

have no access to internet. 

7. Given the inaccessibility to information necessary so the citizens could submit comments in 

the public hearings, they requested assistance to Legal Services of Puerto Rico. After some 

efforts from the lawyers of the corporation, on Tuesday, October 14 Mr. Luis Calderón, who 

was identified as an Assistant of the Lcda. Velez, contacted us. The official indicated that they 

would deliver us a paper copy of all the documents free of charge for residents. To this day, 

said documents have not been available in printed format as it was promised.

8. About the content of the document we raise two main concerns (1) the inclusion of the 

incineration plant, proposed but not approved yet, Energy Answers analysis and (2) how will 

be the reduction of emissions in the area of non-attainment.
9. As the Clean Air Act requires, the Revision includes an inventory of the sources of lead 

emissions in the area. This inventory incorporated the allowable emissions from the 

incinerator proposed by Energy Answers as a source.

10. That incinerator was not operating when the designation of non-attainment was made in 

2011, is not operating now, and it is not possible to really know when or if it will begin to 

operate. The federal Clean Air Act clearly requires a precise and exhaustive inventory of the 

actual lead emissions ('current emissions") to be included in the area. Obviously, the actual 

emissions from the incinerator cannot be included for 2011, simply because they do not exist. 

Therefore, there is no reason to be included in the inventory of sources.

11. Doing so is not only incorrect, but it induces to error. We urge the EQB to eliminate the 

incinerator in their analyses of existing sources. 

12. This review process is intended to add provisions on "reasonable future progress" (RFP). The 

document says that the reasonable future progress is achieved "through a strict compliance 

with an ambitious enforcement route, which is expected to regularly develop a significant 

emissions reduction or a linear progress in its case. The RFP for lead, includes "as minimum, 

controls must be implemented quickly and precise an estimate of reduction that is intended to 

achieve by means of the control measures, which must be quantified".

13. To establish this itinerary of ambitious compliance, EQB bases on "potential emissions" of 

the sources included in the inventory. We understand that this analysis must be based on the 

actual emissions of lead. It should only be used the emissions that were in fact released to the 

air. 

14. The EQB must set an "ambitious compliance itinerary" that responds to changes in the level 

of contamination and is protective of the environment and health. This distinction is 

important since the document indicates that for Battery Recycling, the possible lead in 2011 

emissions were 1.2 tons per year. It does not indicate what the actual emissions for those 

dates were. It is not possible to quantify whether or not there is a reduction in emissions if 

the actual emissions from sources of pollution are not considered.

15. On the other hand, one wonders how ambitious is this plan in view that at the conclusion of 

the section above the modeling of attainment, it afirms that the result of the models by 2016 

emissions from Battery Recycling "showed monthly concentrations and the continuous 

average of 3 months on the standard. Worse still, intends to establish that there will be a 

reduction in emissions of lead in the area of non-attainment, and when really is including a 

new source of lead equal to or greater than Battery Recycling, namely the incinerator of 

Energy Answers. 
16. In fact, by 2016, EQB estimated that Battery Recycling will emit about 0.335 ton/year of 

lead, while Energy Answers, if it were to operate, would have emissions possible through 

0.306 ton/year, only slightly less than the plant that caused the problem of lead. We argue 

that this inclusion of a new source of lead is inconsistent the requirement of progress 

imposed by the federal Clean Air Act.

17. Federal law requires that a plan such as the proposed identify and quantify allowable 

emissions from new sources, but, moreover, that shows that such emissions are consistent 

with the RFP without interference with achieving the applicable quality standard. 

18. The plan proposed merely indicates that Energy Answers presented a study of quality to the 

proceedings concerning the granting of permits of air pollution and that it will be subject to 

the applicable conditions to these permits. Says nothing about the RFP or

19. how to add a new source of lead equal to Battery Recycling will not interfere with the goal of 

reaching the standard of air quality. We suggest that this analysis be included in the plan.

20. The Revision also points out that "applicable emission limitations and other control 

measures, means or techniques (including economic incentives such as payments, tradable 

permits, and auctions of allowances), can impose to achieve compliance with the Federal 

Clean Air Act, as well as the schedule and calendars for compliance”. From this universe of 

alternatives the plan only mentiones measures that already exist in the federal regulation, local 

regulation and in the conditions included

21. in the operation permits. It seems to us insufficient to depend on conditions in permits that 

were effective when the lead problema was created. 

22. In addition, the main control measure of lead that identifies the plan is the complete closure 

of the main building of the process. This obligation does not arise from the plan but from the 

lead standards previously established by the EPA, and it must be identified as such, because 

enclosure is a term defined with specific obligations in the federal regulation. The situation of 

non-compliance, this Board should oblige the plant to take stricter measures than the ones it 

was already obliged, in order to bring the affected area to compliance with the lead standards.

23. On the other hand, this plan proposes some contingency measures in case that by December 

31, 2016, it fails to comply with the lead standard. This is a requirement of the federal Clean 

Air Act, which provides that the plan should provide measures in case of not achieving the 

reasonable future progress or reaching the air quality standard without further action by the 

State. The EPA suggests, for example, that these measures may include stabilize storage 

batteries, increasing closure of facilities or modify operating procedures. These measures 

should be able to reduce lead emissions equivalent to one year of the reductions needed to 

achieve compliance with the RFP. 
24. The proposed plan does not contain measures of this nature. On the other hand, what it 

proposes is to use compliance measures already existing in the Environmental Public Policy 

Act, Act 416-2004, and the RCAP to exercise its oversight function, something that requires 

State action. The plan, as a minimum, should establish what contingency measures would 

take. What presents, however, is a numerus apertus list of possible actions. Contingency 

measures are not consistent with the terms of the federal law.

25. In view of the aforementioned flaws, we must conclude that the Revision draft presented for 

public views is poor and inconsistent with the federal legislation governing the matter. The 

EQB proposes a plan of achievement that still exceeds the standards of clean air, which does 

not include obligations beyond than to reiterate the terms with which the industry is already 

obliged to comply with, and also intends to include a new source with almost identical lead 

emissions to the Battery Recycling. We request the Environmental Quality Board to prepare a 

review to the state implementation plan for lead whose effect would be to protect the health 

and environment of Arecibo.

26. The murders with firearms were described by an old forensic as "acute intoxication" of lead 

today. Today science announces that not only lead kills by "acute intoxication" and chronic 

but it is also is the creator of the killer. First; in infants and children it causes havoc in small 

doses by interfering with the development of the brain, with its motor function, learning, 

hyperactivity, attention deficit, brain damage and a sack of diseases more in adults. Its 

interference on the intelligence quotient in very low doses; has been tested to satiety, since 

1962, in countless studies, in the blood, in less than.10 micrograms/deciliter. Second, these 

studies relate in an incontrovertible way that more content lead in the blood during childhood 

greater the violence of those individuals is manifest in early adulthood. It is therefore that the 

scientists point towards the elimination of important lead emission sources, as the most 

plausible explanation, downward simultaneously experienced in crime in New York, los

Angeles, Cleveland, Cincinnati, New Orleans and others and not so much to law enforcement 

measures that have always been a constant with greater or lesser intensity and success. 

27. Since 1974 studies continue corroborating the finding again and again in the United States, 

South America and Europe. These studies predict, by only looking at the content of lead in 

the blood, how much IQ loss and even how violent could a person be. They explain why an 

individual may be more violent or respond more violently than it normally would have 

responded. Javier Pagan? Pablo Casellas? 

28. Could lead be an explanation for the upsurge of violence and even divorces in Puerto Rico? 

We are in the rising tide of the effects of this pollution in these cities and at some point will it 

begin to decline also? In the light of these studies, I dare to say yes as much lead has 
disappeared from everyday life and the plomo-violencia cycle has been broken. Gasoline has 

it; the hamlets removed paint containing lead, houses furniture and modern walls are free of 

it. The plumbers and technicians in electronics now use tin instead of lead on welds. 

29. But still contains lead: aircraft gasoline, paint some toys from the East; thousands of houses 

and public and private buildings painted with lead paint in those distant days of ignorance 

and "happiness". Still garbage incinerators emit lead industrial operations such as biomedical 

incinerators, electricity generating plants, the resulting ashes of these processes, old landfills, 

and some modern landfills, the smelting of lead and of course. All, with the best available 

technology approved, swear to ignorance, not be sources of pollution; more, for it is already 

not so happy, they are significant emitters of lead on our communities. 

30. Thousands of beloved “compueblanos” and workers are also exposed to lead: by old water 

pipes, the machinery to balance the tires, fishermen with their weights to their lines and nets, 

the hunters with their ammunition and hunting-eating, the police and military and legal and 

illegal weapons carriers, all these people who are in continuous operation and handling of 

lead materials are exposed, they and their families, to the calamities of the delay, disease, 

dysfunction and violence that promises the element. With only legislating it can disappear this 

wrong almost instantly from our homes but still there is no political will nor are there 

agencies that combat in favor of Puerto Rican human health proactively and without the 

"negotiation". 

31. Tested this correlation; Why not map it from the content of lead in soils and the violence in 

those areas; so sprout geographic patterns that allow us to address the social orientation, 

health and targeted preventive surveillance. Common sense dictates as helpful that all those 

accused of violent crimes or domestic violence would get tested for lead. 

32. Our laws and regulations can be more restrictive than federal, such as California, we have to 

lower the limits of lead emissions, put safe distances between sources and the population. If 

we have a thread of statutory political sovereignty, we must exercise it to bring that thread 

turns to rope, further lowering the lead emission standards within the concept that the 

national standards are good for a continent but even on the longer term as possible we are 

and will be island. Science and technology have to undergo the project of the human person 

and its scope, never the other way around. 

33. In other words, you as an agency have a duty to protect us Puerto Ricans their children, sick 

and elderly not to any interest, not even the interest of the Federal Government. So every day 

more communities have to leave the tranquility of our jobs, shops, homes and Affairs to 
defend us in this delivery that you are making of our sacred right to the individual and 

collective happiness over the enjoyment of the greedy and unscrupulous that you have 

favored so far. You were trusted and today we have not even an inch of trust. 

34. This analysis carried out and presented to the public is a mathematical "book report" of what 

is supposed to be. It should be one that informs what is really mathematically happening in 

reality. Therefore the manual spreadsheets should be taken for what it is; "a supposed" and 

not an estimate of the current reality that assumes as it says each of those pages "According 

to the permission granted". They assume the qualities and types of fuel because they are what 

the permission granted. It’s that they do not dare to go and investigate whether it is true that 

they are using these fuels with these qualities because we know widely the scandal of the 

analysis of fuels and that if this agency would have done an critical-analysis of the results of 

the emissions. As the % of sulfur is so high if it is used as a fuel that should not produce it. 

Perhaps it would have been captured in time the disaster of this great fraud. 

35. This process to be scientific and worthy of all trust of the people should have begun with a 

constructive dialogue between the truth of what happened, what the agency was going to do, 

what it did and what there is and what will do. From the throw-in it should not have 

prospered no other permission to any other potential source of emission, until the agency and 

the people didn’t agree. That can be heard on the part of the agencies to "we cannot stop 

progress". The first thing is that they accept they have no power and second who said 

restricting emissions and declaring moratoriums to pollutant processes is opposing progress. 

Progress should get its number. They should move away from all totalitarian planning and 

false instruments like this dress of well done false numbers, that emanate from the 

technocratic dictatorship of a laboratory. This is totally inappropriate within the agencies that 

serve the people in a democracy and that displays that serving the people, with this poor 

information damaging it. That between the environment the citizens want and the 

environment that the capital wants to impose on us, the latter should not enjoy having in its 

corner this agency nor any other. It shouldn’t appear as an arbitrator between parties if it 

doesn’t have to, it should not guarantee anything that cannot effectively guarantee because it 

may have the legal authority, it may have the legal grip, it may have the budget but if it is used 

without environmental justice they better close their store that we will defend ourselves. 

36. Then at the end of the path of this SIP of lead that we see, a silent approval of an incinerator 

in Barceloneta and of course the one in Arecibo. And they say that emissions have dropped, 

but that's not what monitors in road #2 report. There is not a substantial improvement of 

emissions that came to be about l.4 tons of lead per year, and that the measures that will be 
taken, and that could have taken earlier if EQB and EPA would have wanted, but now filters 

here and there close all, protocols for cleaning the environment and protection to employees. 

NOW and that those arrangements already approved with number of construction and 

everything is enough to lower it to.3353 tons/year.670 pounds a year. But that EA before 

2016 to 2016 will emit .3059 ton/year 611 pounds/year and Cambalache .28 ton/year 560 

pounds/year. All in the area of non-compliance for lead. Between these three there only 

1,841 pounds of lead a year.

37. The major improvement hoped to be made by all these controls and approvals for new 

sources on the Arecibo basin is of 1.11555 t/year = 2,231.1 pounds of lead a year when in e1 

2011 is 2,840-pound a year a difference of 608.9 pounds/year. This is not a substantial 

progress towards making the Area enter in compliance. Then what is the agency waiting, that 

we thank them the great savings. No thanks. We want Arecibo without lead. 

Ciudadanos en Defensa del Ambiente (CEDDA) 

Ponencia presentada por Iván F. Elías Rodríguez

1. We hereby appear to this Public Hearing as part of the representation of Ciudadanos en 

Defensa del Ambiente (CEDDA). We represent residents of the Arecibo region who are 

worried of the damage caused by lead pollution and other atmospheric pollutants that we are

exposed to. Even though we should be clear that we participate in the hearing with 

skepticism and mixed feelings.

2. On one hand, we are complying with what we have assumed as part of our citizen 

responsibility to present the opinions we express and that on our opinion they are discarded 

on the Plan (SIP) proposed by the Environmental Quality Board (EQB) for the NonAttainment Area of Lead in Arecibo. And we do so hoping that what we participants say 

during the hearing will aid for the proposed SIP to be rejected. 

3. On the other hand, we are skeptical that the participation in said hearing may be relevant in 

the decision of the Environmental Quality Board about this Plan and the proposed 

incinerator for Arecibo. Although we recognize that you agencies such as the EQB have a 

group of employees committed to the work they do and with the country, we don't have the 

same confidence in the way that decisions are made in the EQB. 

4. The experience we have had in the past over complaints we have made to the EQB on 

pollution with lead caused by the Battery Recycling operation contradicts the trust that we 

have over the employees of the Agency. Both the EPA and the EQB are responsible for 

allowing and not supervising the operation of Battery Recycling in consequence of pollution 

by lead to Arecibo - pollution that has been permitted, by action and omission of the EQB 

(and by the EPA). This is why the fact that we come to discuss about how the EQB (and 
EPA) intends to remedy the pollution by lead that caused this company reaffirms the reasons 

we have to be suspicious before what is being proposed. 

5. As evidenced by statements made above, we oppose approval of the SIP that is proposing the 

EQB. This opposition founded on the following aspects:

6. The Public Hearing held today does not permit the intelligent participation of the citizens due 

to: 

 the absence of relevant information; use of a technical vocabulary that is difficult to 

understand for the common citizen; and poor wording that makes it difficult to 

understand what is expressed in parts of the document. 

 In the proposed SIP it continues confusing what is incineration to the point that it 

indicates that with this renewable energy is obtained. 

 In the 2016 scenario, it discards data indicating that it does not meet the standard of 

0.15 mg/m ', using the assumption that it should not be considered because such 

violations to the standard are within the premises. 

 The wind data used for modeling are not adequate and thus has been questioned in 

the past, causing errors in the modeling and prediction of the concentrations of lead 

in the points used in the modeling. These should have been discarded and it should 

have been used the data obtained by the NDM (an agency of the US Government 

with the prestige and international recognition) by making use of a sensor placed in 

the port of Arecibo. 

 It includes an improper endorsement to two incinerators that increase lead 

concentrations which would be exposed to the residents of the region of Arecibo. 

 Not taking into account the fact that the drinking water consumed by the residents of 

Arecibo has high lead levels that violated the standards on several occasions. And 

although the Aqueducts and Sewers Authority (AAA) does not acknowledge that 

Battery Recycling is part of the causes of such violations, certainly it must be assessed 

the impact of the water intake of the Super Aqueduct of the North Coast which is 

located 3 km away from such facilities. 

7. SIP does not take into consideration the effects that causes continuing emitting lead into the

atmosphere to the health of the residents of the region, including workers in nearby 

businesses and children who study a few kilometers of distance. 

8. Further we explain in more detail points that force us to oppose the proposed SIP. 

9. The purpose of a public hearing includes that the citizens get informed over an issue that can 

affect them and their participation in it can serve as mechanism to claim that such action 

should not be performed if it can harm them. In this case it does not meet this purpose. 
10. Lack information about data modeling (only indicated results which seeks to justify the 

conclusions expressing the EQB document). 

11. When we consider the contents of the SIP pretended to be adopted we observe that it lacks 

clarity and elaborate concepts that are not explained. 

12. Incineration is not renewable energy. Repeat the speech of the proponents of the incinerator 

that solid waste is a renewable energy source. Solid residues are not a source of renewable 

energy; they are the waste of resources that can be recycled and thus we would save energy in 

the production of goods that replace the discarded. 

13. SIP discards data that keeps the Area of Non-Attainment. When referred to the results of 

modeling for 2016, it discards the data that violates the standard of 0.15 μg/m3 will be 

important to determine whether it meets the required standard. They are discarded, clearly 

indicating that it not conforming to the standard of 0.15 μg/m3, but it seems that because it 

is within the premises they are not relevant. 

14. The margin of error should be taken into account and expect that such breach could be 

occurring both within the premises and on the outskirts of the campus.

15. The data used in the modeling are averages. And because averages (perverse) are the value 

close to the center of a set of values that are higher and lower, it is to be expected that the 

coordinates predicted by the model have an error. 

16. There is an inappropriate modelling of the dispersion of lead emissions. The meteorological 

information used to model the concentrations of the pollutants is inadequate. The 

meteorological data of San Juan demonstrate that the data of Cambalache do not serve to 

describe the meteorological behavior of Arecibo.

17. The SIP extends an improper endorsement to two incinerators. These are incinerators 

proposed for Arecibo by Energy Answers and for Barceloneta by Sunbeam Synergy. 

Including these incinerators in the SIP with the endorsement that is done for them to be 

placed in the respective proposed places is a wrongful act from the EQB.

Colegio de Médicos-Cirujanos de Puerto Rico

Comité de Salud Pública y Ambiental 

1. For the College of Physicians it is extremely worrying that the Environmental Quality Board 

focuses on complying with clean air regulations and possibly overlooked pollution by lead 

generated or that will be generated by industries, such as Battery Recycling or Energy Answer, 

in land, water and people's health. It is worrying the announcement that the air monitors of 

the Environmental Quality Board indicate that it is complying with air quality related to lead 

while the Battery Recycling employees work with lead levels in their blood of 30 ug/dl, in 

their blood. It is worrying that the employees of Battery Recycling still, possibly, are carrying 
in their clothing and vehicles dust to their homes and that the levels of from these employees 

in their homes are not monitored. 

2. It is worrying that the Environmental Quality Board considers granting a construction permit 

for Energy Answer based on the fulfillment of the levels of lead in air when the pollution 

generated by an incinerator not only is in the air; it is also the pollution generated to landfills 

with ashes highly toxic, high in heavy metals such as lead. 

3. This is why the College of Physicians makes the following recommendations: 

 Do not grant the construction permit to any new significant stationary source of lead within 

or near the area where Battery Recycling is located. This recommendation not only is based 

on the detrimental effect on the quality of the air, but also in the detrimental effect on land, 

water, and effect to health which has the lead at low levels. 

 Review the lead levels in the residences of Battery Recycling employees, as well as it has been 

done on their vehicles. If it is found significant levels the protection measures exercised to 

avoid contamination with lead in their homes should be reviewed. 

 Lead levels in employees of Battery Recycling or any other company whose employees are at 

risk of toxicity for lead should be checked.

Erik Amador Colón, resident of Barceloneta and Municipal Legislator of that Municipality. 

1. I think it is highly inappropriate to include in such a plan for 2016 the emissions from two 

facilities that at the present moment do not exist, such as the proposed incinerator Energy 

Answers in Arecibo and Sunbeam Synergy in Barceloneta. 

2. I believe that the Environmental Quality Board (EQB), when including these facilities in its 

2016 Plan, is trying to give approval to such plants without the citizenship being aware and 

could express themselves in relation to these approvals. 

3. It seems to me a barbarity pretending to solve the problem caused by a battery recycling 

company that has contaminated the area of Arecibo, adjacent to Barceloneta, adding 2 

additional sources of lead emissions in the air, as the incinerator of Arecibo and the 

Barceloneta incinerator. In which mind is this possible? And the Arecibo incinerator would 

emit more lead into the air, according to their own documents, than the battery company. 

Sr. Waldemar Flores Flores: 

1. The Environmental Public Policy Act, Law 416, in its Article eleven (11), establishes 

that it will create a mechanism to accredit institutions and certify, the individuals that generate and 

process Environmental Data. 
2. The aforementioned applies to each and every one of the activities, in which 

Environmental Data is generated and processed; inspections, environmental evaluations, 

environmental impact declarations, categorical exclusions, sampling and additional analysis (presence 

and concentration of compound chemicals), permits, modeling, meteorology, or any other activity in 

which Environmental Data is generated and processed. 

3. Sampling, is an activity in which samples are taken, recollected, picked up, collected, 

etc., Sample, is a representative part, of a population. All the activities, of generation and processing 

of Environmental Data, are sampling activities. 

4. The EQB, has been negligent in not complying with its duty of establishing a quality 

system according to law. This impedes the existence of “Legal Dfendability”, in all of its 

determination and decisions, for the traditional sampling and analysis, as well as for all generation 

activities and Environmental Data processing

5. The EPA Region 2, New York, has not complied, with having an appropriate 

supervision of the EQB, for the delegated and not delegated programs. Notwithstanding, the EPA, 

has classified the EQB as a High Risk entity. 

6. A Division of Quality Assurance (QAD) doesn’t exist, and even less a Quality System 

has never existed. 

7. The Meteorological Data used in the proposed SIP are of no use. 

8. EPA Region 2, has allowed Meteorological Data to be used dating more than 19 

years, without any QS information being included. 

Martha Quiñones Domínguez, economist and environmental planner

1. We recognize that lead is prejudicial to human beings and the environment, that the 

exposure has health effects especially in children. We know that the reduction of contamination 

levels of lead is a compromise the Environmental Protection Agency of the United States has made 

and therefore the Environmental Quality Board of Puerto Rico. We know it is a requirement to 

protect the public health with an adequate margin of safety, protect the public well-being of “known 

effects”, but in all this processes the human beings are important. Then, how can they ask to raise the 

amount of companies that emit pollutants with lead without taking into account the repercussions to 

the community. How dare them think that they’re going to issue more permits without remedying the 

economic and social damage done to the community. 

2. When a person ingests an object containing lead or inhales lead dust, part of the 

venom can remain in the body and cause serious health problems. Lead is an element that can affect 
many parts of the body and there are many possible symptoms of intoxication with lead. One single 

high dose of lead can cause serious emergency symptoms. Is more common that with lead 

intoxication by accumulation is slow and with time passing and this occurs because of repetitive 

exposure in small quantities. 

3. The State’s negligence towards the health of the citizens consists in many omissions: 

Nobody warned them about the danger that breathing dragged lead dust from the point of emission 

means, There is no study to measure and validate the damage that lead has caused to the people and 

No PLAN exists to mitigate the situation. One of the more questioned issues by the neighbors, 

workers, and environmentalists is the slowness with which the issue has been addressed; a recognized 

matter by the authorities when determining the non-attainment zone. 

4. The SIP doesn’t evaluate the social and environmental costs of the State’s negligent 

actions and that of the companies. Its not a matter of proving that the EQB has the capacity and 

resources to implement, maintain, and comply with NAAQS in certain time, we know that. The 

problem is that their silent for not mentioning in its Plan the necessity to assess the environmental 

and social damage that lead pollution causes to workers and children of Arecibo. 

5. Of course that in the EQB they have the capacity and personnel to comply and be an 

attainment zone. What they don’t have is sensibility and empathy towards the people and its 

sufferings. 

6. A Plan has to be broad, as an Environmental Impact Declaration that evaluates in a 

transversal and integrated manner all the costs and benefits associated with the ones we’re adding 

mitigating plans to achieve a better quality of life. A Plan with goals and objectives clear and 

measurable that respond to a healthy society and with the quality of life we desire, that studies and 

mitigates the damage that acts with prevision to avoid new problems. 

7. This Plan called SIP only dedicates to monitoring the quality of air, data analysis, and 

elaboration of reports to try to comply within an 18 month period from the effective date of the 

designation of non-attainment. The objective is not social or environmental, is just achieving the 

attainment for lead with urgency, without taking into account the costs to health and the 

environment that have already been caused and still remain. 

8. It questions the availability of the information withholding that the vast majority of 

the public does not have internet access. 

9. The non-existence of an epidemiologic vigilance system in this matter like in other is 

one of the factors that aggravate the problem. 
María Irizarry and 48 other persons

After the hearing was held and within the conceded period given, they appeared 

through written commentaries the forty nine persons that Annex A indicates in this report. Their 

presentations reproduce exactly the same comments, for such is applicable to them the following: 

1. I would like to express myself as to the Revision of the State Implementation Plan 

(SIP) for Lead for the non-attainment area of Arecibo. This plan does not protect the health of the 

people of Arecibo nor does it establish an efficient plan that provides certainty that it will correct the 

non-attainment condition for lead contamination. 

2. The Municipality of Arecibo is categorized as a non-attainment area by the 

Environmental Protection Agency of the United States because of the lead contamination generated 

by recycling facility The Battery Recycling Co. This means that the quality of air in the zone of 

Arecibo is below the National Ambient Air Quality Standards as defined by the Clean Air Act of 

1970. 

3. Is of general knowledge that the Energy Answers Company has the intentions of 

constructing a mega incinerator of solid wastes in the Arecibo area. According to EPA, the 

incineration plants emit an average of 5.5 tons of lead annually. The low level exposure of lead can 

cause in conditions such as: hypertension, neurological deficits and cognitive, congenital 

malformations, inmunotoxicity, and deficit in growth and development. 

4. I concur with the presentation of the Environmental Clinic of the University of 

Puerto Rico’s Law School emphasizing that: “The main problem of the EQB’s proposal is that it 

contemplates the construction of the incinerator which will the same or even greater lead emissions 

that Battery Recycling, which has caused the problem of non-attainment. This is inconsistent with 

requirement imposed by the Clean Air Act, that the implementation plan shall achieve reasonable 

future progress”. 

5. The purpose of the implementation plan is to reduce the contamination of lead in the 

environment, NOT add new sources. Evidently the SIP doesn’t establish an efficient plan with clear 

measures on how it will reduce the contamination of lead. It’s not include with clarity, what will be 

the means, techniques and/or control measures that will be implemented to convert the area in one 

of attainment. Also, the SIP fails to inform the emissions of lead from Battery Recycling; in other 

words, it hasn’t complied with the requirement of the emissions inventory for lead. Finally, the 

information contained in the SIP is insufficient, incomplete and lacks

b. Commentary Analysis from the Air Quality Area 
As part of the research process it was required of the Air Quality Area (AQA) of the

Environmental Quality Board to consider and analyze the comments made by the public during the

public consultation process. Consequently, comments and suggestions from the public were analyzed 

and discussed by the AQA as it was required. Below are the summarized answers made by the AQA

to the submitted comments.

Meteorological Data 

1. Comment

That wind rose indicates that the predominant wind direction in that region is from the south (meaning in 

direction towards the north coast). A short distance east of the nonattainment area is located the Domingo 

Ruiz airport (p. 121 of the Appendix plan). In this part of the region you can clearly observe the airport 

runway, which is oriented to the northeast. This orientation arises from the requirement of the Federal

Aviation Administration (FAA) that airport runways be oriented against the prevailing wind direction in the 

area. This facilitates the takeoff of aircrafts. I would be surprised, because of its proximity, the predominant

wind direction was different in Cambalache than in the Domingo Ruiz airport.

AQA Response:

The wind rose card is a graphic representation of the frequency of the direction and speed of

the wind in a given time and place. Cambalache’s wind rose data from the 1992-1993 period

was compiled by the Puerto Rico Electric Power Authority (PREPA) for their Cambalache 

Electric Power Plant (PREPA Cambalache) as part of the permit process for Prevention of 

Significant Deterioration (PSD) before the Federal Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 

The location requirements of an on-site weather station, such as the height of the 

instruments, the response of the sensors, and others, were endorsed by the EPA and the 

EQB to model the dispersion of contaminants included in the PREPA’s PSD permit 

application. 

According to Cambalache’s wind rose card of 1992-1993, the wind in the area is

predominantly from the south. This does not mean that at all times the wind is from the 

south. The wind rose shows that the southern component has more than a few hours in this 

direction than winds coming from the east-northeast over the period of 1992-1993. Southerly 

winds are south-southeast by 36% versus the easterlies and east-northeast that are at 30%. 

What the wind rose reflects are sea breeze and land breeze circulations. During the early 

morning hours southerly winds are more frequent (land breeze). By midmorning, the most 

frequent wind is easterly, and northeasterly winds are more frequent during the afternoon (sea 

breeze). The situation is reversed in the remainder of the day.

Not only wind direction varies with local changes in temperature between land and sea, but

also the speed. The wind speed increases in the afternoon (from north-east) due to high 
temperature on land, and decreases in the early morning hours by decreasing temperature on 

land (from the south). Slight variations of these circulations occur by topography (friction) 

and orientation of the coast along the northern Puerto Rico, including the Luis Muñoz Marín

International Airport (San Juan) where these southeast winds also occur on its runway. With

mild south winds and vigorous east-northeast winds during the day, for airports operating in 

the area on daytime schedules, the best orientation for takeoffs is an east or east-northeast

oriented runway.

2. Comment:

The data from the AROP4 NOAA (National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration) station

located in Arecibo (http://www.ndbc.noaa.gov/station_page.php?station=arop4), shows a different wind rose 

data than that used by the EQB. In consultation with Dr. José Nieves-PhD in Physics and current director of 

the Department of Physics of the University of Puerto Rico, Río Piedras Campus, -we know it is not possible

for these data to have such a variance occurring in a natural manner. This implies that the results are 

worthless.

AQA Response:

The EPA guidelines on installing on-site weather stations for purposes of pollutant dispersion

models recommend, for the location of meteorological sensors and stations, recommend that 

the use of criteria meets or exceeds that suggested by the World Meteorological Organization and

NOAA. To generate a dispersion model that is to be included with a PSD permit application, 

you must have this type of instrumentation for dispersion models to calculate pollutant 

concentrations as representative and real as possible. Due to the location and height of the

anemometer station AROP4 versus PREPA’s Cambalache to describe the conditions of the 

released pollutant, the preference is evident. Also, the surface area of water versus land

around AROP4 is greater than the surface area of water vs land around Cambalache and this 

changes the albedo, moisture and friction values.

It is questionable to think that two nearby weather stations have exactly the same wind rose. 

The different response characteristics of the sensors and the variability of friction in both

weather stations calls to reflect on how much similarity there may be in the wind rose. 

However, trends and the general wind pattern must be present. Then, both stations must

have at least the same patterns. A visual inspection during 2014 shows the same pattern of

winds in AROP4, reflecting land and sea breezes. Even south-southwest winds are observed 

in the early morning hours over several days and light winds from the south in the afternoon

(instead of northeast winds). The latter due to the thunderstorms (thunderstorm outflows) 

that occur south of Arecibo. 
The comparable data between two nearby meteorological stations that show some differences 

does not necessarily mean that one station invalidates the other. 

3. Comment

The closest monitor is Battery Recycling located southwest of the facility. This location is in harmony with the

prevailing northeastern wind direction if you want maximum impact on air quality in the operation of the BR

facility. But it is not consistent with the prevailing direction of the south, according to the wind compass card 

used by the JCA.

AQA Response:

Lead concentrations in the air determined by the lead monitor located north of the Battery 

Recycling Company facility, validated the results of the dispersion model with PREPA

Cambalache’s meteorology, and warned of the high concentrations of lead in the area. The

AERMOD model is not based solely on the prevailing wind direction, it also includes

atmospheric stability. The calculation of concentrations would be very simple and dispersion

models would not be needed if you rely solely on the direction of the prevailing wind.

The dispersion model logistics is to calculate the concentrations of an emission source of a

"buoyant" contaminant carried by the wind in an atmosphere with a calculated stability. The 

high average lead concentrations recorded in the reports of the monitoring stations located

near the premises of the Battery Recycling Company reflect the behavior of a "buoyant" 

pollutant, with frequent wind direction (south), a slight wind speed (less dispersive) and

atmospheric stability (nighttime).

Under these conditions it is expected that higher concentrations of the pollutant be registered

north of installation compared to the southwest. Vigorous northeast winds in an unstable 

environment (convective) promote much dispersion (daytime). This result does not mean

lead concentrations do not occur in the other cardinal points around the plant, but they are 

minor. It talks about the greatest concentrations.

Strategy of the State Implementation Plan 

4. Comment:

Concern about this Plan with the poor fiscalization and monitoring resources available to the Agency, which

historically has had significant workforce problems and that with the financial crisis in the country has 

worsened. 

AQA Response:

Both the EQB and the EPA have jurisdiction to ensure that the SIP requirements are met. 

Therefore, both agencies have the responsibility for ensuring that they meet the requirements 

of the SIP. To this end, the EQB submitted to the EPA, an Infrastructure Plan for the State 

Implementation Plan of the Non-Attainment Zone in Arecibo which was endorsed by the 
federal agency. This Infrastructure Plan aims to demonstrate the feasibility of the EQB in

order to carry out the elements included in the SIP. The EQB held a public hearing to 

present the Infrastructure Plan and to obtain public comments. However, the only comments 

received by the EQB were part of the EPA, which were incorporated into the final

document.

5. Comment:

We assumed that this hearing is taking place to comply with submitting the SIP proposed to EPA on or 

before December 31, 2014, which is the limit date of three years after declaring Arecibo as a nonattainment

area for lead time. We request confirmation of this.

If a SIP was submitted 18 months after the nonattainment designation for lead, around June 30, 2013, we

would like access to documents that relate to that request.

AQA Response:

As provided in section 172 (b) of the Federal Clean Air Act (CAA), for areas classified as

non-attainment for the National Standard of Ambient Air Quality (NAAQS), states or 

territories should submit in a term of three years, a plan that shows how compliance with the 

standard will be achieved. The plan must comply with the requirements of section 172 (c) and 

section 110 (a) (2) (i.e. December 31, 2014). However, this term does not apply to the areas 

declared as non-attainment for lead. Section 191 (a) provides that for the specific

contaminant of lead, the term to deliver the plan is a term of 18 months (i.e. June 30, 2013).

The EQB has continually worked to resolve the situation of non-attainment for lead, even 

from before the non-attainment designation by the EPA. This public hearing is to present for 

public review the plan developed by the EQB, which demonstrates the mechanisms to be 

implemented in order to ensure that the area reaches compliance with the standards, as 

required by the CAA.

6. Comment:

At present, does the EQB or the EPA have an itinerary to achieve compliance with the lead parameters? 

AQA Response:

The proposed plan shows that lead emission controls required by the EQB, and based 

primarily on the requirements for the installation of the National Emission Standards for 

Hazardous Air Pollutants for Secondary Lead Smelter (Secondary Lead Smelting MACT rule, 

Subpart X of Part 63 of Title 40 Code of Federal Regulations) will achieve compliance with 

the NAAQS before December 31, 2016.

7. Comment:

This analysis performed and presented to the public is a mathematical "book report'' of what is supposed to 

be. When in reality it must be one to report what is mathematically happening.
AQA Response:

The procedure required by the Federal Clean Air Act for preparing Implementation Plans,

include both conditions include for consideration: the prevailing pollution in the area (current 

emissions), and projections (potential emissions). Appendix A of the SIP presents current and 

potential emissions of the facilities. To collect all this information a concise assessment of 

current and potential emissions was made in the Arecibo area designated as a non-attainment

zone.

The information comes from records of permits and records of each emission source

applicable. Except for the Airport, emission sources included in the inventory of the SIP are 

included in the monitoring strategy to substantiate compliance (CMS) of the Air Quality Area 

(AQA) of the EQB with the EPA. This is a program of audits and evaluations of compliance

established for the emission sources permit program under Title V. As part of the program,

frequent inspections are performed and it establishes recordkeeping requirements and

continuous monitoring practice which are much more restrictive. Therefore, the data 

included in the SIP is based on the best information available. The operations of these 

sources were audited by AQA inspectors to verify that the information to be considered in 

the SIP was correct.

8. Comment: 

The SIP for Lead that we see, a tacit approval of an Incinerator in Barceloneta and of course the one in 

Arecibo. 

AQA Response:

The SIP for lead aims to present strategies that ensure compliance with the National

Environmental Quality Standard Air (NAAQS) for lead. This plan will not approve the 

construction of any new incineration system. However, Section 172 (c) of the CAA requires

that the emission from new emission sources in the area proposed be quantified. This is to 

ensure that the inclusion of these sources will not cause exceedances in the NAAQS.

Given this requirement, the EQB identified any existing facilities that could potentially 

increase its emissions of lead and the proposals for construction of new sources that may

emit lead, and evaluated the potential of these sources in the impact area according to the 

NAAQS levels for this pollutant. This analysis of compliance with the NAAQS levels of lead

is performed to ensure that the health and welfare of the population is protected when 

contemplating potential future developments and / or increased emissions in respect of

industrial growth in the area.

9. Comment:
The emissions have decreased, but that’s not what the lead monitor of Highway #2 show. There is not a 

substantial improvement of emissions. 

AQA Response:

The results of lead concentration in the air ambient recorded by the air quality monitoring 

station located adjacent to Highway # 2 (in the Hardware Store) have shown that the values

have been declining in recent quarters. This decrease coincides with the decommissioning of 

the facility. Lead data is of public domain and is available through the website of the EPA

and Air Quality Area of Environmental Quality Board.

10. Comentario:

We know that reduction of lead contamination levels is a commitment of the United States Environmental 

Protection Agency, and therefore the Environmental Quality Board of Puerto Rico. We know it is a 

requirement to protect public health with an adequate margin of safety, to protect public welfare of "known

effects" but in all these processes human beings are important. Then why it is asked to increase the number of 

companies that emit lead pollutants without considering the impact to the community. How dare they think

they’re going to give more permission without remedying the economic and social damage that has been done to 

the community. 

AQA Response:

The lead SIP does not authorize an increase in the number of facilities that could potentially

emit lead in the area of non-attainment of Arecibo, but rather aims to present strategies to 

ensure compliance with the NAAQS for lead in the area. The document considers the 

inclusion of additional lead emission controls in the existing facility The Battery Recycling

Company, Inc. to reduce emissions from this source and ensure compliance with the

NAAQS for lead in the area.

The compliance assessment with the NAAQS for lead ensures the health and welfare of the 

people when contemplating potential future developments and / or increased emissions in 

respect of industrial growth in the protected area. Section 172 (c) of the CAA requires that

the potential release of lead from new quantified emission sources proposed in the area to 

assess, as a planning process, if the possible inclusion of any new source of lead emissions

will cause exceedances in the NAAQS.

The socio-economic and health aspects are elements that EPA has included in its analysis of

amendments to the NAAQS for lead and Secondary Lead MACT rule.

On October 8, 2008, EPA substantially revised the primary National Quality Standard for 

lead Air Ambient lowering it 1.5 micrograms per cubic meter (level set in 1978) to 0.15

micrograms per cubic meter as measured by total suspended particulate. This standard 

provides increased protection on the adverse health effects of lead exposure risk groups, 
including children. Further, according to the EPA it provides better protection for 

populations at risk to a variety of adverse health effects, especially the developing nervous 

system effects. 

(http://www.epa.gov/airquality/lead/pdfs/20081015pbfactsheet.pdf. 

The purpose of the SIP is for lead levels in the atmosphere to decrease under the NAAQS 

levels determined by the EPA, which protects health and welfare of the population. As 

shown in Figure 11, Appendix D of the SIP, dispersion models project that atmospheric 

concentrations of lead beyond the boundary of TBRC, be at least 3 times below the NAAQS. 

The federal regulations that revised the NAAQS for lead, provides until December 31, 2016 

for the non-attainment areas to achieve attainment. 

11. Comment: 

By using the figures provided by the EQB concerning the emissions allowed for Battery Recycling Company 

and Energy Answers in 2016, it can be seen that the difference between the two is minimal (0.33538 tons per 

year vs. 0.3063 tons per year, or 670 lb. per year vs. 612.60 lb. per year). If the facility Battery Recycling 

Company by itself, has impacted the area enough to make it a non-attainment one, plus the introduction of a 

facility such as Energy Answers will emit about the same amount of lead as that of Battery Recycling, then 

how can it be argued that the area of non-attainment is consistent with the mandate of reasonable further 

progress set out in section 171 of the Clean Air Act? 

Response of the AQA:

One of the main effects that the SIP will have, given the more restrictive modification to the 

emission permits of The Battery Recycling Company, Inc., will be the decrease in the 

allowable emission lead limit to a level according to the new requirements of control 

measures included in the recent amendments to the Secondary lead MACT rule, which will 

demonstrate compliance with the NAAQS for lead in the area. The mathematical modeling 

dispersion analysis of lead included potential emissions from other industries planned for the 

area, whose predictive values also demonstrate compliance with the NAAQS for lead. 

The assessment of reasonable further progress (RFP) is the annual reduction in lead 

emissions required in order to ensure compliance with the NAAQS for the year 2016. This 

definition is more appropriate when there is a universe of emission sources, where the 

relationship between the different sources of emissions and air ambient quality is not 

explicitly quantified, and where the reduction in emissions is generally for inventory of 

sources. As the EPA has expressed in the past, this definition is less relevant when there is a 

limited and defined number of sources affecting the area. Furthermore, there is a relationship 

that can be discerned between emissions, air quality, and the effect of air quality after 

implementing controls. 
In this case, the main assessment only applies to TBRC, since it is the only facility identified

by EQB and EPA that negatively affects the area with their emissions of lead, which have 

been directly identified as causing violations of the NAAQS for lead in within 4 kilometers 

around TBRC.

TBRC has two main types of emission sources of lead. The first are controlled process 

emissions, which are emitted by the main stack. Currently, these process emissions have been 

estimated conservatively according to the emission limits permitted by federal regulation

Secondary Lead Smelting MACT rule and the production capacity of the equipment at the 

facility, with a potential issue or theoretical emission 0.31 tons per year (tpy). The latter are

fugitive emissions from the processes of loading, unloading, hauling, storage and movement 

of vehicles, among others. These have a potential of emission of 0.281 tons per year, 

regardless of the controls required by the Secondary Lead MACT rule. That is, according to

potential estimates, fugitive emissions could contribute 47.5% of total lead emissions

generated in TBRC.

These emissions by its nature, because their emitted from a superficial level, do not have 

good dispersion and high atmospheric concentrations occur in the vicinity of the installation.

It is for this reason that the control strategy followed is primarily for fugitive emissions.

Emission controls required by recent amendments to the federal regulations allow the fugitive

emissions to be trapped and reduced at the TBRC site from 0.281 tpy to 0.015 tpy. Meaning, 

a reduction of 0.266 tpy or 94.6%. After the implementation of controls for fugitive 

emissions, and fugitive emissions from vehicular traffic and transport of materials, of 0.01

tpy, it is estimated that the total allowable emissions of 0.335 tpy for TBRC.

The greatest contribution to violations in the area of non-attainment comes from fugitive

emissions at the TBRC facility. Emissions from other existing facilities, and the proposed 

facilities are controlled through chimney emissions. The difference in the nature of emissions

results in a dispersion and impact on air quality completely different than that of fugitive 

emissions.

The analysis of dispersion models used by the EQB to demonstrate compliance with

NAAQS levels for lead, shows that potential controlled emissions that have been estimated 

for the design of the Energy Answers Company would not have an adverse regulatory impact 

on the quality of ambient air near Arecibo.

Reasonable Future Progress (RFP)

12. Comment
Your plan, in Page 19, projects that TBRC emissions be reduced to 0.3353 ton/yr. by 2014. 2014 is has 

already finished. Was this goal achieved? I have seen data from recent surveys that make me wonder. If it was 

not possible, then it casts doubt on the viability of the whole plan.

AQA Response:

The potential emission reduction projection is based on conducting the SIP elements for 

lead. This requires the enclosure of the buildings in which lead material is handled before 

continuing operations at the TBRC site. Much of the lead emissions generated by TBRC are 

because of fugitive emissions and fugitive dust generated in the production activities carried 

out within the buildings, which will decrease once the SIP is implemented and mandatory 

compliance with the enclosure requirements of the buildings is met as described in the

Secondary Lead Smelting federal regulations MACT rule.

The results of lead concentration in the ambient air recorded by the air quality monitoring 

stations near TBRC have shown that the values have been declining in recent quarters. This 

decrease coincides with the shutdown of the facility. TBRC has not locked buildings which 

handle materials containing lead but ceased operations in early 2014, which could have caused

this decrease in concentration of lead in ambient air. These facts reinforce the viability and 

efficiency of the strategies included in the SIP in that increasing restrictions on the operation

of TBRC will allow to demonstrate compliance with the NAAQS for lead in the area.

However, lead monitors still record concentrations that may be due to the availability of

materials containing lead that remains in buildings that have not been enclosed within the 

facility. 

The enclosure of the buildings, or by cleaning the materials containing lead in buildings not 

enclosed under a non-operating stage of the installation will cause the concentration levels of 

lead to remain below the NAAQS levels in the area.

13. Comment:

The main problem of the proposal of the EQB is that it contemplates the construction of the incinerator that

will equal or exceed lead emissions than those of the Battery Recycling Plant, which has caused the problem of

non-attainment in the area. This is inconsistent with the requirement imposed by the "Clean Air Act" that 

the implementation plan must achieve a reasonable future progress (RFP).

AQA Response:

Section 172 (c) of the CAA requires consideration and quantification of potential emissions 

from new sources proposed in the area. This is to ensure that inclusion of these sources will 

not cause exceedances in the NAAQS. New major sources or new major modifications

sources are evaluated according to the provisions of Section 172 (c) (4) of the CAA, that 

require identification and quantification of lead emissions that would be allowed during the 
construction and operation of a new major stationary source or mayor modifications. 

Currently there are no new major source or major modification sources for lead. In addition,

EPA guidelines require that the inventory of emissions projected for the area takes into 

account any change in emissions that is expected to occur after the base year of emissions; 

and any increase in emissions related to industrial growth in existing sources or the 

installation of new stationary sources.

With respect to existing sources, no increase in lead emissions was projected, however, two 

possible new sources of emissions were identified. These are Energy Answers, in Cambalache 

Ward in Arecibo and Sunbeam Synergy, in the municipality of Barceloneta. The lead 

emissions inventory was included in Appendix B of the SIP and includes the potential of the 

two proposed facilities above mentioned.

The SIP aims to present strategies that ensure compliance with the NAAQS for lead. The 

measures of reasonable future progress (RFP) pursue the annual reduction in lead emissions

in order to ensure compliance with the NAAQS for the year 2016. In this case, the main

impact assessment to the NAAQS by using mathematical dispersion models of lead only 

applies to TBRC, since it is the only facility identified by EQB and EPA, which negatively

affects the area and is causing violations of the NAAQS for lead within 4 kilometers around 

the facility. 

The greatest contribution to violations in the area of non-attainment comes from fugitive

emissions of TBRC. Potential lead emissions from Energy Answers process emissions are

controlled through a chimney, no fugitive emissions. The difference in the nature of stack 

emissions results in a dispersion and impact on air quality completely different from fugitive 

emissions.

According to the information presented in the PSD permit application, the maximum impact

of lead for the installation was near the boundary of Energy Answers. This value was 200

times less than the NAAQS. According to the compliance demonstration with the NAAQS

for lead found in Appendix D of the SIP, the maximum impact of Energy Answers where the 

highest concentrations occur in the area of non-attainment is 1,500 times less than the

NAAQS (Table 3 of Appendix D).

Analysis of the dispersion models used by the EQB to demonstrate compliance with the

NAAQS levels for lead, shows that potential controlled emissions that have been estimated in 

the design of the Energy Answers company, will not have an adverse regulatory impact on 

the air ambient quality in the Arecibo zone, nor they are inconsistent with the reasonable

future progress measures because they are of a different nature to the type of emissions that 
caused the NAAQS lead exceedances in Arecibo, and do not affect the demonstration of

future compliance with the NAAQS after the execution of the SIP. 

14. Comment:

The review is intended to supplement the provisions on "reasonable future progress" or RFP. The document

states that reasonable future progress is achieved "through strict compliance with an ambitious compliance 

schedule, which is expected to develop periodically a reduction in significant emissions or a linear progress in 

your case," (p. 18). When establishing the RFP for lead, it includes "at a minimum, the controls that must be 

implemented quickly, and to determine reduction estimate to be achieved by the control measures, which have to 

be quantified". (p. 18)

To set this ambitious compliance itinerary, the EQB parts from "potential emissions" of sources included in 

the inventory. We understand that this analysis should be based on actual emissions of lead. Only using

emissions that were released into the air can the EQB establish an "ambitious compliance itinerary" that 

responds to changes in the level of contamination and is protective of health and the environment.

This is very important. The document indicates that for Battery Recycling possible lead emissions in 2011 were

1.2 ton / year. It does not indicate what the actual emissions for those dates were. (pp. 37 and 40) It is not 

possible to quantify whether or not there is a reduction in emissions if actual emissions of pollution sources are 

not considered.

AQA Response:

Reasonable future progress (RFP) measures constitute the emission reduction itinerary to 

achieve compliance with the NAAQS for lead. Section 172 of the CAA and Part 51 of Title 

40 of the Code of Federal Regulations provide for the emissions inventory and projections to 

be determined by measuring current emissions, if available, or the estimation of potential 

emissions. The use of potential emissions represents a precautionary and conservative 

measure for additional protection, as it believes the worst scenarios that usually do not reach 

the regular operational levels of the installation. Reductions of lead emissions presented in the

SIP are based on potential emissions, and in this case also permissible, of the installation.

The implementation of the SIP will demonstrate compliance with the NAAQS and thereby

achieve the desired protection levels to health and property. The Plan requires TBRC to 

comply with applicable elements of the Secondary Lead Smelting MACT rule, which includes 

testing for determination of current lead emissions, and other tests required by permit under 

the Regulations for the Control of Atmospheric Pollution, which will confirm the actual 

emissions of the installation. In addition, the EQB will remain operating two lead monitors to 

verify continued compliance with the NAAQS for lead in the area.

15. Comment
Subsection C of Section 172 of the Clean Air Act requires that the SIP include specific contingency measures

to be taken if the area fails to achieve the reasonable further progress required by the Clean Air Act. EPA

understands these measures should provide a needed reduction in emissions that is at least equivalent to the 

reduction needed to achieve the required reasonable future progress for a whole year.

AQA Response:

As established in the document entitled: 2008 Lead (Pb) National Ambient Air Quality

Standards (NAAQS) Implementation Questions and Answers. Contingency measures should 

enter into effect, when needed, without significant action by the EQB or EPA. The EPA

interpreted this in other implementation guides as they may include a comprehensive 

program to identify sources of violation and take aggressive actions of monitoring and 

enforcement, including expedited processes orders and agreements (Guidance for 1-Hour 

SO2 SIP has Nonattainment Area Submission, page 41).

We understand that the contingency measures established in the plan meet EPA's 

interpretation. These measures are in addition to established contingency measures in the 

Title V permit draft for TBRC that went to public review.

Legal Authority 

16. Comment:

Our laws and regulations can be more restrictive than the federal, we have to lower the lead emission limits, 

and establish safe distances between the sources and the population. 

AQA response:

The effect, laws and regulations of Puerto Rico may be more restrictive than federal. In this 

case, to ensure the protection of the health and welfare of the population, our assessment of

emissions from the emission source has included modifying source emission permissions to 

TBRC with permit conditions based on local regulation with controls of atmospheric 

pollution not provided under federal regulation.

The new projected emissions reflect results below the national ambient air quality standard

for lead. Control measures included in the SIP quantitatively demonstrate that once the plan

is executed, reduction of lead emissions in the area will be achieved.

17. Comment: 

The EQB states in your document that it has the state power to achieve compliance with this SIP, (page 30, 

second paragraph, Spanish version). However, the track record does not give credibility to such affirmation.

AQA Response:

The document establishes the legal capacity of the EQB for the implementation of the SIP

according to the powers and responsibilities conferred by its organic law, the Law on

Environmental Public Policy (Act No.. 416 of September 22, 2004, as amended) and the 
Regulation for the Control of Atmospheric Pollution, including the power to issue orders to

cease and desist of actions applicable to legal entities.

Inventories and Dispersion Models 

18. Comment:

It is important to validate the modeling tools in which the SIP is based. The meteorology, emission inventories,

and air monitoring results are available. Has the EQB validated dispersion model with current data?

AQA Response:

The dispersion model has been validated by the data collected in the air sampling stations for 

lead located in Arecibo. These stations were located as per the results of the dispersion 

models. According to the data collected per stations is that the designation of noncompliance

was made with the national standard of lead, all data of the results are available at the Air 

Quality Area of the EQB. Similarly, information and meteorological data, emission 

inventories, and monitoring results used in the preparation of the SIP are public and are 

available at the Air Quality Area of the EQB. The emission inventories were included in the 

SIP annexes of lead for Arecibo.

To make the model, the guidelines and recommendations of the EPA were used. The

dispersion model was performed using the potential emissions by recommendation of the 

EPA. In this way we ensure that air quality standards are not exceeded at any time. Current 

emissions were not used because they do not represent the worst case operating scenarios. 

Section 172 of the CAA and Part 51 of Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations provide

for the use of current emissions, if available, or the estimation of potential emissions.

19. Comment:

The inventory should not include incineration units of Energy Answers and Sunbeam

Synergy. This is because they are not in operation nor have granted permissions.

AQA Response: 

New major sources or new major modifications were evaluated according to the provisions

of section 172 (c) (4) of the CAA, which requires identifying and quantifying emissions of 

lead that could be generated by the construction and operation of a new major stationary 

source or major modification. Currently, there are no new major sources or new major 

modifications for lead in the zone. However, to be conservative and to ensure that the 

NAAQS for lead are protected, the EQB with the assistance of the EPA developed an

inventory with the projected emissions that identify all possible increases in emissions of lead

that could affect the area defined as non-attainment. The inventory was included in Appendix
B of the SIP of lead and includes the potential emissions of the two proposed projects: 

Energy Answers and Sunbeam Synergy. 

20. Comment: 

We ask for, if it currently exists, the calendar (Schedule) of the EQB and / or the EPA to achieve 

compliance with the parameters for lead.

AQA Response:

The proposed plan shows that lead emission controls required by the EQB, which are

primarily based on the applicable requirements for the installation of the National Emission 

Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Secondary Lead Smelter (Secondary Lead

Smelting MACT rule, Subpart X of Part 63 of Title 40 Code of Federal Regulations), will 

achieve compliance with the NAAQS before December 31, 2016. In essence, the measures of 

reasonable future progress (RFP) constitute the emissions reduction itinerary to achieve 

compliance with the NAAQS for lead. 

21. Comment: 

In the compliance demonstration for 2016 data that indicates that the 0.15 mg / m3 standard is not met, is 

discarded. This to indicate that it should not consider such violations as they are within the premises of

TBRC. Despite being within the premises these violations cannot be ruled out. It should also be considered

that the people who are inside the premises will be affected.

AQA Response:

For purpose of determining compliance with NAAQS, only atmospheric concentrations

beyond the boundary are considered. Concentrations within the premises of the company,

when such concentrations are produced by the company, is of the jurisdiction of the 

Occupational Safety and Health Administration of Puerto Rico (PR OSHA).

The protection of workers is beyond the scope of SIP, which focuses on the applicable 

requirements and air emissions outside the facility. The protection of employees requires 

compliance with other standards and limits not included in the Clean Air Act or state 

regulation. The EQB has no jurisdiction over the protection of workers, this is delegated to 

the PR OSHA.

The designation of area of non-attainment by the EPA was based on results of the air 

sampling station for lead directed to the source, located outside the boundary of TBRC. The 

designation of non-attainment area requires the development of the SIP to achieve 

compliance with the NAAQS. At the conclusion of the modeling results of attainment, it is 

indicated that after control measures are implemented, air quality monitoring should continue 

in the vicinity of TBRC, which has been continued and is part of the SIP.
22. Comment: 

It should be taken into consideration the margin of error and hope that this violation could be occurring both

inside the premises and outside the premises. The data used in the modeling are averages. And because 

averages are the value near to the center of a set of higher and lower values, it is expected that the coordinates

predicted by the model has an error.

AQA Response:

The data used in the model are not averages, emissions are potential emissions of lead

extracted from the records of the facilities; field data is extracted from the USGS DEM maps

and meteorological data from the Cambalache station in Arecibo. The model results and the 

entire methodology were submitted to the EPA for revision.

All mathematical dispersion models or statistical models have a margin of error, which is why

it is recommended to remain vigilant with air quality monitors to ensure that concentrations

are below the standards. The AERMOD model is recommended by the EPA as one of the 

most accurate. According to the Model Guide to Air Quality and the Model Assessment 

Document, studies in different types of scenarios demonstrated its superiority when

estimating pollutant concentrations, compared with previous models ISCST3 (model for flat 

terrain) and CTDMPLUS (model for mountainous terrain). The prediction ratios of 

concentrations for AERMOD of the observed value were over 0.97, which means that the

value calculated by the model is very close to the value observed by monitoring.

If the results of studies conducted to the model are considered and its low margin of error, it 

can be expected that the estimated concentrations outside the premises of the facility are 

maintained below the NAAQS, after the applicable emission control measures for lead are 

taken from the Secondary Lead Smelting MACT rule. 

23. Comment: 

Information missing from the modeling data (only results with which it is intended to justify conclusions

expressed by the EQB in the document) includes the following items or matters:

a. the data for lead emissions made by Battery Recycling since the start of their operations, including the 

annual data, 

b. the data of the actions taken in the past over violations of Battery Recycling since the start of their 

operations,

c. the data of other lead emission sources and the violations to the standards that have occurred in the 

past, since the start of operations, the explanation of how they draw to the conclusions expressed in 

the document,

d. the explanation on how to conduct the modeling and how to conclude with such that in 2016 

compliance with the standard for lead of 0.15l μg/m3 will be achieved, 
e. the explanation of what happens with the lead emitted by Battery Recycling that provoked the nonattainment condition if in 2016 the same level of production is maintained,

f. how is it possible that duplicating the quantity of annual lead emissions for 2016 (including the 

annual tons of Battery Recycling and the annual tons proposed in the operation of Energy Answers)

the emissions be reduced below the 0.15 μg/m3standard, 

g. the explanation of what happens with the lead levels in the water of Arecibo if by 2016 the annual 

lead emissions will duplicate,

h. what health effects to the people of Arecibo will have when duplicating the annual lead emissions for 

2016,

i. the explanation of what the effects on various sectors of the economy of the region will be (including 

particularly the livestock for milk and meat sector) if annual lead emissions for 2016 are duplicated.

AQA Response:

a. The information on lead emissions from Battery Recycling when it began operations

is found on the emissions inventory in the Annex of the SIP for Lead of Arecibo.

The information on annual emissions is available at Air Quality Area. 

b. This information is not included in the modeling but is available in the Air Quality 

Area. 

c. The data from other sources of lead emissions is included in the base emission

inventories and projected, which is found in the accompanying annexes of the SIP for

Lead of Arecibo. Exceedances are recorded from when the standard was revised in 

2008 and reduced from 1.5 to 0.15. Such regulation is implemented in January 2010, 

setting the sampling stations in Arecibo which recorded the exceedances in July 2010. 

d. The explanation of how the modeling is done and the conclusions on how to meet

the standard in 2016 performed are presented in the protocol and the document of 

the model results. Both are in the accompanying annexes of the SIP for Lead of 

Arecibo. Both approved and reviewed by the EPA.

e. The production level of Battery Recycling for 2016 is less than that which caused the

condition of non-attainment. This is stated in the inventories of base emissions and 

projected the SIP for Lead of Arecibo. It was demonstrated by modeling that the

emission potential of the industry for 2016 will maintain lead concentrations below 

the standard because of all the emission control measures that are to be established, 

according to the emission permit. 

f. Energy Answers emissions do not cause violations of the lead standard. They are 

emissions that are controlled by the control equipment of the industry and for them 
being minimal they do not cause a significant impact on lead concentrations in the 

area.

g. TBRC emissions that cause violations of the standard are fugitive emissions from

materials handling and processing in the main building, both processes are performed

in open areas. When the emission control measures for lead are implemented; as

enclosing the processing building, cleaning trucks and hauling equipment, among 

others, these emissions will be controlled and therefore violations of the NAAQS is 

avoided. This is stated in the inventories of emissions, modeling protocol and the 

model results found in the annexes of the SIP.

h. Lead levels in the water, according to the jurisdiction of the current air regulation do 

not correspond to the Air Quality Area of the EQB. 

i. According to the modeling results and the projections, violations of the NAAQS for 

lead are not anticipated, nor that lead levels are doubled. 

j. According to the modeling results and the projections, violations of the NAAQS for 

lead are not anticipated, nor that lead levels are doubled as long as the controls and 

conditions recommended and included in the SIP are maintained. The economic 

impact is not a matter discussed in the SIP. 

24. Comment:

The SIP does not meet the criteria of section 172 (c) (3) of the Clean Air Act (CAA, in 

English). Section 172 (c) (3) of the Clean Air Act requires an inventory of existing sources

that are currently emitting lead. As part of this inventory, it should be clear how much 

pollution is being released into the atmosphere, what control measures will be implemented

and what will the resulting inventory be after implementing those measures. The same 

provides for the production of a precise and detailed list of the inventory of current

emissions from all sources of air pollution in an area.

AQA Response: 

Section 172 (c) (3) of the CAA in effect contains the requirement that a current inventory is 

included. It is recommended that Appendix A of the SIP be amended to include emissions

for the base year of TBRC. The emissions inventory of TBRC must distinguish stack 

emissions from fugitive emissions. This is of primary importance because the controls are

established to reduce fugitive emissions from the plant, which are the cause of the violations 

of the NAAQS for lead in Arecibo.

25. Comment: 

The EQB also includes Energy Answers in its projected emissions inventory for 2016. It 

concludes that an increase in lead emissions in the area is not expected. We question this 
conclusion because of the inclusion of Energy Answers in the inventory of 2011. The 

language on page 68 of the report is confusing and can lead the average person to think that 

there will not be an increase in lead emissions.

AQA Response: 

It is clarified that at no time Energy Answers was included in the inventory of 2011 because 

the source does not exist, so it is not possible to have actual or potential emissions. It is 

recommended that the language be clarified in the first paragraph of the Projected Emissions 

Inventory section on page 68 so it reads as follows (changes underlined):

The EQB used the potential emissions or the permit limit of the facilities to prepare the 

inventory of projected emissions (EPI2016). The EQB understands that potential emissions 

from existing sources of lead emissions will be minor or will remain constant over the 

projection period and after such. For the EPI2016 of the ANJ airport, the EQB used the

information provided by the Puerto Rico1Port Authority and information presented in the 

technical support documents of the EPA, Lead Emissions from the Use of Leaded Aviation Gasoline

in the United states2 and Calculating Piston-Engine Aircraft Airport Inventories for Lead for the 2008

National Emissions Inventory3.

Finally, projects that are under review which could potentially have an impact on the nonattainment area for lead were identified. No major source of lead emissions that could have 

an impact on the non-attainment area were identified. However, to be conservative and to 

ensure that compliance is achieved with the NAAQS for lead, it was included in the EPI2016

the potential emissions from the proposed projects for Energy Answers and Sunbeam

Synergy. The procedure and calculations are presented in Appendix B-1.

26. Comment:

According to paragraph 4 of Part C of Section 172, the SIP must specifically identify and

quantify emissions from new facilities in the area. The EQB tried to do this by including a 

table detailing the potential lead emissions from the facility of Energy Answers in Appendix

B. However, their discussion on aggregate emissions by lead on page 23 and 24 can be 

categorized as superficial. This page states that Energy Answers prepared an analysis of the 

impact of air quality as part of their applications for approval of location and building 

permits. However, an analysis of the impact of air quality is different from identifying and

quantifying emissions that will be allowed at the facility. This page does not stipulate anything 

to that respect. We therefore, consider appropriate for the EQB to provide an explanation of 

how they can justify introducing an emission source as significant as this on a non-attainment

area.

AQA Response: 
Subsection 4 of section 172 of the CAA requires that emissions, if any, be identified and 

quantified, of any contaminant which will be allowed under the provisions of section 173 (a) 

(1) (B), for the construction and operation of a new major source or new major modification 

in the non-attainment area. As well as any stationary source outside the area of nonattainment that may affect the area. The detail of inventories required by the CAA is in 

Appendixes A and B of the SIP. 

Currently there are no new major source or new major modification for lead. However, to be 

conservative and to ensure compliance with the NAAQS, the EQB, with assistance of the 

EPA, developed a projected emissions inventory identifying all possible increases in 

emissions of lead that could affect the area of non-attainment. The inventory was included in 

Appendix B of SIP for lead and includes the emission potential of two proposed incineration 

units. 

General Comments

27. Comment: 

In the proposed SIPE still confuses what is incineration to the point that with it you can obtain renewable 

energy. 

AQA Response:

The correct term is incineration unit with energy recovery (WTE, in English). For which it is 

recommended that the SIP be revised to change renewable energy to WTE or incineration 

unit with energy recovery. 

28. Comment:

The SIP does not consider the fact that drinking water consumed by residents of Arecibo has

elevated lead levels that have violated the standards on several occasions. And although the

Aqueduct and Sewer Authority (AAA) does not recognize that Battery Recycling is part of 

the causes of such violations, certainly the impact of the water intake of the Super Aqueduct

of the North Shore located 3 km. of these facilities should be assessed.

AQA Response: 

This Comment is not part of the SIP, given that it only considers atmospheric concentrations 

of lead and compliance with the NAAQS. 

29. Comment: 

The SIP does not consider the effects provoked by the continuation of lead emissions into the atmosphere in the 

health of the residents of the region, including workers in nearby businesses and children studying a few

kilometers away.

AQA Response: 
The purpose of the SIP is that the lead levels in the atmosphere reach the NAAQS, which are 

based on the protection of the health and welfare of the population. As shown in Figure 11, 

Appendix D of the SIP, after the implementation of the required controls by the federal 

regulation for secondary lead smelting systems, the dispersion models project that

atmospheric concentrations of lead beyond the boundary of TBRC, will be at least 3 times

below the NAAQS for lead.

30. Comment: 

With the appointment on November 8, 2011 of part of Arecibo as Non-Attainment Area for lead a concern

for being a good neighbor and protective parent by the State is not seen, but only presents a review of lead 

emissions, otherwise it wouldn’t be taking care of the matter. 

AQA Response

When the EPA established the new NAAQS for lead in 2008 the EQB began the process of

compliance therewith, leading to inventory emissions, mathematical dispersion modeling of 

pollutants into the atmosphere and air quality monitoring. As a result of this process, the

EQB determined an exceedance of the NAAQS for lead. Once the EQB realized noncompliance with the NAAQS in Arecibo, a team was created to address the situation. This 

team was responsible for updating inventories of emissions and complete the dispersion

assessments which were later used by the EPA in the final designation of non-attainment area

on December 8, 2011. Afterwards, the team continued working on to evaluate technologies 

and necessary controls that had to be established to achieve compliance with the NAAQS in 

the shortest time possible. The results of part of all this work was the established limits in the

modification of the construction permit for TBRC and all information contained in the 

amended draft of the SIP for lead in the non-attainment area of Arecibo.

31. Commentary: 

The National Library of Medicine of the U.S.A.

(http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/english/ency/article/002473.html) and the World Health 

Organization (http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factshccts/fs379/es/, in the descriptive note No379

October 2014) both conclude that: There is no level of lead exposure that can be considered safe. And that

lead poisoning is entirely preventable. We will consider this as established.

AQA Response: 

On November 12, 2008 the EPA issued a new national standard for ambient air quality

setting a new standard 10 times more restrictive than the last. The new standard of 0.15 mg /

m3, as assessed by the EPA, will not cause adverse effects to health and welfare of the

population (http://www.epa.gov/airquality/lead/pdfs/ 20081015pbfactsheet.pdf).
In developing the new standard, EPA took into account scientific information from multiple

agencies and reports, including WHO. For details on the development of the lead standard 

you may refer to the Federal Register, Volume 73 No. 219, beginning at page 66964.

32. Comment: 

Nobody warned them about the danger posed by breathing lead dust carried by the wind from the place of 

issue. There is no study to measure and assess the damage lead has caused to the persons and there is no plan

to remedy the situation. One of the points most challenged by residents, workers and environmentalists is the

slowness with which the issue was addressed; an aspect recognized by the authorities themselves to determine the

nonattainment area and analysis of Head Start health of lead-poisoned children. The government was not

prepared to face a situation like that occurred in Arecibo, it pointed out the signals when the health of people 

had already been affected, but since 2000 we had reported to the EQB that there was lead contamination. But 

since they do not believe the people, the wait until in 2010 the EPA notified that they are worried. The 

"environmental emergency" or "environmental alert" was never considered.

This is the time to consider this situation of nonattainment of lead like a real environmental emergency that

requires a legislative commission to investigate the damage to people's health. Where responsible representatives

in EPA and EQB, the Department of Health and other organizations submit their actions before, during

and after to solve the problem of people contaminated with lead and order an investigation and assessment of 

the economic and environmental costs. Where they dare to say who should pay for these studies and actions to 

take. 

Environmental concentrations should be measured (workplace and community environments) and biological

(working population and the general population) for lead and then confront them with reference values. These 

measurements are called environmental and biological monitoring. Considering that a full recovery of lead 

poisoning may take months to several years.

AQA Response: 

Given the violations of national quality standards for ambient air lead a team between federal 

and state offices was created. As part of the many works done, EPA assumed jurisdiction, led 

the enforcement actions and coordinated the intervention by the various state and federal

agencies with jurisdiction, issued orders under the Clean Air Act and the federal law on 

dangerous solid wastes and the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act Resources (RCRA, 

for its acronym in English). We understand that both the Department of Health and PR

OSHA form part of the inter-agency team and they already have knowledge of the case. 

33. Comment: 

The plan designed does not evaluate the social and environmental costs of such negligent actions of the 

companies. It is not a matter of proving that the EQB has the capacity and resources to implement, maintain 

and meet NAAQS in certain periods of time, we know that.
AQA Response: 

The purpose of SIP is that the lead levels in the atmosphere reach levels that protect the 

health and welfare of the population and achieve compliance with the NAAQS. The 

documents that are part of the SIP are prepared and drafted in accordance with applicable

federal regulations and guidelines developed under these provisions. 

34. Comment: 

Despite the importance of this issue, the EQB has not favored the effective participation of the community. We 

have to note that the cost required to obtain copies of the document is inaccessible to many of us. About two 

weeks ago some neighbors came to the office of the Environmental Quality Board in Arecibo to request a copy

of the document to be discussed at the public hearing. On that occasion, an official requested fifty cents for each 

page representing a cost of about $ 70.00. The official also did not allow the neighbors to photocopy the

document in a place where copies are much cheaper. Given the inaccessibility of information to empower citizens 

to make presentations at the public hearings, they went to Legal Services Offices to request assistance for the 

suspension of the hearings. On Friday October 10 a communication was sent to the President of the EQB,

Attorney Laura Velez requesting the suspension of the hearings, and in addition, information and 

documentation on all matters to be discussed at the public hearing. On Tuesday October 14 in the morning

Mr. Luis Calderón communicated with yours truly, Lic. Hadassa Santini, who identified himself as

Assistant Attorney Vélez. Mr. Calderón requested that an email be sent to him indicating which documents

and information our clients needed which was done that day. This official said that we would be given a paper 

copy of all documents at no cost to residents. To date these documents have NOT been available in printed 

copy as we were promised. Only the lawyers have had electronic access to the report. The neighbors here do not

have access to internet facilities and therefore have NOT had access to information and documents required by 

law to have BEFORE public hearing.

Respuesta del ACA:

The documents were available for review as required by the Regulations for the Control of 

Atmospheric Pollution (RCAP) and federal regulations, both at the Headquarter Office and 

the Regional Office of Arecibo, and the website of the EQB. The costs for the documents

were established under Resolution R-14-16-8-A, on requests for copies of documents from

the EQB.

35. Comment: 

We understand that there is no level of lead concentration in the blood that can be considered without risk,

therefore the wisest course is to increasingly reduce emissions and not allow new emission sources.

AQA Response: 

The SIP is the mechanism developed for lead levels in the atmosphere to reach adequate 

levels that protect the health and welfare of the population and achieve compliance with the
NAAQS and demonstrate compliance with concentrations of lead in the air. The issue of lead 

concentrations in the blood is outside the scope of this evaluation. However, when the EPA

develops or sets the new standard, it considers and conducts studies which relate atmospheric 

concentration and concentration in blood. For more information on this subject, you can 

refer to the Federal Register, Volume 73 No. 219, beginning at page 66964.

36. Comment: 

To determine the actions to be performed and must be in a recovery plan, the study must measure the social

and environmental costs of lead contamination and have an idea of how much it has cost the people.

Environmental concentrations should be measured (workplace and community environments) and biological

(working population and the general population) for lead and then compare them with reference values in blood 

levels.

AQA Response: 

The plan integrates the requirements under federal regulations to meet national standards.

The documents that are part of the SIP are prepared and drafted in accordance with 

applicable federal regulations and guidelines developed under these. The protection of

workers falls under the jurisdiction of OSHA.

37. Comment: 

After learning of the exposure we conducted a study to that effect. The concentration of lead in blood is the 

exposure indicator and is influenced by the body burden of lead and essentially reflects the dosage of lead 

absorbed. Studies indicate that the concentration of lead in the air, established as a permissible limit value for

general environment by EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) is 1.5 micrograms / m3, also considered as 

a threshold lead level on blood for the general population about 15 micrograms / dl. However, recent studies 

show neuropsychological changes in children with blood lead levels of 10 micrograms / dl., so this value is set

as a alert value that should not be exceeded for infant population (APHA, 1991).

AQA Response:

This assessment is beyond the scope of this document. However, the new limit of lead in the 

environment established by the EPA is 0.15 mg / m3. During the development of this new 

standard multiple studies and relationships between atmospheric concentration and 

concentration in the blood, reduced medical costs, health effects among many other things

were taken into consideration. The details related to the development of the standard can be 

found in the Federal Register, Volume 73 No. 219, beginning on page 66964.

38. Comment: 

Another study shows that the assessment of economic impacts including the costs that require the diagnosis, 

treatment, recovery of health and cognitive ability of the infant population affected in the United States believes 

that it takes at least $ 2,500 per child. This includes the first dosage test of lead to all the infant population, 
quarterly dosage control of lead in the blood to the population with more than 10 ug/dl, the hospital treatment

including medication or a diet rich in calcium or supplements to prevent calcium deficiency and subsequent

release of lead from the bones, blood and kidney tests for children with over 20 ug/dl, and something very 

important a compensatory education program taught by psychologists which comprises two sessions a week, with 

a duration of two years at least. The economic costs in Arecibo should include individual costs and total cost of 

diagnoses, quarterly diagnosis, and treatment in hospital, and Compensatory Education (2 years per 

schoolchild at risk). These estimates and actual costs can mean many millions of dollars to mitigate the impact

of lead in Arecibo and we are ignoring them.

AQA Response: 

This assessment is beyond the scope of this document. However, the new limit of lead in the 

environment established by the EPA is 0.15 mg/m3. During the development of this new 

standard multiple studies and relationships between atmospheric concentration and 

concentration in the blood, reduced medical costs, health effects among many other things

were taken into consideration. The details related to the development of the standard can be 

found in the Federal Register, Volume 73 No. 219, beginning on page 66964.

39. Comment: 

No building permit should be granted to new significant stationary sources of lead in or near the area where

Battery Recycling is located. This recommendation is based not only on the detrimental effect on air quality, but 

also the detrimental effect on soil, water and the health effect that low levels of lead have. 

AQA Response: 

Under current state regulation it is required for new stationary sources or significant sources, 

to be located in non-attainment areas, it is required to obtain a location approval and a 

building permit for the source. As a requirement of Rule 201 of the Regulations for the 

Control of Atmospheric Pollution (RCAP), it must be demonstrated that emissions from new 

stationary source will not cause a violation or exacerbate an existing violation of the NAAQS. 

It shall be considered that a violation is exacerbated if significant impact levels are exceeded

at any locality that does not meet the NAAQS, as defined in Rule 102 of the RCAP.

40. Commentary: 

Lead levels be reviewed at the residence of the employees of Battery Recycling, just as it has been done in their 

vehicles. If significant levels are found in these the protection measures to prevent lead contamination in their 

homes should be checked.

AQA Response: 

Given the violations of national quality standards for ambient air lead a team between federal 

and state offices was created. As part of the many works done, EPA assumed jurisdiction, led 
the enforcement actions and coordinated the intervention by the various state and federal

agencies with jurisdiction, issued orders under the Clean Air Act and the federal law on 

dangerous solid wastes and the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act Resources (RCRA, 

for its acronym in English). We understand that both the Department of Health and PR

OSHA form part of the inter-agency team and they already have knowledge of the case. 

41. Comment: 

The document here under discussion is couched in technical language, inaccessible to most of the affected 

community. Contains errors in writing, including such basic things as the nonattainment area covers 4 miles or 

4 kilometers, and discrepancies between the English version and the version in Spanish.

AQA Response: 

The SIP is a technical document in which data is presented, data analysis and implementation 

of structures and programs to ensure that they meet the NAAQS. For this reason, the 

document language is technical. The SIP was originally written in English due to the

continuous exchange of information between EPA and EQB because of the environmental

regulations. In addition, prior to the submission of final draft for public participation, the 

draft is sent to the EPA for comments.

With respect to the four miles. According to the study and evaluation performed by EQB, 

the non-attainment area comprises a 4 km radius. This study was adopted by the EPA and 

the basis for the designation of non-attainment area. However, by mistake in the Spanish 

document it refers to a 4 mile radius. Therefore, we recommend reviewing the first paragraph 

on page 7 of the document in Spanish, to indicate 4 Km. The rest of the document in

Spanish does mention the 4 km.

42. Comment: 

The review also says that to achieve compliance with the Federal Clean Air Act "applicable 

emission limitations and other control measures, means or techniques (including economic 

incentives such as payments, tradable permits, and auctions of allowances) can be imposed, as 

well as plans schedules and timetables for compliance". (p. 13)? The review mentions only

measures that already exist in the Regulation of Air Pollution Control. What additional measures 

will the EQB be taking? The supposed emission reduction, is the result of changes in the standards that EPA 

already made? What measures is the EQB taking to protect the health and environment of the people of 

Arecibo? 

AQA Response: 

As indicated by the second paragraph of section III of the SIP, control measures include the 

implementation of controls required by the MACT and NSPS regulation that applies to

secondary lead smelters. These regulations were recently amended and the implementation of 
controls began in early 2014. Besides this, there are the controls established in the building 

permit issued to TBRC, according to Regulations for the Control of Atmospheric Pollution. 

The SIP is the mechanism developed for lead levels in the atmosphere to reach adequate 

levels that protect the health and welfare of the population and achieve compliance with the

NAAQS and demonstrate compliance with concentrations of lead in the air.

43. Comment: 

Anyway, their assignment is to demonstrate how they will eliminate pollution, not how they’re going to add

more pollution sources with existing and other despicable elements such as dioxins and furans.

AQA Response: 

The SIP is the mechanism developed for lead levels in the atmosphere to reach adequate 

levels that protect the health and welfare of the population and achieve compliance with the

NAAQS and demonstrate compliance with concentrations of lead in the air.

44. Comment: 

It's embarrassing to have an external agency to be the one who has to alert and ensure that our air is relatively

breathable, rather than from our own agency, our brothers and sisters, our laws and regulations that promote

life, health and welfare for everyone, and even then compliance is met. 

AQA Response: 

On October 8, 2008 EPA substantially revised the National Ambient Air Quality Standard

for primary lead lowering it from 1.5 micrograms per cubic meter (level set in 1978) to 0.15

micrograms per cubic meter as measured by total suspended particulate. This standard 

provides increased protection on the adverse effects of lead exposure risk groups, including 

children. Further, according to the EPA, it provides better protection against adverse effects 

(effects on the developing nervous system are the most notable).

In the EQB, as soon as the EPA established the new NAAQS for lead in 2008, began the 

process of compliance with the standard, developing and updating the emissions inventory, 

mathematical modeling of dispersion of lead and air quality monitoring. As a result of this 

process the EQB determined that there was a exceedance to lead NAAQS. In addition, the

EQB is the agency that collected data on air quality and reported it to the EPA to generate

the designation. Violations of the standards were received and audited by the EQB prior to 

being reported to the EPA. The designation letter sent by the EQB in which it recommended 

the area to be classified as a compliance zone/unknown, was sent before the results of

sampling at Arecibo were known. Once the EQB realized the non-compliance with the
NAAQS in Arecibo, a team was created to address the situation. This team was responsible 

for updating the inventory and complete dispersion assessments that were later used by the

EPA in the final designation of non-attainment area on December 8, 2011. The team works

continuously to assess technologies and controls needed to be established to achieve

compliance with the NAAQS in the shortest time possible. Part of all this work done resulted 

in the limitations established for the construction permit of TBRC and all information 

contained in the amended draft to the SIP for lead to the area of non-attainment of Arecibo.

45. Comment: 

The citation for this hearing was neither easy to find nor to read, the document is not

digestible and understandable and is of difficult accessibility.

AQA Response: 

The citation for the hearing was conducted in compliance with the provisions of the

Regulations for the Control of Atmospheric Pollution. Notices were published in two major 

newspapers (El Nuevo Día and Primera Hora) on September 13, 2014, with more than 30

days prior to the hearing. The documents were available for review as required by the

Regulations for the Control of Atmospheric Pollution (RCAP) and federal regulations, both 

at EQB Headquarters and the Regional Office of Arecibo, and the website of the EQB.

The SIP is a technical document in which data is presented, data analysis and implementation 

of structures and programs to ensure that they meet the NAAQS. For this reason, the 

document language is technical. However, it is recommended that the Spanish translation be 

revised to ensure consistency with the document in English.

46. Comment: 

This document lacks many things! Among others, it lacks what is required: a plan to eliminate lead! 

AQA Response:

The plan integrates the requirements under federal regulations to meet national standards.

The documents are part of the SIP and are prepared and drafted in accordance with 

applicable federal regulations and guidelines developed under these. However, it is 

recommended that the Governing Board formally refer the matter on lead mitigation to the

EPA.

47. Comment: 

It’s impossible to deduct from the document how to come out of the non-attainment. 

AQA Response: 

Section III of the SIP provides that controls for TBRC be implemented. With the 

implementation of these controls it is expected to acheive national standards for ambient air 

quality. Demonstration of compliance with the new emission potential is in Appendix D. It is 
recommended to create a new section in which control strategies are established to achieve

non-attainment.

48. Comment: 

The Environmental Quality Board, EQB, has to put at the disposition of the community the environmental 

data in compliance with 40 CFR 52.05. 

AQA Response: 

As required by section 52.05 of 40 CFR, the data of atmospheric concentration for lead has

been submitted to the Administrator (EPA) up to September 30, 2014. 

49. Comment: 

The requirement is to include all sources remaining in the vicinity of an identified lead-contaminated area. The

EPA in their definitions of what kind of industries are reporting lead follows: batteries lead acid, welding,

alloy metals (alloys), cable sheaths, pigments, rust inhibitors, ammunition, icings and plastic stabilizers.

The industries in Arecibo dealing with issues related to welding are EATON, General Electric, Thermo

King, Saint Jude, and TBRCI. Those who handle plastic stabilizers are TBRCI (plastic battery Slitting) 

SAFETECH, (burning pharmaceutical waste, biomedical containing plastic), Nova Terra (handles plastics 

and metals from discarded computers), General Electric (electroplating), Thermo King, (electroplating and

chemical handling) EATON (electroplating and chemical management), and Saint Jude (electroplating). The 

Arecibo Airport emits fumes of jet fuel that contains a percentage of lead. Nowhere diesel fumes from trucks

that bring waste to SAFETECH are quantified, and aircraft gas fumes in a rare equation are quantified to

.037. For the Abbot, Merck, and SAFETECH incinerators various sources are quantified, but only one of 

its various emission sources is included. Likewise with other industries. EATON is placed in Barceloneta

when the truth is that it is located in the Santana Industrial Park in Arecibo. EQB numbers do not add up.

The SIP expresses that Arecibo until 2013 has 6 emission sources. That is incorrect. According to page 69 of 

the proposed amendment to SIP there are ten (10) sources, not counting Energy Answers. This SIP tries to 

ignore information that the EQB knows as well as the territorial extension requirements that it must contain. 

All of them must be included if over half a ton of lead is released into the air. 

(http://www.epa.gov/schools/guidelinestools/highlights/region2b. html)

AQA Response: 

The emission sources were included in the SIP of lead were those that could have significant

lead emissions in the area. This was determined by the SIP reviews conducted by EPA and

EPA talks with the EQB. EPA reviewed all lead emission inventories of sources before being

included in the SIP of Lead. The physical location of EATON is in Arecibo; therefore the 

correction is made in Table 1 of the Projected Emissions Inventory 2016 of the annexes of 

the SIP of Lead.
The aircraft emissions of the Antonio Nery Juarbe Airport were calculated using the EPA

420-B-10-044 document "Calculating Piston-Engine Aircraft Airport Inventories for Lead for 

the 2008 National Emissions Inventory", it was provided to the EQB by the EPA and is 

available for review in Air Quality Area.

50. Commentary: 

TBRCI is not a secondary lead smelter. It is a primary smelter for its level of operations, which exceeds 100

pounds of lead per year and is the only one in the United States because Empire, which was the only lead 

smelter, was shut down in 2013 due to lead contamination.

AQA Response:

TBRCI operations consist of secondary lead smelting, not primary. By secondary lead 

smelting means any installation in which the waste material containing lead, mainly, but not 

limited to, lead-acid batteries, is recycled to elemental lead or lead alloy melt [Section 63 542

of 40 CFR, Subpart X].

The Regulations for the Control of Atmospheric Pollution refers to existing secondary

smelters under the Emission Guidelines Rule 405 (c) (1) (B) (viii) Materials Recovery Units -

Units that make the combustion of waste with the primary purpose of recovering metals, 

such as primary and secondary smelters. This is an exemption from complying with the 

requirements of Solid Waste and Industrial Incinerators. For new units a reference to 40 CFR

Part 60 Subpart CCCC would be made, specifically section 60.2020 (h), which also exempts

secondary smelters requirements for Solid Waste and Industrial Incinerators.

51. Commentary

When the Title V permit hearings were held in December 2012, for TBRCI it was alluded to the fact that

TBRCI would be authorized 5 pots in their permit renewal application, when the truth is that they have nine

(9) according to their own documents. In this SIP only 3 are quantified which is wrong, but that's not the only 

activity that TBRCI conducts that releases lead.

AQA Response: 

In the Projected Emissions Document for 2016 included in the annexes of the SIP for Lead, 

it establishes that TBRCI operates nine lead smelting pots and their emissions are presented.

52. Commentary: 

BRCI performs the activity of burning the lead pole that have been discarded by its use to be melted. By the

effect of Rule 405 (3) (c) (iii), this operation is incineration.

40 CFR 60 defines metals incineration as follows: "Municipal waste combustor metals means metals and 

metal compounds emitted in the exhaust gases from the municipal waste combustor units".

TBRCI to perform its operations burns the pole and that incineration releases lead and lead sulfate, which is a 

compound consisting of sulfuric acid contained in the discarded battery poles. Lead sulfate is released to the 
environment. There is no quantification of lead sulfate anywhere. And that's the biggest operation in TBRCI. 

These activities must be included if they burn more than 25 pounds of batteries daily that have poles containing 

sulfuric acid. That it is closed at this historic moment does not exclude them because the SIP proposed

amendment legitimizes its inclusion as a contaminant source in 2016.

AQA Response:

The definition of municipal waste combustor metal is not applicable to this facility. By

secondary lead smelting means any installation in which the waste material containing lead,

mainly, but not limited to, lead-acid batteries, is recycled to elemental lead or lead alloy melt.

The Regulations for the Control of Atmospheric Pollution refers to existing secondary

smelters under the Emission Guidelines Rule 405 (c) (1) (B) (viii) Materials Recovery Units -

Units that conduct the combustion of waste with the primary purpose of recovering metals, 

such as primary and secondary smelters. This is an exemption from complying with the 

requirements of Solid Waste and Industrial Incinerators. For new units refer to 40 CFR Part 

60 Subpart CCCC, specifically section 60.2020 (h), which also exempts secondary smelters

requirements for Solid Waste and Industrial Incinerators. Emissions are calculated based on

existing emission factors developed by the EPA AP-42. - Compilation of Air Pollution

Emission Factors, Secondary Lead Processing Section 12.11 or stack testing performed that 

are approved by the EQB. This section provides emission factors for particulate matter, lead 

and sulfur oxides.

53. Commentary: 

We respectfully request the issuance of a Writ of Quo Warrant to remove the usurping Garcia Padilla 

Administration and a later remand of Puerto Rico Environmental Quality Board of the aforesaid Energy 

Answers LLC final PSD Permit for consideration of the aforementioned issues and new public comments 

period be established upon a new draft permit be issued correcting the issues and deficiencies hereby raised.

AQA Response: 

The process of issuing the PSD permit for Energy Answers is a separate process than that of 

the development and implementation of the SIP process. However, as required by section

172 (c) (4) of the CAA, emissions from new future major sources or major modifications

were quantified and incorporated in the emission inventories.

II. LEGAL ANALYISIS, CONCLUSIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS

A. Regulatory Aspects 

Given the urgent need for conservation of our environment, the Constitution of Puerto Rico

established as public policy "the most effective conservation of natural resources and greater use of 

them for the general benefit of the community ...". Article VI, Section 19, Constitution of the 

Commonwealth of Puerto Rico., L.P.R.A. Tome 1. See, Misión Ind. P.R. v. J. P., 142 D.P.R 656, 676 
(1997); Paoli Méndez v. Rodríguez, 138 D.P.R. 449, 460 (1995). On repeated occasions, the Supreme 

Court has affirmed that the cited constitutional provision does not only constitute “the expression of 

a distinguished eagerness” nor it is reduced “to a mere postulate of principals”. Misión Ind. P.R. v. 

J.C.A., 145 D.P.R. 908, 919-20 (1998); Paoli Méndez v. Rodríguez, supra, p. 460, citing J. Trías Monge, 

Historia Constitucional de Puerto Rico, San Juan Ed. U.P.R., 1982 Vol. III, p. 235. “It’s about, more so, a 

mandate that obliges every State component and prevails over any statute, regulation or mandate that 

is contrary to it”. Misión Ind. P.R. v. J.C.A, supra, p. 919. 

More so, it has affirmed that the environmental public policy established in the Constitution 

of Puerto Rico “sets in an unquestionable manner the primary judicial criteria to judge the validity or 

interpret the meaning of any norm or decision relative to the proportional use of natural resources 

formulated by the Legislature or by any agency, department, municipality, or government 

instrumentality”. Id., p. 919-20.

After almost two decades of the establishment of such mandate, it was reaffirmed by the 

Legislature when they adopted the Environmental Public Policy Act, Law Number 9 of June 18, 1970 

(Law Number 9),

1

12 L.P.R.A. 1121 et seq. (ed.2003). Municipio de Loíza v. Sucesión Marcial Suárez, 154 

D.P.R. 333, 348 (2001). See also, Misión Ind. P.R. v. J.C.A., supra, p. 920; Paoli Méndez v. Rodríguez, supra,

p. 462. In the same spirit of Law Number 9 was based the current Law Number 416 of September 

22, 2004, as amended, also known as the Environmental Public Policy Act. 

Besides, Law Number 9 demanded that departments, agencies, public corporations, 

municipalities, and the states instrumentalities to interpret, implement, and administrate all laws and 

regulations of the country “in strict conformity” with the aforementioned public policy. Article 4 of 

Law Number 9, 12 L.P.R.A. sec. 1124 (ed.2003).2See also, Misión Ind. P.R. v. J.C.A., supra, p. 921. 

Municipio de Loíza v. Sucesión Marcial Suárez, supra, p. 348.

In accordance with Law 416 about the Environmental Public Policy, the Environmental 

Quality Board has the principal duty to protect and conserve the environment, using wisely and 

consciously the resources necessary to avoid and eliminate damages that could affect it, maintaining a 

balance between economic development and the environment. To achieve this objective, the EQB 

has an ample faculty to promulgate regulations with the primary purpose of establishing the norms 

that minimize the environmental impact, and that establish the controls for the activities that produce 

contamination. 

 

1 La Ley núm. 9 fue sustituida por la Ley Núm. 416 de 22 de septiembre de 2004, 12 L.P.R.A. 8001 et seq. No 

obstante, al momento de adoptarse el Reglamento 4860 estaba vigente la Ley núm. 9. La Ley Núm. 416 mantuvo 

esencialmente las disposiciones de la Ley núm. 9 a las cuales hacemos referencia..

2

. Ídem.
B. Administrative Process

The administrative agencies have the faculty, when the Legislature delegates it, to adopt rules 

of legislative character whose effects transcend to the general community. Caribe Comms., Inc. v. P. 

R.T.Co., 157 D.P.R. 203, 211 (2002). See also, Asoc. Fcias. Com. v. Depto. de Salud, 156 D.P.R. 105, 130-

32 (2002); J. P. v. Frente Unido Pro Defensa del Valle de Lajas, 165 D.P.R. 445, 469-70 (2005). In 

administrative law, “[a] legislative rule is the one that creates rights, imposes obligations, and 

establishes a conduct pattern having force of law.” Asoc. Fcias. Com. v. Depto. de Salud, supra, p. 146, 

citing Mun. de San Juan v. J.C.A., 152 D.P.R. 673, 692 (2000).

The regulatory action of the agency is directed precisely to delimitate the scope of the 

delegated power and define the field of the administrative action. In this manner, when the enabling 

law contains ample and general norms, the promulgation of the regulations define the scope of its 

powers. Torres Arzola v. Policía de Puerto Rico, 117 D.P.R. 204, 211 (1986).

In promulgating a regulation, agencies must strictly comply with the requirements established 

by law to make possible public participation in the administrative decision-making process, and thus

enable the expression of those whose interests may be affected as a result of administrative action. It 

is required for the procedural validity of a regulatory provision that it be enacted in compliance with 

the procedures established by the organic law of the agency or by special laws. Asoc. de Fcias. Com. v. 

Depto. de Salud, supra, p. 131-32. The validity of a regulation is subject, in substantive terms, to: (1) the 

power to regulate has been delegated to the agency; (2) the administrative action is authorized by law

(3) the regulation is promulgated within the broad delegated powers; and (4) the regulation is not 

arbitrary or capricious. M. & B.S., Inc. v. Depto. Agricultura, 118 D.P.R. 319, 326 (1987). See also, Asoc. 

de Fcias Com. v. Depto. de Salud, supra, p. 130; Carrero v. Depto. de Educación, 141 D.P.R. 830, 837 (1996); 

Luan Investment Corp. v. Román, 125 D.P.R. 533, 550 (1990).

As per the criteria outlined, first, to determine the validity of a legislative rule is indispensable 

to examine whether during the adoption process, the agency exceeded the powers and faculties that

were delegated. For this analysis a reference to the enabling act should be made as "legal mechanism

[by which] it was delegated to the agency the necessary powers to act in accordance with the 

legislative purpose". Amieiro González v. Pinnacle Real Estate Group, res. of March 26, 2008, 2008 

T.S.P.R. 52, p. 8-9, 173 D.P.R. ____ (2008). See also, Caribe Comms., Inc. v. P. R.T.Co., supra, p. 211. In 

other words, it is required to pin down if the agency actions are adjusted to the delegated power, and 

the established policy by the Legislature. See, Comisionado de Seguros de P.R. v. P.R.I.A., 168 D.P.R. 

659,667 (2006). In that vein, in order for the regulation to be valid it must be in accordance with the 

statutory provisions under which it was promulgated. 
As a last criteria to determine the substantive validity of a regulatory norm, it should be 

considered if it is arbitrary or irrational. Franco Dominicci v. Depto. de Educación, 148 D.P.R. 703, 712 

(1999). The Supreme Court has reiterated that it considers invalid a rule that is deserving of an 

arbitrary or capricious qualification for lacking a rational connection with the statute that authorizes 

its creation. 

It is important to point out that the regulatory exercise presupposes prior consideration and 

interpretation by the administrative body of the statute or public policy whose implementation has 

been entrusted. The unreasonableness or arbitrariness as elements to elucidate the permissibility of a 

regulatory standard involve some deference to the development of a norm through regulation that

the administrative body develops around legislation which it has to implement. This rests on the 

notion that administrative agencies, given the specialty ascribed to them, are in a position to adopt 

rules that the law or public policy has entrusted them to apply. 

Law Number 170 of August 12, 1988, of The Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, as amended, 3 

L.P.R.A. sec. 2101 et. seq. (LPAU), defines the administrative process as the formulation of rules and 

regulations, the forma adjudication of controversies before their consideration, the issuance of 

licenses, and any other investigative process within the scope of its legal authority. 3 L.P.R.A. sec. 

2102(k). With the approval of LPAU, supra, the Legislature intended to create a uniform body of 

minimal rules that all agencies should observe when formulating its rules and regulations, and when 

conducting its adjudicative process; besides establishing a judicial revision process that applies 

uniformly to any action taken by the agency, being that of promulgating a regulation, or adjudicating 

a controversy. In this manner, the administrative process is systemized and guarantees that the 

proceedings are done in a fair, fast, and economical manner. 3 L.P.R.A. sec. 2101.

As to the regulatory process, LPAU, supra, establishes that it will lead the formulation of rules 

and regulations of general application that interprets, institutes, or prescribes laws or public policy of 

the concerned agency. 3 L.P.R.A. sec. 2102(m). As per section 1.3 LPAU, supra, a rule or regulation 

is defined as:

[A]ny rule or set of rules of an agency that is of general application that performs or

interprets public policy or law, or requirements governing the procedures and practices of an 

agency ... The term includes the amendment, revocation or suspension of an existing rule. 3 

L.P.R.A sec. 2102(l). 

Consistent with the foregoing, the power to regulate, contrary to the adjudication power, 

creates statements of general application that define or interpret public policy or prescribe a law. 

Since the regulatory process is one of general application and not of particular application, no rights 
or obligations of specific individuals are awarded. At the procedural level, LPAU, supra, recognizes 

two (2) categories of rules: 1) legislative or quasi-legislative rules and 2) non-legislative. 3 L.P.R.A. 

sec. 2102(l). Legislative rules are those that formulate public policy and “créate rights, impose 

obligations, and establish a pattern of conduct that have force of law”. Asoc. de Maestros de P.R. v. Com. 

Relaciones del Trabajo del Servicio Público, 159 D.P.R. 81 (2003); Municipio de San Juan v. J.C.A., 152 D.P.R. 

673 (2000). This type of regulation impacts the general public, and obliges the agency to its 

compliance for not having discretion to reject it. 

When formulating and approving legislative regulation, the agency concerned shall be bound 

to comply with the formal process established in LPAU, supra, which requires that the following 

requirements are guaranteed: 1) notification to the public; 2) opportunity for public participation; 3)

regulatory filing with the Department of State for approval; and 4) publication of the regulation in 

question. (3 L.P.R.A. sec. 2121-2135); Centro Unido de Detallistas v. Com. Serv. Púb., 2008 T.S.P.R. 116, 

174 D.P.R. ____; Municipio de San Juan v. J.C.A., supra. When promulgating this type of regulation, the 

agency shall strictly comply with the aforementioned requirements. Asoc. de Fcias. Com. v. Depto. de 

Salud, 156 D.P.R. 105 (2002).

The non-legislative rules, meanwhile, are responsible for clarifying and interpreting the

obligations and duties established in the organic statute. The Court has acknowledged that such

regulations include interpretative rules and procedural rules. The interpretative rules are those that are 

responsible for clarifying the law and legislative regulations promulgated by the agency, in addition to 

setting guidelines to guide the public in the interpretation of the law and to define the administrative 

discretion. Asoc. de Maestros v. Comisión, 159 D.P.R. 81, 93 (2003); Agosto Serrano v. F.S.E., 132 D.P.R. 

866 (1993). In this manner, the agencies approve directives and informal regulations with the purpose 

of imposing uniformity to its processes. In case that the interpretative rule cannot be reconciled with 

an existing legislative rule, the new rule will be considered as an amendment to the first. Municipio de 

San Juan v. J.C.A., supra. That being, the interpretative and procedural rules, different from the 

legislative rules, do not require notification to the public, nor require a period of citizen 

participation during the adoption process because they do not affect the rights of people foreign to 

the agency. 

In procedural matters it is necessary to point out that whenever the agency proposes to

adopt, amend, or derogate a rule or regulation, it needs to publish a notice in Spanish and English in 

at least one newspaper of general circulation in Puerto Rico and in Spanish and English on the 

Internet Web. Provided, that if the adoption, amendment, or derogation of a rule or regulation

affects a specific community of residents, the agency shall also publish the same notice in a regional

newspaper circulating in the area where the community located. The notice shall contain a summary 
or brief explanation of the purposes of the proposed action, an appointment of the legal adoption

authorizing such action and form, the place, the days, and hours that you may submit comments in 

writing, or by email, or written request for a hearing on the proposed action with the fundamentals

that the petitioner deems necessary for the granting of such hearing, and shall indicate the physical 

location and email address where the full text of the regulation to be adopted will be available to the 

public. Upon receiving email comments, the agency will acknowledge them by email within two (2) 

working days of your receipt. The notice published in the newspaper, also shall contain the electronic

address of the page where the agency chosen by the notice is published on the Web and the full text 

of the regulations, 3 L.P.R.A. sec. 2121.

The aforementioned legal provision provides not only the requirements that must satisfy the

notice of the proposed regulation, but also the extent of citizen participation. On this, it recognizes 

the opportunity to submit written comments, and request an administrative hearing; and shall give no 

less than thirty (30) days from the date of publication of the notice to submit them. 3 L.P.R.A. sec. 

2122. 

However, the participation that’s granted to the citizenship is not such, nor the process

becomes one of adjudicative character. Therefore, as to the application of the administrative hearing, 

although Section 2.1 of the LPAU, supra, gives the opportunity to petition the hearing, carrying out

depends on whether the agency at its discretion grants it, or if the organic law prescribes it, or if any 

other law makes it meritorious. 3 LPRA sec. 2123. According to these principles, the agency meets 

the requirement for public participation if given the opportunity they can submit written comments, 

without the strict necessity of celebrating a hearing. 

Also, the process of formal regulation requires the agency that the rule or regulation it intends 

to adopt or amend, in addition to the text, must contain: 1) the appointment of the statutory

provision authorizing adoption or amendment; 2) a brief and concise explanation of the purposes for 

its adoption; 3) a reference to all the rules and regulations that are amended, derogated, or suspended

with the approval of the new regulation; and 4) the date of approval and effectiveness. 3 L.P.R.A. sec. 

2125.

In line with this, a legislative regulation which has not been approved under formal process

stated in LPAU, lacks legal authority. Hernández v. Colegio de Optómetras, 157 D.P.R. 332 (2002). 

Therefore, the agencies sheltered by LPAU, supra, cannot adopt regulations in contravention of the

minimum requirements imposed by that law.Comisionado de Seguros v. A.E.E.L.A., 2007 T.S.P.R. 112, 

171 D.P.R. ____.

C. Sources of Authority for the preparation of the SIP
Puerto Rico’s Environmental Public Policy Act (Law Number 9 of June, 1970 derogated by 

Law Number 416 of September 22, 2004, as amended) (hereinafter, PREPPA), created the 

administrative body known as the Environmental Quality Board of Puerto Rico (EQB). Through the 

above Act, the environmental functions of the Government of Puerto Rico has concentrated on the

JCA. The PREPPA empowers the EQB with a wide range of power from the establishment of 

environmental public policy at the state level, to create regulations to fulfill their duties and functions

including, among others, the effective implementation of the PREPPA, issuing cease and desist 

orders, the power to hold quasi-judicial hearings, and review and evaluation of programs and 

activities of the Government, in the light of the public policy established in the PREPPA. The

PREPPA gives the EQB all the legal authority to execute the SIP required by the CAA, as amended. 

The legal authority granted by the PREPPA establishes immediately and provides that the EQB is 

responsible for developing and carrying out the implementation of the SIP.

Sectión110 (a) (2) (E) of the CAA requires the state to prove that it has authority under state

law to implement the provisions of the SIP. The legal elements to demonstrate legal authority of the 

state are outlined below, with detailed references to the current local legal sections applicable under 

Title II of PREPPA.

1. Authority to adopt standards for air emissions and limitations when necessary for the 

achievement and maintenance of the NAAQS. - [Sections 9.B.3.e., 9.B.5, and 9.B.13.].

2. Authority to enforce the laws, regulations and standards, and apply for injunctions. -

[Sections 9.B.1.e., 9.B.5, and 9.B.13.].

3. Authority to reduce emissions in an emergency order to avoid any substantial risk to the

health of people. - [Section 9.A.7.].

4. Authority to prevent construction, modification, or operation of any stationary source

wherever emissions from these sources will prevent the attainment or maintenance of the

NAAQS. - [. Sections 9.A.3, 9.B.13].

5. Authority to obtain information necessary to determine whether the sources of air pollution

are in accordance with the laws, regulations, and standards, including the authority to require

records, make inspections and tests to sources of air pollution.- [Sections 9.A.4. y 9.A.10.].

6. Authority to require owners or operators of stationary sources to install, maintain and use 

equipment emissions and submit periodic reports to the State related to the nature and 

quantity of emissions from stationary sources; Additional state authority to which such data

are available to the public as reported and correlated with any rules or limitations applicable 

emission. - [Sections 9.B.3. y 9.B.13.]

The JCA has promulgated regulations implementing the legal authority to meet the

requirements of both the CAA and PREPPA. These regulations are compiled in the Regulations for 
the Control of Atmospheric Pollution (RCAP) of July 26,1995, as amended. The RCAP was 

developed to establish standards and requirements for the control of air pollution.

D.

After carefully considering the document under our consideration, we estimate that all aspects

of form, process, content, and legal requirements described in the preceding sections are fully 

completed in the process that has been followed in relation to the State Implementation Plan for 

the Area of Non-Attainment for Lead Contaminant in Arecibo, Puerto Rico. The proposed

document complies with the substantive standards required because: (1) the EQB has the delegated

power to rule on the matter; (2) it is evident that the proposed administrative action is authorized by

law (3) the regulation is promulgated within the broad powers delegated to the EQB; and (4) the 

regulation is not arbitrary or capricious, either substantively and procedurally. M. & B.S., Inc. v. Depto. 

Agricultura, 118 D.P.R. 319, 326 (1987). Véanse además, Asoc. de Fcias Com. v. Depto. de Salud, supra, pág. 

130; Carrero v. Depto. de Educación, 141 D.P.R. 830, 837 (1996); Luan Investment Corp. v. Román, 125 

D.P.R. 533, 550 (1990).

It is clear that Act 416, supra, grants the EQB full legal authority to establish and implement 

the implementation plans required by the federal Clean Air Act.

As for the comments made by multiple deponents who attended the public hearing process

and have been carefully considered in order to enhance the regulatory process at hand, we should 

indicate that we fully agree with the recommendations made by the Air Quality Area of the EQB. We 

believe that the answers provided by the program substantially satisfy the doubts and accusations

raised during the process, thereby extending the provisions of the projected SIP.

The proposed Plan satisfactorily meets the requirements of Subpart 1 of Part D of the Clean 

Air Act, including those specified in Section 172 (c). Also shows that lead emission controls required 

by the EQB, mainly based on the requirements for new and existing National Emission Standards for 

Hazardous Air Pollutants for Secondary Lead Smelter (Secondary Lead Smelting MACT rule, Subpart 

facilities X of Part 63 of Title 40 Code of Federal Regulations) will tend to achieve compliance with

the NAAQS before December 31, 2016. This unequivocally should be emphasized in the final 

version of the SIP as it means in itself one of the major mechanisms that sustain the compliance 

strategy.

In view of the above, particularly based in the comprehensive analysis we practiced here on 

the requirements applicable to the proposed administrative action, we recommend that the State 

Implementation Plan for Area of Non-Attainment for Contaminant Lead in Arecibo, Puerto 

Rico (SIP ) be approved according to its content, varying only those elements of content and form
set out in reported answers provided by the Air Quality Area to comments from the deponents, 

where acceptance is expressed to the suggestions offered.

It is the opinion of this examiner that the SIP under consideration provides substantial

measures that will promote an overall control strategy that is sufficient to achieve compliance with

the NAAQS for lead in the nonattainment area, within the statutory deadlines.

V. FINAL RECOMMENDATION

We respectfully recommend to the Honorable Governing Board to adopt as their onwn the 

recommendations that we formulate here. Consequently, that it imparts its approval to the project of 

SIP Infrastructure for Lead under Section 110 (a) (2) of the Federal Clean Air Act, with the 

changes and modifications accepted as appropriate by the Air Quality Program of this Environmental 

Quality Board. As amended and approved, proceed to formal publication and be submitted to the

federal Environmental Protection Agency for approval.

Given in San Juan, Puerto Rico, today January 7, 2015. 

Lic. Fernando Olivero Barreto

Examiner
ANNEX A

COMMONWEALTH OF PUERTO RICO

OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR

ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY BOARD 

IN RE:

SIP FOR LEAD IN ARECIBO

Air Quality Area

Environmental Quality Board

RE: State Implementation Plan for Lead 

for the Non-attainment Area of Arecibo 

COMMENTATOR’S LIST

NAME EMAIL ADDRESS

1. María Irizarry, born in Arecibo mdelcim@microjuris.com

2. Carlos M. García Berríos, resident in Arecibo cmgb77@gmail.com

3. Viola Rodriguez, resident in San Juan violamargarita@aol.com

4. Nancy I. González Laureano, resident in San Juan nancyigl@yahoo.com

5. Carmen Rivera Batlle, resident in San Juan ausuboazul@yahoo.com

6. Albert Narváez, resident in Bayamón altnaez@yahoo.com

7. Dilcia González Gandarilla, resident in San Juan dilciadilcia02@gmail.com

8. Douglas Nieves Huertas, resident in Bayamón douglasnieves@gmail.com

9. Cynthia Mejías, resident in San Juan cynmejias@gmail.com

10. Julio González López, resident in Arecibo julito_elimelec@hotmail.com

11. Silvia González Cabrera, resident in Arecibo silvia_gonzalez0013@yahoo.com

12. Naisha M. Paulino Estremera, resident in Arecibo naishapaulinoes@gmail.com

13. Giancarlo L. Vargas Alers, resident in Añasco giancarlovrgs13@gmail.com

14. Mabel Rodriguez Cruz, resident in Arecibo latraductorapr@gmail.com

15. Paula Covas Lugo, resident in San Juan paulacovaslugo@gmail.com

16. Myrna E. Santana, resident in Trujillo Alto mmmovs@hotmail.com

17. Teresa Aponte, resident in San Juan teponsi@yahoo.com

18. Adriana González, representante del Sierra Club de PR adriana.gonzalez@sierraclub.org

19. Carmen Maldonado Soto, resident in Toa Baja maldoc96@yahoo.com

20. José A. González Robles, resident in Río Piedras gonzneva2@yahoo.com

21. Pedro A. Ruidiaz, resident in Caguas pruidiaz@usa.net

22. Raymond Lebrón, resident in Toa Baja raymondlevron@msn.com
23. Nereida Cotto, resident in San Juan ncottortiz@gmail.com

24. Magali Pacheco, resident in Guaynabo pm0902@hotmail.com

25. Luis Jorge Rivera Herrera, resident in Trujillo Alto idspr@hotmail.com

26. Lucy Monserrate Rivera, resident in San Juan la_colora_boricua@hotmail.com

27. Alex Ortega, resident in San Juan alex.ortega09@gmail.com

28. Luis Villanueva Cubero, resident in Aguadilla lvilla2962@gmail.com

29. Lizette Quiñones, resident in Guaynabo lizvel09@gmail.com

30. Loyda E. Nieves, resident in San Juan loyda.nieves@gmail.com

31. Alice Maldonado, resident in Carolina alicemy@gmail.com

32. Lymari Soto Rodriguez, resident in Guayama lymari_soto@hotmail.com

33. Alia Ortiz Bayron, resident in San Juan alia.coki@gmail.com

34. Carla M. Sánchez, resident in San Juan calua13@yahoo.com

35. Carmen Pagán Cabrera, resident in Bayamón doctorapagan@yahoo.com

36. Yalitza Serrano González, resident in Manatí yaliserrano@gmail.com

37. Amira Odeh, resident in Bayamón amira.oq@gmail.com

38. Gamaliel Vega Ruiz, resident in Bayamón lamadres@gmail.com

39. Ivonne Ramírez Camacho, resident in Aguas Buenas rivonne07@gmail.com

40. Ruth Arroyo Muñoz, resident in Bayamón ruthieam@yahoo.com

41. Ruth Castro, resident in San Juan ruth_castro@hotmail.com

42. Miguel G. Rodríguez, resident in San Juan miguelrodriguez1023@gmail.co

43. Sara Cáez Rivera, resident in San Juan saracaez@gmail.com

44. Jocelyn Ann Santiago, resident in Cabo Rojo jocelyn.ann.santiago@gmail.com

45. Jennifer Robles Rivera, resident in Carolina roblesjennifer73@gmail.com

46. Iris M. García Gil, resident in Cabo Rojo irismer@yahoo.com

47. Alfonso Vázquez, resident in Carolina avcsail@yahoo.com

48. Rocío Medina Febo, resident in Bayamón rmedina6@masonlive.gmu.edu

49. Iris Pérez, resident in Carolina irisprz8@gmail.com

50. Leonardo Ramos Hernández ramosl8029@gmail.com

51. Eunice Santana Melecio santaniza@gmail.com
ANNEX B

COMMONWEALTH OF PUERTO RICO

OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR

ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY BOARD 

IN RE:

SIPof Non-attainment of Arecibo

Air Quality Area, Environmental 

Quality Board

RE: CEASE AND DESIST AND SHOW CAUSE 

ORDER 

MINUTES OF THE OCTOBER 17, 2014 HEARING

Examining Officer:

Let's hear the witnesses as per the list we have. Good afternoon. Let's start the hearing.

Let me identify myself. My name is Lcdo. Fernando Olivero Barreto, I’m the Examining Officer

hired by the Environmental Quality Board to preside this process. Today is Friday, October 17, 

2014 at approximately 10:26 am. This case is set for the review of the Implementation Plan for

Lead in the Non-Attainment Zone of Arecibo.

Basically, before listening to the deponent, I would give some indications. Pursuant to 

the Notice of General Circulation inviting to this public hearing, reportedly back in 2008, 

specifically October 15, 2008, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) revised the 

applicable standard for lead pollution reducing it considerably from what it was previously. In 

fact, it fell by almost a third of what was previously the standard. Consequently, they settled in

the area around the main plant that lead pollution potential is estimated at the Arecibo area, 

monitors that reflect the standard set by the new regulations.

Consequently, the Federal Environmental Protection Agency established a margin of

four miles around the plant as a Non-Attainment Area. This means that it fails to meet the 

standard for that pollutant in that perimeter within a 4 mile radius of this particular plant. This 

has as a consequence, the following:

 All states and US territories must establish a strategy in order to implement

federal air quality standards. This procedure requires the establishment of a plan

for those areas that for any reason the quality of the area is impaired. 

 The plan must be submitted for the consideration of the Federal Environmental 

Protection Agency in order for them to determine whether the plan is correct or 

not, whether it’s adequate or not in response to the objective to be achieved. 

That is that this particular area becomes an area of achievement for which there 
is no violation to air quality standards.

What will be discussed in the morning is precisely the project that the Environmental 

Quality Board has prepared in order to comply with the obligation that it has as a territory of 

the United States to achieve in the specific affected area the goals required by federal

regulations.

Basically that is the goal of this public hearing. I give this introduction so that we can,

without the impairment of the rights of any of you to express what you understand that it is

necessary to express, it would greatly help all of us, you and me, to attend and address any 

comments according to this plan is proposed. Remember that the end of the day, my duties at 

this time and I lay them out for you, is to collect feedback from you and make specific

recommendations regarding the plan. Not in relation to other matters that are beyond my scope 

of recommendation. It is in relation to the plan. If the plan as it is conforming and prepared, 

adequately addresses the problem of not-attainment in the Arecibo area, particularly around this 

industry.

That's the goal, and I ask to the extent possible to lighten the procedure that we’re are 

not repetitive and try to address the issues as quickly as we can for the benefit of everyone, in 

benefit of those last, we have 14 deponents. Therefore, to the extent that we are not repetitive, 

we can help those that will go last and not have to wait that long.

With these indications, only one more thing. I personally know the problems posed by 

this situation because I presided other hearings before, to which many of you have appeared

and have had the opportunity to get familiar with the matter. So to that extent have the

confidence that I know the process and the particular situation that the operations in this

industry understands.

Wilfredo Vélez Hernández, representing CEDDA.

I am a member of the Citizens Committee in Defense of the Environment (CEDDA, for its 

Spanish acronym). On behalf of the committee and additional neighbors, we are officially

requesting that this hearing is not held because we understand that the information you just given is 

not clear in the message that was sent via email which is inaccessible to the vast majority of the 

poor citizens of Arecibo. We understand that holding this hearing is a mockery to poor 

communities. Because it doesn’t allow them to be aware in order to have an informed, intelligent 

participation on that same thing you just said. For the first time I hear it and understand it. I'm not 

very enlightened, but I have a fairly high degree of education and by reading the notice which 

appeared in the newspaper I did not understand; and when we tried to go to the Board to help us 

with documentation it was denied to us. Therefore, I understand that this hearing should not be

held until we allow communities to have knowledge of the topic to be discussed here. Because 

otherwise, only a limited group of people could participate.

The vast majority of people are completely oblivious. The terminology used is highly 

technical, hard to understand and not only difficult to understand, we were not provided with a 

copy. We were not allowed. What's more, we were told that they would send us a copy free of cost, 
but that was not done. And the vast majority of people who cannot pay $ 70 or more to obtain a 

copy of this document is completely oblivious to this which is a serious problem. And if you've

been listening to other hearings you should know that here is a serious problem of environmental 

pollution and there is a serious lead contamination. Therefore, on behalf of this community I 

respectfully request that this hearing is discontinued, a new date is fixed where you will allow people 

to be well informed in order to effectively participate in these hearing. 

Examining Officer: 

We will take the request of Mr. Vélez as part of his presentation. Unfortunately I have no

authority to suspend this view. If I have authority to try to correct to the extent that the matter of 

knowledge can grant a term of 30 additional days to date for the filing of any written comments, 

guaranteeing anyone interested in a free copy of the document. What you have to do is, I will 

provide for a list of personal emails or electronic mail to those interested in instructing the Air 

Quality Area who is here present and represented to send no later than next Monday to anyone 

who is interested in a copy of the document a free copy of it, so you have the benefit of examining

and are able to comment in writing, if that was the desire. Beyond that choice, I cannot give any

other. I'm going to ask to please wait now that being this matter resolved, for the other persons to 

have their turn. Do you have assigned turns? 

Wilfredo Vélez Hernandez: 

I just did. The thing is that this is important. Because part of that remedy is not only the 

document. There’s information lacking for us to make our presentation. 

Examiner: 

I understood, and I will give you the opportunity for when you sit down and make your 

desired deposition. Mr. Osvaldo Rosario. Go ahead with your presentation. 

Osvaldo Rosario López: 

Good Morning. For purposes of the record my name Osvaldo Rosario López. I am a 

professor in the Department of Environmental Chemistry, University of Puerto Rico, Río Piedras. I 

did my PhD at the University of Puerto Rico and post-doctoral fellow at ambient atmospheric

chemistry made with the Federal Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). I have over 35 years of 

experience as a researcher in this area. I’m also a scientific adviser for the Food & Drug 

Administration here in San Juan. And there I worked with EQB training staff and sharing

equipment. I come to express a number of concerns regarding this plan proposed by the

Environmental Quality Board.

Examiner: 

I ask you, do you have a written copy. 

Osvaldo: 

I don’t have one. I will ask to have it send electronically to the Board in a reasonable time. I 

do have some exhibits. 

Examiner: 

Thank you. 
Osvaldo: 

My presentation is doing some criticism. I want you to also understand that this is not a 

criticism of the individual staff of the EQB. This is to the Board as an agency. I know many of the

EQB, I know their dedication, professionalism, and intent and do the best job possible. Although

every day you drop more obligations and less budget.

First, I have serious doubts about how reliable is the data presented in the so called Wind Rose used 

by the EQB in all projections of their models.

Examiner: 

You said how reliable? 

Osvaldo: 

Yes. How reliable is the data within the graphic. For purposes of clarifying to the audience, 

this "wind rose" is a graph that shows where the winds come from in that area of the location. That

"wind rose" has intentions that indicates the prevailing wind direction and it clearly shows that the 

predominant wind direction is south. According to this graph. What I have understood that was 

built there in 1992-1993 when the PREPA was looking to establish electric power plants in Arecibo.

Within walking distance of this pathway in Cambalache, is located in Arecibo the Domingo 

Ruiz airport. I think it is called. This appears on page 121 of the plan and if we look at the aerial 

shot that appears in the proposal, the airport takeoff and landing runway is also seen. This is several

miles from the nonattainment area. We see that the track is oriented to the northeast. 

Examiner: 

But I ask, Is the runway within the nonattainment zone or several kilometers outside of it? 

Osvaldo: 

Outside. Outside, a couple of kilometers of the nonattainment area. But it's close. If the 

orientation of the runway is fixed this key so that in front of the number # 1 is pointing toward the

northeast. And that's no accident if one goes to the regulations of the Federal Aviation

Administration (FAA), the federal agency that regulates the aerial operation, appears and I think in 

number three (3) clearly requires that the runway is oriented against the prevailing wind direction.

Again, the track has to be oriented in the opposite direction to the prevailing wind direction arrives. 

And this implies that the airplane when taking off will have the wind acting against them. This 

emphasizes the wind in airplane wings added to the action of the wind by the acceleration of the 

aircraft increases strength in the wings to get up. That's why this orientation is required against the

prevailing wind direction. To have mounted the runway they had to have done studies on the

prevailing wind direction throughout this area, leading so that the basis of this guidance indicating 

that the prevailing wind in the area, and not only that area, because it comes from the Northeast 

and not South as indicated by the "wind rose" that are based all modeling projections and impacts 

of pollution in the area of Battery Recycling and any lead generator and other contaminants in the 

area.

If you look through Google, you will also see the orientation of the runways of the general

airports in Puerto Rico, San Juan, Isla Grande, Isla Verde will see the same orientation on the 
slopes. Because along the north coast the prevailing wind direction is from the Northeast, not south

as indicated by the "wind rose" used by the Environmental Quality Board. And that is the basis of

data from the FAA, a federal agency. So it calls into question the whole validity of all computations

of the models which is based this level of impact of emissions in this region. If the prevailing wind 

direction is not correct, the calculations will not predict the correct concentration values that will be 

felt at some point, which is the role of the models.

I ask, nay, I demand the Environmental Quality Board to give a rational explanation that 

reconciles these discrepancies. The "wind rose" used by the EQB and the fact that the FAA

requires that the tracks are oriented against the wind, which in this case would be the Northeast and

not south.

Also related to that of the wind direction, does the location of the monitors that emit

pollution levels, in this case the monitors are following lead levels in the past and now in the future 

of the plant Battery Recycling, Inc. has I think the number two, which lead monitors are located

relatively to the location of Battery Recycling, Inc. If we see there, the monitors are to the south,

one to the west and the other farther east of Battery Recycling, Inc. What does this mean?

prevailing winds in this area of Battery Recycling is from the South, pollutants are to be transported

predominantly north. The area of greatest impact of pollutants from this plant will make to the 

north, not to the southwest, the opposite direction or to the east. Any action on these monitors will

underestimate the true impact of Battery Recycling emissions.

So I demand to the EQB to give a rational explanation for choosing these specific sites to 

locate their monitors as representative of several emissions in the operation to be caused by Battery 

Recycling in the past. Because logic tells you that the levels in that area will be well below relatively 

to what the levels would be downwind of Battery Recycling Company. In this case, using the "wind 

rose" as implied by EQB is the wind in that area.

Examiner:

Let me see if I understand well. Basically, what you noted in the case of monitors, if you use

the "wind rose" as the source of information on wind direction of the area it should be located to 

the north.

Osvaldo: 

Of course. 

Examiner: 

So that they truly reflect the emissions. 

Osvaldo: 

The impact of the emissions. 

Examiner: 

And even so being the "wind rose" wrong information, because you said that the location of

the track refers to different information to the wind direction northeast, then it should be westsouthwest, the monitors should be located.

Osvaldo: 
My argument, the two cases are related to the wind direction. Therefore, the information 

contained in those monitors which they are passing future extrapolations of the EQB on this plane

are in error. They are based on wrong information from what the levels of contamination really are.

Examiner: 

Well, it could affect. Let me see if I understand you well. It could affect the quantity of the 

pollutant in the atmosphere as well as the dispersion distance of those pollutants. Is it correct that I 

understood? 

Osvaldo: 

That in essence that is what is projected in the models. 

Examiner: 

And that would affect not only the location of the violation in terms of non-attainment, but 

also the extension of the Non-Attainment Zone. 

Osvaldo: 

Also. Both conclusions come up. 

Examiner: 

They are correlated. Go ahead. 

Osvaldo: 

I have doubts about the capacity, and thus the credibility of the EQB to enforce this plan.

And again I indicated is not a criticism of the individual or personal level, it is at the level of the 

agency. When Battery Recycling went to establish in the past, there were some demands, emission 

levels had to be projected, you had to make projections of wind directions, the models to predict 

the impact of these emissions, that's all part of the requirements of the federal government for a 

large source of pollution as it is Battery Recycling, within which the EQB will demand would have 

the ability to monitor sampling pumps. Everything he says today has at its disposal to follow if

Battery Recycling will now comply in the future as it did in the past. However, what happened,

happened. This monster was generated contaminating everything there that shows that despite all

requirements by the EQB when going to set up a project of this nature, there is no tracking. Truly, 

it is not able to avoid, because I say in the case of Battery Recycling that despite all requirements

what happened and is happening is that a condition of non-achievement was created in this area.

As now comes the EQB and says the same, we will be using monitoring, we will be using

modeling; we believe we will fulfill this plan with the same tools of the past which were unable to

prevent the existing situation. This creates a lack of credibility. As we believe that now, and even 

more when we all know that the EQB has had sharp budget cuts, dedicated staff that every day they 

are asked to do more and more with less. Honestly, I find it hard to believe that now, and in past 

no. I would like to know and that the Board explain to me what has changed, what new will be 

doing so now one can believe that they will fulfill this plan, when in the past could not help the 

situation.

The plan of the EQB projected that through measures that will be implemented they will be 

markedly reduced or are sharply reducing emissions from Battery Recycling plant. The projected 
emissions on page 19 of the proposal featured a "paragraph" where for 2014, 2015, and 2016 there 

are projections of emissions of Battery Recycling listed in the proposal. Already in 2014, that is 

already ending in 2014. What were the actual emission values? This project has met those

projections? I have seen some data, I have not had a chance to look in detail personally that cast 

doubt. Inclusively, I understand that even in the proposal certain levels of violations are admitted

on occasions that cast doubt whether these projections will be fulfilled or not. Already in 2014 the

data must exist if that is real or not. If not, then this plan is a dream because from the start that 

hasn’t been achieved, how they can convince that a future compliance will be achieved, again 

diminishing the EQB’s credibility in achieving this plan. 

Examiner: 

Let me see if I understood you well. What you say about the validation of the plan as to 

what the direction of the potential emissions pursue depends to a large degree on the information 

available or that will soon be available. 

Osvaldo: 

For 2014. That 2014 is about to end. And if it doesn’t reflect the real data for what’s 

projected for 2015, well it casts doubt over any future work. 

Examiner: 

Basically, because of that. What you mean to say, is that I’m trying to point out. Remember 

that I’m a chemist. Maybe a little bit of experience. What you want to say is that if the projections 

according to the plan is to reduce to .03353, well there is no validation in the plain per se. This is 

your approach? 

Osvaldo: 

That is my approach. Therefore, it rests credibility of what can be achieved. 

Examiner: 

I understood. I understood correctly then. 

Osvaldo: 

Very good. 

Examiner: 

Let’s move forward with this matter. 

Osvaldo: 

Another thing that strikes me much in the plan and this seems like a point that others will

depose from another point of view, is that future sources of lead are included in the plan. How one 

can conceptualize that I have a contaminated area, I'm trying to bring a condition of Achievement,

clean it; however, I am contemplating allowing, because that's what they are doing on the list, giving 

some credence to a future presence of two incinerators of solid waste. One of them, with the 

potential to emit even more lead than the same Battery Recycling. How can you reconcile this in the 

logic that the purpose of this plan is to bring an area to Achievement, clean it. Thinking the logic 

totally falls.

Examiner: 
But in that sense, if the proposed facility as per the plan...well, I first asked about the 

runway. If the runway lies within the four mile radius, you said no. That it lies outside, outside the 

non-attainment area. I ask you now, as per your approach if this incinerator of Energy Answers if it 

was to be, which is what I assume will be considered, Will it lie within this zone? 

Osvaldo: 

To clarify, the argument of the runway was to establish the direction of the wind that 

extensions way beyond the Non-Attainment area. 

Examiner: 

I understood that. But when you said that it lies outside, what I’m referring to is conforming 

to the plan. 

Osvaldo: 

One of the proposed plants Energy Answers lies within the non-attainment region. 

Examiner: 

That is the question. 

Osvaldo: 

The most logical thing would be to cease to operate, clean this area, take it to a condition of

Achievement, and then begin to contemplate the possibility of allowing any activity that may cause 

pollution too, not simultaneously with the process of trying to clean. Contemplating projects that 

add to the pollution of the same component that are trying to reduce. More still, when the 

projections of these new projects are based on the same methodology I am questioning here,

including the doubtful "wind rose" that sits awkwardly or is not consistent with the orientation of

the runway and the requirements of FAA for wind direction. EQB is basing on data that is 

provided by the proposed plant using data I am also questioning as the "wind rose". Actually you 

don’t know of emissions from a plant until it is established and running. In the case of an 

incinerator, the real impact of an incinerator one knows until it is mounted. Everything else are 

projections based on the population, in this case by the same company that will assure will not bring

any data that will harm them as to the Board giving permission to establish themselves. The EQB 

has to go further when developing this plan and asserting them that this can happen, base 

themselves on wrong data that is proposing this new project within the property, including that data

that is within your proposal.

Finally, science requires that the tools with which one works to generate the data to be used

in the future to validate it. That means that, that tool in this case, and I'm more towards models that 

project pollutant concentrations in a given area. These models are able to do what you want every 

day. Make prediction if you see an impact of pollutant or not. There are certain validation processes

as well. But science is best known data validation is used not extrapolated to prepare the tool

proposed to be used. Let me explain. In this area I grabbed from the past the monitors pollution 

levels that were generated are known, the methodology is well established that was in the past,

emission inventories are there, in this case of Energy or Battery Recycling or any other generator

emissions. The most logical and sensible thing in the validation of a tool like this they stop inserting
these known facts, not extrapolated, and see if that model is capable of producing the situation

given, pollution levels that actually were emitted in the past. That will validate whether the wind 

directions that are being used are correct, if you got the correct revision of emissions, if the pumps

are well placed. It says a lot of details that are based on future projections. If the EQB really wants 

to protect people's health and the environment it should do this validation, it would find existing 

known and if the same results are not given, the EQB concludes that this modeling tool which is 

based around this plan is invalid, does not work. Therefore, the plan will not be effective. Thank 

You.

Examiner: 

It also falls upon, this point that you raise if the wind direction is the correct conforming to 

what the EQB is establishing in its modeling, if erroneous information is used about the wind 

direction, the result is going to be different. 

Osvaldo: 

Wider still. Wind is one of the elements. Here comes the location of the pumps, the points 

from which to view the impact of the pollution, the data allegedly given from that will depend the 

future plan, the emissions inventory of all generators. How effective is the mechanism to collect

emission data. All that feeds into the model is tested and challenged to do in the validation 

equipment with real known data, not extrapolated into the future. And if add up as assumed, well 

the plan does not work. This tool is not able to achieve what is supposed to do, and therefore this 

whole plan would be mounted on a falsehood. 

Examiner:

The information browsing mechanisms of the EQB, that here the appropriate information 

to establish its pollution policy are those that are included that are being included normally. More 

so, the information given by the generator and that applies not only in the EQB case applies 

practically universally. That questioning of reliability we can make it not only for this matter. 

Osvaldo: 

Because of that, of not giving the predictions using supposedly this correct information, 

something’s wrong. Or the location of the pumps, the wind direction, the data, the connection 

process of the EQB for its modeling inventories; all that for me its part of the tool. That tool 

doesn’t follow the function be it one of those steps fail, or a combination of all. 

Examiner: 

What I’m saying, I don’t want to argue with you, is simply to be oriented. The mechanisms, 

are the mechanisms. And the mechanisms that are used to pick up information and data in many 

cases comes from the generator. 

Osvaldo: 

Yes that. 

Examiner: 

But that’s not here, is in all of them. It’s not in this particular case. Is practically in all. 

Osvaldo: 
One of them. Emission inventories. Another which is more in the control of the EQB is 

that the location of let’s say the pumps are right or not. 

Examiner: 

Well, of course. 

Osvaldo:

But by not adding up, puts the plan in doubt. It’s what I’m going to, and repeating that what 

specific detail is erroneous or not functioning to put the data to allow prediction. Yes is the 

effective model. I demand that it be validated in this manner supposedly with data already known 

from the past that in the same manner, not extrapolated data in a future which is even more 

doubtful. 

Examiner: 

Thank you for your presentation. Pardon the interruptions. I have the Legal Assistance Clinic. I 

assume that is from the University of Puerto Rico. Although it says Legal Services of Puerto Rico. 

You can commence. 

Legal Assistance Clinic: Our presentation was sent in writing and represented by the attorneys 

André Palermo Colón, Cristina Fernández y Pedro Saadé Llorens. See written presentation. 

Legal Services of Puerto Rico: Our presentation was sent in writing by the attorneys Hadassa 

Santini Colberg and Verónica González Rodríguez in representation of Legal Services of Puerto 

Rico, and Jesús García, Vice-president of Legal Services and advisory regional committee of 

Arecibo, Wilfredo Vélez Hernandez (who in the beginning of the hearing requested the 

postponement, which was overruled) and Carlos García

Hiram González Román: Representative of Ciudadanos en Defensa del Ambiente (CEDDA), 

reiterated the postponement petition of the hearing, previously requested by Mr. Wilfredo Vélez 

Hernández, which was overruled. 

Iván F. Elías Rodríguez: representative of CEDDA. See written presentation. 

Rigoberto Berlucia Perdomo: Farmer, resident in Arecibo. 

Mrs. Carmen Delgado: Resident in Arecibo. 

Dr. Obed García Acevedo: President Comité Salud Pública y Ambiental, Colegio Médico 

Cirujanos de Puerto Rico. See traten presentation. 

María Rodríguez González an Carlos García Berríos: See written presentation in representation 

of Madres de Negro. 

Filiberto Bonilla Acosta: Retired Teacher and resident of Arecibo. 

Erik Amador Colón: Municipal Legislator of Arecibo, and resident of that town. See written 

presentation. 

Dr. Marta Quiñones Dominguez: Economist and Planner: See written presentation. 

Dr. Ángel González Carrasquillo: Specialist in Internal Medicine and Addiction Medicine. See 

written presentation. 

Waldemar Flores Flores: Quality Assurance Official. See written presentation. 

Javier Biaggi: Resident in Arecibo. See written presentation.