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 (NA AQS), primary and secondary for lead of 1.5 micrograms per cubic meter (μg/m 3 ) to 0.15 μg/m 3 . 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 Ar ecibo, 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

- At tainment 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 ar ea for the reviewed lead standards. IN RE: State Implementation Plan for the Lead Nonattainment Area in Ar ecibo, Puerto Rico Environmetal Quality Board ProponentThe 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 e ffects, 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 qual ity 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, in cluding 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 amb ient 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 r equirements. 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 ai r 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 ext end 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 aro und 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 SafetyAccording 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 a nd 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 three

quarters 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 an d 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 ex posed 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 gasol ine 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 o f 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 pul l 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 chi ldren, 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, so il 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 re

circulate 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 you nger
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

dea th. 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 a re 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 ne eds 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 comp iled and submitted in what is referred as aState 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 pro vides 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 th e 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 statio nary 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 an y 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 pollut ion 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 gene ral 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 establis hed 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 fo r 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 su ch 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 natio nal 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 p revention 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 o n 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 t o 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 revi

ewing 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 includin g 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 consulta tion 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 preventi on 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 Res ources). 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 regio n 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 pr ovide 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 Manag

ement 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 ha s 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 ).

A fter 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 contr ol 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 d iscretion 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 offse t by corresponding emissionsreductions. 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 modi fied 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 l aw 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 th ere 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 he alth. 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 s afety. 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 t oxicity 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, 200 8, EPA issued a revision of the standard, reducing its level in an order of magnitude, from 1.5 μ g /m3 to 0.15 μ g /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 o f 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 meetthe standard, or an area contributing emissions to a close by noncompliance area with the standard,

will be classified as non

- co mpliance 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) t hat 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 requirem ents 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 proc edures (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 re quired 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 appli cable requirements for the installation of the NationalEmission 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 (t hat 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 non

compliance 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 comp liance 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 w ith 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 th e 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 Stand ards (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, m aintain 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 f ees, marketable permits, and auctions ofemissions 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 Pollu tion (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 exi sting 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 constructio n 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 ap plication 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 s ignificantly 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 i s 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 Jan uary 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 ambitiouscompliance 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 alread y 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 emissio ns 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 t he 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 usin g 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 invent ory 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 proje ction 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 C ambalache. 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 l ocated 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. Processemissions 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 a re 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 ind ustry, 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 di spersion 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 stac k, 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 Sm elting 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 colle ction, 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 hou r, 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 Camba lache operates at two levels: atbase 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 turb ines 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 Standa rds 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 matt er 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 combi nation 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 (W

TE), 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 wil l 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 60Subpart E b); 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 Re ciprocating 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 publ ic 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 purp ose 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 emission s 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 quarter ly 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 Station ary 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 Bo ard shall notify the public of the location approval application. An application for location approval shall include information about alternativesites, size, production, processes, and environmental control techniques that demonstrate that

benefits of th e 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 n on

- 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 EP A 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 re quires 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 p ollutants 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 accordan ce 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 app roval 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 meas ures, 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 sourc es 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:

P ART I: G

ENERAL P

ROVISIONS 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; P ART II: A PPROVAL AND P ERMITSRule 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, P ART IV: P

ROHIBITIONS

, P ART V: F

EES Rule 501: Permit Fees; Rule 502: Excess Emissions Fees; R ule 503: Test Fees; Rule 504: Modification, and P ART VI: O PERATIONS P ERMITS R ULES FOR T ITLE V S OURCES

. 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, S ection 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 promulgate d 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 initiat ed, 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 me chanism 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, i ssued 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 wit h 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

M ACT. Interestate TransportEQB 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 de crease 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 emiss ion 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 analys es; 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 require ments:
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 Sour ce 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 pro cess 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 testreport, the annual complian ce 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, r eport, 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 perf ormed; 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 C AA 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 EP A 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 al low 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 t he 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 re sults 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 provi des 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 co ntingency 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 a fter

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 afte r 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 d ecision 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, a s 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 fol lowing: 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 inventoryIII. 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 w ill 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: Par t 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 ef fect 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 monito r 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

concentrat

ion 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 prepar ed 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 rene wable energy plant nearby Battery Recycling and their potential leademissions 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 inv entory 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

m aterials, 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 t hat 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 V I: 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, determi ned 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 pub lic 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 i n 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 Hearin g 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 comm entsfrom 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 Bo ard 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 c omply 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, l aws 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 S tandards, 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 inter nal of the human body, and their physiological processes. Recently it has been documented the chronic toxic effects that lead, at levels once consideredsafe, 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 manifestation s 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 t he 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 ch anges

- for example, decreased ability of concentration and increase of anti

social 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 f ound 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 le ad 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 concentratio n 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 f

actual 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

coll ection 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 notif ied 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 theState 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 e lements 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 Fede ral 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 d ispersion 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 h igh 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 locati on 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 co ntrol 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 requ irement of reasonable future progress, whichrepresents 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 thi s 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 Batte ry 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, Sect ion 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

im plemented 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 propo sed 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 misle ading. 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 emissi ons 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 f rom 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

thi s 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 Pa rt 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, th eir 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 expl anation 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 An swers 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 en ough 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 consis tent 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 reasonab le 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 Ac t. 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 m ust 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 pro vides 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 inven tory. 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 requi rements 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 am end 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 contaminat ed 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 wi th 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, sinc e 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 adequatelyparticipate in a n 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

incorr ect.

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 seve ral 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

autho rity 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 e missions, 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 c 1ass 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 noevent 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 t hat 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 a nd 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 doin g 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, covere d 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 (pla stic 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) EATO N, (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 emis sions 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 pl aced 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, notcounting 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 th e 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 l ead 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 t he 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 th at 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 emitte d 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 o f 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 assu med 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 w ith 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 r equires 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 larges t 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 expressin g 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 emission s 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 excee ded 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 po wer 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) diff

erent 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. Safete ch 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 th e 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 thatviolation, he paid the insignificant sum of $2,500.00. However, this viol ation 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 trut h 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 T itle 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 arrec iemos 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

con taminated 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 foramend ment 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 cont iguous 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 max imum 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 o f 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 mic rograms 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

m ilk, 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 wron g 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 assume s 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 spreaderstokers, 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 radi us 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 doe s 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 te n, 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 Ra te (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 al ternatives 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 re quirement 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 tha t 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 expr esses, 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 unti l 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 nati onal 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 refer ence)

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 th e 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 a bsence 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 o f 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

reductio n 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 com pliance 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 inc luding 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 ofcontamination 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 Arrib a 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 di rectly 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 star t, 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 mi les 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 hear ing 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 m ain 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 n ot 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. Obvio usly, 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 EQ B 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

w ith 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 mus t 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 en vironment 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 o f 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 emissi ons 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 th e 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 with out 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 F ederal 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 proc ess. 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

no n

- 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 c ase 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 Environmen tal 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 gove rning 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 inc lude 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 chi ldren 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 viol ence 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 i t begin to decline also? In the light of these studies, I dare to say yes as much lead hasdisappeared 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 pain t 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 landfill s, 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

i llegal 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 legislatin g 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 violen t 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 a ny 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 todefend us in this delivery that you are making of our sacred right to the individual and

coll ective 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 tho se 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 qualiti es 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 di d 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 st op 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 totalitaria n 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 serv ing 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 appe ar 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 environmenta l 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 d ropped, 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 betaken, and that could have taken earlier if EQB and EPA would ha ve 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 improvem ent 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 t owards 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 he reby 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 Non

Attainment 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 reje cted.

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 pollut ion 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 poll ution 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 (andEPA) intends to remedy the pollution by lead that caused this company reaf firms 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 expr essed 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 standa rd 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 mode ling 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 t he 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 vi olations, 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 publ ic 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. L ack 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 ma rgin 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 ce nter 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 co ncentrations 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 ar e 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 complyin g 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 carryingin their clothing and vehicles d ust 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 recommendat ions:

 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 pro tection 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, resid ent 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

Answ ers 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 them selves 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 th e 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 e ach 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 exis tence 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 exis ted.

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 environmen tal 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 A gency 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 wi thout 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 affectm any 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 occur s 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 ad dressed; 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 h as 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 cause s 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 analys is, 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 int o 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 commentari es 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 a ir 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, inmunotoxicit y, 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 reasonabl e 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

word s, 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 AreaAs part of the research process it was req uired 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 t

he 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 pred ominant

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 ro s e 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 Envi ronmental Protection Agency (EPA ). The location requirements of a n 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 include d 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 co mponent 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 si tuation 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 hightemperature on land, and dec reases 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

Interna tional 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/stati on_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 natura l 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 recommen d, 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 applic ation , 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 c onditions 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 qu estionable 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

- southw est 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 t he 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 repo rts 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).

Unde r 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 doe s 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 fiscalizati on 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 i n Arecibo which was endorsed by thefederal 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 obta in 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 D ecember 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
territo ries 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 ap ply 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 n on

- 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 reac h es 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). Appen dix 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 fro m 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

con tinuous 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 ta cit 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

Environ mental 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 t o

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 popul ation 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

sub stantial 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 pub lic welfare of "known effects " but in all these processes human beings are important

. Then why it is asked t

o increase the number of companies that emit lead pollutants without considering the impact to the community. How dare they think they’re going to g

ive 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 emi ssions 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 s ource 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 re vised 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 th e 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 mo re 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
emissi ons, 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 emissio n 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, be cause 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 fugi tive

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 fr om 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 complete ly 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 Co mpany would not have an adverse regulatory impact on the quality of ambient air near Arecibo. Reasonable Future Progress (RFP)

12. CommentYour 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 elem ents 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 p roduction 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 rul e . 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 lo cked 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 S IP 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 r emains 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 level s 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 , whi ch 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 require s 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 a ccording to the provisions of Section 172 ( c) (4) of the CAA , that require identification and quantification of lead emissions that would be allow ed during theconstruction and operation of a new major stationary source or mayor modification s . Currently t here 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 take s into

account any change in emissions that is expected to occur after the base year of emis sions ; 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 emissio ns 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 facilitie s 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 2 016. 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 NAA QS 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 chimn ey , 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 imp act
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 w here 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, n or they are inconsistent with the reasonable future progress measures be cause they are of a different nature to the type of emissions thatcaused 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 sup

plement 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 signif icant 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 hav e 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 Rec ycling 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 pollutio n 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 Regulatio ns 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 additiona l 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 ins tallation. 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 emission s , 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. CommentSubsection 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 ach ieve 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 w hole 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 agreeme nts ( 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 p ermit draft for TBRC that went to public re view. 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.

A QA 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 modifyi ng 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 standar d

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 complianc e 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 theRegulation 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 m eteorology

, 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 , em ission

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 inven tory 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 l ead 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 a n inventory with the projected emissions that identify all possible increases i n emissions of lead

that could affect the area defined as non

- attainment

. The inventory was included in AppendixB of the SIP of lead and includes the potential emissions of the two proposed projects : Energy Answers and Sunbeam Synergy.

20. Comment : We ask f or, 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 appl icable 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 w ith 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 consider ed

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 compan y, 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 requirement s 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 t o
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 t he 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 d ata 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 m odels 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

. A ccording 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 C TDMPLUS (

model for mountainous terrain ). The p rediction 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 studie s 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 le ad 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 sour ces 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 conclu sions expressed in the document,

d. the explanation on how to conduct the modeling and how to conclude with s uch that in 2016 compliance with the standard for lead of 0.15 l μg/m 3 will be achieved,e. the explanation of what happens with the lead emitted by Battery Recycling that provoked the non

attainment condition if in 2016 the same level of production is mainta ined, 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/m 3 standard ,
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 explanatio n 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 Rec ycling 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 re vised 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 mee t
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 d emonstrated by modeling that the emission potential of the industry for 2016 will m aintain 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 co ntrolled by the control equipment of the industry and for thembeing 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 con trolled 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 re gulation 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 double d

. j. According to the modeling results and the projec tions , violations of the NAAQS for lead are not anticipated, nor that lead levels are double d 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 :
T he 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 cl ear 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 i nventory 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 in clude 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 t he 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 thisconclus ion 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 a t 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

r ecommended that the language be clarified in the first paragraph of the Projected Emission s 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

f rom 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 tha t are under review which could potentially have an impact on the non

attainment 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 app ropriate 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 th e area of non

attainment 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 com pliance 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 SIP

E 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 wat er 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, cert ainly the impact of the water intake of the Super Aqueduct

of the North Shore located 3 km

. of these facilities should be assess ed

. AQA Response:

This Comment is not part of the SIP, given that it only considers atmospheric concentrations of lead and comp liance 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

kil ometers 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 implementa tion 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:

Wi th 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 S tate 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 moni toring

. As a result of this process, the EQB determined an exceedance of the NAAQS for lead. Once the EQB realized non

compliance 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, t he 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 p art 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 t he SIP for lead in the non

- attainment area of Arecibo.

31. Commentary: The National Library of Medicine of the U.S.A. ( http://www.nl

m.nih. gov/med lineplus /english /ency /article /002473.htm l ) and the World Health Organization (

htt p : // www.who.int/mediacentre/facts hccts/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 Novemb er 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

agen cies 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 th e 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 wi th 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 the y 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 d amage 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 st ate and federal agencies with jurisdiction , issued orders under the Clean Air Act and the federal law on dangerous solid waste s and the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act Resources ( RCRA , for its acronym in English ). We understand that both the Departm ent 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 p roving 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 Environme ntal Quality Board in Arecibo to request a copy of the document to be discussed at the public hearing

. On that occasion

, an official request

ed 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 Tue sday 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 cli

ents 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 print ed
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 r equired 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 a llow 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 theNAAQS and demonstrate compliance w ith 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 t

he 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 populatio n ) 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 t he 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 (En vironmental 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. , s o 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 considerati on. 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 diagnosi s,

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 cont rol 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 ove r 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 an d 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 bet ween 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 ar eas, 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 s hall 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. Comme ntary:
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 chec

ked. 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 , ledthe enforcement actions and coordinated the inte rvention 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 unders tand 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

commun ity. 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

. T he 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 limitatio ns 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

m easures 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 pro tect 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

secon dary lead smelters

. These regulations were recently amended and the implementation ofcontrols 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 Atmosphe ric 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 em barrassing 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 design ation. 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 o f sampling at Arecibo were known

. Once the EQB realized the non

- compliance with theNAAQS 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 use d 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 Pollutio n . 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 Poll ution ( 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 fede ral 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 potent ial is in Appendix D. It isrecommended 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 i n compliance with 40 CFR 52.05. AQA Response: As required by section 52.05 of 40 CFR, the data of atmospheric concentration for lead ha s been submitted to the Administrator (EPA) up to September 30, 2014.

49. Comment: The requirement is to include all sour ces 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

, ammuni tion, 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

, (bur ning 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 manageme nt ), and Saint Jude (

electroplating). T he 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 Santa na 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

. T his 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/h ighlights/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 review ed 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 an d 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, main ly , 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 Guideline s 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 Titl

e 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 s melting 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 me tals incineration as follows : " Municipal waste combustor metals means metals and

metal compounds e

mitted 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 theenvironment. There is no quantification of lead sulfate anywhere

. And that's the biggest operation in TBRCI

. These activ ities 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

a mendment legitimize s its inclusion as a contamina nt 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 batt eries , 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 Subpa rt 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 Pollutio n
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 com ments 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 implementatio n 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. Regu latory 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, S ection 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 Jua n Ed. U.P.R., 1982 Vol. III, p . 235. “ It’s about, more so, a mandate that obliges every State component an d 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 m anner 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

instrum entality”. 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 admini strate 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). 2 See also , Misión Ind. P.R. v. J.C.A., supra, p . 921. Municipio de Loíza v. Sucesión M arcial 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, u sing wisely and consciously the resources necessary to avoid an d eliminate damages that could affect it, maintaining a

balance between economic development and the environment. To achieve this objective, the EQB

has a n ample faculty to promulgate regulations with the primary purpose of establishing the norms

that min imize 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 e t 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 charac ter 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,

cit ing 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 defi ne 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 pr omulgated 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 ru le 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 ag ency 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 b e 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 e lucidate the permissibility of a regulatory standard involve some deference to the development of a norm through regulation that

t he administrative body develops around legislation wh ich 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. 21 01 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 l egal 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

pro ceedings are done in a fair, fast, and economical manner. 3 L.P.R.A. sec. 2101

. As to the regulatory process, LPAU, s upra, establishes that it will lead the formulation of rules and regulations of general application that interprets, institutes, or prescribes laws or publi c 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 governin g 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 a pplication 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 rightsor obligations of specific individuals are awarded

. A t 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 th at 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 discreti on 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 th e 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 imposi ng uniformity to its processes. In case that the interpretative rule cannot be reconciled with an existing legislative rule, the ne w 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 regulatio n , 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 summaryor 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 deem s 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 e mail 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 af orementioned 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 adminis trative 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, n or 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 b rief 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 effect iveness

. 3 L.P.R.A. sec.

2125

.

In line wi th 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 SIPPuerto 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 o f the P REPPA , 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 lega l 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

. - [Sec tions 9.B.3.e., 9.B.5, and 9.B.13.].

2. Authority to enforce the laws , regula tions 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 , mod ification, or operation of any stationary source

wherever emissions from these sources will prevent the attainment or maintenance of the NAAQS

. - [. Sec tions 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.

- [Sec tions 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

. - [Sec tions 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 th e Regulations forthe 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 L ead 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

l aw ( 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 hav e 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 satis fy 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 su stain 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

- At tainment for Contaminant Lead in Arecibo, Puerto

Rico ( SIP ) be approved according to its content , varying only those elements of content and formset 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 th e nonattainment area , within the statutory deadlines.

V

. FINAL RECOMMENDATION

We r espectfully recommend to the Honorable Governing Board to adopt as their onwn the

recommendations that we formulate here

. Consequently, t hat it imparts its approval to the p roject 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 for mal 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 ExaminerANNEX 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.c om 6. Albert Narváez, resident in Bayamón altnaez@yahoo.com

7. Dilcia González Gandarilla, resident in San Juan dilciadilcia02@gmail.com

8. Douglas Nieves Huertas, resid ent 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@hotm ail.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. Carme n 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.com23. Nereida Cotto, resident in San Juan ncottortiz@gmai l.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.nie ves@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, residen t 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 Ve ga 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 mig uelrodriguez1023@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.c om 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, reside nt 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.comANNEX B

COMMONWEALTH OF PUERTO RICO O FFICE OF THE GOVERNOR ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY BOARD

IN RE: SIP of 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 h ear 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 Frid ay, 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 . P ursuant 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 regulati ons . 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 p articular 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 t he plan is correct or

not , whether it’s adequate or not in response to the objecti ve to be achieved

. That is that this particular area become s an area of achievement for which thereis no violation to air quality standards

. What will be discussed in the morning is precisely the project that the Environmental Quality Board has prepared i n 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 e nd 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 pl an. 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 w e’re are

not repet itive 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.

W ith 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
S panish 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 inaccess ible to the vast majority of the

poor citizens of Arecibo. We understand that hold ing 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 ju st 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 va st 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 co py 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 wel l 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 ex tent 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 can n ot 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 , Uni versity 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 som e 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

. Althou gh 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 direc tion 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 t his 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 o f 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 p revailing 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 i n 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 an d 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 theslopes. Bec ause 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 w hole 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 p oint , 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 t o 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 t hese 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 Com pany

. 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 lo cation of the track refers to different information to the wind direction northeast, then it should be west

southwest , the monitors should be located

. Osvaldo:My argument , the two cases are related to the wind direction

. Therefore , the information

conta ined in those monitors which they are passing future extra polations of the EQB on this plane
are in error. They a re based on wrong information from what the levels of contamination really are. Examiner : Well, it could affect. Let me see if I understand y ou 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 wo uld 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 capa city , 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 , e mission 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 Recyclin g , 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 mo nster 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 create d 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 w ith 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 a sked 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 i n 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 projectedemissions on page 19 of the pr oposal 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

p rojections? 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 wi ll 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 E QB’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 th at 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 approa ch? Osvaldo: That is my approach. Therefore, it rests c redibility 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 st rikes 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 wi ll 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 li es 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 , cle an 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 polluti on 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 orienta tion 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 a nd 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 th e m 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 conce ntrations 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 o f 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 insertingthese known facts , not extrapolated , and see if that model is capable of producing the situation

g iven , 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 bas ed 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 arou nd 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 erro neous 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 allegedl y 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

. E xaminer : The information browsing mechanis ms 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 practical ly 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 directi on, 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 the m. 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 s upposedly 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 th e 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

- pres ident 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 Defen sa 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 Perdom o: 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 Be rríos: 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 Q uiñones 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 present ation. Javier Biaggi: Resident in Arecibo. See written presentation.