Subject: Meeting with Doe Run Company

Location: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, RTP, NC

Date: March 29, 2011

Participants:

The Doe Run Company

Teresa Bowers (Gradient)

Louis Marucheau

Aaron Miller

Joe Stolle (Shell Engineering)

Stac y Stotts (S tinson, Morrison, Hecker LLP) Kyle Foote (Stinson, Morrison, Hecker LLP)

Missouri Department of Natural Resources (by telephone)

Joe Winkelmann

________________

________________

U.S. EPA, Region 7 (by telephone) Stephanie Doolan Michael Jay Jonathan Meye r Richard Daye

Robert Patrick

Steve Sanders U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA )

Colin Boswell

Chuck French

Steve Fruh Dave Guinnup

Mark Morris

Sharon Nizich

Darcie Smith

Mia South

Michael Stewart Jan Tierney Nate Topham

RTI International

Ronnie Ha nzel Mike Laney

Summary:

The Doe Run Company (Doe Run) requested a meeting with representatives from the EPA for the primary purpose of seeking clarification on the rulemaking schedule as well as EPA’s risk assessment methodology used in developing the p roposed amendments to the primary lead smelting NESHAP. Because the Missouri Department of Natural Resources ( MDNR ) has been and continues to model lead emissions from Doe Run as part of the lead NAAQS state implementation plan (SIP), they participated in the meeting. Region 7, as well as the MDNR , are currently pursuing a consent decree with Doe Run for the purpose of reducing current and future lead emissions from the Doe Run site in Herculaneum, Missouri. EPA Region 7 also participated in the meeting. D oe Run provided an agenda and summary of their concerns and questions (Attachment 1). The topics discussed are listed below and generally follow closely the agenda provided by Doe Run.

Schedule for F inal R ule and I mplications for Doe RunDoe Run is concer ned that the effective date of the final rule will adversely impact their current plans to cease lead production using pyrometallurgical methods and to produce lead using a new hydrometallurgical method. These plans are part of the pending consent decree. Doe Run will request as part of their comment submission on the proposed rule that EPA consider whether there are any scheduling options for the effective date of the rule that would address their

concerns.

Source C ategory D efinition

Doe Run disagreed wi th EPA proposed revision to the source category to include lead production methods other than pyrometallurgical processes. Doe Run gave an overview of the new hydrometallurgical process that will replace the current lead production process and provided a

h andout describing the technology (Attachment 2).

Residual Risk Assessment and Modeling

Doe Run expressed concern that the data set used by EPA to do the risk assessment did not use the most current data

, that certain data that were available were not used , and that some data used

were incorrect

. They also stated that the Docket did not appear to contain all of EPA’s supporting data that would allow them to thoroughly evaluate EPA’s methods and results. Doe

Run also claimed that the EPA results were not con sistent with those of the Missouri DNR. Doe Run provided a map showing the current Doe Run site and boundaries (Attachment 3).

Action Items EPA suggested that the modelers from EPA, Doe Run and the Missouri DNR hold a conference

call to clarify EPA method s and any data that could enhance the EPA modeling effort.

Doe Run requested that EPA provide an additional extension to the comment period (beyond April 19, 2011) to give Doe Run more time to analyze the rulemaking record and develop more useful comments including additional data (such as emissions, meteorological, deposition, etc.)

for EPA to consider

.

Attachment 1 Meeting Agenda

Attachment 2 The Doe Run Company’s New Lead Processing Technology

Attachment 3 Doe Run Properties Owned in 20091 Proposed Agenda Meeting at Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards with Doe Run Resources Corporation and Missouri Department of Natural Resources

9 am

- 12 pm

– March 29, 2011

Regarding The Proposed Rulemaking for the "National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Primary Lead Smelting"

I. Introductions

II. Timeline for F inalizing the R ule and E ffective D ate

A. Based on the time frame for shut down of the Blast Furnace by April 30 , 2014 in the Doe Run Consent Decree, the proposed rule would require compliance with a final standard for a mere six months prior to the shutdown of the emission units listed in the Doe Run Consent Decree. The rule, as proposed, would place Doe Run in an untenable position of either retrofitting the facility just prior to shut down or shutting down before the schedule under the Doe Run Consent Decree. This would cause the company significant financial hardship and may also jeopardize the ability to construct the new lead metal technology. The company plans to discuss the consequences of the proposed effective date and is interested in EPA's flexibility to modify the schedule as proposed.

III. Source Category D efinition

A. The company would like to discuss EPA's basis for the change to the source category

de finition. The new proposed definition would appear to include the new lead metal technology, which is not supportable because the new lead metal technology process is not similar to the pyrometal l urgical process and will not be a major source of HAPs.

IV

. Residual Risk Assessment

A. The company would like to discuss the use of the 2008 Lead NAAQS Rulemaking as a surrogate for the MACT residual risk analysis and proposed MACT standard . We would also like to specifically discuss why the agency used a Haz ard Index based on all people instead of the risk group (youn g children) identified in the L ead NAAQS rulemaking. In addition, we would like to discuss the use of more current demographic data for the area.

B. The company would like to discuss EPA's concl usion regarding ecological effects in areas that exceed the Lead NAAQS, which is based on the secondary standard set as a part of the Lead NAAQS Rulemaking. We do not believe this position is supportable because the secondary standard was set as a default and no ecological risk assessment was performed as part of the 2008 Lead NAAQS Rulemaking.2 C. We want to discuss whether it is appropriate for this MACT to assume that the lead emissions will continue at the same level for 70 years when the Smelter is, in fact, required to be closed in accordance with the provisions of the Doe Run Consent Decree.

V

. Modeling in Support of the Residual Risk Assessment and Proposed Standard

A. There is a lack of basis information in the docket for the modeling that raises serious due process concerns for Doe Run's and the State's (and others) ability to provide mean ingful comments. Neither the modeling protocol, the run script, or the post

- processing spreadsheet are in the docket for this rulemaking. These are documents that would be required to be submitted to EPA in support of modeling performed by private partie s and other governmental agencies and provides key and crucial information to understand the modeling in support of the proposed rulemaking.

B. There are concerns about the correlation between the monitoring and monitored data. We

would like to discuss why EPA did not use the model that MDNR conducted and submitted to

EPA in support of the 2007 Lead NAAQS SIP.

C. We need to discuss using a more current data set for the modeling. The use of emissions

and monitor ed data from only 2008 is not representativ e of conditions after the implementation

of the 2007 Lead SIP and does not take into account new monitor locations that show lead ambient air levels in the vicinity of the Lead Smelter that are below the new Lead NAAQS

standard.

D. We want to address wit h EPA the meteorological data used by the EPA. EPA has used very outdated met data even though EPA has mo re recent and much more sophisticated met data for the area that Doe Run has submitted to the agency over the last few years. In addition, the re is a concern that not only did EPA use less sophisticated and dated information, but that the

agency only used one month (January) of met data for the model.

E

. We would like to discuss the lack of particle depletion modeling.

F

. It appears that the model di d not take into account building downwash . In addition

, EPA did not use "hill height (terrain ) scale" and did not incorporate actual elevations around the

Smelter. Instead EPA set the hill height at default level. In addition other default setting and

s caling of general emission rates were use. We would like to discuss using actual and non

- scaled as opposed to default and scaled information

.

G

. We would like to discuss the use of the "fast

- all" model option, which is typically used as a screening run, instead of the "regulatory run" model option.

H. We question the identification of certain "point sources" that should have been modeled as "volume sources" and certain "point sources" that should have been modeled as "area sources." For example, EPA iden tified one of the haul road segments as a "point source" which

is incorrect.3 I. It appears that EPA used a "month" key function, which can be used to calculate rolling averages. In addition, EPA used normalized emission rates that open the model the pos sibility of significant errors.

J. EPA states that total fugitive emissions from the Smelter are 2.6 tpy and that these fugitives result in a maximum air lead concentration at the "fence line" that is 50 times the Lead NAAQS. This is the basis for mand ating a proposed 98% control of fugitives from the Smelter. We question the receptor location that was identified at 50 times the standard. Second, the total fugitive number and the modeling used is flawed for the reasons provided above. Finally, we

que stion the emission factors and scaling applied for this analysis. A sensitivity analysis to determine the real sources of fugitives at the facility.

K

. EPA attributes emissions from the stack that ventilates the #7 and #9 baghouses. However, we believe that the agency did not use the current stack height for that emission point.

L

. The fugitive emissions attributed to the interior of the refinery are not correct . We believe that the agency did not account for the fact that the building is under negativ e pressure as required by the 2007 Lead SIP.

M

. There is an emission point (#14784) that EPA stated emits 0.52tpy of lead emissions. However, we do not know what this emission source is at the facility and need clarification.

N

. We believe that the emis sions attributed to the concentrate unloading (0.5tpy) at the facility is incorrect. If the EPA is taking the value from the 2008 EIQ, Doe Run reported 0.05 tpy for that source, not 0.5tpy.

O

. We need to discuss the fact that EPA ran all the source eleva tions based on the wrong

base elevation. EPA used 121 meters and the base elevation at the Smelter is 130 meters

.

P. EPA used the 2008 lead production data, which was approximately 149,000 tons per year. Again, this is not representative and does not acc ount for the production limit that the Smelter is now subject to

– 130,000 tpy

- under the terms of the Doe Run Consent Decree.

V I

. Proposed MACT Technology Standard

A. We need an explanation regarding the basis used to determine the proposed rule for the technology

- based review and proposed standard.

B. Doe Run would like to discuss why EPA is continuing to use a pounds of lead emitted per ton of lead produced. There are significant issues with using this type of value and Doe Run would like the agency to consider other options.

4185074.1Ap

Project No.: xxxxxx; PM: xxx; Drawn By: mkovach; Ch ecked By: xxx; Coordinate System: NAD 1983 StatePla ne Missouri East FIPS 2401 Feet; Path: G:\Projects\ 202022-DoeRun\Graphics\CADGIS\101\202022-101_05_VPP _Changes.mxd;FIGURE5Date: 3/30/2011GradientDoe Run Propertiesowned in 2009Herculaneum, MissouriLEGENDAFacilityVPP AreaOne Mile RadiusDoe Run Properties 20090 1,000500Feet