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)

Stacy Stotts (Stinson, 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 Meyer

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 Hanzel

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 proposed 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. Doe 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 Final Rule and Implications for Doe Run
Doe Run is concerned 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 Category Definition

Doe Run disagreed with 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 

handout 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 consistent 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 methods 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 2009
1

Proposed Agenda 

Meeting at Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards

with Doe Run Resources Corporation and 

Missouri Department of Natural Resources

9am-12pm – March 29, 2011

Regarding

The Proposed Rulemaking for the "National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air 

Pollutants: Primary Lead Smelting"

I. Introductions 

II. Timeline for Finalizing the Rule and Effective Date

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 Definition

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

definition. 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 pyrometallurgical 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 Hazard Index based on all people 

instead of the risk group (young children) identified in the Lead 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 conclusion 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 meaningful 

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 parties 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 monitored data from only 2008 is not representative 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 with EPA the meteorological data used by the EPA. EPA has used 

very outdated met data even though EPA has more 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, there 

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 did 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 

scaling 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 identified 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 possibility 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 mandating 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 

question 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 negative 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 emissions 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 elevations 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 account for the production limit that the 

Smelter is now subject to – 130,000 tpy - under the terms of the Doe Run Consent Decree.

VI. 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. 

4185074.1


A

p

Project No.: xxxxxx; PM: xxx; Drawn By: mkovach; Checked By: xxx; Coordinate System: NAD 1983 StatePlane Missouri East FIPS 2401 Feet; Path: G:\Projects\202022-DoeRun\Graphics\CADGIS\101\202022-101_05_VPP_Changes.mxd;