DRAFT

Response to Comments on the State and Tribal Designation 

Recommendations for the 2008 Lead (Pb) 

National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS)

Docket Number OAR-2009-0443

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

October 2011
Table of Contents 

Table of Contents ..........................................................................................................2

List of Acronyms ...........................................................................................................3

1.0 Introduction .......................................................................................................4

2.0 Background........................................................................................................4

3.0 Responses to Comments on the State and Tribal Designation 

Recommendations for the 2008 Lead (Pb) National Ambient Air Quality Standards 

(NAAQS)........................................................................................................................4
List of Acronyms

AERMO D Atmospheric Dispersion Modeling System

CAA Clean Air Act

EPA Environmental Protection Agency

FR Federal Register

mg/ dscm Milligrams per Dry Standard Cubic Meter.

NAA Nonattainment Area

NAAQ S National Ambient Air Q uality Standard

NFR Notice of Final Rulemaking

O AQ PS EPA O ffice of Air Q uality Planning and Standards

Pb Lead

SIP State Implementation Plan

μg/m3 Micrograms per cubic meter

TPY Tons Per Year

TSD Technical Support Document 
1.0 Introduction

This document, together with the preamble to the final rule and the Technical

Support Documents (TSDs) for the designations, presents the responses of EPA to the

significant comments we received on our proposed designations. The responses

presented in this document are intended to augment the responses to comments that

appear in the preamble to the final rule and the TSD or to address comments not

discussed in those documents.

2.0 Background

On October 15, 2008, EPA revised the NAAQS for lead by significantly 

strengthening the standard from 1.5 micrograms per cubic meter (μg/m3) to 0.15 μg/m3. 

In conjunction with strengthening the lead NAAQS, EPA also established new criteria for 

siting ambient lead monitors. The preexisting ambient lead monitoring network was not 

adequate to determine whether many areas are meeting the revised lead NAAQS. 

Monitors meeting the new network requirements came online in January 1, 2010. 

Because EPA had data from existing monitors indicating violations of the 

standards, and began collecting data from new monitors that began operation in January 

2010, EPA designated areas as meeting or not meeting the standards in two rounds. EPA 

completed the first round of designations in November 2010. At that time, EPA 

designated 16 areas across the country as “nonattainment” because their 2007 to 2009 air 

quality monitoring data showed that they did not meet the Agency’s health-based air 

quality standards for lead. 

On June 15, 2011, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) sent letters to 

state and tribal representatives responding to their recommendations on which areas 

would not meet the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for lead (Pb). The 

letters indicated either agreement with the state and tribal recommendations, or EPA’s 

intent to modify those recommendations. States and tribes had the opportunity to 

comment on EPA’s modifications to their recommendations, and to provide new 

information and analyses to EPA if appropriate. The public was invited to comment on 

the recommendations. Following are summaries of significant comments received on the 

2008 lead designation recommendations and EPA’s responses to those comments 

3.0 Responses to Comments on the State and Tribal 

Designation Recommendations for the 2008 Lead (Pb) National 

Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS)

The following sections address the comment letters received by EPA on the 

state and tribal lead designation recommendations for the 2008 lead NAAQ S. 

The majority of comments addressed the Region 5 designation of Cooke County in 
Illinois. Comment summaries and responses are presented below sorted by EPA 

region. 

US EPA Region 3

Comment: Commenter believes that the proposed lead NAAQS nonattainment 

designations for the Lyons Area is premature and does not reflect the actual status of air 

quality in the area. Commenter notes that the historic lead data (used for this designation) 

are not as refined as lead data collected in accordance with the requirements of the 

recently revised final lead NAAQS which was promulgated on November 12, 2008. 

Commenter states that current lead measurements clearly show concentration levels that 

are much lower when compared to pre-2009 monitoring data and are in attainment with 

the lead NAAQS. Therefore commenter believes that until sufficient ambient lead data 

are collected that meet the requirements of 40 CFR Part 50, Appendix R and 40 CFR Part 

58, Subpart A, an unclassifiable designation rather than a nonattainment designation is 

more appropriate for the Lyons area. 

EPA Response: EPA finalized the 2008 lead national ambient air quality standard 

(NAAQS) designations for the Lyons Nonattainment Area in Berks County, 

Pennsylvania in the Federal Register on November 22, 2010, which became effective on 

December 31, 2010. (see 75 FR 71033) EPA did not propose to revise this designation in 

the June 21, 2011 federal register notice. This notice soliciting public comments is 

specific to responses to designation recommendations that EPA sent on or around June 

15, 2011 concerning new and revised 2008 lead NAAQS designations. (see 76 FR 36042) 

EPA did address these comments when submitted in response to the July 8, 2010 

solicitation for public comments, when the Lyons Nonattainment Area was identified, 

and our response can be found in docket ID number EPA–HQ–OAR–2009–0443.

Comment: Commenter suggested that for lead data, the pre-NAAQS revision data and 

post-revision NAAQS data are not equivalent due to the differences in the reference 

method detection limits. Commenter believes that the uncertainty associated with the 

pre-NAAQS revision data is great enough to make the existing nonattainment designation 

for the Lyons Area questionable and premature

EPA Response: EPA finalized the 2008 lead national ambient air quality standard 

(NAAQS) designations for the Lyons Nonattainment Area in Berks County, 

Pennsylvania in the Federal Register on November 22, 2010, which became effective on 

December 31, 2010. (see 75 FR 71033) EPA did not propose to revise this designation in 

the June 21, 2011 federal register notice. This notice soliciting public comments is 

specific to responses to designation recommendations that EPA sent on or around June 

15, 2011 concerning new and revised 2008 lead NAAQS designations. (see 76 FR 36042) 

EPA did address these comments when submitted in response to the July 8, 2010 

solicitation for public comments, when the Lyons Nonattainment Area was identified, 

and our response can be found in docket ID number EPA–HQ–OAR–2009–0443.
US EPA Region 5

Comment: One commenter submitted a mass comment campaign comprised of survey 

questions about the proposed nonattainment area. Residents living in the proposed 

nonattainment area were asked to describe their experiences and observations concerning 

pollution in the area, e.g., smells, tastes, and visual observations. People who completed 

the survey were also asked to describe the Kramer facility and the area immediately 

surrounding the facility. Lastly, the survey asked about health problems that might be 

pollution-related. A total of 46 completed surveys were submitted as part of the mass 

comment campaign. 

Response: EPA appreciates the time and effort from residents living in the proposed 

nonattainment area to complete the survey. Reducing levels of lead pollution is an 

important part of EPA’s commitment to a clean and healthy environment, and the 

nonattainment designations and state implementation plan process under the Clean Air 

Act (CAA) will ensure that monitored lead levels in the area will decrease to a level 

sufficient to attain the 2008 lead NAAQS in a timely manner as prescribed by the CAA. 

Specifically, by June of 2013, Illinois EPA is required to submit a plan to EPA detailing 

how sources in the nonattainment area will reduce their lead emissions sufficient to attain 

the 2008 lead NAAQS as expeditiously as practicable, but no later than December 31, 

2016. 

Comment: Two commenters generally supported the proposed nonattainment area, but 

urged EPA to include the Crawford Electric Generating Station, located at 3501 S. 

Pulaski Rd. The Crawford facility is approximately 2.4 miles away from the 

southwestern edge of the proposed nonattainment area. The two commenters cited that 

the reported emissions from the Crawford facility are identical to those from the Kramer 

facility and the Fisk Electric Generating Station, located at 1111 W. Cermak Rd, both of 

which are in the proposed nonattainment area. The two commenters also asserted that 

further evaluation of the emissions from the Crawford facility is necessary, specifically 

with respect to an analysis of air quality data in the immediate area surrounding the 

Crawford facility.

Another commenter also generally supported EPA’s proposed nonattainment designation, 

but questioned whether the proposed boundaries where expansive enough. Specifically, 

the commenter asserted that: an additional monitor should be installed to the southwest 

of the southwest boundary of the proposed nonattainment boundary; 2010 data collected 

at the Harrison monitor be evaluated as part of establishing the northern and eastern 

boundaries of the nonattainment boundary; and testing of lead emissions should be 

performed not only at sources in the proposed nonattainment boundary, but also from the 

Crawford Electric Generating Station in tandem with deposition modeling of lead 

emissions from these sources. 

This commenter claimed that because of the prevailing winds from the southwest 

direction, the height of the Crawford facility’s stacks, and the plume height of its 
emissions, the deposition pattern of lead from the Crawford facility will impact ambient 

lead air concentrations in the neighborhood contained by the proposed nonattainment 

boundary. In support of more extensive evaluation of lead emissions from the Crawford 

facility, the commenter included a study indicating that lead from a tall stack coal-fired 

power plant can occur several kilometers from the facility.1 Amongst other findings, the 

study included the levels of lead in the soil at various distances from the Mohave Power 

Plant in Laughlin, Nevada. 

Response: Based on the factors and information that were analyzed in the technical 

support document for Cook County, EPA believes that the proposed nonattainment area 

captures the area that does not meet, or is contributing to ambient air quality in a nearby 

area that does not meeting, the 2008 lead NAAQS. For example, as discussed in the 

section entitled “Other Relevant Information,” EPA performed a spatial assessment of the 

highest monitored 3-month rolling average using a conservative approach. In 

conjunction with the other factors that were analyzed throughout this document, the result 

of this conservative approach supported the State’s recommendation. Based on the most 

recently available data, EPA believes that the proposed nonattainment area encompasses 

the entire area that does not meet the 2008 lead NAAQS as well as emissions sources that 

cause or contribute to the violation of this NAAQS.

With respect to evaluating the emissions and associated air quality data from the 

Crawford Electric Generating Station, the most recent revisions to monitoring 

requirements for source-oriented monitors were published in the Federal Register on 

December 27, 2010 (75 FR 81126). This rule changed the emissions threshold that state 

monitoring agencies must use to determine if an air quality monitor should be placed near 

an industrial facility that emits lead. The new threshold was reduced from 1.0 tpy to 0.5 

tpy. At this point in time, EPA does not believe that the Crawford Electric Generating 

Station should be included in the nonattainment area either because air quality does not 

meet the NAAQS or because it contributes to violations elsewhere. Based on the 

reported emissions from the facility evaluated in the context of EPA’s revised monitoring 

requirements, there is not a current Federal requirement for a source oriented monitor to 

be operational in the immediate vicinity of the Crawford Electric Generating Station.

In response to the study provided by the commenter examining lead deposition patterns, 

EPA observes that the study concluded that lead emissions from the power plant used in 

the study can travel up to 18 kilometers away from the stack. The study did not include 

corresponding levels of lead in the air at the same distances. Although EPA agrees that 

lead emissions from coal-fired power plants may experience limited travel, we believe 

that the State-recommended nonattainment area captures the area that does not meet the 

2008 lead NAAQS as well as emissions sources that cause or contribute to the violation 

of this NAAQS. 

 

1 The commenter included a 1999 paper authored by Jessica L. Johnston and Richard D. Foust, Jr., “New 

Methodology for Monitoring Atmospheric Deposition of Lead at the Mohave Power Plant in Laughlin, 

Nevada.” 
The design value for the monitor located at 735 W. Harrison St. (AQS ID 170310026) 

has been updated in Table 2 to reflect 2008 – 2010 data. The highest 3-month rolling 

average collected at this monitor is 0.05 μg/m3

. This value supports EPA’s conclusion 

that the proposed nonattainment area encompasses the entire area that does not meet the 

2008 lead NAAQS and includes emissions sources that cause or contribute to the 

violation of this ambient air quality standard. In other words, EPA does not see a basis 

for expanding the northern or eastern edge of the nonattainment area. 

Comment: One commenter supported EPA’s proposed nonattainment designation for the 

Chicago area, but went on, “. . .we want to make clear that we want to go further, by 

immediately demanding that polluters impacting this designation either clean up or shut 

down.” The commenter cited various violations at the Kramer facility, and raises 

numerous concerns about the dangers of lead exposure, e.g., lead is a heavy metal that 

can cause irreparable damage to life, there are no safe levels of exposure to lead, and 

exposure to lead is particularly detrimental to children under seven years of age. The 

commenter asserted that, “. . .young children in the community contained by the 

proposed nonattainment area are at risk of irreparable brain and other types of physical 

damage, more so than children in other communities of Chicago.” 

Response: The effective date of the nonattainment designation for the Chicago area is 

December 31, 2011. The Clean Air Act requires that Illinois EPA submit to EPA in 2013, 

after public hearing, a plan with enforceable emission limitations and other control 

measures to reduce lead emissions sufficiently to attain the 2008 lead NAAQS as 

expeditiously as practicable, but no later than December 31, 2016. Separate from the 

nonattainment designations process is enforcement actions against sources for violations 

of existing Clean Air Act requirements. The commenter is correct in that sources in the 

proposed nonattainment area such as the Kramer facility have been subject to 

enforcement actions already.2 Both the attainment planning process and enforcement 

actions can lead to emissions reductions at sources, but it is not possible at this to predict 

the exact outcome of those processes. 

EPA agrees with the commenter that exposure to lead, particularly among young 

children, can cause a wide range of adverse health effects. Reducing levels of lead 

pollution is an important part of EPA’s commitment to a clean and healthy environment, 

and the designations and implementation planning process is an important mechanism to 

ensure that lead levels in the air attain the NAAQS, which are set by EPA to protect 

public health with an adequate margin of safety. 

Comment: One commenter contended that “U.S. EPA’s proposed designation of the 

Pilsen neighborhood as nonattainment for lead is arbitrary and capricious for at least two 

reasons: (1)U.S. EPA relies entirely on data from monitoring stations sited next to a 

minor lead source, in violation of EPA’s own requirements for siting ambient air 

monitoring stations; and (2) U.S. EPA has incorrectly concluded, without reviewing or 

considering the 2011 stack test sampling data ordered by the Illinois EPA, that Kramer’s 

stack emissions are a source of lead at the ambient air quality monitoring station located 

 

2

http://www.epa.gov/reg5oair/enforce/pilsen/
at the Perez Elementary School, 1241 West 19th Street, Chicago, Illinois (the “Perez 

Monitor”). That stack test data shows that Kramer’s emissions cannot be contributing to 

national ambient air quality non-attainment.” 

The commenter argued that the data collected at the Perez Elementary School and the 

Juarez High School monitors cannot be used to show that there has been an exceedance 

of the 2008 lead NAAQS because the monitoring station was sited in violation of the 

requirements established in 40 CFR Part 58, Appendix E, which mandate the proper 

locations of all ambient air quality monitors so that accurate and uniform data is 

collected. The commenter also observed that there is no data from the Juarez High 

School monitor showing a violation of the 2008 lead NAAQS. The commenter continued 

that because the Perez Elementary School monitor was set up and designed to be source 

specific monitor, the data cannot be used to determine air quality over a much larger area, 

namely the Pilsen neighborhood. The commenter also insisted that the height of the 

Perez Elementary School monitor does not comply with 40 CFR Part 58, Appendix E –

and the data collected at the monitor “...is invalid and unreliable for any purpose under 

U.S. EPA’s own rules.”3 Lastly, the commenter observed that if other sources in Cook 

County were monitored using the same “flawed” monitoring method as Illinois and U.S. 

EPA used on Kramer, those sources would also “show-up as non-attainment.” The 

commenter ended with the assertion that Illinois EPA and EPA have created inconsistent 

and flawed data because Illinois EPA evaluated data from area wide population monitors 

in other locales in Cook County, while evaluating a source specific monitor in the 

proposed nonattainment area. 

The commenter included recent stack testing results performed at the Kramer facility, 

which show that all emissions release points at the facility are well below the 1.0 

milligrams per dry standard cubic meter (mg/dscm) and 0.20 mg/dscm thresholds being 

proposed by EPA to address the results of the residual risk and technology review for

secondary lead smelters that EPA is required to conduct by the CAA.4 The commenter 

observed that if the proposed rules were finalized, they would not apply to the Kramer 

facility because Kramer is not considered to be a major source for lead, nor is it a

secondary lead smelter. However, the commenter argued that in the proposal, EPA stated 

that, “. . .we conclude that the actual and MACT-allowable lead emissions from this 

source category would be reduced to the point that they would not result in off-site 

concentrations above the NAAQS.” The commenter also included air dispersion 

modeling performed by a meteorologist, aimed to demonstrate that the stack emissions at 

the Kramer facility are not responsible for the measured lead concentrations at the Perez

Elementary School monitor, or the Juarez High School Monitor. 

 

3 Whereas the Perez Elementary School monitor is 7.5 meters above the ground, the commenter stated that 

microscale source monitors must be installed 2 to 7 meters from the ground. 

4 National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Secondary Lead Smelting (76 FR 29032). 

The proposed rule sets a facility-wide emission limit of a flow-weighted average of 0.20 mg/dscm and a 

limit of 1.0 mg/dscm for any one stack a facility. 
Response: The monitor located at 1241 W. 19th St., (AQS ID 170310110) is classified as 

a middle scale monitor, and according to Table E-4 of 40 CFR Part 58, Appendix E –

Summary of Probe and Monitoring Path Siting Criteria, the probe height should be 

between 2 and 15 meters. EPA observes that the probe height at the monitor in question 

is 7.5 meters, and is therefore in the prescribed range. In response to the commenter’s 

claim that data from a source specific monitor cannot be used to determine air quality 

over a much larger area, EPA believes that the siting requirements under 40 CFR Part 58 

Appendix E must be viewed from the perspective of the monitoring scale as described in 

40 CFR Part 58 Appendix D (Network Design Criteria for Ambient Air Quality 

Monitoring). The lead monitoring requirements prescribed in section 4.5(d) state, “The 

most important spatial scales for source-oriented sites to effectively characterize the 

emissions from point sources are microscale and middle scale.” The description of 

middle scale for lead monitoring is as follows: 

“This scale generally represents Pb air quality levels in areas up to several city blocks in 

size with dimensions on the order of approximately 100 meters to 500 meters. The 

middle scale may for example, include schools and playgrounds in center city areas 

which are close to major Pb point sources. Pb monitors in such areas are desirable 

because of the higher sensitivity of children to exposures of elevated Pb concentrations 

(reference 3 of this appendix). Emissions from point sources frequently impact on areas 

at which single sites may be located to measure concentrations representing middle 

spatial scales.”

Impacts on a neighborhood scale per section 4.5(d)(3) of Appendix D may occur (0.5 to 

4.0 kilometer range), but the highest impact from a source such as the Kramer facility 

usually occurs over a range of 100 meters to 500 meters. 
Figure 1: Area Impacted by Kramer, Middle Scale

Figure 1, above, portrays a circle with a radius of 500 meters centered around the Kramer 

facility. The circle has not been adjusted to reflect the predominant wind patterns that 

blow from the southwest. This illustration shows that the Perez Elementary School 

monitor may be impacted by the Kramer facility; however, it must be noted that the area 

represented by the monitor is different. The area represented by the monitor is depicted 

by Figure 2, below. Figure 2 also illustrates that the Perez Elementary School monitor 

may be impacted by the Kramer facility. 
Figure 2: Middle Scale Impact at Perez Elementary School Monitor

The commenter is correct in stating that there have been no monitored exceedances of the 

2008 lead NAAQS at the Juarez High School monitor location. This short-term monitor 

was established by Illinois EPA in March 2011 to better characterize the source of the 

elevated emissions; with very limited data, it would be premature to make assumptions 

about whether the Juarez site has the potential to exceed the NAAQS. Based on the 

predominant wind patterns and associated monitored values, Illinois EPA concluded that 

the elevated lead levels originated somewhere between the two monitors. 

Any adjustments to the middle scale impact around the Kramer facility would result in a 

shift to a variation of the northeast, which would therefore include more residential 

homes. As seen in Figure 1, even without adjusting for the predominant wind patterns, 

there exist susceptible populations within the 500 meter radius of H. Kramer including 

the Perez and Juarez schools, and several block of residences. A middle scale site in this 

instance would not only measure the maximum relatively consistent impact of the facility 

but would also represent the air quality for all of the residents, including children, to the 

consequences of persistent lead exposure. As noted above in the discussion pertaining to 

population density, the area in question has a population density of approximately 15,000 

persons per square mile. The area enclosed by a circle with a 500 meter radius is 

approximately 0.30 square miles, therefore it is possible that up to 4,500 people would be 
adversely affected by the elevated levels of lead emissions. Furthermore, the monitoring 

requirements for lead in Appendix D clearly state that a monitor sited to characterize the 

impact of a lead point source "must be sited, taking into account logistics and the 

potential for population exposure, where the lead concentration from all sources 

combined is expected to be at its maximum." The Perez Elementary School monitoring 

site, therefore, fully meets the qualifications for measuring lead concentrations as well as 

taking into account lead exposures to sensitive populations and provides the information 

necessary to compare the air quality of the area around the H. Kramer facility to the 2008 

lead NAAQS.

It must be noted, however, that monitor siting and its associated scale of 

representativeness is independent of the extent of the nonattainment boundary. EPA 

observes in this instance that even though the monitor sited at the Perez Elementary 

School is middle scale, the nonattainment area does not necessarily have to be confined 

to an area defined by middle scale. In other words, although a middle scale monitor is 

considered most representative of an area of approximately 0.30 square miles, the 

nonattainment area can be much larger. This is due, in part because a nonattainment area 

includes sources that cause violations of the 2008 lead NAAQS, sources that contribute to 

a violation of the 2008 lead NAAQS, and any areas where air quality is expected to 

exceed the standard. 

EPA disagrees with the commenter’s point that Illinois EPA and EPA have created

inconsistent and flawed data by evaluating data from differently scaled monitors in Cook 

County. Source-oriented monitors are deployed in areas where there are likely to be 

elevated levels of lead emissions, and they are required under the new monitoring

requirements at sources that emit at, or above, 0.5 tpy, unless EPA grants a waiver. 

Illinois EPA is in the process of evaluating their options with respect to the need for 

additional monitors. 

 

EPA does not dispute the recent stack testing results performed at the Kramer facility for 

lead, but needs to clarify the language presented by the commenter. If finalized as 

proposed, the new air toxics standards for secondary lead smelters would require that 

facilities subject to the rule lower their facility-wide emissions to a flow-weighted 

average of 0.20 mg/dscm, and any one stack to no more than 1.0 mg/dscm. However, a 

decrease in emissions is not by itself sufficient for EPA to conclude that off-site 

concentrations of lead would not be above the NAAQS. Instead, EPA has proposed that 

in addition to the new emissions limits, facilities would be required to either fully enclose 

their facility and implement comprehensive fugitive work practices, or implement 

comprehensive work practices and lead air monitoring (at the boundaries of the facility). 

As the commenter has observed, the Kramer facility would not be subject to these 

standards, as this particular facility is not a secondary lead smelter; in this response, EPA 

is only clarifying the language presented by the commenter. 

Lastly, the intent of a formal nonattainment designation is to begin the process for which 

Illinois EPA can submit a plan to EPA showing how the nonattainment area will comply

with the 2008 lead NAAQS by a date certain. EPA is neither endorsing nor rejecting the 
commenter’s claim that stack emissions at the Kramer facility are not the cause of the 

elevated lead levels captured by the Perez Elementary School monitor. But, because 

there is a monitored violation of the 2008 lead NAAQS in very close proximity to the 

Kramer facility in conjunction with the fact that the Kramer facility does indeed emit 

lead, EPA believes that the facility should be included in the nonattainment area for the 

2008 lead NAAQS. The plan that Illinois EPA will submit to EPA in June of 2013, after 

public comment, demonstrating how the area will comply with the 2008 lead NAAQS 

will include comprehensive analyses of facilities in the nonattainment area. Facility-wide 

emissions analyses for sources in the nonattainment area, including emissions not 

originating from stacks, will be included as part of Illinois EPA’s plan.