Louis P Pocalujka \<lppocalujka@cmsenergy.com\>

04/17/2006 10:27 AM

To

Group A-AND-R-DOCKET@EPA

cc

bcc

Subject

Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2001-0017

To Whom It May Concern,

This e-mail transmits the attached comments of Consumers Energy,
regarding

EPA\'s proposed rule to revise the National Ambient Air Quality
Standards

for Particulate Matter, published in the Federal Register on January 17,

2006\.

If you have any questions, please contact me at 517-788-2160.

Louis Pocalujka

Senior Environmental Planner

Environmental & Laboratory Services

Consumers Energy

**COMMENTS OF CONSUMERS ENERGY**

April 17, 2006

Submitted via e-mail to **a-and-r-Docket@epa.gov**

**Subject: [Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2001-0017]{.underline}**

(National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Particulate Matter;

Proposed Rule, 71 Fed. Reg. pp. 2620-708, January 17, 2006)

Consumers Energy appreciates this opportunity to comment on EPA's
proposed standards for particulate matter. These comments focus upon
EPA's proposal regarding fine particle (PM~2.5~) National Ambient Air
Quality Standards (NAAQS).

Consumers Energy is one of the nation's largest combined gas and
electric utilities, ranking fifth among the gas utilities and thirteenth
among electric utilities. We serve 6 million of Michigan's 9.9 million
residents.

Consumers Energy is proud of its achievements in meeting or exceeding
previous Federal and State air regulatory initiatives. These include,
but are not limited to Michigan's 1980 sulfur in fuel limitation rule,
the Acid Rain provisions of the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments, and the
NOx SIP Call. We have historically been active participants in State
Implementation Plan (SIP) development in Michigan, particularly when our
sources are factors in designing an attainment strategy. We believe that
these efforts were instrumental in helping Michigan become the largest
industrialized state to reach attainment for each of the six criteria
pollutants listed under the Clean Air Act, prior to the designations
under the current PM 2.5 and ozone NAAQS.

We are active members of the Utility Air Regulatory Group (UARG), the
Edison Electric Institute (EEI) and the Michigan Manufacturers
Association (MMA). All three are submitting comments on these proposals,
regarding issues of general concern to the entire industry. As a member
of these organizations, Consumers Energy supports and incorporates those
comments, by reference.

**GENERAL STATEMENT REGARDING AIR EMISSIONS AND AMBIENT AIR QUALITY**

Emitting sources, including electric power plants, have been making
dramatic reductions in emissions for decades while supplying the
nation's ever-increasing demand for energy and consumer products. Since
1970, total emissions of the six criteria air pollutants dropped by 54
percent. Whether EPA tightens the fine particle standards as proposed or
leaves the current standards in place, air quality will continue to
dramatically improve due to huge pollution cuts already in the pipeline,
some ordered just within this past year. For example, the State of
Michigan has already petitioned EPA to redesignate 11 of its 25 ozone
nonattainment counties to attainment. Petitions to redesignate five
additional counties are expected to be submitted later this year. Many
of the reductions that are producing these successes for ozone will also
be playing a role in reducing PM~2.5~. Consumers Energy believes that
EPA should give these initiatives the opportunity to become fully
implemented and then consider whether they deliver benefits for reducing
particulate matter before seeking additional emissions reductions.

**COMMENTS PERTAINING TO EPA'S RATIONALE FOR CHANGING THE PM NAAQS**

Consumers Energy fully supports the establishment of air quality
standards based on a complete, objective and thorough review of the
current body of scientific literature.  However, this proposal is
undermined by many major uncertainties noted in the proposal by EPA
itself. These uncertainties are so substantial that they undermine the
basis for tightening the standards. Further, despite these
uncertainties, EPA's proposal makes clear that the risks estimated to be
associated with ambient PM~2.5~ have not increased since the present
standards were set. In fact, they have declined.

Furthermore, it is our opinion that EPA's supporting arguments relied
upon carefully selected subset of research studies. There appears to be
a bias towards certain epidemiological studies that claim an association
between fine particles and health effects, while giving short shrift to
studies that suggest PM~2.5~ presents little or no health risk.

EPA's review of the scientific literature demonstrates a clear
reluctance towards assessing and identifying specific types of
particles, or other pollutants present in the air along with fine
particulate matter, that may be more significantly associated with
health concerns. Rather, EPA proposes to treat all PM~2.5~, emitted by
select source categories, as being equal. This is inconsistent with
conclusions of both the National Academy of Sciences and EPA's own
Office of Inspector General.

Comments supplied by UARG and EEI go into great depth in critiquing
EPA's methodologies, particularly the studies relied upon, the studies
ignored, and EPA's disregard for the uncertainties inherent in the
supporting studies, data and models. Comments supplied by MMA address
impacts of these regulation on the State's manufacturing base.

**IMPACTS OF EPA'S PROPOSED REVISIONS**

## As detailed by UARG and EEI, the benefits of EPA's proposal are very uncertain. However, the consequences of being classified as "non-attainment" for a National Ambient Air Quality Standard are very real, far-reaching and severe. EPA's Inspector General has recognized the danger of heading down the road to further regulation, without adequate guidance as to what should be regulated. The Inspector General found that by 2010 industry would spend \$37 billion annually to reduce ambient PM~2.5~ concentrations, despite the fact that EPA has inadequate PM~2.5~ speciation data to help ensure that reductions are made by the right sources. 

These costs should not be trivialized. From a recent historical
perspective, Consumers Energy initially estimated that our costs to
implement the NOx SIP Call would be approximately \$200 million. EPA's
experts believed that this number was a gross exaggeration. Our actual
implementation costs will exceed \$800 million.

EPA has underestimated the number of new non-attainment areas that would
result from its proposal. An analysis for the American Petroleum
Institute of the impact of the proposed standards, based on 2004-2005
air quality data, finds that 441 counties would fail the proposed
24-hour standard alone. This is about 250 more counties than EPA
estimated. Upon review, EPA 1) only counted those counties with monitors
and did not include the other nearby counties that would be dragged into
non-attainment by being in the same Metropolitan Statistical Area, and
2) used projected air quality data for a later time period with greater
air quality improvements than exist during the years upon which actual
non-attainment designations will be made.

## A non-attainment designation discourages new industry from locating within such areas and may prevent existing industries from expanding. Both have significant impacts on jobs and local economies. Under the worst case scenario, the additional requirements imposed on industrial sources within these areas may cause some facilities to shut down and leave Michigan, leading to a further erosion of jobs. Lost jobs, wages and increased costs for energy and consumer products create an adverse real-world impact that is much more concrete than the uncertain benefits of the proposed standards. They are not fully offset by temporary construction activities to install controls. These comments reflect reality in Michigan. Additional economic and impact data are contained in comments supplied by MMA.

**COMMENTS REGARDING THE PROPOSED CHANGES TO THE PM NAAQS**

**24-Hour Standard**

Consumers Energy does not believe that EPA has made an adequate case for
tightening the 24-hour standard from 65 ug/m^3^ to 35 ug/m^3^. EPA's
rationale relies on a very selective use of studies, combined with an
aversion to consider uncertainty analyses. Indeed, recent science does
not support EPA's proposal. Detailed technical and legal arguments are
contained in the comments supplied by UARG and EEI.

**Annual Standard**

We believe that EPA was correct in leaving the level of the annual
standard at 15 ug/m^3^, finding that it "provisionally concludes" that
the newer mortality and morbidity studies "do not provide a clear basis
for selecting a level lower than the current standard." However, we do
not concur with EPA's proposal to change the form of the standard for
demonstrating attainment. Specifically, EPA has proposed to increase,
from 0.6 to 0.9, the required correlation coefficient between properly
sited monitor pairs that may be spatially averaged. Further, this
correlation coefficient is to be maintained on a seasonal basis. This
change to the form of the annual standard would make demonstration of
attainment, via spatial averaging, more difficult, effectively
increasing the stringency of the standard.

**Secondary Standard**

EPA has solicited comment with regard to revising the secondary standard
for the purposes of protecting urban visibility. EPA recognizes that
"the fundamental characterization of the role of PM, especially fine
particles, in visibility impairment" has not changed since the present
secondary PM~2.5~ standards were found to provide the requisite level of
visibility protection. Consequently, Consumers Energy believes that no
change to the secondary standard is warranted.

**Urban Coarse Particulate Standard**

EPA has proposed to add a daily NAAQS of 70 ug/m^3^ for urban coarse PM
measured within the range of 2.5 to 10 microns in size. It is EPA's view
that sources of coarse particles common in urban areas are of greater
concern than uncontaminated materials of geologic origin. In this case,
EPA's intent is to focus only on the toxic components in this complex
mixture. However, the available health effects evidence simply does not
provide a scientific basis for this standard. Consequently, Consumers
Energy does not believe that the record provides an adequate basis for
this standard.

**Excluding Agricultural and Mining Sources**

EPA has proposed to exclude the contributions from agricultural and
mining sources as part of this revision. Yet the Agency has based its
arguments to tighten the standards based on total PM~2.5~ not on
components of PM~2.5~. If the EPA chooses to regulate on the basis of
total, all significant sources should be included.

**RECOMMENDATIONS**

Consumers Energy recommends and supports maintaining the annual standard
at 15 ug/m^3^ and the 24-hour standard at 65 ug/m^3^. The science does
not support a tightening of the standards or altering the forms in a
manner that increases the stringency.

Consumers Energy does not recommend a change to the secondary standard
for protecting urban visibility. The science does not demonstrate that
such a change is warranted, given the other programs that are already on
the books. The multitude of federal regulatory actions underway is more
than adequate to protect and improve visibility. We support EPA's
proposal to set the secondary PM~2.5~ NAAQS equal to the 24-hour primary
NAAQS.

Consumers Energy does not support the addition of an urban coarse
particulate standard, based on the data and rationale provided by EPA.
If EPA wishes to pursue this further, we recommend that the Agency
design and implement a coarse particulate measurement program, in both
urban and rural areas, to gather the necessary data on the detailed
composition and relative toxicity of coarse particulates. Such data
would allow EPA to make an informed and scientific decision.

With regard to the timing of any revision to the PM~2.5~ NAAQS, we
recommend that implementation not be imposed until such time as current
national requirements, such as Phase 1 of the Clean Air Interstate Rule,
new diesel regulations and mobile source requirements, have been fully
implemented.

In conclusion, EPA should allow states to implement the existing PM~2.5~
standards, which they must meet by 2010, before moving the regulatory
goal posts, yet again. EPA should follow through on the National Academy
of Sciences' recommendation that the agency identify the potentially
harmful components of particulate matter to ensure we are tackling the
right pollutants.

Consumers Energy appreciates this opportunity to discuss our views on
EPA's proposed particulate matter standards. If you have any questions,
please contact Louis Pocalujka at

517-788-2160.

Sincerely,

Louis Pocalujka

Senior Environmental Planner

Environmental & Laboratory Services

Consumers Energy

1945 W. Parnall Road

Jackson, MI 49201