Document comparison by Workshare Compare on Monday, January 13, 2014

10:49:10 AM

Input:

Document 1 ID

file://J:/TSRIA/EPA Meeting on Pet for Rec/Materials for

Meeting/TSRIA-EPA Meeting Discussion Points - updated

1-9-14.docx

Description TSRIA-EPA Meeting Discussion Points - updated 1-9-14

Document 2 ID

file://J:/TSRIA/EPA Meeting on Pet for Rec/Materials for

Meeting/TSRIA-EPA Meeting Discussion Points - updated

1-11-14.docx

Description TSRIA-EPA Meeting Discussion Points - updated 1-11-14

Rendering set standard

Legend:

Insertion 

Deletion 

Moved from 

Moved to 

Style change

Format change

Moved deletion 

Inserted cell

Deleted cell

Moved cell

Split/Merged cell

Padding cell

Redline Summary:

No. Change Text

1-2 Insertion iii. State...discussions with EPA.

3 Change "The State only provided a five-factor" changed

to "iii. The State only provided a five-factor"

4 Format change as a fallback

5 Change "EPA" changed to "iv. EPA"

6-7 Insertion 3. EPA’s use of emissions...but these two

years.)
8 Change "EPA" changed to "3. EPA"

9-10 Change

"s Yellowstone SO2...available air quality"

changed to "s Yellowstone SO2...available air

quality"

11-12 Change

"relevant air quality considerations; instead"

changed to "relevant air quality considerations but

instead"

13-14 Change

"instead the Designation...year of monitoring data,"

changed to "instead gave unwarranted...year of

monitoring data,"

15 Change

"error, EPA must closely examine all data"

changed to "error, EPA must closely examine all

ambient data"

16 Change

"data and emission trends...reject the questionable"

changed to "data for the area and reject the

questionable"

17 Change

"deviations and quality...it unusable and impact"

changed to "deviations and quality...it unusable

and impact"

18-19 Change "2. New data further expose EPA" changed to

"2. The new data further expose EPA"

20 Change "s incomplete reasoning in...to Comments that"

changed to "s incomplete reasoning that"

21 Change "that 2010" changed to "that any problems with

2010"

22 Change "2010 data are" changed to "2010 ambient data

are"

23-24 Change

"data are representative...in Yellowstone County."

changed to "data are compensated for...of the

designation."

25 Change

"3. The new data gathered after the effective"

changed to "3. The new ambient data...after

the effective"

26 Change

"reliable basis for a NAAQS designation."

changed to "reliable basis for a...under the Clean

Air Act."
27-28 Change

"D. EPA should stay the...SO2 Designation"

changed to "D. EPA should repeal the...SO2

Designation"

29-30 Change

"the Yellowstone SO2...fact, meeting the NAAQS."

changed to "the Yellowstone SO2...the correct

designation."

31-32 Insertion 1. Because 4 of the past...the designation.

33-34 Insertion 2. The agency should also...in Charts 2 and 3.

35-36 Insertion i. EPA gave...control testing.

37-38 Insertion ii. The new data make it...levels.” (MT TSD,

p. 10)

39-40 Insertion 3. Finally, we ask the...in 2012 and 2013.

41-42 Insertion i. The new lower...and representative.

43-44 Insertion ii. The reductions in...permanent controls.

45-46 Insertion E. A nonattainment...to Yellowstone County.

Statistics:

Count

Insertions 33

Deletions 12

Moved from 0

Moved to 0

Style change 0

Format changed 1

Total changes 46
COMMON INTEREST PRIVILEGE ASSERTED/CONFIDENTIAL

TSRIA AND EPA MEETING ON YELLOWSTONE COUNTY SO2 DESIGNATION

TSRIA Discussion Points

For January 15, 2014 Meeting

I. Meeting Focus: Yellowstone County presents a unique case that should not have

been designated nonattainment.

EPA should (1) reconsider and repeal the Yellowstone SO2 Designation based on new data that

further demonstrate that no portion of Yellowstone County should have been designated

nonattainment for the 2010 SO2 NAAQS; and (2) stay the Yellowstone SO2 Designation pending

completion of EPA’s administrative proceedings.

II. Main Discussion Points:

A. Overview of Petition for Reconsideration: Yellowstone County should not have been

designated nonattainment based on CAA statutory requirements.1 The Administrator

must base NAAQS designations on:

1. The state’s initial designation, which was “unclassifiable” for Yellowstone

County.

i. The State of Montana (State) submitted an initial designation

determination of “unclassifiable” for Yellowstone County on May 27,

2011 based on its conclusion that 2010 emissions were not representative.

ii. The State reaffirmed its determination that Yellowstone County should be

designated “unclassifiable” in comments to EPA disputing EPA’s

proposed modification of the initial designation on April 3, 2013.

1 iii. State representatives including the Governor, U.S. Congressmen, County 

Commissioners, and the Mayor of Billings all supported the unclassifiable 

designation with letters of support and discussions with EPA.2

iii. 3 iv. The State only provided a five-factor analysis justifying a smaller

nonattainment area in Yellowstone County as a fallback4 in case EPA

rejected the State’s “unclassifiable” designation.

iv. 5 v. EPA’s Yellowstone SO2 designation went against the State’s

sustained assertion that Yellowstone County should be designated

“unclassifiable.”

2. Air quality data, all of which (excluding unreliable and unrepresentative ambient

data) demonstrate attainment.

3. Planning and control considerations, which demonstrate that permanent and

enforceable emission controls have been put in place over the last several years;

SO2 emissions and concentrations have decreased and will continue to decrease in

the foreseeable future in Yellowstone County.

1 See CAA §§ 107(d)(1)(A) and (B)(iii) and 107(d)(3)(A), which require the Administrator to base designations on 

the factors outlined in II.A.
4. Any other air quality-related considerations the Administrator deems

appropriate, such as the fact that Yellowstone County has demonstrated

attainment by a significant margin since the effective date of the rule.

B. Newly available air quality data for Yellowstone County clearly demonstrate that:

1. Yellowstone County has been attaining the NAAQS since the effective date of the

2010 SO2 NAAQS. (Chart 1, showing 2013 data.)

2. Ambient data from 2010 is non-representative and unreliable and should not form

the basis for a nonattainment designation. (Charts 2, 3, 4, and 5 with 2013 data

demonstrating outlier nature of 2010 data.)

6 3. EPA’s use of emissions from 2008 and 2010 as comparisons to portray 2009 and 

2011 emissions as uncharacteristically low is misleading. (Charts 2 and 3 show 

consistently lower emissions in all but these two years.)7

3. 8EPA’s Yellowstone SO2 Designation does9did10 4. not reflect all available air

quality data, planning and control considerations, and other relevant air quality

considerations;

11 but12 instead the Designation arbitrarily relies on one13gave 

unwarranted weight to one questionable14 outlier year of monitoring data,

resulting in an erroneous nonattainment designation.

C. Because the 2009-2011 design value for Yellowstone County is within the margin of

error, EPA must closely examine all ambient 15data and emission trends16 for the area and

reject the questionable 2010 data to make such a close call.

Even minor deviations and quality lapses in the ambient 17 1. data make it unusable

and impact the designation outcome.

New18The new19 2. data further expose EPA’s incomplete reasoning in its Response 

to Comments 20that any problems with 212010 ambient22 data are representative of 

the air quality in Yellowstone County23compensated for by the use of a three-year 

average to determine the design value; however the problematic 2010 data 

overpower the averaging and lead to the erroneous outcome of the designation24.

The new ambient 25 3. data gathered after the effective date do not suffer from the

same quality concerns and provide a reliable basis for a NAAQS designation that 

is consistent with all of the other considerations required under the Clean Air 

Act26.

EPA should stay27repeal28 D. the Yellowstone SO2 Designation portion of its August 2013 

rule because it is based on non-representative data that fail to meet EPA regulatory 

requirements, and the area is, in fact, meeting the NAAQS29and more reasonably weigh 

the State’s initial designation, all available air quality data, planning and control 

considerations, and other relevant air quality considerations to make the correct 

designation30. 31 1. Because 4 of the past 5 years show ambient SO2 averages consistently below 75 

ppb (2009, 2011, 2012, 2013 – see Chart 4), and because the Yellowstone SO2

Designation is such a close call, EPA should not allow the one outlier year of 

2010 that is based on questionable data to determine the designation. 32

33 2. The agency should also recognize and weigh more favorably the downward 

emissions trend presented in Charts 2 and 3.34

35 i. EPA gave disproportionate weight to 2008 and 2010 as representative 

emissions levels in its responses to comments and technical support 
documents even though emissions in both years were affected by required 

control testing.36

37 ii. The new data make it even more apparent that 2008 and 2010 were 

exceptions from the consistent downward trend in SO2 emissions rather 

than 2009 and 2011 being “below past emissions levels.” (MT TSD, p. 10) 

38

39 3. Finally, we ask the agency to give proper weight to permanent and enforceable 

in-place controls that have recently been implemented rather than discounting the 

reductions brought about by the controls in 2009 and 2011, which have been 

further confirmed in 2012 and 2013. 40

41 i. The new lower emissions since 2009 have proven to be sustainable and 

representative.42

43 ii. The reductions in ambient monitor readings and emissions in 2009, 

2011, 2012, and 2013 confirm the effectiveness of these permanent 

controls.44

E. 45A nonattainment designation is unsupported, unnecessary to protect public health, and 

will thus cause unjustified economic harm to Yellowstone County.46

III. Potential EPA Arguments to Rebut:

A. WDEQ audits verify that 2009-2011 data are reliable enough to make the designation.

B. EPA clean data policy mitigates problems with the nonattainment designation without

requiring repeal of the designation.

C. PPL Corette Plant needs controls – without nonattainment designation or unclassifiable

designation, no significant SO2 controls will be put on the plant.

D. CAA requires EPA to designate Yellowstone County nonattainment because monitoring

data shows it exceeded the NAAQS.