Document comparison by Workshar e 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 SO 2 ... available air quality " changed to " s Yellowstone SO 2 ... 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

... SO 2Designation " changed to " D. EPA should repeal the

... SO 2 Designation "
29-30 Change " the Yellowstone SO 2 ... fact, meeting the NAAQS. " changed to " the Yellowstone SO 2 ... 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 46COMMON INTEREST PRIVILEGE ASSERTED/CONFIDENTIAL

TSRIA AND EPA MEETING ONYELLOWSTONE COUNTY SO 2DESIGNATION TSRIA Discussion Points For January 15, 2014 Meeting
Meeting Focus: Yellowstone County presents a unique case that should not have I. been designated nonattainment. EPA should (1) reconsider and repeal the Yellowstone SO 2Designation based on new data that further demonstrate that no portion of Yello wstone County should have been designated nonattainment for the 2010 SO 2NAAQS; and (2) stay the Yellowstone SO 2Designation pending completion of EPA’s administrative proceedings. Main Discussion Points: II. Overview of Petition for Reconsideration: Yellowstone County should not have been A. designated nonattainment based on CAA statutory requirements. 1 The Administrator must base NAAQS designations on: The state’s initial designation , which was “unclassifiable” for Yellowstone 1. County. The State of Montana (State) submitted an initial designation i. determination of “unclassifiable” for Yellowstone County on May 27, 2011 based on its conclusion that 2010 emissions were not representative. The State reaffirmed its determination that Yellowstone County should be ii. designated “unclassifiable” in comments to EPA disputing EPA’s proposed modification of the initial designation on April 3, 2013. 1 State representatives including the Governor, U.S. Congressmen, County iii. Commissioners, and the Mayor of Billings all supported the unclassifiable designation with letters of support and discussions with EPA. 2 iii. 3 The State only provided a five-factor analysis justifying a smaller iv. nonattainment area in Yellowstone County as a fallback4in case EPA rejected the State’s “unclassifiable” designation. iv. 5 EPA’s Yellowstone SO 2designation went against the State’s v. sustained assertion that Yellowstone County should be designated “unclassifiable.” Air quality data , all of which (excluding unreliable and unrepresentative ambient 2. data) demonstrate attainment. Planning and control considerations , which demonstrate that permanent and 3. enforceable emission controls have been put in place over the last several years; SO 2emissions 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.Any other air quality-related considerationsthe Administrator deems 4. appropriate, such as the fact that Yellowstone County has demonstrated attainment by a significant margin since the effective date of the rule. Newly available air quality data for Yellowstone County clearly demonstrate that: B. Yellowstone County has been attaining the NAAQS since the effective date of the 1. 2010 SO 2NAAQS. (Chart 1, showing 2013 data.) Ambient data from 2010 is non-representative and unreliable and should not form 2. the basis for a nonattainment designation. (Charts 2, 3, 4, and 5 with 2013 data demonstrating outlier nature of 2010 data.) 6EPA ’ s use of emissions from 2008 and 2010 as comparisons to portray 2009 and 3. 2011 emissions as uncharacteristically low is misleading. (Charts 2 and 3 show consistently lower emissions in all but these two years.) 7 3. 8 EPA’s Yellowstone SO 2Designation does 9 did 10not reflect all available air 4. quality data, planning and control considerations, and other relevant air quality considerations ; 11 but 12instead the Designation arbitrarily relies on one 13 gave unwarranted weight to one questionable 14outlier year of monitoring data, resulting in an erroneous nonattainment designation. Because the 2009-2011 design value for Yellowstone County is within the margin of C. error, EPA must closely examine all ambient 15 dataand emission trends 16for the area and reject the questionable 2010 data to make such a close call. Even minor deviations and quality lapses in the ambient 17 data make it unusable 1. and impact the designation outcome. New 18 The new 19data further expose EPA’s incomplete reasoning in its Response 2. to Comments 20that any problems with 21 2010ambient22data are representative of the air quality in Yellowstone County 23 compensated 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 designation 24

. The new ambient 25 data gathered after the effective date do not suffer from the 3. same quality concerns and provide a reliable basis for a NAAQS designationthat is consistent with all of the other considerations required under the Clean Air Act26

. EPA should stay 27repeal 28the Yellowstone SO 2Designation portion of its August 2013 D. rule because it is based on non-representative data that fail to meet EPA regulatory requirements, and the area is, in fact, meeting the NAAQS 29 and 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 designation 30

. 31 Because 4 of the past 5 years show ambient SO 2averages consistently below 75 1. ppb (2009, 2011, 2012, 2013

–see Chart 4), and because the Yellowstone SO 2 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 The agency should also recognize and weigh more favorably the downward 2. emissions trend presented in Charts 2 and 3. 34 35 EPA gave disproportionate weight to 2008 and 2010 as representative i. emissions levels in its responses to comments and technical supportdocuments even though emissions in both years were affected by required control testing. 36 37 The new data make it even more apparent that 2008 and 2010 were ii. exceptions from the consistent downward trend in SO 2emissions rather than 2009 and 2011 being “below past emissions levels. ” (MT TSD, p. 10) 38 39Finally, we ask the agency to give proper weight to permanent and enforceable 3. 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 The new lower emissions since 2009 have proven to be sustainable and i. representative. 42 43 The reductions in ambient monitor readings and emissions in 2009, ii. 2011, 2012, and 2013 confirm the effectiveness of these permanent controls. 44 45 A nonattainment designation is unsupported, unnecessary to protect public health, and E. will thus cause unjustified economic harm to Yellowstone County. 46 Potential EPA Arguments to Rebut: III. WDEQ audits verify that 2009-2011 data are reliable enough to make the designation. A. EPA clean data policy mitigates problems with the nonattainment designation without B. requiring repeal of the designation. PPL Corette Plant needs controls – without nonattainment designation or unclassifiable C. designation, no significant SO 2controls will be put on the plant. CAA requires EPA to designate Yellowstone County nonattainment because monitoring D. data shows it exceeded the NAAQS.