68 
Attachment B- Michigan Civil Service Rule 

2-8 Ethical Standards and Conduct 

2-8.3 (a)(l)Disclosure 

At least annually, an employee shall disclose to the employee's appointing authority all 

personal or financial interests of the employee or members of the employee's immediate 

family in any business or entity with which the employee has direct contact while performing 

official duties as a classified employee. 

October 1, 2013 Michigan Civil Service Commission R~les 

69 

I 
70 
Attachment C - Public Hearing Notices 

ENVIRONMENTAL CALENDAR Apri/21, 2014 

AIR QUALITY DIVISION 

Statewide 

MICHIGAN INFRASTRUCTURE STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLAN APPLICABLE TO 

THE 2010 NITROGEN DIOXIDE, 2010 SULFUR DIOXIDE, 2008 OZONE, AND 2012 

PARTICULATE MATTER 2.5 NATIONAL AMBIENT AIR QUALITY STANDARDS 

(STATEWIDE). Written comments are being accepted by the Air Quality Division on 

proposed revisions to the Michigan State Implementation Plan (SIP) Infrastructure 

applicable to the 2008 Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS), the 2010 

Sulfur Dioxide and Nitrogen Dioxide NAAQS, and the 2012 Particulate Matter 2.5 NAAQS. 

These revisions state that the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality has the 

resources and authorities to implement and complete the requirements set forth in Section 

110 of the federal Clean Air Act for each of these NAAQS. The Michigan Department of 

Environmental Quality also intends to revise the Michigan Infrastructure State 

Implementation plan to include Michigan Civil Service Rule 2-8.3(a)(1) for the purposes of 

meeting requirements as obligated under the federal Clean Air Ac•. The proposed State 

Implementation Plan revisions can be viewed at 

http://www.michigan.gov/documents/deq/deq-aqd-michigan_proposed_multiinfrastructure_SIP _ 452365_7.pdf. Submit written comments to Erica Wolf, Michigan 

Department of Environmental Quality, Air Quality Division, P.O. Box 30260, Lansing, 

Michigan 48933. Written comments will be accepted by e-mail and all statements must be 

received by 5:00p.m. on May 7, 2014 to be considered by the decision-maker prior to final 

action. If requested in writing by May 7, 2014, a public hearing may be scheduled. 

Information Contact: Erica Wolf, Air Quality Division, 517-284-6766 or 

wolfe1@michigan.gov. Decision-maker: DEQ Director. 

ENVIRONMENTAL CALENDAR Mays, 2014 

AIR QUALITY DIVISION 

See Map - Statewide 

MICHIGAN INFRASTRUCTURE STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLAN (SIP) FOR THE 

2010 NITROGEN DIOXIDE, 2010 SUFLUR DIOXIDE, 2008 OZONE, AND 2012 

PARTICULATE MATTER 2.5 NATIONAL AMBIENT AIR QUALITY STANDARDS. The 

A.lr Qualtty Division will be extending the public comment period for an additional 30 days, 

and holding a public hearing on June 4, 2014, at 1:00 p.m. on the proposed Michigan 

Infrastructure SIP applicable to the 2008 Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards 

(NAAQS), the 2010 Sulfur Dioxide and Nitrogen Dioxide NAAQS, and the 2012 

Particulate Matter 2.5 NAAQS. The proposed SIP states that the Michigan Department of 

Environmental Quality has the resources and authorities to implement and complete the 

requirements set forth in Section 110 of the federal Clean Air Act for each of these 

NAAQS. The Michigan Department of Environmental Quality also intends to revise the 

Michigan SIP to include Michigan Civil Service Rule 2-8.3(a)(1) for the purposes of 

meeting requirements in Sections 110 and 128 of the federal Clean Air Act. The hearing 

will be held on June 4, 2014, at 1:00 p.m. at Constitution Hall, William Ford Conference 

Room, 2oo Floor, South Tower, 525 West Allegan Street, Lansing, Michigan. If there are 

no participants or if those who are present have been afforded the opportunity to speak, 

the hearing will close at 2:00p.m. The proposed SIP can be viewed on the Internet at: 

http://www.michigan.gov/documents/deq/deq-aqd-michigan_proposed_multiinfrastructure_SIP _ 452365_7.pdf. Copies of the proposed SIP may also be obtained by 

contacting the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality, Air Quality Division, at 517-

284-6740. Comments will be accepted until5:00 p.m. on June 4, 2014, and will be 

accepted by e-mail to wolfe1@michigan.gov or by mail to Erica Wolf, Michigan 

Department of Environmental Quality, Air Quality Division, P.O. Box 30260, Lansing, 

Michigan 48933. Information Contact: Erica Wol~ Air Quality Division, 

wolfe1@michigan.gov or 517-284-6766. Decision-maker: DEQ Director. 

71 
72 
Attachment D - Staff Report and Public Hearing Statement June 4, 2014 

MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY 

AIR QUALITY DIVISION 

PROPOSED INFRASTRUCTURE STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLAN FOR 

THE 2008 OZONE NATIONAL AMBIENT AIR QUALITY STANDARDS 

(NAAQS), 2010 NITROGEN DIOXIDE NAAQS, 2010 SULFUR DIOXIDE 

NAAQS, AND THE 2012 PARTICULATE MATTER 2.5 NAAQS 

SUBJECT 

The Department of Environmental Quality, Air Quality Division, is proposing to revise 

the Michigan State Implementation Plan (SIP) for the 2008 Ozone NAAQS, 20 I 0 

Nitrogen Dioxide NAAQS, 2010 Sulfur Dioxide NAAQS, and the 2012 Particulate 

Matter 2.5 NAAQS. 

PURPOSE AND SUMMARY OF THE PROPO~ED INFRASTRUCTURE SIPS 

Each time the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency revises a NAAQS each state must 

certify that their air management program contains the authorities necessary to implement 

and enforce the new standard and revise their SIP as needed. This SIP submittal is 

commonly referred to as the "Infrastructure" SIP. The USEP A promulgated a new 

NAAQS for Ozone in 2008, Nitrogen Dioxide and Sulfur Dioxide in 20 I 0 and Particulate 

Matter 2.5 in 2012. The DEQ has, in the proposed Infrastructure SIP, confirmed that the 

state retains the authorities necessary to evaluate ambient air quality, develop plans to 

attain and maintain new and existing air quality standards, meet the requirements of the 

new source review program, and effectively enforce all applicable requirements for these 

newNAAQS. 

In this Infrastructure SIP submittal, the DEQ is also requesting approval to add Civil 

Service Rule 2-8.3(a)(l) to the Michigan SIP. This Civil Service Rule is the only change 

proposed to the current Michigan SIP in this proposed Infrastructure SIP submittal. Civil 

Service Rule 2-8.3(a)(l) requires certain employees to disclose potential conflicts of 

interest on an annual basis and is a requirement to satisfying the Section II O(a)(2)(E)(ii) 

general state board requirements under Section 128 of the Clean Air Act. Only one part 

of Section 128 applies to Michigan, and it requires that the head of an executive agency, 

with the power to approve permits or enforcement orders adequately disclose any 

conflicts of interest. The DEQ Director has this power and therefore must disclose all 

potential conflicts of interest under this civil service rule. To be clear, this is not a new 

requirement for the DEQ Director only a new addition to the Michigan SIP. 

73 
Attachment D - Staff Report and Public Hearing Statement June 4, 2014 

Vince Hellwig, Chief 

Air Quality Division 

Department of Environmental Quality 

Opening Statement 

By: Mike Jackson, Hearing Officer 

June 4, 2014 

Introduction 

My name is Mike Jackson, and I am Supervisor of the Air Quality Division's 

Administration Section at the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality. I 

will be serving as the Hearing Officer for this public hearing on the proposed 

revisions to: 

Michigan's State Implementation Plan Infrastructure for 2008 Ozone, 2010 

Nitrogen Dioxide and Sulfur Dioxide, and 2012 Particulate Matter 2.5 

With me are Vince Hellwig, Chief of the Air Quality Division, who is representing 

the Director of the Department, Dan Wyant, as the decision-maker, and Cari 

DeBruler, Air Quality Division Rule Coordinator. I would also like to introduce 

other Air Quality Division or AQD staff, Barb Rosenbaum, Mary Maupin and Erica 

Wolf, who have been instrumental in developing the proposed revisions to the 

State Implementation Plan or SIP. 

Hearing Agenda 

First, we will briefly describe the proposed SIP revisions. Then, we will take your 

comments. Finally, we will explain what will happen after today's hearing. 

Background Information 

Erica Wolf will now briefly summarize the proposed revisions. 

Purpose of Public Hearing 

Thank you Erica. Now, Cari DeBruler will explain the purpose of today's hearing 

and how your comments will be used. 

The purpose of today's hearing is to give anyone interested in the proposed SIP 

revisions an opportunity to provide information that the Department can use in 

making its decision. 

74 
Attachment D- Staff Report and Public Hearing Statement June 4, 2014 

As you came in, you were given an opportunity to fill out an attendance card. We 

request that everybody fill out a card and indicate if you wish to make a 

comment. We will use these cards to maintain a record of people who are 

interested in the proposed SIP revisions and to call upon those who want to 

make a statement today. When all of the names have been called, we will ask if 

anyone else would like to make a statement. 

When your name is called, please approach the table and give your statement. If 

you have written comments or materials that you would like to present, please 

hand them to Mr. Jackson as you come to the table. Before you begin your 

comments, please state your name and any group or association you may 

represent. 

This hearing is being recorded and your comments will become a part of the 

information that the Department will consider when making its decision on the 

proposed Infrastructure SIP. The public comment period for the proposed 

Infrastructure SIP ends today at 5:00p.m. Any and all comments received by 

5:00p.m. today will be considered when the Department makes its decision. 

Following the public hearing, the AQD staff will review the verbal and written 

comments received, prepare a response, and make changes to the proposed 

Infrastructure SIP, if appropriate. A packet including the proposed Infrastructure 

SIP and a summary of those comments and responses, will then be submitted to 

the USEPA and will be available on the Department's website or by contacting 

the AQD office. 

Thank you Cari. I will now begin calling the names of those who have indicated 

that they would like to make a statement. 

Closing Statement 

Thank you for your comments and cooperation. We appreciate that you have 

shown an interest in this proposed SIP revision by taking the time to be here 

today. 

As previously mentioned, the public comment period ends today at 5:00 p.m. 

If you have any questions regarding the proposed SIP revision, Air Quality 

Division staff will be available immediately following this hearing to answer them. 

The hearing is now closed. Thank you again. 

75 
76 
Attachment E - Public Comments and Responses 

Response to Comments On the Pf-oposed--Certifk:ation of and Revision to 

tbe lnfr.lslructur-e Df the Michigan :SII3t-e lmplemenlation Pian for the 2008 Ozone, .l010 Sutfur Dioxide 

and Nitragen Dioxide. and 2012 Pill'timlid:e Matta 2"5 National Ambient Ai.-Quillity Sta.Difanls_ 

The Michigan Department of EnWomnental Q,Jaiity (MDEQ) received public commll!f'l15viaemai! and in 

person atthe.hJne4, 2014publir::hearingfor1he Proposed Certirtcarionand lmt!isioo to the Mich.igan 

Infrastructure. State- tmplementation Plan (I-SIP} for the 20011 Ozone, 2010 Sulfur Dime ide {SOt} ami 

Nitrogen Dioxidl!! {N~ • .anG 1he 2012 Particulate Matterlli {PMu) :National Anlbiem: Air QualityStamlill'ds ·lNMUS~- Those-comments are summarized here w'ith two included in theil" entirety in this 

Michigan I--SIP submittal pack-et.. The responses are :a[s.o induded below. 

On Jt.me 4~ 2.014, Brad· van Guilder" {SierTa Clu'b) errai&ed to MDEQcomiiH!Ilt letters from 9(1 Michigan 

citizens and. a petition signed by 1.,12.4 Michigan r:esidents :regMdingthi!o proposed M"idlipn I-SIP. The 

petition requests that the Michic;an ·J-SlP set stronger pollut:icln limiti on COil~ power p1ants. The 

cifuens letters made numerous, simWa.-comments which are summarized and induded :bekrw. 

On.June4~ 2D14, Craig Harris and MexSapdyemodled·comment:sto MDEQthat opposed incorporation 

oftheCieanCorporate-Cit~en 1a.w into the SIP. Mr.Sapd(s COtTifll@rrt: is included in Jtsentirety'in this 

I-SIP submittal packet. The COI'Timents are summarized and induded below. 

In a JLme- 4.- 2014, letter from Elizabeth Toba Pearlman, Kristin Henry, .and Shannoo FiSll: to MDEQ,. the 

Sierna aut sOOmltted '!NI"itten t:omme:nts on .several aspects of the proposed Michigan I-SIP. These 

comments are Slnlmarizerl and Included below. Jn addition 1D the oomments:, the Sierra Club also 

submitted modeling demo.nrtrations fur the fulkJwing powerptilnts: Belle Rive,-_. St. -ctair", Eckert;. 

J.H. Campbell, and Presque Isle_ for reasons stated below~ these mmfeling demonstraticns an!- not: used 

in the Micbipn 1-SlP. 

OnJune4~ 2014, five people attended a public hearing on the proposed Michigan f.-SIP. of those, fow 

read statements that are summarized below: 

• S:aOOR Du.puis commented that: the MOEQ should spend mDn!! effort reducing pottution in areas 

around' power plants and schools. She was: a!SD mncemed"thatthe curr-ent air pollutant standards 

are not being met by· facilities throo&ftout the state. 

• 8r.id van Guildef" .summarized the, 'W1itten c!llnunents from the Siel'l'a Club~ 10 MDEQ. on 

June 4, 2014. 

• Ken Orltch summarized the Sierra Club petition submitter:llD MDEQ on June 4, 2014 ... SpeDfiDilllly~ he 

commented that the 1-S!P should end NAAQS violations: before aflndingofnon-atlillinment is made 

by EPA. the DEQshould Bi\11!- coal-fired powerplillnts s:trnnger S01 -i1nd Ozone :limits, and the MDEQ. 

should nequire modetin,g to set SOJ: limits to prnti!CI: ptjllic health_ 

• John Polanyi commented that coaJ-.fired power :plants are polluting fiHJf"e heaviJv in areas 

surrnunded by !ower lnoomec populatlons. He mmmented that Wavne County is ooe of the wom 

areas in the state for·environmental j~bas'ed on SOt·~ns fJ;om power plants_ Mr. Polat"'yi 

suggested that the MDEQtake irftD c-onsideration environmental juiDce when making emissions 

llnftatioos for facilities. 

Cammenls and Resporues ~"' PM,,, 

lbel'e were no cormments .r-ecelvec:l regarding the I-SIP far PM:u77 
Attachment E - Public Comments and Responses 

Comments and..........,._..,_ 

There weJ'e no comments: receivedRgan:ling the l..SlP for NC>j. 

C<Jmments •'"'..........,. ..,..nling -....uO(aJ121(Aj,Enfon:eable Emimon......., 

1} The ~n I-:5IP should indude the 2010:50J and 20010zone NAAQS. 

Sect~ons tl.O(:a:}j,1) .and 110(a)(2} of the Clean Air Act require each state to certify that its SliP has 

adeqllate prnvisiDnsto implement, maintain and enf-DI'Ce the :NAAQS,or tD submitpropcrsed 

revisions necess:aJV to as:5UH!! that the air program in'fr.lstmctl.n!! is. adequate. Nothing in 

Sectioll:S llO(a)(lJ Of" 110{aH2), ROT in the Septernbel" 13, 2013~ U.S. Erwin:mmEI'Itaf Protection 

Agency {EPA) Guidance on lnfrastructlre SIP Elements, suggest or Feqlllir'e the indusion of the 

NAAQS in the S:TP _ Ho.wevel'. the Ll.lfll!f1t Micttican :StP contains Rule 336.1ID!U}, whkh states: 

"'[a)ir-quiitJity:standimf means1he mocen'tr.!ltiorL.ofan air contaminant specifietL'bytbe 

national ambient ail" quiriity standards: as cootamed in __ 40 C . .f.R. part 50 (2002l ...• "'The MDEQ is 

'in the process of updil'tir!fJ this rule ro reflect the clS'J'Stt version of 40 C.F .R. part so- and Will 

update the SIP when compJeted.. 

2) The Micbipn r-51P should use air quality modeling to set Rt~;iity-5ped'6c 50J -emis:sion limits 

for mal-fired powe1 plants. 

This: comment is outsiidethe scope of the proposed Michipn 1-SJ.P _ As stated abaft~ an .l-51f is: a 

certifil:::ation -of thll!:adequacy of the air program authorities-and resoorces to impllement.-

maintain. and enforce the NMQS_ Per the USUA Guidance on lilfrastructtm! SIP Elements~ 

Section 1W(aji2:}[A) of the Clean Air A.ct ~QUires .states: to i1:1entifyexisting USEPA-approved 

provisicru or new SIP provis:ions- that limit emi.sslons of pollutants. oelevantto 1he NAAQS. If the 

state flas ekismtg USEPA approved SIP pn:wisions thilt limit snissions of pOJfutant:s$ as Michigan 

does,. then!. is no r-equirement tn enact more- stringent 5'0~-specific: regulations for the ~IP. ln 

fact., The: USEPA, in the Mardi 'Z7,2D14federal~r (VoL 79.,..No.59,pg. '17045}cnmmented 

that "'EPA interprets the requiremem in sectilm 110{a){2)(A) .•. lD mean that the-infrastructure SW 

must contain enforceable emission limits that will am in attaining and/or maiintainingthe 

NAAQS and that~ statedemons:b"ate thilt it: has the necessary tools to im_pdementand enfon:e 

a NAAQSf.]-.WU:h regard to the req\lirementforemission llmitatiom, EPA has interpreted this to 

mean fur .purposes of section 11.0:, that the state may re~y on measures- already in .plaa 'It-o 

addres5- the polllutantat issue or any new mntrot measures that the state may choose tDsubmiL'" 

As sta1i!.d in tbeUSEPA GuJdance-r emission limitatiom: necessary for attainment of new or 

revised NAAQS in nooattainment areas are required ln an Attainment Demonstration SIP due on 

a diffeJent schedulethantbe- f-SIP. Mk:higanfulty intends to mmp:lywiththis.reqtii~ofthesdtedulesetfm'th in the-feJJer.ll Clean Air Act. 

3) The Midtipn ~should settimiits oo O:mne-forminc pollutants from mal-burning power 

plants.,. partk:ulariy in axm:ties ·thai: failed Omne air quality standards. 

This .oomment is. :outside the :s,c-ope of the pn::!'posed Michfgan hSIP _ As. stat-ed above~ setmg 

faclflty-specffic pollutant limits is a not the-purpose of an l'-SJP. Per USEP/!{s mrm'lents published 

in the- ApprovaJ of V"qinls Section 110(a}(2) Requirements, March 27, 2014 Federal Register'. 

{Vol. 79, Na. 59, pg. 17046) "EPA's long-standing pcsftion regardinglnfrastrur:rure SliPs is that 

they .an~ ,general pranning stP:s to enstue that the state- has adequate ll'"eSOU'f'Ces and -audwrity to 

mpJement a ;NAAQS in general d:lroopout the stiilte and not detailed :attairnnent and 

maintenan~:e plans for each indM!iual area of the state .... EPA does mt believe that section 

l~~ii.2}(Al requires detai'ed planningSJPstiemonsaating eitber a-ttairwnent.or maintenance 

for spedfil:: geographic -areas of' the state}' Also, Michipn does: not CUff-entlyllave any 

designated nonattainment·a..eas for the 2008 Ozone NAAQS. ln addltion, permi:'tt:ing rules 

78 
Attachment E - Public Comments and Responses 

mnto~ined in Michigan"s S-IP do setfurth emission limits for the r-evised NMQS addr"essetl in 

Michigan's I-SIP for new and modtfJed soun:::es. 

4) Mkhigaris ruE R 3-36-.1!J15.., on start-up.. shutdown~ or matfunaion faits to-ccmpty vri1h Semon 

110{•11>)(111. 

This: comment is out!:jde the- scope of·the· proposed Michigan f..SIP. Per the US EPA Guidance on 

1-SfP Elements, .,(t)he EPA does. not interpret sectioo 110fa)(2} to .-equiin!! <~if' agencies: and the 

EP-A to address potentially deficiEnt pre-existing SIP pmv'ision-."" iOOuding s:tilrt~ shutdown. 

malhlnction,. ''in the context:-of:actinc en an infrastn.icbJre SliP." The- US EPA has altErnative-tools 

to deal with existing SIP deficiencies. Conoernin:g SS:Mr the US EPA has proposed a SIP Call 

requesting a number of stat~ (including Michigan) to alidn!£5 this- issue- tbroogh J'@Yi!i:ions to 

tlte-ir SIPs. tf and when the USEPASIP CaD becomes: final, tile MOEQ will proceed to TeYise the 

Mlll:hipn SIP as appropriate. 

5) Mi<hjpn's Cloan c-.,_.-IMCI. n4.14211hrough MCL --·•'"'l-to mmply 

with-ll!l{aJ!lltA). 

MCL324.1-4.21 through MCL 3-24.1429 {Part 14) does not affect Michig:aln's compliancE! ·Mtb 

Section 110(a)t2:}tA.) of the -<lean Air Ad. Section 110(a}(2)(A} requirES states to identify existing 

USEP~prnvisiom ·or- AeW SIP provisions that frmit emissions cfpo!liulilnts relevant t-o 

the NAAQS. Part 14sets -enfon:eme:ntmechanisms for the MOEQ. to follow in certain sit:uiilticns;. 

tt does not .deal with emissions 11m its. Therefore, this taw is nlrt.addr"essed under (and ·does: .not 

apply to) Saction 111l{aJ(2JtAt -it l5add......,d in relation ttl Section 110l•JI2J[C). ....,......,. 

for En.ktfament. 

fij Nothing about MC.. .324.1427 requires-:St·rid mmpliiilllll:e with the -eM SKti.on 110 

fi!~i~Uirements fortedeiitlly enforceable emission limitations. ·that iS oontainE!d in thi! SIP. 

(Reword to - MCL .l:2LIU7 undem!ines the CAASed::iorlliD requirement:thilt emission 

timi'lal:iom: aJII!ltained intbeSIP be fEderal~ enfon;eable?J 

This is a misinterpretation of Section 110(a)(2) of the 'Clean Air Act. This sectkm requirHthat 

mrtes haveo state authorities. and J'l!SOt.ln::es that are- adequate. tD implement state plan:s; {l.e .• 

SIPs); the se:ction does not require federal enforceability. Anythinc in an~ SlP is 

automatically federally enforceable. 

7) The DEQ.shoukl cive:roai..fired power plants stronger S01and !hone limits and the t--:SIP 

should signHk;antly de:cTease the emissions from power plants. 

This commH'It ls: outside the scope of the proposed MKhigan I-SIP. As .stated :above, an f-SrP is .a 

demonstration that Mich~n can impiement., miiintaint and enforce the NMQS.. Set:ting:fadlitysperific polkmon limits i:s mrt the purpose of an f..SI·P, theceforethe MIDEQ does-not 1ndudespecific S01; Oz!OM, « otheT emission limits; for pnwer- plants in the proposed Mldlipn 1--SP. 

8) lbe:MDEQ.shoukl take into· ac.munt enuYonmenlal j~ when setting·emi.ssion limits for 

-

This comment is outside the- scope of pr-oposed Michigan lf-SJP. As stated above, an f-SIP is a 

demonstration that Mid\igan can Implement, maintain, ar1d enforce- the NAAQS. Lt is not .an 

attaJ'inment demonst:r.dion thatwoWd requft stricter limiti onfarilities within nonattainment 

...... Comments and Respon:ses.Reprdinc Section 11D(aM2)(B1 Ambient Air Monitorinc: 

1) MDEQ should TegUiar:ly monitor illreas to make sure: the NAAQS are bein&met ill1d n!part 

these chei:;b to the Ulfl'lmUnity. 

As stated in tt'te: Section 1lO(a)(2)(B} of Midligan':s I.SIP, the MDEQ maintaiins a comprehensive 

network of air quaflty rnonil:l!lli"'S. The MflEQ. rurrentfy has iii monitoring network 1hatmn:sists of 

more than45 state and tribal tnDllitOI"s. These: monitor .sites: are chosen based on USEPA 

minimmn requirement:s and criteria and modefing demonstratloru. that tafiJe into account 

79 
Attachment E - Public Comments and Responses 

population density and !!!mltting facilities- in the ar-eas. The restJ.lt:s from these monitors. areavailabletc the communitythrot~gl1 the MDEQ website 

{hnp:f/www .deqmiair ..org/manitorlngdata} and the- EnvimRash netwcri: 

!bttp·NmB[r enyirpf!:;sb 1nfpJ, as stated in Section 110(:a){2J(J) in the Michipn hSlP .. 

2) The: ·MOEQ :should expand monitoring: sites to ilfeas downwind of power- plants 

This cDmment is outside- the scope ofthe proposed Michigan l-SIP .. As stated aboie, the MDEQ 

does hil'IA! an e-stilb4ished aftr monitwingnetwortc This ne-tw-ork goes t:hnHJgf1 an annual USEPA 

required fl!View, as stated in Section 11G(a}{2.)(8}of the I-SIP, to delamine if the nretwmk is 

opERting· in compliance with fedefaJ requirements-. 

ComiiH!ints and Responses: Rec;-anling Section ll.O(aHlltC).. ~msfor" Enfon;eme:nt~ 

1) Mk:higa!Ts C~ Cnr.parrateOtizen pmgramwealo!m Midtigan's enfun;:ement abiiilie:s. 

Act 45-lpJ'()Ij,Tides tile MDEQ with authority and mechanisms to enforce COl"flpfiance with the 

N.AAQS. Michiprts Clean Cmporate Citizen program., Part 14 of Act 554, directs the MOEO. how 

to conduct compliance and enfmc:ement :adNities on Clean Corporate Citizen facilities. As. 

stated in Met 32.4.1427, Part 14 ""shaU not be ·construed in a manner that conflicts with state Of 

federal law or regulation." Therefore, Midlig:an".s.Ciean Corporate Citizen program doss not 

weaken the MDEQ's enforcement abilities • 

.2} The .benefits- fur" Mimipn's Clean CDrporate CiiRen pmglilm and facililifi!s interfere with the 

rule that al applil;able recp;~irements.and emission linritations. be binding on emi5sion:s 5:DUKeS 

and be feder.lly enfom!iible as reqt8red by 5ectinn 1lD o:f tiE aean Air- A£L 

As stated~-' Part 14, mduding the l:ienefiss of Part 14 "'shall not be amstrued in a manner 

that mnflim with state orfeclerallaw-or ~lation."" 

3) Act 554 is an attempt by the state of M~ to f:irltlln'\\Pt!ftt and evadie. the r-equirement that 

ernlssion limitations and appliCi!II:Jie requiretm!!nt!i be enfon;eable. 

As. stated above._. the MO£Q has darified the proposed 1-S\f to e•lain that Act 554 {i.e., Part 14 

of Art 451)-does oot restrict MD£Q'.s-enforcement authority. 

4) Art554 in Ute J-SIP proposal makesiitnon--apprfl¥ilbleas part of the federally approved 

M-51P. 

ThE MDEQ rons:iden ail Michigan's enfun:ement pro'llisioru: together, induding Act 554, to b@ 

suffident-undet" Section llO!a)(Z){C}~ butuftimld!! ap:prn\lilbility is decided hy USEPA. 

5) MCI. 324.1401. thnach MCL 324.1429 does nothing to en5lln!! the-pmvisions of Act 5§4do not 

damage the federal enfon:eiibilily of Mkhigan'S.source emission timllirtions.- pennit provision 

and applic;;able requirements~ 

This is a misinterpretat:km of SIE!dion 110fa)(2)(C) of the Clean Air Act. This section requir-es that 

states: have .state authorities-and re-sotJffeSth.at are adequate to implement state plans; the 

section dOH not-reqUire feder'alenf«miilbilitv- Anything in an approved Slf·is autmnatkally 

federally enforceable_ The MDEO, conSiders our authority to be suffitient under 

Section 110(a-ll[2}(C}, but ulti!Dirte approvability is decided by USWAG-J An 554 is not COI'IIfJidible: wilh EPA".s: requiremems fOr the submittal and adoption of SIPs illftd 

approval of sum Plans under" t-IE Olean Air Act. 

Part 14 is part of the MDEQ'salfora!mentprovisiaru. As stated above-and inth~~P, Part 14 

does not r:Mtrict: MDEQ:'s -enforrement :authorities_ 

C0mmenf5 ~SectianUOio)(>J(DL -=tePol-Tr.~f~SJ~Dff! 

1) lbe I--SIPshmlfd address :SOWO!!Ethiltaresignffil;antfy ~qto IIIODillftainmentor 

irrtertering wilh maintenam;e of 'the f;IAAQ$ in downwind states. 

Section 110(a)(L)(D)(i)(0 requires each state to address in their I-SIP any emissions; actMty in 

01111! stat-e that mntributes :stgnfficantty t-o non:attalnmem, or int-erieres with maintenance. of the 

NAAQS in ilnot:her .sta-te.. Michigan~s proposed I-SIP states that .. Midligan is notsubjea to any 

80 
Attachment E - Public Comments and Responses 

finding of Significant oontribution to any atheT state's attilinmerrt: ot" maintenance, :at this time," 

thef'Mor-e, there aJ'E no sources: to address under Section UO(:a](2.}(0) at this: time-. 

Genenl Comments and Re!i:pon5m:' 

1) The MDEQ:shoufd .-equif"e hNMI.-based studies prior to allowingfnlildinc orremodeling1Jfany 

... ......,.,.. fa<ility 

This comment is outsade. the-.scope of the proposed Michigart'.s I-SIP. As stated a~ .. an 1-SfP· is 

a demonstration that Michigan can implement% maintain and enfon:::e the- NAAQS_ The MDEQ':s 

Air Quality DMsion is: tasked with regulating S011fC1!S of air pollutants. The MDEQ is not the-main 

department task-ed with regulating construction activities. 

2} TM MD£Q :should ..equi.-e modelinG to 51!4: :Si02 1imi15 for publk hNll:h. 

This c-ammentls DU'I:SidetfH!. 5CDpE! ott-hE! Pfillpo:s-ed Michigan l-SJP_ Modeling is used tomah 

attainment demonstrationsr which an: submitted w USEPA on a different schedule than the 

I-SIP. As stated ln. thi!! pr:oposed J..mP, the MDEQ has: adequate auttlority to regulate the 

discha:J§E!- of air pollutants a11d pnmnllg;J!b!: rulti to establish .standards for- ambient air-quality 

and emissicn, induding S01_ 

:3) Midtipn I-SIP should indudll! specifi~t .S'tilndardsto protect the health ofMH;higan's mast 

vulnerable -dtizens. 

This comment is DUtSide- the- scope of the proposed Michigan ~SIP_ As stat-ed above:, an I-SIP is a 

certifitationthatMil:higan hiis the authDr'ities in plar::eto- imptement, maintain, and enforc-e the 

NAAQS. The USEPA.se-ts the N.AACl$ at levels detennined to be ad~ protective of human 

health andwelfatre.. 

4) The 1-.SIP should address-~air toxk:s, pet ooke, and pollUtion from vebides. 

This~:OIJ'Imentts-outside the scope of the proposed Mkhigan f-SIP .. As statEd :above~ an ·I-SIP is-.a 

certification thii't Michigan can im:pleme.nt, maintain, and enforce the NAAQS. Hych:ulic 

fracturing {fr.tdingl, airtoxics and petroleU'TI tolce may have impacts on air qualfty but they are 

not germane to this proposed f..SfP. 

:!i) 1be I-SIP shouldi!lld NMQSv.iolatiou before a findincofnon-attainment is mad£- by EPA. 

This comment is outs:Jde the .scope of the proposed Michigan I-SIP .. As stated above~ an 1-SI:Pisa 

ceJ tifwatiut1 thatMidligan can implement. maintain. and enforce the NAAQS_ 

81 
Attachment E - Public Comments and Responses 

fli(llb Wglfii!M~ 

T(:N ifJt« Cl!l!!it ¢!B1) 

~ F'N;.~S1P~l 

llllat ~. ;h,rly Ul. 2014 8:Si~3l AM 

Altenlion - ERICA WOLF - Air Qua~!y Division, Michigan Department of 

Environmental Quality 

This is a comment intended for filing in lhe comment period 

on the proposed state of Michigilll 

Infrastructure SIP a!: 

hllp-llwww miChigan !Jl!lldocumeolsldeqldeq-aq!l 

midligan_oroposeQ mu11l-illfrastn wfi re SIP 452365 7 pdf 

MDEQ proposed to add the provisions of Ad 554 of 2012 to lhe state of 

Michigan 

state implemenlallon Plan under ll1e Clean Air Ad and proposed for EPA 

approvaL 

Act 

MDEQ states as so-called benellts of lhe Act 554 of 21112 revisions to be: 

"1_ Unless it had been established by clear and convincing evidence lhal 

either the C3 faalily's 

aclions posed a significant endangerment to public health, safety 

or welfare or lhal the C3 

faCility's violation was intentional or occurred as a result of the operalor"s 

gross negligence. 

the C3 faalrty is not S!Jilject to a civil fine or lliola!ion if the faCility acted 

pro111111y to correct 

the violation alter discovery and reporting the violation to the MDEQ within 

24 hours of 

discovery; 

2_ The MDEQ shall conduct rwtine inspections of C3 facll11les hall' as 

82 
Attachment E - Public Comments and Responses 

frequenlly as !he 

inspections would be conducted for non-C3 facilities; and 

3 .. The MDEQ shall give C3 fadfity operators at least 72 hours' advance 

nolice of any routine 

inspection_ • 

All three so-called "benefits" MDEQ lists tor lhe C3 program and facilities 

are elements Wllich interfere with the rule lhat all applicable requirements 

and emisSion limitalions be binding on emission sources and be federally 

enforceable as required by Section 110 of the Clean Air Act.. Act 554 of 

2012 should not be submilled for approval by EPA because it is an atlempt 

by the state of Michigan circumvent and evade lhe requirement that 

errisslon limitations and applicable requirements be enforceable. In fact, 

Act 554 of 2012 should be rescinded by the Legislature because its 

presence in the imrastruclure 

SIP proposal makes it non-approvable as part of the federally approved 

Michigan Slate lmplementallon Plan. 

TI!is daim by MDEQ ....... 

'While lhis program, on its face, does restrict MDEQ enforcement ab~iiy. 

MCL324.1427 states 

lhat nolhing in lhe C3 program can be construed in a manner tnat con11icts 

With or aulhorizes any 

violation of slate or federal law or regulatiOn. Therefore, MCL 324.1401 

lhrough 324 .. 1429 do not restrict lhe MDEQs enforcement authority'' 

___ is not legitimate. MDEQ acknowledges that lhe Act 554 of 2012 

provision infelfere with enforcement, but nothing at all about MCL 

324.1427 reqUires strict COIJ1llianre with lhe CM SectiOn 110 requirement 

for federally enforceable emisSion lirrilalions lhat is conlained in the SIP_ 

The MDEQ condusion ... 

''Therefllre, MCL 324.1401 lhrough 324 .. 1429 do not restrict lhe MDEQs 

enfon:emenl authotlty" 

.... is a nullily since it does nothing at all to ensure !he provisions of Act 554 

of 2012 do not damage the federal enforreabiliiy of Midlligan's source 

emissiOn limitations, pemit provisions and applicable requirements. 

83 
Attachment E - Public Comments and Responses 

MDEQ-AQD should remove all Ad 554 Of 2012 prn\lisions frooJ ils 

submittal and wil.tldraw ils attempls to gain federal SIP app!O'ial Of this 

statulo!y authority. If MDEQ fails to follow ihis commenl, then EPA Region 

V should reject any state of Michigan attempt 10 add provisions Of Ad 554 

of 2012 to lhe federally apprn...ed state lmplementalion Plan. 

Ad 554 of 2012 should be rescinded because it is not compaliiJie wil.tl 

EPA's requirements 

fur lhe submiltal and adoption Of S!atement Implementation Plans 

and approval 

of sum Plans under 1he Clean Air Act. 

regards, Alex Sagady 

NI!J: J. Siljil:ly ·~ ~ 9!1.!'!r J!tlm' ~Z-!M!r«tvmf~ 

IEmmir!l!dal ~ PellraiTe:'h1cal ANeW. PliiD:l .~.~\'line&& FllME!W <n1 1J11P1m lrWe&llgiikJn m Hr, 'WiJI'Is iRI~~iiniPaiDIIW~ 

-"""' ___ !# 

6Si' ~ ll:io'el.le. :ea&t L.ar&lng. t.tl 48&3 

t517}~;* $JX!!'t 

84 
Attachment E - Public Comments and Responses 

SIERRA 

CLUB 

VIA ELEC'TRO:"IC ~:1.-\li 

June 4, 2014 

Erica \Volf 

Air Quality Division 

Miclugan Department of Enviromnemal Quality 

P.O. Box 30260 

Lansing, Michigan 48933 

'volfel @michigan.gov 

Re: Comments Concerning \'lichigan State Implementation Plan Infrastructure 

Applicable to the 2010 Nitrogen Dioxide, 2010 Sulfur Dioxide, 2008 Ozone, and 2012 

Particulate Matter 2.5 National Ambi-ent Air Quality Standards 

Dem Ms. Wolf: 

On behalf of Sierra Club, its over 13,800 members in Michigan. and others who are 

adversely impacted by Michigan's sources of sulfur dioxide (''S02'') and ozone pollution. we 

submit the following conunents on M1chigan 's Proposed Infrastructure State Implementation 

Plan for the 2010 Nitrogen Dioxide National Ambient Air Qtmlity Standards (''NAA.QS"), 2010 

Sulfur Dioxide NAAQS, 2008 Ozone NA.A.QS, rmd :2012 Particulate ?<.latter NAAQS ("Draft 

ISIP"). 1 According ro the state of Michigan's Environmental Calendar from May 5. 2014 on rhe 

propo~ed amendment to the :Michigan ISIP. interested parties must submit written comments by 

5:00p.m. via electronic mail on June 4, 2014. so these comments are timely submitted. 

As aclmmvledged by the Michigan Department ofEnvirmm1ental Quality's ('':MDEQ") 

public not1ce. Michigan must submit an Infrastnlcmre State Implementation Phm ("Infrastructure 

SIP" or "ISIP") that addresses all of the requirements in sections llO(a)(l) and(~) of the Clean 

Air Act (''CAA'' or ''Act") for five distinct NAAQS recently promulgated by the U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, including: (1) the June 2. 2010 one-hour primary S02 

standard: and (2) the March 27.2008 eight-lwur primary ozone standard. 42 U.S.C. § 7410(a)(l) 

& (2). As proposed, 11ichigan's Draft ISIP does not satisfy several essenh<1l requirements of 

SectiOn II O(a)(l) and (2), including requir~mems to establish enforceabl~ emission limits and to 

1 Please note that rhe ~ctllal titJe is Michigr-IU's Propo::.edhifrastrucmr<.~ State Implementmiou Pl~u for the 1010 

Nitrogen Dioxide NA.-\QS. 2010 S11lfmDioxide ~AA.QS. and the 2012 Particulate 1\.farrerNA""-QS. IT does uor iudnde 2008 Ozone NAAQS. This appears ro he~ typogrophical enol'. 

85 
Attachment E - Public Comments and Responses 

address signifl.cant cunlribmions to downwind states. The following comments explain these 

deficiencies in greater detail.""' 

By addressmg the deficiencies in its draft ISIP, the state of Michigan will benefit in four ways. 

First. and most importantly, Michigan will take action required ro improve public health impacts 

m the state. There are currently at least fo1.uteen counties that are ,...xceeding rhe S02 or ozone 

NAAQS. Since the X!\.AQS set nmbient pollutionlevds that states should not exceed in order w 

protect the health of its citizen. the potential public health benefits of addressing these 

deficiencies are significant For example. dtere are over 230,000 children and over 700,000 

adults who currently have asthma in Michigan. The disease costs approximately $224 million in 

direct med1cal cos[s alone. and an additional $170 million in indirect cosrs. 3 Second Michigan 

will meet its obligations- under the Clean Air Act and irn:ulate itself from EPA having to rake 

corrective action. Third. Michigcm can prevenr the ine-...i.table future designation of fourteen 

counties as being in nonactaimnent for the 2010 S02 or 2008 ozone NAAQS, thus sparing the 

state from haYing to comply with rigorous Clean Air Act requirement'>. Finally. rhe state could 

bring regulatory certainty to coal~fired power plants in Michigan, which could 11ltimately save 

these regulated entities money, as they are decidmg how to comply with a number of 

enviromnental regulations. 

I. Background 

A. National Ambient AiL· Quality Standards 

The Clean Air Act ("CAA'') is, al its core. a direcrive to prot eeL the public from harmful 

air pollution. Indeed, "polhuionpreveution" is a "primary goal" of the CAt.... 42 TJ.S.C. 

§ 7401 (c). Pursmmt to this mandate, EPA is required to promulgate ··primary ambient air quality 

standards [''NAAQS"l· _.the attainment and maintenance of which ... are requisite to protect 

the pub he health." 42 U.S C. § 7409(b)( 1 ). So far. EPA has identified six criteria pollutants-

.o;.-ulfur dioxide. particulate matter. carbon monoxi-de. ozone, nitrogen oxide. and lead-that hare 

scienrificaUy demonstrated eftects on health and the environment, at certain levels. 

The NAAQS represent a ceiling of air pollution concentrations that apply throughout the 

country. As such, the primary NAAQS form the basis for regulating air emissions for the emire 

country and provide the fmmdution for setting specific emission lirniiations for most large 

swtionary sources. The primary national ambient nir quality standards set ambient pollution 

levels that should not be exceeded m order to protecr public health with an adeqwue margin of 

safety. See 42 U.S. C.§ 7409(b)(l ). These standards serve as the basis for deYelopment and 

approval of infrastructure stflte implementation plans ("!SIPs"). 

1. Sulfur Dioxide: Public Hea1th Impacts and the Current NAAQS 

::.A copy of these commems. all exhibits. and ~upporting modeling files can be fotmd Rt 

https:!,'apJl. box.com-'s!qSih'Wkf:IDyr7 49pk9 2x. 1 Asthma Initiative ofMichigau. '"Asrhma in l'o:Iichigan2010: A Blue Prlnt for Action,"' availabl~ at 

http:iiVr"Wl\' .Jnichigan.gov/documemstmdc h/ Asch:malnitiativeoflvlichigan _Strategic_ Plun6-06 _ 2698 6-l, _7 .pdf 

86 
Attachment E - Public Comments and Responses 

Exposure [0 so2 lll CYen very short time periods-such ns five minures-has significant 

health impacts and causes decrements in lung :fi.mction. aggravation of nsthmfl. and Iespiratory 

and C"ardiovascular morbidity. See Prinmry National Ambient Air Qunlity Standard for Sulfur 

Dioxide Final Rule, 75 Fed. Reg. 35,520. 35.525 (Juue 22, 2010) (hereinafter "Final Rule'} EPA 

has also determined th8t so2 exposure can also aggravate existing heart disease. leading to 

increased hospitalizations and premature deaths. See Final Rule. 75 Fed. Reg. at 35,525. 

On June 2, 2010_ EPA revised the primary S01 NAAQS by establishing a new one-hour 

standard at a level of75 ppb which is mer \Yhen the 3-year average of the annual 99th perce'ntile 

of the daily maximum one-hour average concentrations ic; less than or equal to 75 ppb. See 

Primary National Ambient Air Quality Standard for Sulfur Dioxide Final Rule, 75 Fed. Reg. 

35,520 (June 20, 2010), [hereinafter "Final sol NAAQS Rule'l The primary SO: ~AAQS W8S 

set at such a level in ord~r to protect public health from the seti.ous threars posed by shon-tem1 

exposure ro sol. 

Due to barb the shorter avemging time <1nd the numeric<~l difference. the ne·w 1-hour S01 

NA.J\QS is tar more protective ofhumm1 health than the prior S01 NA ... 4 . .QS and promises huge 

health benefit<;.. EPA ht~s esti1n.1.ted that 2.300 to 5,900 premature deaths and 54,000 asthma 

attacks a year will be prevented by the new standard. Envtl. Prot. Agency, FinnJ Regulatory 

Impact Analysis (RL-'\.) for the SOl Nationnl A.mbient Air Quality Standards (~AAQS) tbl. 5.14 

(2010). Timely implementation ofd1e new NAAQS is thus critical. Each year of delay in 

implementing the S01 NAAQS means 5.900 people will die prematurely and 54,000 asthma 

attacks will occur unnecessarily_ Each year of delay will likewise drive up the medical costs. that 

individuals will have to pay. and will be <mother year in which people must abstain from 

everyday activities such as exercise, school. and work. EPA estimared that the net benefit of 

implementing the 75 ppb SO:: NA.A...QS \Vas up to $36 billion dollars. 75 Fed. Reg. 35.520, 

35,588 (June 22_ 20 IO). 

2. Ozone: Public Health Impacts and the Current NA.AQS 

Exposme to ozone in the air we breathe can cause serious problems to our hea!tl1. 

including ches't pain, coughing. throat irritation. and congestion. It can worsen bronchitis, 

emphysema, and asthma. 73 Fed. Reg. 16.436 (Mar. 27_ 2008). Ground level ozone also can 

reduce lung function and mflame the linings ofd1e lungs Id. Repeated exposure may 

permanently scar hmg tissue. !d. These effects may lead to increased school absences. 

medication use. visits to doctors and emergency rooms_ and hospit1! admissions. Research also 

indicates that ozone e:x-posure may increase the risk ofprenwture death from heart or lung 

disease. Id. Ozone also dnmages vegetation and trees. including forests, parks. and crop~. 

In 2008. EPA revised the primary ozone standard to 75 ppb of the fl!lnual fmu·th-highest 

daily maximum eight-hour concentration averaged over 3 ye.ars. SeeN ational Ambient Air 

Quality Standmd for Ozone, 73 Fed. Reg:. 16,436 (Mm. 27. 2008). This revised standard, if 

properly implemented, \\·ill result in improvemems in public health (indudingprevenring 

premature deaths) Rnd the environment. \Vhen EPA revised the ozone standard. EPA recognized 

it was providing increased protection for p\tbhc health. especially for children. the elderly, and 

asthmatics. 

87 
Attachment E - Public Comments and Responses 

EPA esrimares that the 2008 eight-hour ozone NAAQS has the potentinl to avoid 260 to 

2,000 premature deaths tmnually as of2020. The total benefits in ozone reduction from this 

standard are estimated to save $2 to $17 billion per year. EPA, Fact Sheet: Final Revisions to the 

National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Ozone. at 1-3 (2008), 

http:/iv,"\\IV.ep?..gov/gloipdfs/2008_03 _facts.heer.pdf. In fact. 2011 and 2012 ozon~ ambiem 

monitoring data indicate that EPA's estimates of the health benefits from reducimr ozone 

exposure may have been low . .~- -

B. Implementation of the NA_4.QS 

The Clean Air Act creates a framework for the ''de·velopment of cooperative FederaL 

State, regional, and local programs to prevent and control air pollmion." 42 U.S.C § 7401(a}(4). 

Pursw1m to section l09(b)(1) of tl1e Act, EPA has established prllnary NA-'\QS for six criteria air 

polh.1tants, "the attainment and maintenance of which ... 11re requisite to protect the public 

health." Id. § 7409(b)(l). States have "primary responsibility" for assuring air qunlity within the 

state. Id. § 7407(a). Follm .. Ying promulgntion of a NA-\.QS. the Act requires that a state shall 

·"adopt rmd submit to the Administrator ... a plan V•:hich prov1des for implementation. 

maintenance, and enforcement of such primary [NAAQS].'" Id. § 7410(n)(l). For attainment 

and unclassifiable areas. section 110(a)(:2)(A) requires that these Infrastrucnrre SIPs or ISIPs 

"include entOrceahle emission limitations ... as well as schedules and timetables for compliance, 

as may be necessary or appropriate to meet the applicable requiremems" of rhe Clean Air Act 

including the re-quirement to maintain the NAAQS. 42 U.S. C.§§ 7410(a)(2)(A). 7410(a)(l). 

Conn Fund for Em:'t, Inc. v. EPA. 696 F.2d 169, 172 (2dCrr. 1982) (CAA requires that SIPs 

contain ··measures necessary to .msure the attaimnent and maintenance ofNAAQS"); J.font. 

Sulphur & Chem. Co. v. EPA. 666 F.3d 1174. 1180 (9th Cir. 2012) ('The Clean Air Act directs 

states to develop implementation plam-SIPs-dmt '.assure' attainment and maintenance of 

national ambient air quality standards ("NAAQS") through enforceable emission limitations.") 

(citmg 42 U.S. C.§§ 7407(a). 7410(a)(2XA)): Hall v. EPA, 273 F.Jd 1146, 1153 (9tlv Cir. 2001) 

("Each State must submit a [SIP] thar speciflies J the manner in which [NAA .. QS] will be 

achieved and maintained \Vithin each air quality control region in the State") (internnl citations 

omitted): see also EPA, "Sulfnr Dioxide Implememation-Programs and Requiremems for 

Reducing Sulfm Dioxide," available at 

http:!:ww>v.epa.gov/airqURlity/sulfurdioxide!implement.html. 

EPA may approve an Infrastructure SIP only if it meers the requirements of section 

1 IO(a)(2) of the Act. See 42 U.S. C.§ 7410(a){2)(AHM). The <>tate be.ars the burden of 

demonstrating that its SIP submission satisfies the standards of section ll O(a)(2). Mich. Dep 't of 

Envtl. Qnality v. Browner, 130 F.3d l8L 183. 185 (6th Cir. 2000) (affinning EPA"s rejection of 

4 In 2012, much llfille co1mtry experienced record high temperatmes and very high ozone levels. However the 

200S ozone NA<\QS beuetks analysis was based on 2008 ozone le>'els arnl tlnl~ dld not account for the higher ozone 

levels that were experienced in 2012. Cuneut sdetlCe i11dicates that temperatures experienced dtuit1_g 2012 wil! soon 

become rypical dlle to climate change. If we do u0t reduce greeu.llollt;e emission~ rapidly and substantially. th.:-

hQ[tesr summer of the last 20 years is expecred 10 occur every other year. or e\;en more fr.;oquenrly. Se:e, /i'.g .. 

·'Clmu;es inEcolotic~ilv Clicical Tenestrilll Clim.ate O.mditions.'· Sdenre.l A11:2:. 20l3. VoL 341, no. 6145. 486-

492. ih<!refor<!. tb~ ben~firs mwlysis likely mtderestimated th.;o ozoue wluctions ;hat the 2008 ozone NA..-'\QS ''ill 

require ano;l cous<-quemly. rlle benefil~ the srandard will provide. 

88 
Attachment E - Public Comments and Responses 

a SIP proposal where the state ''failed to offer evidence thnt [the] proposed rules >vill not 

mterfere with the attainment and maintenance of the NAAQS ")_ An adequate Infrastructure SIP 

"must demonstrate thnt the mea:::.ures, rules. and regulations contained in it are adequate 10 

provide for the timely attairunent and maintemmce of the national standard that it implements." 

40 C.F.R. § 51.112(a). 

1. The Plain Language and Legislative History of the Clean A.ir Act 

Require that Infrastructure SIPs Must Impose Emission Limits 

Adequate to Prevent NAAQS Exceedances in Areas Not Designated 

Nonathtinment. 

The Clean Air Act. on its face, requires I SIPs to prevent exceedances of the NA...e\QS. 

Follmving promulgation of a NAAQS, fl state musr "adopt and s11bmit to the Administrator_ .. a 

pkm which provides for implementation, maintenance. :md enforcement of such [NAA.QS].'' 41 

U.S. C. § 741 O(a)(l ). Pmsuant to section 110(a)(2}(A), this ISIP must '·include enforceable 

emissio11limirarions . .. as well as schedules and timetables for compliance. as may be necessary 

or appropriate to meet the applicable requirements" of the Clean Air Act (which include the 

requirement to maintt~in compliance with the NA.AQS). ld. § 74lO(a)(2)(A) (emphflsis rn:lded). 

As defined by the Acr, the term "emiss:ionlnnitmion .. means "a requirement established by the 

State or the Admlltistmtor which limits the quantity. rate_ or concentratiOn of emissions of mr 

polllJtants on a continuous bRsis. including any requirement relating to the operation or 

maintenance of a source to ::~ssure continuous emission reduction. nnd any design. equipment. 

\Vork pmctice or operational smndmd promulgated under this chapter." Id. § 7602(k). Tims. the 

plain language of section llO(a)(2)(A) req1nres that ISIPs include enforceable emission limits on 

sources that are sufficient to ensure attaillment and maintenance of the NA..A . .QS. 

The legislative history of the Clean Air Act also supports this interpretation. As the 

Senate Committee Report accompanying the 1970 Clean Air Act explained. the Act "would 

establish certain tools as potential part&: of an implement£ltion plan and l1'0Uld require rhat 

emission requtrements be e.wabfished fry• each State for sources of air pollution agents or 

combimliions of such agents in such region and that these emission requirements be monitored 

and enforceable:· Sen. Cmte. on Pub. Works Rpt. ar 12 (Sept 17, 1970) (emphasis added). 

attached hereto as Ex. 1. Tills was reaffinned in the subsequent Senate Conference Report, which 

stated that' "In order to implement the nati011t1l ambient air quality standards. these [state 

implementation] plans musr provide for emission limitations on aJ! sen•ices in rhe reg1on wverr!d 

by the plan. together with schedules and timetables of comphattce, systems for monitoring both 

ambient air and e~mssions from individual sources, and adequate enforcement authority." Sen. 

Conf Rpt, 116 Cong. Rec. 42.381. 42.384 (Dec. 18. 1970) {emphasis added). attached hereto as &2' . 

5 Although th~ language of cunem section l10(~)(2)(A) 1vas. oliginally fouud iu section 110(a')(2)(B). the wbstance 

has remained 1me to the srntements found iLl the Seuate Commitree Repons. Tll-i'L'e were only r~vo snbWn1rive 

changes bet\veen 1970 and the preseJ.lt. First. the addition of fanner s~ri-on 172(c)'s requiremem th<it SIPs' 

erni~sionlimitariom. schedules. and timetables be ··enforceable.·· Si!e Rpt. of the Semtte Cmre. on Envr. aJJd Pub. 

Works nccompanying the Clean Air Act Amendmen1s of 19S9 at 20 (De<:. 10. 1989) (explaining. that ··Paragraph ( 1 ") 

ofrewlinen section I lO(c) combine8 And ~tremnlilh$ existing seJ.:tionllO(a)(:?.)(b) and the enforceability 

req11iJe-menrs of section 17.1(c) of current htw'·). <lrtached a.~ Ex. 3: see also .. J.2 U.S.C § 7502(c) (section 172(CJ) 

(requiring iliat a SIP r~v:ision sub mitred before July I, 198~ pw-stlant to a demonsrrotion under subsec1iou (o )!1) 

89 
Attachment E - Public Comments and Responses 

2. EPA Regulations Implementing the Clean Air Act Require That 

lnfustructure SIPs Impose Emi.o;,:sion Limits Adequate to Prohibit 

NAAQS Exceedances in Areas Not Designated Xonattainment. 

EPA reguhmons nnple:menting section 11 0( <1 )(2) also require d1at infrastructure SIPs 

contain emission limits that en<>ure NA.t\.QS attainment. Pursuant to these regulatiom;, in order 

for EPA to apprm:e a SIP, it "must demomtrate that the measures. niles, and regulations 

contained in it are adequate to provide for the timely attainment and maintenance of the national 

standard that it implements." 40 C.FR. § 51, ll1(a). As. the regulation dearly states. all SIPs 

must contain emission limits that adequately en.<,1.m: the NAA.QS is achieved. Id. Although d1ese 

regulations were developed before the Clean Air Act was amended to separate Infrastn1cture 

SIPs from nonaltainrnent SIPs-a process tlli1t began \Vith the 1977 amendments and was 

completed by the 1990 amendments-the r~gulations nonetheless apply to ISIPs. EPA has not 

changed the regulation ,5ince 1990. and in the preamble to rhe final rule promulgating 40 C.F.R 

§ 51.112, EPA expressly identities that its new regulations were not implementing Subpart D, 

the new nonattaimnent provisions of the Acr See Air Quality Implementation Plans: 

Restructuring SIP Preparation Regulations, 51 Fed_ Reg. 40,656, 40,656 (Nov. 7, 1986) f"lt is 

beyond the 5.cope of th[ is] rukmaking to address the pTovisions of Part D of the Act . "'). 

Consequently. EPA intended 40 C'.F .R § 5 L 112 to apply to ISIPs. Thus. it i<; cleRr thar I SIPs 

must contain ·'measllres. rules. and regulations" suftlcient to ensm·e maintenance of the NAAQS. 

3. P1iol' EPA Interpretations of the Act Require that lnfl'astructure SIPs 

Ilnpose Emission Limits Adequate to Prohibit ?\AAQS Exceedances 

in Anas Not Designated Xonnt1ainment. 

EPA has relied on section llO(a)(2){A) and4D C.F.R § 51.112 on multiple occasions to 

reject Infrastructure SIPs that did not contain specific emissions limits sufficient to demonstmte 

attainment and maintemmce of the NAAQS. For example. in March 2006, EPA disapproved 

Mis.somi's attempt to revise the so2 emission hmits in Its ISIP for two pmver plants because the 

new emission limits would not ensure. maintznance of the three~ hour sulfur dioxide NAAQS then 

in effect See Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans: State of Missouri. 71 Fed. 

Reg. 1:2.623, 12.624 (Mar. 13. :2006). In so doing. EPA explained that "Section 110(a)(2)(A) of 

the [Acr] requires, -in part that Ihe [state implementation] plan include emission limitations to 

meet the requiremems of the Act, including the requirement in section 11 O(a)(l) tlun the plan 

must be Hdequate to attain and maintam ambient air qlwlity srandards.'' Id. EPA fi.111her 

explained that '-40 C.F.R. 51.112 requires that the plan demonstrate that rules contained in the 

SIP are t~dequate to attain the ambient air quality standards_·· ld. In the case of Mi~souri' s 

proposed ISIP, EPA expressed concern th<1t the S02 emission rates for the t\Vo power plants in 

que~tion were "nor protecrive of the short-tenn sulfur dioxide NA.I\QS'" because, while Missouri 

had lowered the emission rates for the facilities, it had drnmatical1y increased the avemging 

times (from a 3~hour average to an ammal average) without providing ''a demonstration, as 

"shall contain enforc~able measures w assm·e attainment ofrhe applicable standflrd not lmer than December 1, 

1987"). Second. tht> clarificarion iu the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendrneut~ drot the ·'meansl] or techniques" for 

meeting die requirements of rile Acr included ·'ecmlmllic incentives such us fees. mMkemble petmirs. and aucrimts 

of emissions rigb.ts ... 42 FS.C § i410(a)(2)(A). 

6 

90 
Attachment E - Public Comments and Responses 

required by the [Cle3n Air Act] cmd EPA regulations, that the [sulfur dioxide national ambient air 

quality] st..·mdards, and particularly the three-hour and the nventy-four hour standards. can be 

protected by an annual emission limit " Id 

More recently, in December 2013, EPA rejected a revision to Indiana's sulfur dioxide 

ISIP pursuant to 40 C .F .R. § 51.112, because Indiana failed to demonstrate that th.~ ISIP. as 

revised. was »ufficient to emure maintenance of the ~;ulfur dioxide NAAQS. See Approval of 

Air Quality Implementation Plan<>: Indian<~: Disapproval of State Implementation Plan Revision 

for ArcelorMittal Bums Harbor: Final Rule, 78 Fed. Reg. 78.720, 78,721 (Dec. 27, 2013). 

Indiana had submitted a request m EPA to revise its sulfnr dioxide ISIP for the ArcelorMirtnJ 

Burns Harbor facility to remove the S02 emission limit for the blast furnace ±l<~re at the fucility. 

!d. In the proposed disapproval, EPA explained that "[uJnder 40 CF .R_ 51.112ta). each SIP 

must demonstrate rhat the nteRsures. rules, and regulations it contains are adequate to provide for 

the timely attainment and maintenance of the NAAQS." See Approval of Air Quality 

Implementation Plans; Indiana; Disapproval of State Implementation Plan Revision for 

ArcelorMittal Bums Harbor; Proposed Rule, 78 Fed. Reg. 17,157. 17_158 (Mar_ 20, 2013). EPA 

rejected the proposed amendment because Indlnna did not demonstrate that existing emission 

limit for the A.rcelorMittal blast furnace gas tlare \Vas ··redundant, unnecessary_ or thm its 

removal would not result in or allow an increase in actual S02 emissions:· and, consequently, 

that remov.al of the limit would not '"affect the validity of the emission rat.cs used in the existing 

attainment demonstration.. thus undennining the SIP's ability to ensure protection of the SO: 

NA.AQS_,. Id. at 17,159: see~1lso 78 Fed. Reg. at 78;7:21. 

4. Supreme and Appellate Court Opinions Hold that Infrastructure SIPs 

Must Impose Emis!oion Limits Adequate to Prohibit NA ... 4QS 

Exceedances in Areas not De~ignated Nonattainment. 

Since the inception of the modem Clean Air Act in 1970, courts have interpreted the 

language presently fmmd in section l10(a)(2)(A) to require that SIPs contain enforceable 

emission limits sufficient to prevent .:-xceedances of the NAAQS. In Train v .. NRDC a seminal 

case on SIP appron1l requirements_ the Supreme Court explained tlmt: 

In complying with this requirement [that n SIP provide for atminment and 

maintenance of the NA.t\.QSJ a State ·s plan must include 'emission lunitations.-

which are regulations of the c-Omposition of substances emitted into the ambient 

air from such sources as power plants, service stations. and the like. They are the 

specific rules to which operators of pollution sources are subject, and which if 

enfOrced should result in ambient air which meets the nationlll stamL1rds. 

421 U.S. 60. 78 (1975): see also id. at 67 (citing Wnguage from then-current section llO(a)(:2)(B) 

no\\' found in sectionllO(a)(2)(A)). 

Couns of Appeals have follmved this holding vtithout exception_ For example, in 

PeHns)'lHmhr DepartmenT qf Environmental Resources v. EPA. the Third Circuit stated that the 

Clean Air Act ··directs the EPA to withhold approvt~l from a smte implementation plan if the 

91 
Attachment E - Public Comments and Responses 

'maintenance of [the] standard' cannot be aSS11Ied:· 932 F.2d 269, 272 (3rd Cir. 1991).6 The 

cotui observed that the "need ro maiutalll the Clean Air Act standards once they are reached i"i 

well-recognized by the Courts." Jd. Other courts have provided similar analyses. In .\Ii.~·ion 

Industrial, Inc. v. EPA, for example. the First Circ-tlit explained that, "[b ]efore approving au air 

quality implementation plan or revision, the Administrator must determine that it 'includes 

emission limitations ... and such other measures as may be necessary to im.ure attaimnent and 

maintenance of (the) primary or secondary standard. _ .. "' 547 F.2d 123. 129 (1st Cir. 1976) 

(quoting former section llO(a)(2)(B)). 

The 1990 Clean Air Act amendments do not alter this picture. C omt decisions since the 

1990 amendments have continued to hold that ISIPs mm,t hav-e emission limits that maintam the 

NAAQS. In Alaska Depamuenr ofEnvironmental Conse1wrtion v. EPA. the Supreme Col.ll't 

explained that an Infra.'itnlcture SIP under CAA section llO(a)(l) must be a "plan which 

provides for implementation. maintenance, and enforcemem of [NAA.QS].'" 540 U.S. 461, 470 

(2004) (quoting section llO(a)(l)). '-''lhile States have wide discretion in formulating their plan<; 

.. SIPs must inch1de certain measures Congress specified to assure that national ambient air 

quality standard<; are 11chieved." ld, (internal citations and quotarion<; omitted). Thus, in order 

for EPA to approve a SIP. it "must 'include enforceable em.ission limitations and other control 

measures, means, or techniques ... as may be necessary or approprinte to meet the applicable 

[CAA] requirements."' I d. (quoting 4~ I' .S.C.§ 7410(a)(2)(A)), 

The circuit courts have also been clear that section 110(a)(2)(A) from the post-1990 

Clean Air Act requires enforceable emission limits in IS IPs. For example, th.:: Ninth Circuit 

affirmed that "[t]he Clean Air Act directs states to develop implementation plans-SIPs--that 

·assure' attainment and nu'lintenance of national ambient air quality standards ('NAAQS ') 

through enfOrce~rble emission limitMions." Afonr. Sulphur & Chern. Co., 666 F.3d fit 1180 

(citing 42 U.S c_ §§ 7407(a). 7410(a)(2)(A)) (emphasis added). And d1e Sixth Circuit has 

explained !hRt '"EPA's deference to a state is conditiOned on the state· s submission of a plan 

·which <>atisfies the standnrds of§ 110(a)(2)' and which includes emi'>sion limirntions that result 

in compliance with rhe NAAQS.'' Afich. Dep't qf'Envrl. Qualiry. 230 F. 3d m 185 (quoting Tmin. 

421 U.S. at 79) 

Additionally, in Hall v. EPA, the Ninth Circuit held that EPA had not fulfilled its 

responsibility under another provision~se-ction110(1) -to evaluate whether a rensed air 

quality plan will achieve the pollution reductions reqmred under the Ac:t. 273 F 3d at 1 I 52. In 

Hall. the court held that EPA had incorrectly approved a revision to an air quality plan solely on 

the b~~Sis that the re\-"isions did noi relax the existing SIP. rather than "measur[ing] the existing 

level of pollution. compar[ing] it with the nattonal standards, and detennin[ing] the effect on this 

comparison of specified emission modifications." Jd. at 1157-58 (quoring T1·ain. 421 U.S. at 93). 

EPA claimed a statutory equivalence between non-relaxation of mles approved in 1981 and non6 The coutt w;~s imetpr~ting the 1977 version ofrhe stnture itt whkh Subpart 1 ofPnrr D had b<!en added. iJ. at 271 

n.J, but relied 011 tile la11guage ohhen-ctmenrsection I W(a)(2)(B) (now found in sectionllO(n)(2)(A)l. 

Pe1msy!ra11ia Dep't afEnvt!. Res., 32 F.Zd ~I 272. 7 Secrion llO(lj pro'.-ides. iu rele\c·anr pan. rllar ·-[r]he Adininisrrator sllall nor approve~ revision of a [srar<! 

nnplememariouJ plan if tile revision v:cmld interfere. with any apphcal1le reqnirement concemmg attainmelll and 

reasonable ftmher progress or any ofher applicable requirement of this chaptef." 42 U.S.C. § 7410(1). 

' 

92 
Attachment E - Public Comments and Responses 

interference \'\ith cunent attainment requirements. !d. at 1155. The coun rejected EPA's 

apphcation of the "no relaxation" rule. finding tt mconsistent with the Act because it set an 

improper baseline that failed to take into consideration the 1990 amendments. which set ne\V 

deadlines for attainment and established other new requirements for incremental progress 

towards attainment_ Id. ar 1160-61. Those currem attainment requirements were the baseline 

from \'-'hich EPA should have measured "non-interference." Id. EPA's analysis was required 10 

reflect consideration of the prospects of meeting current Attainment requirements under a revised 

air quality phm. Jd. Just as a plan tevisionmust not interfere with attainment of the NAAQS 

under section 11 0(1), an ISIP must likewise include enforceable limits sufficient to ensure the 

initial plan prov-ides for maintenance of the NAAQS under 110(a)(2)(A). 

II. "Michigan's Draft Infrastructure SIP Fails to ~rleet the Requirements of Section 

110(a)(2) of th• Cl•an Air Ad. 

A. :Michigan's Draft ISIP does not incorporate the 20.10 S02 and 2008 Ozone 

'\"AAQS. 

As discussed in detail above. an h1frastructure SIP must provide for the implementation 

maintenance, and enforcement of the primary NA..<.\QS, the levels of air quality nece~sary Lo 

protect public health. 42 U S.C. § 7410(a)(l) & § 7409(b)(l). lvlichigan's proposed ISIP must 

address the following NA_A,QS: 

• The 2010 S01 NAAQS which imposes a new one~hour standard at a le-vd of !96 

micrograms per cubic meter ("~1gim3") or 75 ppb, which is met when the 3-year 

average of the 99th percentile of the annual distribution of daily maxim1m1 onehour average concentration<> is less than or equal to 75 ppb. '40 C.F.R. § ~0.17(a)­

(b). 

• The 2008 prllllary ozone standard. which imposes the standard of 75 ppb ohhe 

annual fourth-highest daily maximum eigll[-hom concentration averaged over 3 

year. 40 C.F.R. § 50.15(a)-(b). 

A preliminary requirement to implementing these primary NAA.QS is to incorporate the 

standards directly into d1e ISIP meant to attain and maintain them. 42 U.S. C.§ 7410(a)(2)(A). 

Despite this requiremenl.Michigan fails TO include rhe revised NAA.QS in its reguh1tions. 

Accordingly, in order to comply\\ith the Clean Air Act Michigan must revise the Draft ISIP so 

that it contains accurate, up-to-date ambient air quality standards reflective of the 2010 one-hour 

S02 and 2008 eight-hom ozone NAAQS. 

B. The Draft !SIP Fails to Include Enforcenble One-hour S02 Emission 

Limitations to Ensure Attainment and l\Iointenance of the Primary S01 

'\"AAQS. 

9 

93 
Attachment E - Public Comments and Responses 

1--fichigan's Draft ISIP fails to include restrictions onllliljor SO: sources to ensure that 

areas 11ot currently designated nonatt<'linment will att...-tin and maintain the nev,: one-hour SO: 

NAAQS~ 

1. Michigan must relise the Draft ISIP to include enforceable one-hour 

S02 emission limits for sources that have emissions or emission limits 

that cause an exceedance of the NA .. AQS. 

The Draft ISIP fails to inch1de adequate enforceable emission limitations or other 

required meusures for sources ofS02 sufficient to enmre attainment and mnintemmce of the 

2010 S02 NA.AQS. As discussed above, under section 1lO(a)(2)(A). the ISIP must "''include 

enforceable emissionlinutations ... as \Vell as schedules and timetables for compliance, as m.<ty 

be necessary or appropriate to meet the applicable requirements" of the Clean Air Act (which 

include the req11irement to maintain compliance with the NAAQS). 

Emission limits are especially important for meeting the one-hour S02 N . .i\..-\QS given the 

"srrong source-oriented nature of S02 ambient impacts." Final S01 NAAQS Rule. 75 Fed. Reg. 

at 35.570. Nationally.large point sources accoum for 95 percent of SO: emissions. 66 percent of 

which come from fossil fuel combustion at electric facilities. Id. at 35.524. In Michigan, eighty 

percent (or 229.015 om of 285.658 tons) of S02 emissions come from coal electric generating 

units ("EGUs"). See S02 NEI All Sectors(2011)_28 Apr 2014.xlsx, Excel Worksheet 

'"Percentage Stnumary (All Stotes)". artached hereto as Ex. 4,; ,\ee also EPA, The National 

Emissions Inventory. Sector SUllllnarieo,:, http;hvv·rw.epa.gov.'rtnichiefnet!20 ll inventory.huut 

20Ilinventory.hunl. 

Despite the large contribution from coal EGUs, MDEQ h<1s not even<1ttempted to 

demonstrate tllilt emissions allowed by the Draft ISIP will ensure compliance with Ihe one~hmu 

S01 standard. In fact. the Draft ISIP would simply allow the major air pollution sources in the 

state to rontinue operating under their pr~sent emission limits. Michigan must correct these 

defic1encies before it finalizes its ISIP since its mn1modding shows that the Belle River and St. 

Clair power plants are causing fill exceedance of the S02 NAAQS. In addition, Sierra Club did 

additional modehng which shows that Belle River. St. Clair, Eckert. J.H. Campbell, and Presque 

Isle's emissions are causing exceedances of the S02 NAA.QS. In order to comply with Section 

1IO{a)(2) of the Clean Air Act. NIDEQ must esrnblish emission limit5 on these facilities to 

ensure maintenance ofthe S02 NAAQS. 

a. MDEQ's Own Modeling Shows that the Belle River and St Clair 

Power Plants' Emissions are Causing Exceedances of the NAAQS. 

Michigan modeled the S02 emissions. from the Belle River and St. Clair pnv•·er planrs as 

part of its process in developing its \Vayne Com1ty S02 nonattai1m1ent SIP. MDEQ shared it5 

modeling files with Sierra Club. According to ~IDEQ's modeling. Belle River and St. Clair 

pmver plants' emissions are authorized to cause exceedances of the NAAQS. See H. Andrews 

Gmy, S02 Impuctsfmm the St. Clair and Belle River PoKer Plants (June 3. 2014) (mtached 

hereto as Ex. 5) [Gray Report]. The follo;.ving table :;.mnmarizes the results of}..IDEQ's 

modeling: 

10 

94 
Attachment E - Public Comments and Responses 

Table 1. 1\:lodeled S02 Emi~;sion Rates8 

Sierra Club hired a modeler to nm AER.triOD using the MDEQ"s input files but making 

some conservative adjustments. such as using the fourth highest value nrther than the maximum 

value. The results of this modeling demomrrate that the emissions fromBdle River and St. Clarr 

power plants will cause a violation of the NAAQS. !d. 

Table 2 . .Modeled :\laximum 5-year Average of the 4111 -Highest Daily Peak 1-hr A \'erage 

S02 Conrentration (1\A.t\.QS Design Value) 

The S02 concentration impact from both sources exceeds 100 ppb across the entire 23 

kmx 15 kmreceptor grid, covering an area of almost 350 km". Id. The maximum 5-}'f average 

of the 4th highest daily peale 1-hr S02 concentration (the •·ctesign value'") for both sources 

combined was 225 ppb, at a recepmr localed about 4lan N\V of Belle River and about 6 km :N\\T 

of the St. Clair pow~r plant {about 3-4 km SW of the city of StClair). ld_ The SO~ impact 

(design value concentration) due to St. Clair errrisi:oiom \Vas 186 Pllb.Iocated about 3 km to d1e 

SW of the St. Clair source. Belle River shm.ved somewhat lower S02 impacts than St. Clair, 

with a design value of85 ppb. at a receptor located 4 km to the SW of the Belle River power 

plant. Id. 

Using the results of the AER.LV10D model, one can determine the 502 emission reductions 

that WOlild be re.quired to meet the 1-hr 502 Ni\AQS. Id. Facility-wide S01 emissions at St. 

Clair would need to be reduced by 60 percent to reduce the design value (186 ppb) to a level in 

which the NA."\QS wmlld no longer be violated (75 ppb). I d. Facility-wide emissions would 

_therefore need to be reduced from 98,322 tpy to 3\590 tpy (9,039lb/hr) so tlmt St. Clair"s 

emissions are not. on their 0\'\11. causing a violation of the 1-hr S02 NAA .. QS. Id. 

t !d. 

ll 

95 
Attachment E - Public Comments and Responses 

Similarly, emissions from the two large Belle River boiler tmits would need to be reduced 

by 12 percent to in order to reduce its design value (85 ppb) dmvn to the NAAQS level (75 ppb). 

!d. Total S02 emissions from the Belle River facility would have to be reduced from 71.631 tpy 

to 63,094 (14.405 lb/hr) so that no violations of the l-hr S02 NA...A.QS occur (due just to Belle 

River emissions). Id. 

The combined impact from both St. Clair and Belle River was 225 ppb (design value). 

which implies that SO~ emissions from both sources combined \Ymtld need to be reduced by 67 

percent in order to meet the 1-hr SO;; NAA_QS (ass1m1ing no orher sources contribute to the peak 

concentmtions. and thm background S02 is negligible). Id_ If this level of emission reduction 

were applied to both power plants, SL Clair·"s facility-wide S02 emissions would be reduced to 

32.748 tpy (7A77lb;br) and Be(Je River's two large units would emit only 23.857 tpy (5.447 

lbihr) of SOl. Id. 

Since the state is aware ofBelle River and St. Clair's rmpact on the attainment of the 

NAAQS in St. Clair County, it simply cannot finalize d1e ISIP without addressing this problem. 

b. Sierra Ch1b's modeling sho\YS that Belle River, St. Clair, Eckert, J.H. 

Campbe11, and Presque Isle-'s em.is..'iions are causing exceedances of d1e 

NAAQS. 

As determined by expert air dispers10n modeling conducted at Sierra Club's request. 

emission limits allowed m the Belle River. St. Clair. Eckert, J.H. Campbell. and Presque Isle 

coal-tired power plants are insufficient to attain and maintain the NAAQS. See Steven Klafka. 

Belfe River and St. Clair Pmvet Plants, St. Clair, Michigan, Evaluation of Compliance ·with 1-

hollr .NAAQSfor S01 (II-Iay 28, :1014), [hereinafter "'Belle River and St. Clair Report"], attached 

hereto as Ex. 6; Steven Klafka, Eckert Station, Lansing. Michigan, Evaluation of Comphctnce 

with 1-hour NAAQSfor S02 (MaJ· 30, 2014). [hereinafter '·Eckert Report''], attached hercto as 

Ex. 7: Steven Klafk::L J.H. Campbel! Plant, W'est Olire, i\fichigan. Evaluarion ofC ompliance 

with 1-hour NAA.QSfor S02 (Ma:v 28, 1014), [hereinafter ""J.H. Campbell Report'l artached 

hereto as Ex. 8: Steven Klafka. Monroe Power Plant, Monroe. Michigan, Evaluation of 

Compliance with 1-hour NA.AQS.for S01 (A.pril16. 2014), [hereinafter "Monroe Report"], 

attached hereto as Ex. 9; Steven Klaflm, Presque Isle Power Plant, Marquette, Michigan 

Evaluatio11 of Compliance )\"fth rhe 1-hour NAAQSfbr .'502 (May 30, 2014) [hereinafter "'Presque 

Isle Report'} attached hereto as Ex. lO. 

The Belle River and St. Clair Report, Eckert Report. J.H. Campbell Report. Monroe 

Report, and Presque Isle Report present the results of an air dispersion modeling analysis for 

each plant that compares the modeled ambient air concentr-ations of each plam· ~ S02 emission~ 

with the 2010 one-hour primary S02 NAAQS_ The modelmg analyses employed EPA's 

AER..\10D progmm to model the ptauts' ··allowable" (based on the current Title V pennit) and in 

cenain instances "actual" em.i'isions (based on maximum plant-wide hourly emissions obtnined 

from ammal emission inventory reports) or "maximum'· emissions (based on the highest 

combined emission rate form allwllts during a single ho1..1r from USEPA Air Markets Progmm 

Data) to determine whether each plant's emissions could cause exceedances of the one-hour 502 

NA.t\.QS. See Belle River .'lnd StClair Report at 3; Eckert Report at 3; J.H. Campbell Report at 

3: Momoe Report ar 3: Presque Isle Report at 3. In particular, the modeling based on the 

12 

96 
Attachment E - Public Comments and Responses 

allowable emissions is cmcial to a detennination of whether the Michigan Draft ISIP is adeqlulte 

to attain and maintain the S02 NAA._QS. becm1se this is what is allowed in each plant's pennit. 

The modeling protocol employed in these analyses is comi~tent with all availabl;: 

technical guidance, including Appendix Wand EPA's March 2011 guidm1ce for implementing 

the one-hour S01 NAAQS. Additionally, the modeler used the most recent version of 

AEFJ..10D. AERlviET. and AER...l\1INUTE available at the time of the smdies. See Belle Ri\'er 

fllld St. Clair Report at 1: Eckerr Report at 1; J.H. Campbell Report fit 1: Monroe Rer)ort at 1: 

Presque Isle Report at 1. \\'here any assumptions were made in the numing of the models, the 

modeler employed conservative inputs, which favor the prediction oflmver impacts from the 

plants. so that the result" lllfiY und~rstate the plants' S02 emissiOn impacts. See Belle River and 

St Clair Report at 5: Eckert Reporr at 4; J.H. Campb~ll Report n.t 4: Monroe Report at 4~ Presque 

Isle Report at 4. 

The modeling reports demonstrate that the Draft ISIP improperly aU[horize<: these plams 

to continue to cause exceedances of the one-hom· SO: NA.AQS based on their allowable emission 

rates and in some .instances actual or maximum emtssion rates. See Belle River and St. Clair 

Report at 3, Table I, Eckert Report at 3. Table 1: ).H. Onnpbell Report at 3. Table l; Monroe 

Report at 3. Table 1: Presque Isle Report at 3_ Table l. The modeling results are a bow rhe 

NA.AQS and sho\'1.' exceedances in St. Clair. Macomb, Eawn, Clmton, Ingham, Ottawa, Monr-oe, 

and Marquette counties, Michigan See Belle RiYer and St. Clair Report at 6-7, Figure 1 and 

Figure 2; Eckert Report at .'i. Figure I: J.H. Campbell Report at 5. Figure 1; Monroe Report at 5. 

Figure L Presque Isle Report at 5, Figure 1. Currently, only a portion of Wayne COLmty ha:<. 

been designated nonattainmem under the one-hour SOl NAAQS. See genemlly Air Quality 

Designations for the 2010 Sulfur Dioxide (SOJ Primary N::ttional Ambient Air Quality Standard. 

78 Fed. Reg. 47,191, 47,201 (Aug. 5, 2013), [hereinafter ''Final2010 SO.:: Designations"]. 9 

Because these power plants are in areas tllat are not currently designated nonattainment, NIDEQ 

mu-st submit an ISIP that "provides fOr implementation. maintenance. and enforcement of' the 

NAAQS within those areas. 42 U.S.C. § 74IO(a)(l)_ 

The findings from each modeling n:-pon are summarized in Table 3 below. 

9 EPA has yet to is~ue d,:osig:na.tions for are~s asidll from thos~ containing moniton thar recorded exceedanc,:os of th<"" 

NA;I,_QS. See Finnl 2010 502 Designations at 47,191 (clesignatirtg areas wirh motliror violarious tl:om2009-20 ll as 

notmrtaiwueut). 

IJ 

97 
I 

Attachment E - Public Comments and Responses 

Table 3: Summary of.Modeled Allowable, Actual, and Maximum Emissions 

. Total 

EniissiO~. Facility Imp ad so, Counties 

Powe1· Backgr·ound Facility Impacted (Not 

Plant Rates Impact (~_g;'m')to Impact plus NAAQS Designated (rg!m') Background (J.Igtm3)ll Nonattainment) 

. .. (~pim ) 

Belle Allownble 244.1 J 1.4 275.6 196.1 St Clairt~ 

River Maximwn 287.7 31.4 319.1 196.1 St. Clair 

Plant 

St. Clair AlloWAble 518:3 :H.4 549.7 196.2 StClair and 

Power Actual 290:1 31.4 321.5 196.1 Macomb1

!> 

Plant 

Eckert Allmvable 306.1 31.4 337.5 196.2 Eaton, Clinton, 

Station and In!!ham 

!.H. AllmVable 290.7 31.4 322.1 196.2 Ottawa 

CitpJpbell Maximtlln 184.0 3L4 21SA 196.2 

Plant .. . 

Monroe Allowable 237.8 31.4 269.2 196.2 Monroe 

Power Actual 370.5 3L4 401.9 196.2 

Phmt 

PresqUe AUO\Vable 772.5 3!.4 803.9 196.2 Presque Isle 

Isle_'Powcr Ma.-xil.:tliun 4195 31.4 450.9 196.2 

Plant 

See Belle River and St Clair Report at 3. Tsble 1 and 6-7, Figure I and Figure 2: Eckert Report 

at 3. Table 1 rmd 5, Ftgure 1: J.H. Campbell Report at 3, Table 1 and 5, Figure 1: Monroe Report 

at 3. Table 1 and 5. Figure 1: Presque Isle Report Ht 3. Table I and 5, Figure 1. 

Based on the modeling results SlllllJllarized above . .MDEQ must promulgate enforceable 

emiss10n limit~ with one-hour averaging times into its Drnft !SIP that are no less stringent than 

the limits listed in Table 4. below', to achieve and maintain the one-hour S02 NAAQS. These 

limits represent the maximum rate that each facility can emit without caming KA....A.QS 

exceedances, thus reducing each plam· s allowable emissions by the corresponding percentage. 

w ?>-IT. Klafka used rhe 2010-2012 design value f~1r Kent County. Michigan TO estimate the background level. Kent 

Coumy design v~lue \HIS the lowest measured l1~cJ;:ground in th,;o srare. Thus. lts.ing. this back._grotmcl level likely 

tmderestimates rlle S02 levels in the counties meurio-ned in Table I 

u The 75 ppb standard can be couve1·ted w ~tglm3 as follows: 75!0 . .:1823 = 196.2 ftg/m3

. 12 This plam also cames impacts in Canada. resnlr.i.ng: in SO:: NAAQS exceedances in anoiher counrry. Addressing 

these exceed~nces now would Jlrevem a potential action by EPA under secrionil5, whlch requires EP.-\ TO prevent 

or eliminate a reasonably amicipared danger ro pliblic health impacriug another counrry. 

n This planr also cam.es impacts in Canada. resulring ia S02 NA..A..QS exceedances in another cmumy. A.ddressi.ng 

rhese exceedm1ces now would prewnt a poteut:ial actiO!t by EPA under section 115. wl.iiclJrequires EPA w prevem 

or elillliume a reasonably anticipated daJlger ro public ilealtil impactiLlg auolhel" coumry. 

14 

98 
Attachment E - Public Comments and Responses 

These emission limits must apply at all times, including during period'S of start·l.lp. :ohmdmm, 

and malfunction, to ensure that aU areas of Michigan attain and maintain the 502 NAAQS.14 

Table 4: Limits Nece_~sary to Achieve and Maintain the One-Hour S01 NAA.QS 

Requlred Total Requind Total Requll'ed T-otal 

Fa~;iUty Reduction Facruty Embslon !tate Facility 1-bour 

Based on Allowable Average Emission Plalit Emissions f% \ (lb:slhr) Rate (ib~/MMBtu) 

Belle River Plant 33~~"G 11.037.0 0 81 

St. Clair Power Plant 68% 7.138.2 0.53 

Belle River ~md St. 71% 10.702.7 . 

0.40 Clair, 'C~ombined15 

Eckert Station 46~-o 3.573.3 0.90 

JH. C>mnbeU Plant 43% l-1,333.3 0.79 

Monroe Power Plant 31~0 6.826.4 0.22 

Pre.sque Isle 79<'.;(, L484.7 0.30 . Power Plant 

See Belle River and StClair Report at 4, Table 3: Eckert Repon at 4, Table 3: J.H. Campbell 

Report at 4, Table 3; Mcmroe Report at 4. Table 3: Presque hie Report at 4, Table 3. 

As demonstrated by the modeling repm1s. Belle Ri\'er Powe-r Plant. St. Cl<~ir Power Plant 

Eckert Station J.H. Campbell Plant Monroe Power Plant, and Presque Isle Power Plant are 

currently authorized to cause exc-eedcmces of the one-hour so~ N~A.AQS based on their 

allow~:~ble, actuaL andior maximum emission rates. Therefore. MDEQ must impose additional 

em1sswn limits on the plants thnt ensure- attainment and maintenance of the NAAQS at all times. 

As the ISIP submission does not incorporate emission limitations that are necessary to meet the 

applicable requirements of the Clean Air Act (or indeed. any new emission limits for the~ or 

orher SOremitting facilities), including the requirement to maintam compliance with the 2010 

S02 NA.4.QS, the Draft ISIP must be appropriately revised_ 

2. Modeling i~ the app1·opliate tool for e'•aluating the adequacy of 

Infrastructure SIPs and ensuring attainment and maintenance of the 

SO,NAAQS. 

As outlined by EPA in the Final 502 NAAQS Rule, 75 FeeL Reg. at 35._551, mr 

dispersion modeling i5 the best method for evoluating the short-tenu impacts of large sol source~>_ This is consistent with EPA's historic use of air dispersion modeling tOr attaimnent 

des.ignations cmd SIP revisions. Fmthem1ore. an agency may not ignore infonuarion put in front 

of it. such as Sierra Club's modeling submitted wirh rhese comments. See generally .Motor 

Velucle Mfn. Ass'fl v. State Fmm Jfm_ Auto Ins. Co., 463 U.S. 29,43 (1983) (holding that it was 

H Modeling-ba£ed emissions limits sre well-docmuemed. For example, Millllesota hM used S02 modeling w 

estahlislt eruissioulimits on several plants in order to avoid nouanaiillllent designations. 51:'<' Black Dog Plaut Permit 

No. 03700003-11, T-ec!J.uical Support Document. at :5 & IQ (permit em:issionlimiT6 based OlllllOdeling arwlys~s). 

attached l1erew a~ Ex. ll: sef also .1Jlen S. King Title VTechuical Suppo11 Document, -at 6, 14. 16 & 39 (pfflllir 

emi~sionli.mirs bShed on modeling analyse~), artached hereto as Ex. 12. 15 The combined reS1.1lt.<; tbr Belle Rlver and St Clair look m the C\lllllll<Hive impacTs of boTh faciliTies togeTher on <1ir 

qualiry. A 72% reducnon in em:is3ionsmTe i> needed fiT f(lch plant in order ro prevent exce-edances of lite NA>\QS. 

15 

99 
Attachment E - Public Comments and Responses 

arbitrary and capricious for the agency to ignore an important aspect of an issue placed before it): 

see also NRDC v. EPA. 571 F3d 1245. 1254 (D.C Cir.2009) (restating EPA's own statement 

that additional mfonnation presented in R notice-and-comment rulemaking must be considered 

during the rulemaking by the corresponding state and EPA) (citing 70 Feel. Reg. 71.612. 71.655). 

1\IDEQ has long been on notice rhat modeling d8ta is an important resource in the so~ 

NAAQS attairunem andmaintemmce proc-ess. Appropriately. MDEQ is currently using 

modeling to determine the level of emissions reductions required to bring Wayne County into 

:;~ttainment. See Ex. 5. EPA has hisroric:;~lly used modeling in detennining attainment for the 502 

standard. See e.g., U.S. EPA, Imp!ementQtion of the 1-Hour S01 Y4AQS Draft Tf11ite Paper fat 

Discussion at 3. fi1. 1. [hereinafter "EPA \Vhite Paper"], CIV<Iih1ble ar 

http:! !"IN\VW. epa. gov! airquality 'sulfurdioxid.e/pdfs:'2 0 12 05~1w hitepaper. pdf; see also 

Respondent"s Opposition to Motion of the Smte of North Dakota for a Stay ofEPA"s 1-Hour 

Sulfur Dioxide Ambient Standard Rule fit 3. National Enl'imnmental Development Associurion 's 

Cleun Air Prqfecr v. EPA (D.C. Cir. 2010) (No. 10-1252). ::~ttached hereto as Ex. 13 ("the 

Agency has historically relied on modeling m make designations for sulfur dioxide'} In tact, in 

EPA's 199..:1- S02 Guideline Document, EPA noted that "for S02 attaimnent demonstrations, 

monitoring data alone will generally not be adequate." US EPA. 1994- SO~ Guideline 

Document. [hereinafter "1994 S02 Guideline Doc1m1ent"'], available at 

hnp-i'www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpgitl/memorand::v~o2_guide_092109.pdf, at 2-5, and that 

"[a]ttainment detenninations for S01 will generally not rely on ambient monitoring data alone. 

bm instead will be supported by an acceptable modeling analysis which quantifies that the SIP 

strategy is s01md and that enforceable emission limits are responsible for attflitmlenL" Id. flt 2-L 

The 1994 S~ Guideline Document goes on to note that monitoring alone is likely to be 

inadequate; "[f]or S01. dispersion modeling will generally be necessary to evflluate 

comprehensively a source's tmpacts and to determine the flreas of expected high concentrations 

based upon current conditions." Id. at 2-3. 

EPA's approval and acceptance of modeling for muki..ng auainment designations stretches 

back decades and demonstrates that modeling is equally applicable to determining the adequacy 

of an Infrastructure SIP. In 1983, the Office of Air Quality Plannmg and Standards ('"OAQPS") 

issued a Section 107 Designation Policy Summary. See Sheldon Meyers Memorandum re 

Section 107 Designation Policy Stnnmary (April21. 1983), attached hereto as Ex. 14. OAQPS 

explained that "air quality modeling emissions data, etc .. should be used to determine if the 

monitoring data accurately characterize the worst case air qwlity in the area." Id. at 1. \Virhout 

modeling data, the- worst-case air quality may not be accurately characterized. In certain 

instances, EPA relied solely on modeling data to determine nonattainment designations; 

demonstrating modeling is accepted and tmstworthy. Id_ ::~t 2. In fact reliance on modeling for 

nonattninment designations stretches back to the Carter Administration. In 1978. EPA 

designated LaureL Montana as nonatt::~inmem "due to measured and modeled violations of the 

primary S02 standard." Afonr. Sulphur & Chem. Co., 666 F.3d at 1181 (citing 43 Fed. Reg. 

8,962 (Mar. 3, 1978)). 

EPA's final2010 S01 NAAQS rule simply built upon EPA "s histoncal practice of using 

modeling to determine attainment and nonattainment status for so~ NA.AQS. In doing so. EPA 

properly recognized the "strong source-oriented nature of S02 ambient impacts.·· Fin..1.l S02 

NAAQS Rule at 35,370, and concluded that the appropriate methodology for p11Iposes of 

16 

100 
Attachment E - Public Comments and Responses 

detennining compliance. attainment. and nonattaimnenr ·with the new NAL\QS is modeling. See 

id. at 35,5:51 (describing dispersion modeling as "the most technically appropriate, efficient and 

readily available method for a~sessmg short~ term mnbienr S02 concentrations in areas with large 

pomt sources."). Accordingly. in pronmlgating the 2010 S02 NA..J\.QS, EPA explained that. for 

the one-hour standard. '"lt is more ~ppropriate and efficient to principally use modeling to asses~ 

compliance for medium to larger sources .... '- Id at35,570. Similarly, EPA then explAined in 

the EPA "White Paper thm using modelmg to detennine atmimnent for the S02 standard "could 

better address several potentially problanatic issues than would the narrower moniwring-focused 

P.pproach discussed in the proposal for the SO: NA.i\QS. including the unique source~specific 

impacts of so2 emissions and the special challenges so~ emissions have historically presented in 

terms of monitoring short~term. S02 levels for comparison vvith the NAA.QS in many situations 

(75 FR 35550)." EPA \Vhite Paper at3A. 

Moreover. the courts have uphdd EPA· s use of modeling. For example. in Alontcma 

Sulphur. the company challenged a SIP call. a SIP disapprovaL and n Fedeml Implementation 

Plan C'FIP") promulgation. bec<~u<;e they were premised on a modeling analysis that showed the 

BillingsrLaurel, Montana area was in nonattainment for S01. 666 F.3d at 1184. The court 

rejected Montana Sulphur's argument that EPA's reliance on modeling was arbitrary and 

capricious or otherwise lmlawful. Id. at 1185. see also Sierra Club 1' Castle, 657 F.2d 298.332 

(D C. Cir. 1981) ("Realistically, computer modeling is a useful and often essential tool for 

performing the Herculean labors Congress imposed on EPA in the Clean Air Act"); Republic 

Steef Co1p. v. Cosde. 621 F.ld 797. 805 (6th Cir. 1980) (approving use of modeling to predict 

future violattons and incorporating "worst~case" assumptions regarding weather and full~ 

capacity operations ofpolhuant !Klurces). Further demonstrating the superioriry of modeling, the 

D.C. Circuit has admowledged the inherent problem of using monitored data for criteria 

pollumuts, namely that "a monitor only measures air quality in its immediate vicinity.'' Carawba 

County v. EPA. 571 F.3d 20,30 (D.C. Cir. 2009)_ 

Indeed. EPA employ<; and relies on modeling to inform its designations because the 

agency is well aware that modeling produces reliable results. For example, as John C. Yimont. 

EPA Region 9's Regional Meteorologist, has .~tated under oath: 

EPA does recognize the usef\.Jlness of ambient measurements for information on 

backgrmmd concentratl.Ons, provlCled reliable monitoring techniques are available. 

EPA does not recommend. however. that ambient measurements be used as ilie 

sole basis of seUin!! emission limitations or detennmin!! the ambient 

concentratiollS resultmcr from emissions from an industrial source. Tbese should 

be based on an appropriaLe modeling analvsis. 

Declaration of Jolm C. Vimont at 1, 11 (emphasis added). attached hereto as Ex. 15. Testimony 

as to the Accuracy and appropriateness of modeli.11g has also been presenred by Roger Brode, a 

physical scientist in EPA's Air Quality Modeling Group "\Yho co-chairs the AMS' EPA 

Regulatory Model Impmvement Committee (AERl-.flC) and the AER.\IOD Implementation 

Workgroup. See Declaration of Roger \V. Brode at 1, 2. attached hereto as Ex. 16. !vir. Brode 

has stated •mder oath that AER110D is "readily capable of .accurately predicting whether the 

revised primary SO:;. NAAQS is attained and whether individual somces c.ause or contribute to a 

Yiolatiou of the S02 NA.AQS." Id. at 2. Mr. Brode has explained: 

17 

101 
Attachment E - Public Comments and Responses 

As part of the basis for EPA adopting the AERJ\:IOD model as the preferred 

model for uearfield applications in the Guideline on Air Quality Model.~·. 

Appendix \\T to 40 CFR Part 51. the performance of the AERI.vfOD model was 

exten'>ivelv evalu£~ted based on a total of 17 field studv data b<1ses (AER.t"\10D: 

Latest Features and Evaluation Re:c.cllts. EPA-454;R-03-003. U.S. Ennromnentai 

Protection Agency. Research Triangle Park (2003)_ portion.'> of which are attached 

to this affidavit) ('"EPA 2003'} T11e scope of the model evaluations conducted for 

AERlviOD fm· exceed<> the scope of evahwtions conducted on anv other model 

that has been adouted in Appendix W to Part 51. These evaluations demonstrate 

the overall good perfonnance of the AERMOD model based on technically smmd 

model evaluation proc¢dures, and also illustrate the significant advancement in 

the science of dispersion modelmg represented by the AERMOD model fiS 

compared to other models that have been used in the p!lst. In particular. adoption 

of the A.ER.'\10D model has si~Znificantlv reduced the potential for overestimation 

of ambient impacts from elevated sources in complex terrain compared to othermodels. 

Id. ar 3-4 (emphasis added) The Belle River Power Plant. St. Clair Power Plant_ Eckert Station, 

J.H. Campbell Plant. Monroe Power Phmt, tmd Presque Isle Power Plam are clear example-; of 

elevated sources. 

EPA ·s practice in a number of other contexts also demonstrates that modeling is a 

technically superior approach for ascertaining impacts on NA.>\QS, as '\veil as tl1e extensive 

history ofEPA's preference for modeling over monitoring to evaluale compliance. For example, 

all N02 • PM2.5, S02 NAAQS. and Prevention of Significant Deterioration ("PSD'') increment 

compliance "'i'erificarion analysei. are perfonned with air dispersion modeling, such as running 

AERMOD in a mnnner consistent \Vith the Guideline on Air Quality Models. 40 C.F.R. § 

52.21(1)(1 ). Indeed, in order to en-;ure consistency in how .air impacts are detemlined. both 

existing sources and newly pennitted sources should be assessed using the same methods. 

AEIUv!OD modeling perfonns particularly well in evaluating emissiOn sources \Yith one or a 

handful of large emission points. The stacks are well characterized in terms of location. 

dimensions, and exhaust paran1eters. and have high release heights. AERLV10D accurardy 

models medimn-to-large S02 sources--even \V:nh conditions of low wind speed, the use of offsite meteorological data, and variable \Veather conditions. Indeed. AER.\.-fOD has been tested 

and perfonns very well during conditions of lo\:r wind speeds: 

AERMOD · s evaluation analyses included a number of site-specific 

meteorological data sets that incorporate lo·w wind speed cond.iti011s. For example. 

the Tracy evaluation included meteorological data with wind speeds as low as 

0.39 meter/second (rots): the Wc:s[Vflco evaluation included wind speeds as low as 

0.31 m's: the Kincaid so2 evaluation included wind speeds as 10\V [IS 0.37mis; 

and the Lovett evaluation included wind speeds as low as 0.30 m/s. Concerns . 

regarding AER.MOD's ability to model low wind speed cond.itions seem to 

neglec[ the data used in actual AERlviOD evaluations. 

Comments of Camille Sears 1. at 10. Attached hereto as Ex. 17 (citing AERMOD evaluations and 

modeled meteorological data, available or 

http: 1.\vww .epa. gov /tm/ scram/ dispersion _pre free .htJ.n). 

IS 

102 
Attachment E - Public Comments and Responses 

Finally. EPA's ·use of air dispersion modeling and AERMOD in particular was upheld in 

the context of a recent Clean Air Act§ 126 petitioll for resolution of cro.,-s-state impaC[S_ See 

Genon Rema. UCv. U.S. EPA_ 72:2 F3d 513,526 (3rd Cir. 2013). In this case, the EPA 2.ranted 

the New Jersey Department of Envnonmental Protection's 126 p~tition. finding that trans--

boundary sulfur dioxide emissions from the Portland coal-fired power plant in Pennsylvania 

were significamly contributing to nonattaimnent and interference with che maintemmce ofd1e 

one-hour SO.; NAAQS in New Jersey. Id. at 518. EPA bBsed its finding on a review of the 

AERLVIOD dispersion modeling submitted by New Jersey, its independent as~ssmen.t of 

AERMOD, and other highly technical analys<!s. Id. The court upheld d1e EPA's decision after 

examining the record, "\.Yhich showed that EPA had thoroughly examined the relevant scientific 

data and clearly articulated a satisf<1.cto.ry exphmation of the Action that established a rational 

connection between the facts found and the choice made. Id. at 525-28. 

EPA has acknowledged that for the one-hour S02 N.A..'\QS.modeling is the most 

accurate means of determining attainment with the NAA.QS. Final S01 NA.A.QS Rule at 35,551. 

35.570. yet the Michigan Drt~ft ISIP lacks S02 emis'>ions limitations infonned by air dispersion 

modeling. As a result, the proposed amemlment fmls to ensure that ~1ichigan '"'ill achieve and 

rmuntain the 2010 one-hour S02 NAAQS_ To comply with the Act's obligations, Michigan must 

include adequate emissiom limits in the ISIP-that is. source-specific one-hour 502 emission 

limits ~hat show no exceedances of the NAAQS when modeled. 

3. The Draft ISIP must include enforceable S01 emission limits l\oith a onehour averaging period that apply at aU times. 

As discussed. an emission limitation necessary to comply with section 110(a)(2)(A) 

means "'a requirement established by the State or the Administrator which limits the qnantJty, 

rate, or concentmtion of emissions of air pollutant<> on a continuous basis, including any 

requirement relating ro the operation or maintenance of a source to assure continuous emission 

reduction, and any design. equipment work practice or operational standard promulgated under 

thi'i chapler." 42 U.S_C_ § 7602(kl. Therefore, emission limitations must also contain proper 

averagmg times. Orhenvi.se rhe emission limits would Hllow for peaks that cause exceedauces of 

the NAAQS, bm are averaged with lower emissions over time, and therdOre do no register as 

exceedances. In lhis instance. the one-hour S01 NAAQS requires a one-hour averaging period. 

In various come:-;ts, EPA has stated that one-hour averaging times are necessary m 

comply with the one-hour S0:2 NAAQS. For insmnce, in 2011. EPA disagreed with rhe Kansas 

Department of Heahh and Envirmunent" s issuance of a PSD permit dmt contained a 30-day 

averaging time rather than a one-hour averaging period. See Letter from Kflrl Brooks. Regional 

Administrator. EPA Region 7 to Dr. Robert Moser. Secretary, Kansas Department of Health and 

Environment (Feb. 3. 2011), attached hereto as Ex_ 18. EPA explained: 

[i]t i~ well kno\vu that there cnn be considerable variability in actual 1-hour 

emission rates_ Therefore, to ensure prorection of dte 1-hour ... SO; NAAQS . _ 

the perutit needs to contain ... 502 1-hour flverage emission limits for both new 

and existing steam generating units. To ensure the source does not cause or 

contribute to air pollution in violation of the NAAQS, the emission limits should 

be consistent with the modeling rates and have d1e same averaging period. i.e. in 

this case maximum hourly emission limits consistent with the 1-hour NAAQS. 

19 

103 
Attachment E -Public Comments and Responses 

Id. at 2. Siinilarly. in its disapproval of Missouri's SIP in2006. EPA detenni.ned that the 

emission rates in the SIP were "not protective of the short-term sulfur dioxide NAAQS"' because 

they were based on an annual average. See Approval and Promulgation of Implementation 

Plans; State ofMr5Souti. 71 Fed. Reg. 12,623, 12.624 (Mar. 13. 2006). In 2011, the 

Environmental Appeals Bomd confirmed that emission limits for so~ ~hould be based Oil hourly 

averaging times. and rejected an agency's attempt rouse a 3-hour averaging time instead. In 1·e: 

Afis.sissippi Lime Co., PSDAPLPEALll-01, 2011 \\11... 3557194, at *26-27 (E.P.A Aug_ 9, 2011) 

('"Emission limits should be based on concentrution estimates for the averaging time ihat results 

in the most stringent control requirements. 40 C.F.R. pt. 51. app. W. § 10.2.3 .1.a ""). 

In addition to including emissions limits based on a one-hour awraging period. 

Michigan's Draft ISIP must require monitoring of S02 emission limits on a continuous basis 

usmg a continuous emission monitor sysre.m or systems_ Clean Air Act section llO(a)(2XF) 

reqtmes Michigan's Dmft ISIP to establish a system to monitor emissions from stationary 

sources and to o;,ubmit periodic emissions r~orts. In order to ensure emission limits which are 

protective of the one-hour S02 NA..<\.QS, the !SIP must require that S02 emissions are monitored 

from these sources during every hour l)f operation, regardless ofwhe.ther SO: pollurnm control 

equipment has been installed or not. 

Michigan's ISIP is requrred to implement, maintain. and enforce the NAAQS tmct 

therefore must include ··enforce.able emission limimrions" to ensure its etTectiveness. 42 U.S.C. 

§ 7410(a)(2)(A). Only one-hour avemging periods can.msure compliance with the one~hotlr S02 

NAAQS. 06 Therefore, to ensure that all areas in Michigan attain andmainmin the one-hour S01 

NAAQS, NlDEQ must revise its ISIP to include enforceable emissionlin1its with one-hour 

averaging times, moititored continuously. for coal~ fired power plants and other large sources of 

S02. These emi~s1on limits mll.;;t apply at all times. including penods of start~ up, shutdown. and 

malfunction. 

4. Enforceable emission limits are necessary to avoid nonattainment 

designations. 

In addition to being fl required compon~t of the ISIP, enforceable emission limitseither in permits or source-specific SIP provis10ns-are necessary to avoid future nonanninment 

designations in areas where madding or monitoring shows that S03 levels exceed th.: one-hour 

NAAQS. See EPA., Next Steps for Area Designation~ and Implementation ofthe Sulfur Dioxide 

National Ambient Air Quality Standard at 4 {Feb. 6, 2013) (explaming that agencies should work 

"ro avoid a nonMtcdnmenr designarion by esmblishing and sub~mtting to EPA I!IJ{orceabla 

emission limitcdions ensuring that attainment \Viili the S02 NAAQS (in the fonn of permit limits. 

smuce~specific SIP revisions, or other permanent and enforceable legal documents) occurs prior 

to the date that final designations based on modeling infonnation are issued" (emphasis added)); 

Primary National Ambient Air Qua1iry Standard for Sulfur Dioxide, 75 Fed. Reg. at 35,553 (June 

22, 2010) (arens will ""be designated 'nonatrailllllent' if either available monitoring data or 

modeling shows that a violation exists. or 'attainmem' if both available monitoring datEI and 

modeling indicate the area is attaining" (emphasis added)). Currently, Michigan only has one 

10 Titougb nny averaging time longer than one ilour \Viii i.mpeillll.SSi.bly ~Uow exceedauces of the sh01t-tenu 

standanl. if a state uonethele&s uses a lou.~er ~veraging time. 1he emission limits at minimum WL1uld need to be 

mtcheted down accordingly to ensw-e that 110 short-te1m exceedances ofrhe standard occur. 

20 

104 
Attachment E - Public Comments and Responses 

county designated as nomlttainment, bm that number will jump to nine counties as the 

designation process continues. Nonattainmeut designations create rigorous Clean Air Act 

requirements that states must comply with, including offset5, LA.ER. and nonatminment NSR 

Michigan could avoid having eight countie~ formally designated a~ nonattrunment by using this 

oppmtunity to add enforceable emissions limits to attnin the S02 NAAQS on ftlld prot,;:ct public 

health. 

Addressing the issue now 'vill also bring regulatory certainty to 0\'>nef<i. of coal-fired 

power plants in Michigan. which could ultimately save these regula Led entities money. This is 

because many of the coal-fired power plants duH do not already have flue gas desulfurizution 

equipment are currently evaluating 'irhich sulfm controls to install as a result of other mles. 

including 1v1ATS. CSAPR and Regional H;:~ze. As a result. establishing emission limits and 

pollution control requirements tluough the ISIP will allow the sources to plan wuh certainty hm\· 

they ,-,.111 comply ·with all potentially applicable rules and aYoid tl1e potential thnt 8 source will 

make a significant investment in one suite of pollution controls for MATS. Regional Haze or 

CSAPR only to conclude that tl1e suite of controls is inadequate to comply with tl1e Sl'l:t NA.AQS 

and that a sec-ond :mlte of controls 1s necessary. Thus. complying with the 502 NAAQS may add 

little or no additional capital cost to the costs of complying with other mles-provided that the 

sources factor the S02 NAAQS mto their initial decision on whicl1 control.,_ to install so that the 

~ources can comply \Vith life-saving pollution reduction mles most economically by using only 

one suite of technologies. 

terms: 

h1deed, industry itself has made this same e:mct point to EPA, though in slightly different 

Multiple reccmly.issued mles all fOcus on large comhustion source-related 

emissions (e.g. boilers) rmd may require significant capital expenditures to 

achieve compliance. The comphance options m1d deadlines for these mles. 

hmYeve-r, vary \videly. If the rules compliance deadlines and requirements are not 

coordinated, the sources subject to them will be forced to make investment 

decis10ns without ?. full understanding of what m::~y be required to comply vvith 

the rules haling later compliance deadline. This may result in a series of suboptimized decisions . [with a] suboptimal overall solution-both from a cost 

and environmental perspective. For example ... a source could invest in Boiler 

1-!ACT controls without a full 1mderstanding of the S02 NAAQS issued became 

S02 air dispersion modeling has not yet been completed . 

See NAA.QS Implementation Coalition Comments on the lOth Modeling Conference, March 6, 

2012 Jo~eph C. Stanko. Hunton and Williams, at 10 (emphasis added). By regulating these 

facilities now. the state of Michigan can prevent a source from incurring Additional expenses 

through piecemealed legislation. 

To flvoid inevitable nonattainmeut designations m eight c01mties and to bring regulatory 

certainty to sources in those counties. 1-IDEQ sh01.1ld amend the Draft ISIP to eswblish 

enforceable emi~sion limits to ensure that large sources ofS01 do not cause exceedances o.frhe 

one-hour S02 NA ... A.QS. 

21 

105 
Attachment E - Public Comments and Responses 

C. The Draft ISIP fails to include enforceable emission limitations needed to 

address significant monitored violations of the primary ozone NAAQS. 

Michigan's Draft ISIP fllso fails to include emission limits and other restriction::; on 

sources of ozone precursors, including anthropogenic sources like mtrogen oxide~ ("NO,(') ~md 

Yolatile organic compmmds ("VOC5 "). to ensure thar areas not designated nonattaimnent will 

attain and maintain the 2008 eight-hour Ozone NAAQS_ Monitoring data demonstrates that the 

2008 Ozone NA.:\.QS is being exceeded in ar least eigbt counties in Michigan. 

Emission limits are especially important for mee[ing the eight-hour ozone NAAQS. 

because fuel combustion from sources such as electric genemting units ·"is one of the largest 

anthropogenic sources of emissions ofNOx in the United States_" 73 Fed. Reg. at 16504~ ~ 

Specifically, in Michigan. coal-fired electric generating units are respomible for thirteen percent 

of all NO,. emissions released in the State (or 70,328 tons) in 2011. See NOx NEI All 

Sectors(2011)_28 Apr 20 14.xlsx, Excel Worksheet ·'Percentage Summary (All States)", attached 

hereto as Ex. 19: see also EPA, The National Emis<;ions Inventory, Sector Summaries. 

http://w---,.vw.epa.govittw"chief'net/201linventory.htmL Yet Michigru.1 fails to demonstrate hov.- it 

plans ro address these significant NO,._ emissions and other ozone precursors. 

1. :\1onitoring data demonstrates that at Jeast eight counties in IHichigan 

are exceeding the 2008 Ozone NAAQS. 

Michigan's Draft ISIP fails to impose necessary restrictions on ozone precursor sourc-es 

suffi-cient to ensure the attainment and maintenance of the 2008 Ozone NAAQS in areas 

designated attainment as shov.n by the EPA's own ozone monitoring drrm. Ozone monitor dBta 

reveals that twelve countit=s from 2010-2012 h<~d exceedances that are above 

attainm~t!uuclassifi.able levels. Looking at data from 2011-2013, eight counties agall1 show 

exceecL<tnces of 0 076 ppm or higher The monitors reveal that ozone conc:entrations in these 

areas exceed the 200S Ozone NA.A.QS. and thus are above the level deemed safe for public 

heahh. See MI Ozone Monitors 2010-2013. Excel Worksheet "1-1I Ozone Monitors 2010-2013." 

attached hereto as Ex. 20: see also EPA AirD<1ta: Monitor Values Report. 

http://-..vww.epa.gov/airdata!ad _rep_ mon.html. Despite these exceedances, no areas with 

monitoring exceedances. and in fact no area in Michigan. is designated nonattainment. 77 Fed. 

Reg. 30,088, 30,128 (1-iay 21, 2012) (labeling all of1\.fichigan undassifi.able _,attainment). 

Michigan must reYise the Draft ISIP to address these exceedances and ensure attainment and 

mainterumce ofthe 2008 Ozone NAAQS. 

The 2008 eight-hom ozone monitor values are listed below for the yiolating counties 

1 

~ Oil ancl-gas produc1ioJ1 cun also be a major source- of ozone precursors. Michigan cun-ently has twemy..;;even 

pending: acdve higll volwnehyclnmlic frackiug:pennit.s thronghom the stale. High \"olume Hydraulic Frackiug: 

Active Applkarions ~net Active Penni Is, 

http>'/www.mic:hie:an.govfdocnmemstdeq.'Hi"'ll Volume Hvdraulk Fmctmitt<> Activirv MAP 423435 7.pdf. 

MDEQ should aualyze \\'hetheJ: and how oil3nd gas pwduction is affecting ail: quality and specifically ozone 

fom1otion in the stare. If1he oil and gas producliou is found to be causing ozone aceedooces. a minor ~ource. 

penuiuing prog.rom .sho11ld be established I hat requiTes otTsets fol" new and old oil ~nd gas so11rces to combat 

em.issiotB of ozune pr.xunors. This will enable the state to meet its dmy nuder the !SIP to atruin and maintain the 

2008 Ozone NAAQS. 

22 

106 
Attachment E - Public Comments and Responses 

from2010to2013. 

Table 5: Fourth Highest Monitor Values ofCountieswith Three-Yea•· Averages from 1010 

to 2013 equal to 0.076 ppm or AboYe.18 ' 

15 SietTa Club has petiTioned EPA ro redesignate Alleg:m. Macomb. Muskegon, and Wayne counti~s ~s 

nomataln=t for rhe 2008 Ozoue NA ... i\QS on the basis 1hat the :!009-201lmomroring data revealed That these 

CO\mries were exceeding the NA4.QS. See h1 tlJe Matrer of the Final Rule Pnblisheclar 77 FeeL Reg. 30.088 (~day 20. 

2012). entitled ··Air Quality DesignatiOlli for 2008 Ozone NatiOJial AmbiemAir Quality Smndard~ ... Docket No. 

EPA-HQ-OAR100l'-0476(July 20, 2012). Sien·a Club also petitio11ed EPA TO redesignate Allegan, Benien. Cass. 

Genesee. Macomb. Muskegon. Oakland, Ottawa, Sr. CIRiL War,lltenaw. nnd Wayue co1wties as uonattainmeut for 

2008 Ozone NA.A._QS on rhe basis that tile 201'0-2013 moniroring dam revealed rl1ar these couurles were exceeding 

rhe NAAQS. &e Petition to the Administrator of the FS. EPA w Rede~ignarion as Non~ttaiumenr 51 _<\reas with 

2012 Desigu Valt1es Violatmg rhe 2008 8-Hour NAAQS for Ozone (~ov_ II. 20D). 

23 

107 
Attachment E - Public Comments and Responses 

Despite penastent ozone NAAQS exceedances in the state, rhe Draft ISIP does not even 

attempt to demonstrate that emissions allowed under it will ensure cmnpli<~nce ·with the eighthmrr ozone standard. let alone includes m1y NO:-; limits to address such exceedances. In order for 

Mich.igru1 to comply 'vith the Clean Air Act and the requirements of section 11 0( a )(2)(A). 

Michigan must revise its ISIP to include enforceable emission limits and other measures that will 

emure the attairunem and maintenance of the 2008 Ozone NA.-'\QS. 

2. Adding control de\ices and emissions limits on electric generating 

units are a co~t effective option to reduce NO,. and attain and 

maintain the 2008 Ozone NAAQS. 

Control devices nnd limits on coal-frred EGUs are genen'llly the most cost effectiYe 

option to ensure the 2008 Ozone NAAQS are attained and maintained. A power plant can costeffectively reduce nitrogen oxides by installing selective catalytic reduction ("SCR") technology. 

and by imposing short-term s1ringent en1ission limits on all coal-fired EGUs. Notahly. only three 

major coal-burning power plants in Michigan bave installed or are planning to install SCR 

technology: Monroe, J.H. Campbell (Units 2 and 3), and Dan E. Kam. The other sixty-seven 

coal-fired EGUs in i\!lichigan lack SCR. accounting for 89 percent of all Michigan EGlJs. 

Moreover._ only two plants-Sims and T.B. Simon-htwe even installed SNCR. a less effective 

c-ontrol technology. TI1e uncontrolled EGUs cause or contribute to exceedances of the N.A...-\QS. 

In fact. several of these EGUs are located in counties where ozone design values exceed the 

NAAQS, including the Trenton Channel, Riva- Rouge, and Wyandotte power plants in Wayne 

Cotmty, and the J.H. Campbell power plant in Ottawa Co1.mty. In addition. St. Clair and Belle 

River power plams likely contribute to the Wayne County exceedances, as well as to recem 

exceedanc-es in St. Clair County. The most cost effective way to address ozone exceedances is to 

place emissions limits on all EGUs that >vill ensure that power plants contributing to the 

exceedances install SCR. and that those with SCR installed nm their controls continuously. 

In Michigan. where at least eight counties show exceedances of the 2008 Ozone NAAQS. 

all EGUs should have emission limits based on available and demonstrated control technology. 

SCR catalysts have been applied over the last 20 years as retrofits to e"\.isting power plants across 

the coW1try and have a proven track record of meeting low emission rates. In particular __ a limit of 

0.07 pound per ).1J:v1Btu ("lbr1vllv1Btu") OOsed on an eight-hour averaging tune that applies at all 

times. including during starmp and shut do\vn is readily achievable EPA has long 

acknowledged that 9o<'lo removal efficiency for SCR on coal-burning units is achieYable. See 

EPA. "Ambient Air Quality Impact Report for Desert Rock Energy Facility PSD Permit." at 8, 

Table 3, attached hereto as Ex. 21. Thus, taking even the highest emission rate tlmt EPA has <>et 

with no post-combustion control-that is, 0.5lb/M~1Btu-and applying the 90%1 control from 

SCR_ an emission limit of 0.05 lb/NLVffitu is clearly achievable. However.lviDEQ could add a 

40~·o ··safety factor" and el:.tabli:sh limitation'> in the ISIP at 0.07lbilvflvfBtu_ A revie,\-· of the 

RACT/BACT.iLAER clearinghouse demonstrates that numerous PSD permits for coal-burning 

boilers were issued in the early 2000s with emission limits of 0.07lb/l\.1MBru. Later thflt decade. 

pennits for proposed new coal plants were issued with NOx limits of 0.05 lb.'1v:IJ\1Btu_ For 

example. :MDEQ's pennit to install for the Con'>mners Energy Karn-Weadock plant included a 

NOx emissions hmit of0.05 lbi!vL.\-ffitu. EPA acknowledged, in setting limits for d1e proposed 

Desert Rock facility, that even 0.05 lb/lviMBtu involves n significant "safety factor." In200 l, 

B<1bcock & Wilcox Company, in its paper. "Hnw Low Can \Ve Go", attached hereto as Ex. 22. 

24 

108 

. 
Attachment E - Public Comments and Responses 

said that 0.016lb/1Y1MBtu was achievable for units burning bttuminous coal and 0.008 

lb!Ml\1Btu for those burning Powder River Basin coaL See Ex. 22 fit 5, Table 2. 

Actual data confirms that 0.07Jbi!vflvffiin is e<1sily <Jchievable. For exmnple, during the 

2006 ozo11e season, approximately 88 coal-fired units achieved emission limits of less than 0.07. 

See C' A...\10 NOxRanked Low to High Ozone 2006, attached hereto as Ex. :23. \'Vhile these 

emission rates should be based on 0.07 lb/~1MBtu, the limit should be set as a lb/hour limit, 

calculated by multiplying 0.071YTh1Btuihr times the maximum allowable heat input orma.ximum 

heat input in prior permit applications for the EGU. Setting the limit inlb:bour ensures 

consistent protection of the ambient air qlmlity regardless of whether tl1e- claimed maximum heat 

input capa~ity for the w1it is accurate or changes in the future_ In addition, a limit inlbfhour 

addresses the issue of startup and slrutdtwm_ Even if the NOx emission nne in.lb/MMBm is 

higher during startup and shutdown when the SCR cannot be engaged, the source should be able 

to remain tmder the limit because the heat input is lower during startup and shutdown. 

Ideally, Michigan should set d1e limit \Vith an 8-hour averaging time to protect the 8-hour 

averaging time of the 2008 Ozone NAAQS. This is especially important for c0<1.l-buming EGUs. 

because electricity demand tends to be highe.st on hot, summer days, ''vhich coincides with those 

times when ozone levels are the worst. \Vithout short-temt averaging times, EGUs could emit 

NO,. at higher rates at precisely the time when the ozone levels are the worst and still meet the 

em.i5sion limit using a longer-tenn average period by reducing their NOx emis~ions during 

periods when the ozone le-vels are not as severe_ 

3. Enfoneable e-mission limits are necessary to avoid future 

nonattainment designations. 

In addition to being a required component of the ISIP, enforceable emission limitseither in permits or source-specific SIP provisions-are necessary to avoid nonntminment 

designations in areas where modeling or moniwring shon·'S d1at ozone levels exceed the eighthour NAAQS. Michigan should use this ISIP process to address current ozone exceedances in at 

least eight counties and prevent the5e counties from being redesignated as nonattainment for the 

2008 Ozone NAAQS, or designated nonatrninment for the forthcoming Ozone NAAQS, by 

adding appropriate enforceable emission hmits on NO,. sources. 19 In order to comply with 

section 11 O(a)(2)(A) and avoid nonattainmem designations for areas impacted by high ozone 

levels, NIDEQ must amend the Draft ISIP to ensure that large sources of NO,. cannot continue to 

contribute to exceedances of the eight-hour Ozone N.A...4..QS. 

D. The Dl'aft ISIP fails to Include Measures that Ensure Compliance ''"ith 

Section 110(a)(2)(A) of the Act Regarding the 2010 S02 and 2008 Ozone 

XAAQS. 

The stanrtory and regulatory sections that 1v1DEQ incorporated into its Draft ISIP are 

insufficient to ensure compliance with the 2010 S02 and 2008 Ozone N.A.A.QS. Most striking is 

that none of the mles and regulations cited in Michigan's Draft ISIP include appropriate 

19 In January, EPA solidT~d commems on the Ozone NAAQS. Se<' ge11emll.1' Rev1~w of National Ambien1 Air 

Quality Standards for Ozone: Draft Dacumem (Dot ID: EPA-HQ-OAR<~OOS-0699-0116) (Jun. 29. ::014)-

25 

109 
Attachment E - Public Comments and Responses 

emission limits for the 2010 S02 l'md:?:008 ozone NAAQS, as shown by modelmgand 

monitoring data. See general~v Draft ISIP. :Michigan is raking little Lo no action to address any 

NAAQS exceedances. 

For example, Michigan's sulfur emission limits on coal-burning facilities requir"' a 2 5 

lbilviMBtu for plant with steam capacity less than or equal to 500,000 lbs per hour and 1_67 

lb/1:1MBtu for plant stemn cflpacity greater than 500.000 lbs per hour. See R-336.1401_ Table 41. 

As discussed .above, the limits necessary to meet the 2010 S02 NAAQS range from 0 95 to 0.22 

lbf1-1Jv1Btu. Nitrogen oxides limits are equt~lly as weak. Sources that emit more than 25 tons 

during the ozone control period and ~erve a generator that has a nameplate capacity of25 

megawatts must meet at1 emission rate of0.25 lbs!rvL.Yffitu input or a 65°"0 reduction of 1990 NQ_ 

levels by May 31, 1014. See R336.180l(2)(a)-(b). The regul~tion also allows for plants to 

avoid this limit for t\vo years after ilie compliance date. See R.336.1801(2) (b). As discussed 

above. a 0.07 lb:Mtvffitu limit i~ feasible and should be required in order to attain and maintain 

the 2008 Ozone NAAQS. 

Further. the final ISIP must not allow for ambient Air incremental increases. wniances_ 

exceptions. or exclusions \Yith-regard to limits placed on sources of pollutants: otherwise, 

Michigan cannot assure compliance with the 2010 S02 and 2008 ozone NA.A.QS. Michigan's 

rules ;:~llow exemptions from enforcement that undermine the programs meant to ensure 

attainment and maintenance vvith Lhe NAAQS. See general(1' Draft !SIP 

Particl.llarly conceming is Michigan's Clean Corporate Citizen (C3) program (J\KL 

324.1421 through 324.1429). See Draft ISIP at 2. A business can become a so-called Clean 

Corporate Citizen by meeting minimal requirements. see gent.'i'ally MCL §§ 324.1401-1429, yet 

with the designation companies can flvoid enforcemem measures. In fact. Michigan states that 

the program allo\vs a facility to avoid civil fines or violations "rulless it had been established by 

clear and convincing evidence that either C3 facility's actiom 11osed 11 significant endangennent 

to public health. safety or welfare ... was intentional or occurred as a result of the operator's gross 

negligence ... '' See Draft ISIP at 2. In addition, C3 designated companies will experience fewer 

inspections and be given 72-hours' notice before an inspection occurs. !d. at 2-3. Th1s we-akens 

Michigan's enforcement abilities and, in light ofMichigan's :.ignificnnt air qunlity problems. 1S 

exttemely troubling. 

More generally, the regulations allm\· for ''ari01.1s exceptions. For example. :\-1DEQ has 

wide discretim1 to promulgate rules thHt exempt certain source-s from obtaining pem1its. See 

MCL § 324.5505(4). Mic-higan also undercuts its enforcement program by allowing various 

excuses a:\. affinn.."ltive defenses and allowing 1viDEQ to suspend enforcement, as well as grant 

variances from requirements for undue hardship. See MCL §324.5527: MCL §3:24.553:\ MCL 

§324.5537. 1viDEQ also has enforcement discretion for excess emissions re,<:;ulting from 

mal:funcrion, stan-up. or slmtdown. See R.336.19l5. These regulations impair the ability of 

Michigan to attain and mainwin the NA_A.QS. 

As a result of all of these inadequacies, exemptions. variances, and other shortfalls not 

listed m these comments, the Draft ISIP cannot ensure that Michigan will attain and maintain the 

JOIO SOz and 2008 Ozone NAAQS. M1chignn must revise itS ISIP to include enforceable 

26 

110 
Attachment E - Public Comments and Responses 

emission limits that address the exceedance:, shmvn by the modeling and mm1itor data and that 

otherwise address 2010 S02 and 2008 Ozone NAAQS. and it must update its emission 

regulations to ensure that proper mass limitations nnd short tenu averaging t:>eliod.s are imposed 

on large sources of polltltants. including coal~ tired power plants. 

E. The Draft Infrastructure SIP Fails to Address Sources Significantly 

Contributing to Xonattainment or Interference 1\ith Maintenance of the 

NAAQS in Do'\\'Dwind States. 

Michigan must address interstate transport of its emissions that will contribute to 

exceedances or interfere with the mnintenance of the NAAQS_ Under section l10(a)(2)(D). a 

~IF must contain ·'adequate provisions (i} prohibiting .. any source_ from emitting any air 

pollutant in amounts which will-{I) contribute significantly to nonattainment in, or interfere 

\Vith mr~intemmce by_ any other State with respect to any such nationnl primary or secondary 

ambient air qtmlity standard._ .. " 42 U.S. C.§ 7410(a)(2)(D)(i)(I); see also EPA v, EME Homer 

Ciry Genemtion. No. 12-1182 . .slip op. at 14 (U.S. Apr. 29, 2014) (reitemting that this is a 

mandatory duty) [hereillilfter "Homer Ci(v"] Michigan's ISIP. us proposed, fails to address any 

cross-state impacts that me due to sources within the state_ See Draft ISIP at 3. This is 

inadequate and should result in EPA disapproving the submittal. 

The Clean Air Act sets a mandatory duty for states to ~11bmit !SIPs within three years of 

promulgation of a NAAQS. 42 U.S. C.§ 7410(a)(l). ender CAA section 110. d1ere is no 

prerequisite ac.tion required. such as EPA is.~uing gmdance. before states must fulfill their 

mandatory duty. See Homer City at 14 ("the CA . ..t\ sets a series of precise ch~fldl.ines to which the 

Smtes and EPA must adhere_'"). :tviDEQ cannot rely on the fact that EPA's 20 l3 ISIP Guidance 

does not address interstate tnmspon provisiom Srte Draft ISIP l1t 3 . .::0 This g1.1idance directly 

contrndicts the language of the Clean Arr Act. Therefore. Michigan must create an ISIP to 

address. Prongs 1 and 2 oflhe imerstate provisions and provide the public with an oppmtunity to 

conunentonicn 

Further_ it has already been demonstrated tluough CSAPR that Michigcm is conttibuting 

to other states' pollution problems, find so Michigan's contention that it is not ~-ubject to any 

finding of significant conuibution to any other state's attaim11ent or maintenance .at d1is time, see 

Draft ISIP at 3, is incorrect. Under CSAPR. which is a less stringent smndard than the 2010 S02 

20 The Supreme Conrt has resoundingly disl'lpproved the beliefrhat states emmet address 1he secliotl LlO(a)(:l(O)(i). 

The Good Neighbor provision, until EPA first calculares rile budget of emhs,ions and give~ ttpwind swtes rlle 

oppommity to propose SIPs allocming those blldgets among in-state sources before issuing a FIP. See Homer Cirv, 

696 F.3d 7, 37 (D.C. Cir. 2012), rev'd. No. t:-ll82, slip op, at 27-28 (U.S, Apr. 29.2014) (st-ating '·noi:Jiillg in the 

statme place8 EPA tmd.:.r an obligtltion to proYlde specific metrics ro Smre& before riley uodertake to fulfill their 

~ood neighbor obligutiollS"' and finding the D.C. Circuit impem:lissibly altered the clear deadlines in the Act). 

_J Just as EPA has historically used all' dispersion modelwg in attainmeut deoJguatiouo and SIP Ievisions. so has th<l 

ag-ency r<:'lied ou ruodeliug to assess cross-state impacts tmder the Act's Good Neighbor provi~ion-section 

llO(a}f2)(D)(i)(l). Under the Clean Air lllrerstnre Rule ('"C . .lJR") and the Cross-Slate Air Pollution Rule 

('"CSAPR""), as wdl as rile 2003 NOxSIP C~lL EPA lm.:; m,;od madding ru deremrine pollmants- CINS·Smte impacts. 

Note that the D.C', Circuit court uever questioned rile agency's nse- ofmod<:'liug to assess cros~·stau impacts. See 

g<~!li?l'lll~v Norrl1 Corolina r. EPA, :531 F. 3d 896tD.C. Cir. 2008). 

111 
Attachment E - Public Comments and Responses 

and 2008 Ozone NA .. A.QS, Michigan was required to reduce its NO:-: and SO, emissions to 

address 1997 8-hour ozone, 1997 Annual PM:.$. and 2006 24-hour PM;,5. See EPA, CSAPR: 

Resources for Implemtmtation, htrp://www.epa.gov/ainransport/CSAPR'stateinfo html#states 

(showing Michigan on a list of states that are included in CSAPR). 22 

Michigan must demonstrate tbat it is addressing its contributions to other states' 

pollution. Michigan cannot rely on its Prevention of Significant Deterioration ("PSD'') and 

nonartainmem New Source Review ("')JNSR") permitting progrffill to detennine that Michig<m is 

not contributing to nonattainment or interference ·w1th maintenance of the NAAQS in downwind 

states. SerJ Draft ISIP at 4. PSD and 1\'NSR programs only address new sources. thus o1d 

sources are never evaluated to determine if they are contributing to downwind states' pollmion. 

Additiom1lly. the l\"NSR program only applies to nonattamment areas, which Michigan does not 

have for ozone. nitrogen dioxide. and Ftvh5. Thus, 11ichigan must still address whether it is 

contributing to nonat.tainment areas or interfering \Yith the NA.,A.QS in other st1.tes to satisfy its 

requirements under the Interstme Transport Provision. ::l 

In light of the Homer City Supreme Court decision, lviDEQ should act quickly to address 

pollution that may be contrib1Jting to another state's nonauairunent or interfering \Vith another 

state's maintenance of the NA...A.QS. The Court's decision means Michigan must address its 

exceedances m1der its own volition. or EPA will be required to act. Even if CSAPR is fully 

implemented. Michigan \\'ill still have to address the pollutants that are contributing to 

nonattainment or interference with the NA.<\.QS tha.t are not cowred by CSAPR. Michigan 

should take the opportunity no"~-V to place enforceable emission limits: on large sources 

contributing ro problems with the attninment and maintenance of the NA.\QS in other states. 

:tvfDEQ must provide provisions in its proposed !SIP to ensure that pollution from Michigan i.;; 

not prewnting other states from attaining or maintaining the NAAQS. 

Ill. CONCLl"SION 

The Draft !SIP fails to ensure that 2010 S02 and ~008 Ozone NAAQS are attained and 

maintained, as described above_ Michigan must adopt new provision.<; in the !SIP to protect 

public health and comply with the Act's retJUirements. The Siena Club is happy to provide any 

other infonnation that migln assi.;;t Michigan in evaluAting the impacts: of rhese sources and 

developing an ISIP in full compliance with the Clean Air Act 

n Even if CSAPR were simply reinstated. bow.:>ver_ a st~te cannot rely on CSAPR w addres1 its iranspon 

reqnll:ements forth.:> newer standards thal CSAPR was never meant to address. such as :2008-hom: ozone nud 2012 

Annual PM1,, NAAQS.lmp:llwww.epa.gov'lli.ttramponiCSAPRfsta!eiufoJnml#srares. 

D Just as EPA has historically used air di5persion modding in attainment desig1lations and SIP re•;isions. so has rlte 

agency relied on modeling to assess cross-stMe impacts under the Acfs Good N<!ighbor provision-section 

tlO{a)(2)(D)(i)(I). Under C:.-\IR and CSAPR. as well as rhe 2003 :N"OxSIP Call, EPA has 11S<'d modeling to 

detennine pollntmlts· c.ross-~ulte impacts. Note that tile D.C. Circuit cowt never questioned the agency's use of 

modeling: to asses~ cross-state impact~. See gelll?ra!ly ;Vol'lh Carolina r. EPA . .:<31 F. 3d 896 (D.C. Cir. 2003). 

112 
Attachment E - Public Comments and Responses 

113 

R<:'spe.c[fully submitted, 

IsiElizabeth Toba Pearlumn 

Elizabeth Toba Pearlman 

Office ofElilllbeth Toba Pearln1an 

1523 27th Street N\V 

\Vashington. DC 20007 

(202) 643-4068 

eLplmv@gmail.com 

Kristin Henry 

Senior Attorney 

SierrA Club 

85 Second Street 

Sm1Francisco. CA 94105-3441 

415_977_5716 

kristin.henry@sierrflclub.org 

Shannon Fisk 

Managing Attmney. Coal Program 

Earthjustice 

1617 John F. Kem1edyBlvd., Suite 1675 

Philadelphia, PA 19103 

(215) 717-4<22 

sfisk@earthjustice.org 

On belutlfofSierra Club