## 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 CALENDARApri/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 athttp://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 ofthe federal Clean Air Act for each ofthese 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. Ifthere 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 ofthe 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 ofEnvironmental Quality, Air Quality Division, is proposing to revise the Michigan State Implementation Plan (SIP) for the 2008 Ozone NAAQS, 20I0 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 USEPA promulgated a new NAAQS for Ozone in 2008, Nitrogen Dioxide and Sulfur Dioxide in 20I0 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 ofthe
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 IIO(a)(2)(E)(ii) general state board requirements under Section 128 ofthe Clean Air Act. Only one part ofSection 128 applies to Michigan, and it requires that the head ofan executive agency, with the power to approve permits or enforcement orders adequately disclose any conflicts ofinterest. The DEQ Director has this power and therefore must disclose all potential conflicts ofinterest 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 ofthe 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 Wolfwill 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 ofthose 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.
Ifyou 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 thePf-oposed--Certifk:ation ofand Revision to tbe lnfr.lslructur-eDfthe Michigan:SII3t-e lmplemenlationPianforthe 2008 Ozone,.l010Sutfur Dioxide and Nitragen Dioxide. and 2012 Pill'timlid:e Matta2"5 NationalAmbientAi.- Quillity Sta.Difanls_

The Michigan Department ofEnWomnental Q,Jaiity (MDEQ) received public commll!f'l15viaemai! and in person atthe.hJne4, 2014publir::hearingfor1he Proposed Certirtcarionand lmt!isioo tothe Mich.igan Infrastructure.State- tmplementation Plan 

### (I-SIP} forthe 20011 Ozone, 2010SulfurDimeide 

### {SOt} ami Nitrogen Dioxidl!!**{N~**•.anG 1he2012Particulate Matterlli {PMu) :National Anlbiem: Air QualityStamlill'ds**·lNMUS~-** Those-commentsare summarized herew'ith two included in theil" entirety inthis Michigan I--SIP submittal pack-et.. The responses are :a[s.o induded below.

OnJt.me**4~** 2.014, Brad· van Guilder" {SierTa Clu'b) errai&ed to MDEQcomiiH!Ilt lettersfrom 9(1 Michigan citizens and. a petition signed by 1.,12.4Michigan r:esidents :regMdingthi!o proposed M"idlipn I-SIP. The petitionrequeststhat the Michic;an ·J-SlP set stronger pollut:icln limiti on**COil~** power p1ants. The cifuens letters made numerous, simWa.-comments which are summarizedand induded :bekrw.**On.June4~** 2D14, Craig Harris and MexSapdyemodled·comment:sto MDEQthat opposed incorporation**oftheCieanCorporate-Cit~en** 1a.w intothe SIP. Mr.Sapd(sCOtTifll@rrt: is included in Jtsentirety'in this I-SIP submittal packet. The COI'Timents are summarized and induded below.

In a JLme- 4.- 2014, letterfrom Elizabeth Toba Pearlman, Kristin Henry, .and Shannoo FiSll: to MDEQ,. the Sierna aut sOOmltted'!NI"itten t:omme:nts on .several aspects ofthe proposed Michigan I-SIP. These comments are Slnlmarizerl andIncluded below. Jn addition 1D the oomments:, the Sierra Club also submitted modeling demo.nrtrationsfur thefulkJwing powerptilnts: Belle Rive,-_. St.-ctair", Eckert;. J.H. Campbell, and Presque Isle_ for reasons stated**below~** these mmfelingdemonstraticnsan!- not:used inthe Micbipn 1-SlP.**OnJune4~** 2014, five peopleattended a public hearing onthe proposed Michigan f.-SIP. ofthose, fow 

### read statementsthat 

### are summarized below:
• S:aOOR Du.puis commentedthat:the MOEQ should spend mDn!! effort reducing pottution in areas around' powerplants and schools. Shewas: a!SD mncemed"thatthe curr-ent air pollutantstandards
are notbeing met by· facilities throo&ftout the state.
• 8r.id van Guildef" .summarizedthe, 'W1itten c!llnunents from the Siel'l'a**Club~** 10 MDEQ. on June 4, 2014.

• Ken Orltch summarizedthe Sierra Club petition submitter:llD MDEQon June 4, 2014

...**SpeDfiDilllly~** he commentedthatthe 1-S!P should end NAAQS violations: before aflndingofnon-atlillinment ismade by EPA. the DEQshould Bi\11!- coal-fired powerplillnts s:trnngerS01 -i1nd Ozone :limits, and theMDEQ. should nequire modetin,g to set SOJ: limits to prnti!CI: ptjllic health_

• John Polanyicommentedthat coaJ-.fired power :plantsare polluting fiHJf"e heaviJv in areas surrnunded by !owerlnoomec populatlons. He mmmented that WavneCounty 

### is ooe ofthe 

### wom
areas in thestatefor·environmental**j~bas'ed** on**SOt·~ns** fJ;om powerplants_ Mr. Polat"'yi suggested thatthe MDEQtake irftD c-onsideration environmentaljuiDce when makingemissions llnftatioos forfacilities.

Cammenls and Resporues**~"'**

# PM,,,
lbel'e

### were no cormments .r-ecelvec:l regardingthe I-SIP far PM:u

## 77

## Attachment E - Public Comments and Responses

Comments

# and..........,._..,_

ThereweJ'e no comments: receivedRgan:lingthe l..SlP for NC>j. C<Jmments •'"'..........,. ..,..nling

### -....uO(aJ121(Aj,Enfon:eableEmimon......., 1} The**~n** I-:5IP shouldindude the 

### 2010:50J and 

### 20010zone NAAQS.**Sect~ons** 

### tl.O(:a:}j,1) .and 110(a)(2} of the Clean Air Act requireeachstate to certifythat itsSliP has adeqllate prnvisiDnsto implement, maintain and enf-DI'Ce the :NAAQS,or tD submitpropcrsed revisionsnecess:aJV to as:5UH!! thatthe air program in'fr.lstmctl.n!! is. adequate. Nothingin Sectioll:S llO(a)(lJ Of" 110{aH2), ROT inthe Septernbel" 13,**2013~** U.S. Erwin:mmEI'Itaf Protection Agency 

### {EPA) Guidanceon lnfrastructlreSIP Elements, suggest or Feqlllir'e the indusion ofthe NAAQS inthe S:TP

_ Ho.wevel'. the Ll.lfll!f1t Micttican :StP contains Rule 336.1ID!U}, whkh states: "'[a)ir-quiitJity:standimfmeans1he mocen'tr.!ltiorL.ofan air contaminantspecifietL'bytbe national ambient ail" quiriity standards: as cootamed in

__40C . .f.R. part50 (2002l...• "'The MDEQ is 'in theprocess of updil'tir!fJthis rule ro reflecttheclS'J'Stt version of40 C.F.R. 

### part

### so- and Will updatethe SIP whencompJeted.. 2) The Micbipn r-51P should useairqualitymodelingtoset**Rt~;iity-5ped'6c**

## 50J -emis:sion limits for mal-fired powe1 plants. This: commentis outsiidethe 

### scope ofthe proposed Michipn 1-SJ.P

_ As stated**abaft~** an .l-51f is: a certifil:::ation -ofthll!:adequacy of the airprogram authorities-and resoorcesto impllement.- maintain. and enforce the NMQS_ Perthe USUA Guidance on lilfrastructtm! SIP**Elements~** Section 1W(aji2:}[A) oftheClean Air A.ct**~QUires** .states:to i1:1entifyexisting USEPA-approved provisicru ornew SIP provis:ions- that limit emi.sslons of pollutants.oelevantto 1heNAAQS. If the state flas ekismtg USEPA approved SIP pn:wisions thilt limitsnissions ofpOJfutant:s$ as Michigan does,. then!. is no r-equirementtn enact more- stringent**5'0~-specific:** regulations forthe**~IP.** ln fact., The: USEPA, in the Mardi**'Z7,2D14federal~r** (VoL 79.,..No.59,pg. '17045}cnmmented that "'EPA interpretsthe requiremem in sectilm 110{a){2)(A).•.lD meanthatthe- infrastructure SW mustcontainenforceable emission limits that will

## am in attaining and/or maiintainingthe NAAQS and**that~** statedemons:b"atethilt it: has the necessarytools to im_pdementand enfon:e

a NAAQSf.]-.WU:h regardtothe req\lirementforemission llmitatiom,EPA has interpreted this to
mean fur .purposes of section 11.0:, thatthestatemay**re~y** on measures- already in.plaa'It-o addres5- the polllutantatissueor anynew mntrotmeasures that thestatemay choosetDsubmiL'" As sta1i!.d intbeUSEPAGuJdance-r emission limitatiom: necessaryfor attainmentof new or revised NAAQS innooattainmentareas are required ln an Attainment Demonstration SIP due on a diffeJent schedulethantbe- f-SIP. Mk:higanfulty intends to**mmp:lywiththis.reqtii~ofthe** sdtedulesetfm'th in the- feJJer.ll Clean AirAct. 3) The Midtipn**~should** settimiits 

### oo O:mne-forminc pollutantsfrom mal-burning

### power plants.,. partk:ulariyinaxm:ties ·thai:failedOmne airquality 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 notthe-purposeofan l'-SJP. 

### Per USEP/!{s mrm'lents published inthe- ApprovaJ ofV"qinls Section 110(a}(2) Requirements, March 27, 2014 Federal Register'. {Vol. 79, Na. 59, pg. 17046) "EPA's long-standing pcsftion regardinglnfrastrur:rureSliPs is that they**.an~**,general pranning stP:s to enstuethat thestate- has adequate ll'"eSOU'f'Ces and -audwrityto mpJement a ;NAAQS in generald:lroopoutthe stiilte and not detailed :attairnnent and**maintenan~:e** 

### plansfor each indM!iual 

### area of

### the state

....EPA does

### mtbelievethat

### section**l~~ii.2}(Al** requires detai'ed planningSJPstiemonsaating eitber a-ttairwnent.or maintenance for spedfil::geographic-areas of'the state}' Also, Michipn does: notCUff-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** inMichigan"s S-IP dosetfurth emission limitsfor the r-evised NMQSaddr"essetl in 

### Michigan's I-SIP for

### newand 

### modtfJed soun:::es. 4) MkhigarisruER 3-36-.1!J15.., onstart-up..**shutdown~** ormatfunaion faits to-ccmptyvri1h Semon 

### 110{•11>)(111. This: commentis out!:jdethe- scope of·the·proposed Michigan f..SIP. Per the USEPA Guidance on 1-SfP Elements, .,(t)heEPAdoes. notinterpret sectioo 110fa)(2}to .-equiin!!**<~if'**agencies: andthe EP-A to address potentially deficiEntpre-existing SIP pmv'ision-."" iOOuding**s:tilrt~** shutdown. malhlnction,. 

### ''inthe context:-of:actinc en an infrastn.icbJreSliP." The- USEPAhas altErnative- tools to deal with existing SIP deficiencies. Conoernin:g SS:Mr the USEPA has proposed a SIP Call requestinga numberof**stat~** (includingMichigan) to alidn!£5this- issue- tbroogh J'@Yi!i:ions to tlte-ir SIPs. tfand whenthe USEPASIP CaD becomes: final, tile MOEQwill proceedto TeYisethe Mlll:hipn SIP as appropriate. 5) Mi<hjpn's Cloan

# c-.,_.-

IMCI. n4.14211hroughMCL

# --·•'"'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.) ofthe-<leanAir Ad. Section 110(a}(2)(A} requirES statesto identifyexisting**USEP~prnvisiom** ·or- AeW SIP provisionsthat frmit emissions cfpo!liulilnts relevantt-o the NAAQS. 

### Part 14sets-enfon:eme:ntmechanismsforthe MOEQ.tofollow in certain sit:uiilticns;. tt does not .deal with emissions 11mits. Therefore, this 

### taw is nlrt.addr"essed under(and ·does:.not apply to) Saction 111l{aJ(2JtAt -itl5add......,din relation ttl Section 110l•JI2J[C). ....,......,. for En.ktfament. fij Nothingabout MC...324.1427 requires- :St·rid mmpliiilllll:e with the-eM SKti.on 110**fi!~i~Uirements** fortedeiitllyenforceable emission limitations.·thatiS oontainE!d in thi!SIP. (Rewordto

- MCL .l:2LIU7undem!ines the CAASed::iorlliDrequirement:thiltemission timi'lal:iom: aJII!ltained intbeSIP be**fEderal~** enfon;eable?J This is a misinterpretation ofSection 110(a)(2) ofthe'CleanAirAct. This sectkmrequirHthat mrteshaveo state authorities.and J'l!SOt.ln::esthat are- adequate.tD implement stateplan:s; 

### {l.e.• SIPs); the se:ction does notrequirefederal enforceability. Anythinc in**an~** SlP is automaticallyfederally enforceable. 

### 7) TheDEQ.shoukl cive:roai..fired

### powerplants stronger S01and !hone limitsandthe t--:SIP shouldsignHk;antly de:cTeasethe emissions from power plants. This commH'Itls: outsidethe scope of the proposed MKhigan I-SIP. As .stated :above, anf-SrP is .a demonstration that**Mich~n** can impiement., miiintaint and enforce the NMQS.. Set:ting:fadlitysperific polkmon limits i:s mrtthe purpose ofan f..SI·P, theceforethe MIDEQ does-not 1ndudespecific S01; Oz!OM, 

### « otheTemission limits; for pnwer- plants inthe proposed Mldlipn 1--SP. 8) lbe:MDEQ.shoukltake into·ac.munt enuYonmenlal**j~** when setting·emi.ssion limitsfor 

# - This commentis outsidethe- scope of pr-oposed Michigan lf-SJP. As stated above, an f-SIP isa demonstration that Mid\igan can Implement, maintain, ar1d enforce- the NAAQS. Lt is not .an attaJ'inment demonst:r.dionthatwoWd requft stricterlimitionfarilities within nonattainment



# ...... Comments and Respon:ses.Reprdinc Section 11D(aM2)(B1 Ambient Air Monitorinc: 1) MDEQ shouldTegUiar:ly monitor illreas to make sure:the NAAQS arebein&metill1d n!part these chei:;b totheUlfl'lmUnity. As stated intt'te: Section 1lO(a)(2)(B} of Midligan':s I.SIP, the MDEQ maintaiins a comprehensive network of airquaflty rnonil:l!lli"'S. The MflEQ.rurrentfyhas iii monitoring network 1hatmn:sists of

morethan45 state and tribal tnDllitOI"s. These: monitor.sites: are chosen based on USEPA minimmn requirement:s and criteria and modefingdemonstratloru.thattafiJe into account



# 79

## Attachment E - Public Comments and Responses

population densityand !!!mlttingfacilities- in the ar-eas. The restJ.lt:sfrom these monitors.areavailabletc the**communitythrot~gl1** the MDEQwebsite 

### {hnp:f/www.deqmiair..org/manitorlngdata} andthe- 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:sitesto ilfeas downwind ofpower- plants This cDmment isoutside- thescope 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, asstatedin Section 11G(a}{2.)(8}ofthe I-SIP, todelamine ifthe nretwmk is opERting· incompliancewithfedefaJ requirements-. ComiiH!ints 

### and Responses:Rec;-anling 

### Section ll.O(aHlltC)..**~msfor" Enfon;eme:nt~**  1) Mk:higa!Ts**C~** Cnr.parrateOtizen pmgramwealo!mMidtigan's enfun;:ementabiiilie:s. Act45-lpJ'()Ij,Tidestile MDEQ with authority and mechanisms to enforce COl"flpfiance with the N.AAQS. Michiprts Clean Cmporate Citizen program., Part 14of Act554, directsthe MOEO. how
to conduct complianceand enfmc:ement:adNitiesonClean Corporate Citizen facilities. As. stated in Met 32.4.1427, Part 14 ""shaU not be·construed in a mannerthat conflicts with state Of federal lawor regulation." Therefore, Midlig:an".s.Ciean CorporateCitizen program doss not weaken the MDEQ's enforcement abilities• .2} The.benefits- fur" Mimipn's Clean CDrporate CiiRen pmglilmand facililifi!s interferewiththe rulethat alapplil;able**recp;~irements.and** emission linritations. be bindingonemi5sion:s 5:DUKeS and befeder.lly enfom!iibleas reqt8red by5ectinn 1lD o:ftiEaean Air- A£L As**stated~-'** Part 14, mdudingthe 

### l:ienefiss ofPart 14 "'shall not beamstruedin a manner that mnflim with stateorfeclerallaw-or**~lation.""** 3) Act 554 isan attempt by thestateof**M~** tof:irltlln'\\Pt!fttand evadie. the r-equirement that ernlssion limitationsand appliCi!II:Jie requiretm!!nt!i be enfon;eable. As. stated above._. the MO£Qhasdarifiedthe proposed 1-S\f toe•lainthat Act 554{i.e., 

### Part 14 ofArt451)-does oot restrict MD£Q'.s-enforcement authority. 

### 4) Art554 inUte J-SIP proposal makesiitnon--apprfl¥ilbleaspartofthe 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 hyUSEPA. 5) MCI. 324.1401. thnachMCL 324.1429 does nothingto en5lln!! the-pmvisionsofAct 5§4do not damage the federal enfon:eiibililyof Mkhigan'S.source emission timllirtions.- pennit provision and applic;;able**requirements~** This is a misinterpretat:km ofSIE!dion 110fa)(2)(C) ofthe Clean AirAct. Thissection requir-es that states:have .stateauthorities-and re-sotJffeSth.at areadequatetoimplement state plans; the section dOH not-reqUire feder'alenf«miilbilitv- Anything in an approved Slf·is autmnatkally federally enforceable_ The MDEO, conSidersour authority 

### to besuffitientunder Section 110(a-ll[2}(C}, but ulti!Dirte approvability is decided byUSWA

### G-J An554is not

### COI'IIfJidible: wilh 

### EPA".s:requiremems fOr the submittaland adoption ofSIPs illftd approval of sum Plans under"t-IE Olean Air Act. Part 14is partofthe MDEQ'salfora!mentprovisiaru. As stated above-and**inth~~P,** Part 14 does notr:Mtrict: MDEQ:'s -enforrement:authorities_ C0mmenf5**~SectianUOio)(>J(DL** 

### -=tePol-**Tr.~f~SJ~Dff!** 

### 1) lbe I--SIPshmlfdaddress :SOWO!!Ethiltaresignffil;antfy**~qto** IIIODillftainmentor irrterteringwilh maintenam;eof'the f;IAAQ$in downwind states. Section 110(a)(L)(D)(i)(0 requires each stateto address in their I-SIP anyemissions; actMty in
01111! stat-ethatmntributes

### :stgnfficantty t-o 

### non:attalnmem, or int-erieres with 

### maintenance. ofthe NAAQS inilnot:her.sta-te..**Michigan~s** proposed I-SIP statesthat

..Midligan is notsubjea to any



## 80

## Attachment E - Public Comments and Responses

finding ofSignificant oontribution to any atheTstate's attilinmerrt: ot"maintenance,:atthis time," 

### thef'Mor-e, there aJ'E 

### no sources:to 

### address underSection 

### UO(:a](2.}(0) atthis:time-. Genenl Commentsand Re!i:pon5m:' 1) The MDEQ:shoufd .-equif"e hNMI.-based studiesprior to allowingfnlildinc orremodeling1Jfany

.........,.,..fa<ility This commentisoutsade.the- .scope of the proposed Michigart'.s I-SIP. Asstated**a~** .. an 1-SfP· is

a demonstrationthat Michigan canimplement%maintain and enfon:::e the- NAAQS_ The MDEQ':s Air Quality DMsion is: tasked with regulating S011fC1!S ofair pollutants. TheMDEQ is not the-main departmenttask-ed withregulatingconstructionactivities. 2} TMMD£Q :should ..equi.-e

### modelinG to 51!4: :Si0 2 1imi15 forpublk hNll:h. This c-ammentls DU'I:SidetfH!. 5CDpE! ott-hE! Pfillpo:s-ed Michigan l-SJP_ Modelingisused tomah attainment demonstrationsr which an: submitted

### w USEPA on a differentschedulethanthe 

### I-SIP. As statedln.thi!! pr:oposed

### J..mP, the

### MDEQ has: adequate auttlority to regulate the discha:J§E!- ofairpollutants a11d pnmnllg;J!b!: rulti to establish .standardsfor- ambient air-quality and emissicn, indudingS01
_ 

### :3) Midtipn I-SIP should indudll!**specifi~t** .S'tilndardsto protectthe health ofMH;higan's mast vulnerable-dtizens. This commentis DUtSide- the- scope of the proposed Michigan**~SIP_** As stat-ed above:, an I-SIP isa certifitationthatMil:higanhiis the authDr'ities inplar::eto- imptement, maintain, and enforc-ethe NAAQS. The USEPA.se-ts the N.AACl$ at levels detennined to be**ad~** protectiveofhuman health andwelfatre.. 

### 4) The 1-.SIP shouldaddress-**~air** toxk:s, petooke, and pollUtion from vebides.**This~:OIJ'Imentts-outside** thescope of theproposed Mkhigan f-SIP

.. As statEd**:above~** an ·I-SIP is-.a certification thii'tMichigan can im:pleme.nt, maintain, and enforce the NAAQS. Hych:ulic fracturing 

### {fr.tdingl, airtoxics and petroleU'TI tolce mayhaveimpacts on airqualfty butthey are not germane to this proposed f..SfP. :!i) 1be I-SIPshouldi!lld NMQSv.iolatioubefore a findincofnon-attainment ismad£- by EPA. Thiscomment is outs:Jde the.scope ofthe proposed Michigan I-SIP

.. As stated**above~** an 1-SI:Pisa
ceJ tifwatiut1 thatMidligan canimplement. 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-illfrastnwfi 

### 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 AirAd and proposed for EPA 

## approvaL Act
MDEQ states 

## as so-called 

## benellts oflhe 

## Act 554 

### of 21112 revisions 

## to 

## be:
"1_ Unless 

## it had been established 

### by clear and convincing evidence lhal eitherthe 

## C3 faalily's 

## aclions posed a 

## significant endangerment 

# to public health, safety
orwelfare 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 ifthe faCility acted 

## pro111111y to 

## correct the violation alter discovery 

## and reporting 

## the violation to 

## the MDEQwithin 

## 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 bythe 

## 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 

## itdoes 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 MDEQfails

# 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.!'!rJ!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 ofEnviromnemal 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

DemMs. Wolf:
On behalf ofSierra Club, its over 13,800 members inMichigan. and others who are adversely impacted 

### by Michigan's sources ofsulfur dioxide (''S02 '') 

### and ozone pollution. we submit the following conunents onM1chigan'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 ofMichigan'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 ofthe requirements in sections llO(a)(l)**and(~)** 

### of

### the Clean Air Act (''CAA'' or ''Act") for five distinct NAAQS recently promulgatedby 

### 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 IIO(a)(l) 

### and (2), including**requir~mems** 

### to establish**enforceabl~** 

### emission limits and to

1Please 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 ofMichigan 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 exceedin order 

### w protect the health ofits citizen. the potential public health benefits ofaddressing 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 $224million 

### 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 itselffrom EPAhaving to rake corrective action. Third. Michigcm canprevenr the ine-...i.table future designation offourteen 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 bringregulatory certainty to**coal~fired** powerplants inMichigan, 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 proteeL the public from harmful air pollution. Indeed, "polhuionpreveution" is a "primary goal" ofthe CAt.... 42 TJ.S.C. 

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

### [''NAAQS"l· _.the attainment and maintenance ofwhich

... are requisite to protect the pubhe 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-thathare 

### scienrificaUy demonstrated 

### eftects on health and the environment, at 

### certain levels.

The NAAQS represent a ceiling ofair pollution concentrations that apply throughout the country. 

### As such, the primaryNAAQS form the basis for regulating 

### air emissions for the emire country andprovide the fmmdution for setting specific emission lirniiations for mostlarge swtionary sources. The primarynational 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 ofinfrastructure stflte implementationplans ("!SIPs").



### 1. SulfurDioxide: Public 

### Hea1th Impacts and the 

### Current NAAQS

::.A copy ofthese commems. all exhibits. and**~upporting** modeling files can be fotmd Rt https:!,'apJl.box.com-'s!qSih'Wkf:IDyr749pk92x. 1 Asthma Initiative ofMichigau. '"Asrhma in l'o:Iichigan2010: A Blue Prlnt for Action,"'**availabl~** at http:iiVr"Wl\'.Jnichigan.gov/documemstmdch/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. 

### andIespiratory 

### 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 

### increasedhospitalizations and premature deaths. 

### See Final Rule. 75 Fed. Reg. at 35,525.



### On June 2, 2010_ EPArevised the primary 

### S0 1 

### NAAQS by 

### establishing a new one-hour standard at a level of75 ppb which is mer \Yhen the 3-year average ofthe annual 99thperce'ntile 

### ofthe 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 

### S0 1 

### 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 ofdelay 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 inwhich 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_ 20IO).



### 2. Ozone: Public Health Impacts and the Current NA.AQS
Exposme to ozone in the air webreathe 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 emergencyrooms_ 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. EPArevised the primary ozone standard to 75 ppb ofthe fl!lnual fmu·th-highest daily maximum eight-hour 

### concentration averaged over 3 ye.ars. 

### SeeNational 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\tbhchealth. 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 billionper 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 ofthe health benefits from reducimr ozone exposure may have been low

.

### .~- -


### B. Implementation ofthe NA_4.QS

The CleanAir Act creates a framework for the ''de·velopment ofcooperative 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) 

### oftl1e Act, EPAhas establishedprllnary NA-'\QS 

### for six criteria air polh.1tants, "the attainment andmaintenance ofwhich

... 

### 11re requisite to

### protect the public health." Id. 

### § 7409(b)(l). States have "primaryresponsibility" for assuring air qunlity within the 

### state. 

### Id. § 7407(a). Follm

.. Ying promulgntion 

### ofa 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 ofsuchprimary [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 meetthe applicable requiremems" ofrhe CleanAir 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) (CAArequires 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 CleanAir 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

## Jthe mannerin which 

### [NAA

..QS] will be achieved and maintained

### \Vithin each air quality control region in the State") (internnl citations omitted): 

### see also EPA, "SulfnrDioxide 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 

### ifit meers the requirements of section 1IO(a)(2) ofthe 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 ofsection llO(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 experiencedrecord high temperatmes andvery 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. Ifwe do u0treduce greeu.llollt;e**emission~** rapidly and substantially. th.:- hQ[tesr summer of the last 20 years is expecred 10 occurevery 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 ozouewluctions ;hatthe 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 ofthe 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 ofthe national standard that 

### it implements." 

### 40 C.F.R. § 

### 51.112(a).

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

### Require that Infrastructure SIPs Must Impose Emission Limits Adequate to Prevent NAAQS Exceedances in Areas NotDesignated Nonathtinment.

The Clean Air Act. on its face, requires ISIPs to prevent exceedances ofthe NA...e\QS. 

### Follmving promulgation ofa NAAQS, fl 

### state musr "adopt and s11bmit to the Administrator_

.. a pkm which

### provides for implementation, maintenance. :md enforcement ofsuch [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" ofthe 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 establishedby the State 

### or the Admlltistmtor which limits 

### the quantity. rate_ or concentratiOn ofemissions of

### mr polllJtants on a continuous 

### bRsis. including any 

### requirement relating to 

### the operation 

### or maintenance 

### ofa 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 

### ofsection 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 ofthe 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.wabfishedfry• each Statefor sources of airpollution 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 

### musrprovide for emission limitations on aJ! sen•ices in rhe reg1on wverr!d by 

### theplan. together 

### with schedules 

### and timetables 

### ofcomphattce, 

### 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'

.

5Although**th~** language ofcunem 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 offanner**s~ri-on** 172(c)'s requiremem th<it SIPs'**erni~sionlimitariom.** schedules. and timetables be ··enforceable.·· Si!e Rpt. ofthe Semtte Cmre. on Envr. aJJd Pub. Works nccompanying the Clean AirActAmendmen1s 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 ofsection 17.1(c) ofcurrent htw'·). <lrtached**a.~** Ex. 3: see also

.. J.2 U.S.C § 7502(c) (section 172(CJ) (requiring iliat a SIP**r~v:ision** submitred 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.

EPAreguhmons nnple:menting section 110( <1)(2) also require 

### d1at infrastructure SIPs contain emissionlimits that en<>ure 

### NA.t\.QS attainment. Pursuantto 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-aprocess tlli1t began\Vith the 

### 1977 amendments and 

### was completed

### by the 

### 1990 amendments-the**r~gulations** nonetheless apply to ISIPs. EPAhas not changedthe 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 nonattaimnentprovisions ofthe 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 

### ofPart D of

### the Act

. "'). Consequently. EPA intended40 C'.F.R 

### § 5 L 112 

### to apply to ISIPs. Thus. it 

### i<; cleRr thar ISIPs must contain ·'measllres. 

### rules. and regulations" suftlcient to ensm·e maintenance of

### the NAAQS.



### 3. P1iol' EPAInterpretations 

### of the Act Require 

### that lnfl'astructure SIPs Ilnpose Emission Limits Adequate to Prohibit ?\AAQS Exceedances in 

### Anas NotDesignatedXonnt1ainment.

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 ofthe NAAQS. For example. inMarch 2006, 

### EPA disapproved Mis.somi's attempt to revise the 

# so2 emission hmits 

### in Its ISIP for two pmverplants because the
new emission limits would not ensure. maintznance ofthe**three~**hour sulfur dioxide NAAQS then in effect 

### See Approval and Promulgation ofImplementation Plans: State ofMissouri. 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] planinclude emission limitations to meet the requiremems ofthe Act, including the requirement 

### in section 11O(a)(l) tlun the plan mustbe 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 proposedISIP, EPA expressed concernth<1t the S02 emission rates for the t\Vo powerplants in**que~tion** were "nor protecrive ofthe 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 AirAct**Amendrneut~** drot the ·'meansl] or techniques" for meeting die requirements ofrile Acr included ·'ecmlmllic incentives such us fees. mMkemble petmirs. and aucrimts ofemissions rigb.ts

... 42 FS.C § i410(a)(2)(A).

6



# 90

## Attachment E - Public Comments and Responses

required by the [Cle3n Air Act] 

### cmd EPAregulations, 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, EPArejected a revision to Indiana's sulfur dioxide ISIP pursuant to 40 C .F.R. 

### § 51.112, because Indianafailed to demonstrate that**th.~** ISIP. as revised. was »ufficient to emure maintenance ofthe**~;ulfur** dioxide NAAQS. 

### See Approval of 

### Air Quality Implementation Plan<>:**Indian<~:** 

### Disapproval ofState 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 Harborfacility to remove the S02 emission limit for the blastfurnace**±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 ofAir Quality Implementation

### Plans; Indiana; 

### Disapproval of State Implementation Plan

### Revision for ArcelorMittal Bums Harbor; ProposedRule, 78 Fed. Reg. 17,157. 17_158 (Mar_ 20, 2013). EPA rejected the proposed amendment becauseIndlnna 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 ofthe limit would not '"affect the validity ofthe emission rat.cs used in the existing attainment demonstration.. thus undennining the SIP's ability to ensure protection ofthe 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 ProhibitNA

... 4QS Exceedances in 

### Areas not**De~ignated** 

### Nonattainment.

Since the inception ofthe 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 ofthe 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 ofthe NA.t\.QSJ a State·s planmust include 'emission lunitations.- which are regulations ofthe c-Omposition of substances emitted into the ambient air from such sources as powerplants, service stations. and the like. They are the specific rules to which operators ofpollution sources are subject, and which if enfOrced shouldresult 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 ofAppeals have follmved this holding vtithout exception_ For example, in 

### PeHns)'lHmhr

### DepartmenTqf Environmental Resources v. 

### EPA. the Third Circuit stated that the CleanAir Act ··directs the EPA to withhold**approvt~l** from a smte implementationplan 

### ifthe



## 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 "needro maiutalll the 

### Clean Air Act standards once they are reached 

### i"i well-recognizedby 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 implementationplan 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 AirAct 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."' 

### Id. (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 inISIPs. For example, th.:: NinthCircuit affirmed that "[t]he CleanAir Act directs states to develop implementation plans-SIPs--that ·assure' attainment and nu'lintenance ofnational ambient air quality standards ('NAAQS') 

### through**enfOrce~rble** 

### emission limitMions." Afonr. Sulphur & 

### Chern. Co., 666F.3d fit 1180 (citing 42 U.S 

### c_ §§ 7407(a). 7410(a)(2)(A)) (emphasis added). And d1e Sixth Circuithas 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 EPAhad not fulfilled its responsibility under another**provision~se-ction110(1) -to**  evaluate whether a rensed air quality plan 

### will achieve thepollution reductions reqmred under the Ac:t. 273 F 3d at 1 I52. In 

### Hall. the court heldthat 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 ofpollution. compar[ing] 

### it with the nattonal standards, and detennin[ing] the effect on this comparison ofspecified emission modifications." 

### Jd. at 1157-58 

### (quoring T1·ain. 421 U.S. at 93). EPA claimed a statutory equivalence between non-relaxation ofmles 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 ofa [srar<! nnplememariouJ planiftile revision v:cmld interfere. with any apphcal1le reqnirement concemmg attainmelll and reasonable ftmher progress or any ofher applicable requirement ofthis 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 ofthe "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 shouldhave measured "non-interference." 

### Id. EPA's analysis was required 10 reflect consideration ofthe prospects ofmeeting current 

### Attainment requirements under a revised air quality phm. 

### Jd. Just as a plan tevisionmust not interfere with attainment ofthe NAAQS under section 11 0(1), an ISIP must likewise include enforceable limits sufficient to ensure the initial plan prov-ides for 

### maintenance ofthe NAAQS under 110(a)(2)(A).



### II. "Michigan's Draft Infrastructure SIP Fails to**~rleet** 

### the Requirements ofSection 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 ofthe 

### 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 

### S0 1 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 ofthe 99th percentile ofthe annual distribution ofdaily 

### 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 of75 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 primaryNAA.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 orderto 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 ofthe 2010 one-hour 

### S02 and 2008 eight-hom ozone NAAQS.



### B. The Draft !SIP Fails to IncludeEnforcenble One-hour 

### S02 Emission 

### Limitations to Ensure Attainment and l\Iointenance ofthe 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 relisetheDraft ISIP to include enforceable one-hour S02 emission limits for sources that have emissions or emission limits that cause an exceedance ofthe 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 ofthe 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" ofthe 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 of285.658 

### tons) of S02 emissions come from coal electric generating 

### units ("EGUs"). 

### See S02 NEI 

### All Sectors(2011)_28 

### Apr 2014.xlsx, ExcelWorksheet '"Percentage Stnumary 

### (All Stotes)". artached hereto 

### as Ex. 

### 4,; ,\ee also EPA, The National 

### Emissions Inventory. Sector SUllllnarieo,:, 

### http;hvv·rw.epa.gov.'rtnichiefnet!20llinventory.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 ofthe 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 ofthe 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 CausingExceedances ofthe NAAQS. Michigan modeled 

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

### ofits process in developing its \Vayne Com1ty S0

### 2nonattai1m1ent SIP. MDEQ shared 

### it5 modeling files 

### with Sierra Club. According to**~IDEQ's** modeling. Belle River and St. Clair pmverplants' emissions are authorized to cause exceedances ofthe NAAQS. 

### See 

### H. Andrews Gmy, 

### S02

### Impuctsfmm the St. Clair andBelleRiver PoKerPlants (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 ofthis modeling demomrrate that the emissions fromBdle 

### River and St. Clarr power plants will cause a violation ofthe NAAQS. !d.
Table 2 . .Modeled 

### :\laximum 5-yearAverage ofthe 4111

### -HighestDaily 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 ofalmost 350 km". 

### Id. The maximum 5-}'f average 

### ofthe 4th 

### highest daily peale 1-hr S02

### concentration (the •·ctesign value'") for both sources combined was 225 ppb, at a 

### recepmr localed about 4lanN\V 

### ofBelle River and 

### about 6 km :N\\T 

### ofthe St. Clair**pow~r** 

### plant {about 

### 3-4 km SW ofthe 

### city ofStClair). ld_ 

### The**SO~** 

### impact (design value concentration) due to St. Clair errrisi:oiom \Vas 

### 186 Pllb.Iocated about 3 km

### to d1e 

### SW ofthe 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 ofthe Belle 

### River power plant. Id. 

### Using the results ofthe 

### AER.LV10D model, one can determine the 502 

### emission reductions that WOlild be re.quired to meet the 1-hr 502Ni\AQS. Id. 

### Facility-wide S01 emissions at St. Clair would need to bereduced 

### 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 

### bereduced 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 ofthe 1-hr S02 NAA

..QS. Id.

t !d.

ll



## 95

## Attachment E - Public Comments and Responses

Similarly, emissions fromthe two large Belle River boiler tmits would need to be reduced by 12 percentto in orderto reduce its design value (85 ppb) dmvn to the NAAQS level (75 ppb). 

### !d. Total 

### S0 2 emissions from the Belle River facility wouldhave to be reduced from 71.631 tpy to 

### 63,094 (14.405 lb/hr) 

### so that no violations ofthe l-hr S02

### NA...A.QS occur (duejustto 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_ Ifthis level ofemissionreduction

were applied to both powerplants, SL Clair·"s facility-wide S02 emissions would be reduced to 32.748 tpy (7A77lb;br) and Be(Je River's two largeunits would emit only 23.857 tpy (5.447 

### lbihr) ofSOl. 

### Id.

Since the state is aware ofBelle River and St. Clair's rmpact on the attainment ofthe 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 ofd1e NAAQS.
As determinedby 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 powerplants 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-hourNA.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-hourNAAQSfbr .'50 2 

### (May 30, 2014) [hereinafter "'Presque Isle Report'} attached hereto as Ex. lO.
The BelleRiver and St. Clair Report, Eckert Report. J.H. CampbellReport. Monroe Report, and Presque IsleReport present the results of an air dispersion modeling analysis for each plant that compares the modeled ambient air concentr-ations ofeachplam·**~** 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 cenaininstances "actual" em.i'isions (based onmaximumplant-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

### AirMarkets Progmm Data) to determine whether eachplant's emissions could cause exceedances ofthe one-hour 502 NA.t\.QS. 

### See BelleRiver .'lnd 

### StClair Report at 3; Eckert Report at 3; J.H. Campbell Report at 3: Momoe Report ar 3: Presque Isle Report at 3. Inparticular, the modelingbased onthe

12



# 96

## Attachment E - Public Comments and Responses

allowable emissions is cmcial to a detennination ofwhether 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 employedinthese analyses is**comi~tent** with all availabl;: technical guidance, including AppendixWand EPA's March 2011 

### guidm1ce for implementing the one-hour S0 1 NAAQS. Additionally, the modelerused the most recent version of 

### AEFJ..10D. AERlviET. and AER...l\1INUTE available at the time ofthe 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 inthe numing ofthe models, 

### the modeler employed conservative inputs, which favor the prediction oflmverimpacts from the plants. so that the result" lllfiY**und~rstate** the plants' S02 emissiOn impacts. 

### See Belle River and St ClairReport 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 ofthe 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 IsleReport at 3_ Table l. The modelingresults are abow 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. ClairReport 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 ofWayne 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)_

Thefindings from each modeling n:-pon are summarizedin Table 3 below.

9 EPA has yet to**is~ue** d,:osig:na.tions for**are~s** asidll from**thos~** containingmoniton thar recorded exceedanc,:os of th<"" NA;I,_QS. See Finnl 2010 502 Designations at 47,191 (clesignatirtg areas wirh motliror violarious tl:om2009-20ll as notmrtaiwueut).

IJ



## 97I 

## Attachment E - Public Comments and Responses

Table 3: Summary of.Modeled Allowable, Actual, andMaximum Emissions

. Total

### EniissiO~. Facility 

### Impad 

## 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 

### Macomb 1 !> 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 

### PresqueIsle Isle_'Powcr 

### Ma.-xil.:tliun 4195 31.4 

### 450.9 196.2



### Plant

See BelleRiver 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 thebackground 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 S0 2 levels inthe counties meurio-ned in Table I
u The 75 ppb standard can be couve1·ted 

### w**~tglm 3**  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 wouldJlrevem a potential action by EPAunder 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 S02NA..A..QS exceedances in another cmumy. A.ddressi.ng rhese exceedm1ces now would prewnt a poteut:ial actiO!t by EPAunder 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 ofstart·l.lp. 

### :ohmdmm, and malfunction, to ensure that aU areas ofMichigan 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~ombined 15** 



### 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 ofthe 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 ofthe 

### NAAQS at all times. As the ISIP submission does not incorporate emission limitations that are necessary to meet the applicable requirements ofthe 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 ofthe 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 oflarge 

## sol**source~>_** 

### This is consistent with EPA's historic use ofair dispersion modeling tOr attaimnent des.ignations cmd SIP revisions. Fmthem1ore. an agency may not ignore infonuarion put in front ofit. 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 S02modeling 

### 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 combinedreS1.1lt.<; tbr BelleRlver and St Clair look m the C\lllllll<Hive impacTs ofboTh faciliTies togeTher on <1ir qualiry. A 72% reducnon in em:is3ionsmTe i> needed fiT f(lch plant in order ro prevent exce-edances oflite NA>\QS.

15



## 99

## Attachment E - Public Comments and Responses

arbitrary and capricious for the agency to ignore an important aspect ofan issue placedbefore it):


### see also NRDC v. EPA. 571 F3d 1245. 1254 (D.C Cir.2009) (restating EPA's own statement that additional mfonnationpresented in R notice-and-commentrulemaking 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 andmaintemmceproc-ess. Appropriately. MDEQ is currently using modeling to determine the level ofemissions reductions required to bringWayne County into**:;~ttainment.** 

### See Ex. 5. EPAhas**hisroric:;~lly** usedmodeling 

### 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:'20 12**05~1w**hitepaper.pdf; 

### see also Respondent"s Oppositionto Motion ofthe Smte ofNorth Dakota for a Stay ofEPA"s 1-Hour Sulfur Dioxide Ambient Standard Rule fit 3. 

### National Enl'imnmentalDevelopmentAssociurion 's Cleun Air Prqfecr

### v. EPA (D.C. Cir. 2010) (No. 10-1252).**::~ttached** hereto as Ex. 13 ("the Agency has historicallyrelied onmodeling 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 notrely on ambient monitoring data alone. bm instead will be supportedby 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 ofexpectedhigh concentrations based upon current conditions." 

### Id. at 2-3.

EPA's approval and acceptance ofmodeling for muki..ng auainment designations stretches back decades and demonstrates that modeling is equally applicable to determining the adequacy ofan Infrastructure SIP. 

### In 1983, the Office ofAir Quality Plannmg and Standards ('"OAQPS") issued a Section 107 DesignationPolicy Summary. 

### See Sheldon Meyers Memorandumre Section 107 Designation Policy 

### Stnnmary (April21. 1983), attached hereto as Ex. 14. 

### OAQPS explained 

### that "air quality modeling emissions data, etc

.. shouldbeused to determine 

### ifthe monitoring data accurately characterize the worst case air qwlity in the area." 

### Id. at 1. \Virhout modeling data, 

### the- worst-case air quality may notbe 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 ofthe 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 ofusing modeling to determine attainment and nonattainment status for**so~** 

### NA.AQS. In doing so. EPA properly 

### recognized the "strong source-orientednature 

### ofS02 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 usemodeling 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 ofmonitoring**short~term.** 

### S02 

### levels for comparison vvith the NAA.QS inmany situations (75 

### FR 35550)." 

### EPA \Vhite Paper at3A.


### Moreover. the courts have uphddEPA·s use ofmodeling. For example. 

### inAlontcma Sulphur. 

### the company challenged a SIP call. a SIP disapprovaL and nFedeml 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 S0 1
. 

### 666 F.3d at 1184. The court rejectedMontana 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 AirAct"); Republic 

### SteefCo1p. v. Cosde. 

### 621 F.ld 

### 797. 805 (6th Cir. 1980) (approving use ofmodeling to predict future violattons and incorporating**"worst~case"** 

### assumptions regarding weather and**full~** 

### capacity 

### operations ofpolhuant !Klurces). Further demonstrating the superioriry ofmodeling, the D.C. Circuit has admowledged the inherentproblem ofusing 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 ofJolm C. 

### Vimont at 1, 11 (emphasis added). attached hereto as Ex. 15. Testimony
as to the Accuracy and appropriateness ofmodeli.11g has also beenpresenred 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 ofRoger \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 ofthe 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.'> ofwhich 

### are attached to this affidavit) ('"EPA 2003'} T11e scope ofthe 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 ofthe 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 ofthe 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 ofother 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 overmonitoring to evaluale compliance. For example, 

### all N02 • 

### PM2.5, S0 2 

### NAAQS. and Prevention ofSignificant 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 oflarge emission points. The stacks are well characterized 

### in terms oflocation. dimensions, and exhaust paran1eters. and have high release heights. AERLV10D 

### accurardy models medimn-to-large S0 2 

### sources--even \V:nh conditions 

### oflow wind speed, the use ofoffsite meteorological data, 

### and variable 

### \Veather conditions. Indeed. AER.\.-fOD has been tested and perfonns very well during conditions oflo\: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 ofCamille Sears 

### 1. at 10. 

### Attached hereto as Ex. 17 (citing AERMOD evaluations and modeledmeteorological data, 

### available or http:1.\vww.epa.gov 

### /tm/scram/dispersion_prefree .htJ.n).

IS



## 102

## Attachment E - Public Comments and Responses

Finally. EPA's ·use ofair dispersion modeling and AERMOD in particular was upheld in the context ofa recent Clean Air Act§ 126 petitioll 

### for resolution ofcro.,-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 ofEnvnonmental 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 ofthe AERLVIOD dispersion modeling submitted by 

### New Jersey, 

### its independent**as~ssmen.t** 

### of AERMOD, and otherhighly 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 ofthe Action that established arational 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 ofdetermining 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 

### ofthe NAAQS when modeled.

3. 

### The Draft ISIP mustinclude enforceable S01 

### emission limits l\oith a one

### hour averaging period that apply ataU 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 ofemissions ofair pollutant<> on 

### a continuous basis, including any requirement relating ro the operation ormaintenance of

### a source to 

### assure continuous emission reduction, and 

### any design. equipment 

### workpractice or operational standardpromulgated 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 ofHeahh and Envirmunent"s issuance ofa 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 ofHealth 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 ofdte 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 ofthe 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-hourNAAQS.

19



## 103

## Attachment E -Public Comments and Responses

Id. at 2. 

### Siinilarly. 

### in its disapproval ofMissouri's SIP in2006. EPA detenni.ned that the emission rates in the SIP 

### were "notprotective ofthe short-term sulfur dioxide NAAQS"' 

### because they were based on an annual average. See 

### Approval and Promulgation ofImplementation 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 ofS02 

### 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 ofthe one-hour 

### S02 

### NA..<\.QS, the !SIPmust require that 

### S02 

### emissions are monitored from these sources during every hour l)foperation, 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 

### nonMtcdnmenrdesignarion by 

### esmblishing 

### and**sub~mtting** 

### to 

### EPA I!IJ{orceabla emission limitcdions ensuring that 

### attainment \Viili the 

### S02 

### NAAQS (in the fonn ofpermit limits.**smuce~specific** 

### SIP revisions, or other permanent and enforceable legal documents) occurs 

### prior to the date that final designations based onmodeling 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 monitoringdata 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 ofthe sh01t-tenu standanl. ifa 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 willjump 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 

### byusing this oppmtunity to add enforceable emissions limits to attnin the S02 NAAQS on ftlld prot,;:ct public 

### health. Addressing the issue now 'vill alsobring regulatory certainty to 0\'>nef<i. ofcoal-fired 

### power plants in Michigan. which could ultimately save these regulaLed entities money. This is because many ofthe coal-fired powerplants duH do not already have flue gas desulfurizution equipment are currently evaluating 'irhich sulfm controls to install as a result ofother 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 ofpollution controls for MATS. Regional Haze or CSAPR only to conclude that tl1e suite ofcontrols is inadequate to comply with tl1e Sl'l:t NA.AQS and that a sec-ond :mlte ofcontrols 1s necessary. Thus. complying with the 502 NAAQS may add little or no additional capital cost to the costs ofcomplying 

### 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 pollutionreduction mles most economically byusing only
one suite oftechnologies.

terms: h1deed, industry itselfhas 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. 

### Ifthe 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 ofMichigan can prevent a source from incurring Additional expenses through piecemealed legislation.


### To flvoid inevitable

### nonattainmeut designations m eight c01mties 

### and to bringregulatory 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 DraftISIPfails to include enforceable emission limitations needed to address significant monitored violations ofthe primary ozone NAAQS.


### Michigan's Draft ISIP fllso fails to include emission limits and other restriction::; on
sources ofozone 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 OzoneNAAQS_ 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 ofthe largest anthropogenic sources ofemissions 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 ofthe 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 

### of0 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. andin 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 DraftISIPto 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- ofozone 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 PenniIs, http>'/www.mic:hie:an.govfdocnmemstdeq.'Hi"'ll Volume Hvdraulk Fmctmitt<> Activirv MAP 423435 7.pdf. MDEQ should aualyze \\'hetheJ: andhow 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 hatrequiTes otTsets fol" new and old oil**~nd** gas so11rces to combat em.issiotB ofozune pr.xunors. This will enable the state to meet its dmynuder the !SIP to atruin andmaintain the 2008 OzoneNAAQS.

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, andWayne**counti~s ~s**  nomataln=t for rhe 2008 OzoueNA

... i\QS on the basis 1hat the :!009-201lmomroring data revealed That these CO\mries were exceeding the NA4.QS. See h1 tlJe Matrer ofthe 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 ofthe 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 ofsection 

### 11 0( a)(2)(A). Michiganmustrevise its ISIP to include enforceable emission limits and other measures that 

### will

emure the attairunem and maintenance ofthe 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 costeffectivelyreduce 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 ofthe 

### N.A...-\QS. 

### In fact. several ofthese 

### EGUs are located in counties where ozone design values exceedthe NAAQS, including the Trenton Channel, Riva- Rouge, and Wyandottepowerplants inWayne Cotmty, and the 

### J.H. Campbellpowerplant in Ottawa Co1.mty. In addition. St. Clair and Belle Riverpowerplams 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 thatpowerplants 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 ofthe 2008 OzoneNAAQS. all EGUs shouldhave emission limits basedon available and demonstrated control technology. SCR catalysts have been applied over the last 20 years as retrofits to e"\.isting powerplants across the coW1try and have a proven 

### track record ofmeeting low emissionrates. 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 QualityImpactReport for Desert Rock Energy Facility PSD Permit." at 8, Table 3, attached hereto as Ex. 21. Thus, taking even the highest emissionrate 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 of0.05 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,\-· ofthe RACT/BACT.iLAER clearinghouse demonstrates that numerous PSDpermits for coal-burning boilers were issued in the early 2000s with emission limits of0.07lb/l\.1MBru. Laterthflt decade. pennits forproposed new coal plants were issued with

### NOx limits of0.05 

### 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." In200l, 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 ofless 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 inprior permit applications for the EGU. Setting the 

### limit inlb:bour ensures consistent protection ofthe ambient air qlmlity regardless ofwhether 

### 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 ofstartup and slrutdtwm_ Even ifthe 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 ofthe 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 arequired component ofthe 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 ofNO,. cannot continue to contribute to exceedances ofthe 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) ofthe ActRegarding 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 ofthe mles and regulations cited inMichigan's Draft ISIP include appropriate

19 In January, EPA**solidT~d** commems on the Ozone NAAQS. Se<' ge11emll.1'**Rev1~w** ofNational 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 perhour 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 shouldbe required in order to attain and maintain the 2008 OzoneNAAQS.

Further. the final ISIP must not allow for ambient Air incremental increases. wniances_ exceptions. or exclusions \Yith-regard to 

### limits placed on sources 

### ofpollutants: 

### 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 at2. 

### 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 enforcememmeasures. 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, 

### inlight 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 obtainingpem1its. 

### See MCL § 324.5505(4). Mic-higan also undercuts its enforcementprogram

### 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 ofthese inadequacies, exemptions. variances, and other shortfalls not listed m these comments, the Draft ISIP cannot ensure that Michigan will attain and maintainthe JOIO 

### SOz and 2008 OzoneNAAQS. 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
onlarge sources ofpolltltants. including**coal~**tiredpower

### plants.

E. The Draft InfrastructureSIP Fails to Address Sources Significantly 

### Contributing to Xonattainment or Interference 1\ithMaintenance ofthe NAAQS 

### in Do'\\'Dwind States.
Michigan must address interstate transport ofits emissions that 

### will contribute to exceedances or interfere with the mnintenance ofthe 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 withrespect 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 ofprecise**ch~fldl.ines** to which the Smtes and EPA must adhere_'"). :tviDEQ cannot rely on the fact that EPA's 20l3 ISIP Guidance does not address interstate tnmsponprovisiom 

### Srte Draft ISIP l1t 3 . .::0 This g1.1idance directly contrndicts the language ofthe 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' pollutionproblems, 

### find so Michigan's contention that it is not**~-ubject** to any finding of

### significant conuibutionto 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 Neighborprovision, until EPA first calculares rile budget ofemhs,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 historicallyused all' dispersion modelwg in attainmeut deoJguatiouo and SIP Ievisions. so has th<l ag-ency r<:'lied ou ruodeliug to assess cross-stateimpacts tmder the Act's GoodNeighbor**provi~ion-section** llO(a}f2)(D)(i)(l). Under the Clean Air lllrerstnre Rule ('"C

. .lJR") and the Cross-Slate AirPollution 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 ofstates 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 ofSignificant Deterioration ("PSD'') and nonartainmem New Source Review ("')JNSR") permitting progrffill to detennine that Michig<m is not contributing to nonattainment or interference ·w1th 

### maintenance ofthe 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 ifthey 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 orinterfering \Yith the NA.,A.QS in other st1.tes to satisfy its requirements under the Interstme Transport Provision.::l


### In 

### light ofthe Homer City 

### Supreme Court decision, lviDEQ should act quickly to address pollution 

### that may be contrib1Jting to another state's nonauairunent orinterfering \Vith another state's maintenance ofthe NA...A.QS. The Court's decision means Michigan must address its exceedances m1der its own volition. or EPAwill 

### be required to act. Even ifCSAPR 

### 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 cowredby CSAPR. Michigan should take 

### the opportunity**no"~-V** 

### to 

### place enforceable emission limits: on large sources 

### contributing 

### ro problems with the attninment and maintenance 

### ofthe 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 !SIPfails 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: ofrhese sources and developing an ISIP in full compliance with the Clean Air Act

n Even ifCSAPRwere simply reinstated. bow.:>ver_ a**st~te** cannot rely on CSAPRw 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 historicallyused air di5persion modding in attainment desig1lations and SIP re•;isions. so has rlte agencyrelied on modeling to assess cross-stMe impacts under the Acfs Good N<!ighborprovision-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 cowtnever 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