Document ID: EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0233-0404
Agency: epa
Document Type: Supporting & Related Material
Title: 
Posted Date: 2014-10-28T04:00Z

﻿COMMON INTEREST PRIVILEGE ASSERTED/CONFIDENTIAL

TSRIA AND EPA MEETING ON YELLOWSTONE COUNTY SO2 DESIGNATION
TSRIA Discussion Points
For January 15, 2014 Meeting

Meeting Focus:  Yellowstone County presents a unique case that should not have been designated nonattainment.  

EPA should (1) reconsider and repeal the Yellowstone SO2 Designation based on new data that further demonstrate that no portion of Yellowstone County should have been designated nonattainment for the 2010 SO2 NAAQS; and (2) stay the Yellowstone SO2 Designation pending completion of EPA's administrative proceedings.  

Main Discussion Points:
Overview of Petition for Reconsideration:  Yellowstone County should not have been designated nonattainment based on CAA statutory requirements.  The Administrator must base NAAQS designations on: 
The state's initial designation, which was "unclassifiable" for Yellowstone County.
The State of Montana (State) submitted an initial designation determination of "unclassifiable" for Yellowstone County on May 27, 2011 based on its conclusion that 2010 emissions were not representative.
The State reaffirmed its determination that Yellowstone County should be designated "unclassifiable" in comments to EPA disputing EPA's proposed modification of the initial designation on April 3, 2013.
State representatives including the Governor, U.S. Congressmen, County Commissioners, and the Mayor of Billings all supported the unclassifiable designation with letters of support and discussions with EPA.
The State only provided a five-factor analysis justifying a smaller nonattainment area in Yellowstone County as a fallback in case EPA rejected the State's "unclassifiable" designation.
EPA's Yellowstone SO2 designation went against the State's sustained assertion that Yellowstone County should be designated "unclassifiable."
Air quality data, all of which (excluding unreliable and unrepresentative ambient data) demonstrate attainment.
Planning and control considerations, which demonstrate that permanent and enforceable emission controls have been put in place over the last several years; SO2 emissions and concentrations have decreased and will continue to decrease in the foreseeable future in Yellowstone County.
Any other air quality-related considerations the Administrator deems appropriate, such as the fact that Yellowstone County has demonstrated attainment by a significant margin since the effective date of the rule.
Newly available air quality data for Yellowstone County clearly demonstrate that:  
Yellowstone County has been attaining the NAAQS since the effective date of the 2010 SO2 NAAQS. (Chart 1, showing 2013 data.)
Ambient data from 2010 is non-representative and unreliable and should not form the basis for a nonattainment designation. (Charts 2, 3, 4, and 5 with 2013 data demonstrating outlier nature of 2010 data.)
EPA's use of emissions from 2008 and 2010 as comparisons to portray 2009 and 2011 emissions as uncharacteristically low is misleading. (Charts 2 and 3 show consistently lower emissions in all but these two years.)
EPA's Yellowstone SO2 Designation did not reflect all available air quality data, planning and control considerations, and other relevant air quality considerations but instead gave unwarranted weight to one questionable outlier year of monitoring data, resulting in an erroneous nonattainment designation.
Because the 2009-2011 design value for Yellowstone County is within the margin of error, EPA must closely examine all ambient data for the area and reject the questionable 2010 data to make such a close call. 
Even minor deviations and quality lapses in the ambient data make it unusable and impact the designation outcome.  
The new data further expose EPA's incomplete reasoning that any problems with 2010 ambient data are compensated for by the use of a three-year average to determine the design value; however the problematic 2010 data overpower the averaging and lead to the erroneous outcome of the designation. 
The new ambient data gathered after the effective date do not suffer from the same quality concerns and provide a reliable basis for a NAAQS designation that is consistent with all of the other considerations required under the Clean Air Act.
EPA should repeal the Yellowstone SO2 Designation and more reasonably weigh the State's initial designation, all available air quality data, planning and control considerations, and other relevant air quality considerations to make the correct designation. 
Because 4 of the past 5 years show ambient SO2 averages consistently below 75 ppb (2009, 2011, 2012, 2013  -  see Chart 4), and because the Yellowstone SO2 Designation is such a close call, EPA should not allow the one outlier year of 2010 that is based on questionable data to determine the designation. 
The agency should also recognize and  weigh more favorably the downward emissions trend presented in Charts 2 and 3.
EPA gave disproportionate weight to 2008 and 2010 as representative emissions levels in its responses to comments and technical support documents even though emissions in both years were elevated by required control testing.
The new data make it even more apparent that 2008 and 2010 were exceptions from the consistent downward trend in SO2 emissions rather than 2009 and 2011 being "below past emissions levels." (MT TSD, p. 10) 
Finally, we ask the agency to give proper weight to permanent and enforceable in-place controls that have recently been implemented rather than discounting the reductions brought about by the controls in 2009 and 2011, which have been further confirmed in 2012 and 2013. 
The new lower emissions since 2009 have proven to be sustainable and representative.
The reductions in ambient monitor readings and emissions in 2009, 2011, 2012, and 2013 confirm the effectiveness of these permanent controls.
The Yellowstone SO2 Designation is unsupported, unnecessary to protect public health, and will thus cause unjustified economic harm to Yellowstone County.

Potential EPA Arguments to Rebut:
      WDEQ audits verify that 2009-2011 data are reliable enough to make the designation.
      EPA clean data policy mitigates problems with the nonattainment designation without requiring repeal of the designation.
      PPL Corette Plant needs controls  -  without nonattainment designation or unclassifiable designation, no significant SO2 controls will be put on the plant.
      CAA requires EPA to designate Yellowstone County nonattainment because monitoring data shows it exceeded the NAAQS.