separate areas.  Several of the factors suggest a link between the seven
counties in the Detroit area.

Michigan:

In its October 14, 2008, letter, Michigan also argued that St Clair
County should be designated as a separate nonattainment area.  As
support for this proposal, Michigan again used the SEMCOG report.  The
State pointed to Figure 1 of its letter as evidence that the monitor in
St. Clair County is at the northern edge of the Detroit area and “may
experience different air masses than the other monitors” in the
Detroit area.  In addition, the State argued that the Port Huron monitor
in St. Clair County “appears to be strongly influenced by the
Canadian/Sarnia industrial core.

EPA Response:

EPA does not share Michigan’s belief that St. Clair County should be a
separate nonattainment area from Detroit.  St. Clair County has the
second highest sulfur dioxide emissions in the Detroit area and
surrounding counties.  Its emissions of fine particulate and nitrogen
oxides are larger than several other Detroit area counties.  So,
emissions from within the county can contribute to the monitored
violations in other counties.  The commuting data shows a link to the
Detroit area.  St. Clair County is in the southeast Michigan Council of
Governments with other Detroit area counties, and is also in the Detroit
nonattainment areas for ozone and fine particulate under the 1997
standard.  These all point to a link to the Detroit area.  The pollution
rose for St. Clair County (Figure 11) shows the winds tend to come from
the south when the highest concentrations are monitored.  Some the fine
particulate concentration being monitored in St. Clair may come from
emissions generated at an industrial area to the southeast near Sarnia,
Ontario, Canada.  Some of the PM2.5 in St. Clair County may also come
from elsewhere in the Detroit area, which is to the southwest.  The
Belle River power plant in St. Clair is nearly straight south of the St.
Clair County monitor.  EPA concludes that the St. Clair County is being
impacted by emissions from local sources and sources throughout the
Detroit area, just as EPA is concluding that St. Clair County is
contributing to violations elsewhere in the Detroit area.  Therefore,
EPA determined it was appropriate to include St. Clair County in the
Detroit nonattainment area.

Figure   SEQ Figure \* ARABIC  11 .  Pollution Rose for St. Clair
County, Michigan.

Michigan:

Citing Table 3 of its letter, Michigan noted that the three year annual
PM2.5 average at the Port Huron monitor is “one of the lowest” in
the Detroit area.  That State argued by contrast, that the 24-hour PM2.5
concentrations in this area are “some of the highest” and are
“distinctly different” than the averages in other areas.  Unlike
other areas, Michigan argued that the ambient air at the Port Huron
monitor are unchanged or worsening, compared to averages that appear to
be improving at other monitors in the Detroit area (except for 2005).
Michigan asserted that this evidence suggests that the Port Huron
monitor “is being influenced by different sources than the other
monitors in Southeast Michigan.”

EPA Response:

EPA does not believe that the annual PM2.5 average at the Port Huron
monitor is particularly germane to the designation for the 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS.  As Michigan correctly stated, the Port Huron monitor is
showing high daily concentrations of PM2.5 well above the NAAQS, even
compared to other violating counties within the Detroit area.  The
design values for the area monitors for 2005-2007 are: Wayne 43, Oakland
40, Washtenaw 39, and Monroe 38, with St Clair at 41.  County design
values can show an occasional rise even when values have been declining.
 So the changes from the 2004-2006 design value to the 2005-2007 design
value should be not considered a trend.  Three of the Detroit area
counties, Oakland, St. Clair, and Washtenaw Counties, had 2005-2007
design values higher than its 2004-2006 values.  As Michigan noted, the
2005 monitored values were rather high throughout the nation.  If the
2006-2008 and beyond design values remain fairly steady for St. Clair
County while other Detroit area counties show a trend to lower values,
Michigan could consider additional local measures for the sources with
the greatest impact on the St. Clair County monitor.  The effect of
local-scale emissions causing the St. Clair County monitored values to
vary from the trends at other area monitors does not mean that it is a
different area.  The variations in the temporal patterns at different
monitors more likely is simply evidence that a few years of data do not
provide enough data to indicate a reliable trend.

Michigan:

To support its contention that St. Clair should be a separate
nonattainment area, Michigan also argued that emissions from Canada are
contributing to the violations at the Port Huron monitor.  Michigan
utilized its “CPF” calculation in figure 9 of its letter to support
this point.  Michigan contends that the “excess mass” of PM2.5 at
the Port Huron monitor is coming from the south, southeast, and east,
and that “one of the most industrialized areas of Canada” lies in
that direction.  Michigan notes that the Sarnia area in Canada contains
significant sources such as oil refineries, petrochemical plants, and
chemical companies, and this area has well documented air quality
problems.

EPA Response:

Again, Michigan is focusing on “excess mass” and disregarding the
“urban plume” that is common to monitors throughout Southeast
Michigan.  EPA and Michigan agree that St. Clair County contributes to
violations in St. Clair County, but analyses that by their very nature
do not assess the contribution of sources broadly distributed throughout
Southeast Michigan and sources elsewhere with broadly distributed
impacts have limited utility in defining nonattainment areas.

As noted before, the violations are also due to the local emissions and
from contributions from other area counties.  International emissions
are not the lone source of fine particulate pollution in St. Clair
County.  Pollution from the power plant in St. Clair County, the rest of
the Detroit area, and from the nearby Canadian sources can all be
carried to the Port Huron monitor by southerly winds.

In addition, EPA notes that even if there were contribution from
Canadian sources to the violations that the Port Huron monitor, that
does not negate EPA’s obligation to promulgate the designation for
this area to provide for attainment of the NAAQS in this area.  Section
107(d) does not provide for differential treatment in designations based
upon transport from Canada, and obligates EPA to make designations based
upon monitors and other relevant information to evaluate areas that are
violating and contributing to those violations.

Although EPA obviously cannot define a nonattainment area that includes
emissions sources in Canada that may be contributing to violations in
the Detroit area, it is required to promulgate a designation that
includes the violating areas and nearby contributing areas in Michigan
within the nonattainment area.  As explained in the TSD for this area,
EPA has concluded that St. Clair is violating the NAAQS and must be
designated nonattainment.  St. Clair is also contributing to violations
in other nearby counties in the Detroit area.  St. Clair is not in a
separate airshed from the remainder of the Detroit area, it contains
sources and source activity that contributes to the remainder of the
Detroit area, and has similar sources that will require evaluation in
the nonattainment plan for the area as a whole.  Meteorological
information indicates that St. Clair County is not separate and distinct
from the rest of Detroit.  This information shows a slight tendency for
the winds to be coming from the direction of Wayne County on high
concentration days, but it also shows the winds often come from all
directions even on high concentration days.  So, it is fair to conclude
that St. Clair County contributes to PM2.5 levels in the Detroit
nonattainment area on high concentration days.

Michigan:

Michigan argued that because the high values at the Port Huron monitor
“are likely influenced by Ontario sources,” it “does not make
sense to include St Clair County within the same nonattainment area as
the remainder of Detroit.

EPA Response:

EPA disagrees because Canadian emissions are not the lone source of fine
particulate pollution in St. Clair County.  The concentrations being
recorded at the Port Huron monitor are caused by pollution from local
sources, sources throughout the Detroit area, and from Canadian sources.
 St. Clair County sources may contribute to other Detroit area counties.
 EPA also determined that St. Clair County is linked to Detroit area.
There may be some unique aspects to the violation being recorded in St.
Clair County.  Still, EPA determined St. Clair County is linked with the
other Detroit area counties and that all seven counties should be a
single nonattainment area.

Evansville, IN

Indiana:

Concurrence from EPA concerning the exceptional events submission would
have altered the proposed designation of Dubois County as nonattainment.
 Publicly proposing counties as nonattainment in August 2008 without
addressing exceptional events leads to a false stigma in relation to air
quality in the area.  Furthermore, if the designations are to be based
on 2006-2008 monitored values, 2008 exceptional event submissions must
be reviewed and acted upon prior to the effective date.

EPA Response:

As discussed in the technical support document, EPA has now completed
its review of Indiana’s exceptional events claims.  The net effect of
the mix of concurrences and non-concurrences is that EPA finds Dubois
County to be attaining the standard for the 2005 to 2007 period.  EPA
also reviewed whether the county is contributing to nearby violations in
Evansville, and concluded it is not contributing and therefore Dubois
County is being designated as attainment for the 2006 24-hour NAAQS.

Indiana:

If EPA reviews and approves the 2005-2007 exceptional events, Dubois
County could be identified as attainment as well.

EPA Response:

EPA has reviewed Indiana’s claims of exceptional events, with the
result that Dubois County is being treated as attaining the standards
for planning purposes.  Dubois County is being designated as attainment
for the 2006 standards because EPA has also judged that it does not
contribute to violations in the Evansville area.

Indiana:

Counties like Warrick County, that measure air quality below the
standard and are not proven to be significantly culpable for a downwind
violation, should be designated attainment.

EPA Response:

In making determinations of contribution, EPA reviews all available data
including the nine factors and other relevant information as explained
in the TSD.  Based on the best available evidence, EPA has typically
concluded that nearby counties with high emission levels and other
supporting data such as meteorology do contribute to nearby violations.
In this case EPA reviewed all the available data as outlined in the TSD
and EPA’s assessment of Warrick County indicates that it is
contributing to the monitored violations in Evansville, based on
emission levels (92,000 tons SO2 per year; 18,000 tons NOx per year),
combined with air quality and meteorological data.  EPA notes again that
it must designate as nonattainment counties that are contributing to
nearby nonattainment even if they are monitoring attainment.  Further,
section 107 does not provide for designation only of areas that have a
significant contribution to nearby violations.  In contrast, when
addressing long-range transport of pollutants under section 110(a)(2)(D)
the Act specifically looks only at significant contributions from one
state to another.  For designations section 107 requires inclusion of
all nearby areas that contribute to violations.  Of course EPA analyzes
all available data to be sure areas included are contributing, and in
this case has concluded based on analysis of all the factors and
analytic tools that Warrick County is contributing as outlined in the
TSD.

Fairbanks, AK

Alaska:

The Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (ADEC) supplemented
its original boundary recommendation for Fairbanks, Alaska, stating that
the entirety of data supports a modification of both the original ADEC
recommended boundary and the EPA proposed boundary.

Alternatively, ADEC requested that if EPA were unable to agree with the
modified boundary that ADEC either (1) be given up to an additional year
to collect additional monitoring data under CAA Section 107(d)(1)(B)(i),
or (2) EPA could consider and implement the proposal by ADEC to set a
smaller boundary now and then expand the boundary in the future, if
warranted, based on the data collected during the winter months of 2008.

EPA Response:

After EPA promulgated the latest PM2.5 NAAQS in December 2006, States
were required to submit recommendation for area designations by December
2007 based on PM2.5 monitoring data from 2004-2006.  The State submitted
its recommendation for the Fairbanks area in December 2007 as
nonattainment for the PM2.5 24-hour standard based on that monitoring
data.  The nonattainment area boundary recommended by the State followed
a 600 ft contour to the north and west of the City of Fairbanks, the
city boundary to the east and the Tanana River to the south.  In its
letter modifying the State’s recommendation, sent to the State of
Alaska on August 18 2008, EPA used data from 2005-2007 and available
data at its disposal to designate the area nonattainment and drew the
boundaries to include all potential sources within the Fairbanks North
Star Borough (FNSB) that could contribute to a violation of the PM2.5
24-hour standards at the Fairbanks Valley monitor.  This boundary
included major portions of the Borough to the south and east of the City
of Fairbanks, which captured the military training ranges of Tanana
Flats Training Area (TFTA) to the south of Fairbanks, and the Yukon
Training Area (YTA) to the east of the Fairbanks (GIS maps are included
in the Technical Support Document (TSD) for Alaska areas).

Generally, the CAA requires EPA to designate as nonattainment areas
those which are violating the standard “or portions thereof.”  EPA
believes that county boundaries (or in some instances CSA or CBSA
boundaries for larger metropolitan areas) are an appropriate starting
point for analysis in designating nonattainment areas.  However, where
the facts and circumstances of a particular area and analyses of
relevant technical and factual information it is shown to EPA’s
satisfaction that only a portion of a county or jurisdictional area is
violating or contributing to a violation, the Agency will designate less
than a whole county or jurisdictional area.  This EPA believes the State
of Alaska to have done.  On the 20th of October 2008, the State
supplemented its response to EPA’s recommendation and submitted a
comprehensive technical analysis using the types of information
recommended by EPA in its guidance.  These analyses included, among
other analyses, information recommended by the nine factors approach, to
identify the sources that contribute to violations of the PM2.5
standards at the Fairbanks monitor.  After carefully reviewing the
relevant information, as explained in EPA’s TSD for the Fairbanks
area, EPA is in agreement with the State of Alaska regarding the
boundary of the nonattainment area.

Because EPA has sufficient date to promulgate a designation, there is
not basis for the extention under CAA Section 107(d)(1)(B)(i).  While
the EPA encourages collection and analysis of more information that will
be helpful in solving the PM2.5 nonattainment issues in Fairbanks, it
does find any need to delay the designation to collect this information.

Alaska

Source-specific emission estimates show that area and non-road sources
are responsible for 99 percent of directly emitted PM2.5 and that point
sources are responsible for 79 percent of the SO2 and 56 percent of the
NOX emitted in Fairbanks.  A summary of major permitted facilities
showed that two facilities are not located within the FNSB or EPA’s
proposed nonattainment area.  Data presented for Eielson Air Force Base
showed that it is responsible for less than 5 percent of the NOX and SO2
emitted within the Borough.  Data provided for military training ranges
located to the south of Fairbanks showed very limited activity during
winter months.

EPA Response:

EPA appreciates the updated emission inventory information provided by
the State of Alaska.  Along with the data submitted by Fort Wainwright
Army Base and Eielson AFB, EPA has concluded that activity in TFTA,
including the Blair Lakes Training Facility (BLTF), and the YTA do not
contribute to violations of the PM2.5 NAAQS in Fairbanks.  However,
emissions data alone do not provide conclusive evidence to exclude EAFB
from the NAA boundary.  See EPA’s TSD for Fairbanks, Alaska for
further detail.

Alaska:

Prior to last winter, the only source of PM2.5 monitoring data was from
the SLAMS monitor at the State office building in downtown Fairbanks.
New monitoring data from other locations paint an inconsistent picture.
The Eielson Air Force Base concentrations from an earlier winter
remained well below the 24-hour PM2.5 standard for an entire winter
season and comparisons showed there were large differences between
values recorded on base and those recorded at the downtown monitor.  The
Fort Wainwright values from an earlier winter show that, despite its
proximity to the downtown area, the values recorded over an entire
winter season never exceeded the standard.  The differences between the
values recorded on base and those recorded at the downtown monitor,
however, were much smaller.  Data collected during an episode this past
winter showed high concentrations at multiple locations.  The military
values suggest that concentrations throughout the region are not uniform
and the data collected last winter during one episode show there may be
additional areas with higher concentrations.  Clearly, the data do not
support a conclusion and suggest the need for an intensive monitoring
program, which is what ADEC and Borough are planning for the coming
winter.

EPA Response:

EPA considered this additional air quality data from Alaska in
conjunction with other technical data relevant to the nine factors, and
developed a scientifically-based boundary, which includes Fort
Wainwright, but does not include Eielson Air Force Base.

Alaska:

The annual VMT estimate reported by EPA for Fairbanks is significantly
lower than values reported by the Northern Region of the Alaska
Department of Transportation and Public Facilities (ADOT&PF).  EPA
reports a Borough wide value of 321 million miles in 2005; discussions
with ADOT&PF reported 723 million miles of travel in 2006.  Roughly 58
percent of the travel (i.e., 418.7 million miles) occurred within the
Fairbanks Metropolitan Area Transportation System (FMATS) area.
According to comments submitted by the ADOT&PF, EPA only reported VMT
for a single category of roads (i.e., collectors) and failed to report
travel for the rest of the road system.

Despite the error in EPA’s estimate of travel within the Borough, the
conclusion with regard to potential impacts of commuters is correct.
The long distances to the Borough borders and low overall population
density of the region ensures that external commutes are not
contributing to elevated PM2.5 concentrations in Fairbanks.

EPA Response:

EPA obtained the data from a submission from the State of Alaska in
December 2007.  We appreciate the State correcting and providing us
accurate data (see the TSD for FNSB area).

Alaska:

The data presented above demonstrate that the long-term growth rate
throughout the populated areas of the Borough has been stable on a
long-term basis, roughly 1 percent per year, but erratic on a
year-to-year basis.  This insight confirms there is no need to expand
the nonattainment boundaries to ensure that emissions from projected
growth within the Borough are captured and controlled.

EPA Response:

EPA appreciates this information and has used this factor in combination
with all other factors in its final decision (see the TSD for FNSB area.

Alaska:

High PM2.5 days in Fairbanks are the result of very cold surface
temperatures and shallow temperature inversions, calm winds creating
stagnant conditions and inhibiting the transport and/or dispersion of
pollutants, and local emissions in each community simultaneously
producing localized air pollution increases and PM2.5 concentrations
high enough to exceed the standard in some areas.  These factors
indicate that the emission sources contributing to high pollution
concentrations in Fairbanks are fairly localized and that the
nonattainment boundary should be constrained to the populated areas
where elevated concentrations occur.  The large distances between the
military ranges and the populated areas of Fairbanks, combined with an
absence of southerly winds during PM2.5 episodes, demonstrate that the
limited emissions from these facilities do not contribute to exceedances
recorded in Fairbanks.  Similarly, data collected at Eielson show there
is no transport of its emissions into Fairbanks prior to or during
episodes except for brief periods of southeasterly flow that is shown to
be part of drainage flow along the Tanana.  Data collected at Fairbanks
International Airport demonstrate that the dominant flow prior to and
during episodes is from the northeast and there is little evidence of
any flow from the west.  These findings demonstrate that EPA’s
expansive boundaries are overly conservative and unwarranted and provide
a basis for redefining the boundaries to the south, east, and west.

The State also submitted further analysis of data for three episodes in
2004 and 2005.  Based on this analysis for Eielson, the data show a
consistent pattern of low concentrations and calm conditions at the
surface that prevent any transport to populated areas.  Data for the
upper air, into which the bulk of Eielson’s pollutants are emitted, is
coarse (i.e., soundings are taken twice per day), offering limited
insight into these short, one day episodes.  Despite the aloft data
showing some evidence transport from the southeast, analysis of the
conditions during those times shows that the transport was unlikely to
affect recorded concentrations in Fairbanks due to decoupling of the
aloft and surface layers by the temperature inversions examined.

EPA Response:

EPA generally concurs with this analysis.  In combination with other
factors, this supports the exclusion of and the military areas of TFTA,
YFTA, the BLTF, and the Eielson AFB.  In Fairbanks, filter analysis
submitted by the State of Alaska indicates that a large proportion
(40-55 percent) of PM2.5 is secondarily formed.  This indicates that the
potential sources that contribute could do so by emitting direct PM2.5
or by emitting gaseous precursors that react in the atmosphere to create
fine particles and PM2.5.  The analysis by the State also shows that the
SO4 mass shows a strong correlation to PM2.5 concentrations, which in
turn indicates that sources of SO2 are of importance when contributing
sources are considered.  SO2 is a fairly stable gaseous compound and can
transport long distances over a long periods of time.  Although the
sources at Eielson AFB emit SO2, the amount is less than 5 percent of
the total source contribution in the region, and there is weak
meteorological evidence to show a transport of such emissions and
available secondary conversion mechanism for such SO2 into SO4.  Because
of these reasons, EPA concludes that sources in EAFB do not contribute
to the violations of the PM2.5 standard in Fairbanks and should
therefore be excluded from the Fairbanks PM2.5 NAA see the TSD for FNSB.

Alaska:

In light of the information, presented above, the State in concert with
the Borough developed a recommended nonattainment boundary.  The
starting point for these recommendations was the FMATS area.  Revisions
to that boundary are primarily based on consideration of population
density, meteorology, terrain, emissions and the lack of growth. The
Final TSD for the State of Alaska includes the final PM2.5 nonattainment
boundary for Fairbanks North Star Borough. In addition to the factors
noted above, care was taken to ensure the boundary is consistent with
ownership (i.e., lots were not split) and that entire neighborhoods were
included within the proposed nonattainment area unless they were divided
by geographical features (e.g., ridgeline) that distinguished their
potential to impact Fairbanks.

Starting with the south, the proposed boundary is consistent with the
FMATS boundary, which is located just to the north of the Tanana River.
The eastern edge follows the FMATS boundary, which excludes Eielson, but
is expanded to include populated areas adjacent to Chena Lakes, east of
Nordale Road and north of Badger Road.  The areas excluded to the east
include undeveloped areas and swamp land.  Some of the excluded areas
also appear to include populated areas; however, a discussion with the
Borough demographer indicated that these were artifacts of arbitrary
census boundaries and in fact no one lived in those locations (the
density reflects the average of the area represented, not the location
of where people lived).  The northern end of the eastern boundary is
selected to incorporate the higher density valley to the west of Gilmore
Dome but to exclude communities farther to the east.  The low population
density of these communities and distance from the higher density areas
of Fairbanks and North Pole is seen to limit their potential impacts
despite the predominant northeast wind flow.

Recognizing the potential of Goldstream Valley to impact Fairbanks, the
FMATS boundary was expanded well to the north to include all areas with
the potential to contribute to the drainage flow.  The northern boundary
is not located at the top of the ridge separating the Chatinika Valley
from the Goldstream Valley as recommended by EPA.  Instead the northern
edge of the populated areas was selected, hence the jog in the middle of
the northern boundary.  To the west, the FMATS boundary was expanded to
include the higher population density areas with the potential to
contribute drainage to Goldstream Valley.  This includes the area to the
east of Ester Dome.  The areas along Murphy Dome Road further to the
west were excluded because of the combination of low population density,
distance from the higher density populated areas and prevailing
meteorology.  The southwestern FMATS boundary was expanded to include
Ester Valley.  This area, located to the south of Ester Dome and East of
Chena Ridge is seen as having the potential to contribute to drainage
into Fairbanks.

EPA Response:

Because of the collective evidence presented by the technical
information provided by the State of Alaska, EPA agrees with the State
of Alaska and the recommended boundary for the FNSB PM2.5 nonattainment
area.  For more information that the EPA used in arriving at this
boundary, please refer to the Technical Support Document for Alaska
PM2.5 Designations.

Fort Belknap Indian Community, MT

Fort Belknap Indian Community:

The Fort Belknap Indian Community sent a letter to EPA’s Region 8
office on September 16, 2008, asking that the lands within the exterior
boundaries of the reservation be designated as unclassifiable for the
annual and 24-hour standards for PM2.5.

EPA Response:

EPA’s Region 8 office responded to the Fort Belknap Indian Community
on October 31, 2008, informing them of EPA’s intended designations
schedule for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS, and offering to discuss Clean
Air Act programs the Tribe may want to consider to address air quality
on the Reservation.

Grand Rapids, MI

Michigan:

The EPA believes that Ottawa County should be included with Kent County,
one primary reason being that the emissions from the J.  H.  Campbell
plant EGUs in Ottawa County are impacting air quality in Kent County.
However, SCR controls have been installed on one of three EGUs at the
Campbell facility, which will result in significant NOX emission
decreases.  Plans are also in place to install scrubbers to reduce SO2
emissions.  Both of these controls significantly reduce PM2.5 and are
likely to result in continued improvements in the PM2.5 levels in Kent
County.

EPA Response:

See the overview response to comments on power plant issues, located at
the beginning of Section IV.

EPA bases area designations on current air quality data and current
emissions information.  The comment appears to indicate that the only
reason for the inclusion of Ottawa County in the Grand Rapids area is
the presence of the Campbell power plant.  While this plant is the
largest source in the county, it is not the only reason for the
inclusion of Ottawa County.  Ottawa County has a large population
(255,000), significant commuting (119,000) and VMT, and high emissions
(46,000 tons SO2, 28,000 tons NOx, and 3100 tons direct PM2.5)  The
Campbell plant has three units without scrubbers and emissions of 30,000
tons SO2 and 9000 tons NOx.  Planned emission control projects at the
J.H.  Campbell plant in Ottawa County may significantly reduce emissions
in the future.  Under section 107(d), however, EPA is assessing
violations and contribution to those violations during the relevant
three year period, i.e., 2005-2007, or 2006-2008 if the State elects to
submit 2008 data.  Even with the reductions from one unit at the
Campbell facility, the emissions from Ottawa County remain high.  The
emissions data and meteorological data indicate a contribution to the
monitored violations, and the commuting data provide a link to Kent
County.  Kent and Ottawa Counties form the Grand Rapids ozone
maintenance area, a well established connection between the counties.
For these reasons, EPA has determined that Ottawa County should be
included as a contributing county in the Grand Rapids nonattainment
area.

Green Bay, WI

The Oneida Tribe of Indians of Wisconsin

Oneida Tribe:

“A unique governmental and administrative burden is created due to our
political jurisdiction as an Indian Nation in which we have portions of
two of Wisconsin’s 72 counties located in our reservation boundaries.
Unique to our situation is that Brown County would be in nonattainment
status and Outagamie County would be in an attainment designation.  We
find this situation presents a significant burden affecting our
responsibilities as a government in addressing the implementation of the
Clean Air Act’s two types of national air quality standards.  …The
72 counties are one level of government in the state of Wisconsin as
well as the 11 tribal units of government.”

EPA Response:

The Oneida Tribe’s situation is not unique.  Every state within which
EPA is designating a nonattainment area also has area that will be
designated attainment.  We believe it is not a significant burden either
to states or to tribes (or for EPA on behalf of the tribes) to
administer some jurisdictions as nonattainment and some jurisdictions as
attainment.  EPA further believes that the Clean Air Act does not
authorize EPA to designate an area that does not contribute to
violations as nonattainment simply because the governing authority has
jurisdiction over land elsewhere that warrants a nonattainment
designation, or conversely to designate an area that does contribute to
violations as attainment due to an attainment designation elsewhere.
EPA is prepared to work closely with the Tribe to facilitate air quality
planning for both attainment and nonattainment areas.

Oneida Tribe:

The Oneida Tribe of Indians of Wisconsin recommends that the air
management area within the jurisdiction of the Oneida Tribe of Indians
of Wisconsin exterior boundaries not be determined at this time due to
the fact that parts of two counties (Brown and Outagamie Counties) are
located in our jurisdiction and that one is designated nonattainment and
the other attainment by the EPA.

EPA Response:

With respect to state lands, EPA is required by the Clean Air Act to
promulgate designations within two years of the promulgation of an air
quality standard, in this case in December 2008.  An extension may be
granted in cases where information is insufficient to promulgate
designations, but EPA does not believe those criteria for an extension
are met here.  EPA understands that, pursuant to the Tribal Authority
Rule, EPA may grant tribes flexibility with respect to the schedules by
which tribes meet relevant requirements.  However, designations are an
EPA action, not a tribal action, and EPA believes that promulgating
tribal designations on a different timetable than state designations
would foster needless confusion.  EPA has sufficient data to make
designations for tribal areas and thus must do so at this time
consistent with the statute.  Therefore, EPA is promulgating
designations for the Oneida Tribe and other tribal lands at the same
time as it promulgates designations for state lands.

Oneida Tribe:

We would like to have you consider the following in future determination
of the impact of pollution activities and development on the Oneida
Tribe of Indians of Wisconsin membership and jurisdictional areas;

The concept of cumulative impact analysis involves environmental, social
and cultural impacts not always adequately covered in the environmental
impact assessment and statement in the normal National Environmental
Policy Act processes.

The concept of cultural catchment areas has a direct impact on our
cultural and spiritual well being.   We view that the status of our
health and community well being is based on the interconnectedness of
the elements of science, social, economic and cultural considerations to
address our holistic health approach to our world view.

EPA Response:

These comments are more germane to the attainment planning process than
to designations.  EPA intends to work with the Oneida Tribe of Indians
of Wisconsin towards development of air quality plans in a culturally
sensitive manner that considers the interconnections that are important
to the tribe.

Huntington-Ashland, WV-KY-OH

The State of West Virginia

West Virginia:

West Virginia agrees with the data and analysis presented in EPA’s
analysis relating to Factor 1 (Emissions data), Factor 2 (Air quality
data), and Factor 3 (Population density and Degree of urbanization).
West Virginia also agrees that since there are no topographic or
geographic features in the air shed, factor 7 (Geography/topography) is
not a significant factor within the overall analysis, including our
consideration of whether to include the Graham Tax District within the
nonattainment area.  West Virginia contends that the data presented in
EPA’s analysis underlying each of these cited factors supports
exclusion of Mason County, including the Graham Tax District, from the
Huntington-Ashland nonattainment area.

EPA Response:

EPA’s recommendation to include the Graham Tax District within the
Huntington-Ashland nonattainment area was based upon our review of
available data and implementation of EPA policy and guidance as further
and more fully explained in the technical support document (TSD)
supporting the designation of this area for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS.  EPA
reviewed available technical data relevant to each of the factors cited
by West Virginia.  EPA’s inclusion of the Graham Tax District as part
of the nonattainment area is supported by EPA’s analysis in its
entirety and not solely upon individual analysis of select factors
therein.  EPA believes that the overall analysis supports a finding that
the Graham Tax District within Mason County contains significant
emissions sources that contribute to PM2.5 ambient concentrations in the
nonattainment area, and that these sources are overwhelmingly large in
comparison to emissions from the remainder of the county.  Recognition
that the county in whole, or that the portion containing the Graham Tax
District is a lower ranking candidate based upon certain factors does
not preclude EPA from determining on the basis of the analysis in its
entirety that the Graham Tax District “contributes to” nonattainment
of the 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS in the Huntington-Ashland area.  Indeed, this
is among the reasons that EPA concluded that it was appropriate to
designate only a portion of the county instead of the entire county
nonattainment.

West Virginia’s comment with regard to the exclusion of Mason County
from the 1997 annual PM2.5 nonattainment area is outside the scope of
this action to designate PM2.5 nonattainment areas under the 24-hour
PM2.5 standard.  Justification for the use of the tax boundary is
described in section <IP_ADDRESS> of the TSD prepared for designations under
the 1997 annual PM2.5 standard.

West Virginia:

West Virginia states that EPA’s analysis set forth in Factor 4
(Traffic and commuting patterns) includes VMT and commuter data for all
of Mason County, rather than apportioning the VMT and commuter
contribution from the Graham Tax District portion of the county, thus
overstating the relative contribution of the tax district.  The State
argues that EPA’s assertion that Mason County has more commuters than
Adams and Gallia Counties in Ohio is not relevant because Adams County
is not adjacent to the MSA.  Finally, the State argues that Mason
County’s contribution of commuter traffic to the violating county, and
also to and within the statistical area, is small.

EPA Response:

As was the case with EPA’s technical analyses for all areas, including
the Huntington-Ashland area, the Agency relied upon 2005 VMT for our
analysis set forth in Factor 4 (Traffic and commuting patterns).  In
general, EPA’s analysis used the most recently available actual data,
rather than long-term VMT projections (as in the case of the
supplemental information for 2020 conformity projections provided by
West Virginia as part of its supplemental information) in our analysis
of traffic and commuting patterns.  For the partial county areas, EPA
assessed the factors based upon county level information (with the
exception of the contribution of emissions from large power plants).

EPA believes that its analysis of the available transportation data is
accurate and relevant.  EPA appropriately compared Mason County’s
contribution of commuter traffic to the violating county along with
other counties subject to analysis, including Adams County, OH.
Although Adams County is not adjacent to the MSA, a portion of Adams
County is included in the nonattainment area for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS.
EPA’s analysis accurately reflects that the counties of Mason, WV;
Adams, OH; and Gallia, OH all have commuters traveling between 200 and
300 million miles based upon available data.  EPA recognizes that there
are counties within the area analysis which have greater number of
commuters who drive to and within the Huntington-Ashland area.  EPA did
not represent that Mason County (or the Graham Tax District) contributes
a regionally significant portion of total area VMT or vehicle-related
emissions.  We reiterate that our assessment of this individual factor
does not preclude EPA from determining that on the basis of all relevant
facts and scientific data, including the nine factors, that the Graham
Tax District contributes to nonattainment of the 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS in
the Huntington-Ashland area.  Again, this is among the reasons that EPA
concluded that it was appropriate to designate only a portion of the
county instead of the entire county nonattainment.

West Virginia:

West Virginia agrees with the population and VMT growth estimates for
Mason County presented by EPA in Factor 5 (Growth rates and patterns) of
its technical analysis of the Huntington-Ashland area.  However, West
Virginia argues that use of predictive, travel demand modeling is more
appropriate than use of historical VMT growth data in assessing growth
rates for this analysis.  West Virginia submitted supplemental
information in the form of transportation conformity analysis for Cabell
and Wayne Counties and for the Graham Tax District portion of Mason
County.  West Virginia concluded that this data supports exclusion of
Mason County from the nonattainment area on the basis of this factor.

EPA Response:

EPA consistently used historical county-level population and VMT growth
estimates for all areas of the country.  EPA used the same methodology
for estimating historic VMT growth in all nonattainment areas analyzed.
Consistent with the CAA, EPA’s designations reflect EPA’s analysis
of data reflecting current conditions, as opposed to predictions of
future conditions.  EPA does not believe that the use of predictive
travel demand modeling would be consistent with the CAA because such
modeling does not reflect current conditions and the Act requires
designation of areas based on current conditions.  Rather, predictive
travel demand modeling is a tool for predicting conditions that may
occur after designation determinations are finalized.  EPA agrees that
population and VMT growth in Mason County are both relatively low,
compared to the other counties in the area of analysis.  West
Virginia’s data supports EPA’s assessment that VMT growth in Mason
County is growing at a faster rate, by percentage, than in most counties
in the Huntington-Ashland area.  EPA’s assessment of this single
factor is not out-come determinative and does not preclude it from
determining that the substantial emissions from the Graham Tax District
contributes to increased ambient PM2.5 levels in the Huntington-Ashland
area and should thus be included in the nonattainment area.  Again, this
is among the reasons that EPA concluded that it was appropriate to
designate only a portion of the county instead of the entire county
nonattainment.

West Virginia:

With respect to Factor 6 (Meteorology – weather transport patterns) of
EPA’s technical analysis, West Virginia provided supplemental
information in order to support its contention that emissions from Mason
County, including the Graham Tax District, do not contribute to the
Huntington-Ashland nonattainment area and should not be included in the
nonattainment designation.  West Virginia used NOAA Air Resource
Laboratory’s HYSPLIT trajectory model (using 100, 250, and 500 meter
trajectory heights) to provide a limited analysis of air patterns during
each of the 26 days during which monitoring data within the
Huntington-Ashland nonattainment area exceeded 30 μg/m3.  Using this
model, WVDEP calculated 26 backward trajectories to track pollutants
from the ambient monitor site to determine which trajectories “passed
over” one of the two coal-fired power plants located in the Graham Tax
District.  Based upon the data provided, West Virginia concluded that,
in most instances, backward trajectories originating from the
nonattainment monitor did not pass through the Graham Tax District.
West Virginia therefore concludes that emissions from Mason County do
not contribute to the Huntington-Ashland nonattainment area and should
not be included in the nonattainment designation.

West Virginia also commented on EPA’s pollution rose data analysis (or
pollution trajectory plot) for Cabell County.  West Virginia suggests
that based upon such data,

“one would conclude that (the Graham Tax District) .  .  .  has no
significant influence on the Huntington-Ashland nonattainment area, and
should not be included in the Huntington-Ashland nonattainment area.”

West Virginia also argues that EPA Regions 3, 4, and 5 drew different
conclusions from the same Pollution Trajectory Plot for Cabell County,
WV.

EPA Response:

EPA does not believe that West Virginia’s analysis supports a finding
that emissions from Mason County do not contribute to the
Huntington-Ashland nonattainment area and should not be included in the
nonattainment designation.

West Virginia’s limited backward trajectory analysis of air patterns
represents a limited “direct causal relationship” test that, if
adopted by EPA, would contravene the goal of the statute by narrowing
its application.  EPA believes that the State’s proposed alternative
analysis is insufficient for purposes of determining whether emissions
from the Graham Tax District “contribute to” ambient air quality in
the Huntington-Ashland nonattainment area.

Section 107(d)(1)(A)(i) provides that nonattainment areas must include
“any

area that does not meet (or that contributes to ambient air quality in a
nearby area that does not meet)” the applicable NAAQS.  42 U.S.C.  §
7407(d)(1)(A)(i).  The definition of “nonattainment” specifically
includes any area that “contributes to” violations of NAAQS in a
nearby area, not only those that literally “cause” such violations
at specific monitoring sites.  Ambient PM2.5 at every monitor reflects
the cumulative impacts of many types of emissions from many sources,
near and far, that result in primary and secondary formation of
particles.  Pursuant to section 107(d), EPA must evaluate which
“nearby” areas contribute to the violations and include them within
the nonattainment area.

Additionally, EPA believes that West Virginia’s application of
NOAA’s HYSPLIT backward trajectory analysis is incomplete.  For
example, West Virginia’s analysis used only one trajectory for each
day where measurements exceeded 30 μg/m3.  If back trajectories are to
serve as the sole source for determining meteorological contribution, a
more thorough analysis using multiple trajectories for each day in
question should have been completed to account for the entire duration
of the 24-hour PM2.5 standard.  Furthermore, West Virginia’s analysis
focuses on back trajectories from the monitoring site, and, therefore,
does not adequately demonstrate that emissions from the Graham Tax
District do not “contribute to” ambient air quality in the
Huntington-Ashland nonattainment area.  West Virginia’s limited
analysis fails to take into account that both of the coal-fired power
plants located in the Graham Tax District are significant sources of
direct PM2.5 and PM2.5  precursor (NOx and SO2) emissions.  A more
complete and relevant analysis would compute multiple forward HYSPLIT
trajectories from the coal-fired power plants in question to determine
if emissions from those facilities could have “passed through” any
portion of the nonattainment area at issue.  Recognizing that NOAA’s
HYSPLIT Model is a multifaceted tool, EPA believes a more complete
analysis would support its contention that emissions from the Graham Tax
District “contribute to” ambient air quality in the
Huntington-Ashland nonattainment area.

 EPA developed pollution trajectory plots (or “pollution roses”) to
understand the prevailing wind direction and wind speed on the days with
highest fine particle concentrations.   EPA believes that such analysis
is one of several factors in evaluating emission contributions to the
Huntington-Ashland nonattainment area.  With regard to West Virginia’s
comments regarding EPA’s pollution trajectory plot for Cabell County,
EPA believes that the data presented in the August TSD was accurate.
However, as was noted in the August TSD, EPA noted at that time that
eight high days were not plotted in that Cabell County pollution rose
due to missing or variable wind data.  However, since then EPA has
updated its pollution rose data to reflect more current information, so
that the pollution rose (Figure 6) presented in the updated, December
2008 TSD now covers the period from 2005-2007.  It shows that four days
with monitored 24-hour PM2.5 values greater than 35 and 40 µg/m3 in
Cabell County, WV in 2005-2007 occurred when the wind came from the
north-northeast.  This data suggests that emissions from the
north-northeast, i.e., from Mason County, WV as well as Lawrence and
Boyd Counties in Ohio, likely contribute to 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS
violations.  Eight other days with monitored PM2.5 values greater than
35 and 40 µg/m3 show winds from the southwest, east, and south.  This
indicates likely PM2.5 contributions from Wayne County, WV, and Boyd and
Lawrence Counties in Kentucky.

West Virginia:

West Virginia contends that, based upon the presence of emission
controls and the prospect of future emission controls for the two
coal-fired power plants in the Graham Tax District, and also that EPA
has provided States flexibility to address SO2  and NOx emissions from
nearby sources (within 200 km) via its PM2.5 Implementation Rule, it is
unnecessary to include the Graham Tax District in the Huntington-Ashland
area.

EPA Response:

Section 107(d) defines nonattainment areas as those that are violating
the NAAQS, and those that are contributing to such violations in nearby
areas currently.  Thus, EPA determined violations of the 2006 24-hour
fine particulate NAAQS based solely on the most recent three complete
years of certified monitoring data.  EPA set boundaries based on
available data and analysis that best represents present-day conditions,
and not on projected emissions reductions that may occur after
designation areas are finalized.  EPA recognized that due to new
controls at large EGUs, there may be emission reductions of SO2 and NOX
subsequent to 2005 that are not accounted for in its August 2008
analysis and EPA gave States the opportunity to submit supplemental
information on emissions controls to aid in making final designation
decisions.

West Virginia agrees with EPA’s summary data of 2002-2007 NOx and SO2
annual emissions and heat input for the two large, coal-fired power
plants (Mountaineer and Philip Sporn) in Mason County.  West Virginia
also agrees that, while Mountaineer’s SO2 emissions were greatly
reduced beginning in 2007 due to the installation of a scrubber, Philip
Sporn lacks scrubbers to control SO2 emissions.  EPA agrees that NOx
emission rates have decreased for both facilities, however, based upon
the most recent available data (2007), heat input levels have increased
enough to keep facility-wide NOx and SO2 emission levels either flat or
higher than 2005 levels.

EPA reviewed West Virginia’s comments and determined that they
presented no new additional information with regard to emissions
controls for these power plants.  EPA acknowledged in our analysis that
SO2 emissions will likely be reduced by the 2007 installation of wet
scrubber units at Mountaineer.  However, EPA maintains that, based upon
currently available data, the combined NOx and SO2 emissions from both
facilities, along with other data, support a finding that emissions from
the Graham Tax District contribute to PM2.5 ambient air quality in the
Huntington-Ashland nonattainment area.

The State’s reference to the requirements of the PM2.5 implementation
rule are at most an analogy, as that rule applies to the 1997 PM2.5
NAAQS.  Even by analogy, the opportunity to take emissions reductions at
sources up to 200km from a nonattainment area is premised upon the state
being able to demonstrate that those emission reductions would have an
impact in the nonattainment area.  Moreover, the fact that emission
reductions from such sources could be shown to make an improvement in
the nonattainment area is not the sole test for designations under
section 107(d).  Under this provision, EPA must ascertain which sources
are “nearby” for purposes of the designation for the nonattainment
area, given the facts and circumstances of each area.  Other tools under
the CAA, such as section 110(a)(2)(D) and section 126 are designed to
deal with interstate emission impacts, especially regional impacts.

West Virginia:

The portion of Mason County, the Graham Tax District, proposed to be
included in the

Huntington nonattainment area encompasses the Mountaineer and Philip
Sporn power plants, both owned by American Electric Power (AEP).
Mountaineer has one 1,300 MW unit which is equipped with an ESP for
particulate control, an SCR for NOx control and a wet limestone scrubber
for SO2 control.  These controls are federally enforceable through
regulations, permits and a federal Consent Decree (AEP Consent Decree).
Philip Sporn has five units, Units 1-4 are rated at 150 MW each and Unit
5 is rated at 450 MW.  All five units are equipped with an ESP for
particulate control, and low NOx burners for NOx control.  These
controls are federally enforceable through regulations and permits.  In
addition, AEP has been issued a no permit needed letter (dated September
25, 2008) for the installation of SNCR on two of the five units at
Philip Sporn (Units 3 and 4).  AEP has indicated that the installation
of SNCR on these units is to comply with the provisions of the AEP
Consent Decree which requires that “A total of at least 600 MW from
the following list of units: Sporn Units 1-4, Clinch River Units 1-3,
Tanners Creek Units 1-3, and/or Kammer Units 1-3” be retired,
retrofit, or re-powered.  The expected NOx reduction is 25 percent in
addition to the 60 percent already achieved by the LNBs.

Historical data shows that between 2002 and 2007 the SO2 and NOx
emission rates decreased at Mountaineer and Philip Sporn while heat
input increased.  The Mountaineer SO2 emission rate decreased by 95.3
percent, and the NOx emission rate decreased by 17.6 percent.  The
Philip Sporn SO2 emission rate decreased by 18.2 percent, and the NOx
emission rate decreased by 24.4 percent.  In addition, the West Virginia
Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) has conducted a RACT
analysis (which was included in the Parkersburg Annual PM2.5 SIP
revision submitted to EPA on September 9, 2008) to determine the
appropriate level of controls for EGUs.  It was determined that SCR and
wet scrubbers are not economically feasible for units the size of those
at Philip Sporn.  DEP believes that these units are equipped with
controls that meet the definition of RACT and there is no air quality
benefit to be gained by designating the Graham Tax District as
nonattainment.  Furthermore, EPA in the final PM2.5 Implementation Rule
stated that for SO2 and NOx “EPA believes that States could justify
considering not only all emissions in the nonattainment area but also
emissions within a distance that may be up to 200 kilometers from the
nonattainment area” [72 FR 20636, 25APR2007].  Since EPA has provided
States the flexibility to consider emissions from sources within 200
kilometers of the nonattainment area, it is not necessary for EPA to
include the partial counties within the nonattainment areas (see table
on page 14 of WV comment letter).

EPA Response:

See the overview response to comments on power plant issues, located at
the beginning of Section IV.

EPA disagrees with the reasons provided by West Virginia for exclusion
of the Mason County Mountaineer and Philip Sporn power plants from the
Huntington-Ashland nonattainment area.  EPA’s analysis has evaluated
pollutant emissions; evidence from the pollution rose for this area that
there is contribution from the direction of these sources to the rest of
the nonattainment area; and the CES score that likewise indicates that
emissions from the pertinent sources contribute to violations in the
Huntington-Ashland area.

The 2007 emissions from the Mason County power plants were about 42,000
tons SO2 and 20,000 tons of NOx.  The plants are located about 30 miles
from the closest violating monitor in the Huntington-Ashland area, a
distance at which significant formation of PM2.5 from precursors emitted
by these plants can occur.  The technical support document provides
pollution roses for both the Cabell County site and the Scioto County
site, providing evidence that the emissions from these plants can be
expected on some high concentration days to have impacts on the
violating monitors.  EPA finds that current emissions data and
meteorological information indicate that in accordance with section
107(d), Mason County is contributing to violations in the
Huntington-Ashland area.  It should be emphasized that the designations
process is intended only to determine those areas which are contributing
to a violation of the standard.  Section 107(d) was not intended to also
require EPA and the States to determine whether emission controls are or
are not economically feasible for a particular source.  The evaluation
of technically and economically feasible emission controls is required
as part of the SIP development process.

The State of Kentucky

Kentucky:

To have Boyd and Lawrence Counties designated nonattainment would invoke
additional, substantial, unnecessary requirements on local government
planning agencies.  Substantial local emission reductions from Boyd and
Lawrence Counties have already occurred, or will have occurred well
before attainment dates for this standard.  Drastic emission reductions
are scheduled to occur in the mobile sector throughout the next several
years that will greatly impact pollutant levels in the area.  Couple
these changes with those anticipated by the CAIR, or its replacements,
provisions which will further reduce SOx and NOx emissions within the
region, and the air monitoring data demonstrating attainment of the
PM2.5 standard, and the result should be that these counties be
designated attainment for the PM2.5 standard.

EPA Response:

EPA commends Boyd and Lawrence Counties for local emission reductions
that have been and continue to be achieved.  However, EPA’s 9-factor
analysis has determined that emissions from Boyd and Lawrence (partial)
Counties contribute to nonattainment in nearby Cabell County, West
Virginia, and that it is appropriate to include these counties in the
Huntington-Ashland nonattainment area.  EPA believes that consideration
of all nine factors compels designating these Counties nonattainment,
consistent with the existing nonattainment boundary for the annual PM2.5
standard.  As stated in Section V, EPA determined violations of the 2006
24-hour fine particulate NAAQS based solely on the most recent three
complete years of certified monitoring data.  EPA is setting boundaries
based on available data and analysis that best represents present-day
conditions, and not on projected emissions reductions that may occur
after designation areas are finalized.

Kentucky:

American Electric Power (AEP), which is located in Lawrence County,
Kentucky, consists of two pulverized coal-fired boilers: Unit 01 (BSU1:
2512 mmBTU/hour 260 MW) is a pulverized coal-fired, dry bottom,
wall-fired unit constructed on or before January 1963, equipped with
overfire air, low NOX burners and an electrostatic precipitator.  Unit
02 (BSU2: 7914 mmBTU/hour 800 MW) is a pulverized coal-fired, dry
bottom, wall-fired unit constructed on or before October 1969, equipped
with an electrostatic precipitator, ammonia flue gas conditioning, low
NOX burners, and selective catalytic reduction.  Pursuant to a 10/9/2007
consent decree and for BART, AEP must install a SO2 FGD scrubber on the
larger Big Sandy Unit 2 by December 31, 2015. Assuming a conservative 90
percent control on the 2007 SO2 emissions from Unit 2, the required
scrubber would significantly reduce SO2 emissions from AEP Big Sandy by
an estimated 36,971 tons per year when the scrubber is operational on
Unit 2. Also, pursuant to the consent decree AEP Big Sandy Unit 1 now is
required to continue to burn coal with a sulfur content of no greater
than 1.75 lb/mmBTU on an annual basis. In addition to the FGD scrubber
on Unit 2 for BART, AEP is also required for BART to install ammonia
injection on Unit 1 to address inorganic condensable emissions to
improve visibility in Class I areas.  Given the existing and future new
controls required for AEP Big Sandy by consent decree and BART, KYDAQ
requests that EPA consider this information regarding the reduction in
emissions at AEP for the attainment/nonattainment designations.

(see table on page 54 of Kentucky comment letter)

EPA Response:

See the overview response to comments on power plant issues, located at
the beginning of Section IV.

The CAA requires that a nonattainment area must include not only the
area that is violating the standard, but also nearby areas that
contribute to the violation. Thus, for each monitor or group of monitors
that indicate violations of a standard, EPA is establishing
nonattainment boundaries that cover a sufficiently large area to include
both the area that violates the standard and the areas that contribute
to the violations.  The current 2007 emissions of AEP Big Sandy in
Lawrence County are 46,000 tons SO2 and 15,000 tons NOx.  As described
in the State’s comment above, a scrubber is required on one unit by
2015 and other emission reduction activities are planned for the future.
 Meteorological data indicate potential impacts from Lawrence county on
high PM2.5 days.  While Kentucky anticipates installation and operation
of additional controls, EPA must judge whether current emission levels,
supported by current regulations that provide assurance of continued
operation of existing controls, contribute to existing violations.  If
controls are required either by the Clean Air Interstate Rule or by an
equivalent rule, and SIP quality modeling based on enforceable emission
levels in Kentucky and elsewhere (with or without the Clean Air
Interstate Rule, as the case may be) demonstrates timely attainment,
then the attainment planning requirement resulting from a nonattainment
designation will not be  as burdensome to the Commonwealth.  However,
EPA cannot agree to designate areas attainment where the best evidence
indicates current contribution to nonattainment.  Accordingly, EPA has
included Lawrence County, Kentucky in the Huntington-Ashland
nonattainment area.

The State of Kentucky makes the following points as additional rationale
for excluding Boyd County from the Huntington-Ashland nonattainment
area.

Kentucky:

Kentucky believes that EPA’s use of the contributing emissions scoring
approach was skewed.  A review of actual percentages of emissions
contributions to an area shows that Boyd County does not have the
potential to contribute to PM2.5 levels within the region.

EPA Response:

The CES is an initial screening tool used to determine potential
nonattainment area boundaries which can then be modified using
additional information provided by the State or other sources.  EPA has
recommended other types of information for this purpose through guidance
which could be considered in the final decision.

The CES for Boyd County is lower than that of some contributing counties
(Cabell, WV; Gallia, OH; Lawrence, OH; Scioto, OH; Mason, WV; and Adams,
OH) in the area, but higher than that of others (Wayne, WV and Lawrence,
KY).  Additionally, EPA does not find that emissions from Boyd County
(10,501 tons of SO2; 10,123 tons NOx; and 3,458 tons direct PM2.5) are
without the potential to contribute to PM2.5 in the region.  One key
source of emissions located in Boyd County is the traffic and commuting
patterns.

Kentucky:

The population of Boyd County is not significant enough to have the
potential to impact PM2.5 levels in the region.  Population in this area
has shown a continuing decline over the last several years and that
decline is anticipated to continue.  Boyd County’s population actually
represents only 12 percent of the population within EPA’s proposed
nonattainment boundaries.

EPA Response:

Although the population of Boyd County may have declined in recent
years, the County remains moderate in population size and density.  Of
the Huntington-Ashland CSA counties that EPA stated intentions to
designate as nonattainment in our August 2008 letters to State
Governors, about 23 percent reside in Cabell County, WV, compared to
about 12 percent living in Boyd County.  The population densities of the
two counties are similar at 327 persons per square mile and 305 persons
per square mile Cabell and Boyd County, respectively.  Boyd County has
the highest population of the Kentucky counties in the area and it is
one of the most densely populated counties in the area.  EPA’s finds
this factor adds support to EPA’s decision to include Boyd County in
the Huntington-Ashland nonattainment area.

Kentucky:

The air monitoring data demonstrates attainment of the PM2.5 standard.

EPA Response:

Although the ambient monitor in Boyd County has a design value of 33
µg/m3, based on 2005 – 2007 data, EPA believes sources in Boyd County
contribute to the violating monitor in nearby Cabell County, WV, with a
design value of 37 µg/m3, and also to Scioto County, with a design
value of 36 µg/m3.  In.  In addition, EPA notes the design value of the
Boyd County monitor is up from the 2004 – 2006 design value of 32
µg/m3.  Specifically, Boyd County has substantial levels of emissions
and meteorological data that indicate a contribution to PM2.5
concentrations at the violating monitors on the high days.
Additionally, Boyd County, which includes the city of Ashland, Kentucky,
has a high degree of population density, urbanization, and commuting
within the area.

The State of Kentucky makes the following points as rationale for
excluding Lawrence County, Kentucky, from the Huntington-Ashland
nonattainment area.

Kentucky:

Kentucky believes that EPA’s use of the CES approach was skewed.  A
review of actual percentages of emissions contributions to an area shows
that Lawrence County does not have the potential to contribute to PM2.5
levels within the region.

EPA Response:

The CES is an initial screening tool used to determine potential
nonattainment area boundaries which can then be modified using
additional information provided by the State or other sources.  EPA has
recommended other types of information for this purpose through guidance
which could be considered in the final decision.

The CES for Lawrence County is lower than those for the other
contributing counties (Cabell, WV; Gallia, OH; Lawrence, OH; Scioto, OH;
Mason, WV; Adams, OH; Wayne, WV; and Boyd, KY) in the area.  However,
EPA does not find that emissions from Lawrence County (50,239 tons of
SO2; 13,761 tons NOx; and 5,134 tons direct PM2.5) are without the
potential to contribute to PM2.5 in the region.  One key source of
emissions located in Lawrence County is the Big Sandy Power Plant.

Kentucky:

The air monitoring data demonstrates attainment of the PM2.5 standard.

EPA Response:

Although there is no ambient monitor in Lawrence County, EPA believes
the resident power plant contributes to the violating monitor in nearby
Cabell County, WV, with a design value of 37 µg/m3.  Thus, the
appropriateness of additional controls for this plant will be evaluated
by the State and EPA during the development of the nonattainment area
plan for this area, as necessary,  in accordance with section 172.
Analysis of all additional data described in the TSD indicates these
counties are contributing to the violating monitor.  Section 107
requires designation of areas that, although not they themselves
violating, are contributing to nearby nonattainment.

The State of Ohio

Ohio:

In its October 2008 letter to EPA, Ohio objected to EPA’s proposed
inclusion of Lawrence and Scioto Counties in the Huntington-Ashland
area.  Specifically, Ohio argued that:

“Lawrence and Scioto Counties have low population and insignificant
commuting traffic.  Moreover, due to the location of the monitor in
Lawrence County, it is likely that the PM2.5 levels being detected are
coming from sources across the Ohio River in West Virginia and
Kentucky.”

In addition, Ohio questioned why EPA would include Lawrence and Scioto
Counties in Ohio, but exclude Greenup County Kentucky from this area.
Ohio argued that this Kentucky County is located across the river from
Lawrence and Scioto, and based upon CES scores and other analytical
tools, Greenup, Boyd, and Lawrence Counties in Kentucky should be
included in the Huntington-Ashland area.

EPA Response:

EPA disagrees with Ohio’s objections to the Huntington-Ashland area.
First, Scioto County is violating the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS based
upon 2005- 2007 monitoring data.  Thus, in accordance with section
107(d), EPA is required to designate that area nonattainment based on
violations not contribution.  Even if EPA were to agree that Scioto has
modest population and commuting, relative to other counties within this
area, the violation of the NAAQS in Scioto overrides those
considerations.   Further, Scioto County’s geographic location and
meteorological relationship to violations in the Huntington-Ashland area
could still render its emissions, population, and commuting sufficient
to conclude that it is contributing to violations in the area as well.

Second, EPA has concluded that Lawrence County, Ohio is contributing to
violations in the Huntington-Ashland area based upon consideration of
various forms of information that indicate it contributes to violations
in the area.  Lawrence County is immediately adjacent to both Scioto
County, Ohio, and Cabell County, West Virginia, each of which is
violating the NAAQS based upon 2005-2007 data.  Emissions inventory
information indicates that emissions from sources in Lawrence are low
relative to other nearby counties with large stationary sources, but
nevertheless are adding to the mix of emissions in the area – over
1,000 tons per year of direct PM2.5 and over 500 tons per year of SO2
and over 3,700 tons per year of NOx.  The nature and sources of this
contribution are reflected by the relatively large population of
Lawrence relative to all other counties in this area (nearly 63,000 –
placing it only behind Cabell and Scioto in population) and the
relatively large amount of commuting to violating counties throughout
the area and large amount of overall VMT indicating contribution from
mobile sources.  The CES scores for this area indicate that Lawrence
County contributes to violations, and contributes nearly as much as
Cabell and Gallia Counties and more than other nearby counties.  EPA has
concluded that the geographic proximity of Lawrence County to violations
in both Cabell and Scioto Counties, the CES score (confirming
contribution), and the relatively high degree of commuting supports
inclusion of Lawrence County, Ohio, within the nonattainment area.  This
will assure that the emissions activities within Lawrence County will be
evaluated and controlled, as appropriate, in the nonattainment area plan
developed for this area as a whole.

Finally, EPA disagrees with Ohio’s contention that inclusion of Scioto
and Lawrence Counties in Ohio necessarily compels the inclusion of
Greenup, Lawrence, and Boyd Counties Kentucky in the Huntington-Ashland
area.  As noted above, Scioto is violating the standard so a comparison
of its relative degree of contribution is not germane.  EPA is including
Boyd County, Kentucky within the area because of its contribution, so
that comparison is likewise does not support Ohio’s argument.
Similarly, EPA is including most of the emissions of Lawrence County,
Kentucky, in the nonattainment area, so that comparison as well does not
support Ohio’s argument.  Only Greenup County is excluded from the
nonattainment area, because on balance its emissions are lower,
particularly for directly emitted particulate matter, than those of
other counties in the area such as Lawrence County.

Ohio:

The State of Ohio objected to EPA’s proposed inclusion of Monroe and
Sprigg Townships, Adams County, and Cheshire Township, Gallia County,
within the nonattainment area for Huntington-Ashland for the 2006
24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS.  In its October 8, 2008, letter, Ohio generally
objected to this on the grounds that “the existence of an electric
generating unit in a township should not be the sole factor in
determining nonattainment.”  More specifically, Ohio argued in that
letter that each of these townships should be excluded because the
source located in each are adequately controlled, or will be in the
future:

”Some emissions from the electric generating units located in Monroe
and Sprigg Townships (Adams Co.) and Cheshire Township (Gallia Co.) are
already controlled with highly efficient control equipment, and other
emissions are expected to be controlled within year 2009.  Besides
electrostatic precipitators, all these units have installed flue gas
desulfurization systems, which are currently operational or will be
operational by July 2009.  Moreover, all the units have SCR systems,
which will be operating for the entire ozone season, controlling and
reducing nitrogen oxides emissions.  In addition, some units, in both
counties, will have SCR equipment in continuous operation (the whole
year) starting in year 2009, increasing the reduction of nitrogen oxides
emissions.”

EPA Response:

See the overview response to comments on power plant issues, located at
the beginning of Section IV.

EPA disagrees with the reasons provided by Ohio for exclusion of each of
these areas from the Huntington-Ashland nonattainment area.  First, Ohio
is incorrect that the “existence” of the source is the sole reason
for EPA’s inclusion of these townships.  EPA’s analysis has
evaluated not just the existence of the source, but also other
considerations including:  the significant quantity of emissions of the
pollutants (including PM2.5 precursors and directly emitted PM2.5) that
speciated PM2.5 data in this nonattainment area show to be of concern;
evidence from the pollution rose for this area that there is
contribution from the direction of this source to the rest of the
nonattainment area; and the CES score that likewise indicates that
emissions from the pertinent townships contribute to violations in the
Huntington-Ashland area.

In the case of Monroe and Sprigg Townships, 2005 emissions inventories
indicated that sources in Adams County emit nearly 6,000 tons per year
of direct PM2.5 and over 126,000 tons of SO2 and over 33,000 tons of NOx
per year.  The vast majority of these emissions came from the J.M.
Stuart and Killen Station coal fired power plants in Monroe and Sprigg
Townships.  These Adams County plants are only about 40 miles from the
violating monitor in Scioto County and about 70 miles from the violating
monitor in Cabell County, West Virginia, distances at which significant
formation of PM2.5 from precursors emitted by these plants would have
occurred.  The technical support document provides pollution roses for
both the Cabell site and the Scioto County site, providing evidence that
the emissions from these plants can be expected on some high
concentration days to have impacts on the violating monitors.

As part of the public comment period, EPA received information from
DP&L, the owner of both plants, indicating that a scrubber had been
installed at the Killen plant in 2007 and scrubbers had been installed
on all four units at the Stuart plant in mid-2008.  EPA is not aware of
any action that has been taken to ensure that the controls on the Killen
unit are federally enforceable at this time, while the controls at the
Stuart plant were installed to satisfy the provisions of a consent
decree.  The consent decree also requires the controls to be required in
a federally-enforceable permit once the consent decree is satisfied.
Based on this information, the emissions in 2009 from these Adams county
plants are estimated to be about 7200 tons SO2 and 20,000 tons NOx.
Taking all of this information into account, EPA finds that the Adams
county plants have taken important steps to reduce emissions.  However,
not all of the controls are federally enforceable and the remaining
emissions are not so small as to be considered to have no contribution.
Based upon this evidence relevant to designations in accordance with
section 107(d), EPA concluded that the emissions from Monroe and Sprigg
Townships are currently still “contributing” to violations in the
Huntington-Ashland area.

In the case of Gallia County, the two largest sources are located in
Cheshire Township:  the Kyger Creek and Gavin coal fired electric
generating plants.  The two units at the Gavin plant have scrubbers and
SCR in place, but 2007 emissions are still substantial:  29,000 tons SO2
and 33,000 tons of NOx.  The five units at the Kyger Creek plant do not
have scrubbers – scrubbers are planned for 2010 – but they do have
SCR installed.  Like the Gavin plant, current 2007 emissions are also
substantial:  57,000 tons SO2, and 13,000 tons NOx.  The plants are
located about 40 miles from the violating monitors in the
Huntington-Ashland area, a distance at which significant formation of
PM2.5 from precursors emitted by these plants can occur.  The pollution
rose and other meteorological data indicate that on high PM2.5 days,
impacts at the violating monitors can come from the direction of these
plants.  Moreover, the CES scores for the Huntington-Ashland area
indicate that there is contribution from emissions in Gallia County to
elevated levels of ambient PM2.5 on days on when winds blow generally
from the direction of those sources to the rest of the
Huntington-Ashland area.  The CES score for Gallia County is 100, the
highest score of any contributing county in the area.  Based upon this
evidence relevant to designations, in accordance with section 107(d),
EPA concluded that emissions from Gallia County are “contributing”
to violations in the Huntington-Ashland area.

In the context of the nonattainment SIP for this area, Ohio will have
the opportunity and the obligation to perform further analysis and
attainment demonstration modeling that can further explore the
contribution of the sources in these townships in Adams and Gallia
Counties, and the appropriate course of action to reduce that amount of
contribution.

EPA also disagrees with Ohio’s conclusions relating to the level of
control of the sources in Monroe, Sprigg, and Cheshire Townships as a
basis for excluding them from the nonattainment area.  As noted above,
EPA has concluded that these sources do factually contribute to the
violations in the nearby area, notwithstanding the current level of
control at these sources.  Under section 107(d), EPA believes that the
level of control of emissions from the source is a relevant inquiry in
the designations process to assure that EPA and the State are using up
to date and accurate emissions information.  EPA does not believe
however that the level of control alone should be used as a basis to
exclude a source that is otherwise deemed to be contributing to the
violations, based upon information such as its amount of emissions,
geographic location, and meteorological connection to the nearby
violating area.  For a source in an area that is violating, or is
contributing to violations of, the NAAQS, the adequacy of control is
more appropriately assessed during the development of the nonattainment
area SIP for an area.  Section 107(d) does not require EPA, in essence,
to construct a mock-up nonattainment area plan and to predetermine
appropriate levels of pollution control on behalf of the State, as a
necessary step in promulgating the designation for the area.  In short,
the level of control of a source does not in isolation answer whether
the source is contributing to the violations.

Ohio provided information on the status of emission controls at four
plants in the Huntington-Ashland area.  Some of the emissions have long
been controlled with effective control equipment, some of the emissions
have become well controlled more recently, and some of these emissions
are expected to be controlled within a few years.  In Gallia County,
Gavin Station has long had control equipment reducing SO2 emissions and
more recently has installed controls to reduce NOx emissions, but
emissions remain high.  Also in Gallia County, Kyger Creek Station is
expected to install SO2 emission controls by 2010, but current emissions
remain high.  In Adams County, JM Stuart is subject to a consent decree
requiring control of both SO2 and NOx.  Also in Adams County, Killen
Station has installed control equipment both for SO2 and for NOx,
although EPA is aware of no enforceable requirement for the company to
operate this equipment, particularly if the D.C. Circuit Court of
Appeals vacates CAIR.  More importantly, even with these controls, total
emissions from these plants remain somewhat high.  The company, in
comments submitted in response to EPA solicitation of public comments,
stated that emissions with control would be approximately 7200 tons per
year of SO2 and 20,000 tons per year of NOx.  The emissions from these
facilities even with controls are sufficient enough that EPA judges that
these facilities contribute to violations in Scioto and Cabell Counties.
 Also of concern is that no permit or other enforceable document
requires operation of the control equipment at Killen Station.
Therefore, EPA is including Monroe and Sprigg Townships in Adams County
and Cheshire Township in Gallia County, along with Scioto and Lawrence
Counties, in the Huntington-Ashland nonattainment area.

By inclusion of these townships within the nonattainment area, Ohio and
EPA will evaluate these sources as part of the development of the
nonattainment area plan to assure that they are adequately controlled,
and controlled in a timely fashion, to provide for expeditious
attainment of the 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS in the area, as required by the
CAA.  This inquiry may conclude that the sources are appropriately
controlled, but that assessment should occur during the proper process
contemplated by the CAA for development of nonattainment area plans.

With respect to future or planned future emissions reductions at these
sources, EPA has concluded that for evaluating contribution for
designations under section 107(d), it is appropriate to look at the
actual level of emissions in the relevant 3 year period, whether 2005
– 2007, or 2006 – 2008 if a State elects to submit additional data
for 2008.  Given the present tense formulation of section 107(d), EPA
does not believe it is appropriate to base designations on projections
of future levels of emissions or controls.  Thus, although EPA supports
the plans for future controls, EPA believes it would be inappropriate to
consider the controls expected in 2010 in Cheshire Township, since these
emissions reductions will happen beyond the period that is appropriate
for consideration in the designations process.  However, these
reductions will occur during the time that Ohio is developing the
nonattainment area plan for this area, and they may properly be taken
into account during that process.  Ohio may conclude, and EPA may
ultimately agree, that these reductions are all that is necessary to
reduce emissions from these specific sources within the PM2.5
nonattainment area plan for Huntington-Ashland, but it would be
inappropriate to prejudge that outcome now.

Imperial County, CA

CARB:

CARB requests that EPA modify the proposed nonattainment area boundaries
to be consistent with California recommendation, that only the City of
Calexico and not the entire Imperial County be designated as
nonattainment for the revised PM2.5 standard.

Population:  The majority of Imperial County is largely unpopulated.
Calexico has 24 percent of the population of Imperial County within its
boundaries with the second largest population and the highest population
density.  The largest population area, El Centro, only nine miles north
of Calexico, is in attainment of the standard.

Calexico accounts for only 5 percent of the population and 4 percent of
the land area of the combined Calexico/Mexicali urban area.  The
population density of Imperial County is less than a fifth of the
Municipality of Mexicali, in an area of roughly the same size.  A
similar situation is faced at the border area of Nogales, Arizona.  This
population disparity was noted by EPA in considering the Nogales area as
a focused nonattainment area for PM2.5, retaining the rest of Santa Cruz
County in attainment.  CARB believes that air quality in the City of
Calexico is similarly overwhelmed by the much larger City of Mexicali
across the border and requests similar consideration.

Transport from the northern portion of Imperial County:  In its
response, EPA showed HYSPLIT model results that implied a contribution
from emissions throughout Imperial County to elevated levels at the
Calexico-Ethel site.  However, other sites in the county showed much
lower concentrations during Calexico exceedance days, indicating that
the high concentrations at Calexico were unlikely to be due to a
northern influence.

Transport from Mexico:  With regard to transport of emissions from
Mexico, in reply to a request from EPA, CARB has supplied a table
showing 2005 Imperial County and Mexicali emissions.  The table shows
the great disparity between Imperial County and Mexicali emissions
including stationary, area and mobile sources.

As noted in the EPA response table, the emissions inventory for Imperial
County shows a 24 percent contribution from carbon.  Chemical
composition data for Calexico specifically from exceedance days at
Calexico show an organic carbon contribution of over 50 percent.  The
seasonal pattern shows the strong wintertime increase in organic carbon.
 We believe the majority of these carbon emissions are the result of
transport from the City and municipality of Mexicali, Mexico where
residential trash and wood burning are largely unregulated.  In
addition, the majority of the exceedance days occurred during the
December/January time period when there are increased volumes of smoke
across the border.

EPA Response:

As requested by EPA, CARB provided additional information showing that
the PM2.5 emissions in the Calexico area are different from those in the
rest of Imperial County.  The 2007 emission inventory for the entire
Imperial County indicates the major sources are fugitive windblown dust,
unpaved road dust and farming operations.  The violating monitor in
Calexico indicates that PM2.5 is 48 percent organic carbon and 22
percent ammonium nitrate.  This speciation data indicates that primary
sources in Calexico are residential and/or open burning and mobile
sources.  These sources correlate with population centers and location
of major highways.

California has noted that emissions from activities in Mexicali and at
the border crossing contribute significantly to PM2.5 levels in
Calexico.  The Calexico population is 30,000, compared to 1 million in
Mexicali, Mexico.   Heavy truck traffic at the border crossing
contributes to mobile source emissions.  The data also show that the
high levels of PM2.5 emissions occur primarily in the winter months when
residents south of the border heavily depend on wood as a fuel source.

EPA agrees that the PM2.5 designation for Imperial County should be
limited to the areas where local sources account for the contribution to
the fine particle levels on exceedance days.  Therefore, EPA redefined
the PM2.5 nonattainment area in Imperial County to encompass those areas
within Imperial County that contain the bulk of the sources of PM2.5 and
PM2.5 precursor emissions, which EPA has concluded are located primarily
in the the cities of Calexico, El Centro and Brawley and environs.
This nonattainment area covers 690 square miles, or 15 percent of the
entire County, and it captures 86 percent of the population, as well as
all major highways and stationary sources.

The Torres Martinez Desert Cahuilla Indians Reservation

Torres Martinez:

The Torres Martinez Tribe asks EPA to consider a possible designation
for the Torres Martinez Reservation as “unclassifiable” rather than
nonattainment for the 2006 PM2.5 air quality standard because the
following factors that EPA used in its analysis do not accurately
reflect the true nature of the Torres Martinez Reservation.

The Torres Martinez Air monitoring station does not have a PM2.5
analyzer and has not monitored for PM2.5.  This should be enough for a
non-classifiable determination for a PM2.5 designation for the Torres
Martinez Tribe.

The emissions data that EPA used to determine a nonattainment status for
the Reservation was based mainly from the Calexico Ethel Street air
monitoring site in Imperial County.  That air monitoring site is
approximately 85 miles from the Headquarters of the Torres Martinez
Tribe.  The Torres Martinez air program staff believes that the South
Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) site in Indio in
Riverside County, which is located about 13 miles from Tribal
Headquarters, would be a more appropriate PM2.5 database to draw
conclusions from.

   The Torres Martinez Reservation is located in the Eastern Valley, not
the Imperial

   Valley, as EPA’s designation proposal factors illustrate.

EPA Response:

The Torres-Martinez Reservation spans both Imperial and Riverside
Counties.  The nearest PM2.5 monitor to the tribal area is the Indio
monitoring station operated by South Coast AQMD (SCAQMD) in Riverside
County.  The design value for the Indio site (for 2005-07) is 24 ug/m3,
which is below the standard of 35 ug/m3.  The Tribe states that tribal
lands are located in the eastern valley and that the SCAQMD monitoring
data are more representative for their circumstances.  EPA appreciates
the clarification.  The Tribe also states that the Torres Martinez
Reservation does not have a PM2.5 monitor.  If a tribe has no data of
its own, EPA looks to the nearest monitoring sites for an indication of
the air quality in the vicinity of the tribe.  In this case, as the
Tribe has pointed out, the nearest monitors are operated by SCAQMD and
the monitor in Indio is not violating the PM2.5 standard.  Consequently,
EPA believes that a designation of attainment/unclassifiable is
appropriate for the Torrez-Martinez Tribe.

Torres Martinez:

While jurisdictional boundaries facilitate planning and organizational
structure for air quality mitigation, it is the opinion of the Torres
Martinez Environmental Department that NAAQS pollutants be considered on
a one-by-one basis and not grouped with other pollutants for designation
proposals.

EPA Response:

EPA considers pollutants on a one-by-one basis.  The pollutants are
those specifically mentioned in the CAA, namely, carbon monoxide, ozone,
sulfur dioxide, nitrogen dioxides, lead and particulates.  EPA sets the
standards for each of these pollutants and makes designations based on
whether areas are meeting or violating the separate standards.  However,
jurisdictional boundaries are a factor in the decision-making process,
including existing boundaries for other pollutants.

Indianapolis, IN

Indiana:

Indiana strongly believes that a number of Indiana counties were
improperly designated as nonattainment under the annual PM2.5 standard.
Indiana cites the outer counties of the Indianapolis area as an example
in which the counties are attaining the standard and area and mobile
sources are not culpable for the urban excess once measured in the core
county.

EPA Response:

This is not the appropriate forum for challenging designations for the
annual PM2.5 standard.  At issue is whether counties that are monitoring
attainment are nevertheless contributing to violations nearby.  As noted
above, evidence with respect to Indianapolis indicates that the area
continues to monitor a significant urban increment, and, contrary to
Indiana’s assertion, sources in the counties designated nonattainment
contribute to the violations recorded in the violating county.

Indiana:

The monitors within Marion County that the surrounding counties would
influence the most measure air quality below the standard.  EPA should
review the 2006-2008 monitoring data prior to designating any counties
to nonattainment.  Not only will the designation of non-contributing
counties in Central Indiana be unnecessary and serve no air
quality-related purpose, it will result in a tremendous amount of
unnecessary work for the Indiana Department of Environmental Management
(IDEM) and EPA in redesignating the area shortly after designations are
effective.

EPA Response:

Proximity to monitors measuring attainment suggests that the counties
are not by themselves causing violations measured at more distant
monitors, but these facts do not refute EPA’s findings that these
counties have an impact at the violating monitors that warrants
concluding that the counties contribute to the violation.  EPA plans to
review 2006 to 2008 data (if available from the State) and apply an
attainment designation if all monitors in the area are found to be
measuring attainment.  Also, EPA is not designating any noncontributing
counties as nonattainment.  If the Indianapolis area is in fact
designated nonattainment, the designation as nonattainment of Marion
County and the four additional counties that contribute to violations in
Marion County will facilitate the important air quality planning that
the CAA requires for such areas.

Juneau, AK

Alaska:

After reviewing the available data and EPA’s analyses, the Alaska
Department of Environmental Conservation (ADEC) believes the available
scientific evidence does not support EPA’s boundary recommendations
which substantially expand upon those recommended by us.  ADEC believes
public health will be protected and the applicable legal requirements
met by taking the actions described in Alaska’s letter.  For Juneau,
we are requesting EPA revisit certain assumptions and include data from
2008 before making a final decision on whether a nonattainment
designation is warranted, and if so, the appropriate boundaries of the
nonattainment area.

EPA has presented no data demonstrating a need to expand the State’s
proposed PM2.5 nonattainment boundary.  A combination of population
density and topographical data shows there are several distinct airsheds
within Juneau.  The meteorology data show there was no transport from
any of those airsheds into the Mendenhall Valley prior to or during high
concentration episodes.  Vehicle travel into Juneau from outside areas
during the winter is essentially nonexistent and traffic count data
demonstrate that travel within Juneau declined over the past decade.
The available monitoring data show that concentrations within the
Mendenhall Valley are largely the result of combustion emissions during
the winter and that design values for Lemon Creek did not exceed the
24-hour PM2.5 standard.  To address the concern about elevated PM2.5
concentrations recorded within the Mendenhall Valley, a new ordinance
was implemented to call for burn bans when concentrations approached the
standard.  Finally, an analysis of monitoring data recorded in the
Mendenhall Valley suggests that the 2005–2007 design value does not
exceed the 24-hour PM2.5 standard.

EPA Response:

After EPA promulgated the latest PM2.5 NAAQS in December 2006, States
were required to submit recommendation for area designations by
December, 2007 based on PM2.5 monitoring data from 2004-2006.  Based on
this data Juneau was in attainment of the 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS.  However,
the monitor in Mendenhall Valley measured several exceedances in
December 2007.  A preliminary review of the 2005-2007 PM2.5 monitoring
data in April 2008, indicated that the area may potentially be in
violation of the 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS.  Based on this review, EPA invited
the State to provide a recommendation for the Juneau area based on a
through technical analysis of the data.  The State submitted its
recommendation for the Juneau area in June 2008, as nonattainment for
the PM2.5 24-hour standard based on the monitoring data and recommended
the old PM10 nonattainment area boundary as the PM2.5 boundary without
any further technical justification.  In its letter modifying States
recommendation sent to the State of Alaska on August 18, 2008, EPA used
data from 2005-2007 and available data at its disposal to designate the
area nonattainment and drew the boundaries to include all potential
sources that could contribute to a violation of the PM2.5 24-hour
standards at the Mendenhall Valley monitor.

Generally, the CAA requires EPA to designate as nonattainment areas
those which are violating the standard “or portions thereof”.  And
while commonly, and only as a point of departure, EPA relies on county
boundaries (or in some instances CSA or CBSA boundaries) in designating
nonattainment areas, where, based upon the unique facts and
circumstances of a particular area and analyses of relevant technical
and factual information it is shown to EPA’s satisfaction based upon
those analyses that only a portion of a county or jurisdictional area is
violating or contributing to a violation, we will designate less than a
whole county or jurisdictional area.  This we believe the State of
Alaska to have done.  On the 20th of October 2008, the State
supplemented its response to EPA’s recommendation and submitted a
comprehensive technical analysis using the types of information
recommended by EPA in its guidance.  These analyses included, among
other analyses, information recommended by the nine factor approach, to
identify the sources that contribute to violations of the PM2.5
standards at the Mendenhall Valley FRM for the years 2005-2007.  After
analyzing all available monitoring data form the Mendenhall Valley FRM
for the years 2005-2007, EPA has determined that area is in violation of
the PM2.5 NAAQS.  After carefully reviewing the relevant information, as
explained in EPA’s TSD for the Juneau area, EPA concurs with the State
of Alaska that the existing PM10 boundary in Juneau constitutes an
appropriate boundary for the PM2.5 nonattainment area also.  This means
that sources that contribute to the violation of the 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS
are within this boundary and controlling those sources will help the
area attain the 24-hour PM2.5 standards expeditiously see the TSD for
Juneau area.  EPA notes that it has not chosen these boundaries because
they applied for the PM10 NAAQS, but rather because EPA has determined
that the same area happens to be sufficient to include the violating and
contributing areas for Juneau, given the very unusual topographical and
meteorological considerations of this area.

Alaska:

The State requests that EPA revisit the design value calculation to
determine if, in fact, there is a PM2.5 nonattainment area in Juneau.
Second, the State requests EPA consider all 2008 data and recalculate
the design value for the 2006-2008 period to insure that the area is
clearly nonattainment.  Finally, if it is determined that there is
justification for a nonattainment area, the State recommends that EPA
adopt the existing PM10 nonattainment area for the Mendenhall Valley.

In a conversation with Neil Frank (Senior Advisor EPA/OAR/OAQPS/AQAD)
during the recent AQS conference in Milwaukee (August 2008), Barbara
Trost (Acting Air Monitoring Program Manager, Alaska Department of
Environmental Conservation/Air Quality) explained the State’s concern
and objection to how the design values for the Floyd Dryden site in
Juneau had been calculated.  Mr. Frank indicated that consecutive
sampling days should not be included in the design value calculation.
Given that Mr. Frank believed that the calculation of the Juneau design
value may be flawed and considering the information provided above, the
State respectfully requests that EPA review and revisit the Juneau
design value to ensure that it has been properly calculated with respect
to the national ambient air quality standard.

EPA Response:

40 CFR 58.12 "Operating schedules" of the monitoring regulations
provides opportunity for States to request approval for seasonal
sampling from the EPA Regional Administrator and Appendix N to 40 CFR
Part 50 has a provision for computing "the annual 98th percentile values
when sampling frequencies are seasonal."  In light of the extra
collected samples, in addition to those required with the routine once
in three day schedule, EPA reconsidered the 2005-07 Juneau design value
to verify if the Juneau data would be eligible for this alternative
computational approach.

Upon review, EPA determined that the data do not conform to a seasonal
sampling schedule.  The Juneau sampling approach was not described in
the State monitoring plan and it did not receive prior approval by the
EPA Regional Office.  Furthermore, the reported sampling days do not
appear to follow a systematic plan and the reasons for sampling on some
extra days and not other extra days were not provided with the State
comments.  In particular, the relationship between extra sampling days
and potential for high concentrations is not known.  Given the lack of
specific documentation and prior approval for the realized sampling
plan, EPA does not have a basis to use 40 CFR Part 50, Appendix N,
Section 4.5(a)(2) .  Consequently, EPA used the "Regular procedure for
identifying annual 98th percentile values," as described in Appendix N,
Section 4.5(a)(1).  Based on this finding, the Juneau Design Value does
indicate a violation of the 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS.  Accordingly, as
explained above, EPA has determined that the existing PM10 boundary in
Juneau constitutes an appropriate boundary for the PM2.5 nonattainment
area also.

Klamath Falls, OR

Oregon:

Oregon recommends the Klamath Falls Air Quality Zone (AQZ) as the
nonattainment boundary and provided significant additional technical
information justifying this boundary.

EPA Response:

EPA agrees with the State’s recommendation of using the AQZ as the
boundary of the Klamath Falls nonattainment area (NAA).  Oregon provided
additional technical information on population and woodstove density,
land use, area photographs, PM2.5 filter analysis, and meteorology.  As
discussed in the TSD to this action, EPA agrees with the State and now
believes that only the Klamath Falls AQZ should be designated
nonattainment based on EPA’s conclusion that areas outside of the
Klamath Falls AQZ are not contributing to the violating monitor.  EPA
agrees that the bulk of potential contributing residential and
industrial sources are within the AQZ.

EPA considered a partial county boundary in situations where a unique
situation is shown to exist in a county in which the sources captured by
the partial county boundary account for nearly all of the total fine
particle mass on exceedance days.  In such cases, given compelling
evidence, EPA considered designations of partial counties to be
appropriate.  EPA selected the boundaries for these partial county
nonattainment areas by relying on legally recognized governmental
boundaries (e.g., townships) in which the sources are located.  For the
Klamath Falls nonattainment area, EPA used township-range to closely
match the Air Quality Zone.

Knoxville-Sevierville-LaFollette, TN

Tennessee:

The State of Tennessee accepts EPA’s proposed Greater Knoxville area
boundaries under one condition:  EPA should not determine final
designations of the Knoxville area boundaries until all data flag
requests have been resolved.  In their response letter, dated October
20, 2008, the State of Tennessee claims that a number of flags have been
requested yet no replies have been issued.  The State of Tennessee
believes that, even if no data flags are approved, Knox, Anderson,
Blount, London, and Roane counties are very likely to achieve attainment
based on 2006 through 2008 design values.

EPA Response:

EPA has reviewed flagged data that was collected in 2007 and does not
concur with the flagged data for Knoxville because a public review and
comment period was not conducted as required by the Exceptional Events
rule.  For an event to qualify as an exceptional event, the
demonstration submitted to EPA must meet all the procedural and
substantive requirements of the Exceptional Events Rule at 40 CFR 50.1
and 50.14.  EPA prepared a response to the exceptional event
demonstration and mailed it on November 21, 2008, to the Knox County
Department of Health and to the State of Tennessee.

Tennessee:

The Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) will have scrubbers online at Bull
Run Fossil Plant by the end of 2008 and, in two phases, at the Kingston
Fossil Plant in 2009 and 2010.

EPA Response:

See the overview response to comments on power plant issues, located at
the beginning of Section IV.

The CAA requires that a nonattainment area must include not only the
area that is violating the standard, but also nearby areas that
contribute to the violation.  Thus, for each monitor or group of
monitors that indicate violations of a standard, EPA is establishing
nonattainment boundaries that cover a sufficiently large area to include
both the area that violates the standard and the areas that contribute
to the violations.

The Greater Knoxville area includes the Bull Run plant in Anderson
county (2007 emissions:  40,000 tons SO2 and 12,000 tons NOx) and the
Kingston plant in Roane county (2007 emissions:  51,000 tons SO2 and
12,000 tons NOx).  All of Anderson county and a partial county area
around the Kingston plant were designated as part of the Knoxville PM2.5
nonattainment area in 2005.  While the State anticipates installation
and operation of scrubber units at the Bull Run Fossil Plant by the end
of 2008, similar controls at the Kingston Fossil Plant will not be
operational until 2010.  EPA must judge whether current emission levels,
supported by current regulations that provide assurance of continued
operation of existing controls, contribute to existing violations.
Furthermore, Tennessee has indicated agreement with EPA’s
nonattainment designation for the Greater Knoxville area upon resolution
of all monitoring data flags.  As stated above, EPA has reviewed flagged
data that was collected in 2007 and does not concur with the flagged
data for Knoxville.

Logan, UT-ID

Utah:

Creation of a multi-State nonattainment area for Cache County and
Franklin County will unnecessarily complicate the planning process by
the duplication of agencies on either side of the State border.

EPA Response:

We note that the State initially made their comment as a suggestion in
the October comment letter but subsequently expressed further opposition
during a meeting with EPA personnnel to the combination of portions of
Cache County and Franklin County as one nonattainment area.  Rather than
complicating air quality planning, EPA believes that designating these
two counties as a single nonattainment area will help ensure the
coordination of SIP planning.  There are numerous examples nationwide of
multi-State and multi-jurisdictional nonattainment areas that have been
successfully working together on attainment plans for meeting the
standard for many years.  Where areas in two different jurisdictions
contribute to nonattainment, EPA believes the most effective way to
achieve timely attainment is for the areas to work together to produce
one air quality plan that addresses pollution activities in both
jurisdictions.

Utah:

EPA produced pollution rose diagrams for the Cache Valley using
non-local weather stations.  Wind data from ASOS stations located at the
Salt Lake City International Airport and Pocatello Regional Airport
(both greater than 100 km away from the Cache Valley) were used as
surrogates for wind in the Cache Valley.  EPA did not discuss why local
wind data from the AWOS station at Logan Airport (KLGU) or data from the
DAQ Logan monitor was not used.  The topography that controls the
diurnal variations in wind speed and direction in the Cache Valley is
completely different than that of the topography surrounding Salt Lake
City and Pocatello.  Further, using data from meteorological stations
separated by over 200 km to represent wind conditions for locations
separated by 35 km within the Cache Valley is not technically defendable
(e.g., see the 90 degree difference in wind direction for pollution
roses in Attachment 2, Appendix 1.B).  For these reasons, the pollution
rose diagrams produced by EPA must be removed as a technical
justification for any argument put forth.

EPA Response:

Nationally, EPA used the nearest ASOS station to violating monitors to
represent pollution roses during exceedance episodes at those monitors.
These pollution roses were created in a national analysis to provide a
consistent approach and data set for use in all areas.  These wind roses
were only one factor EPA considered in making designations, and were
more significant in analyses where they were located close to the
violating monitor.  Specifically in the Cache Valley, the pollution rose
played a relatively small role in decisions relative to the Cache Valley
nonattainment area boundaries.  The Cache Valley is the prototypical
trapped valley: a flat basin nearly surrounded by high mountain ridges.
Thus, the boundary would be as EPA and Utah recommended independent of
the choice of wind rose.  The only modification to boundaries occurred
in Idaho in EPA’s response to the Idaho boundary proposal presenting
data showing that a smaller area than the entire county contributed to
the violating monitor.

Utah:

The mixing height data for Cache Valley that shows average mixing
heights of about 1000 feet during PM2.5 episodes may not be accurate.
The State cites alternative data from mountain side temperature sensors
indicating that the mixing height is more complex than EPA described and
may be as low as 300 feet.

EPA Response:

We acknowledge that vertical temperature profiles may vary by
time-of-day and episode and that the mixing depth during episodes in
Cache Valley may typically be lower than those that form in the Wasatch
Front.  We believe the vertical temperature information from Utah State
will be helpful in PM2.5 attainment planning for the Cache Valley.
However, horizontal transport of emissions between the Cache Valley
portions of Franklin County, Idaho and Cache County, UT will occur
regardless of the mixing depth since there is no topographic feature
that will inhibit air movement between the two areas within the valley.
Thus mixing height is not a major factor in determining whether a
portion of Franklin County, ID should be included within a single
non-attainment area.

Louisville, KY-IN

The State of Kentucky

Kentucky:

To have Bullitt and Jefferson Counties designated nonattainment would
invoke additional, substantial, unnecessary requirements on local
government planning agencies, especially in Bullitt County where a
thorough review of information shows the County is being impacted by
emissions coming from outside the County.  Drastic emission reductions
are scheduled to occur in the mobile sector throughout the next several
years that will greatly impact pollutant levels in the area.  Couple
these changes with those anticipated by the CAIR, or its replacements,
provisions which will further reduce SOx and NOx emissions within the
region, and the air monitoring data demonstrating attainment of the
PM2.5 standard, and the result should be that these counties be
designated attainment for the PM2.5 standard.

EPA Response:

EPA’s 9-factor analysis has determined that emissions from Bullitt
County contribute to nonattainment in adjacent Jefferson County, and
monitoring data shows Bullitt and Jefferson Counties to be violating the
24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS.  Therefore, it is appropriate to include these
Counties in the Louisville nonattainment area.  It may be true that
emissions from outside Bullitt County are also contributing to the
violations monitored in the county, but section 107 requires designation
of all areas that are currently violating the standard regardless of
where the emissions are coming from.  EPA believes that consideration of
all nine factors compels designating these counties nonattainment,
consistent with the existing nonattainment boundary for the annual PM2.5
standard.  As stated in Section V, EPA determined violations of the 2006
24-hour fine particulate NAAQS based solely on the most recent three
complete years of certified monitoring data.  As required by the Act,
EPA is setting boundaries based on available data and analysis that best
represents present-day conditions, and not on projected emissions
reductions that may occur after designation areas are finalized.

The State of Kentucky makes the following points as additional rationale
for excluding Bullitt County from the Louisville nonattainment area.

Kentucky:

Kentucky believes that EPA’s use of the CES approach was skewed.  A
review of actual percentages of emissions contributions to an area shows
that Bullitt County does not have the potential to contribute to PM2.5
levels within the region.

EPA Response:

The CES is an initial screening tool used to determine potential
nonattainment area boundaries which can then be modified using
additional information provided by the State or other sources.  EPA has
recommended other types of information for this purpose through guidance
which could be considered in the final decision.

The CES for Bullitt County is lower than those for other contributing
counties (Jefferson, KY; Floyd, IN; and Clark, IN) in the area, but
higher than that of one other county (Jefferson, IN).  However, EPA does
not find that emissions from this County (857 tons of SO2, 3,140 tons
NOx, and 1,318 tons direct PM2.5) are without the potential to
contribute to PM2.5 in the region.  In addition, the ambient monitor in
Bullitt County shows a violation of the 24-hour PM2.5 standard and thus
Bullitt County must be included within the nonattainment area.

Kentucky:

Emissions data, population, and commuter data show that the actual
percentage of contribution from Bullitt County itself is exceptionally
low compared to other counties within the region.  This analysis
actually points to Bullitt County monitor being impacted by emissions
from somewhere else within the region.

EPA Response:

EPA agrees that that Bullitt County is likely being impacted by
emissions coming from outside the County as well as those from within
the County.  However, Section 107(d)(1)(A)(i) of the Act specifies that
a nonattainment area shall include “any area that does not meet (or
that contributes to ambient air quality in a nearby area that does not
meet) the national primary or secondary ambient air quality standard for
the pollutant.”  The design value for the Bullitt County monitor,
based on 2005 – 2007 data, is 36 µg/m3, which is in violation of the
24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS.  Thus, Bullitt County must be designated
nonattainment as violating the NAAQS even if the violation is caused in
large part by emissions from outside the county.

Kentucky:

The air monitoring data demonstrates attainment of the PM2.5 Standard
and a downward trend in monitored values.

EPA Response:

After review of all flagged data and exceptional events claims submitted
by the Commonwealth of Kentucky, EPA has determined the 2005-2007
24-hour PM2.5 design value for Bullitt County to be 36 µg/m3, which is
in violation of the NAAQS.  EPA also notes this design value is actually
an upward trend from Bullitt County’s 2004-2006 design value of 34
µg/m3.

The State of Kentucky makes the following points as additional rationale
for excluding Jefferson County from the Louisville nonattainment area.

Kentucky:

EPA should have determined that the correct data were being used for the
VMT assessment.  Also the VMT data should include locally derived
current data which would give a more accurate picture.

EPA Response:

For 2005, a full VMT database at the county, roadway type, and vehicle
type level of detail was developed from Federal Highway Administration
(FHWA) information.  For States and local areas that submitted VMT data
that were incorporated in the 2002 NEI, the 2002 NEI VMT data were grown
to 2005 using growth factors developed from the FHWA data, and these
grown VMT data replaced the baseline FHWA-based VMT data.  The resulting
VMT database prepared for 2005 include data for all 50 States, the
District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands for each of
the 12 Highway Performance Modeling System (HPMS) functional roadway
types and the 28 MOBILE6 vehicle classes, for a total of 336 records per
year per county.  The data were prepared in the NMIM National County
Database BaseYearVMT table format. At this point, States also had
opportunity to submit 2005 estimates that replaced EPA's estimates for
2005.  EPA believes that it used the most accurate data available for
characterizing VMT in the area.

Kentucky:

Each monitor in the Louisville area would meet the daily standard if EPA
approves Kentucky’s submitted exceptional events flags.

EPA Response:

EPA’s response to Kentucky’s comments on our review of the
Commonwealth’s Exceptional Events submittal for Louisville is provided
below.

Kentucky:

The air monitoring data demonstrates attainment of the PM2.5 Standard
and a downward trend in monitored values.

EPA Response:

After review of all flagged data and exceptional events claims submitted
by the Commonwealth of Kentucky, EPA has determined the 2005-2007
24-hour PM2.5 design value for Jefferson County to be 39 µg/m3, which
is in violation of the NAAQS.  EPA also notes this design value is
actually an upward trend from Jefferson County’s 2004-2006 design
value of 36 µg/m3.

Review of Kentucky’s Comments on EPA’s Exceptional Events Review for
Louisville

Comments on Step 1 Monthly Average Comparison:

Kentucky:

Annual variations in measured monthly means especially in urban settings
not appropriate in every event.

EPA Response:

EPA believes that typical monthly averages over several years give a
good overall initial picture of the normal concentrations during the
specified time period.  Another analysis method is to center the day in
question over 30 days and then average that across several similar time
periods to get a 'normal' concentration base for comparison.  Other
approaches we used considered the variability within each month.
Accordingly, we used the upper 84th percentile against which we judged
air quality for the event day under consideration.  The 84th percentile
is approximately one standard deviation from the mean and was chosen as
a convenient way to initially identify concentrations which are higher
than typical values.

Kentucky:

Kentucky believes EPA’s use of 24-hour NAAQS as the upper benchmark
appears to be in conflict with the guidance provided in 72 FR 13570, Use
of a “But For” Test, 2.  Final Rule.

EPA Response:

EPA considered all values which exceeded or violated the annual or
24-hour NAAQS.  In the two-step analysis values that did not exceed the
24-hour NAAQS and for which the site monthly average was at or above the
annual NAAQS did not meet the screening criteria of the analysis.
However, in our response, it is stated that the two-step analysis is
used only as a screening tool, not as a determinative tool, to identify
which values are more likely to meet the requirements of the Exceptional
Events Rule.  EPA analyzed each claimed exceptional event to determine
whether it caused an exceedance or a violation consistent with the
requirements of the exceptional events rule.

Kentucky:

EPA calculated 95th percentile values that do not agree with
Kentucky’s calculated 95th percentile values.  Explanation of how
EPA’ values were calculated is requested.

EPA Response:

EPA does not specify a method for daily PM2.5 NAAQS calculations, but
for our purposes of evaluating exceptional events submittals the Excel
spread sheet formulas was used.  There are many common approaches for
estimating the percentiles. For the purposes of this analysis, EPA finds
the Excel formula to be appropriate.  Excel uses the following formula:

	vp = vk + d(vk + 1 - vk)

	Where:	p is the percentile of the dataset (i.e.  95 or 84)

		vp is the pth percentile of an ordered dataset

		vk is the kth value in the ordered dataset

		N is the number of values in the dataset

		k is the integer component of n

		d is the decimal component of n

		(k+d=n)

Comments on EPA denial on July 4, 2004 Submittal:

Kentucky:

EPA states that the Louisville Metropolitan Air Control District (LMACD)
did not clearly demonstrate a clear causal relationship between the
measured concentration and the event.

EPA Response:

EPA notes that the impacts from the fireworks did not cause the
exceedance, as demonstrated in the Sonoma Technology analysis (attached
in the TSD), therefore, §50.1(j)(B) and (D) of the exceptional events
rule requiring a clear causal relationship to qualify as an exceptional
event were not met.

Kentucky:

Kentucky believes EPA’s two-step analysis that uses monthly means to
determine if the event meets requirement C under the definition of an
exceptional event is inappropriate for fireworks.

EPA Response:

Although EPA screened the event using the two-step analysis as stated,
each of the firework events were analyzed independently by both EPA
Regional staff, OAQPS and by Sonoma Technology, Inc. In the exceptional
event attachment to the TSD, we explain that the two-step analysis and
the inclusion of the  monthly means  is used only as a screening tool,
and not as a determinative tool, to identify which values are more
likely to meet the requirements of the Exceptional Event Rule.  EPA’s
finding considered its own analyses together with the evidence provided
by the State.

Comments on EPA’s denial of July 3-4, 2005 submittal:

Kentucky:

There is an error in Table 2 for AQS ID 21-111-0051.  The observed
concentration of 28.9 occurred on 7/03/05 not 7/04/05.

EPA Response:

EPA concurs and has corrected this error.

Kentucky:

Kentucky contends that continuous instruments meet requirement B and
provide evidence of “But For” which meets requirement D of the
exceptional events rule.

EPA Response:

The empirical data collected by the continuous instruments without
analysis of the data does not meet the requirements of §50.1(j)(B) and
(D) or of the procedural and substantive requirements of 50.14 of the
Exceptional Events Rule.  EPA concludes that the fireworks did not cause
an exceedance or a violation, as demonstrated in the Sonoma Technology
analysis entitled Exceptional Events Analysis Louisville, Kentucky,
September 30, 2008 (attached to the TSD).

Comments on EPA’s denial of July 3-4, 2006 submittal:

Kentucky:

EPA’s denial appears to be based on monthly means and concentrations
below 35 μg/m3.  EPA concurred with a value of 31.4 μg/m3 for the
Jeffersonville, IN monitor for the same event.

EPA Response:

Although EPA screened the event using the two-step analysis as stated,
each of the firework events were analyzed independently by both EPA
Regional and OAQPS staff and by Sonoma Technology, Inc. For the review
of these analyses, EPA concludes that the fireworks did not cause an
exceedance or violation of the NAAQS. This is explained in the
attachment to the TSD.

Comments on November 11-12, 2005 Fort Knox Range Fire:

Kentucky:

The observed concentrations for 21-111-0044 on 11/11/2005 should be
28.8.  There was no sample collected for site 21-111-0048 on 11/11/2005.

EPA Response:

EPA concurs and has corrected this error.

Comments on July 21, 2004 Events:

Kentucky:

The data in Table 5 is incorrect.  Incorrect data was used in EPA’s
analysis therefore, EPA should reanalyze the event.

EPA Response:

EPA used the Kentucky Technical Demonstration submittal for conducting
all data analysis for Kentucky’s request for exclusion of flagged data
due to exceptional events.  A review of the evidence provided by
Kentucky and the research done by Regional staff confirms that the
correct data was used during the analysis of the event on July 21, 2004.
(See attachment to TSD)  The error occurred inputting the data into
tables for the TSD.  The tables were copied from one event to the next
and modified to enter the data specific for each event.  As such, the
error was not material and did not affect the analysis of the event.
The error was a typographical error, has been corrected and does not
affect the outcome of the analysis of the event.

Kentucky:

The Statement “The NOAA satellite smoke maps show no smoke plume
coverage over the Louisville, KY- IN MSA from the 20th through the 25th
of July 2004” is misleading.  The maps were used to show that a smoke
plume had passed through the area during the event.

EPA Response:

EPA is correcting its TSD to indicate that the maps do show a smoke
plume. Although the smoke map shows that the plume passed over the area,
however, there is no evidence that the smoke left the higher elevations
and reached ground level where it then impacted the air quality.  The
Sonoma analysis supports EPA’s conclusion.  The summary for this event
is in  Sonoma’s Exceptional Event Analysis Louisville, Kentucky, page
13, which states that the “trajectory does not support long-range
transport of PM2.5 from Canada/Alaska to Louisville.”

Comments on Sep 8-13, 2005 Event:

Kentucky:

The event was influenced by wildfires in two separate regions and
therefore the demonstration for smoke impact from Arkansas, Mississippi,
Texas and the Northeastern United States.

EPA Response:

EPA understands that Kentucky meant that the event was influenced by
wildfires from Arkansas, Mississippi, Texas and the North Western United
States as indicated by HYSPLIT Model for September 7-10, 2005.
Satellite images depict smoke plumes at very high elevations; Kentucky
did not provide any evidence to indicate that the smoke reached ground
level where it would then impact air quality.  The Sonoma analysis
further supports EPA’s conclusion.  The summary for this event is in
Sonoma’s Exceptional Event Analysis Louisville, Kentucky, page 40,
which states that the “trajectories do not show a clear impact from
the fire area on the Louisville areas.”

Kentucky:

The assumption that the contribution of organic carbon has to be high
enough to cause the exceedance ignores the contribution of other
chemical species that may be attributed to the wildfire smoke.

EPA Response:

EPA calculated organic mass increment using the following formula:

OMI = 2x(OCobserved - OCaverage) as explained on page 14 of the
Louisville TSD.  This calculation uses a multiplier of 2.0 to
approximate the total PM2.5 mass associated with smoke from wildfires
(Turpin and Lim 2001).  Kentucky did not provide any evidence that
non-carbonaceous components resulted from the fire or contributed to an
exceedance.

Kentucky:

The Heading September 13, 2006 for the chart is incorrect.  It should be
September 13, 2005.

EPA Response:

EPA concurs and has corrected this error.

Comments on July 18-20, 2006 Event:

Kentucky:

EPA states the HYSPLIT backward trajectory does not indicate the air
mass traveling from the Kansas Wildfires.  Kentucky contends that the
trajectory begins in the area portion of the plume on July 16th.

EPA Response:

Satellite images depict smoke plumes at very high elevations; Kentucky
did not provide any evidence to indicate that the smoke reached ground
level where it would then impact air quality.  The Sonoma analysis
supports EPA’s conclusion.  The summary for this event indicate that
back- trajectories indicate stagnant conditions, and source impact
trajectories do not show a clear impact from the fire area sites,
including July 16th.

Kentucky:

The assumption that the contribution of organic carbon has to be high
enough to cause the exceedance ignores the contribution of other