Comment Follow-up from the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources

"Lopez, Robert W - DNR" <Robert.Lopez@Wisconsin.gov> 01/14/2007 02:44 PM Subject: RE: Monitoring Data and Trends - Grand Rapids-Muskegon-Holland CSA Doug and John, Follow-up to my prior comment from Friday, January 12, 2007; RE: Appropriate Monitor location and 2001-03 Data Correction?? As an FYI, EPA's designation site shows the Ottawa/Kent Co portion of the greater Metro area as having a 2001-03 DV of 89. Many calculation shows the Jennison monitor to be the driving design site if considering just these two counties. Its DV for that period is 90, not 89 [86+93+91]. In terms of monitor location, the string of 4 monitors going into and downwind of the heart of the Grand Rapids metro area depends on the Holland site being the lakeshore site (obviously located in Allegan Co). There is no lakeshore or even near lakeshore monitor in Ottawa Co. If there were, it would clearly indicate ozone values closer to the levels monitored in the adjacent county north (Muskegon) or the adjacent county south (Allegan). EPA had previously approved Michigan's ozone monitoring plans with the understanding that the metro area would be designated as a single area including all 4 counties. This only makes sense since all the counties contain urbanized areas and together encompass 1 million plus in population. Their metropolitan connections are clear in the driving/commuting statistics and the emissions statistics. EPA understood this when proposing the 8-hour designations based on the full metro area. EPA utilized technical justifications for splitting the area into separate pieces that did not and do not fit the criteria required in EPA's standing guidance. However, if EPA feels the need to split the areas, then it should require a more protective monitor location for a monitor in Ottawa Co. ALL the Lake Michigan ozone modeling indicates higher expected ozone concentrations impacting the population of that county the closer it is to the lakeshore. If classification is based on either the Holland or Muskegon site, then that test is met (hence the earlier monitoring plan approval). If not, then Michigan and EPA aren't providing adequate air quality protection to the residents where the worse impact has been consistently demonstrated. The circumstance is really no different between the western Lake Michigan shoreline and the eastern Lake Michigan shoreline. Bob Lopez _____________________________________________ From: Lopez, Robert W - DNR Sent: Friday, January 12, 2007 12:45 PM To: Mooney.John@epamail.epa.gov; 'Aburano.Douglas@epamail.epa.gov' Subject: Monitoring Data and Trends - Grand Rapids-Muskegon-Holland CSA << File: michigantrack2.xls >> << File: deq-aqd-aqe-ozonenetwork.pdf >> Attached please find the Michigan 4th high monitoring data for the sites in the Grand Rapids-Muskegon-Holland CSA. I've included a graphic from the Michigan DEQ site noting the monitor locations. The data is presented in raw and trend-based form and is not focused on Design Values but instead the underlying data. As you can see both the long and short term trends show a regional air quality pattern of elevated and violating concentrations. The long term linear trend confirms a slow improvement in the regional air quality, but the critical monitors still reflect 4th high values consistently above the standard (0.08 ppm). The linear trend for the CSA average concentration and the CSA highest site concentration (most recently Holland) do not show the statistical robustness to reach a certain conclusion. But, the patterns of the ozone data are quite clear. The short term moving averages (two year windows) highlight significant questions regarding the most current trends in air quality along the Lake Michigan areas. Instead of significant and rapid improvement in response to the currently active measures, ozone readings have improved only modestly (under equivalent meteorology conditions) to controls installed since the late 1990's. EPA's own assessments do not indicate the likelihood of significant additional NOx reductions in areas likely impact the western Michigan sites without substantial additional program development and implementation. Almost all the controls projected for the first tier of the CAIR program by IPM have been implemented already in the areas subject to the NOx SIP call. There are not new controls on the books that will provide for demonstrated permanent air quality improvement by the expected attainment dates of 2007, 2009 and 2010. In theory, EPA has given states notice that the emission reductions and the attendant air quality improvement should be in place the ozone season before these dates - 2006, 2008 and 2009. As noted in the tables, two of the 5 sites continue to register multiple days above the level of the standard in 2006. I understand that Michigan has requested substantial special treatment recently and historically in regard to the designating of areas and in regard to the quality of the maintenance and contingency plans that flies in the face of EPA's own guidance and criteria for treatment of such ozone areas. However, given Michigan's demonstrated impact on the southern Lake Michigan ozone sites in Wisconsin (as highlighted in EPA's significant impact findings supporting the CAIR regulation - specifically Racine and Chiwaukee Prairie), I have to take greater notice of efforts like this redesignation request that disrupt an appropriate interstate ozone control planning and implementation effort. Recently, unbeknown to many formally involved in the regional ozone planning effort, EPA granted Michigan requests to be exempt from NOx RACT regulation requirements for their Lake Michigan areas when NOx has been pointedly and repeated implicated in the ozone formation processes around the Lake. In fact, Michigan areas will be completely dependent on an effective and timely NOx control effort regionally in order to actually continue to improve the level of ozone within the nonattainment areas. There is not now any guarantee that a regional program will get adopted and implemented specifically because the states in Region 5 areas are being allowed to be redesignated without viable maintenance plans or contingent control plans that acknowledge the need for a comprehensive regional plan. I hope this data and the graphics will help the Regional office "do the right thing" in regard to its legal obligations under the Clean Air Act and at the very minimum continue to wait on redesignation proposals and/or final actions until all the components of those redesignation packages and the underlying SIP obligations have been met. I further request that based on the LADCO regional modeling that EPA formally retract all NOx waiver requests involving the areas until such time that the associated NOx control measures are shown to be completely ineffective at addressing ozone air quality improvement in all areas impacted by those emissions within the Region. Bob Lopez WI-DNR Ozone Control Policy Analyst Appropriate Monitor location and 2001-03 Data Correction……