December 5, 1997

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center
Attention Docket Number A-95-38
Waterside Mall, Room M-1500
401 M Street, SW
Washington, DC 20460

To Whom It May Concern:

The State of Washington Department of Ecology is pleased to provide the following comments on the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA’s) Notice of Proposed Rulemaking for regional haze regulations as published in the Federal Register on July 31, 1997 (62 FR 41138).

Washington State is host to eight mandatory federal Class I areas totaling more than 3.3 million acres of land. These lands reach from Canada to Oregon and include elevations up to 14,000 feet. They separate a humid, marine type environment in the west from an arid environment in the east. Enjoyment of the unique scenic beauty of these areas is not limited to people visiting them, but is also enjoyed by people looking at them from their office windows, driving down Interstate 5 or traveling in a ferry on Puget Sound.

In addition to these mandatory federal Class I areas, Washington enjoys scenic beauty that ranges from the San Juan islands, to the Columbia River Gorge, to the Palouse Falls. We have state and local parks that encompass scenic beauty which is treasured as much as that in the federal class I areas.

Washington recognizes the importance of scenic beauty to its citizens and its economy and is committed to the protection and improvement of visibility. Washington recently reviewed its visibility State Implementation Plan and made a clear commitment, in a written report to the public, to address visibility impairment from regional haze. We have worked with EPA and several regional organizations in efforts to ensure an effective federal proposal that will work in Washington State. Continuing in this spirit of cooperation, we offer the following recommendations;

Definition of reasonable progress

We believe one of the strongest parts of the proposal is the attempt to define "reasonable progress." We have some concerns and recommendations but believe some quantification of progress is absolutely necessary and that actual visibility measurements, if possible, should be the first choice. We recognize that a "one deciview" improvement in 10 or 15 years may be impossible to achieve in some locations and grossly inadequate in others, and may be difficult or impossible to accurately measure and document in some parts of the country. We recognize that the default standard is exactly that, a default value that begs for closer examination and revision.

Our initial analysis suggests that, for Washington, the "one deciview" rate of progress would be undetectable because of statistical variation. In our recent review of our visibility SIP we examined data from two of our best sites (in terms of valid data recovery and length of record). We found that even using summertime afternoon hours to minimize statistical "noise", and using a very modest 50% confidence interval, the variance exceeds the "one deciview" reasonable progress target. Indeed, at these best sites, during their least noisy periods, the minimum trend detectable with a 50% confidence interval is 2 - 3 dv/decade.

As a supplement, Washington State recommends that EPA conduct additional study to determine what rate of emission reduction is equivalent to perceptible visibility improvement. Such a reasonable progress measure is more in line with the recommendation of the Grand Canyon Visibility Transport Commission. We also recommend that EPA pay particular attention to the effect of relative humidity on the extinction efficiencies of various pollutant species. It is important to include that variable when determining the rate of emission reductions as they relate to perceptible visibility improvements in different regions of the country.

Summary recommendation: Develop humidity sensitive ratios of perceptible visibility improvements to rates of emission reductions and include them as a supplement to the measured deciview reasonable progress target.

SIP review/revision frequency

Washington State feels very strongly that the EPA proposa1 to require "revision" of visibility SIPS every three years is an archaic holdover from the old command and control approach which has received much criticism. If EPA is sincere in its stated commitment to form partnerships with states and tribes, then it is time to participate more and judge less.

The science of regional haze also does not support the expensive and time consuming requirement to revise a SIP every three years. As we noted in our first comment, we estimate that we will not be able to generate statistically meaningful data over a three year period and that revising a SIP would be a fruitless waste of resources. We agree with the Grand Canyon Commission’s recommendation that a five year review would reduce the influence of aberrant meteorological effects and provide a more stable basis for assessing and revising (if necessary) control strategies.

It is especially important for EPA to provide flexibility in the regional haze program because of the numbers of parties that will be involved in "regional" strategies. We believe it is clearly unrealistic to expect regional bodies to operate effectively if participating tribes and states are revising their SIPS every three years

Summary recommendation: EPA should give deference to regional bodies to set schedules for review and revision and should fully commit to participating in those reviews and supporting the resulting recommendations.

Regulation of emission sources

Washington State believes EPA is ignoring common knowledge with the proposed program’s emphasis on control of stationary sources and omission of area and mobile sources as keys to visibility improvement. EPA should not use a national program to target a few problematic major sources that could be addressed through other means, while essentially ignoring the growing emissions from mobile sources (including road dust), forest health burning and other population related area sources.

EPA’s reliance on the Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART) is, again, a step backwards to command and control strategies which have proven costly, controversial and largely unsuccessful in the past. While we recognize the security of operating from behind an outdated "congressional mandate" in the Clean Air Act, we urge EPA to join states and tribes in dealing with the more significant regional issues of area and mobile sources.

EPA should play a strong role in assisting states, tribes and regional bodies in improving visibility. EPA should be working to better understand and develop emission factors for area sources and should be developing national strategies to deal with the current trend away from small, fuel efficient cars to sports utility vehicles with large tires, poor fuel efficiency and higher emissions. EPA should also be prepared to pressure federal land management agencies to find alternatives to burning as a cure for our unhealthy national forests in order to protect visibility. There is much work that EPA can do that will be more productive than overseeing the legal and scientific dueling that always results from BART actions.

Summary recommendation: Retain BART as a direct plume impact response but remove new language inserting it in the regional haze strategy. Develop emission factors for area sources, develop national strategies to reduce emissions from mobile sources and help federal land managers use alternatives to burning to the greatest extent possible.

Role of Federal Land Managers

Federal Land Managers face a challenging role as both proponents for visibility protection in class I areas and as sources of impairment from such activities as forest health burning, road management within the areas and regulation of visitor usage. Additionally, FLMs have played a historic role as experts in visibility monitoring technology and data interpretation.

The regulations, as proposed, puts the responsibility on states and tribes to consult with FLMs but remains largely silent on the responsibilities of the FLMs to proactively work with tribes, states, and perhaps most importantly, regional bodies. FLMs can be most effective if they are truly partners in developing and implementing regional strategies that are perceived as equitable by the public, the industrial community and air regulators.

Summary recommendation: Include language in the regulation that requires FLMs to consult with tribes and states regarding their long range management plans for their areas, including the use of fire to improve forest health.

Visibility monitoring flexibility

Washington state recommends that flexibility in meeting regional haze monitoring requirements be provided for states that have seasonal-use class I areas. Washington’s class I areas are predominantly high elevation alpine environments. Access to monitoring sites which truly characterize the class I area is difficult, dangerous or impossible during the November through April period and sometimes even longer. Surrogate sites at nearby low elevation locations may be more accessible throughout the year, but because of their relatively lower elevation, do not represent what is happening in the class I area, especially during periods of air stratification.

We also recommend that flexibility be allowed in selection of monitoring locations that might be representative of more than one class I area. For instance, the state, in cooperation with the U.S. Forest Service, has just established an IMPROVE monitoring site at Mt. St. Helens National Monument. Because of the proximity of this site to the Mt. Adams and Goat Rocks wilderness area, its nearly equivalent elevation and its location with respect to major source areas, we feel this site would serve as representative of all three of these areas. The same situation may be possible for other class I areas. It makes no sense to require monitoring in areas which are roadless and powerless when a nearby site would accurately characterize multiple areas.

Allow sufficient flexibility for Washington to conduct full monitoring during the period of May through October and to conduct limited monitoring during the winter period when some sites will be inaccessible. Allow Washington to use source emission data to track reasonable progress, as suggested earlier, and use visibility monitoring data more to apportion source contributions to visibility impairment. This seasonal visibility monitoring information could then be used to develop and prioritize control strategies more than tracking deciview improvement. Allow sufficient flexibility in monitoring requirements for states with clusters of class I areas to site monitors capable of representing more than one area.

Funding

States and tribes are facing multiple challenges related to the new National Ambient Air Quality Standards for PM fine, ozone and now regional haze. We applaud EPA’s commitment and efforts to fund monitoring for these programs but remind EPA that costs for such activities as BART assessments and litigation could easily disrupt fiscal plans at the state and tribal level. There is also the increased expense of working with regional bodies and keeping the public informed about these multiple programs. It is imperative that EPA not develop fiscal strategies by individual program, but look at integrated needs of regions and listen to regional bodies.

Summary recommendation: Commit to providing adequate funds to implement all the new programs. Review the proposed regional haze program for unnecessarily costly requirements, commit in the final rule or preamble to EPA development of emission factors, regional models and national emission reduction strategies for area and mobile sources, and commit to the support of regional bodies, organizations or commissions.

I hope these comments are helpful and thoroughly considered in your efforts to finalize the important regional haze program and if we can provide any additional information, please do not hesitate to contact us.

Sincerely,

Joseph R. Williams
Program Manager
Air Quality Program

Feedback:

Comments and suggestions on the content of these pages should be submitted to: