UNlfED**~,TATES** ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTIONAGENCY



### MIs 625 JUN 1 2

## ma
Mr. PeterW. Hildebrandt Assistant Director Office of Air Programs State of Washington Department of Ecology Olympia, Washington 

### 98504 DearHr. Hildebrandt: Thankyou for your letter of April 

### 27, 1978, Bubmitting comments on EPA's nonattaiuoent designations as published in the**~~rch** 3. 

### 1978 Federal Register. Region Xis currently preparing a Federal Register notice proposing modifications to the**~~rch** 3 designations. A draft copy of this notice**~l** be forwarded to you in the near future. While the Federal Register notice will be responsive to many of DOE's concerns, I would**~ke** to take this opportunity to address those specific issues raised inyour April 

### 27, 1978 letter. 1. ISSUE

- CO nonattainment boundary for Seattle. RESPONSE

- It is my understanding that DOE's recommendation of

.numerous sma.1l CO nonattainment areas was based primarily upon the

Department's desire to avoid potential conflictwith CO point sources wishing to locate in "clean" portions of designatednonatta1nment areas. As we discussed in ourmeeting of May 19, 1978, Reg1.on X's policy guidance on th1.s issue, entitled "Designationof Atta.inment, Nonattainment Areas and Applicability of EPA's Interpretive Ruling and PSD Regulation", alleviates DOE's concernwith the largerboundaries promulgated byEPA. This guidance has been submitted to HQ EPA with a formal request for their review and concurrence. I**_~11** let you

### know 

### if they suggest any revisions to the policy. We have already received informal concurrence.

SyMBOL .j.B

### I·n·

......................... I-

# :::AME

.• C QI1D**132~).J** (12-70) OfFICIAl..FILECOPT**.~.** 

### V

# .

# . . 2 due to the high ambient TSP levels and the presence of significant industrial activity in the area. It is recognized, however. that most major industrial sources**with~** the valley are located on the Idaho side of the river. For that reason, EPA has funded an effort by the IDHW to determine the actual impact of the industrial emissions upon the nonattainment problem. Results of this study**(~ch** willbe available in late summer) will be utilized to determine if a redesignation to attainment status is appropriate. In themeantime, I assume you will give Idaho any assistance theymay need during their further analysis. 3•• ISSUE

- 

## OX nonattainment designation for Vancouver RESPONSE

- Vancouver, as part of the Portland, Oregon-Vancouver, Washington interstate urban area,**sr~res** a common airshed, and common air quality problems, with its larger neighbor. Although Vancouver, due to its smaller size, does not create a majority of the air quality problem, it undoubtly does contribute a proportionate amount of the total areawide emissions.· It would thus be grossly unfair to impose the entire clean-upburden solelyupon the citizens of Portland. As I have indicated to you previously, it is for this reason that EPA's policy of assuming attainment of standards in neighboring states does not apply to interstate urban areas such as Portland/Vancouver. 4. ISSUE

- TSP nonattainment designations'for WallaWalla, Yakima, and Tri-Cities. RESPONSE

- EPA concurs inyour recommendation that WallaWalla be redesignated as attainment for TSP on the basis of the Agency's rural fugitive dust policy. EPA is also utilizing the rural fugitive dust policy to redesignate bothYakima and Tri-Cities as attainment for TSP. 5. ISSUE - TSP nonattainmentboundary for Spokane. RESPONSE- EPA concurs inyour recommendation that the TSP nonattainmentboundary for Spokanebemodified to reflect the latest avai1able emissions data. This concurrence is basedupon the analysis provided to the Agency inyou letter ofApril S, 1978. 6.**ISS~** - CO nonatta1nment boundary for Spokane RESPONSE

- While this issue was not raised**~n** your letter of April 27, it is includedhere for the sake of completeness. As ,,'e have pre**v~ously** discussed, VA is co[',fic:i:-.lg the CO :::'o:-!8.tt.ai.r;::;',:;:it 1::'Ct!',d2ry for S;JO}j:"-12 BS**~_niticJ**ly**l·E::CC~~~ _C:l(~(~~d**  b}" })Oi,**(-:.~;c.** co:.!cnrl-ed ill. by**SCJ~~CPl.** 21d the**St:cL.?4~e** CCJ-c..:Jty**F.E::6i(;~-;21 l£:-!l~:.ng** **l~ency.**3 

### 7. ISSUE

- Procedure utilized for modifying State recommended designations RESPONSE

- The timeframe specified in the Act for the designations process was. as you know, very restricted. Proposed designations were due from the states by December 5, 1977. The Administrator of EPA was required to promulgate the designations "with suchmodifications as he deems necessary" within sixty cays, i.e., by February 3, 1978. To meet this deadline. EPA Regional Offices had to forward all recommendations to HQ no later than January 19, 1978. 

# I Whl1e the initialDOE nonattainment designations were submitted to EPA on December 6, 1977,**foll~'-up** letters modifying the designations were·submitted by DOE on December 

### IS, 1977 and January 15,**1978~** Ameeting was held in the Regional Office inDecember, 1977, with Berne Steigerwald of HQ EPA, Regional Office staff and yourself for the specificpurpose of discussing 

### DOE's proposed designations. Your letter of January 15. 1978 was, in large"part, in response to that meeting. 

### In addition, I**revie~ed** the final Region Xnonattainment recommendations with you by telephone on 

### i January 19,1978 before submitting the designations to HQ EPA for promulgation. You did not at that**t~e** express a desire for an opportunityto demonstrate why any proposed designation was inappropriate. I realize your decision not to pursue a more vigorous consultation process wasbased on your agreement with the Region X explanation of boundaries and their significance, and that subsequent uncertainty on the subject causes you new concern. Hopefully, HQ concurrence

### will resolve the issue,**othe~~se,** all I can do is assure you that we**~11** give the State a more formal opportunity for consultation should the occassion arise in the future. Public hearings on the designations would probably have been a good idea. Congress could have called for them, the State could. have opted to hold them, or EPA couldhave opted to bold them. The fact 1.s, none of the above occurred. the designations have 'beenmade. the clock 1.s ticking; and 

### :r donot bel.ieve anyuseful purpose would be served by an attempt tohold bearings o. designations at this latejuncture. Public participation in the strategy development phase of the SIP revision process is, of course. an extremely**~portant** requirement of the Clean**}~r** Act. Publichearings at the state level are required prior to submittal of a proposed SIP revision to EPA. EPA ,:'ould Lold V.lblic**~"jc:rif'gs** D:Jly 0::1**t~;ose** t,(>rt:5o"s of the SlP**(~(::~~';-:::lop,=d** '-41-;G**Pl·o~--.(.·~~;_-:d** fer**:-·,rc'~.-;'0.1b2tioil** b)" tl1e**J"6r---~!cy** in respCili:-=-e to a**d~ficient** stste su}cittal., I 4 I 

# I In SUI:IInary**~** I feel that both EPA and DOE have acted in good faith in attempting to meet both the programatic and procedural requirements of the Act. The procedure to be utilized by Region 

### Xfor future**designatlon9~** as discussed later in this letter, sbould prevent anyfuture difficulties of this nature. 

### 8. ISSUE

- Concurrence of RQ EPA with Region 

### Xguidance on significance of nonattainment boundaries. 

### RESPONSE

- 

### As indicated in Issue 

### I, Region 

### Xhas requested formal concurrence by HQ with guidance previously provided to DOE on this matter. Verbal assurance of concurrence has alreadybeen received. 

# I 9. 

### ISSUE

- Request by 

### DOE for maps and descriptions of all non­ attainment areas within the State of Washington. RESPONSE

- The attaChedmaps and descriptions are based primarily upon data provided to EPA by DOE. Boundary descriptions for Seattle CO, Vancouver

### Ox. and Clarkston TSP were developed by the Region X 

## 1 as these were EPA promulgations rather than State recommendations. 

## I I Region XIS procedure for revising designations following the recent 

### 60 

# i day comment period**~~ll** be as follows: 1) designations being revised as I a result ofpublic comments**~~ll** be proposed. with a 30 day comment period, before final prOffiulgation; 2) designations having received

. public comment but not being revised will not be repromulgated but 

### will have the comments answered in the Federal Register notice preamble; 3) designations having received no public**c~ents** will not be addressed inany manner. 

### Ifyouhave any questions on either the responses to yourApril 

### 27 letter or Region XIS procedures for modifying the designations, please giveme a cal.1.. Sincerely yours.

Clark L. Gaulding Chief. lirPrograms .Branch

Enelosure