UNlfED ~,TATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

MIs 625 

JUN 1 2 ma 

Mr. Peter W. Hildebrandt 

Assistant Director 

Office of Air Programs 

State of Washington 

Department of Ecology 

Olympia, Washington 98504 

Dear Hr. Hildebrandt: 

Thank you for your letter of April 27, 1978, Bubmitting comments on 

EPA's nonattaiuoent designations as published in the ~~rch 3. 1978 

Federal Register. 

Region X is 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 in your 

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 conflict with CO point sources 

wishing to locate in "clean" portions of designated nonatta1nment 

areas. As we discussed in our meeting of May 19, 1978, Reg1.on X's 

policy guidance on th1.s issue, entitled "Designation of Atta.inment, 

Nonattainment Areas and Applicability of EPA's Interpretive Ruling 

and PSD Regulation", alleviates DOE's concern with the larger boundaries promulgated by EPA. 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.BI·n·........................ . 
 I- :::AME 

.• C QI1D 132~).J (12-70) OfFICIAl.. FILE COPT 

.~. 

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 will be available in late summer) will be utilized to determine if a redesignation to attainment status is appropriate. In 

the meantime, I assume you will give Idaho any assistance they may 

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-up burden solely upon 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 Walla Walla, Yakima, 

and Tri-Cities. 

RESPONSE - EPA concurs in your recommendation that Walla Walla 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 both Yakima and Tri-Cities as 

attainment for TSP. 

5. ISSUE -	 TSP nonattainment boundary for Spokane. 

RESPONSE- EPA concurs in your recommendation that the TSP nonattainment boundary for Spokane be modified to reflect the latest 

avai1able emissions data. This concurrence is based upon the 

analysis provided to the Agency in you letter of April S, 1978. 

6. ISS~ -	 CO nonatta1nment boundary for Spokane 

RESPONSE - While this issue was not raised ~n your letter of April 27, 

it is included here for the sake of completeness. As ,,'e have prev~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 such modifications 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 initial DOE 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~ A meeting was held in the Regional Office in December, 1977, 

with Berne Steigerwald of HQ EPA, Regional Office staff and 

yourself for the specific purpose 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 X nonattainment 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 

opportunity 	to demonstrate why any proposed designation was 

inappropriate. 

I realize your decision not to pursue a more vigorous consultation 

process was 	based 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 could have opted to bold them. 

The fact 1.s, none of the above occurred. the designations have 

'been made. the clock 1.s ticking; and :r do not bel.ieve any useful 

purpose would be served by an attempt to hold bearings o. designations at this late juncture. 

Public participation in the strategy development phase of the SIP 

revision process is, of course. an extremely ~portant requirement 

of the Clean }~r Act. Public hearings 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 X for 

future designatlon9~ as discussed later in this letter, sbould 

prevent any 	future difficulties of this nature. 

8. 	 ISSUE - Concurrence of RQ EPA with Region X guidance on significance 

of nonattainment boundaries. 

RESPONSE - As indicated in Issue I, Region X has requested formal 

concurrence by HQ with guidance previously provided to DOE on this 

matter. Verbal assurance of concurrence has already been received. 

I 


9. ISSUE - Request by DOE for maps and descriptions of all non­


attainment areas within the State of Washington. 


RESPONSE - The attaChed maps 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 of 	public 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 

in any manner. 

If you have any questions on either the responses to your April 27 

letter or Region XIS procedures for modifying the designations, please 

give me a cal.1.. 

Sincerely yours. 

Clark L. Gaulding 


Chief. lir Programs .Branch 


Enelosure