Response to Comments

Kent, Seattle, and Tacoma Second 10-Year 

Limited Maintenance Plan for PM10

November 2013

Publication no. 13-02-027
Publication and Contact Information

This publication is available on the Department of Ecology’s website at 

https://fortress.wa.gov/ecy/publications/SummaryPages/1302027.html

For more information contact:

Air Quality Program

P.O. Box 47600 

Olympia, WA 98504-7600 

Phone: 360-407-6800

Washington State Department of Ecology - www.ecy.wa.gov

 Headquarters, Olympia 360-407-6000

 Northwest Regional Office, Bellevue 425-649-7000

 Southwest Regional Office, Olympia 360-407-6300

 Central Regional Office, Yakima 509-575-2490

 Eastern Regional Office, Spokane 509-329-3400

For special accommodations or documents in alternate format, call 360-407-6800, 711 (relay 

service), or 877-833-6341 (TTY).
Response to Comments

Proposed Washington State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) Revision:

Kent, Seattle, and Tacoma Second 10-Year 

Limited Maintenance Plan for PM10

Air Quality Program

Washington State Department of Ecology

Olympia, Washington 98504-7600
This page is purposely left blank.
i

Table of Contents

Introduction..........................................................................................................................1

Reasons for Updating the SIP..............................................................................................1

Summary of Public Involvement Process............................................................................1

Appendix A: Response to Comments..................................................................................3

Commenter Index...........................................................................................................3

Appendix B: Transcripts from public hearings...................................................................5

Appendix C: Copies of all written comments......................................................................7

Appendix D: Certification of public hearing. ....................................................................14

Appendix E: Ecology public involvement notices.............................................................15
ii

This page is purposely left blank.
1

Introduction

This Response to Comments provides information on the proposed revision of Washington’s State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) by submitting an updated plan for three Puget Sound air quality 

maintenance areas: City of Kent, Tacoma Tideflats and Seattle-Duwamish. The purpose of a 

Response to Comments is to:

 Meet Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) public process requirements

 Provide reasons for updating the maintenance plans

 Describe any differences between the proposed and adopted plans

 Provide Ecology’s response to public comments.

This document includes the comments received during the public comment period and public 

hearing on submitting The Draft Kent, Seattle and Tacoma, Washington Second 10-year Limited 

Maintenance Plan for PM10 (LMP) along with Ecology’s responses. Puget Sound Clean Air 

Agency (PSCAA) and Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology) collaborated on the 

updated plan. 

Ecology accepted comments from September 27, 2013 through November 4, 2013. On October 

30, 2013, Ecology held a public hearing and took public comments on the proposed SIP submittal. 

This document also describes the outreach effort and public involvement process.

There are no differences between the proposed public review draft of the plan and the plan adopted 

by Ecology on November 20, 2013.

Reasons for Updating the SIP

Washington is required by the federal Clean Air Act (CAA) to revise the SIP by submitting an 

updated maintenance plan for these three maintenance areas. The Kent, Seattle, and Tacoma PM10

air quality areas were classified as nonattainment areas in 1990 by the Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA) for the 24-hour PM10 National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS). The 

nonattainment areas were reclassified to maintenance areas in 1993 and 1995. The Clean Air Act 

(CAA) requires two, consecutive 10-year maintenance plans for maintenance areas. The first 10-

year maintenance plan for these three areas was submitted to the EPA in 1997. This Limited 

Maintenance Plan is the second and final 10-year maintenance plan required and fulfills the CAA 

requirement for these areas.

Summary of Public Involvement Process

Ecology posted notice of the public comment period and hearing on its public involvement 

calendar and website. A legal notice was published in the Daily Journal of Commerce and a news 

release was issued September 30, 2013. Appendix C contains copies of the notices and other 

documents.
2

Ecology accepted public comments on the Kent, Seattle, and Tacoma Second 10-year Limited 

Maintenance Plan for PM10 from September 27 through November 4, 2013. We held a public 

hearing on October 30, 2013 in Kent, Washington. This document contains the responses to all 

comments we received and documentation of the public involvement process. 

Additionally, the Puget Sound Clean Air Agency reported on the efforts to update the PM10

maintenance plans and upcoming public comment period to the following groups: 

 Puget Sound Clean Air Agency Advisory Council, briefed October 9, 2013.

 Puget Sound Clean Air Agency Board of Directors, briefed in September 19 Executive 

Director’s report and at Board of Director’s meeting, September 26, 2013.

 Pierce County Clean Air Task Force, briefed on October 17, 2013, includes Washington 

Hearth Association’s Gary Smith, Leah Hauer, Dan Henry, Kip Rumens, Debbie 

Hannig, and Ted Hossack. (also emailed separate public comment notice and report to 

Gary Smith and Leah Hauer of Hearth Association.)
3

Appendix A: Response to Comments

Commenter Index

The table below lists the names of organizations or individuals who submitted a comment on the 

SIP proposal and where you can find Ecology’s response to the comment(s). 

Document Location in 

Appendix D

Name Location of Response

p. 8-14, public hearing 

testimony on p. 6-7

Sasha E. Slayton p. 4

p. 8 Chris & Paul Axtman p. 3

Summary of Comments from Chris & Paul Axtman:

We hope you will consider researching and adding our area to future proposals for a 

permanent BURNING BAN to stop people from burning or using their fireplace (unless there 

is a power outage or that is there ONLY source of heat). We have a serious air quality in this 

pocket area below the surrounding hills. 

Ecology Response:

Thank you for your comments. Ecology is concerned you are experiencing discomfort in your 

home both in the winter and the summer. The Kent maintenance area is one of the three areas 

included in the Limited Maintenance Plan that is the subject of this action. The boundaries for the 

Kent PM10 maintenance plan were set in the late 1980s, when the areas were identified as Group I 

areas – areas identified as having a 95 % chance of exceeding the 1987 particulate matter (ten 

microns or less) standard. Kent never actually exceeded this standard, but was designated 

nonattainment because of the risk. The northern nonattainment area boundary was determined 

based on the extent of the industrial portions of the area in the late 1980s.

Ecology does not have the legislative authority to permanently ban burning. However, Puget 

Sound Clean Air Agency (PSCAA) does call burn bans during periods of poor air quality. You 

can find more information in PSCAA regulation 1-13, Solid Fuel Burning Device Standards and 

the proposed updates to Chapter 173-433 of the Washington Administrative Codes, Solid Fuel 

Burning Devices. 

We shared your comment with Puget Sound Clean Air Agency.

We did not make any changes to the second Kent, Seattle, and Tacoma 10-year limited 

maintenance plan. 

Summary of Comments from Sasha E. Slayton:

. As background, The Seattle Times Sept 11 – 13, 2013 series on sea change, by Craig Welch, 

with Steve Ringman’s photographs demonstrates that 

a. the changes are real, 

b. their impact on pacific northwest fishing profound and that
4

c. these changes are happening much sooner than predicted.

2. The Coal, China, and Pollution article shows

a. Asia’s (especially China’s) coal, hydrocarbon and carbon pollution are increasing 

exponentially

b. About 1/3rd of Asian pollution is dust, from drought and deforestation

c. This is our problem because pollutants from China reach the U.S. West Coast. Asia’s 

pollutants now represent up to 25% of the US west coast pollution.

d. This applies to Washington State because regulatory agencies offset foreign pollution with 

additional controls on local air quality districts (42U.S.C. 7407(a)) Section17981. 

e. This applies to Washington State because regulatory agencies require us to offset foreign 

pollution with additional controls on local air quality districts (42U.S.C. 7407(a)) Section 17981. 

3. I believe each of the monitoring sites identified in the plan are at low altitude levels; at or near 

sea level. I believe this can significantly skew the resulting data.

I request the group consider locating some or all monitoring sites at a variety of higher elevations.

I know that considering non-use of coal is beyond the permute of this committee, but I would 

the group to attend the importance of the pollution that we get from the coal from other 

countries.

Ecology Response:

Thank you for your comments. Pollution from Asia is outside the scope of this plan. The 

emission inventory showed that for Kent, residential wood stoves are the largest source of 

emissions in the winter. 

International emissions are included in emissions inventories as background emissions. We 

consider the emissions inventory when developing control strategies for a plan.

Additionally, Ecology does have monitoring stations at a few higher elevation locations. The 

monitoring site at Cheeka Peak is located at 1200 ft in Neah Bay, WA. This location provides 

background levels of air pollution including particulate matter. We also have a monitoring site at 

Mt. Rainier at 5000 ft that measures ozone levels. 

Additionally, Ecology has access to the monitoring data from a site at Mt. Bachelor in Oregon run 

by the University of Washington. This monitoring site is at 9000 ft. It measures levels of carbon 

monoxide, carbon dioxide, ozone, mercury and aerosols. One of the main focuses of the research 

work related to this monitoring site is measuring the air pollution influence from Asia. You can 

find additional information at http://www.atmos.washington.edu/jaffegroup/. 

Ecology shared your comments with the Puget Sound Clean Air Agency.

We did not make any changes to the second Kent, Seattle, and Tacoma 10-year limited 

maintenance plan. 
5

Appendix B: Transcripts from public hearings.

Public Hearing in the Mill Creek Room at the Kent Commons in Kent, Washington, October 

30, 2013

MELANIE: I’m Melanie Forster, hearings officer for this hearing. This evening we are to conduct 

a hearing on the proposed update to the state implementation plan, or “SIP,” for Seattle, Kent, and 

Tacoma PM-10 maintenance areas. Let the records show it’s 7:11 PM on October 30, 2013 and 

this hearing is being held at the Kent Commons in the Mill Creek Room 525 4th Avenue North, 

Kent, Washington 98032. Notices of the hearing were sent by e-mail to a list of fifty interested 

people and a news release was issued on September 30, 2013. Notices also published in the Daily 

Journal of Commerce, September 27, 2013 and on Ecology’s online public involvement calendar. 

I’ll be calling people up to provide testimonies based on the order that your name appears on the 

sign-in sheet. And it looks like we’re going to start with Sasha Slaton.

SASHA: Do I need to come up there?

MELANIE: It would be better because you’ll be closer to the recorder. So, please step up to the 

front, state your name and address for the record, and speak clearly so that we can get a good 

recording of your testimony.

SASHA: My name is Sasha Slaton. I live at 10521 SE 232nd Place in Kent, 98031-3351. I want to 

thank the group for the time and the effort and the presentation today and for watching our air. I 

want to say that we live on one planet and that the influences aren’t just from local industry or 

local action. We have increased pollutants in our air and now studies are showing that the 

pollutants from China and other Asian areas are reaching our country. Two weeks ago in Harbin, 

China – a city of 11 million people – they were asked to stay home from work and school, because 

they could not see and they could not breathe and China is building one new power plant every 

week, fired by coal – dirtier and dirtier coal. And not regulating the releases into our atmosphere.

I will be submitting a copy of the study showing that up to 25 percent of those pollutants have been 

found in the air in the west coast of the United States. Now about one-third of these pollutants, 

Asian pollutants, are dust from drought and deforestation. These things apply to Washington State 

because regulatory agencies offset foreign pollution with additional controls on the local air quality 

districts, as in United States code 45, section 7407 (A section 17981) requiring us to take action 

when we get those pollutants. Since we live on one planet, we are going to have to make 

adjustments. I know that considering non-use of coal is beyond the permute of this committee, but 

I would the group to attend the importance of the pollution that we get from the coal from other 

countries. Thank you very much. 

MELANIE: Thank you. So, if you would also like to send ecology written comments, please 

remember that they are due by November 4th, 2013. You may send them to Laurie Hulse-Moyer, 

P.O. Box 47600, Olympia, Washington 98504-7600, or you may e-mail comments to 

aqcomments@ecy.wa.gov. You may also fax comments to 360-407-7534. All testimony received 

at this hearing, along with all written comments postmarked or received no later than November 

4

th, 2013, will be part of the official hearing record for this proposal. Ecology will send notice 

about the response to comments to everyone that provided written comments or oral testimony on 

this proposed SIP revision and submitted contact information. Everyone that signed in for today’s 

hearing that provided an e-mail address and other interested parties on the agency’s mailing lists 

for this proposed SIP revision. The response to comments will, among other things, contain the 

agency’s response to questions and issues of concern that were submitted during the public 
6

comment period. If you would like receive a copy, but did not give us your contact information, 

please let one of the staff at this hearing know, or contact Laurie Hulse-Moyer of the contact 

information provided for submitting comments. 

The next step is to review the comments and make a determination whether to submit the proposed 

SIP revision to EPA. The response to comments will be posted on Ecology’s website. Ecology 

director, Maia Bellon, will consider the SIPS submittal documentation and staff recommendations 

and will make a decision about adopting the SIP revision. Ecology will submit the proposed SIP 

revision to EPA after adoption. EPA will then accept public comments before making a decision 

to approve the SIP revision. If we can be of further help to you, please do not hesitate to ask or 

you can contact Laurie Hulse-Moyer if you have other questions. On behalf of the Department of 

Ecology and Puget Sound Clean Air Agency, thank you for coming. I appreciate your cooperation 

and courtesy. Let the records show that this hearing is adjourned at 7:16 PM.
7

Appendix C: Copies of all written comments

Comments from Chris & Paul Axtman – Received at AQComments@ecy.wa.gov on November 1, 

2013:

11/01/13

Dear Laurie Hulse-Moyer,

We are writing in response to the clean air maintenance plan proposal. If I read it correctly, it 

appears to miss our Kent neighborhood around 42nd S & 262nd St (Kent, 98032) which is 

located south of Kent-Des Moines Rd (516), not north. The area I'm talking about is 

surrounded by hills on all sides. When people are burning or even smoking, the smell seeps 

into our house. When it's foggy, it's foggy here all day, though many days sunshine can be 

seen if you walk to the top of the hill near Star Lake Elementary School or go a short distance 

to I-5. 

We have double pane energy efficient windows and we run several air filtering systems in 

our house. During the winter months, the smell is overwhelming causing headaches and 

allergies. We have also experienced problems during the summer - some people burn even 

when it's 80-90 degrees outside. Without air conditioning or opening our windows, we feel 

like a prisoner in our own home. Apparently fire pits are legal during burning bans since we 

have never seen the fire department issue a citation. We have reached out to PSE to 

schedule a Homeprint Assessment in order to determine if there are any additional 

improvements we can make to our house to reduce indoor air pollution. But as new 

retirees, we would also enjoy being able to walk around the neighborhood and take in 

"clean fresh air."

We hope you will consider researching and adding our area to future proposals for a 

permanent BURNING BAN to stop people from burning or using their fireplace (unless there 

is a power outage or that is there ONLY source of heat). We have a serious air quality in this 

pocket area below the surrounding hills.

Please feel to contact us with any questions, or instructions on how we can get our area in 

future proposals.

Sincerely,

Chris & Paul Axtman

mis65vette@comcast.net

(253) 852-6520

4222 S 262nd St

Kent, WA 98032

1. Comments from Sasha Slayton - 10521 SE 232nd Place. Kent. WA 98031

Received by email November 5, 2013

From: Sasha [mailto:hopogunche@comcast.net] 

Sent: Tuesday, November 05, 2013 7:54 AM

To: Hulse-Moyer, Laurie (ECY)

Subject: public commrnt
8

Dear Ms. Hulse Moyer,

I appreciated meeting you at the hearing site in Kent this week, and the opportunity to 

comment. I learned a great deal. I have attached the articles with the documentation I 

mentioned.

Summary

1. As background, The Seattle Times Sept 11 – 13, 2013 series on sea change, by Craig Welch, 

with Steve Ringman’s photographs demonstrates that 

a. the changes are real, 

b. their impact on pacific northwest fishing profound and that

c. these changes are happening much sooner than predicted.

2. The Coal, China, and Pollution article shows

a. Asia’s (especially China’s) coal, hydrocarbon and carbon pollution are increasing 

exponentially

b. About 1/3rd of Asian pollution is dust, from drought and deforestation

c. This is our problem because pollutants from China reach the U.S. West Coast. Asia’s 

pollutants now represent up to 25% of the US west coast pollution.

d. This applies to Washington State because regulatory agencies offset foreign pollution with 

additional controls on local air quality districts (42U.S.C. 7407(a)) Section17981. 

e. This applies to Washington State because regulatory agencies require us to offset foreign 

pollution with additional controls on local air quality districts (42U.S.C. 7407(a)) Section 17981. 

3. I believe each of the monitoring sites identified in the plan are at low altitude levels; at or near 

sea level. I believe this can significantly skew the resulting data.

I request the group consider locating some or all monitoring sites at a variety of higher elevations.

Discussion

The Seattle Times Sept 11 – 13, 2013 series Sea Change is the result of months of research by 

photographer Steve Ringman and reporter Craig Welch, who traveled from Dutch Harbor, 

Alaska, in the North Pacific to Papua New Guinea in the South Pacific to detail what is at stake 

as ocean chemistry changes.

Nearly every important peer-reviewed study available — hundreds in all — was examined for the 

project. About 150 people in the United States and around the world were interviewed, while scientists 

in a half-dozen countries were coaxed into sharing early glimpses of pending research to make sure 

readers received the most up-to-date work in the proper context. Welch and Ringman visited 

hatcheries, research labs and fish-processing plants in four states.

When the pair first approached Katharina Fabricius of the Australian Institute of Marine Science 

about tagging along on an expedition to Papua New Guinea’s carbon-dioxide vents, she was 

skeptical. Malaria rates were so high in the region that some of the dive boat’s crew was sick. The 

waters off Normanby and Dobu islands are frequented by tiger sharks and saltwater crocodiles, and 

are hundreds of miles from medical facilities. And neither Ringman nor Welch had ever been diving.
9

 I had to break it up into four parts to get it to load onto e-mail. The attachments are all in 

Microsoft word. Here is the source. http://apps.seattletimes.com/reports/sea-change/2013/sep/11/pacific-oceanperilous-turn-overview/

April 18, 2012 Coal, China, and Pollution Air pollution in China is a global problem, 

because of climate change, and ...(our)... problem, because pollutants from China reach the 

U.S. West Coast. source : Energy | Pollution & Health

The BAAQMD and other air regulatory authorities are actually offsetting these foreign 

pollution impacts by placing additional controls on local sources. The ultimate responsibility 

to address foreign pollution rests with the States and local air quality districts–as absurd as 

this might sound. 

The Clean Air Act provides the following:“Each State shall have the primary responsibility 

for assuring air quality within the entire geographic area comprising such state by submitting 

an implementation plan for such State which will specify the manner in which national 

primary and secondary ambient air quality standards will be achieved and maintained . . .” (42 

U.S.C. § 7407(a)). Section 179B

Thank you for your kind attention. 

Sasha E. Slayton

10521 SE 232nd Place. Kent. WA 98031=3351

2538562598

\Addendum: After multiple attempts,I have been unable to attach these documents to this e 

mail. Regrettably, I shall have to send them by snail mail.
10

Comments from Sasha Slayton, continued – Received by email November 5, 2013

I noticed one of my ref's was incomplete. This is the correct citation for the scientific 

article I want to include.

http://legal-planet.org/2012/04/18/coal-china-and-pollution/ Tghe following is from comments on 

that article. 

bikeopeli April 18, 2012 at 8:11 am #

How does the BAAQMD mitigate this pollution from their emissions inventory?

Reply



Dan Farber April 18, 2012 at 11:12 am #

bikeopeli – Your questions raises some interesting legal issues. Under section 

179B(a) of the Clean Air Act, states can get approval for their implementation 

plans if failure to meet national air quality standards is caused by incoming 

international pollution. But there are two interesting wrinkles. First, the section is 

called “international border areas,” although none of the actual statutory text 

limits it to border areas. Usually, titles don’t modify statutory meaning, but there 

might be some argument to the contrary. Second, subsections (b), (c), and (d) 

exempt such areas from nonattainment for ozone, carbon monoxide, and PM-10. 

But PM-10 is much less of a concern these days than PM-2.5, and 179B doesn’t 

say anything about that (or about other pollutants that might drift here). I’d be 

interested in hearing from a CAA expert about how this provision is actually 

applied by EPA. 

sipreform May 9, 2012 at 7:52 am #

My name is Jed Anderson and I am attorney and Adjunct Professor of Law at the 

University of Houston Law School where I teach the Clean Air Act class.

The BAAQMD and other air regulatory authorities are actually offsetting these foreign 

pollution impacts by placing additional controls on local sources. The ultimate 

responsibility for addressing foreign pollution rests with the States and local air quality 

districts–as absurd as this might sound. The Clean Air Act provides the following:“Each 

State shall have the primary responsibility for assuring air quality within the entire 

geographic area comprising such state by submitting an implementation plan for such 

State which will specify the manner in which national primary and secondary ambient air 

quality standards will be achieved and maintained . . .” (42 U.S.C. § 7407(a)). Section 

179B can potentially be used, but its generally not being used. I’ve been working for 

some time to raise awareness of this problem (see http://www.sipreform.com and 

http://www.sipreform.wordpress.com). Forty years ago when the Clean Air Act was 

written emissions from other countries was small and the phenomena of intercontinental 

transport had yet to have been fully discovered. The world has since changed. Our 
11

understanding has since changed. It’s now time for the Clean Air Act, and specificially 

the SIP process, to be transformed to reflect the new realities of our world. 

Thanks for writing about this issue and helping to spread further light on it.

Reply



Dan Farber May 9, 2012 at 8:37 am #

Jed–thanks for the additional information on this issue.

thank you

From: "Laurie Hulse-Moyer (ECY)" <lahu461@ECY.WA.GOV>

To: "Sasha" <hopogunche@comcast.net>

Cc: "ECY RE AQComments" <AQComments@ECY.WA.GOV>

Sent: Tuesday, November 5, 2013 9:13:46 AM

Subject: RE: public commrnt

Thanks, Sasha. It was nice to meet you too. We’ll be reviewing this information and including it in our 

Response to Comments document that becomes part of the formal record and is sent to EPA. We’ll send 

you a copy when its ready. We think it will be ready by the end of the month. Thanks, again.

__________________________________

Laurie Hulse-Moyer / Air Quality Planner / WA State Department of Ecology / lahu461@ecy.wa.gov / (360) 407-6783

From: Sasha [mailto:hopogunche@comcast.net] 

Sent: Tuesday, November 05, 2013 7:54 AM

To: Hulse-Moyer, Laurie (ECY)

Subject: public commrnt

Dear Ms. Hulse Moyer,

I appreciated meeting you at the hearing site in Kent this week, and the opportunity to 

comment. I learned a great deal. I have attached the articles with the documentation I 

mentioned.

Summary

1. As background, The Seattle Times Sept 11 – 13, 2013 series on sea change, by 

Craig Welch, with Steve Ringman’s photographs demonstrates that 

a. the changes are real, 

b. their impact on pacific northwest fishing profound and that

c. these changes are happening much sooner than predicted.

2. The Coal, China, and Pollution article shows
12

a. Asia’s (especially China’s) coal, hydrocarbon and carbon pollution are 

increasing exponentially

b. About 1/3rd of Asian pollution is dust, from drought and deforestation

c. This is our problem because pollutants from China reach the U.S. West Coast. 

Asia’s pollutants now represent up to 25% of the US west coast pollution.

d. This applies to Washington State because regulatory agencies offset foreign 

pollution with additional controls on local air quality districts (42U.S.C. 7407(a)) 

Section17981. 

e. This applies to Washington State because regulatory agencies require us to 

offset foreign pollution with additional controls on local air quality districts 

(42U.S.C. 7407(a)) Section 17981. 

3. I believe each of the monitoring sites identified in the plan are at low altitude 

levels; at or near sea level. I believe this can significantly skew the resulting data.

I request the group consider locating some or all monitoring sites at a variety of 

higher elevations.

Discussion

The Seattle Times Sept 11 – 13, 2013 series Sea Change is the result of months of research by 

photographer Steve Ringman and reporter Craig Welch, who traveled from Dutch Harbor, 

Alaska, in the North Pacific to Papua New Guinea in the South Pacific to detail what is at stake 

as ocean chemistry changes.

Nearly every important peer-reviewed study available — hundreds in all — was examined for the 

project. About 150 people in the United States and around the world were interviewed, while scientists 

in a half-dozen countries were coaxed into sharing early glimpses of pending research to make sure 

readers received the most up-to-date work in the proper context. Welch and Ringman visited 

hatcheries, research labs and fish-processing plants in four states.

When the pair first approached Katharina Fabricius of the Australian Institute of Marine Science 

about tagging along on an expedition to Papua New Guinea’s carbon-dioxide vents, she was 

skeptical. Malaria rates were so high in the region that some of the dive boat’s crew was sick. The 

waters off Normanby and Dobu islands are frequented by tiger sharks and saltwater crocodiles, and 

are hundreds of miles from medical facilities. And neither Ringman nor Welch had ever been diving.

 I had to break it up into four parts to get it to load onto e-mail. The attachments are all in 

Microsoft word. Here is the source. http://apps.seattletimes.com/reports/sea-change/2013/sep/11/pacific-oceanperilous-turn-overview/

April 18, 2012 Coal, China, and Pollution Air pollution in China is a global problem, 

because of climate change, and ...(our)... problem, because pollutants from China reach the 

U.S. West Coast. source : Energy | Pollution & Health
13

The BAAQMD and other air regulatory authorities are actually offsetting these foreign 

pollution impacts by placing additional controls on local sources. The ultimate responsibility 

to address foreign pollution rests with the States and local air quality districts–as absurd as 

this might sound. 

The Clean Air Act provides the following:“Each State shall have the primary responsibility 

for assuring air quality within the entire geographic area comprising such state by submitting 

an implementation plan for such State which will specify the manner in which national 

primary and secondary ambient air quality standards will be achieved and maintained . . .” (42 

U.S.C. § 7407(a)). Section 179B

Thank you for your kind attention. 

Sasha E. Slayton

10521 SE 232nd Place. Kent. WA 98031=3351

2538562598

\Addendum: After multiple attempts,I have been unable to attach these documents to this e 

mail. Regrettably, I shall have to send them by snail mail.

As of November 18, 2013, no mailed comments received - 
14

Appendix D: Certification of public hearing.

DEPARMENT OF ECOLOGY

HEARING SUMMARY

M E M O R A N D U M

October 31, 2013

TO: Maia Bellon

Director

FROM: Melanie Forster

Hearings Officer

SUBJECT: Public Hearing Summary for the Proposed Update to the State Implementation Plan 

(SIP) for Seattle, Kent, and Tacoma PM10 Maintenance Areas held on October 30, 2013

Topic: Limited Maintenance Plan for particulate matter 10 microns in diameter and smaller (PM10) 

for three Maintenance Areas in the Puget Sound area

Program name: Air Quality

Name(s) of Ecology employee(s) at hearing: Laurie Hulse-Moyer and Nancy Pritchett. Sara Harrold, 

an Air Resource Specialist at Puget Sound Clean Air Agency also gave a presentation at the hearing.

Hearing location(s): Kent Commons, 525 4th Avenue N, Kent, WA 98032

Total number of people at hearing(s): 1

Total number of testimonies: 1

Summary of Comments:

A concerned citizen wants Ecology and Puget Sound Clean Air Agency to consider overseas 

sources of particulates and other pollutants, especially with the increased reliance on coal-fired 

power plants in Asia. She cited a law in the U.S. code that states regulatory agencies must use 

local controls to offset pollutants from foreign sources. She also plans to submit written comments 

with citations before the close of the comment period on November 4, 2013. She agrees with 

Ecology’s and Puget Sound Clean Air Agency’s plan to include this update in Washington’s State 

Implementation Plan.

cc: Polly Zehm

Stuart Clark

Bari Schreiner

Laurie Hulse-Moyer

Julie Oliver
15

Appendix E: Ecology public involvement notices

Public Notices and Outreach Documents

 Affidavit of Publication, The Daily Journal of Commerce, Notice of Hearing and 

Opportunity to Comment, published September 27, 2013

 Public Involvement Calendar notice, September 17, 2013

 Department of Ecology Maintenance SIP webpage

 News Release, Comments sought on updated clean air maintenance plans for areas in 

Kent, Seattle and Tacoma, September 30, 2013.

 Frequently Asked Questions, State Implementation Plan (SIP) Revision: Seattle, Kent 

and Tacoma PM10 Maintenance Areas, September 2013, Publication Number: 13-02-017

 Public Hearing Notice, Proposed Update to the State Implementation Plan (SIP): Seattle, 

Kent, and Tacoma PM10 Maintenance Areas, September 2013, Publication Number: 13-

02-018
16

Affidavit of Publication, The Daily Journal of Commerce, Notice of Hearing and Opportunity to 

Comment, published September 27, 2013, 
17
Public Involvement Calendar- WA Dept ofEcology 

The Public Involvement Calendar Is designed to engage the public In our declslon·maklng 

process. We encourage you to read freouently A§ked Questions about E({ectiye Public 

Commenting. 

Activities that are educational only or are co-sponsored by Ecology may be found under the 

' Nore Ecology Events" link In the lert column of this page. We Invite your~ about this 

Public Involvement Calendar. 

If you have special accommodation needs or require documents In alternative format, please 

contact Ecology at: 

360-407-6000 (voice) 

711 (relay service) 

800-833-6388 (TTY) 

Public Hearings, Meetings, Workshops, O~en Houses 

Oct 30 6:30 PM Public Hearing: Kent 

Updated Air Quality Plan 

Ecology proposes to submit the updated air quality plan for three 

Puget Sound maintenance areas to EPA. The purpose of these 

updates Is to revi se the Washington State Implementation Plan 

(SIP). The three maintenance areas are the Seatlle·Duwamlsh, 

Kent Valley, and Tacoma Tldenats. No new rules or requirements 

are being proposed. All three areas met the standard by 1990 

and continue to meet the standard today. Nalotenance SIPs 

location: Kent Commons I Nlll Creek Room 

525 Fourth Avenue N 

Kent, WA M..a..Q 0 

Sponsor: Dept of Ecology 

AIR QUALITY PI-I 

Contact: Laurie Hulse·Noyer 

(360) 407-6783 I laurle.hulse-moyer@ecy.wa.qoy 

Associated Public Comment Period: Sep 27 • Nov 4 

Public Comment Periods 

Sep 27 • 

Nov 4 

Public Comment Period: 

Updated Air Quality Plan 

Ecology proposes to submit the updated air quality plan for three 

Puget Sound maintenance areas to EPA. The purpose of these 

updates Is to revise the Washington State Implementation Plan 

(SIP). The three maintenance areas are the Seattle-Duwamlsh, 

Kent Valley, and Tacoma Tldenats. llo new rules or requirements 

are being proposed. All three areas met the standard by 1990 

and continue to meet the standard today. t-lalntenance SIPs 

Sponsor: Dept of Ecology 

AIR QUAUTY Pt-1 

Contact: laurie Hulse-t·loyer 

(360) 407-6783 /laude.hulse-moyer@ecy.wa.goy 

Associated Public Hearing: Oct 30 

Copyright © Washington State Department of Ecology. See http://www.ecy.wa.govlcopyrlght.html. 

http://apps.ecy. wa.gov/pubcalendar/calendar.asp 

Q Search Cale11dar 

This search feature accesses 

only d ecision-making 

events. 

f Search) 

Select date range: 

Today & Next 21 • 

Select city .... 

AIICilies • 

.... or county: 

All Counties ... 

Select event type: 

All Types ... 

1401 

Select keyword: 

Nr 

Aq.if<f 

Beach 

Enter search text: 

[Search J 

Page 1 of 1 

11120/2013 
State Implementation Plan I Washington State Department of Ecology 

~ > Air Quality Standards & Plans > SIPs > 1-lalntenance SIPs 

Maintenance SIPs 

Once a nonattalnment area has attained and maintained the flational Ambient Air Quality Standards (UMQS), Washington may 

request redeslgnation to attainment. For the area to be redesignated, the state has to develop a !·1alntenance State Implementation 

Plan (SIP) for EPA's approval. The plan ensures the area will continue to meet the UAAQS for a 20-year period. The Initial 10-year 

plan Is reviewed and revised to cover a second 10·year period. 

Proposed Maintenance SIP revisions 

SIP Title II Other Information 

Draft Proposed SIP Revision for a Second 10-Year The Puget Sound Clean Air Agency Is developing a maintenance SIP for three 

ParUculate f·latter (PN uY Nalntenance Plan for areas: the Tacoma Tldeflats, Kent Valley and Seattle·Duwamlsh areas. Since 

three Puget Sound areas. lllW! 19go, all three maintenance areas have met the Pfo110 standard. EPA already 

approved their first 10·year plan. This second plan will show how the areas 

• Hearing flotlce will continue to meet the UAAQS through 2020. 

• E£~1!~!Jll~ l!~k~ Qy~~li2D~ 

• S~~ ttle, K~al, i!DI! Ta~2rn~ Limit~ Contact laurie Hulse·!·IQYer at 360·407·6783. 

l'li! IDl~D~D~!: e!~!l [Q( e!'l12 

SIP B~I~IQD [Q[ lb!: Illur~I2D !:2UDilf S~2!ld 1!!· The comment period ran April 22 to Nay 31. flo hearing was requested; no 

~~;!r l.!rnll~ li!IDI!:D i!D~!l ~i!!l [Q[ el!!:!l~l.!l~l!: comments were received. Ecology submitted the plan to EPA on July 1, 2013. 

·tatWfPH~ EPA accepted comments through September 4, 2013 ( 78 EB 47259). Final 

approval Is still to come. 

Erroueolllf Asked QuestiQns 

Contact bl!!.!ri!:l:l!.! I~!H IQlf!:[ at 360·407-6783. 

Mamtenance SIP Contents 

The spe<lfic content of each SIP varies depending on the Federal requirements and existing State regulations. In general, a 

maintenance plan covers the following : 

• Current, comprehensive, and accurate Inventories of emissions from all sources. 

• A control strategy to maintain the UAAQS. 

• Supporting statutes and regulations. 

• Other means or programs contributing to maintenance of the !IAAQS. 

• Air quality analyses that demonstrate that adequate controls are In place to ensure the area will maintain the UAAQS. 

• Contingency measures that will be Implemented If an area falls to maintain the !lAAQS. 

Development and approval of a l·lalntenance SIP follows the same steps as development and approval of an Attainment SIP. See the 

[!ttalnme!ll SIP web page. 

I nf ormaci6n en Espallol 

Kent y las areas Industriales de Seattle y Tacoma necesitan revlslones rutinas para sus planes de caUdad de a Ire. Esas revlslones 

demuestran que las areas todavia cumplen con las normas federales para Ia calfdad de alre. Ecologia Jovita comentarlos publlcos 

sobre las revlslones propuestas desde el 27 de septlembre al 4 de novlembre. Para mas lnformacl6n en espanol, favor de contactar a 

Rlchelle Perez por teh!fono a (360) 407·7528 o por correo electr6nlco a oreguntas.wa.gQv. 

Contact Us/a> 

Copyright © Washington State Department of Ecology. See http://www.ecy.wa.gov/copyrlght.htrnl. 

http:/ lwv.;w .ecy. wa. gov /programs/air/si ps/plans/maintenancesi p.htm 

Page 1 of 1 

11119/2013 
Ecology home > News > News Release

Washington State Department of Ecology - September 30, 2013

13-244

Comments sought on updated clean air

maintenance plans for areas in Kent, Seattle and 

Tacoma

OLYMPIA – Kent and parts of Seattle and Tacoma, formerly listed as air-quality problem areas, would

continue to meet a clean-air standard for airborne particles at least through 2020, under a proposed 

plan drawn by state and local agencies. 

The Washington Department of Ecology (Ecology) seeks public comment on the proposal, called a

maintenance plan. The Puget Sound Clean Air Agency (PSCAA), the Puget Sound Regional Council 

(PSRC) and Ecology worked together to draft the plan. Ecology will submit it for review by the U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) later this year. 

From 1987 until the mid-1990s, EPA had listed Kent, Seattle’s Duwamish Valley and the Tacoma 

Tideflats as “non-attainment” areas for an air pollutant called PM-10 – airborne particles less than 10

microns in diameter. There are 1,000 microns in a millimeter. 

All three areas have met state and federal PM-10 standards for more than 20 years.

EPA reclassified the three areas as maintenance areas, based on Ecology applications that 

documented efforts to improve air quality and plans to maintain it. Federal rules require two updates 

of maintenance area air-quality plans. Ecology submitted the first maintenance plan in 1997. The 

currently proposed update is the second and final plan required.

The Tacoma Tideflats PM-10 maintenance area is located within the Tacoma-Pierce County PM-2.5 

non-attainment area, established by EPA in 2009 for airborne particles less than 2.5 microns in

diameter. The non-attainment area includes Tacoma’s industrial district and several nearby residential 

neighborhoods. Wood smoke from home heating contributes most to the non-attainment area’s PM2.5 pollution. 

The tiny particles can cause lung damage. They pose a risk especially to young children, pregnant 

women, the elderly and people with chronic heart and lung illnesses.

Ecology seeks public comment on the proposed plan through Nov. 4, 2013. Comments may be sent 

to: 

 Email: AQComments@ecy.wa.gov

 Letters: Department of Ecology; PO Box 47600; Olympia, WA 98504-7600; ATTN: Laurie HulseMoyer 

Ecology also will conduct a public hearing on the proposed plan on Oct. 30, 2013 at 6:30 p.m. at Kent 

Commons, Mill Creek Room, at 525 Fourth Ave. N. in Kent. 

Comments sought on updated clean air maintenance plans for areas in Kent, Seattle and T... Page 1 of 2

http://www.ecy.wa.gov/news/2013/244.html 10/10/2013
The proposed plan is available at www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/air/sips/plans/maintenancesip.htm.

For the Seattle and Tacoma maintenance areas, PM-10 emission reductions have come primarily from 

industrial facilities. The ports of Seattle and Tacoma also reduced emissions from their diesel 

equipment through a number of voluntary programs. In the Kent area, reductions in winter wood 

smoke led to lower PM-10 levels. 

The updated plan lists control strategies that help the area continue to meet the standard, such as 

industrial emissions controls, dust controls, cleaner wood stoves, and wood smoke burn bans when 

needed in winter. Other emission reductions that have contributed to cleaner air include Ecology’s

motor vehicle Emission Check program and federal standards for lower sulfur in diesel fuel, and 

tighter standards for new diesel vehicles. 

# # #

Media Contacts: 

Larry Altose, Ecology media relations, 425-649-7009, larry.altose@ecy.wa.gov

Laurie Hulse-Moyer, Ecology air quality planner, 360-407-6783, laurie.hulse-moyer@ecy.wa.gov

Kathy Strange, Puget Sound Clean Air agency manager for technical analysis, 206-689-4095, 

kathyw@pscleanir.org

More information:

Air quality maintenance areas

(www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/air/sips/designations/maintenance_areas.htm) 

Air quality non-attainment areas

(www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/air/sips/designations/nonattainment_areas.htm)

Air-quality maintenance area plans: (www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/air/sips/plans/maintenancesip.htm) 

Tacoma-Pierce County PM-2.5 non-attainment area: (www.airsafepiercecounty.org/) 

Ecology's social media (www.ecy.wa.gov/about/newmedia.html) 

Copyright © Washington State Department of Ecology. See http://www.ecy.wa.gov/copyright.html.

Comments sought on updated clean air maintenance plans for areas in Kent, Seattle and T... Page 2 of 2

http://www.ecy.wa.gov/news/2013/244.html 10/10/2013
...--~ EPAR NT OF 

Frequently Asked Questions ECOLOGY 

State of Washington 

Air Quality Program September 2013 

State Implementation Plan (SIP) 

Revision: SeaHie, Kent and Tacoma 

PM1o Maintenance Areas 

In the late 1980s, the federal Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 

classified Kent and the mostly indush·ial areas of Seattle and Tacoma as 

"nonattainment" areas. This was because ti1ey were eiti1er at risk for or 

violated ti1e federal healti1-based air quality standard for particulate 

matter ten microns or less in size (PM10). The Puget Sound Clean Air 

Agency and Washington State Deparbnent of Ecology (Ecology) had to 

write a SIP, which is a plan to get pollution under conb·ol. 

In ti1e early 1990s, the areas met H1e standard and EPA reclassified tl1em 

to "maintenance" areas. EPA approved the first maintenance plan in 

2001. A maintenance plan sho,·vs how an area will continue to meet air 

quality standards for ti1e next 10 years. Ecology must now oversee 

progress and submit a maintenance plan update showing hov,r ti1e areas 

will continue to meet ti1e PMw standard tiu·ough 2020. 

Q: What Is PM1o and why Is It a problem? 

A: PMw is particles of soot, dust, and smoke ti1at are 10 microns in size 

or smaller. Major sources include smoke from wood stoves, fireplaces, 

and outdoor burning. Windblown dust can also be a source. These 

particles can cause or worsen respirat01y problems, especially for 

children and ti1e elderly. 

Q: What areas does this SIP revision affect? 

A: The maintenance areas ti1is SIP revision addresses are: 

• Seattle PM10 Maintenance Area: An indush·ial area near the 

Duwamish River near Georgetown and South Park 

neighborhoods, including tl1e Port of Sea ttl e. 

• Kent PM10 Maintenance Area: An area in the Green River Valley 

,.vith conunercial and indush·ial sources as '"'ell as some 

neighborhoods with wood stoves, including the City of Kent 

between Highway 516 and South 2121

" Sb·eet. 

• Tacoma PMw Maintenance Area: The mostly indusb·ial Tideflats 

area behveen Conunencement Bay and Interstate 5, including tl1e 

Port of Tacoma. This area is not tl1e same as tl1e Tacoma-Pierce 

county PM2.s nonattaimnent area. 

WHY IT MATIERS 

Particulate matter air pollution 

can have serious health 

effects, especially for children 

and elderly people. Some 

effects include: 

• Increased risk of heart 

and lung diseases such 

as asthma, emphysema, 

pneumonia, and 

bronchitis; or worsening 

of existing conditions 

• Risk of heart attack and 

stroke 

Contact infonnation: 

Laurie Hulse-Moyer 

360-407-6783 

lahu461 @ecy.wa.gov 

Special accommodations: 

For special accommodations 

or documents in alternate 

format, call 360-407-6800, 

711 (relay service), or 877-

833-6341 {TTY). 

These areas have been in attaimnent of tl1e standard since 1989, 1987, and 1990, respectively. 

Publication Number: 13-02-017 1 
Air Quality Program September 2013 

Q: Why is Ecology revising the SIP? 

A: Ecology must revise the SIP to meet a federal requirement. Ecology must submit a plan that shows 

how the Seattle, Kent, and Tacoma PMw Maintenance Areas will continue to meet this federal 

particulate matter standard. This SIP is one of the actions clean air agencies are taking to erisure 

neighborhoods are safe, heaiU1y places to live and work This SIP revision will be the final10-year plan. 

It will assure compliance with the standard tmtil 2020. 

Q: Does the SIP revision contain any new requirements? 

A: No. Current measures are sufficient to ensure the maintenance areas contintte to meet the federal 

standard for PM10. These include: 

• Fugitive dust conh·ol 

• Wood smoke reductions 

• Outdoor burning resh·ictions 

• Indush·ial emission conh·ols 

Measures to conh·ol diesel particulate pollution also help these maintenance areas continue to meet the 

standard. These measures are: 

• A diesel inspection and maintenance program 

• Lower sulfur content in fuel 

• Sh·icter standards for new diesel vehicles 

Q: What are the sources of PM1o? 

A: Sources of pa\·ticulate matter in these areas include residential wood smoke, indushy, dust, and 

motor vehicles. The Seattle and Tacoma maintenance areas have mostly indush·ial sources. The Kent 

maintenance area has a mix of commercial and indush·ial somces, but wood smoke conh·ibutes tl1e most 

to particulate pollution tl1ere. 

Q: Does this SIP address the Tacoma-Pierce County nonaHainment area? 

A: No. The Tacoma-Pierce County nonattainment area is a different area and failed to meet a different 

particulate matter standard (the standard for PM2.s ratl1er tllatl PM10). The Tacoma PM1o maintenance 

area lies wit1Ii11 tl1e Tacoma-Pierce Cotmty PM2.snonattaimnent area; however, the PM10 maintenance area 

is smaller and contains mostly indush·ial sources while tl1e lmger PM2.s nonattainment area is mainly 

affected by wood smoke from home heating. Get more information at Clean Air Pierce Cotmty's website. 

Q: How is PM1o different from PM2.s? 

A: PM2.s particles are 2.5 microns in diameter and smaller. PMw (sometimes called coarse particle 

pollution) contains all particles smaller thm1lO microns in diameter and includes PM2.s. Due to their 

smaller size, PM2.s particles peneb·ate deeper into our hmgs where they can cause respiratory and 

cardiovascular diseases. Recent research indicates tl1at it is the fine particles that cause more adverse 

healt11 effects. 

Publication Number: 13-02-017 2 . ... t.J Please reuse and recycle 
Air Quality Program September 2013 

Q: Is coarse particle pollution still a problem? 

A: Although coarse particle pollution can still cause health effects at certain levels, all three maintenance 

areas continue to meet the federal health-based standard for PMw. PMw pollution in the Seattle and 

Tacoma areas has decreased significantly, largely as a result of reduced emissions from i.ndush·ial 

facilities. Some indush·ial facilities that conh·ibuted to PMto pollution no longer operate. Diesel emissions 

continue to conh·ibute to both PM2.s and PM10 levels in neighborhoods near the ports of Seattle and 

Tacoma. This pollution has decreased significantly, however, in part due to federal laws requiring lower 

sulfur content in diesel fuel. Air quality is steadily improving. 

Q: How can I ensure my community will continue to meet the PM1o standard? 

A: There are several ways you can help prevent and reduce pollution: 

• If you heat 'vitl1 wood, burn cleanly. Make sure your firewood has been stored dty for six 

monU1s or longer. 

• Observe burn bans. Sign up for notification at 

http: II w~ .p cl an ir org/ news/ agencynews.aspx 

• Minimize use of your \Vood stove on days wiU1 poor air quality. You can check air quality at 

http://www.pscleanair.org/ airq/ aqi.aspx 

Publication Number: 13-02-017 3 ..... 

~it Please reuse and recycle 
DEPARTMENT OF 

Public Hearing Notice . ECOLOGY 

State of Washington 

Air Quality Program September 2013 

Proposed Update to the State 

Implementation Plan (SIP): 

Seattle, Kent, and Tacoma 

PM1o Maintenance Areas 

In the late 1980s, EPA classified Kent and the mostly industrial areas 

of Seattle and Tacoma as "nonattainment" areas for particulate matter 

ten microns or less in size (PM10). These areas were either very close 

to or violated the 24-hour PM 10 standard. Because of industrial 

emission reductions, facility closures, woodstove standards, 

curtailments and outdoor burning restrictions, the areas meet the 

standards now and have for 20 years. 

The public is invited to comment on the proposed SIP revision before 

the Department of Ecology (Ecology} submits it to EPA in November 

2013. This plan is for the following existing Puget Sound PM10 

Maintenance Areas: 

• Seattle PM10 Maintenance Area: An industrial area near the 

Duwamish River near Georgetown and South Park 

neighborhoods, including the Port of Seattle. 

• Kent PM10 Maintenance Area: An area in the Green River 

Valley with commercial and industrial sources as well as 

some neighborhoods with wood stoves, including the city of 

Kent between Highway 516 and South 212'11 Street. 

• Tacoma PM10 Maintenance Area: The mostly industrial 

Tideflats area between Commencement Bay and Interstate 5, 

including the Port of Tacoma. This area is not the same as the 

Tacoma-Pierce county PM2.5 nonattainment area. 

No new rules or requirements are being proposed. 

What will the SIP revision do? 

Since the three maintenance areas show little risk of re-violating 

PM10 standards, they qualify for a streamlined plan called a Limited 

Maintenance Plan. Ecology's proposed SIP revision to include this 

Limited Maintenance Plan will: 

• Meet the federal requirement for a second 1 0-year 

maintenance plan 

Publication Number: 13-02-018 1 

DATES AND LOCATIONS 

Formal comment period: 

September 27, 2013 through 

November 4, 2013 

Public hearing date and 

location: 

October 30, 2013 

6:30pm 

Kent Commons 

Mill Creek Room 

525 Fourth Ave N 

Kent, WA 

Contact 

Laurie Hulse-Moyer 

360-407-6783 

laurie.hulsemoyer@ecy.wa.gov 

Special accommodations 

For special accommodations or 

documents in alternate format, 

call 360-407-6800, 711 (relay 

service), or 877-833-6341 

(TTY) by October 18, 2013. 
Air Quality Program September 2013 

• Maintain the control strategies that help the area continue to meet the standard, such as 

o Fugitive dust control 

o Wood smoke curtailment 

o Outdoor burning restrictions and 

o Industrial emission controls 

Other provisions that contribute to cleaner air are: 

• A diesel inspection and maintenance program 

• Lower sulfur fuel and more stringent standards for new diesel vehicles 

• Fulfill the Clean Air Act's final maintenance plan requirements for the three areas. 

Where can I get more information? 

The proposed SIP revision and related documents are available for review on Ecology's website at: 

http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/air/sips/plans/maintenancesip.htm. 

How do I submit comments? 

• Testif)' or submit written comments at the public hearing on October 30, 2013 

• Email your comments by November 4, 2013 to AQComments@ecy.wa.gov 

• Mai I comments by November 4, 2013 to: 

Department of Ecology 

ATfN: Laurie Hulse-Moyer 

PO Box 47600 

Olympia, WA 98504-7600 

How will Ecology respond to comments? 

All ofthe comments we receive will become part of the official record. Ecology will compile a summary 

of oral and written comments received during the comment period and Ecology's response to those 

comments. 

Informacion en Espanol 

Kent y las areas industriales de Sea/1/e y Tacoma necesitan revisiones rutinas pam sus planes de calidad 

de a ire. Esas revisiones demuestmn que las areas tadavia cumplen con las narmas.federales para Ia 

ca/idad de a ire. Ecologia invita comentarias ptlblicas sabre las revisiones prapuestas desde el 27 de 

septiembre a/ 4 de noviembre. Pam mas informacion en e.SlHtFwl,.favor de contactar a Richelle Perez par 

tel~fana a (360) 407-7528 o por can·eo e!ectr6nico a preguntas@ecv. wa.gov. 

Publication Number: 13-02-018 2 \,t,t ·~ Piease reuse and recycle