Docket: EPA-R10-OAR-2014-0744

WA Infrastructure SIP for 1997, 2006, and 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS

Comment On: EPA-R10-OAR-2014-0744-0008

Air Quality State Implementation Plans; Approvals and Promulgations: Washington; 

Infrastructure Requirements for the Fine Particulate Matter National Ambient Air Quality 

Standards

Document: EPA-R10-OAR-2014-0744-0009

Comment on EPA-R10-OAR-2014-0744-0008

Submitter Information

General Comment

EPA can't approve Washington's section 110(a)(2)(G) submission because WAC 173-435 doesn't 

contain any significant harm levels appropriate for PM2.5. Without significant harm levels for 

PM2.5 for each episode stage (alert, warning, and emergency) the Director of Ecology isn't legally 

allowed to declare any stage of an emergency episode. According to WAC 173-435-050(1) 

"Whenever applicable criteria are met, the director may declare and terminate the forecast, alert, 

and warning stages of an episode." Meaning that the director can only declare a stage of an 

emergency episode 'whenever applicable criteria are met' which are specifically identified in 173-

435-030. 

Also, the sampling sites, equipment, and methods in 173-435-070 were written in 1977 (filed in 

1989) with PM10 in mind (at that time it was commonly held that Lead was considered part of

PM10). Since then the NAAQS criteria pollutants and their criteria levels have been updated but 

WA hasn't updated these regulations since 1989 (and it's unclear whether the regulations were 

updated in 1989 from the original 1977 regulations) to reflect the addition of the PM2.5 NAAQS 

and the PM2.5 and Lead monitoring methods, equipment, and sampling sites.

EPA can't simply rely on the fact that the governor of WA is able to declare an emergency stage 

whenever he/she feels like it. As with all other criteria pollutants Washington should specify (and 

EPA should require) significant harm levels for PM2.5 for each episode stage (alert, warning, and 

emergency). These regulations should be updated to reflect the current NAAQS pollutants 

(including Lead and PM2.5) and the current NAAQS levels and monitoring, equipment, sampling, 

and citing requirements. Without a significant harm level for PM2.5, only the governor is legally 

PUBLIC SUBMISSION

As of: 11/14/14 2:50 PM

Received: October 22, 2014

Status: Posted

Posted: November 12, 2014

Tracking No. 1jy-8f24-2lml

Comments Due: November 17, 2014

Submission Type: Web

Page 1 of 2

https://www.fdms.gov/fdms/getcontent?objectId=09000064818e773b&format=xml&sho... 11/14/2014
allowed to declare an episode stage with respect to PM2.5, and even then the governor can only 

declare an emergency stage (no alert or warning stage). Since Ecology can't legally declare an 

alert, warning, or emergency stage, and the governor is only able to declare an emergency stage, 

this means that for all intents and purposes there can never legally be an alert or warning stage for 

PM2.5. Even if the governor declares an emergency stage for PM2.5, Ecology has no criteria on 

which to base "termination" or 'downgrading' the stage as required by 173-435-030(5), which 

requires the use of the criteria in 173-435-030(1, 2, 3, and 4). This severely limits the ability of the 

Department of Ecology to protect the health and safety of the citizens of Washington State, unless 

of course the air pollution becomes so bad that the governor is able to do something. The 

emergency episode regulation should give Ecology the legal authority to declare emergency 

episode stages based on criteria for PM2.5 and Lead, and should be required to use current

monitoring and sampling methods. Therfore EPA can't approve 110(a)(2)(G) since the emergency 

episode regulation doen't include significant harm levels for PM2.5 or Lead nor 

modeling/sampling requirements for PM2.5 and Lead.

Page 2 of 2

https://www.fdms.gov/fdms/getcontent?objectId=09000064818e773b&format=xml&sho... 11/14/2014