Document ID: EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0083-0721
Agency: epa
Document Type: Supporting & Related Material
Title: 
Posted Date: 2003-09-16T04:00Z

Clean
Air
Council
Comments
to
DEP
8/
11/
03
1
THESE
COMMENTS
ARE
THE
CLEAN
AIR
COUNCIL'S
OFFICIAL
RESPONSE
TO
THE
PENNSYLVANIA
DEPARTMENT
OF
ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION'S
PROPOSED
RECOMMENDATIONS
TO
THE
U.
S.
EPA
FOR
8
HOUR
ATTAINMENT/
NONATTAINMEMT
AREAS.
JULY
2003
Clean
Air
Council
was
founded
in
1967
as
a
citizen­
based,
non­
profit
organization
to
address
the
growing
environmental
problems
in
Pennsylvania,
especially
their
impact
on
air
quality.
The
Council
works
through
a
combination
of
public
education,
community
advocacy,
and
oversight
of
government
enforcement
of
environmental
laws
to
ensure
that
all
residents
of
Pennsylvania
live
in
a
healthy
environment.
Responses
to
these
comments
should
be
sent
to
Joseph
Otis
Minott,
Esq.,
Clean
Air
Council,
135
S.
19th
Street,
Suite
300,
Philadelphia,
Pa.
19103.
Joe_
minott@
cleanair.
org.

The
Pennsylvania
Department
of
Environmental
Protection
(
DEP)
is
in
the
process
of
submitting
attainment
area
designation
recommendations
to
the
United
States
Environmental
Protection
Agency
(
EPA)
as
part
of
several
steps
necessary
to
meet
the
Court­
ordered
April
2004
national
deadline
for
completing
the
designations
under
the
1997
8­
hour
ozone
health
standards.
DEP
has
sought
and
received
a
brief
extension
on
its
date
to
submit
these
recommendations
to
EPA
in
order
to
solicit
public
input
and
comment.
Clean
Air
Council
appreciates
this
opportunity.

Ozone
(
smog)
is
dangerous
to
all
of
us.
It
is
particularly
dangerous
to
children,
whose
developing
lungs
are
more
vulnerable
to
the
pollutant.
Ozone
has
also
been
recently
tied
to
the
onset
of
asthma,
a
respiratory
disease
with
rates
among
children
that
have
increased
by
70%
since
1980.
Ozone
is
also
a
threat
to
the
health
of
the
elderly,
and
people
with
pre­
existing
respiratory
and
heart
disease.
In
2002,
Pennsylvania
recorded
570
exceedances
of
the
8­
hour
NAAQS
for
ozone.

As
an
organization
advocating
on
public
health
issues,
the
Council
finds
it
troubling
that
six
years
after
EPA
revised
the
ozone
standard
to
85
ppm
over
8
hours,
we
are
still
only
discussing
designating
attainment/
non­
attainment
areas.
This
process
is
much
too
slow,
and
condemns
too
many
Americans
to
living
with
unhealthful
air
quality
for
longer
than
necessary!

The
Council
acknowledges
the
great
progress
Pennsylvania
has
made
in
improving
air
quality.
Yet,
despite
the
steady
progress
over
the
last
thirty
years,
the
air
quality
in
many
parts
of
Pennsylvania
remains
a
major
public
health
threat.
It
is
imperative,
therefore,
that
DEP
and
EPA
take
very
seriously
their
duty
to
implement
the
policies,
rules
and
regulations
required
to
attain
and
maintain
the
8­
hour
ozone
health
standard.
Clean
Air
Council
Comments
to
DEP
8/
11/
03
2
Under
§
107(
d)(
1)(
A)
of
the
Clean
Air
Act,
DEP
must
recommend
designations
of
either
nonattainment,
attainment,
or
unclassifiable
for
all
areas
of
the
state
and
must
designate
as
nonattainment
"
any
area
that
does
not
meet
(
or
that
contributes
to
ambient
air
quality
in
a
nearby
area
that
does
not
meet)
the
national
primary
or
secondary
ambient
air
quality
standard
for
the
pollutant."
42
U.
S.
C.
§
7407(
d)(
1)(
A)(
i)
(
emphasis
added).

EPA
recommends
that
the
Metropolitan
Statistical
Area
or
Consolidated
Statistical
Area
(
C/
MSA)
serve
as
the
presumptive
boundary
for
the
8­
hour
NAAQS.
This
was
the
approached
used
under
the
one­
hour
standard.
The
advantage
of
continuing
this
approach
is
that
it
is
one
that
the
public
and
elected
officials
are
familiar
with
and
should
easily
accept.
Pennsylvania
has
a
long
history
of
elected
officials
involving
themselves
in
a
negative
way
with
environmental
policies
or
programs
that
they
do
not
fully
understand.
In
the
past
that
has
led
elected
leaders
in
Pennsylvania
to
block
implementation
of
such
programs
and
policies.
That
being
said,
it
must
be
recognized
that
the
C/
MSA
often
do
not
conform
to
the
reality
of
air
pollution
transport.
EPA
itself
recognizes
this
in
the
establishment
of
eleven
criteria
in
its
March
28,
2000
guidance
memorandum
entitled:
"
Boundary
Guidance
on
Air
Quality
Designations
for
the
8­
hour
Ozone
National
Ambient
Air
Quality
Standard."
(
EPA
2000
Guidance)
The
guidance
specifically
suggests
criteria
that
may
be
considered
in
designating
a
non­
attainment
region
including
commuting
patterns,
population
density,
monitoring
data,
traffic
patterns,
emission
sources,
topography
and
meteorology,
pollution
transport,
and
urbanization.

Pennsylvania,
much
like
other
states
in
the
mid­
Atlantic
is
both
greatly
impacted
by
ozone
transport
into
Pennsylvania
and
greatly
contributes
to
ozone
transport
into
other
states.
While
air
pollution
is
often
not
confined
to
state
boundaries,
the
Clean
Air
Act
is
primarily
based
on
each
state
implementing
its
own
programs
to
attain
the
NAAQS.
Yet
Pennsylvania
cannot
attain
the
8­
hour
ozone
standard
on
its
own.
Attaining
the
standard
will
not
occur
unless
emissions
are
reduced
from
sources
that
are
"
upwind"
of
Pennsylvania
non­
attainment
areas.
This
is
also
true
for
New
Jersey.
Much
as
Pennsylvania
will
look
to
states
such
as
Ohio
and
Delaware
to
work
cooperatively
to
reduce
pollution
coming
into
Pennsylvania,
so
too
must
Pennsylvania
work
cooperatively
to
reduce
pollution
coming
from
Pennsylvania
into
New
Jersey
and
Northeastern
states.

The
Council
commends
DEP
for
abandoning
its
earlier
proposal
to
designate
certain
areas
as
"
transitional
non­
attainment."
The
Council
strongly
opposed
creating
this
new
designation.
The
Council
believes
that
the
designations
now
proposed
by
Pennsylvania
have
much
more
integrity
and
for
the
most
part
are
deserving
of
EPA's
approval.
In
reviewing
DEP's
proposed
recommendation
to
EPA,
it
is
clear
that
Pennsylvania
has
chosen
to
approach
the
creation
of
non­
attainment
areas
conservatively.
Pennsylvania
demonstrates
a
strong
preference
for
adhering
to
the
C/
MSAs
developed
for
the
1­
hour
standard.
This
approach
occasionally
results
in
unusual
designations,
but
for
the
most
part
raises
few
concerns.

Still,
the
Council
would
question
why
counties
such
as
Berks
and
Lancaster
stand
alone.
The
Council
urges
Pennsylvania
DEP
to
look
carefully
at
the
transport
contribution
of
these
stand­
alone
counties.
If
it
is
determined
that
such
counties
contribute
to
elevated
Clean
Air
Council
Comments
to
DEP
8/
11/
03
3
ozone
in
downwind
counties,
such
counties
should
be
combined
with
the
downwind
counties
into
a
larger
non­
attainment
area.
This
is
in
accordance
with
EPA's
guidance:

"
In
reducing
ozone
concentrations
above
the
NAAQS,
EPA
believes
it
is
best
to
consider
controls
on
sources
over
a
larger
area
due
to
the
pervasive
nature
of
ground
level
ozone
and
transport
of
ozone
and
its
precursors."

EPA
2000
Guidance,
p.
3.

In
particular,
the
growth
in
increasingly
suburban
York
County
since
the
last
designation
surely
raises
the
likelihood
that
the
ozone
generated
there
is
contributing
to
Lancaster
County's
non­
attainment.
It
may
be
appropriate
for
the
two
to
be
joined
in
one
nonattainment
area.
Likewise,
continuing
growth
in
Berks
County
may
impact
pollution
transport
sufficiently
to
justify
its
inclusion
in
the
Allentown­
Bethlehem
non­
attainment
area.

New
Jersey
proposes
a
very
ambitious
approach
for
Pennsylvania.
New
Jersey
suggests
greatly
expanding
non­
attainment
area
for
Philadelphia
and
Southern/
Central
New
Jersey.
This
non­
attainment
area
in
addition
to
the
existing
counties
of
the
Chester,
Montgomery,
Bucks,
Delaware,
Philadelphia,
Cumberland,
Salem,
Gloucester,
Camden,
Burlington,
and
Mercer,
would
now
include
York,
Lancaster,
Lehigh
and
Berks
from
Pennsylvania
and
Ocean
County
from
New
Jersey.
There
are
two
issues
raised
by
this
suggestion.
The
first
is
whether
there
is
a
strong
rationale
for
including
York,
Lancaster,
Lehigh
and
Berks
Counties
in
the
Philadelphia
non­
attainment
area.
The
second
is
whether
Ocean
County
should
be
transferred
from
its
present
location
in
the
NY
non­
attainment
area
to
the
Philadelphia
non­
attainment
area.

In
the
absence
of
a
demonstration
that
the
counties
of
York,
Lancaster,
Lehigh,
and
Berks
significantly
contribute
to
non­
attainment
in
the
Philadelphia­
Wilmington­
Trenton
nonattainment
area
at
this
time,
the
Council
believes
it
is
appropriate
for
them
to
remain
separate
from
the
Philadelphia
region.
Until
such
a
demonstration
is
made,
the
political
and
economic
cost
cannot
be
justified.

Clean
Air
Council
also
opposes
including
Ocean
County
in
the
Philadelphia
nonattainment
area.
What
is
clear
is
that
both
Pennsylvania
and
New
York
seem
eager
not
to
include
Ocean
County
in
their
non­
attainment
areas.
A
look
at
the
data
may
explain
why:
Ocean
County
exceeded
the
NAAQS
for
the
8­
hour
ozone
standard
30
times
in
2002.
The
depth
of
the
exceedances
also
makes
the
County
unappealing
from
an
air
quality
point
of
view.
If
modeling
shows
that
Southeastern
Pennsylvania
contributes
significantly
to
Ocean
County's
exceedances,
then
it
might
be
logical
to
include
the
County
in
the
Philadelphia
non­
attainment
area.
But
the
burden
should
be
placed
on
New
Jersey
and
New
York
to
explain
why
there
is
a
need
to
change
the
presumptive
CMSA.
Furthermore,
New
York's
pitch
to
drop
Ocean
County
from
its
non­
attainment
area
rings
hollow
and
appears
to
be
opposed
by
some
of
the
New
England
states.
It
appears
on
the
surface
that
New
York's
request
is
not
principled,
but
is
being
made
in
order
to
avoid
implementing
controls
needed
to
address
its
own
serious
ozone
problem.
Clean
Air
Council
Comments
to
DEP
8/
11/
03
4
The
issue
of
what
to
do
with
Mercer
County
New
Jersey
is
more
ambiguous.
The
Council
believes
that
Mercer
County
should
remain
part
of
the
Philadelphia
non­
attainment
area
as
it
was
under
the
1­
hour
standard,
unless
a
compelling
case
can
be
made
for
moving
into
the
Northern
New
Jersey­
New
York
non­
attainment
area.
New
Jersey
has
not
made
such
a
showing.

The
Council
supports
keeping
Cecil
County,
Maryland
part
of
the
Philadelphia
area
nonattainment
area.
The
burden
would
be
on
any
state
wanting
to
move
county
of
the
Philadelphia
non­
attainment
to
make
a
strong
showing
as
to
why
it
should
be
moved.
No
state
has
made
such
a
case.

The
Council
is
particularly
pleased
to
see
recommendations
for
the
western
Pennsylvania
area
that
includes
both
Pennsylvania
and
Ohio.
It
is
well
established
that
ozone
and
ozone
precursors
traveling
into
Western
Pennsylvania
are
significant
contributors
to
the
region's
ozone
problems.
This
was
true
under
the
1­
hour
standard
and
continues
to
be
true
under
the
8­
hour
standard.
The
Council
questions
why
more
areas
in
Western
Pennsylvania
are
not
included
in
an
Ohio­
Pennsylvania
non­
attainment
region.
It
appears
from
the
data
that
reaching
into
Ohio
to
include
a
number
of
eastern
Ohio
counties
into
the
Beaver
Valley
non­
attainment
area
may
have
great
merit.
The
Council
would
urge
Pennsylvania
to
consider
including
those
Ohio
counties
into
such
a
non­
attainment
area
or
justify
why
it
chose
not
to.

Finally,
the
Council
was
intrigued
by
Delaware's
suggestion
of
a
giant
non­
attainment
area
that
would
encompass
most
of
the
states
covered
under
EPA's
recent
110
NOx
SIP
call.
Although
there
are
several
reasons
such
an
arrangement
would
not
necessarily
be
desirable,
the
point
that
upwind
states
must
be
made
to
work
cooperatively
with
downwind
states
is
a
powerful
one.
The
Council
urges
EPA
to
take
stronger
action
on
the
issue
of
pollution
transport!

The
Council
thanks
Pennsylvania
for
this
opportunity
to
submit
comments
on
this
very
important
issue.