November 25, To Whom It May Concern:

Transcription

1 November 25, 1997 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center Attention Docket Number A Waterside Mall, Room M M Street, SW Washington, DC To Whom It May Concern: The State and Territorial Air Pollution Program Administrators (STAPPA) and the Association of Local Air Pollution Control Officials (ALAPCO) are pleased to provide the following comments on the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA's) Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) for regional haze regulations, as published in the Federal Register on July 31, 1997 (62 FR 41138). Alignment with PM 2.5 Implementation Timelines STAPPA and ALAPCO are concerned with the mismatch of timelines associated with implementation of EPA's regional haze proposal and those associated with implementation of the PM 2.5 program. In that EPA clearly states in the preamble to the proposed regional haze regulations that, "(t)oday's proposal also implements the Administrator's decision to address the general national public welfare concern for visibility through a combined program for setting a new PM 2.5 secondary national ambient air quality standard equivalent to the primary standard...," the associations strongly believe that the agency should revise the implementation schedule for the regional haze program so that it more appropriately builds on implementation of the PM 2.5 program. States and localities must first monitor and analyze their PM 2.5 before they can formulate plans for attaining the primary and secondary standards for this pollutant and relate such control plans to regional haze. Doing so will provide states and localities with the flexibility to determine whether and how best to integrate implementation of regional haze strategies with strategies for controlling PM 2.5. The associations believe it is inappropriate to call upon states and localities to engage in resource-intensive planning efforts for regional haze before PM 2.5 designations have been made and in advance of planning efforts related to implementation of the health-based standard for PM 2.5. In order to maximize resource effectiveness and allow states and localities to build on the extensive compilation of data to result from the forthcoming PM 2.5 monitoring network, the timing of the regional haze program should be revised so that it complements the PM 2.5 program.

2 Applicability The regional haze program proposed by EPA imposes State Implementation Plan (SIP) requirements on every state in the nation by requiring all states to submit an initial SIP and subsequent SIP revisions on a periodic basis. Currently, only states with a mandatory Class I area must submit a visibility SIP. EPA indicates that it is proposing to extend this requirement to all states based upon studies that indicate that all states create emissions that may affect one or more Class I areas; no exemptions are provided. STAPPA and ALAPCO believe that EPA should establish a means by which certain states may be excluded from the program. In cases where a state's contribution to regional haze is insignificant, the state should be provided an opportunity, based on clear EPA criteria, to adequately demonstrate this insignificance to EPA's satisfaction in its SIP submittal, thus exempting the state or part of the state from further involvement in the regional haze program. The criteria should be established through rulemaking and allow a state to demonstrate insignificant or lack of contribution through such analyses, among others, as transport, modeling, emissions levels and meteorology. Under Section 169A(c)(1), the Administrator is authorized to exempt a major stationary source that is presumed to contribute under Section 169A(b)(2) if she determines that the source does not "contribute to significant impairment." We believe that if major stationary sources of the size targeted under the existing program are provided with an opportunity for exemption, then exempting states that make insignificant emissions contributions is also reasonable. SIP Frequency The proposed regional haze rule requires each state to submit a SIP revision within one year of the promulgation of the final rule. This revised SIP must provide for periodic revision of the long-term strategy no later than four years from the date of the initial plan revision and no later than every three years thereafter. Periodic SIP revisions are not required by the Clean Air Act and, in the associations' opinion, are unnecessary to meet the national goal and will draw on state and local resources that could be better utilized for effective air pollution control implementation. STAPPA and ALAPCO recommend that states be required only to submit an initial, minimal SIP revision and one subsequent, more substantive revision at a later date. We believe that the timing of these regional haze submittals should be tied to a state's submittal of a PM 2.5 SIP. With respect to the initial SIP submittal, the associations find it unrealistic to expect that any state that has not already participated in a Visibility Transport Commission process could assess its impacts and develop a plan for measures necessary to provide for regional implementation plans of any specificity within one year. With respect to the subsequent SIP revisions that EPA proposes to require every three years after the first substantive SIP submittal (which follows the intial, minimal submittal) to track reasonable progress over time, STAPPA and ALAPCO note that Section 169B(b) of the Clean Air Act clearly makes EPA responsible for evaluating visibility improvement over time. Therefore, each state should not be required to individually assess improvements

3 through a frequent, resource-intensive SIP revision requirement. Instead, the associations believe that after the first substantive SIP revision (to follow an initial, minimal SIP revision), a review of the SIP strategy and its results should be conducted every five years to ensure that progress is being made. If such review results in a determination by EPA that reasonable progress is not being made, only then should a state be required to submit a SIP revision. Regional Coordination Regional haze is, by its very nature, an issue that must be addressed through extensive coordination of numerous states, localities and other stakeholders. The traditional methods of states and localities addressing control measures within their boundaries to resolve localized air pollution control programs cannot be applied to address regional haze problems. One state has no authority over any other state to implement control measures and, thus, cannot singularly assure absolute improvement, only a reduction in its own contribution. For most mandatory Class I areas, the host state cannot individually implement control measures that will ensure improvement in visibility within the Class I area. Transport regions and commissions will be required to implement effective regional programs for visibility improvements. In the preamble to the proposed rule, EPA encourages regional stakeholder coordination to address regional haze, but does not address how such efforts will be facilitated or provide incentives for stakeholders to participate. Congress acknowledged the need for multi-state coordination in the Clean Air Act by establishing the authority for EPA to establish visibility transport regions and commissions. As states do not have authority over other states to address regional emissions, the authority established in the Clean Air Act is also clearly a responsibility. It is not enough for EPA to encourage coordination. In cases where EPA has reason to believe that the current or projected interstate transport of air pollutants from one or more states contributes significantly to visibility impairment in Class I areas located in the affected states and the appropriate stakeholders are not taking adequate action to engage in a coordinated regional effort, the agency must also take an active role in establishing and facilitating regional efforts. The proposal requires that individual states address and justify control programs individually. This provides a substantial disincentive to expend the resources to coordinate with regional groups. The regional haze rule must also directly allow for the implementation of programs developed through the resource-intensive regional coordination process. The Grand Canyon Visibility Transport Commission (GCVTC), created by Congress under the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, spent several years engaged in an intensive and time-consuming effort to address regional haze in the Colorado Plateau. The GCVTC exhaustively evaluated the regional problem to make recommendations regarding meeting the national visibility goal in that area. The proposed rule does not allow for direct implementation of the program developed by the GCVTC for the control of regional haze. The final rule should allow for a state, if it so chooses, to incorporate the recommendations of a regional body as part of the SIP, without having to justify the program individually. The

4 efforts that are put forth by regional groups must be acknowledged in this way. To specifically allow for the implementation of a regional group's recommendations, STAPPA and ALAPCO suggest that the following new language be added into the regional haze rule, to serve as an alternative option to the requirements currently provided in the NPRM. Section Definitions To the definition of reasonable progress target, add "or other reasonable progress target. Where a regional body representing key stakeholders has proposed an alternative target after evaluation of specific Class I areas in light of the factors set forth in Section 169A, EPA will give deference to the alternative over the default assumption." Section Implementation Control Strategies To the section on implementation control strategies, add new subsection (d): "For Class I areas addressed by a Visibility Transport Commission, measures recommended within a report issued pursuant to the requirements of Section 169B(d)(2) of the Clean Air Act will meet the requirements of (a) through (c) of this section provided the State commits to implementing the recommended measures." Section Long-Term Strategy To the section on long-term strategy, add new subsection (I): "For Class I areas addressed by a Visibility Transport Commission, measures recommended within a report issued pursuant to the requirements of Section 169B(d)(2) of the Clean Air Act will meet the requirements of (b) through (h) of this section related to regional haze visibility impairment provided the State commits to implementing the recommended measures." Reasonable Progress Targets EPA's regional haze proposal calls for reasonable progress in the form of measured deciviews, but also provides states with an opportunity to present alternatives. STAPPA and ALAPCO believe that, consistent with the Grand Canyon Visibility Transport Commission's definition of reasonable progress, a demonstration of steady reduction in emissions of pollutants shown to contribute to regional haze, coupled with a five-year review of trends in visibility, should qualify as an acceptable alternative measurement of reasonable progress. For example, many regions of the country will be developing and implementing programs that will have the effect of achieving regional- scale reductions in emissions that contribute to visibility impairment. A regional NO x reduction strategy that could result from the proposed NO x SIP call in the eastern U.S. could likely satisfy regional haze requirements for these areas. Additionally, to the extent that western regions of the country pursue regional strategies that reduce visibility precursor emissions, such reductions could similarly suffice as meeting regional haze requirements.

5 Area Sources Given their nature, the number of area sources and owners is enormous, compared to more easily targeted point sources. Reducing area source emissions -- such as those from prescribed fire and road dust, among others -- will be critical to reducing visibility impairment and will require substantial effort by states and localities. STAPPA and ALAPCO are troubled by the fact that for many area sources, emission factors are not well developed. This is an issue that will require EPA's prompt attention, since progress in addressing area sources cannot be made until emission factors are more highly refined. In addition, the associations note the responsibility that EPA has to make commitments to adopting national measures to control area sources. Not only are national measures more appropriate when significant emissions result from common, ubiquitous sources, they are also far more successful in forcing technology than "piece-meal" local measures. In western states, for example, projections indicate that mobile and area sources, as well as sources from Mexico, will increase, exacerbating visibility impairment, both on an annual average and on the worst days. The GCVTC emphasized the significance of gaining a better understanding of the magnitude of area source emissions and identifying ways to reduce them. STAPPA and ALAPCO concur with this assessment and urge EPA to improve area source emission factors and develop appropriate national controls for such sources. With respect to international sources, there are major point and area sources in Canada and Mexico that cause or contribute to visibility impairment in Class I areas located near international borders. In that states and EPA do not have authority to require control measures in any other country, if international sources are demonstrated to be major contributors to visibility impairment in Class I areas, EPA should commit to working with Canada or Mexico to reduce emissions from these sources. Further, EPA should give full consideration to a state's inability to control international emissions when reviewing a state's proposal for an alternative progress target. Mobile Sources Like area sources, national controls for mobile source will play a key role in reducing regional haze. In the preamble to the NPRM, the agency has included language on mobile sources that is consistent with the GCVTC recommendation that some sources are best controlled at the federal level. Yet, the proposal itself does not include a commitment by EPA to impose federal controls. In that states and localities are precluded from regulating certain categories of mobile sources that are significant emitters of pollutants that contribute to regional haze, it is imperative that EPA make and fulfill commitments to do its fair share by developing the most effective national control strategies achievable to address these mobile sources. Prescribed Burning Increased prescribed burning is planned for many wildland areas and will degrade visibility. Conventional emission management strategies are not sufficient for this emission source.

6 States and localities require guidance on how prescribed fire activity should be incorporated into their regional haze programs. Prescribed fire is a unique emission source and guidance for this source should address the following issues: Smoke management and reduction techniques must be used for all fires, human or natural ignition, for which less than immediate and full suppression action is taken. Basic requirements of a smoke management program are necessary to ensure progress towards the national visibility goal. Prescribed fire emissions are temporary, but sometimes a significant source of air pollutants. The contribution of emissions from prescribed fire to regional haze must be accounted for. In addition, the regional haze regulations should include requirements for the evaluation of forest health burning impacts on reasonable further progress and the reasonable progress target and, if appropriate, the recalculation of the reasonable progress target. Further, EPA should commit to serving as a national clearinghouse for information on prescribed burning. Federal Land Managers' Interaction with States The NPRM makes several references to the relationship between states and federal land managers (FLMs). STAPPA and ALAPCO believe that a cooperative consultation process between FLMs and states will be critical to the achievement of regional haze goals and urge that EPA clarify that such cooperation and consultation take place between FLM and the state environmental agency. In addition, the associations urge that requirements that states consult with FLMs be extended so that, likewise, FLMs are required to consult with states; such two-way consultation will be necessary, particularly in cases where FLMs do not have Class I areas in their jurisdiction, but do have authority over sources of emissions that may affect Class I areas elsewhere. Best Available Retrofit Technology EPA's proposal emphasizes the Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART) for point source emission control and identifies the private sector in the western U.S. as being most affected. The agency claims to agree with the Grand Canyon Visibility Transport Commission's recommendations for addressing stationary sources by providing a "flexible air quality planning framework to facilitate the interstate coordination necessary to reduce regional haze visibility impairment in mandatory Class I Federal areas nationwide." It is not clear, however, in what way EPA's BART program provides flexibility. Analytical, technical and legal challenges that have plagued the phase 1 BART process since the 1970s will continue, or more likely increase, under the proposed regional haze regulations. These costly challenges will divert the attention and already scarce resources of state and local agencies -- resources that could be better used to address mobile and area source impacts on regional haze. Therefore, the regional haze regulations should explicitly allow for alternatives to the BART process (e.g., market trading programs, emission caps,

7 collaborative decision-making) where the alternative can be shown to be equally or more effective. Further, EPA is unclear about the respective roles and authority of the federal land managers, states and regional commissions/partnerships in the BART process. STAPPA and ALAPCO urge that these roles be more clearly defined, including who determines reasonable attribution for an out-of-state source that contributes to regional haze and whether a Class I area host state can trigger BART for any stationary source that contributes to regional haze. The associations offer to work in partnership with EPA to clarify these issues. Funding The proposed regional haze regulations place significant new burdens on state and local air agencies without providing an indication of where the resources necessary to support these efforts will come from. BART assessments are technically rigorous and controversial. Monitoring is resource intensive, particularly given the remote locations in which many of these monitors will be sited. Assessment of progress in improving visibility will be dependent on a clear understanding of source/receptor relationships, highlighting the need in some areas for significant improvements in model input parameters, including emission estimates, meteorology and secondary particle formation chemistry. Regional haze requirements, while very important to achieving a national goal for visibility, must be accompanied by additional federal funding. States and localities cannot divert funds allotted for efforts related to implementation of the health-based PM 2.5, PM 10 and ozone standards to address regional haze. In short, the success or failure of the regional haze program will hinge on EPA's financial support for the program. In conclusion, we thank you for the opportunity to provide STAPPA and ALAPCO's comments on this important proposal. On behalf of the associations, we look forward to working in close partnership with EPA as the agency further develops final regional haze regulations. If we can provide any further information as you consider our comments, please do not hesitate to contact either of us or S. William Becker, Executive Director of STAPPA and ALAPCO. Sincerely, Brock M. Nicholson Chair STAPPA Criteria Pollutants Committee John A. Paul Chair

8 ALAPCO Criteria Pollutants Committee