Comments and Testimonies

February 6, 2004

THESE COMMENTS ARE CLEAN AIR COUNCIL'S OFFICIAL RESPONSE TO PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTIONS PROPOSED RECOMMENDATION TO THE US EPA for PM 2.5 24 HOUR AND ANNUAL ATTAINMENT/NON-ATTAINMENT AREAS.

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 addressed to Joseph Otis Minott, Esq. Clean Air Council, 135 S. 19th Street, Suite 300, Philadelphia, Pa. 19103. Or email to: joe_minott@cleanair.org

The Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) is in the process of submitting PM 2.5 attainment area designation recommendations to the United States Environmental Protection Agency.

Under 107 (d)(1)(A) of the Clean Air Act, DEP must recommend designation of either attainment, non-attainment, or unclassifiable for all areas of the state and must designate as non attainment "any area that does 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 USC 7407(d)(1)(A)(i).

In a memo to EPA regional administrators dated April 1, 2003, Jeffrey Holmstead, Assistant Administrator of the US EPA provides guidance to state and local air pollution control agencies on designating areas for the purpose of implementing the fine particle national ambient air quality standard. In the memo EPA strongly recommends that states use the same boundaries established for the 8-hour ozone standard. EPA recommends that the Metropolitan Statistical Area or Consolidated Statistical Area (C/MSA) serve as the presumptive boundaries.

The Council agrees that there are great advantages to harmonizing the ozone and PM2.5 boundaries. The most important reason is that the public and elected officials are already familiar with these boundaries and will more readily accept them. Pennsylvania has a long history of elected officials and anti-environmental interests involving themselves in a negative way with environmental policies or programs they do not fully understand.

Nevertheless, C/MSA's occasionally do not conform to the reality of air pollution formation and transport. In attachment 2 of the Holmstead memo, EPA itself recognizes that certain factors may suggest establishing different boundaries. The guidance memo suggests criteria that may be considered in designating a non-attainment region including such factors as: Population density and degree of urbanization; traffic and commuting patterns; expected growth; meteorology; geography and topography; jurisdictional boundaries, level of control of emission sources; emissions in areas potentially included versus excluded from the attainment area.

The designation of an area as being in attainment or non-attainment does not in and of itself require specific action; the designation status simply makes public a determination of the healthfulness of air quality in the area. Based on the designation, however, certain air quality and planning requirements will be imposed. There will be a natural tendency therefore for areas that themselves may be in attainment but contribute to another area's continued non-attainment to fight hard to avoid being included in a larger metropolitan non-attainment area. That DEP has not succumbed to this is clearly established by its inclusion of Mercer County, Pennsylvania in the larger area that includes up wind areas of Trumbell and Mahoning in Ohio.

The Council urges Pennsylvania to fight for the inclusion of Southern New Jersey and Northern Delaware in the Philadelphia non-attainment area. The Council believes that area should include: Cecil County Maryland, Kent and New Castle Counties in Delaware, Mercer, Burlington, Camden, Gloucester, Salem and Cumberland Counties in New Jersey, Chester, Delaware, Philadelphia, Montgomery, and Bucks County, Pennsylvania. The Council acknowledges that the New Jersey Counties are attainment for fine particulates and mostly down wind from the Pennsylvania counties, nevertheless air patterns do sometimes travel from New Jersey into Pennsylvania and mobile traffic certainly does. There is no question that a broad Wilmington-Philadelphia-Trenton non-attainment area will see program implementations that will benefit the region as a whole.

Particulate matter pollution is a serious health threat to residents of Pennsylvania. PM2.5 pollution will be more difficult to address than ozone in that there are two sources of particulate in Pennsylvania's air. Primary formation fine particulates are those emitted directly into the air from diesel emissions, wood burning, and commercial combustion processes. Secondary formation fine particulates are those formed in the atmosphere mostly from gaseous emissions such as sulfates from SO2 emissions from power plants; automobiles, and other combustion sources; carbon formed from organic gas emissions from automobiles and industrial facilities; and nitrates and ammonia from agricultural activities.

Attaining the national ambient air quality 24 hour and annual standards for fine particulates will have a dramatic impact on public health by avoiding significant numbers of premature deaths each year. Many health studies have correlated increased exposure to PM 2.5 with increases serious respiratory and cardiovascular disease. Attaining the standard will also have a significant positive impact through lower hospital emissions and work absences.

The Council acknowledges the great progress most states including Pennsylvania have made in improving air quality. Yet, despite the steady progress of the last thirty years, the air quality in many parts of Pennsylvania remains a major 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 new PM2.5 standard.

One question that arises is timing. Clearly, the Council is discouraged that enforceable regulatory programs under the 1997 NAAQS for pm2.5 will just be taking effect late in this decade. What is truly difficult to reconcile is the manner in which 2010 attainment of the standard will be shown. The Department has stated that the monitoring data collected in 2007, 2008, and 2009 will be used to determine whether designated areas attain the standard in 2010. Yet, DEP acknowledges in its Proposed Recommendations that it will not submit attainment State Implementation Plans to EPA until February 2008. Presumably, there will be a significant period of time before EPA indicates approval. Therefore, any control measures necessary to achieve the standard may not be applied until perhaps half the monitoring period will have passed. Such timing does not provide confidence that attainment will be met in 2010. This fact appears to presage a DEP request for an extension from EPA, which may be available for up to five years. Rather than subject residents of the Commonwealth to additional years of unhealthy air, Clean Air Council urges the Department to revise its tentative schedule, and submitting the PM2.5 SIP revisions before the final deadline of February 2008. The Department is highly capable of completing that process in less than three years, and should do so to better protect public health.

Another issue of concern to the Council in DEP's proposal is the number of counties classified in attainment in which there are no monitors. Given that PM 2.5 includes the particles emitted directly into the air and gases transformed in the atmosphere into particles, that it includes both local sources and transport sources, and that PM 2.5 is generated from both rural and urban activities, it seems that the determination of attainment of so many counties through modeling alone may be problematic.

In addition to the issue of no monitors, the Council is concerned about the actual positioning of monitors within counties. EPA guidance gives DEP considerable discretion in the placement of PM2.5 monitoring stations, and DEP's selection can be critical, and perhaps determinative of whether an area will be designated attainment or not. The two stations where the numbers are close are the Lehigh and Northampton County stations. They are populated, industrial counties, downwind of Berks and Lancaster counties, which have relatively high, non-attaining design values. At 14.3 and 14.4 µg/m3 respectively, Lehigh and Northampton are close to exceeding the annual standard of 15 µg/m3. The highest value in the state is in Allegheny County, at 21.7 µg/m3, where the monitor is situated just a mile from a major source of PM 2.5 and some precursors. The emissions inventory in Allegheny County provides confidence that this location is not the only place in the County where the standard is exceeded, but it makes the point that location can be a factor. While it is too late to affect the numbers that are the basis of this designation, the Council believes a review of the location of these monitors is warranted, and the potential placement of additional monitors must be explored.

Lawrence County: It is unclear from DEP's materials why Lawrence County is considered Attainment. To its East and South, the Pittsburgh CMSA is in non-attainment. To its North and West, lies the 4-County Sharon non-attainment area. Is there modeling that conclusively establishes Lawrence as attainment despite the lack of a PM2.5 monitor?

Indiana, Montour and Greene Counties: These counties are proposed to be classified in attainment even though they have no monitors. However each of these counties is a major contributor to Pennsylvania's SO2 emissions. Given that it is well established that SO2 is a major precursor to PM2.5, it is unclear whether DEP has considered how the SO2 contributions from these counties might impact downwind counties in Pennsylvania or other states from attaining the PM2.5 health standard. If it is determined that the SO2 emissions from these counties contributes to other area's non-attainment, these counties also be classified as non-attainment. That case is particularly strong in Greene and Indiana Counties, where some of the nation's largest and dirtiest power plants are located.

Berks and Lancaster : The Council is concerned about having Berks County and Lancaster County stand alone. The transport component of PM 2.5 it raises a number of questions vis a vis these two stand alone counties. Where is the PM 2.5 coming from and are the PM2.5 exporting counties being classified as non-attainment.? Would it not make more sense to include these counties in a much large non-attainment area. What is the contribution of these high population growth areas to the PM 2.5 Philadelphia non-attainment area? Given that both counties are non-attainment for PM 2.5 does it make sense to include them in an enlarged Philadelphia non-attainment area?

Philadelphia-Southern NJ: As stated above the Council strongly recommends keeping the present ozone non-attainment area as the PM 2.5 non-attainment area.

Pike County: To the extent that Pike is part of the New York CMSA, and the commuting and recreational ties to the metro area are continuing to grow along with Pike's population, it seems wise to the Council for DEP to recommend its inclusion in the CMSA.

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Department's proposal