Informal Comment Period for Chapter 173-448 WAC, Air Quality in Overburdened Communities Highly Impacted by Air Pollution.

Submitted By

43 Results

Search Type

Sort:

Sort Results By

Comment From: Swinomish Indian Tribal Commun... (Allison Work)

2/18/26 @ 3:33 PM

Attachments:

Download

Comment From: PATRICIA MARTIN

2/15/26 @ 8:54 PM

Attachments:

Download

Comment From: Washington Public Ports Associ... (Carly Michiels)

2/15/26 @ 8:36 PM

Attachments:

Download

Comment From: Association of Washington Busi... (Peter Godlewski)

2/15/26 @ 3:03 PM

Attachments:

Download

Comment From: Avista Corporation, Cascade Na... (Scott Novak)

2/15/26 @ 12:56 PM

Attachments:

Download

Comment From: Danna Dal Porto

2/14/26 @ 5:17 PM

Attachments:

Download

Comment From: Gil Alvarado (Gil Alvarado)

2/14/26 @ 12:51 PM

PORT OF MATTAWA (Grant County Port District No. 3)
Comments on Preliminary Draft Rule Language – Chapter 173 448 WAC
Air Quality in Overburdened Communities Highly Impacted by Air Pollution
Submitted to the Washington State Department of Ecology

The...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Curt Morris (Curt Morris)

2/14/26 @ 12:21 PM

PORT OF QUINCY (Grant County Port District No. 1)
Comments on Preliminary Draft Rule Language – Chapter 173 448 WAC
Air Quality in Overburdened Communities Highly Impacted by Air Pollution
Submitted to the Washington State Department of Ecology

The ...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Food Northwest (Pamela Barrow)

2/14/26 @ 12:08 PM

Attachments:

Download

Comment From: WSPA (Jessica Spiegel)

2/14/26 @ 9:50 AM

Attachments:

Download

Comment From: The Nature Conservancy, Washin... (Jamie Stroble)

2/13/26 @ 10:13 PM

Attachments:

Download

Comment From: Senator Judy Warnick

2/13/26 @ 6:35 PM

I am writing on behalf of the small Eastern WA communities that have been identified as overburdened communities regarding air quality.
Eastern Washington is often subject to thick, heavy wildfire smoke as well as high concentrations of dust, a...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Boeing (Kristin Marshall)

2/13/26 @ 5:12 PM

Please see attached comments from The Boeing Company.

Attachments:

Download

Comment From: Earthjustice, FoTC, DRCC, Fron... (Jaimini Parekh)

2/13/26 @ 4:44 PM

Attachments:

Download

Comment From: Washington Forest Products Coa...

2/13/26 @ 4:12 PM

Attachments:

Download

Comment From: Northwest Pulp & Paper Associa... (Jackie White)

2/13/26 @ 2:39 PM

Attachments:

Download

Comment From: WA PUD Association (Travis Nelson)

2/13/26 @ 1:22 PM

We are writing to express concerns regarding the preliminary draft rule language of Chapter 173-448 WAC. While we recognize the importance of improving air quality in overburdened communities, even more important is an electric system that households...↓ can rely upon. The draft rule language creates a systemic conflict with Washington's obligation to provide a reliable and adequate power supply. Specifically, the proposed constraints on the operation of "firm" generation resources will increase the likelihood of regional blackouts during extreme weather events which risk the health and welfare of citizens.

WPUDA urges the Department to incorporate flexibility for firm dispatchable resources, such as natural gas with carbon capture that can ensure our air quality targets do not come at the cost of grid stability.

The Looming Energy Crisis

Washington is facing an unprecedented energy challenge. The region is projected to have a shortfall of up to 8,700 MW (8.7 GW) of effective capacity by 2030—a gap roughly equal to the entire current power load of the state of Oregon. This is not a gradual increase; electricity demand is climbing by nearly 3% per year, driven by population growth, the state-mandated electrification of transportation and buildings and new investments in energy-intensive data centers.

The Reliability Gap of Renewables

The timing of this rulemaking is particularly risky because unprecedented load growth, combined with the state's energy strategy that seeks to achieve decarbonization through increased electrification of transportation and buildings, as we transition to a 100% clean energy grid, this has resulted in a more vulnerable grid particularly during times of peak usage in extreme weather. During the multi-day winter cold snaps that pose the highest risk to the Northwest, onshore wind and utility solar provide only 10–18% of their nameplate capacity during these "critical" periods, respectively. Furthermore, short-duration batteries are largely ineffective during extended freezes, contributing only 3–6% of their nameplate capacity.

Additionally, regional transmission, and especially cross-cascades transmission, operates at and sometimes above its rated capacity in these events.1 Because these weather-dependent resources cannot guarantee energy during critical periods, the region remains heavily reliant on locally sourced natural gas generation, which operates at a 97% Effective Load-Carrying Capacity

Siting Constraints and Operational Restrictions

Generation siting is restricted by the physical need for proximity to gas pipelines and high-voltage powerlines. These industrial corridors often overlap with the "Identified Communities" targeted by this rule. Under the draft language, "High Priority Significant Emitters" in these areas will be subject to enforceable orders and mandatory emission reductions—starting at 3% in 2030 and increasing to 6% by 2036. These mandates may force operational changes that limit the ability of these plants to run at full capacity exactly when the grid is most stressed.

Unintended Consequences for Communities and the Environment

If this rulemaking further restricts the development or operation of firm resources, the state risks a "reliability crisis." The Northwest Power and Conservation Council has warned that if projected load growth continues at current trajectories, the risk of annual blackouts increases significantly.

At a local level, individuals experiencing extended power outages will resort to all manners of actions for warmth and electricity, some of which pose real and direct health risks. Many will unknowingly operate equipment that emits carbon monoxide for electricity and heating in confined spaces that increases risk for carbon monoxide exposure.

Attachments:

Download

Comment From: J.R. Simplot Company (Dedra Williams)

2/13/26 @ 1:22 PM

The attached comments are on behalf of the J.R. Simplot Company regarding Chapter 173-448 WAC, Air Quality in Overburdened Communities Highly Impacted by Air Pollution.

Attachments:

Download

Comment From: Nucor Steel Seattle (Tarah Erickson)

2/13/26 @ 12:25 PM

Attachments:

Download

Comment From: Puget Sound Clean Air Agency (Christine Cooley)

2/13/26 @ 11:22 AM

To the Department of Ecology:
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the proposed rulemaking for Chapter 173-448 WAC – Air Quality in Overburdened Communities. We appreciate Ecology's ongoing engagement with local clean air agencies (LCAAs) thro...↓ugh regular coordination meetings.
LCAAs were established under the Washington Clean Air Act and are responsible for implementing and enforcing air quality programs for approximately 91% of Washington's population. While some agencies have submitted individual comments, this letter represents shared concerns among the local agencies.
The proposed rule repeatedly identifies LCAAs as key partners in implementation, including consultation on identifying major contributors of criteria pollutants, determining high-priority emitters, reviewing emission reduction plans, and enforcing required reductions. LCAAs bring decades of technical expertise, monitoring data, and direct experience working in the communities identified in this rule. We share Ecology's statutory purpose under the Clean Air Act "to preserve, protect, and enhance the air quality for current and future generations" (RCW 70A.15.1005).
After reviewing the draft rule, we are concerned that it does not fully align with either the statute or the scientific realities of pollution sources in overburdened communities.
Section 2(a)(i)(A) directs Ecology to identify stationary and mobile sources that are the greatest contributors of emissions that are either increasing or not decreasing. However, the draft rule primarily focuses on stationary industrial sources. Monitoring data and emissions inventories in many overburdened communities indicate that stationary permitted sources are often not the largest contributors to criteria pollutant burdens. In several designated communities, such as North Seattle and Shoreline, there are few or no regulated industrial sources. In others, permitted facilities are already subject to stringent federal and state requirements under the Clean Air Act, and Washington remains in attainment for criteria pollutants statewide.
If the intent of the statute is to meaningfully reduce pollution burdens in overburdened communities, the rule must address the dominant sources contributing to those burdens. In many communities, those sources include transportation emissions (on and off road), residential woodstoves, and certain agricultural activities. These sectors are not addressed in the current draft.
As written, the rule risks placing new procedural requirements on stationary sources without achieving measurable air quality improvements in the communities it seeks to serve. A regulatory framework that is not aligned with the primary drivers of pollution will not produce the reductions envisioned by the statute.
We respectfully recommend that Ecology:
1. Ensure that primary emitters source identification and regulatory focus are driven by community-specific emissions data and existing scientific basis for pollution identification.
2. Develop a state framework that enables strategies tailored to the dominant sources in each overburdened community, including mobile sources.
3. Integrate related statewide initiatives—such as ZEVergreen policies and strengthened PM2.5 standards—into the implementation pathway, where appropriate.
We appreciate Ecology's efforts to advance policies that protect public health, including recent work to maintain protective PM2.5 standards and reduce transportation emissions through ZEVergreen initiatives. Aligning this rule with the best available data and the full scope of emission sources will better position the state to achieve meaningful, durable reductions in overburdened communities.
Respectfully submitted,

Puget Sound Clean Air Agency
Olympic Region Clean Air Agency
Spokane Clean Air
Southwest Clean Air Agency
Benton Clean Air
Northwest Clean Air Agency

Attachments:

Download

Comment From: Kaiser Aluminum Washington (Brent Downey)

2/13/26 @ 10:08 AM

Attachments:

Download

Comment From: Puget Sound Clean Air Agency (Steven Van Slyke)

2/13/26 @ 8:02 AM

Attachments:

Download

Comment From: ROXUL USA, Inc. d/b/a ROCKWOOL (Kenneth Cammarato)

2/13/26 @ 7:48 AM

ROXUL USA, Inc. d/b/a ROCKWOOL respectfully submits the attached comments in response to the State of Washington Department of Ecology Draft Rule Wash. Admin. Code § 173-448, Air Quality in Overburdened Communities.

Attachments:

Download

Comment From: Southwest Clean Air Agency (Uri Southwest Clean Air)

2/12/26 @ 4:02 PM

Attachments:

Download

Comment From: Avista Corporation (Janna Dubnicka)

2/12/26 @ 12:26 PM

Attachments:

Download

Comment From: Beth Doglio

2/12/26 @ 12:20 PM

Attachments:

Download

Comment From: Washington Forest Protection A... (Darin Cramer)

2/12/26 @ 11:54 AM

Attachments:

Download

Comment From: The Northwest Seaport Alliance... (Meghan Reckmeyer)

2/12/26 @ 10:01 AM

Attachments:

Download

Comment From: Port of Vancouver USA (Julianna Marler)

2/11/26 @ 6:04 PM

Attachments:

Download

Comment From: City of Spokane Valley (City Council Spokane Valley)

2/11/26 @ 1:00 PM

Attachments:

Download

Comment From: Spokane Regional Clean Air Age... (April Westby)

2/11/26 @ 10:58 AM

Attachments:

Download

Comment From: SkyNRG Americas (John Plaza)

2/11/26 @ 9:36 AM

See attached SkyNRG Americas comments in response to Informal Comment Period for Chapter 173-448 WAC, Air Quality in Overburdened Communities Highly Impacted by Air Pollution

Attachments:

Download

Comment From: Robin Schwartz

2/10/26 @ 1:29 PM

To whom it may concern:
I am a parent and community member living in the Duwamish Valley, identified as one of 16 WA communities that are overburdened by air pollution. My children and their peers are impacted every day by the cumulative impacts of ...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Friends of Toppenish Creek (Jean Mendoza)

2/08/26 @ 1:46 PM

Dear WA Ecology,
Please see the attached comments regarding WAC 173-448 from the Friends of Toppenish Creek.
Thank you.
Jean Mendoza

Attachments:

Download

Comment From: Port of Royal Slope (Bonnie Valentine)

2/02/26 @ 10:07 AM

Please see the attached comments from the Port of Royal Slope on the Preliminary Rules for Air Quality in Overburdened Communities - WAC 173-448

Attachments:

Download

Comment From: Patrick Reay

1/16/26 @ 3:59 PM

Attachments:

Download

Comment From: Peter Fretwell

1/12/26 @ 2:59 PM

FORMAL PUBLIC COMMENT

Washington Department of Ecology
Chapter 173-448 WAC
Preliminary Draft Rule Language (November 2025)

I. SUMMARY OF COMMENT

This comment requests that Ecology deploy lead air quality monitors in the East Yakima and Lower Yak...↓

Attachments:

Download

Comment From: Dr. Kakha NADIRADZE

12/27/25 @ 7:16 AM

Attachments:

Download

Comment From: Spokane Regional Clean Air Age... (April Westby)

11/26/25 @ 3:05 PM

Spokane Regional Clean Air Agency is concerned that the draft regulation includes significant new tasks and responsibilities for local clean air agencies like ours without providing the funding necessary to carry them out. For example, the draft regu...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Port of Quincy

11/26/25 @ 12:58 PM

Attachments:

Download

Comment From: Beth Hodgson

11/15/25 @ 4:33 PM

* Global comment - the use of the term "criteria air pollution" is not consistent with EPA's NAAQS so it would not be recognized in the environmental field and may be broader for the public than the scope of this rulemaking. The chemicals for which ...↓NAAQS have been established are "criteria air pollutants". A better term for the rulemaking may be "pollution created by criteria air pollutants" or simply "criteria air pollutants".
* Global comment - in some places "criteria air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions" (e.g. WAC 173-448-010) is used; in others just "criteria air pollution" (e.g. WAC 173-448-020). This will cause confusion on the scope and applicability of the proposed rule.
* WAC 173-448-030,"Criteria pollutant" - this phrase is used 34 times in the document. As relates to the NAAQS, the correct term in "criteria air pollutant" which is used 10 times in the document. I recommend that "criteria air pollutant" be used consistently throughout.
* WAC 173-448-030, "Neighboring Communities" - this definition limits neighboring communities to those who are in the same Ecology region. This intimates that if an overburdened community is located in Franklin County (ERO) and the highest source of pollutant is located upwind in Benton County (CRO), there will be no impact to the source located in Benton County; only to the sources in ERO jurisdiction. This construct may make sense where the counties for the regional offices are separated by a major topographical barrier (e.g. Cascade Mountains), but not for most of the regional offices which all have the potential to have upwind pollution sources to an overburdened communities which are located in another region.
* WAC 173-448-040(1)(b) - while I appreciate that the non-regulatory air monitors are cheaper and more broadly distributed, there should be some qualifications for non-regulatory air quality monitors.
* WAC 173-448-040(4)(b) - what procedure? Who will approve and validate the alternative procedure? Is this procedure going to change every time a different person works to define overburdened communities?
* WAC 173-448-040(5) - 3 years of data will what level of completeness. If there is 3 years of data for a monitor but it only operated for 6 months of each year for 3 years, is that monitor a qualified dataset. I recommend referencing 40 CFR 50 Subpart W for definition of sufficient data.
* WAC 173-448-040(6) - I recommend that the design values should be distributed for comment before being the source of reference in the annual report.
* WAC 173-448-050(3)(a) - this is in direct conflict with WAC 173-448-040(7)(a) which states that Ecology will "Not compare that pollutant to an "Air Quality Target" and WAC 173-448-050(3)(b) is redundant with WAC 173-488-040(7)(b).
* WAC 173-448-070(3)(a), "based on data representing the 2020 calendar year or any calendar year thereafter" - what if the source has reduced emissions compared to the highest emissions years as a result of some other program or project, and has already submitted the reports to Ecology? They still have to go through WAC 173-448-070(5) through (8)??
* WAC 173-448-080(2) - if a source is a high polluter, they are likely already a source submitting periodic emissions inventories to Ecology. Why do they have to submit an additional report under this rule?
* WAC 173-448-100(4) - the emissions reduction is focused on providing an across-the-board emissions reduction rather than pursuing a proportional reduction based on the contribution to the overburdened community impact.

Thank you for your consideration.

No attachments

Comment From: Bascomb Grecian

11/14/25 @ 8:47 PM

Subject: Comment on Preliminary Draft of Chapter 173-448 WAC – Air Quality in Overburdened Communities

To Whom It May Concern:

Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments on the preliminary draft language for Chapter 173-448 WAC. After review...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Jean Hilde

11/14/25 @ 3:27 PM

Unless the worst polluters... heavy truck traffic and overflying aircraft... are regulated, this process will be complete and utter nonsense and will solve nothing. I live in one of the selected overburdened communities, the neighborhood of Briarcres...↓t in the city of Shoreline, which has been described in the Washington State Environmental Disparities Map thus: Proximity to heavy traffic roadways is an incredibly toxic 10 out of 10 (at the bad end of the scale); its diesel exhaust emissions exposure is 9 out of 10; its overall health disparities ranking ranges between 8 and 9; our overall environmental exposures rank between 9 and 10; our fine particulate matter exposure ranks at 8; two discrete areas rate an astounding 10 for toxic releases from facilities (while the rest of the community ranks between 8 and 9.) Unsurprisingly, my community ranks between 8 and 9 for people of color and for homes in which English is not the primary language. Frighteningly, the 20-block square area around my home ranks at 9 out of 10 for death from cardiovascular disease.

And yet the two biggest sources of pollution in my overburdened community are off-limits to regulation in that, according to releases from the earlier grant process, ultrafine particles (from overflying aircraft), and on-road vehicles are examples of "ineligible projects." But those are exactly the most offending issues for my neighborhood of Briarcrest, eligible community number 8:

1. We are in the southbound arrivals flight paths for SeaTac Airport and Boeing Field Airport, and both the arrivals and departures flight paths for Paine Field Airport, with flights as often as two per minute and as low as 2500 feet. We are also frequently overflown by general aviation small planes headquartered at Kenmore Air with altitudes as low as 1000 feet and by air ambulance and sheriff helicopters at even lower altitudes.
2. My neighborhood is bordered by SR 523 and 15th Avenue NE with SR 522 and I-5 just a short distance away. While all four roadways are heavily traveled by commercial freight trucks, buses, utility vehicles and commuter traffic, the nearest (SR 523, just two blocks from my home) has all day high frequency local transit with an average of over 30,000 vehicle trips per day including annual freight movement of over 2,630,000 tons annually. These numbers will only go up as the city of Shoreline widens and improves SR 523 and two nearby light rail stations become operational.
3. All of this occurs in a setting of regular weather inversions which trap close to the ground (and close to the people who live here) the air pollution caused by all the above.

So if the issues that burden Briarcrest the most are not eligible, what is? If the goals of this process are to "reduce air pollution and protect public health" why are there limits on considering and regulating the largest polluters? By not considering and regulating the largest polluters, how will this process help my and other overburdened communities? The answer is: it won't.

To add insult to injury, Ecology has refused to install an air monitor in my overburdened community. Instead, data for Briarcrest comes from the monitor installed in Lake Forest Park, three miles away near the shore of Lake Washington. As one state legislator has said, this is "a classic example of environmental injustice / racism: the monitoring station for air pollution for the overburdened communities, which include some of the lowest income census tracts in Seattle, is in one of the wealthiest communities in the region." Further, the legislator noted that Ecology did not meet with impacted groups to discuss air monitoring location improvements in overburdened communities, despite assuring legislators this would happen. Refusing to place air monitors in the overburdened communities themselves results in significant factual gaps in Ecology's presentation and criteria for this process. It also leads to valid doubts about Ecology's sincerity in regard to solving air pollution in the state's overburdened communities.

As things stand, this process, with its illogical limits on targeted polluters and its refusal to accurately measure pollution in the very communities it claims it will protect, will do nothing more than leave overburdened communities with empty promises and no better off than they were before.

No attachments