Comments of the Mono Lake Committee
on the
Environmental Protection Agency proposed
National Ambient Air Quality Standards
for Particulate Matter
71 Fed. Reg. 2620
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2001-0017
And
Monitoring Requirements for Coarse Particles
71 Fed. Reg. 2710
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2004-0018
April 2006
MONO LAKE
C O M M I T T E E
P.O. Box 29, Lee Vining, CA 93541
(760)647-6595
www.monolake.org
Table of Contents
I.
COMMENT SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION ................................................. 3
A. Summary......................................................................................................................................... 3
B. Recommendation............................................................................................................................ 3
1. Establish coarse particulate standards that apply to the Mono Basin and Owens Valley
and that equal or exceed current standards. ...................................................................... 3
2. Eliminate all exemptions to coarse particulate regulation in the Mono Basin and Owens
Valley ............................................................................................................................... 3
3. Use the 99th percentile form or better for the standards.................................................... 3
4. Establish a secondary standard for coarse particulates that protects ecosystems and
scenic vistas across the country. ....................................................................................... 4
II. THE MONO BASIN AND OWENS VALLEY NONATTAINMENT AREAS ................ 4
A. Overview ......................................................................................................................................... 4
B. An anthropogenic source of particulate pollution ....................................................................... 5
C. Mono Basin and Owens Valley are designated nonattainment areas ........................................ 6
D. Mono and Owens nonattainment areas produce the highest PM10 air pollution in the nation 7
E. Mono and Owens dust storms are episodic, but not rare ........................................................... 8
III. THE PROPOSED NATIONAL AMBIENT AIR QUALITY STANDARDS WILL
EXPOSE PEOPLE TO AIRBORNE ARSENIC AND EXTREME COARSE
PARTICULATE CONCENTRATIONS, ENDANGERING THE HEALTH AND
WELFARE OF RESIDENTS AND VISITORS TO THE MONO BASIN AND OWENS
VALLEY AND CAUSING ADDITIONAL SERIOUS IMPACTS .................................. 9
A. The proposed NAAQS would establish no PM10-2.5 health standards for the Mono Basin or
Owens Valley .................................................................................................................................. 9
1. Mono and Owens particulate pollution is “windblown dust” excluded from the proposed
PM10-2.5 standard ............................................................................................................... 9
2. Mono Basin and Owens Valley nonattainment areas are in rural locations excluded from
the proposed PM10-2.5 standard.......................................................................................... 9
B. Mono and Owens airborne PM10 contains arsenic and other known toxics that are inherently
hazardous to human health ......................................................................................................... 10
3. Mono and Owens dust contains arsenic and other toxics ............................................... 10
4. Arsenic is a known toxic contaminant, and exposure to airborne arsenic during dust
storms occurs at hazardous levels................................................................................... 11
C. Residents are subject to arsenic and particulate exposure long after an episodic dust storm
event subsides ............................................................................................................................... 12
D. The high PM10 concentrations experienced at Mono and Owens are hazardous to human
health 13
E. The proposed NAAQS fail to study the effects on the Mono Basin and Owens Valley.......... 15
F. In addition to damaging human health, Owens and Mono PM impairs public safety........... 16
G. The proposed NAAQS will impair seven Class I National Parks and wilderness areas
adjoining the Mono Basin and Owens Valley nonattainment areas ........................................ 16
H. Transport of Owens and Mono PM will cause violations of the proposed urban standard .. 17
IV. THE PROPOSED NATIONAL AMBIENT AIR QUALITY STANDARDS
IMPROPERLY VIOLATE THE INTENT OF CONGRESS ........................................ 17
V. CONCLUSION .......................................................................................................... 19
Comments of the Mono Lake Committee
April 14, 2006
April 14, 2006
Mr. Stephen L. Johnson, EPA Administrator
Environmental Protection Agency
Mailcode: 6102T
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20460
Via FedEx and electronic submission
RE:
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2001-0017
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2004-0018
Dear Administrator Johnson,
The Mono Lake Committee (MLC) is writing to provide comments on the proposed
National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Particulate Matter (NAAQS) and the related
proposal on monitoring requirement for coarse particles.
The Mono Lake Committee (MLC) is a non-profit citizens’ group dedicated to protecting
and restoring the Mono Basin ecosystem, educating the public about Mono Lake and the
impacts on the environment of excessive water use, and promoting cooperative solutions
that protect Mono Lake and meet real water needs without transferring environmental
problems to other areas.
The Mono Lake Committee has 15,000 members, primarily in California but also in
every state in the country. Many Committee members live in the Mono Basin or Owens
Valley nonattainment areas, and many more make a point to visit these outstanding rural
areas regularly. Committee members will be writing to provide individual comments
under separate cover.
Mono Lake is an outstanding environmental resource of state, national, and international
significance. The lake, its unique ecosystem, its migratory birds, its scenic views, and its
surrounding wetlands and streams all have received protection and recognition through a
variety of designations. These include the creation of a National Forest Scenic Area by
the US Congress, the creation of a State Reserve by the California Legislature, and the
protection of Mono’s Public Trust resources by the State Water Resources Control Board.
Mono Lake was once the site of an epic water rights battle; now it is a model for the type
of principled win-win environmental solutions that can preserve the vitality of our cities,
economy, and the valuable natural areas on which they rely. The lake is among the most
popular destinations in Mono County, attracting over a quarter million visitors annually.
In preparing comments, MLC has relied on a number of expert sources. 28 years of work
at Mono Lake have created a strong in-house MLC expertise on the geology,
management, public value, and air quality challenges of the lake and its surrounding
lands. MLC has also consulted extensively with the technical experts who have Mono
-1-
Comments of the Mono Lake Committee
April 14, 2006
Lake expertise in the areas relevant to the proposed NAAQS. The large body of
published scientific literature on Mono Lake and surrounding lands is also a valuable
source of information, as is the extensive legal record of the decades-long effort to find a
solution to water diversion problems, and associated air quality problems, that have faced
Mono Lake. In addition, MLC has relied on the legal counsel of F. Bruce Dodge, retired
partner, Morrison and Foerster, in preparation of these comments.
Comments on proposals of this type necessarily focus on defects and areas needing
improvement. MLC recognizes that many EPA staff members have committed extensive
time and energy to preparation of the rule and appreciates the hard and dedicated work of
these individuals.
MLC also appreciates the dedicated work of our regional air quality authority, which is
charged with on-the-ground implementation of the Clean Air Act. In addition to the
Mono Lake Committee’s specific comments that follow, MLC concurs in general with
the comments the Great Basin Unified Air Pollution Control District (GBUAPCD).
GBUAPCD raises a number of significant points in its February 10, 2006 letter of
comment on the NAAQS. MLC concurs that elimination of any coarse particulate
standard for the Mono Basin and Owens Valley constitutes “backsliding” and violates
section 172(e) of the Clean Air Act. Section 172(e) clearly prohibits the relaxation of
standards in a nonattainment area. MLC also concurs that the division of the nation into
rural and urban areas for purposes of applying variable standards is a violation of
citizens’ rights to equal treatment under the law.
GBUAPCD also points out national security concerns, in that the proposed NAAQS
create direct impacts on military operations in the vicinity of the Mono Basin and Owens
Valley nonattainment areas. Operations at the U.S. Navy’s China Lake Naval Air
Weapons Station are curtailed due to widespread particulate dust storms originating from
Owens Lake, at substantial cost. 1 Operations at Edwards Air Force Base are curtailed due
to dust storms. 2 Operations at the Hawthorne Army Depot and training flights from the
Fallon Nevada Naval Air Station may also be affected.
MLC also supports the economic concerns raised by the Mono County Board of
Supervisors in their resolution and accompanying letter of April 11, 2006 and the Inyo
County Board of Supervisors in their resolution of March 28, 2006. Tourism is the
lifeblood of our regional economy, and the proposed NAAQS will substantially degrade
the future clean air and scenic views which motivate visitors to journey to our remarkable
part of California.
1
See letter from China Lake Naval Air Weapons Station May 9, 1996, which is provided as an attachment
the February 10, 2006 comments of the Great Basin Unified Air Pollution Control District on this docket.
2
Saint-Amand, P., Mathews, L.A., Gaines, C., and Reinking, R., Dust storms from Owens and Mono
Valleys, China Lake, CA Naval Weapons Center Tech. Publication 6371, 1986, page 3.
-2-
Comments of the Mono Lake Committee
April 14, 2006
I. Comment Summary and Recommendation
A. Summary
EPA must recraft the NAAQS to equal or exceed current coarse particulate matter
standards in the Mono Basin and Owens Valley nonattainment areas. The information
that follows will show this is the only way to bring the NAAQS into accordance with the
facts and the mandate of Congress.
The air quality degradation that occurs in the vicinity of Mono and Owens lakes—both
designated as nonattainment areas—is unarguably a threat to human health by virtue of
the extreme particulate concentrations and toxic particulate content. The lack of analysis
of this situation is a serious flaw of the NAAQS. The NAAQS also fails to protect the
seven Class 1 areas that are in the vicinity.
Lastly, Congress has specifically called for these nonattainment areas to be regulated.
B. Recommendation
To remedy the failures summarized above and detailed in the following comments, the
Mono Lake Committee recommends that EPA make the following modifications to the
NAAQS and related monitoring requirements:
1. Establish coarse particulate standards that apply to the Mono
Basin and Owens Valley and that equal or exceed current
standards.
2. Eliminate all exemptions to coarse particulate regulation in the
Mono Basin and Owens Valley
MLC concurs with the California Air Resources Board, which observed, “Historically,
PM has been regulated on a mass basis . . . We believe this long-standing practice should
be continued for coarse particles until such time as research suggests another regulatory
approach is appropriate.” 3
3. Use the 99th percentile form or better for the standards.
The Mono Basin and Owens Valley dust storms must be brought under control. The 98th
percentile form is poorly suited to handling this type of extreme episodic events, as noted
by CASAC. The 98th percentile allows for too many extreme episodic events to occur.
MLC recommends use of the 99th percentile, or implementing some other approach to
appropriately handle hazardous episodic events.
3
California Air Resources Board, letter of comment on proposed NAAQS to EPA, March 8, 2006.
-3-
Comments of the Mono Lake Committee
April 14, 2006
4. Establish a secondary standard for coarse particulates that
protects ecosystems and scenic vistas across the country.
The extraordinary Class I resources of the Mono Basin and Owens Valley region require
standards which protect and improve visibility as a matter of public welfare.
II. The Mono Basin and Owens Valley nonattainment areas
A. Overview
The Mono Basin is located in the Eastern Sierra region of California, just east of
Yosemite National Park and near the Nevada border. The Basin is a closed watershed
bounded on the west by the Sierra Nevada mountain range and elsewhere by Great Basin
mountain ranges. The Mono Basin covers 695 square miles—half the size of Rhode
Island.
At the center of the Mono Basin lies Mono Lake. Because the lake has no outlet streams,
fresh water only leaves by evaporation. As a result, minerals have collected in the 75square mile lake over thousands of years, creating an unusual water chemistry that
supports a unique ecosystem unmatched in the Western Hemisphere. The lake currently
stands at a surface elevation of 6,383 feet above sea level and is more than twice as salty
as the ocean and 100 times more alkaline than freshwater. The lake has been in existence
for at least 760,000 years, making it one of the oldest lakes in North America. A native
species of brine shrimp (Artemia monica) and alkali flies provide plentiful food for
millions of migratory and nesting birds.
Sunrise, Mostly Clear Conditions, Mono Basin, May 23, 2002, from the International Space Station.
Image courtesy of Earth Sciences and Image Analysis Laboratory, NASA Johnson Space Center.
-4-
Comments of the Mono Lake Committee
April 14, 2006
The Owens Valley is also located in the Eastern Sierra and lies to the south of the Mono
Basin. The valley is approximately 75 mi long, running between the Sierra Nevada on the
west and the Inyo and White Mountains on the east. The differential between Sierra
peaks and the valley floor reaches 10,000 feet, making it one of the deepest valleys in the
United States.
Owens Lake, now largely dry, is located in the southern end of the valley and was once
approximately 100 square miles in size. Like Mono Lake, Owens was a terminal lake
with no outlet streams. As a result salts and minerals concentrated in the lake’s water
over thousands of years.
Owens Valley with Sierra Nevada range at the top of the photo and Owens (Dry) Lake at the left.
February 22, 2003.
Image courtesy of Earth Sciences and Image Analysis Laboratory, NASA Johnson Space Center.
B. An anthropogenic source of particulate pollution
In 1941 the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power (DWP) began to divert Mono
Lake’s tributary streams. Over the next 40 years the lake fell over 45 vertical feet due to
these diversions, exposing over 18,000 acres of lakebed.
Diversion of the Owens River to Los Angeles, and the resulting decline of Owens Lake,
began even earlier, in 1913. By 1926, the lake was dry, exposing 100 square miles of
lakebed.
Similar processes occur on both exposed lakebeds and are reviewed comprehensively in
Gill, 1996. 4 Large portions of playa are covered with a fine grained, alkaline, evaporate
4
Gill, Thomas E., Dust generation resulting from desiccation of playa systems: studies on Mono and
Owens Lakes, California, Dissertation, Doctor of Philosophy in Earth Science and Resources, UC Davis,
1995. This report is an attachment to these comments.
-5-
Comments of the Mono Lake Committee
April 14, 2006
crust. The crust is formed by the evaporation of briny water drawn to the surface from the
shallow groundwater table by capillary action. The crust often develops an efflorescent
upper layer. During a wind event, saltating sand grains and silt particles bounce across
the playa surface, breaking apart the fragile efflorescent crust and producing the coarse
particulate dust particles that become airborne. Studies have found Owens and Mono dust
to have a relatively fine PM10-2.5 size mode of around 3 to 4 μm diameter. 5
Analysis of the dust storm particulate content confirms that the exposed lakebeds—and
not surrounding lands—are the source of the vast majority of the particulate matter
suspended in the air during a dust storm. 6 Thus, the dust storms originate on playa which
are exposed as the result of the diversion of water that would otherwise fill these lakes;
they are anthropogenic and subject to regulation under the Clean Air Act.
C. Mono Basin and Owens Valley are designated nonattainment areas
In 1991 the California Air Resources Board, as the designee of the Governor,
recommended to EPA that the Mono Basin be designated a nonattainment area for PM10
in 1991. In July, 1993 the EPA published notice of its intent to redesignate the Mono
Basin as a nonattainment area. 7 On November 29, 1993 EPA reclassified the Mono Basin
as a “moderate” nonattainment area. 8 The Mono Basin PM-10 State Implementation Plan
was adopted in May 1995. Progress has been made toward bringing the Mono Basin into
attainment, largely by raising the level of Mono Lake to cover dust emitting lakebed, but
attainment has not yet been reached.
On July 1, 1987, the EPA revised the NAAQS, replacing total suspended particulates
(TSP) with PM10 as an indicator for particulate matter. On August 7, 1987, the EPA
designated the southern Owens Valley as one of the areas in the nation that violated the
new PM10 NAAQS. 9 In January 1993, the southern Owens Valley was reclassified as
“serious non-attainment” for PM10. 10 The State Implementation Plan was approved on
September 3, 1999. 11 The southern Owens Valley is also referred to as the Owens Valley
Planning Area; in these comments it will be referred to as the Owens Valley for
simplicity.
References to the Owens Valley also include the Coso Junction Planning Unit of the
Searles Valley PM10 Nonattainment Area. Located just south of the Owens Valley, the
Coso Junction Planning Unit was declared a nonattainment area in 1987 due to PM10
violations caused by Owens Lake dust storms. These violations have been as far as 50
5
Thomas A. Cahill, Thomas E. Gill, Dale A. Gillette, Elizabeth A. Gearhart, Jeffery S. Reid, and Mee-ling
Yau, Air Quality Group, UC Davis, Generation, Characterization, and Transport of Owens (dry) Lake
Dusts, Final Report to the California Air Resources Board Contract No. A132-105, September 1994.
6
Gill, 1995.
7
58 Federal Register 38311
8
58 Federal Register 62544
9
52 Federal Register 29384
10
58 Federal Register 3334
11
64 Federal Register 48305
-6-
Comments of the Mono Lake Committee
April 14, 2006
miles from Owens Lake. The State Implementation Plan for the Coso Junction PM10
Planning Area is premised on the success of the Owens Valley SIP.
D. Mono and Owens nonattainment areas produce the highest PM10 air
pollution in the nation
Great Basin Unified Air Pollution Control District has provided data demonstrating that,
year after year, the Mono Basin and Owens Valley suffer the highest coarse particulate
counts in the country. Between 2000 and 2004, the nation’s top twenty violations of the
24-hour PM10 standard occurred at either Owens or Mono lakes, with only one
exception. 12 At Owens Lake, PM10 measurements have ranged from 5,500 to 21,000
μg/m3. At Mono Lake, they have ranged from 987 to 10,500 μg/m3.
Mono and Owens are also the largest PM10 emitters in the nation in terms of tons of
output. Owens Lake produces 80,000 tons of PM10 annually. In the Mono Basin, an
estimated 6,572 tons of PM10 were emitted annually in the Mono Basin at the time of the
preparation of the State Implementation Plan. Mitigation efforts have lowered that total to
a present day projection of 3,539 tons. Continued mitigation is expected to ultimately
reduce the total output to 650 tons. 13
Aerial view of the Owens Valley during a dust storm, looking north to the 14,000-foot peaks of the
Sierra Nevada.
12
2000-2004 data provided in the February 10, 2006 comments of the Great Basin Unified Air Pollution
Control District on this docket.
13
Great Basin Unified Air Pollution Control District, Mono Basin Planning Area PM-10
State Implementation Plan, May 1995, pages 35-36.
-7-
Comments of the Mono Lake Committee
April 14, 2006
E. Mono and Owens dust storms are episodic, but not rare
The Owens and Mono Lake dust storms are episodic events triggered by high winds often
associated with passing storm fronts. The nonattainment areas enjoy good air quality
when dust storms are not occurring. In no way, however, does this mean the dust events
are rare enough to be disregarded.
Recent monitoring data show that from 2000 to 2004, PM10 violations occurred on an
average of 14% of the days of the year, totaling 247 days over 5 years in the Owens
Valley and Mono Basin non-attainment areas combined. 14
Thus recent data show the particulate problem to be frequent enough for serious concern.
It must be noted that the recent data reflect the progress that has been made in
successfully implementing the SIPs for these two nonattainment areas. Thus, while the
current number of violations is high, it would be even higher absent mitigation. Since the
proposed NAAQS eliminate the particulate standards and thus the resulting mitigation
efforts, we must look to pre-mitigation times to understand the severity of the Mono and
Owens dust problem, as it is the pre-mitigation situation that EPA proposes to return to.
Dust storm at Mono Lake.
14
Data from the February 10, 2006 comments of the Great Basin Unified Air Pollution Control District on
this docket.
-8-
Comments of the Mono Lake Committee
April 14, 2006
At Mono Lake, the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power produced an extensive
photographic record of Mono Lake air quality. Photos were taken daily from February
22, 1980 through February 21, 1984. This time period was before the nonattainment
designation and represents an unregulated situation. The photographic record was
statistically correlated with actual air quality data, producing a data set which revealed
that Mono Basin dust storms violated the California air quality standards of the time on
11% of the days of the year. 15
III. The proposed National Ambient Air Quality Standards will expose
people to airborne arsenic and extreme coarse particulate
concentrations, endangering the health and welfare of residents
and visitors to the Mono Basin and Owens Valley and causing
additional serious impacts
Under the proposed NAAQS, the Mono Basin and Owens Valley nonattainment areas
would no longer be subject to PM10-2.5 particulate regulations. The present day dust
storms, which contain arsenic and other toxics and are of extreme particulate
concentration, would continue or quite possibly worsen. The lack of analysis of this
situation is a serious flaw of the NAAQS. The NAAQS also fails to protect the seven
Class 1 areas that are in the vicinity. The result will be the clear endangerment of human
health and welfare.
A. The proposed NAAQS would establish no PM10-2.5 health standards
for the Mono Basin or Owens Valley
1. Mono and Owens particulate pollution is “windblown dust”
excluded from the proposed PM10-2.5 standard
The proposed PM10-2.5 standard “excludes any ambient mix of PM10-2.5 that is
dominated by rural windblown dust and soils and PM generated by agricultural and
mining sources.” 16
The dust storms of the Mono Basin and Owens Valley originate when winds suspend
particulates from exposed lakebed surfaces. Thus they would be excluded from
consideration in the standard.
2. Mono Basin and Owens Valley nonattainment areas are in
rural locations excluded from the proposed PM10-2.5 standard
Under the proposal, the PM10-2.5 standard would be exclusively applied to regions of the
country containing “an urbanized area (as defined by the U.S. Bureau of the Census) with
a minimum population of 100,000.” 17
15
Average violating concentrations ranged from 227 μg/m3 TSP to 1,825 μg/m3 TSP.
71 Federal Register 2620.
17
71 Federal Register 2620.
16
-9-
Comments of the Mono Lake Committee
April 14, 2006
The Mono Basin is located in Mono County, California. The 2004 population was
12,766. The Owens Valley is located in Inyo County, California. The 2004 population
was 18,244. 18 Neither area meets the proposed 100,000 person population test. For a
second time, the proposed NAAQS PM10-2.5 standard would not be applied.
B. Mono and Owens airborne PM10 contains arsenic and other known
toxics that are inherently hazardous to human health
In much of the western United States, the most important PM10 dust sources are the
relicted playas of dried lake beds, including the worst national sources: Owens Lake and
Mono Lake. The playas of these lake beds have acted for centuries as a repository of salts
washed from surrounding areas and thus have accumulated toxic metals. 19 These metals
become airborne during wind driven dust storm events and can be inhaled and thereby
damage human health.
1. Mono and Owens dust contains arsenic and other toxics
The contents of Mono and Owens dusts became a matter of some interest to air quality
regulators in the 1980s. Specific studies were undertaken to describe the particulate
components.
For the case of Owens and Mono lakes, playa surface measurements made in the 1980s
show an average 50 parts per million content of arsenic. 20 In addition to arsenic, Kusko
and Cahill (1984) reported a variety of other potentially toxic materials including
selenium in the salts and dust.
At Owens Lake this resulted in airborne arsenic levels of 34 ng/m3 (Westec, 1983) 21 and
30 ± 10 ng/m3 ( Barone et al, 1979, Barone et al, 1981) 22 in particles smaller than 15 to
11 μm diameter, and 63 ng/m3 in PM2.5 particles (Westec, 1984). 23
18
US Census projections.
Locations influenced by mine tailings piles and other toxic wastes also accumulate toxic metals, most
notably in the western US
20
Kusko, B.H., and Cahill, T.A., Study of particle Episodes at Mono Lake, Final Report to the California
Air Resources Board Contract # A1-144-32 (1984). This report is an attachment to these comments.
21
Kline et al, Owens Lake Study Data, Final Report to the California Sate Lands Commission, WESTEC
Services, Inc., 1983.
22
Barone, J.B., L.L Ashbaugh, B.H. Kusko, and T. A. Cahill, A Study of Ambient Aerosols in the Owens
Valley Area, Final Report, ARB Contract # A7-178-30 (1979) (This report is an attachment to these
comments); Barone, J.B., L.L Ashbaugh, B.H. Kusko, and T. A. Cahill, A Study of Ambient Aerosols in
the Owens Valley Area, American Chemical Society Symposium Series 167 237 – 245, (1981). This report
is an attachment to these comments.
23
WESTEC Services Inc. Results of test plot studies at Owens Dry Lake, Inyo County, California, Final
Report to the California state Lands Commission, 1984.
19
- 10 -
Comments of the Mono Lake Committee
April 14, 2006
Similar values were seen at Mono Lake. With 50 ppm arsenic measured in the playa
materials (Kusko et al, 1981), a prediction was made of about 25 ng/m3 in the dust storms
(Kusko and Cahill, 1984). Direct measurements were made in two dust storms, producing
measurements of 27 ± 6 ng/m3 on 5/18/83 and 18 ± 4 ng/m3 on 5/13/83 (Kusko and
Cahill, 1984).
Since that time, the Great Basin Unified Air Pollution Control District (GBUAPCD) has
instigated additional sampling. GBUAPCD reports, based on Chester LabNet, 1996, that
“Owens and Mono Lakes dust contains naturally elevated levels of the metals arsenic
(greater than 250 ppm), cadmium (greater than 50 ppm) and nickel (≈ 40 ppm).” 24
2. Arsenic is a known toxic contaminant, and exposure to
airborne arsenic during dust storms occurs at hazardous levels
Arsenic is a poison used from antiquity, a confirmed human carcinogen 25 , and a potent
toxic in human reproduction and fetal development. 26 While occupational inhalation
levels were set at below 10 μg/m3, 27 the State of California Office of Environmental
Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA), after extensive analysis, has established a “Safe
Harbor” inhalation dose. The level established by OEHHA is 0.060 μg/day. 28
At typical human inhalation rates of 10 to 20 liters/minute, a resident near Mono Lake or
Owens Lake would collect on the order of 0.20 μg of inhaled arsenic in the average 8
hour dust storm—over 3 times the “Safe Harbor” limit. Considering the relatively fine
PM10-2.5 size mode of around 3 to 4 μm diameter, 29 this material would penetrate into the
bronchial track and upper lung, enhancing retention in the body and transport into the
blood. With the more recent data from GBUAPCD on the arsenic levels in playa
materials that at some sites are even higher than those seen by Kusko and Cahill, it is
clear that a resident could be breathing dust with arsenic levels as high as 1 μg/m3, 15
times the safe harbor limit and only about a factor of 10 less than the OEHHA industrial
level.
24
February 10, 2006 comments of the Great Basin Unified Air Pollution Control District on this docket,
page 10. For these measurements GBUAPCD references Chester LabNet, 1996. Great Basin UAPCD, Job
#G005, Report #95-085. Chester LabNet, Tigard, Oregon, (June 18, 1996).
25
Toxicology, Casarett and Doull. The Basic Science of Poisons. McGraw Hill, New York, Fifth Edition
(1995).
26
California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment, Proposition 65 Toxics Safe Harbor No
Significant Risk of Cancer and Maximum Allowable Dose Limits for Chemicals Causing Reproductive
Toxicity, 2005.
27
Toxicology, Casarett and Doull. The Basic Science of Poisons. McGraw Hill New York, Fifth Edition
(1995) Appendix pg. 1026.
28
Proposition 65 Safe Harbor Levels, Reproductive and Cancer Hazard Assessment Branch, Office of
Environmental Health Hazard Assessment, California Environmental Protection Agency, August 2005; 22
CCR § 12705 (b).
29
Thomas A. Cahill, Thomas E. Gill, Dale A. Gillette, Elizabeth A. Gearhart, Jeffery S. Reid, and Mee-ling
Yau, Air Quality Group, UC Davis, Generation, Characterization, and Transport of Owens (dry) Lake
Dusts, Final Report to the California Air Resources Board Contract No. A132-105, September 1994.
- 11 -
Comments of the Mono Lake Committee
April 14, 2006
As described above, at Mono Lake in the prior uncontrolled conditions at lower lake
levels, such exposures would average 11% of all days in a year (Kusko and Cahill, 1984),
or having to endure almost 40 days a year in high arsenic conditions.
C. Residents are subject to arsenic and particulate exposure long after an
episodic dust storm event subsides
Direct outdoor exposure to the Mono and Owens dust storms is one, but not the only,
avenue by which human health is affected. The fine dusts at Mono and Owens lakes are
propelled by strong winds and readily penetrate into even carefully sealed residences.
Once in the home, PM10 dusts are easily available for resuspension for further inhalation
and incorporation into food and water until residence surfaces are carefully cleaned. This
adds an injection route for arsenic into people. Children may be particularly susceptible
to this in-home exposure due to their frequent close contact with carpets, furniture, and
other household surfaces.
Testimony regarding the dust storms and, in particular, the penetration of this dust into
homes, was given to the California Water Resources Control Board in 1993.
One Mono Basin resident testified regarding his experience during dust storms
originating from the exposed bed of Mono Lake:
“Well, dust storms out there are kind of like you don't go
outside. It's in your mouth. It's in your teeth. It's a bad,
pungent odor. It's in the house. It's just -- it's just kind of
everywhere. There isn't anywhere you can really go to hide
from it. It hurts your lungs when you breathe.” 30
Another resident has this to say regarding her experience of being at home during dust
storms arising from the exposed bed of Mono Lake:
“I would say it's a very creepy feeling in that all of a
sudden, in the middle of the day, it will get very dark and
the view for -- the very reason why we would live there is
to see the view of the Sierras and the craters and the lake, is
totally obscured. And on top of that, I wouldn't go outside
if I didn't have to, and so I'm not one that's been out there
and had it, and you can taste it and smell it. The dust is
terrible. But it's really a very oppressive sort of feeling, and
30
Transcript, Hearing of the State Water Resources Control Board, Subject: Amendment Of City Of Los
Angeles' Water Right Licenses For Diversion Of Water From Streams That Are Tributary To Mono Lake,
December 3, 1993, page 11.
- 12 -
Comments of the Mono Lake Committee
April 14, 2006
it's something that's imposed upon you, and it's something
we feel is terribly unhealthy, also.” 31
A third resident testified that:
“The wind, at the same time with the dust, is sort of a
howling sort of thing, and the dust is coming through every
tiny crack that you can have, either in a vehicle or in the
house. . . . And, of course, the mountains and the landscape
disappears. It's a very disagreeable sort of experience. It's a
very chemical sort of taste that's kind of all pervasive.” 32
As noted above, the fine particle size of the lakebed dust and the high wind velocities
create a situation in which dust is forced into dwellings regardless of preventative
measures. Regarding a May 1993 dust storm, one resident testified:
“It was as dusty in the house as out of the house. You
couldn't see probably 15 feet with a flashlight. That's how
we noticed it. We were putting up plastic, and we had a
light out and stuff. You look down the living room and it
just had a beam of dust and you could taste it. It was just
everywhere.” 33
D. The high PM10 concentrations experienced at Mono and Owens are
hazardous to human health
Coarse particles are associated with increased hospitalization for respiratory infections in
children, decreased lung function, increased hospital admissions for heart disease,
increased hospital admissions for respiratory disease in the elderly and increased risk of
premature death.
Other commenting parties have provided detailed medical comments. MLC notes here
that both EPA staff, in the final PM Staff Paper, and two expert advisory panels 34 to the
EPA have reviewed the literature exhaustively and recommended a nationwide coarse
particulate standard for the protection of human health.
As established above, the particulate counts in the Mono Basin and Owens Valley are
extreme. Measurements at these sites are the highest in the nation. Year after year, peak
particulate measurements in these locations are 10-40 times higher then the highest
31
Ibid., page 11
Ibid., page 11
33
Ibid., page 13
34
The Children’s Health Protection Advisory Committee and the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee
32
- 13 -
Comments of the Mono Lake Committee
April 14, 2006
measurement for any other region in the nation. 35 The high particulate concentrations
experienced at Mono and Owens transcend any legitimate debate that may exist about
health impacts coarse particulate matter.
The existing literature studies coarse particulate concentrations that are far below those
experienced in the Mono Basin and at Owens Lake. For example, studies showing coarse
particulate impairment of children’s health reflect a PM10-2.5 daily mean of 6 to 59
μg/m3. 36 Exposure to dust storms of 200 μg/m3, 500 μg/m3, 1000 μg/m3, and higher must
be presumed to create even greater impacts than these studies find.
Several study results are worth noting for their specific relevance to the situation at Mono
and Owens lakes.
•
•
•
Studies in the Coachella Valley, California, showed significant adverse health
effects from exposure to coarse particulates originating from crustal sources.
(studies from Ostro et al. 2000, 2003). Similar wind driven dynamics occur at
Mono and Owens, though with much higher particulate concentrations.
A study done in the Owens Valley surveyed 114 residents and found complaints
of “increased allergies (54%), breathing problems (27%), asthma (26%) and
aggravated sinus problems (25%). People reported suffering from headaches
(13%), stuffy/runny noses/nasal drip (11%) and congestion (11%) that they say
was brought on by the blowing dust.” 37
Saint-Amand produced a study on the Owens Valley dust storms in which he
reports health impacts observed by doctors at regional medical facilities:
“Patients at the Ridgecrest medical complex who suffer
from emphysema, asthma, and chronic bronchitis are
subject to increased morbidity. Hospitalization of these
patients with bronchial spasm and related pulmonary
problems increases during dust episodes. The populace
complains of coughing, sneezing, and irritation of the eyes.
Psychological problems emerge as some people become
apprehensive because of difficulty in breathing. People
become annoyed and anxious. Cats behave aberrantly. Dust
enters buildings through cracks and crevices and covers
exposed items.” 38
35
Data provided in the February 10, 2006 comments of the Great Basin Unified Air Pollution Control
District on this docket.
36
See studies noted in letter on this docket from Children’s Health Protection Advisory Committee to EPA,
March 3, 2006, page 3.
37
Kittle, 2000. Sarah Kittle for the Great Basin Unified Air Pollution Control District. Survey of Reported
Health Effects of Owens Lake Particulate Matter. Bishop, California (January 14, 2000).
38
Saint-Amand, P., Mathews, L.A., Gaines, C., and Reinking, R., 1986. Dust storms from Owens and
Mono Valleys. China Lake, CA Naval Weapons Center Tech. Publication 6371, page 32. This report is
attached to these comments.
- 14 -
Comments of the Mono Lake Committee
April 14, 2006
•
•
•
•
Saint-Amand calculates the mass of particulate matter deposited in
the lungs during a dust storm and finds it to be 3 to 8 times the
amount for a smoggy day in an urban area. 39
The 180 km2 dry lakebed of Old Wives Lake in Saskatchewan, Canada, generates
alkali dust storms. Exposure to the storms causes respiratory problems; and
increased nasal, throat, and eye irritation. 40
Studies are revealing that coarse particulate matter plays a role in transporting
allergens and microbes, leading to increased human exposure. 41
EPA’s Children’s Health Protection Advisory Committee observes that the
proposed standards omits discussion of coarse particulates on children’s health
and points to a number of important studies documenting respiratory
hospitalization and other ailments resulting from coarse particulate exposure. 42
E. The proposed NAAQS fail to study the effects on the Mono Basin and
Owens Valley
MLC is aware of no studies that prove, or even suggest, that the high density, toxic laden
particulate pollution suffered by residents of the Mono Basin and Owens Valley is of no
consequence to human health. EPA cites no such studies.
Instead, EPA cites a study in Spokane, Washington, as evidence that dust storms of
largely crustal material content do not affect morbidity (Schwartz, et al., 1999). In no way
does this constitute a body of evidence to justify the elimination of PM10-2.5 standards in
the Mono Basin and Owens Valley. The Spokane study considered PM levels increased
by an average of 221 μg/m3. The study results clearly cannot be extrapolated to the Mono
Basin and Owens Valley where dust storm particulate concentration ranges as high as
20,000 μg/m3. Nor did the Spokane study consider crustal materials containing arsenic
and other toxics, as occur at Mono Lake and Owens Lake.
Indeed the proposed NAAQS, the EPA Staff Paper, the Criteria Document, and other
related coarse particulate documents show no specific analysis or consideration of the
Mono Basin or Owens Valley nonattainment areas, the toxic content of the dust storms,
or the extreme particulate counts experienced. In short, there appears to have been no
review or consideration of on-the-ground conditions in current nonattainment areas. It is
a dramatic failure of the NAAQS that there ahs been no attempt to analyze existing
causes of nonattainment, to evaluate their significance and health consequences, or to
determine the appropriateness of eliminating the coarse particulate standards in the Mono
Basin and Owens Valley. Since no standard is proposed, presumably levels far higher
39
Saint-Amand, 1986, page 32.
S. Gomez et al., “Respiratory Health Effects of Alkali Dust in Residents near Dessicated Old Wives
Lake,” Archives of Environmental Health (1992).
41
Aeroallergens and viable microbes in sandstorm dust. Potential triggers of allergic and nonallergic
respiratory ailments Kwaasi, AAA; Parhar, RS; Al-Mohanna, FAA; Harfi, HA; Collison, KS; Al-Sedairy,
ST Allergy [Allergy]. Vol. 53, no. 3, pp. 255-265. Mar 1998.
42
Letter on this docket from Children’s Health Protection Advisory Committee to EPA, March 3, 2006.
40
- 15 -
Comments of the Mono Lake Committee
April 14, 2006
than 20,000 ug/m3—perhaps as high as can be physically suspended in the air—are being
sanctioned as safe by the EPA with no supporting documentation.
F. In addition to damaging human health, Owens and Mono PM impairs
public safety
The severity of the particulate dust storm problem in the Mono Basin and Owens Valley
produces a very immediate risk to human health and welfare. Highways that carry high
speed traffic pass through both locations and are subject to dense particulate dust storms
that can reduce visibility to 100 feet or less. Degraded driving conditions seriously
increase the odds of auto accidents, causing injury and potential loss of life. By
abandoning coarse particulate regulations at Mono and Owens, the NAAQS will continue
and likely worsen this hazardous situation. 43
G. The proposed NAAQS will impair seven Class I National Parks and
wilderness areas adjoining the Mono Basin and Owens Valley
nonattainment areas
The region adjacent to—and in some cases overlapping with—the Mono Basin and
Owens Valley nonattainment areas is home to seven Class I areas. There are three Class I
National Parks: Yosemite, Sequoia, and Kings Canyon. There are four Class I Wilderness
Areas: Hoover, John Muir, Ansel Adams (formerly Minaret) and Dome Land. There are
also additional protected natural areas of extremely high quality, although they are not
formally designated as Class I resources: the Mono Basin National Forest Scenic Area
and Death Valley National Park are prominent examples.
The Clean Air Act “declares as a national goal the prevention of any future, and the
remedying of any existing, impairment of visibility in mandatory class I Federal areas
which impairment results from manmade air pollution.”44
In the present day, the Owens and Mono dust storms impact all the Class I areas
mentioned above. Impacts range from impairment of visibility to serious levels of
particulate exposure. 45 Current mitigation plans are expected to remedy the situation.
The proposed NAAQS would exclude the dust storms from particulate standards and
leave current mitigation efforts in jeopardy. As a result, Class I areas would suffer and,
unlike today, there would be no prospect of future improvement. This violates the Clean
Air Act. Further, the Clean Air Act charges the managing agencies with an affirmative
duty to protect air quality within these Class I areas. The proposed NAAQS could lead to
43
Consider, for example, that in 1991 a windstorm on Interstate 5 in California contributed to a 64-vehicle
pileup. In 2003, dust blown by high winds across Interstate 84 in eastern Oregon led to three separate
multiple-vehicle accidents, which killed at least six people and injured 27 more.
44
Clean Air Act, section 169A(a)(1).
45
Gill, Thomas E., Eolian sediments generated by anthropogenic disturbance of playas: human impacts on
the geomorphic system and geomorphic impacts on the human system, Geomorphology 17: 207-228, 1996.
- 16 -
Comments of the Mono Lake Committee
April 14, 2006
formal findings of air quality impairment in the Class I areas, creating significant air
quality regulatory burdens that would reach far across California.
H. Transport of Owens and Mono PM will cause violations of the
proposed urban standard
The proposal to regulate coarse particulate matter only in urban areas suffers many
logical failings. The Mono Basin and Owens Valley dust storms underscore the problems
that will occur in implementing a standard over a geographic patchwork. These dust
storms attain heights of 1 kilometer and are subject to transport over many miles. Records
exist, for example, of Owens Valley dust being transported 160 miles to Orange
County. 46 These dust storms will cause coarse particulate violations in urban areas, yet
originate in an unregulated rural area, leaving regulatory agencies powerless to address
the source of the violation.
Plumes of coarse particulate matter rising off the bed of Owens Lake.
IV. The proposed National Ambient Air Quality Standards improperly
violate the intent of Congress
The U.S. Congress passed amendments to the Clean Air Act in 1990 which were signed
into law by President Bush on November 15, 1990. In their Committee Reports for the
1990 Clean Air Act Amendments, Congress specifically rejected a policy of ignoring
"rural" dust (PM10). Moreover, Congress made abundantly clear that the alkali dust
storms creating extreme health hazards at Mono Lake and Owens Lake required EPA
controls.
46
Saint Amand, 1986, pg 3.
- 17 -
Comments of the Mono Lake Committee
April 14, 2006
The Senate report stated:
“The term ‘anthropogenic source’ includes sources that are
indirectly created by human activity as well as those that
are the direct result of such activity. An example of a
source indirectly created by human activity are the dust
storms that are generated from the dry lake beds at Owens
and Mono Lakes in California. These dust storms, which
have resulted in the highest PM-10 levels in the country,
are a result of the diversion of water that would normally
flow into the lakes. The diversion has exposed alkali lake
beds which have been the source of severe dust storms that
have created PM-10 concentrations that exceeded levels
measured in forest fires. Measures to control PM-10 from
sources such as these must be developed and
implemented, and waivers of the requirements in subpart 4
of the Act, applicable to PM-10 nonattainment areas, are
not available in these cases.” 47 [emphasis added]
The House report stated:
“The term ‘anthropogenic sources’ is intended to include
activities that are anthropogenic in origin. An example of
such sources is the dry lake beds at Owens and Mono
Lakes in California, which give rise to dust storms that are
a result of the diversion of water that would otherwise flow
to such lakes and should be considered anthropogenic
sources.” 48
Congress could not have been more to the point: the alkali dust at Mono Lake and Owens
Lake must be controlled by EPA regulation. The proposed NAAQS, which plainly
abdicate that responsibility, are thus not only bad public policy for their clear dangers to
human health but also fly directly contrary to the stated Congressional purpose. As such,
the NAAQS cannot stand. The EPA must require coarse particulate controls in the Mono
Basin and Owens Valley nonattainment areas.
47
Report of the Committee on Environment and Public Works together with additional and minority views
to accompany S. 1630, United States Senate, December 20, 1989.
48
Report of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, U. S. House of Representatives, on HR 3030
together with additional, supplementary, and dissenting views, May 17, 1990.
- 18 -
Comments of the Mono Lake Committee
April 14, 2006
V. Conclusion
In summary, if EPA wishes to establish National Ambient Air Quality Standards that are
in accordance with the facts and the Congressional mandate, EPA must recraft the
NAAQS to equal or exceed current coarse particulate matter standards in the Mono Basin
and Owens Valley nonattainment areas.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this important matter.
Sincerely,
Geoffrey McQuilkin
Co-Executive Director
CC, without attachments:
Senator Barbara Boxer
Senator Dianne Feinstein
Representative Howard “Buck” McKeon
California Air Resources Board
Mono County Board of Supervisors
Great Basin Unified Air Pollution Control District
Attachments:
The following studies are referenced in these comments and are being submitted as
electronic attachments in conjunction with the electronic filing of the Mono Lake
Committee’s comments.
Kusko, B.H., and Cahill, T.A., Study of particle Episodes at Mono Lake, Final Report to the
California Air Resources Board Contract # A1-144-32, 1984.
Kusko, B.H., Barone, J.NB, and Cahill, T.A., The Effect of Mono Lake on Air Quality in the
Mono Lake region, Final report to the CA Air Resources Board Contract # A9-147-31, 1981.
Saint-Amand, P., Mathews, L.A., Gaines, C., and Reinking, R., Dust storms from Owens and
Mono Valleys, China Lake, CA Naval Weapons Center Tech. Publication 6371, 1986.
Gill, Thomas E., Dust generation resulting from desiccation of playa systems: studies on Mono
and Owens Lakes, California, Dissertation, Doctor of Philosophy in Earth Science and Resources,
UC Davis, 1995.
- 19 -