50 F Street, NW, Suite 800, Washington, DC 20001 TEL: (202) 675-2380 FAX: (202) 547-6009 www.sierraclub.org

VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL AND U.S. MAIL

May 12, 2014

Ms. Jessica Daniels

Monitoring and Assessment Branch

Air Quality Division

District Department of Environment

1200 First Street NE, 5th Floor 

Washington, DC 20002

jessica.daniels@dc.gov

Re: “Infrastructure” State Implementation Plan to Meet the Implementation, 

Maintenance and Enforcement Requirements of the Clean Air Act Sections 

110(a)(2)(A) through (M) for the 2008 8-Hour Ozone NAAQS

Dear Ms. Daniels:

On behalf of the Sierra Club, its over 2,400 members in the District of Columbia, 

and others who are adversely impacted by the District of Columbia’s sources of ozone 

pollution, we submit the following comments on “Infrastructure” State Implementation 

Plan to Meet the Implementation, Maintenance and Enforcement Requirements of the 

Clean Air Act Sections 110(a)(2)(A) through (M) for the 2008 8-Hour Ozone NAAQS 

(“Draft I-SIP”). As proposed, the District of Columbia’s Draft I-SIP does not satisfy 

several essential requirements of Section 110(a)(1) and (2) of the Clean Air Act (“the 

Act” or “CAA”), including requirements to address sources of ozone precursors, such as 

methane. The following comments explain these deficiencies in greater detail. 

According to District Department of Environment’s (“DDOE”) Public Notice of 

State Implementation Plan regarding the proposed amendment to the District of 

Columbia I-SIP, written comments will be considered if received by 4:00 P.M. on May 

12, 2014 via mail or e-mail, making this submission timely.
2

I. BACKGROUND

A. National Ambient Air Quality Standards

The primary National Ambient Air Quality Standards (“NAAQS”) define the 

levels of air quality that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) 

Administrator determines to be necessary to protect public health with an adequate 

margin of safety. See 42 U.S.C. § 7409(b)(1). In 2008, EPA revised the primary ozone 

standard to 75 ppb of the annual fourth highest daily maximum eight-hour concentration 

averaged over 3 years. See National Ambient Air Quality Standard for Ozone, 73 Fed. 

Reg. 16,436 (Mar. 27, 2008). This revised standard, if properly implemented, will result 

in improvements in public health (including preventing premature deaths) and the 

environment. When EPA revised the ozone standard, EPA recognized it was providing 

increased protection for public health, especially for children, the elderly, and asthmatics. 

This standard is meant to protect “against an array of O3-related adverse health effects 

that range from decreased lung function and increased respiratory symptoms to serious 

indicators of respiratory morbidity including emergency department visits and hospital 

admissions for respiratory causes, and possibly cardiovascular-related morbidity as well 

as total non-accidental and cardiorespiratory mortality.” See id. Further, increased ozone 

levels may contribute to premature death, especially in people with heart and lung 

disease. Ozone also damages vegetation and trees, including forests, parks, and crops. 

EPA estimates that the 2008 eight-hour ozone NAAQS has the potential to avoid 260 to 

2,000 premature deaths annually as of 2020. The total benefits in ozone reduction from 

this standard are estimated to save $2 to $17 billion per year. EPA, Fact Sheet: Final 

Revisions to the National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Ozone, at 1-3 (2008), 

http://www.epa.gov/glo/pdfs/2008_03_factsheet.pdf. In fact, 2011 and 2012 ozone 

ambient monitoring data indicate that EPA’s estimates of the health benefits from 

reducing ozone exposure may have been low.1

Due to these and other serious impairments caused by ozone exposure, the DDOE 

must properly implement the ozone NAAQS through this I-SIP process in order to 

protect public health as required by law. 

 1

 In 2012, much of the country experienced record high temperatures and very high ozone 

levels. However, the 2008 ozone NAAQS benefit analysis was based on 2008 ozone 

levels and thus did not account for the higher ozone levels that were experienced in 2012. 

Current science indicates that temperatures experienced during 2012 will soon become 

typical due to climate change. If we do not reduce greenhouse emissions rapidly and 

substantially, the hottest summer of the last 20 years is expected to occur every other 

year, or even more frequently. See, e.g., “Changes in Ecologically Critical Terrestrial 

Climate Conditions,” Science, 2 Aug. 2013, Vol. 341, no. 6145, 486-492. Therefore, the 

benefits analysis likely underestimated the ozone reductions the 2008 ozone NAAQS will 

require and consequently the benefit the standard will provide.
3

B. Implementation of the NAAQS

The Clean Air Act creates a framework for the “development of cooperative 

Federal, State, regional, and local programs to prevent and control air pollution.” 42 

U.S.C. § 7401(a)(4). Pursuant to section 109(b)(1) of the Act, EPA has established 

primary NAAQS for six criteria air pollutants, “the attainment and maintenance of which 

. . . are requisite to protect the public health.” Id. § 7409(b)(1). States have “primary 

responsibility” for assuring air quality within the state. Id. § 7407(a). Following 

promulgation of a NAAQS, the Act requires that a state shall “adopt and submit to the 

Administrator . . . a plan which provides for implementation, maintenance, and 

enforcement of such primary [NAAQS].” Id. § 7410(a)(1). The Clean Air Act sets a 

mandatory duty for states to submit I-SIPs within three years of promulgation of a 

NAAQS. 42 U.S.C. § 7410(a)(1).

Section 110(a)(2)(A) requires that these plans (which EPA refers to as 

Infrastructure SIPs or I-SIPs) “include enforceable emission limitations . . . as well as 

schedules and timetables for compliance, as may be necessary or appropriate to meet the 

applicable requirements” of the Clean Air Act, including the requirement to maintain the 

NAAQS. 42 U.S.C. §§ 7410(a)(2)(A), 7410(a)(1); Conn. Fund for Env’t, Inc. v. EPA, 

696 F.2d 169, 172 (2d Cir. 1982) (CAA requires that SIPs contain “measures necessary 

to ensure the attainment and maintenance of NAAQS”); Mont. Sulphur & Chem. Co. v. 

EPA, 666 F.3d 1174, 1180 (9th Cir. 2012) (“The Clean Air Act directs states to develop 

implementation plans—SIPs—that ‘assure’ attainment and maintenance of national 

ambient air quality standards (“NAAQS”) through enforceable emission limitations.”) 

(citing 42 U.S.C. §§ 7407(a), 7410(a)(2)(A)); Hall v. EPA, 273 F.3d 1146, 1153 (9th Cir. 

2001) (“Each State must submit a [SIP] that specif[ies] the manner in which [NAAQS] 

will be achieved and maintained within each air quality control region in the State”) 

(internal citations omitted); see also EPA, “Sulfur Dioxide Implementation—Programs 

and Requirements for Reducing Sulfur Dioxide,” available at

http://www.epa.gov/airquality/sulfurdioxide/implement.html. 

EPA may approve an Infrastructure SIP only if it meets the requirements of 

section 110(a)(2) of the Act. See 42 U.S.C. § 7410(a)(2)(A)-(M). The state bears the 

burden of demonstrating that its SIP submission satisfies the standards of 

section 110(a)(2). Mich. Dep’t of Envtl. Quality v. Browner, 230 F.3d 181, 183, 185 (6th 

Cir. 2000) (affirming EPA’s rejection of a SIP proposal where the state “failed to offer 

evidence that [the] proposed rules will not interfere with the attainment and maintenance 

of the NAAQS.”). For a plan to be adequate, it “must demonstrate that the measures, 

rules, and regulations contained in it are adequate to provide for the timely attainment 

and maintenance of the national standard that it implements.” 40 C.F.R. § 51.112(a).
4

II. THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA MUST ADDRESS METHANE 

EMISSIONS FROM NATURAL GAS PIPES, WHICH ARE

CONTRIBUTING TO HIGH OZONE LEVELS, IN ORDER TO SATISFY 

THE REQUIREMENTS OF SECTION 110(A)(2)

As discussed above, a State Implementation Plan must include enforceable 

emission limits and other measures on sources sufficient to ensure attainment and 

maintenance of the NAAQS. DDOE claims that Draft I-SIP demonstrates that the 

District of Columbia has met all the requirements of the 2008 ozone NAAQS. See Draft 

I-SIP at 1. Yet, the District of Columbia fails to demonstrate how it plans to address 

excessive and dangerous methane emissions from natural gas pipes located throughout 

the city. See generally Draft I-SIP.

Methane is a well-known ozone precursor. Previously, EPA has recognized 

methane as an ozone precursor. See Regulatory Impact Analysis: Proposed New Source 

Performance Standards and Amendments to National Emissions Standards for Hazardous 

Air Pollutants for the Oil and Natural Gas Production 1, at 4-27 (July 2011), [hereinafter 

“Proposed NSPS for HAPS for Gas Production”]; see also Global Methane Initiative,

About Methane, https://www.globalmethane.org/about/methane.aspx (“[m]ethane 

contributes to background tropospheric ozone levels both as an ozone precursor and 

contributing to global warming”). Because of the long life span of methane, methane’s

impacts on tropospheric ozone can be long lasting. See Proposed NSPS for HAPS for 

Gas Production at 4-27. Thus, action taken to reduce methane emissions can have long 

lasting effects on ozone levels and have benefits spanning decades. Id. For these 

reasons, methane exceedances cannot be ignored when addressing the 2008 ozone 

NAAQS.

In January, the Washington Post reported that the District of Columbia had nearly 

6,000 natural gas leaks. Lenny Bernstein, Researchers Find Nearly 6,000 Natural Gas 

Leaks in District’s Aging Pipe System, Wash Post, Jan. 16, 2014, available at

http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/researchers-find-nearly-6000-

natural-gas-leaks-in-districts-aging-pipe-system/2014/01/15/f6ee2204-7dff-11e3-9556-

4a4bf7bcbd84_story.html. When measured, these uncontrolled sources of methane in the 

District of Columbia were so large that some risked causing explosions. Id. However, no 

matter the size of the leaks, these methane emissions “help form ground-level ozone 

when they react with sunlight and other gases.” Id. Thus, these emissions must be 

addressed. 

Despite methane being emitted at thousands of sites throughout the District of 

Columbia, DDOE does nothing to address these sources in its Draft I-SIP. Its regulations 

limiting emissions in the Draft I-SIP only address volatile organic compounds and 

nitrogen oxides. See Draft ISIP at 4. DDOE must revise its Draft I-SIP in order to satisfy 

the requirements of section 110(a)(2). When it does, the I-SIP should include a system to 
5

monitor leaks and regulations to address the aging natural gas pipe system, including 

limits on the emissions from natural gas pipes.2 

III. THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA MUST ADDRESS ALL 

REQUIREMENTS OF 110(A)(2)(A) AT THIS TIME.

The District of Columbia wrongly relies on EPA guidance, see U.S. EPA, 

Guidance on Infrastructure State Implementation Plan (SIP) Elements under Clean Air 

Act Section 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2) (Sept. 13, 2013), [hereninafter “EPA’s 2013 I-SIP 

Guidance”], claiming that states can ignore key provisions of the section 110(a)(2), 

including addressing pre-existing deficient SIP provisions under section 110(a)(2)(A), 

such as exemptions from limits during startup, shutdown, and malfunction events and 

director’s variances, and visibility protection required under section 110(a)(2)(J). See

Draft I-SIP at 4, 25. This belief that the District of Columbia can ignore some of the 

requirements of section 110(a)(2)(A) is incorrect and goes against the plain meaning of 

the statute. 

As mentioned above, the Clean Air Act sets a mandatory duty for states to submit 

I-SIPs within three years of promulgation of a NAAQS. 42 U.S.C. § 7410(a)(1). Under 

CAA section 110, there is no prerequisite action required before states must fulfill their 

mandatory duty. See EPA v. EME Homer City Generation, No. 12-1182, slip op. at 14

(U.S. Apr. 29, 2014) (“the CAA sets a series of precise deadlines to which the States and 

EPA must adhere.”). DDOE cannot rely on the argument that EPA’s 2013 I-SIP 

Guidance does not address these provisions. See Draft I-SIP at 4, 25. This guidance 

directly contradicts the language of the Clean Air Act. Therefore, DDOE must revise its 

Draft I-SIP and address all the requirements of the I-SIP, including pre-existing deficient 

SIP provisions and visibility protections under 110(a)(2)(J).

IV. CONCLUSION

The Draft I-SIP fails to meet the requirements of section 110(a)(1) and (2). The 

District of Columbia must adopt new provisions into the I-SIP to protect public health 

and comply with the Act’s requirements. The Sierra Club would be happy to provide any 

other information that might assist the District of Columbia in evaluating the impacts of 

these sources and developing an I-SIP in full compliance with the Clean Air Act.

 2

 Addressing these gas leaks has numerous co-benefits besides compliance with the Clean 

Air Act. These include reducing the potential for deadly explosions, improving public 

health, saving the citizens the loss of a valuable resource, reducing potential climate 

change impacts, and helping the District of Columbia deal with long term ozone 

problems that have resulted in a nonattainment designation.
6

Respectfully submitted,

 /s/Elizabeth Toba Pearlman 

x

Elizabeth Toba Pearlman

Office of Elizabeth Toba Pearlman

1523 27th Street, NW

Washington, DC 20007

(202) 643-4068

etplaw@gmail.com

Zachary M. Fabish

Staff Attorney

50 F Street, NW - 8th Floor

Washington, DC 20001

(202) 675-7917 

zachary.fabish@sierraclub.org