50 F Street, NW, Suite 800, Washington, DC 20001 TEL: (202) 675

- 2380 FAX: (202) 547

- 6009 www.sierraclub.org V IA E LECTRONIC M AIL AND U.S. M AIL

May 12, 2014

Ms. Jessica Daniels Monitoring and Assessment Branch Air Quality Division District Department of Environment 1200 First Street NE, 5 th Floor Washington, DC 20002 jessica.daniels@dc.gov

Re: “Infra structure” 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 pro posed, 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 receiv ed 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 w ith 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 f or 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 O 3 - related adverse health effects that range from decreased lung function and increased res piratory 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 morta lity.” 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 ozo ne 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 b ecome 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 ev ery 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 benefit s analysis likely underestimated the ozone reductions the 200 8 ozone NAAQS will require and consequently the benefit the standard will provide.3 B. Implementation of the NAAQS

The Clean Air Act creates a f ramework 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 poll utants, “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 ti metables 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 be ars 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 time ly 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 METHAN E EMISSIONS FROM NATURAL GAS PIPES, WHICH ARE CONTRIBUTING TO HIGH OZONE LEVELS, I N ORDER TO SATISFY THE REQUIR EMENTS OF SECTION 11 0(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 tha t 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 dangerou s methane e mission s from natural gas pipes located thro ughout 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 Emis sions 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/me thane.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 Propose d 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 N early 6,000 Natural Gas Leaks i n District ’s Aging Pipe System

, Wash Post , Jan. 16, 2014
, avai lable 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 i n 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 mu st 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 to5 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, s ee U.S. EPA, Guidance on Infrast ructure 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 unde r 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 igno re some of the requirements of s ection 110(a)(2)(A) is incorrect and goes against the plain meaning of the statute.

As mentioned above, t he Clean Air Act sets a mandatory duty for states to s ubmit 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 o p. 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 guida nce directly contradicts the language of the Clean Air Act. Therefore, DDOE must revise its Draft I

- SIP and address all the re quirements of the I

- SIP, including pre

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

IV. CONCLUSI ON

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 publi c 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 Eli zabeth 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