VIa E-Mail 

August 19, 2011 

Ms. Cecily Beall 

Ms. Jessica Daniels 

District Department of the Environment 

Air Quality Division 

1200 First Street, NE, 5th Floor 

Washington, DC 20002 

Re: Comments on Proposed Rulemaking to Regulate the Interstate Transport of 

Nitrogen Oxide Emissions from Non-Electric Generating Unit Sources and 

Proposed Revision of the District's State Implementation Plan 

To Whom It May Concern: 

The District Department of the Environment (DDOE) is proposing to replace chapter 10, 

title 20 of the District of Columbia Municipal Regulations (DCMR) with a new set of rules 

relating to non-electrical generating unit (non-EGU) limits on nitrogen oxide (NOx) 

emissions. In accordance with DDOE's Notice of Public Hearing on Air Quality Issues, 

the United States General Services Administration (GSA), Heating Operation and 

Transmission Division (HOTD) hereby submits comments on the proposed regulation. 

Comment 1 

The proposed rule does not allow for emissions trading as a form of compliance. 

Because the Clean Air Act, as amended, contemplates a market-based cap and trade 

approach to emissions reduction, GSA requests that the proposed rule be amended to 

provide regulated entities the ability to purchase NOx emission allowances from brokers 

or other EGU or non-EGU sources regulated under the Clean Air Act as a means of 

offsetting any NOx emissions exceeding the cap set forth in proposed 20 DCMR § 

1001 .1. 

Comment 2 

The proposed rule does not provide for exceptions from the overall NOx emissions cap 

for start-up, shut-down and malfunction events. GSA believes that these emissions 

should not be included in the overall cap, but should instead be separately reported for 

the purpose of confirming the occurrence, duration and causes of such events. 

1 
Comment 3 

GSA requests that the proposed rule be revised to apply generally to any non-EGU that 

meets the applicable size requirement. In particular, GSA requests that proposed 20 

DCMR § 1001.1 be revised to apply an emissions limit for any boiler, combustion 

turbine or combined cycle system that has a maximum design heat input of greater than 

two hundred fifty million British thermal units (MMBtu) per hour. Because another 

similar non-EGU may be established in the future, the proposed rule has the potential to 

unconstitutionally discriminate against the Federal Government. See Moses Lake 

Homes. Inc. v. Grant County, 365 U.S. 744 (1961 ). 

Comment4 

Proposed 20 DCMR § 1 002.2(a) requires that testing "(b]e conducted using methods 

approved by the Department and acceptable to EPA." To adequately budget for this 

requirement, GSA requests that the testing methods mentioned in proposed 20 DCMR 

§ 1002.2(a) be specifically delineated. 

Comment 5 

Proposed 20 DCMR § 1002.2(c) requires that emissions testing "(d]emonstrate that the 

NOx emissions do not exceed the maximum allowable NOx emission limit specified in § 

1001 .1 of this chapter." In this context, GSA would like further guidance on DDOE's 

interpretation of the term "testing." If testing is synonymous with monitoring, GSA 

proposes that the subject provision be deleted and/or merged into proposed 20 DCMR 

§ 1002.1. If testing is given its common meaning, it Is not clear to GSA how testing of 

an emissions system could demonstrate that a quantity of NOx had been emitted. It 

would seem to GSA that the emissions monitoring system should be used to 

demonstrate emissions volume, and that emissions testing should demonstrate that the 

emissions monitoring system is functioning properly. GSA requests that the proposed 

rule be revised and/or clarified accordingly. 

Comment 6 

Proposed 20 DCMR § 1003.1(b) requires retention of "(o]ther information deemed 

necessary by the Department .... " To avoid potential confusion and simplify compliance 

efforts, GSA requests that such information be specifically delineated. 

Comment 7 

Proposed 20 DCMR § 1004.1 states that "[t]here shall be a presumption that any 

excess emissions identified during a control period that occurred during the entire 

period and constitutes one hundred fifty-three (153) days of violations (representing the 

2 
number of days in a control period), unless the NOx source can demonstrate, to the 

satisfaction of the Department. that a lesser number of days of violation should apply." 

a) With regard to the presumption of a 153 day violation, GSA believes it would be 

virtually impossible for GSA to release 25 tons of NOx in a month, let alone a 

single day. GSA believes that a rule that presumes violation when a violation is 

essentially impossible violates DC's prohibition on arbitrary regulations. This 

presumption could also result in a fine that is unreasonably large if only a minor 

violation has occurred. GSA accordingly proposes that this provision be revised 

to avoid such concerns. 

b) If the above-referenced penalty presumption language is retained, GSA proposes 

that the standard for determining the number of violations be tied directly to the 

data generated pursuant to proposed 20 DCMR § 1 002. This would provide an 

objective standard, as opposed to DDOE's seemingly subjective standard. 

c) If the above-referenced penalty presumption language is retained, GSA requests 

that this language be clarified. In particular, it is unclear whether the second 

occurrence of the word "that" is extraneous to the intent of the proposed 

provision. 

CommentS 

Since violations are computed on a daily basis, GSA suggests that proposed 20 DCMR 

§ 1004 be revised to base violations on a daily emissions limit, as opposed to a 153-day 

limit. This would avoid many of the issues highlighted in Comment 7. Alternatively, 

DDOE could base penalties on the number of days that GSA is out of compliance with 

the 25 ton limit, or such penalties could be strictly based on the extent to which the 

applicable limit is exceeded. 

Comment9 

It is unclear to GSA how proposed 20 DCMR § 1004.1 (b) relates to proposed 20 DCMR 

§ 1004.1(a). These provisions could be read to impose multiple violations in a day, or 

just one violation for each excess ton. GSA also questions whether the Clean Air Act 

authorizes tonnage-based penalties. GSA requests that the interplay of these 

provisions be clarified. 

Comment 10 

GSA requests clarification of the term "New Unit Set-Aside Equivalent" present in 

proposed 20 DCMR § 1 001 .1. GSA also requests guidance on the purpose of this oneton limit. 

3 
Comment 11 

GSA understands that the DDOE would like to make this emission cap effective by the 

next ozone season. This short window will not allow GSA sufficient time to property 

review potential avenues to achieve compliance with the proposed revision. 

Accordingly, GSA requests that the DDOE extend the compliance date of the proposed 

rule. 

Comment 12 

GSA has a cogeneration system that consists of a boiler and two turbines. The 

cogeneration boiler and the turbines are each under the 250 MMBtu/hr threshold. but 

exceed the threshold when operating in concert. GSA requests that DDOE clarify the 

language in the proposed rule to clearty state whether the turbines are subject to the 

proposed revision when they are operating independently of the boiler. More broadly, 

GSA requests clarification of whether the overall NOx limit applies only to the boilers 

that meet the requirements of proposed 20 DCMR § 1000.1, or whether that limit 

applies to the Central Heating and Refrigeration Plant broadly. 

Thank you in advance for your consideration of GSA's concerns. If you have any 

questions about these comments, please contact George Korvah at (202) 690-9719. 

Sincerely, 

Dave Mbonu, PhD. 

Director, 

GSA-Heating Operations and Transmission Division 

13th & C Streets, SW., (WPSA) 

Washington, DC 20407 

4