1 July 19, 2013

VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL

Mary Jane Rutkowski Maryland Department of the Environment Air and Radiation Management Administration 1800 Washington Boulevard, Suite 730 Baltimore, MD, 21230 MaryJane.Rutkowski@Maryland.gov

RE: Comments of the Sierra Club Regarding Baltimore Serious Nonattainment Area 0.08 ppm 8

- Hour Ozone State Implementation Plan

On behalf of the Sierra Club and its thousands of members, activists and employees who are physically, aesthetically

, and economically harmed by ozone pollution in the Baltimore area, I am writing to provide comments on the Maryland Department of Environment ’s (“MDE ’s”) proposed Baltimore Serious Nonattainment Area (“NAA”) 0.08 ppm 8

- Hour Ozone State Implementation Plan (“Pr oposed SIP”). As explained in detail below, the Proposed SIP is inadequate to bring the Baltimore area into attainment with the 1997 Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard (“NAAQS”) ; the most recent ambient moni toring data clearly demonstrate
that B altimore is not attaining the 1997 ozone NAAQS , and the Proposed SIP fails to include additional enforceable emission reductions that will bring the Baltimore NAA into attainment

. The Proposed SIP is therefore in adequate to attain and maintain the 1997 ozone NAAQS and protect the health of the people of Baltimore, and additional emission limits and controls will be
needed.

As part of this process, to timely and cost

- effectively obtain significant NO

x reductions, the Sierra Club urges MDE to impose additional emissions limits and cost

- effective pollution
controls on the coal

- burning power plants in the Baltimore NAA which still lack 20th century pollution control technology. As illustrated below, requi ring the three Baltimore area coal plants
to achieve an emission rate of 0.07 lb/MMBtu for NO

x during the ozone s eason would reduce

ozone season NO

x from these plants by 60% or more than 2,000 tons/year.

In addition , o pportunities to reduce ambient ozone may exist through increased investment in renewable energy and energy efficiency. Maryland is in the process of reviewing and potentially extending its EmPOWER Maryland energy efficiency targets beyond 2015

. Maryland therefore has an opportunity to use the ozone NAAQS to help inform and drive i ts

p ost

- 2015 EmPOWER targets , so that the y require levels of energy efficiency that wi ll help ensure NAAQS compl iance

. Maryland should also be actively pursu ing long

- term contracting
for renewables to reduce the dispatch of NO

x - in tensive fossil fuel generation and help bring the state into compliance with the ozone standard.2

F inally

, since MDE has failed to attain the NAAQ S by its attainment date of June 15, 2013 and consequently will be bumped up to “severe” nonattainment status, the Sierra Club

urge s MDE to timely and expeditiously update its SIP pursuant to the “severe” nonattainment requirements of Section 182( d ) of the Cl ean Air Act

. 1

I. BACKGROUND

A. The Sierra Club

The Sierra Club is a nonprofit environmental organization with 600,000 members
nationwide , including more than 13,000 members in Maryland. The Sierra Club’s mission is to explore, enjoy, and protect the wild places of the earth; to practice and promote the responsible use of the earth’s ecosystems and resources; to educate and enlist humanity to protect and restore the quality of the natural and human environment; and to use all lawful means to carry out these objectives. The Sierra Club’s membership includes individuals and employees who reside in the Baltimore nonattainment area and face continued health risks from the impacts of ozone pollution.

B. Legal and Factual Background

The Clean Air Act (“CAA”) is, at its core, a directive to protect the public from harmful air pollution. Indeed, “pollution prevention” is a “primary goal” of the CAA. 42 U.S.C. § 7401(c); see also General Motors Corp. v. EPA , 496 U.S. 530, 532 (1990) (noting that “threat s to human health were regarded as urgent,” and discussing the need for “expeditious establishment of programs to deal with the problem”); U.S. Steel Corp. v. EPA , 605 F.2d 283, 287 (7th Cir. 1979) (observing that CAA “deadlines were a response to the fai lure of the states to meet prior attainment deadlines and represent Congressional concern over the seriously adverse health consequences of continued nonattainmen t”). Pursuant to this mandate, EPA sets NAAQS to protect public health and welfare. 42 U.S.C . § 7409(b). NAAQS designations are based on an assessment of whether the concentration of pollutants in the ambient air exceeds the standard set by EPA to protect public health and welfare. A non attainment area is defined as “any area that does not meet ( or that contributes to ambient air quality in a nearby area that does not meet) the [NAAQS] for that pollutant. Id . § 7407(d)(1)(A)(i). The Clean Air Act
Amendments of 1990 significantly strengthened requirements for nonattainment areas and
created a clas sification process based on the level of the areas’ air pollution problem.

The CAA defines ground

- level ozone as a criteria pollutant. In 1979 EPA promulgated a primary NAAQS for ozone of 0.12 parts per million (ppm) on a 1

- hour basis

. In 1997, EPA
revised the health

- based NAAQS for ozone, setting it at 0.08 ppm averaged over an 8

- hour
time frame. EPA set the standard based on scientific evidence demonstrating that ozone causes

1 Curiously, MDE stated in its Proposed SIP that, as part of meeting the CAA’s “serious” nonattainment SIP requirements, it was required to “[a]dopt state regu lations to meet CAA Section 182 (d).” 182(d) refers to “severe” nonattainment SIP requirements, whi le 182(c) refers to “serious” nonattainment SIP requirements.3

adverse health effects at lower ozone concentrations a nd over longer periods of time than was understood when the pre

- existing 1

- hour ozone standard was set. 2

Ozone has numerous harmful effects on human respiratory systems which include inducing asthma attacks in asthmatics and aggravating chronic lung diseases like emphysema and bronchitis. EPA, Smog

— Who Does it Hurt? 2

- 3 (available at http://www.epa.gov/air/ozonepollution/pdfs/smog.pdf ). Long

- term exposure may result in the permanent scarring of lung tissue. E PA, Ozone and Your Health (available at http://www.epa.gov/air/ozonepollution/pdfs/health.pdf ). Exposure to ozone can also lead to “chronic, adverse effects on lung development in children from the age of 10 to 18 years....”

See Gauderman, W. James, et al., The Effect of Air Pollution on Lung Development from 10 to 18 Years of Age , New Engl. J. Med. 351:11, at 1057 (Sept. 9, 2004). However, the greatest harm “may occur later in life, since reduced lung function is a strong risk factor for complications and death during a dulthood.” Id . at 1063. Specific to Baltimore, the American Lung Association’s 2013 “State of the Air” Report concluded that of the 2,680,756 r esidents in the Baltimore nonattainment area, there were:

 175,015 adult as t hmatics

 56,056 child asthmatics

 123,481 residents with Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease ( COPD )

 709,150 residents with cardiovascular disease

 605,415 residents under 18 years old

 342,980 residents 65 years or older.

Declaration of George Aburn, Maryland v. EPA , Case No. 13

- 1070, ¶ 1 2 (D.C. Cir. May 30, 2013) (hereinafter “Aburn Decl.”) (citing American Lung Association, “State of the Air 2013

- Report Card: Maryland ,” available at http://www.stateoftheair.org/2013/states/maryland/ ).

Ozone pollution also causes significant damage to the environment. Specific to Maryland, e xcess nitrogen and chemical contaminants from atmospheric deposition impact the Chesapeake Bay and its watershed. Too much nitrogen entering the Chesapeake Bay leads to eutrophication, a process that causes accelerated growth of algae. Too much algae in t he Bay blocks sunlight needed for submerged aquatic vegetation to grow. Also, when the algae die, they sink to the bottom of the Bay and decompose in a process that depletes the oxygen in the water. The Chesapeake Bay Program estimated that approximately one

- third of the nitrogen that reaches the Chesapeake Bay comes from air deposition. Of that one

- third, approximately 60% is
attributable to NO

x . Aburn Decl. ¶ 13

. The effects of nitrogen can also be seen in acid rain. NO

x are one of the key air pollutants causing acid deposition, which results in adverse effects in aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems. Acid deposition increases the acidity of water and soils, which can impair the ability of certain fish and aquatic life to g row, reproduce, and survive. Increases in soil acidity can impair the ability of some types of trees to grow and resist disease.

2 Based on subsequent scientific evidence, EPA subsequently lowered the 8

- hour NAAQS to 0.075 in 2008 and is in the process of further revising the NAAQS to ensure that it is set at an appropria tely health

- protective level.4

In 2004, EPA designated the Baltimore area as being in “moderate” nonattainment for the

8

- hour 1997 NAAQS. See 69 Fed. Reg. 23,8 58 (Apr. 30, 2004). The Baltimore Nonattainment Area includes Baltimore City and Anne Arundel, Baltimore, Carroll, Harford, and Howard
counties.

On February 1, 2012, EPA published notice that the Baltimore 1997 8

- hour ozone nonattainment area (“Baltimore NAA”) did not attain the 1997 8

- hour ozone NAAQS by
Baltimore’s moderate nonattainment date. See 77 Fed. Reg. 4901 (Feb. 1, 2012). EPA explained that as a result of failing to attain by its attainment date, Baltimore was reclassified, that is “bumped up,” to a 1997 8

- hour ozone serious nonattainment area. Id. EPA set the due date for Maryland to submit necessary SIP revisions to cre ate a serious nonattainment SIP as no later than September 30, 2012 and the attainment date as no later than June 15, 2013. Id. Pursuant to section 182(c) of the CAA, a serious nonattainment SIP must contain not only the requirements for moderate nonatta inment areas, see 42 U.S.C. § 7511a(c), but must also meet the following additional requirements:

 Enhanced monitoring ( Id. § 7511a(c)(1))

 Attainment and reasonable further progress demonstrations ( Id. § 7511a(c)(2))

 Enhanced vehicle inspection and maintenance program ( Id. § 7511a(c)(3))

 Clean fuel vehicle programs ( Id. § 7511a(c)(4))

 Transportation control measures based upon aggregate vehicle mileage and emissions ( Id. § 7511a(c)(5))

 Limitations on what qualifies as de minimis emissions ( Id. § 7511 a(c)(6))

 Specified internal offset ratios for sources to avoid new source review requirements ( Id. § 7511a(c) (7) & (8 ))

 Inclusion of contingency measures ( Id. § 7511a(c)(9))

 A VOC offset ratio of 1.2:1 ( Id. § 7511a(c)(10))

On June 17, 2013, two days after EPA’s required attainment date, MDE submitted its Proposed SIP revision for attainment of the 1997 ozone NAAQS, concluding that “[b]ased on the attainment demonstration modeling

. . . , the weight of evidence data analysis, and th e supplemental modeling that was completed, MDE is confident that the Baltimore [Nonattainment Area] will attain the 8

- hour ozone standard by June 15, 2013 .” Proposed SIP at 133.

M uch of the June 17 Proposed SIP appears to simply restate Maryland’s 2007 attainment
demonstrat ion, which was disapproved by EPA in 2009. See 74 Fed. Reg. 21

, 594. Moreover

, the Proposed SIP is almost entirely comprised of emissions limits and controls that have already been fully implemented, including the NO

x requirements of the Healthy Air Act. T he m ost recent air quality monitoring data unambiguously show that MDE has failed to attain the NAAQS by its at tainment date of June 15, 2013. 3 C onsequently , the Baltimore area will be bumped up to “s evere” nonattainment status.

3 Indeed, MDE acknowledges in its Clean Ai r Progress Report that “ [d] espite the [] actions [it has taken] , Maryland is not meeting ground

- level ozone standards. In particular, one monitoring station, in Harford County, records significantly higher levels than all other stations in the State

. ” (May 1, 2013)

, available

at http://www.mde.state

. md.us/programs/PressRoom / Pages/Clean_Air_Progress_2013

. aspx

.5

II. COMMENTS

A. The Baltimore Serious Area Attainment Demonstration Modeling Is Inadequate to Demonstrate Attainment of the NAAQS Because 2012 Monitored Data Shows Multiple Exceedances of the NAAQS

Pursuant to 40 C.F.R. § 51.112(a), an attainment demonstration 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.” Such a demonstration is to be done by modeling but also by “data b ases , ” including the ambient monitoring database Air Quality System (AQS), which EPA allows public access to via its AirData webpage. Here, the monitored data conclusively demonstrate that the Baltimore area is not attaining the 1997 ozone NAAQS , and that the results of the modeling, which relies on out

- of

- date data, must be rejected

.

The Proposed SIP stated that its “modeling exercise predicts future year 2012 air quality conditions based on the worst episodes in the base year 2002, and applies control measures to demonstrate the effectiveness of new control measures in reducing air pollution.” Proposed SIP

at 104. Based on its 2002

- forecasted modeling exercise, MDE summarily concluded that “all monitors within the Baltimore NAA demonstrated compliance wi th the 1997 8

- hour ozone NAAQS,” i d . at 133, and consequently, that the 1997 ozone NAAQS would be attained by June 15, 2013.

There is no basis for MDE to use 2002 projections for 2012 air quality conditions when

, at the time of its June 17 , 2013 submission

, it had full access to the actual 2012 air quality
conditions for the Baltimore NAA. When actual air quality conditions for 2012 are reviewed, it is clear that the Baltimore NAA did not attain the 1997 ozone NAAQS by June 15, 2013, and will not be able to attain the NAAQS without addition al controls beyond those in the Proposed

SIP. As the table below illustrates, according to actual data from the 7 monitors in the Baltimore NAA, there were 58 exceedances of the 1997 ozone NAAQS in 2012

.

Site ID Address County State Actual
Exceedances

240030014 Davidsonville Recreation Center,

3801 Queen Anne Bridge Road Anne Arundel MD 13

240051007 Padonia Elementary School,

9834 Greenside Drive Baltimore MD 12

240053001 600 Dorsey Avenue Baltimore MD 7

240130001 1300 W. Old Liberty Road Carroll MD 36

Site ID Address County State Actual
Exceedances

240251001 Edgewood Chemical Biological

Center (Apg), Waehli Road Harford MD 9

240259001 3560 Aldino Road Harford MD 11

245100054 Furley E.S. Recreational Center,

4633 Furley Avenue. Baltimore (City) MD 3

TOTAL 58

EPA AirData Database, Baltimore

- Towson, MD, 8

- hour ozone standard (0.075 ppm), 2012, available at http://www.epa.gov/airdata/ad_rep_mon.html

In addition, on May 30, less than three weeks before MDE issued its Proposed SIP asserting that the Baltimore area would be timely attaining the 1997 ozone NAAQS

, George Aburn, Director of MDE’s Air and Radiation Management Administration, stated that MDE’s Proposed SIP measures “were not sufficient to achieve the 1997 standard as 2012 was a mo re intense year for ozone formation.” Aburn Decl. ¶ 5

. 4 Consequently, Mr. Aburn concluded that “[t]he Baltimore region, which was not declared as having clean data and attaining the 1997 standard, will be reclassified aga in, this time as severe ” and expla ined that, “ [a]s Maryland is one of the few areas of the country that was not declared attainment for the 1997 standard, Maryland must continue to implement additional measures for NO

x and VOC or suffer sanctions.” Id . ¶ 6

. As MDE apparently recognizes, the Baltimore area was not and is not attaining the 1997
standard and the Proposed SIP will need to be timely updated to reflect Baltimore’s impending
“severe” nonattainment status.

Furthermore, b eyond 2012, EPA has acknow ledged repeatedly that climate change will make ozone problems worse. See e.g. http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/impacts

adaptation/health.html (“Scientists project that warmer temperatures from climate change will increase the frequency of days with unhealthy levels of ground

- level ozone, a harmful air pollutant”). Therefore, MDE’s attainment demonstrations s hould be using actual 2012 weather, or even warmer weather, to d emonstrate that the emission limits and other nonattainment SIP provisions will attain the 1997 ozone NAAQS.

B. The Baltimore Serious N onattainment SIP Is Inadequate to Demonstrate
that the A rea Will Reach Attainment Because the Measures it Contains Are

4 It should be noted that 2012 was by no means an outlier for NAAQS exce edances for the Baltimore NAA. In 2011,
there were 7 4 exceedances of the NAAQS in the Baltimore NAA. In 2010, there were 76 exceedances. See EPA AirData Database, Baltimore

- Towson, MD, 8

- hour ozone standard (0.075 ppm), available at http://www.epa.gov/airdata/ad_rep_mon.html

.7 Fully Implemented and Have Not to Date Res ulted in Attainment of the 1997
Ozone NAAQS ; Additional Measures Are Required

MDE’s Proposed SIP relies exclusively on limits and controls which have a lready been fully implemented , yet the Baltimore area is still not attaining the 1997 ozone NAAQS. Further reductions in ozone precursors are therefore required.

N one of the measures i dentified in the Proposed SIP t o achieve attain ment of the 8

- hour NAAQS call for new regulations or require ments beyond 2012. For example, the Healthy Air

Act , which was a laudable piece of legislation that achieved significant reductions in power plant

NO

x emissions, c ontains no new requirements for N O

x b eyond 2012

. C onsequently

, a lthough it
has achieved a 75% reduction in NO

x emissions from 2002 levels, the HAA’s regulations a re nevertheless acknowledged to be “i nsufficient to reach attainment ” with the 1997 ozone NAAQS. Aburn Decl. ¶ 4.

Furthermore, Section 172(c)(1) of the Clean Air Act requires that nonattainment SIPs “shall provide for the implementation of all reason ably available control measures (“RACM”) as expeditiously as practicable.” 42 U.S.C. § 7502(c)(1). A s MDE readily admits, “ the [RACM] analysis is designed to ensure that the Baltimore 8

- hour Ozone Nonattainment Area is implementing all reasonably available control measures in order to demonstrate attainment with
the 8

- hour ozone standard on the earliest date possible.” Proposed SIP at 86.

Howe ver, the Proposed SIP does not include any current or recent RACM analysis. Instead, the RACM analysis in the Proposed SIP is at least 5 years out of date, requiring that, “[a]s the Baltimore region currently expects to reduce ozone levels to 84 ppb durin g the 2009 ozone season, any RACM measures must enable the region to meet the 84 ppb standard by April 1, 2008, the beginning of the 2008 ozone season.” Proposed SIP at 87. Such an improper and outdated RACM analysis violates the intent and express requirem ent of the Clean Air Act, and MDE must revise its future SIP submissions to include a current RACM analysis.

Additionally, the Proposed SIP appears to be missing several of the CAA requirements for “serious” nonattainment areas, including enhanced monitoring (42 U.S.C. § 7511a(c) (1)),

s pecified internal offset ratios for sources to avoid new source review requirements ( Id. § 7511a(c)(7) & (8)) , and a VOC offset ratio of 1.2 to 1 ( Id. § 7511a(c)(10))

. To be deemed complete, t he Proposed SIP must be revised to include these requirements.

As shown above, the most recent monitoring data prov e conclusively that the Baltimore NAA will not be in attainment by June 1 5, 2013. Because the Proposed SIP offers no new additional regulations or requirements to lower ozone precursor emissions, MDE must revise the
SIP to reflect the Baltimore NAA’s new “ severe” nonattainment status, and include additional controls as well as a current RACM analysis

.

C. MDE Can Achieve Additional Controls by Requiring Short

- Term Limits and
Cost

- Effective Pollution Controls for Coal

- Fired Power Plants in the
Baltimore No nattainment Area8

Despite the strides Maryland has made in reducing emissions from large NO

x sources , there remain readily available local reductions in ozone precursor s that Maryland has not availed
itself of

. According to MDE, NO

x emissions from power plants and other stationary sources constitute nearly 40% of total NO

x emissions. See Proposed SIP at 17, Table 2

- 2

. One cost

effective and expeditious means of obtaining several thousand tons of ozone season NO

x emissions in the Baltimore area is to impose an emission limit of 0.07 pounds per million British thermal units (lb/ MMB tu) on each coal

- burning electric generating unit in the Baltimore NAA. Unlike the Healthy Air Act, which allows for averaging across fa cilities, t his limit should be applied on a stack

- by

- stack basis

. Furthermore, the limit should be ba sed on a 24

- hour averaging time, since averaging over a thirty

- day, ozone season, or annual time period does not ensure that
the NO

x reductions are being achieved when they are most needed: namely, on hot, sunny summer days. Rather, averaging times longer than 24 hours allows for increased NO

x emissions
at cri tical times and thereby allow 8

- hour ozone averages that violate the NAAQS. The compliance date for units with SCR already installed should the beginning of the next ozone

season. The compliance date for units without SCR should allow no more than 21 mont hs. See 76 Fed. Reg. at 48,282.

Three of the six coal

- burning power plant units in th e Baltimore NAA still do not have

SCR installed , despite the fact that SCR NO

x reduction technology has been around for decades
and EPA has repeatedly found it to be cost

- effective. See, e.g.

, Appalachian Power v. EPA , 135 F.3d 791, 815

- 816 (D.C. Cir. 1998). Congress itself noted that SCR was cost

- effective nearly a
quarter century ago. See id. at 819, quoting S. REP. No. 101

- 228, at 332

- 33 ( 1989).

A 0.07 lb/MMBtu limit can easily be met with SCR installed. One need look no further than the Morgantown power plant, which maintains an average monthly emission rate of 0.03
lb/ MMB tu. Applying the 0 .07 lb/MMBtu to the coal plants in the Baltimore NAA, the table
below illustrates that this limit would lead to over 2,000 tons in potential emissions reductions

, an almost 60% reduction of total NO

x 2012 emissions:

Facility Unit Avg. 2012

ozone season monthly NO
x emission rate (lb/MMBtu) Total 2012

ozone

season NO
x emissions (tons) Potential

Ozone Season
NO
x Reductions at
0.07
lb/MMBtu (tons) NO
x Controls

Brandon
Shores 1 0.11 726 264 SCR, LNB

Brandon
Shores 2 0.13 892 411 SCR, LNB

CP Crane 1 0.40 573 472 OFA, CM, SNCR

CP Crane 2 0.37 668 541 OFA, CM, SNCR HA Wagner 2 0.38 475 387 LNB, SNCR HA Wagner 3 0.07 154 0 LNB, OFA, SCR

TOTAL 3

, 488 2,0779

As explained above, a 0 .07 lb/MMBtu limit and implementation of SCR across all coal plants in the Baltimore NAA would achieve significant reductions in NO

x emissions. Since utility and other stationary source NO

x emissions comprise nearly 40% of the NO

x emissions in
the Baltimore nonattainment area in 2012

, Proposed SIP at 17, Table 2

- 2

, a 60% reduction in coal plant NO

x emissions would be a tremendous step in the Baltimore NAA reaching attainment

status

. Moreover, installation of SCR has been consistently found to be co st

- effective, and the time is long past for major sources of ozone precursors in the Baltimore NAA to at least have installed and be operating the best 20 th

- century control technology.

D. Maryland Should Pursue Long

- term Contracts for Renewables and

Enhanced Energy Efficiency Targets Under EmPOWER Maryland As a Pathway to R educing Emissions of Ozone Precursors in the State

EP A has promoted the incorporation of energy efficiency and renewable energy policies and programs into SIPs as a means of helping states to achiev e compliance with ambient air quality standards. Maryland is already investigating the possibility for incorporating energy efficiency and rene w able energy commitments in to its nonattainme nt SIP for the 2008 ozone NAAQS

. S ee EPA, Roadmap for Incorporating Energy Efficiency/Renewable Energy Policies and Programs into State and Tribal Implementation Pla ns: Appendix K: State, Tribal and Lo cal Examples and Opportunities ( July 2012) , at K

- 15 to K

- 16

. Maryland is also a crossroads with regard to its EmPOWER programs and targets and will be making d ecisions in the coming
months regarding whether and how to extent the programs beyond 2015. To fully capitalize on this opportunity, Maryland should be actively pursu ing long

- term contracting for renewables and setting i ts p ost

- 2015 energy efficiency targets for EmPower MD in a manner that i s driven by the ability to use efficiency to help the State comply with both the 1997 and 2008 o zone s tandards

.

III. CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated above, MDE’s Proposed SIP for the Baltimore NAA is inadequate to meet the 1997 ozone NAAQS, and as a result, the Baltimore NAA will be bumped up from
“serious” to “severe” nonattainment. Prolonged nonattainment of the 1997 ozone NAA QS will harm Baltimore’s citizens, will cause irreparable economic harm to Maryland by subjecting the state to increasingly stringent pollution reduction requirements, and could subject Maryland to
sanctions under the CAA. See 42 U

. S

. C

. § 7511d(a).

Accordingly, MDE should proceed expeditiously with issuance of its nonattainment SIP revision based on the “severe” nonattainment SIP requirements found in Section 182(d) of the

CAA. At the same time, MDE should impose additional emission limits and pollu tion controls on Maryland’s coal

- burning power plants, including revised NO

x emission limits and the installation of SCR as proven, cost

- effective NO

x reduction technology

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this important issue. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me.10 Respectfully submitted,

Joshua Berman
Sierra Cl ub Environmental Law Program 50 F St. NW, 8 th Floor Washington, DC 20001 Tel: (202) 650

- 6062 Email: josh.berman@sierraclub.org

Philip M. Goo Law Office of Philip M. Goo 1377 K St. SE, Unit 2 Washington, DC 20003 Tel: (404) 583

- 9451 Email: goolawoffice@gmail.com