# Appendix J.

Public Hearing Notices and Public Comments

and Responses

# Washington Times

Legal/Public Notices P o sting Date: 3-24-07

GOVE RNM E NT OF THE DISTRIC T COL U MBIA DEP A RTMENT OF THE

ENVIRONMENT NOTICE OF PUBLIC HE ARING ON AIR QUALITY ISSUES

Notice is hereby given that a public hearing wi ll be held on April 25, 2007 at 6:00 p.m. in

the 6th Floor conference room at 51 N St reet, N E , W a shington, D.C. Thi s hearing

provides interested parties an opportunity to comm ent on a proposed revision to the

Districts S t ate Im plem entation Plan (S IP) for the Washington DC-MD-VA ozone

nonattainm e nt area. The proposed revision, St ate Im ple m entation Plan (SIP) for the 8-

Hour Ozone Standard D e m onstrating R easonable Further P r ogress for 2008, and a

Moderate Area Attainment Dem onstration, and a 2002 Base Year Inventory for the

Washington DC-MD-VA Nonattainm e nt Area, co nsists of : (i) a Reasonable Further

Progress (RFP) plan for 2002-2008; (i i) an attainm e nt plan; (iii) an analysis of reasonably

available co ntrol m easures; (iv) an attainm e nt demonstration; (v) contingency plans for

failure to attain RFP and the air quality st andard; and (vi) m obile source budgets. The

revision also consists of the base year 2002 air pollutant em issions inventory, which

serves as the basis for all planning activi ties related to the 8-hour ozone National

Am bient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) for th e m e tropolitan W a shington, DC area. This

inventory has been prepared in response to the em issions inventory requirem e nts under

172(c) of th e federal Clean Air Act and in acco rd ance with 40 CFR 51.915. The proposed

plan was prepared by the Me tropolitan W a shington Air Quality Co mmittee (MW A QC ),

which consists of elected officials from the a ffected localities and representatives of the

states and DC transportation a nd air quality planning agencies . The plan is intended to

show the progress being m a de to improve air quality in the Wa shington nonattainm e nt

area and the efforts underway to assu re that all necessary step s are taken to reach the

federal health standard f o r ground-level ozone by 2009. M W AQC prepared the plan to

com p ly with the Clean A i r Act Am endm ents of 1990; with federal reclassification

requirem e nts; and with f e deral Phase I and Phase II im plem entation guidance. On March

15, 2007, MWAQC approved the proposed plan, a nd DC and the states are releasing it

for public review and comment. The proposed air quality plan is available online at

http://sharepoint.m w cog.org/airquality/defau lt.aspx Copies of the proposed SIP revisions

are available for public review during norm a l bus iness hou rs at the offices of the District

Departm e nt of the Environ m ent (DDOE), 51 N Street, NE, Roo m 6051, Washington,

D.C. 20002, and at the following D.C. Pub lic Library branches: 901 G Street, NW ;

Connecticut Avenue & McKinley S t reet, NW ; 37th Street & Alabam a Avenue, SE;

W i sconsin Avenue & R Street, NW ; 18th Stre et & Rhode Island Avenue, NE. Interested

parties wishing to testif y at this hearing should furnish in writing their nam e s, addresses,

telephone num b ers and affiliation, if any to Ms. Deirdre E l vis-Peterson at DDOE by 4:00

p.m ., April 25, 2007. No written co mments will be accep ted after April 25, 2007. For

more information, call Ms. Elvis-Pete rson at 202-535-2256 or em ail her at

deirdre.elvis@dc.govPublic Comments and Responses for 8-Hour Ozone SIPCommentNumberTopicPriority_NumCommenter(s)DateReceivedRecipientCommentResponseComments on Attainment Demonstration1AttainmentDemonstration1Air Quality PublicAdvisory Committee4/22/2007DC DOEand COGThe commenter is disappointed that the SIPattainment modeling does not show that allmonitors in the region will comply with the 8-hour ozone standard in 2009, and that aweight of evidence approach had to be usedto demonstrate compliance.MWAQC and the states believe that theattainment demonstration presented in theSIP meets all of the federal requirements andguidelines for demonstrating attainment ofthe 8-hour ozone standard. Based on theattainment modeling results and weight ofevidence, MWAQC and the states believethere is strong evidence that the region willattain the 8-hour ozone standard by theattainment deadline.Comments on Control Measures2ControlMeasures1Air Quality PublicAdvisory Committee4/22/2007DC DOEand COGTo protect the health of citizens in the region,the SIP should have contained a number ofcontrol measures that were considered butnot adopted by the states. Source categoriesinadequately addressed include on-roadmobile sources and area sources.MWAQC and the states believe that thecontrol measures included in the SIP are themeasures that were identified as beingfeasible and cost effective, and that could beadopted and implemented within thetimeframe of the SIP implementation periodthrough May 1, 2009. Additional measureswere considered but given time constraints,high cost, technology barriers, orunacceptable economic impacts, suchmeasures were not adopted at this time.Please refer to Chapter 7 for a completeevaluation of each of the control measuresconsidered during development of the SIP.3ControlMeasures2Chesapeake ClimateAction Network,Environmental ResourcesTrust, Resource SystemsGroup, Jonathan Miles,Debra Jacobson4/19/2007COGThe commenters support inclusion ofrenewable energy and energy efficiencymeasures in the SIP, contingent onMaryland, Virginia, and the District ofColumbia adopting Clean Air Interstate Rule(CAIR) regulations that will ensure that NOxMWAQC and the states support renewableenergy and energy efficiency as importantmeans of reducing emissions. The states arecommitted to implementing effective CAIRregulations that will provide a mechanism forretiring of NOx allowances for renewablePublic Comments and Responses for 8-Hour Ozone SIPCommentNumberTopic Priority_Num Commenter(s)DateReceivedRecipientComment Responseallowances are retired commensurate withthe avoided emissions associated with therenewable energy or energy efficiencymeasure. The commenters supportintensified efforts to further increaserenewable energy and energy efficiencymeasures in the SIP in the future.energy and energy efficiency purposes.4ControlMeasures3City of Alexandria,Transportation &Environmental Service,Division of EnvironmentalQuality4/2/2007COGThe commenter requests that emissionreduction activities listed in the City'sVoluntary Bundle Commitment letter (datedMarch 14, 2007) be incorporated intoChapter 10, Weight of Evidence section ofthe SIP.MWAQC and the states agree. Theinformation will be included in the weight ofevidence portion of the final SIP.5ControlMeasures4Rodney Livingston4/25/2007DC DOEand COGThe commenter expressed concern that notenough has been done to improve air qualitysince 1990. The commenter suggests thatregional leaders need to influence air qualityimprovement efforts by setting a goodexample. In particular, leaders shouldaddress inefficiencies in energy use forbuilding operations through establishment ofnew building codes, better use of naturallighting, and more efficient light bulbs.Leaders also should mandate specific landuse and transportation plan requirements toreduce demand for vehicle travel. Thecommenter also suggests that inefficienciesassociated with food refrigeration at grocerystores need to be addressed.MWAQC and the states agree that energyefficiency is a measure that should beexpanded to help reduce energy demand andpollution in the Washington region. Localleaders are taking steps to improve buildingcodes and encourage Green Buildings.Energy efficiency and Green Buildingmeasures have been included in thevoluntary bundle in Chapter 6 of the SIP. TheNational Capital Region TransportationPlanning Board (TPB) is also activelyencouraging transit oriented development.6ControlMeasures5Julie Crenshaw van Fleet4/26/2007VA DEQand COGThe commenter said that old coal-fired powerplants cause health concern for the region aswell as for local residents affected by theMWAQC and the states agree that emissionsfrom coal-fired power plants need to beaddressed to improve air quality in thePublic Comments and Responses for 8-Hour Ozone SIPCommentNumberTopic Priority_Num Commenter(s)DateReceivedRecipientComment Responseemissions. Large corporations should takeadditional actions to mitigate the risk posedby operating such facilities.Washington, DC region. The SIP containsprovisions for significant reductions from thefacilities located in the region. The VA CAIRrule contains provisions that do not allowtrading of NOX and SO2 within thenonattainment areas, thereby requiringfacilities within the nonattainment area toreduce their emissions. The MD Healthy AirAct (HAA) sets strict caps on coal fired powerplants and also restricts trading. Modelinghas shown that the NOX emission reductionsassociated with these local requirements,which are stricter than federal requirements,will improve air quality. MWAQC and thestates continue to work through the OzoneTransport Commission (OTC) process toseek additional emission reductions, eithervoluntarily or within a regulatory framework,from coal-fired power plants within our regionand nationally.Technical Corrections7TechnicalCorrections1Virginia Department ofEnvironmental Quality4/13/2007COGFor the following source categories, updateemissions and associated documentation inthe Base Year 2002 emission inventorydocument and its appendices (Appendix B ofSIP) to reflect the BY 2002 emissionestimates for these categories provided toMWCOG in VDEQ’s most recent emissioninventory (NIF3.0) file for area & nonroadsources (non-Nonroad model): 1) SurfaceCoating – Traffic Paint/Lane markings(2401008000) – All NOVA Jurisdictions 2)Surface Coating – Industrial MaintenanceMWAQC and the states agree. The changeswill be reflected in the final SIP.Public Comments and Responses for 8-Hour Ozone SIPCommentNumberTopic Priority_Num Commenter(s)DateReceivedRecipientComment Response(2401100000) – All NOVA Jurisdictions 3)Graphic Arts (2425000000) – All NOVAJurisdictions 4) Military Aviation – FairfaxCounty 5) Military and General Aviation -Prince William County Changes in the BaseYear 2002 emission inventory made abovewill change the future year inventories andassociated analyses and documentation.Therefore, also update future year emissionsand associated analyses and documentationin the main SIP document and relatedappendices.8TechnicalCorrections2Maryland Department ofthe Environment4/13/2007COGThe commenter requests that a summary ofthe weight of evidence document provided inthe appendix of the SIP be included in themain chapters of the SIP document. Thecommenter is not requesting any substantialor significant changes to the SIP documentbut a relatively simple summary of the WOEappendices.MWAQC and the states agree. A summarywill be included in the final SIP.Other Comments9Other1Chesapeake ClimateAction Network,EnvironmentalResources Trust,Resource SystemsGroup, Jonathan Miles,Debra Jacobson4/19/2007COGIncreased use of zero-emitting energysources will be essential in reducing bothgreenhouse gas and NOx and other ozoneprecursor emissions.MWAQC and the states agree that zeroemitting energy sources will provide benefitsin terms of reduced emissions of bothgreenhouse gases and ozone precursors.10Other2Air Quality PublicAdvisory Committee4/22/2007DC DOEand COGThe federal government did not take its fullresponsibility to assist the metropolitanWashington region to regulate sourcescurrently preempted from local or regionalMWAQC agrees that emission reductions areneeded from source categories which cannotbe regulated by state or local governments.This SIP contains a number of importantPublic Comments and Responses for 8-Hour Ozone SIPCommentNumberTopic Priority_Num Commenter(s)DateReceivedRecipientComment Responsecontrol.measures that were enacted by the federalgovernment, including the Clean AirInterstate Rule, motor vehicle emissionstandards, and emission standards for nonroad equipment. MWAQC and the state airagencies continue to work through the OzoneTransport Commission (OTC) process andother avenues to encourage the federalgovernment to take regulatory action tofurther reduce emissions from federallypreempted sources.11Other3Jeffrey Choy(Washington, Maryland,Delaware Service Stationand Automotive RepairAssociation (WMDA)Advisor)4/23/2007MDEMaryland is the last state on east coast tomaintain and run a centralized vehicle I/Mprogram. All other states are decentralized,allowing providers to offer this service inmany more outlets for the convenience oftheir citizens.There are a number of states that continue toimplement a centralized system likeMaryland. The State of Delaware and theDistrict of Columbia operate centralizedprograms. The State of New Jersey operatesa program that includes centralized as wellas decentralized elements, as does the Stateof Colorado. In addition, there are numerousother states across the country that havechosen to maintain a centralized I/Mprogram, including Arizona, Illinois, Indiana,Ohio, Oregon, Tennessee, Washington, andWisconsin. In all, one-third of the states' I/Mprograms are centralized.12Other4Jeffrey Choy(Washington, Maryland,Delaware Service Stationand Automotive RepairAssociation (WMDA)Advisor)4/23/2007MDEMaryland has only 19 I/M outlets statewide,too few outlets, public is forced to travelgreater distances, wasteful of state resources(costs), public’s time and gas.Maryland's VEIP is comprised of 87 testlanes at 19 stations located in 14jurisdictions. When the current VEIP networkwas designed, station locations wereconsidered on the basis of several factors,including County populations and motoristconvenience. In looking at motoristconvenience, site selections were made withPublic Comments and Responses for 8-Hour Ozone SIPCommentNumberTopic Priority_Num Commenter(s)DateReceivedRecipientComment Responsea goal of 94% of motorists within 12 miles ofa test facility, and 99% of motorists within 20miles.Wait time for motorists at VEIP stationsaverage less than 5 minutes across thenetwork. (Wait times can be longer duringpeak testing days and times). Short waittimes, along with evening and weekendstation operating hours are conducive tomotorists combining multiple errands, inaddition to the VEIP inspection, in a singletrip, thus minimizing time, and gas usage.13Other5Jeffrey Choy(Washington, Maryland,Delaware Service Stationand Automotive RepairAssociation (WMDA)Advisor)4/23/2007MDEModern high tech vehicles today aredesigned for “plug & play” operation whereemission testing can be sensibly performedby readout. It is antiquated to do I/M byengine rev-up, tailpipe sensing, rollingwheels.In the Maryland VEIP vehicles are testedaccording to their design technology. Modelyear 1996 and newer light-duty vehicles (upto 8,500 pounds Gross Vehicle WeightRating) are tested by retrieving informationdirectly from the vehicle's On-BoardDiagnostics (OBD) system. The VEIP alsotests pre-1996 vehicles and heavy-dutyvehicles weighing more than 8,500 poundsthat are not equipped with the OBD system.These vehicles must be tested using tailpipeemissions measurement technology. Thetailpipe testing equipment currently in use inthe VEIP is the most appropriate testingequipment available for making tailpipeemissions measurements.14Other6Jeffrey Choy(Washington, Maryland,Delaware Service Station4/23/2007MDECurrent state system and procedures forretests allows for a measure of fraud, and aloophole to pass vehicles that have failed.It is not clear to MDE precisely whatprocedures the commenter sees as apotential for fraud during retests of failedPublic Comments and Responses for 8-Hour Ozone SIPCommentNumberTopic Priority_Num Commenter(s)DateReceivedRecipientComment Responseand Automotive RepairAssociation (WMDA)Advisor)vehicles in a centralized program; nor how adecentralized program would make adifference.15Other7Jeffrey Choy(Washington, Maryland,Delaware Service Stationand Automotive RepairAssociation (WMDA)Advisor)4/23/2007MDEEPA has no problem with decentralization ofthe I/M process.Maryland's centralized VEIP is approved byEPA. While EPA has also approveddecentralized programs around the country,that does not mean that a decentralizedprogram is the best fit for every state, nordoes it mean that EPA favors decentralizedover centralized.16Other8Jeffrey Choy(Washington, Maryland,Delaware Service Stationand Automotive RepairAssociation (WMDA)Advisor)4/23/2007MDEI/M contract in Maryland will expire in 2008and it appears that the state will maintain thecurrent system ratherthan decentralize.The current VEIP contract will expire in 2009.The State is currently reviewing severalprogram options and considering multiplefactors, including administrative, operational,and oversight costs, motorist cost andconvenience, and air quality benefits. All ofthese elements will be factored in to theState's decision for the post-2009 VEIP.17Other9Charley Baummer,Metropolitan WashingtonAirports Authority4/27/2007VirginiaDEQThe commenter is concerned that thepresentation of non-road emissions inAppendix D of the Draft SIP does not seemto allow a straightforward determination ofconstruction equipment emissions from areasless than entire counties. For actions suchas airport improvement projects that aresubject to the National Environmental PolicyAct and to General Conformity requirements,it is particularly important to be able todocument whether the SIP includesconstruction equipment emissions for theseactions. It is not clear from the present draftSIP how this might be accomplished.Construction equipment emissions areprovided by the Nonroad model only at thecounty level and not for areas less than entirecounties. The Nonroad model projects theseemissions for different years based onassumptions on growth projections forconstruction equipments for those years andapplying appropriate controls thereafter.Public Comments and Responses for 8-Hour Ozone SIPCommentNumberTopic Priority_Num Commenter(s)DateReceivedRecipientComment Response18Other10Charley Baummer,Metropolitan WashingtonAirports Authority4/27/2007VirginiaDEQThe commenter is concerned that AppendixD of the SIP does not appear to accountfor VOC emissions from asphalt paving inVirginia. If the SIP otherwise includes suchemissions, we would appreciate it if the SIPwould include more explicit information onhow this is addressed.There are 2 different types of asphalt pavingemissions included in Virginia inventories forfuture years. Since these emissions are verylow (see Virginia 2008 emissions below) andAppendix D only shows emissions at 2decimal point level due to space limitation,these emissions show up only as 0.00 there.Asphalt PavingCutback (2461021000):0.0004 tpd of VOCEmulsified Asphalt (2461022000):0.0019 tpd of VOCDetails on the methodology to calculate theBY 2002 emissions are provided in theAppendix B (By 2002 Emissions InventoryDocument) at page 3-26 and 3-27 and futureyear inventories in the chapter 4 at page 4-4of the SIP.