Alaine Ball

New Energy Economy

1522 Cerro Gordo Road

Santa Fe, NM 87501

July 9, 2008

EPA Docket Center

Environmental Protection Agency

Mailcode 2822T

1200 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W.

Washington, DC 20460-0001

Re: Docket No. EPA-HQ-OGC-2008-0488

Desert Rock Energy Co. & Dine Power Authority v. EPA

Dear Environmental Protection Agency:

This letter is written in response to the notice published at 73(113)
[Federal Register]{.underline} 33087 (Wednesday, June 11, 2008) on the
"Proposed Consent Decree, Clean Air Act Citizen Suit." We believe,
quoting from the notice, that the EPA and the Department of Justice
should "withdraw or withhold consent to the proposed consent decree"
because there are "facts or considerations that indicate that such
consent is inappropriate."

This letter will (1) identify the organizations that object to the
proposed consent decree, (2) support the position of the State of New
Mexico on further consideration of the Desert Rock Energy Company air
permit application, (3) discuss the application of Executive Order No.
12898 to this issue, (4) state specific grounds of objection to the
issuance of a permit at this time, and (5) state a conclusion.

**4. Grounds for Objection to the Consent Decree**

The Shiprock-Northern Navajo Medical Center of the Indian Health Service
at Shiprock has an extensive health data base that has been utilized by
scientists for studies of other issues. The draft environmental impact
statement done by the URS Corporation did not utilize the data at the
Medical Center, although it was available. There have been emergent
developments since the application for the permit, and we agree with the
State of New Mexico that the information provided in the application is
incomplete. We now know, for example, from testimony presented to the
House Committee on Oversight and Government on October 23, 2007 that
radioactive dust is part of the mix of air pollution in the area, and
radon gas may contribute to that pollution. We know from the hearing on
EPA approval of new power plants, held on November 8, 2007, that there
are sufficient facts to support a bill, H.R. 5575, the "Moratorium on
Uncontrolled Power Plants Act of 2008," that will stop new plants.
Section 2(a) of the bill would prohibit the issuance of a permit under
the Clean Air Act "unless the permit requires the unit to use
state-of-the-art control technology to capture and permanently sequester
carbon dioxide emissions from such unit." While the Dine Power Authority
(for the Desert Rock Energy Corporation) presented testimony to the
Senate Committee on Indian Affairs recently that left the impression
that the mine would utilize that technology, the Desert Rock Energy
Company's web page has a section, "Energy Facts," that says that such
technology does not yet exist, and it links to a Massachusetts Institute
of Technology report on the subject.

The URS Corporation's draft environmental impact statement completely
mis-stated the intent of the third consideration quoted above with
regard to economic impacts. It accepts the Desert Rock Energy Company's
party line, endorsed by the Secretary of the Interior in giving notice
of the draft EIS, that Navajos *who live in the area* will benefit from
the plant. There is insufficient discussion of the tradeoffs between the
traditional economy and a wage economy that supposedly will be fueled by
new construction and plant jobs, and there is a gross misstatement of
economic benefits to the area.

That is to say, large dollar figures are thrown out that give the
impression that when the central bureaucracy receives revenues from the
operation they will be returned to the area. That is not the case.
History shows that the Navajo Nation Council spends general fund
revenues on many things other than local communities. There are no
profit-sharing arrangements between the central government and
localities (called "chapters" in the Navajo Nation); there is little
likelihood that the chapters will get tax revenues (given the nature of
taxation in the Navajo Nation and the fact that must of the suppliers of
goods, materials and services will be in the Farmington, New Mexico area
or larger regional areas); and there are no plans for monies to
localities to deal with the adverse impacts of development. There are no
arrangements for infrastructure needs --- housing, consumer goods and
services (e.g. shopping in Shiprock), streets and roads, services, and
local government. Navajo Nation fiscal policy does not provide adequate
funding for such needs. While the Desert Rock Energy Corporation entered
into payment in lieu of taxes (PILOT) arrangements with San Juan County
State school districts and San Juan Community College, it provided none
for Shiprock Alternative School, Inc. or Dine College.

An examination of documents attached to the lease approved by the Navajo
Nation Council shows that land users were not properly compensated for
the taking of their land, as required by Navajo Nation law, and that
certain incentives were offered to one chapter that were deceptive.
While the developers boast of many meetings with individuals who live in
the area, they were orchestrated for the most part and they did not show
that grassroots Navajos will get much by way of economic benefit. The
only economic benefits promised were vague promises of "trickle-down"
monies from the central government or benefitting from jobs. An example
of who benefits from jobs can be seen at the Raytheon Plant at Navajo
Agricultural Products Industry. While about 90% of the employees there
are Navajo, and many are women, most of the workers live off the Navajo
Reservation in bedroom suburbs of Farmington, New Mexico. Any economic
benefit from wages goes to Farmington merchants, San Juan County, and
the State of New Mexico.

The draft EIS did not adequately address historical, social and cultural
factors, and there is an inadequate record of them for the EPA to
consider the issuance or denial of the air permit by July 31, 2008 and
be in compliance with principles of environmental justice.

Accordingly, since there is an inadequate record of the cumulative
impact of the proposed plant on the health of Navajos, and since the
record on other environmental health impacts is skewed, inaccurate and
inadequate, the permit should be withheld pending the preparation of an
adequate record and public commentary upon it. The portion of the draft
EIS on environmental justice must be supplemented with the true facts,
including the lack of revenue sharing with chapters and the failure to
provide for infrastructure needs that accompany development.