p. 1



# OAR Box 1837 Prepped byKeeia Richards



## Document

Number: 

# 166 ) IV-C-6 Docket Number: 

# A-84-3 3

Printed 11/14/20083:48:11 PM Sheet 166 of 238^os M , 

# rfSY-es^&f-t P. 2

\ ,^

J •»t PRO l t 0 

### UNITE D STATE S ENVIRONMENTA LPROTECTIO N AGENC Y WASHINGTON , D.C . 2046 0 

## MA Y

## 4 1987

MEMORANDUM SUBJECT : Discussio n o f Potentia l Fina l Actio n fo r

Stri p Mine s Rulemaking FROM : j[K ir t Cox, ' Projec t Office r TO : Centra l Docke t Sectio n (LE-131 )

Docke t No . A-84-3 3 Addressee s (Se e Below ) Th e surfac e coa l min e (SCM ) rulemaking proposal , 4 8 Fed . Reg . 4321 1 (Octobe r 26 , 1984 ) an d 5 0 Fed . Reg . 709 0 (Februar y28 , 1986) , se t fort hfour regulatoryalternatives :

- Alternativ e I : Statu s qu o (no regulation )

- Alternativ e II : Regulat e ne wSCM' s

- Alternativ e III : Regulat e ne wan d certai n existing SCM' s

- Alternativ e IV : Regulat e onl yne wSCM' s affecting certai n park s an d othe r publi c land s (Clas s I an

d mandatory Clas s I I areas ) Althoughindustrycos t estimate s ar e highe r than our s an d benefit s ma y b e underestimated , base d o n the RegulatoryImpac t Analysi s an d th e comment s thereon , i t appear s tha t th e advers e socioeconomi c impact s o f Alternative s I I an d II I greatl yexcee d benefits . A s the rulemaking proces s near s com pletion , however , considerabl e disagreemen t remain s regarding th e impact s o f alternativ e IV . Th e comment s reflec t tha t par t o f the disput e center s o n the exten t t o whic halternative IV a s originall ypropose d woul d achiev e it s state d purpos e o f targeting regulatio n o n nationa l park s an d othe r natura l area s o f specia l concern .P. 3

(Se e 4 8 Fed . Reg . 43212. ) Accordingly , a s i t move s toward s fina l actio n EPA i s no wconsidering certai n modifie d version s o f Alternativ e IV (se e discussio n below ) whic hmigh t b e mor e effective i n achieving th e purpos e o f tha t regulatory alternative . Byseeking t o answe r unresolve d question s regarding Alternativ e IV , EP Adoe s no t impl ytha t othe r outcome s hav e bee n precluded . Al l o f th e alternative s wil l b e considere d i n reaching a fina l decision . Th e modification s t o Alternativ e IV hav e bee n fashioned byEPAi n respons e t o comment s i n the docket , an d ar e a logica l outgrowt ho f the origina l proposal . Thus , EP Adoe s no t believ e i t i s necessaryunde r applicabl e rulemaking procedure s t o undertak e anothe r ful l roun d o f notic e an

d commen t befor e fina l action . Tha t cours e woul d als o b e undesirabl e i n vie wo f EPA' s desir e t o tak e fina l actio n a s soo n a s possible . However , EP Adoe s fee l tha t i t i s appropriat e t o offe r intereste d partie s a brie f opportunit yt o examine , an d presen t thei r view s on , prospectiv e modification s t o Alternativ e IV . Whil e thi s opportunit yi s afforde d t o al l intereste d partie s generall ythroughthi s docke t notice , individua l notic e i s als o being give n t o the partie s listed below , wh o hav e demonstrate d a kee n interes t i n thes e proceedings . T o avoi d delaying thi s rulemaking , an ywritte n response s shoul d b e submitte d byMa y 18 , b e a s concis e a s possible , and shoul d avoi d detaile d technica l analyses . Response s shoul d b e submitted t o Ms . Barbar a Brown , Offic e o f Ai r an d Radiatio n (ANR-443) , EPA , 40 1 MStreet , S.W. , Washington , D.C . 20460 . Subjec t t o th e othe r time commitment s o f Agenc ystaff , EP Aals o offer s t o mee t wit hrepre sentative s o f an

yintereste d part yduring thi s perio d t o discus s thi s matter . Arrangement s ma yb e mad e bycontacting Barbar a Brow n a t (202 ) 382-7403 , FT S 382-7403 . Anywritte n submission s wil l b e place d i n th e docket . Additionally , EP Awil l prepar e a brie f memorandu mconcerning th e subjec t matte r o f an y ora l discussions , whic hwil l als o b e place d i n th e docket . Th e balanc e o f thi s memorandu msummarize s the portion s o f industr yan d environmenta l groups , an d discusse s i n some detai l prospectiv e modification s t o alternativ e IV . I ) IndustryComment s Thi s rulemaking ha s had tw o commen t period s (th e firs t opene d o n Octobe r 28 , 1984 , an d th e secon

d o n February28 , 1986) , eac hwit hcorres ponding publi c hearings . Th e minin g industryha s activel yparticipate d i n al l o f thes e proceedings . Thei r broad-ranging comment s oppos e al l aspect s o f th e proposal . State d mos t generally , theyallege :

-Th e SCM' s ar e no t a significan t sourc e o f particulat e matte r whe n considere d nationall y(addressing th e basi c tes t fo r proposing regulation) . -Th e propose d regulatio nwoul d prohibi t al l bu t the smalles t ne wo r expande d SCM's . -Th e regulatio n woul d provid e n o significan t environmenta l benefit .P. 4



### -3

- -Alternative IV

woul d affec t mor e coa l reserve s than EP A indicated . Industr ysubmitte d a n IC F stud ypredicting tha t 8. 6 billio n ton s o f reserve s woul d b e affected . [Not e however , tha t ove r hal f o f thi s (4. 6 B B tons ) wa s premise d upo n the effect s o f Montan a Indian reservation s o n th e Powde r Rive r Basin . Thos e non-mandatoryClas s I area s woul d b e exclude d fro mcoverag e unde r alternative s I V an d IV" . Othe r industr y comment s indicat e a n eve n highe r impact . [Not e tha t thes e ar e base d o n veryconservativ e modelin g assumption s showing impact s o f 1 ug/m 3 a t distance s o f ove r 10 0 mile s fo r some regions. ] -Othe r authorities , notabl yth e Surfac e Mining Contro l and Reclamatio n Act , coul d addres s an yenvironmenta l problems . II ) Environmenta l Grou p Comment s -Th e EPA' s interpretatio n o f the standard o f rulemaking require d bysectio n 302(j ) i s muc hto o broad . -Mine s ca n b e a significan t environmenta l concern , violating bot hnationa l ambien t ai r qualit ystandard s a s wel l a s th e preventio n o f significan t deterioratio n (PSD ) increment . -Industryoverstate s the impac t o f th e regulatio n b yno t factoring i n contro l technique s tha t ar e availabl e an d byno t considering redesignatio n t o Clas s III . -Sierr a Clu

bsough t regulatio n o f al l mine s and , therefore , wa s no t supportive o f protecting onl yClas s I an d mandatory Clas s I I areas . -Environmenta l group s di d conclud e tha t Clas s I an d mandatory Clas s I I area s nee d protectio n becaus e othe r Federa l regulatory authoritie s ar e no t adequat e an d th e Departmen t o f the Interio r i s no t using th e authorit ytha t i t doe s have . -Benefit s o f the regulatio n ar e understate d becaus e o f difficult y i n quantifying them . III ) Alternative s IV , IV , an d IV " Alternativ e I V

i n the SCMproposa l woul d provid e fo r PS D revie wo f al l mine s whic hwoul d hav e a 1 ug/m 3 impac t o n an yClas s I o r mandatoryClas s I I area . W e hav e considerabl e flexibility , however , i n modifying thi s approac ht o respon

d t o need s presente d byth e commenters , s o long a s the fina l rul e i s a "logica l outgrowth " o f th e proposal . I t ma yb e mos t convenien t t o think o f modification s t o ou r approac h i n term s o f two variables : th e land s protecte d byth e regulatio n an d th e criteri a use d t o trigge r thi s protection . Industrycommenter s brough t up concern s wort hseriou s consideratio n wit hrespec t t o bot hcategories .P. 5



### -4

- Regarding land s protected , the ynote d tha t redesignatio n o f a trac t t o Clas s I migh t significantl ylimi t mining i n a region , eve n thoughthe redesignate d area , i n thei r view , i s o f n o particula r natura l significance . Thre e Indian reservation s i n Montan a nea r the Powde r Rive r Basi n wer e note d a s examples . Regarding th e criteri a fo r triggering review , industr yobserve d tha t some mines , eve n a t a considerabl e distance , an d having a n insignifican t effec t o n the protecte d area , migh t nonetheles s mee t the 1 ug/m 3 threshol d an d b e subjec t t o PS D permitting . Unde r on e possibl e modification , (referred t o a s "Alternative IV " o r " 4 prime") , PS D revie wo f a min e woul d b e triggere d no t bya fixe d ambien t concentratio n but , rather , b ya predictio n o f advers e impact . Aprojecte d concentratio n o f 1 ug/m 3 woul d trigge r a n ambien t impac t assessment , rathe r than automati c PS D review . Th e min e woul d b e subjec t t o PS D onl yi f th e ambien t impac t assessmen t reveale d a potentia l advers e impact , a s determine d byth e Federa l Lan

d Manage r (FLM) . I n addition , regulatorycoverag e woul d b e extende d t o onl ymandatoryClas s I an d Clas s I I areas . Thi s approac hpresent s significan t potentia l advantages : -I n addresssing mandatoryClas s I areas , i t focuse s o n thos e area s o f specia l natura l significanc e fo r whic hth e Clean Ai r Ac t (Act ) demonstrate s particula r concern . -I t focuse s onl yo n mine s tha t woul d hav e a n advers e impac t throughthe us e o f a case-by-cas e approach . -I t maintain s th e rol e o f th e publi c i n th e process . Thes e determination s woul d b e subjec t t o publi c notic e an d opportunit y fo r comment . Thi s procedura l step i s a vita l par t o f th e PS D process , pursuan t t o whic ha decisio n t o permi t i s mad e "onl y afte r a carefu l evaluatio n o f al l th e consequence s o f suc ha decisio n an

d afte r adequat e procedura l opportunitie s fo r informed publi c participatio n i n th e decision-making process " [section 160(a)(5)] . -I t provide s o n opportunit yfo r participatio n byth e Federa l lan d manager s (FLM) . -I t i s base d o n establishe d procedures . A n advers e impac t tes t i s alread

yuse d byth e FLM . Ther e ar e o f cours e a variet yo f way s i n whic hregulatorycoverag e can b e structured . Coverag e coul d b e limite d t o onl ymandatoryClas s I area s o r t o mandatoryClas s I an d existing mandatoryClas s I I areas . Othe r threshold s fo r triggering revie wcoul d als o b e selected . Aslightl ymodifie d approac h("Alternativ e IV " o r " 4 doubl e prime" ) i s als o wort hexploring . Thi s woul d incorporat e th e same advers e impac t tes t a s I V bu t diffe r i n two respect s fro mth e wa ytha t I V

i s configure d above .P. 6



### -5

- First , i t woul d onl yprotec t mandatoryClas s I areas . Second , i t woul d delet e th e 1 ug/m 3 ambien t impac t trigge r fo r analysis . Instead , th e advers e impac t analysi s woul d b e applie d t o al l mine s propose d withi n 5 0 kilometer s o f a mandatoryClas s I area . Thi s woul d remov e uncertaintie s a s t o applicatio n o f th e advers e impac t analysi s test . I t woul d als o limi t th e numbe r o f source s subjec t t o modeling exercises . Becaus e thi s i s a n applicabilit ytes t rathe r than a prohibitio n o f an yparticula r activity , th e 5 0 kilomete r criterio n woul d no t constitut e a prohibite d "automati c o r uniformbuffe r zone " withi n th e meanin g o f sectio n 165(e)(3)(A ) o f th e Act . I t i s likel ytha t some partie s wil l b e concerne d abu t the lac k o f protectio n fo r mandatoryClas s I I area s unde r Alternativ e IV" . Whil e i t i s tru e tha t th e mandatoryClas s I area s occupya specia l plac e a s "nationa l jewels " an

d receiv e enhance d protectio n unde r th e Act , ther e ar e numerou s mandatoryClas s I I area s o f exceptiona l sceni c an d ecologica l value . T o b e responsiv e t o thes e concerns , w e sugges t a proces s fo r notificatio n o f th e FL Mwit hrespec t t o SCM' s propose d fo r locatio n withi n 5 0 kilometer s o f a mandatoryClas s I I area . Th e FL Mcoul d the n conside r potentia l environmenta l impact s a s appropriat e an d consul t wit hth e Stat e regarding thes e findings . Thi s proces s woul d no t trigge r PS D revie wo r creat e a n obligatio n o n the par t o f the State . W e believe , however , tha t suc ha procedur e can nevertheles s offe r rea l benefits . Th e revie wan

d publi c consideratio n o f the potentia l environmenta l impact s o f propose d source s i s a fundamenta l theme o f th e Act . Th e fac t tha t suc ha revie wi s mad e i s likel yt o influenc e th e genera l regulatoryeffor t wit h respec t t o SCM' s an d b e factore d int o permitting decisions . Sectio n 12 1 o f th e Ac t provide s fo r consultatio nbetwee n State s an d th e FLMo n matter s involving ne wsourc e review . W e sugges t tha t thi s mechanis mb e use d t o imple

men t th e consultatio n procedur e describe d above . W e shoul d als o conside r the rol e o f th e FLM . Unde r th e origina l alternativ e IV , w e anticipate d tha t the FL Mwoul d b e give n the opportunit y t o comment . Thi s participatio n woul d b e optional , sinc e w e d o no t hav e th e authorit yt o impos e anymandatoryparticipatio n upo n the FLM . Th e Stat e woul d generall yb e th e PS D permitting authorit yan d woul d wor k wit hth e FLM . Wha t happen s i n case s i n whic hthe FL Mfind s an advers e impac t bu t th e Stat e PS D permitting authorit ydoe s not ? W e sugges t tha t th e FLM' s rol e migh t b e mor e meaningfu l i f PS D revie wwer e triggere d o n the basi s o f the FLM' s finding o f advers e impact . Th e Stat e coul d alway s trigge r PS D revie wi n thi s way , regardles s o f the FLM' s recommendatio n o r participation , throughit s genera l regulatoryauthorit yembodie d i n sectio n 11 6 o f the Act . Th e regulatoryimpac t analysi s (RIA ) examine s th e potentia l impact s o f Alternativ e I V

throughth e us e o f two cas e studies . I t di d no t addres s th e tw o variation s discusse d above . W e feel , however , tha t the RI Aca n b e extrapolate d t o thes e modifie d approaches . Becaus e o f us e o f th e advers e impac t test , bot hAlternative s I V an d IV " woul d b e expected t o presen t muc hlowe r costs . Benefit s however , woul d no t chang e muc hfo r anygive n are a o f coverage . Wit hAlternativ e IV , cost s woul d b e lowe r becaus e fewe rP. 7

• .. . • .. •

mine s woul d b e subjec t t o review , Th e reaso n fo r thi s i s tha t i 

### -6

- bu t benefit s shoul d no t appreciabl ychange . ae woul d b e maintaining PS D coverag e o f mine s fo r whic hther e woul d hav e bee n a n advers e impact . Th e same resul t obtain s fo r Alternativ e IV" , bu t on e mandatoryClas s I I areas , i n b e a rea l drop i n benefits . shoul d not e that , sinc e i t doe s no t addres s 

### th e Fo r expecte d t o b e greate r than cost s

Addressees : JosephJ . Breche r Attorne ya t Law 50 6 - 15t hStree t Suit e 50 0 Oakland , C A9461 2 Howar d I . Fo x Sierr a Clu

bLega l Defens e Fund , Inc . 151 6 P Street , N.W . Washington , D.C . 2000 5 (Sierr a Club ) Michae l B . Bar r Hunto n & William s P.O . Bo x1923 0 Washington , D.C . 2003 6 (Nationa l Coa l Association ) Robert a L . Halladay Hollan d & Har t 187 5 I Street , N.W . Washington , D.C . 2000 6 (American Minin g Congress ) Rober t T . Conner

y Holland & Har t 55 5 - 17t hStree t Suit e 290 0 Denver , Colorad o 8020 1 (American Mining Congress ) configuratio n discusse d above , ther e woul d the area s covered , benefit s ar e stil l

, however .

Davi d G . Unger , Directo r Watershe d an

d Ai r Managemen t U.S . Departmen t o f Agricultur e Fores t Servic e 12t h& Independenc e Avenue , S.W . P.O . Bo x241 7 Washington , D.C . 2001 3 Michae l Poling Deput yAssistan t Secretar yfo r Lan

d an d Mineral s Managemen t Departmen t o f th e Interio r Washington , D.C . 2024 0 Te d Williams , Directo r Offic e o f Environmenta l Analysis , Policy , Safety , an

d Environmen t U.S . Departmen t o f Energ y Washington , D.C . Jo e Mulla n Senio r Vic e Presiden t fo r Environmenta l Affair s Nationa l Coa l Associatio n 113 0 - 17t hStreet , N.W . Washington , D.C . 2003 6 LarryBogg s Senio r Counse l America n Mining Congres s 192 0 NStreet , N.W . Suit e 30 0 Washington , D.C . 2003 6Ai r Divisio n Directors : P. 8



### -7

-

Lloy d F . Novick , M.D . Director , Offic e o f Ai r Qualit y 200 5 Nort hCentra l Avenu e Phoenix , A Z 8500 4 Bradle yJ . Beckham , Directo r Ai r Pollutio n Contro l Divisio n 421 0 Eas t 11t hAvenu e Denver , C O 2822 0 Michae l J . Haye s Divisio n Manage r Ai r Pollutio n Contro l Divisio n Illinoi s EP A 220 0 Churchil l Road Springfield , Illinoi s 6270 6 Roge r B . McCann , Directo r Divisio n o f Ai r Pollutio n Contro l For t Boon e Plaz a 1 8 Reill yRoad Frankfort , Kentuck

y4060 1 Harol d Robbin s Chief , Ai r Qualit yBurea u Cogswel l Building Helena , Montan a 5962 0 Michae l J . Burkhar t Chief , Ai r Qualit yBurea u 119 0 St . Franci s Driv e P.O . Bo x96 8 Sant a Fe , Ne wMexic o 87504-096 8 Dan a K . Moun t Director , Divisio n o f Environmenta l Engineering Nort hDakot a Stat e Departmen t o f Healt h 120 0 Missour i Avenu e Bismark , Nort hDakot a 58502-552 0 Alle n El i Bel l Executiv e Directo r Texa s Ai r Pollutio n Boar d 633 0 Highway29 0 Eas t Austin , Texa s 7872 3 F . Burnel l Cordne r Director , Burea u o f Ai r Qualit y UtahDepartmen t o f Healt h 28 8 Nort h146 0 Wes t P.O . Bo x1669 0 Sal t Lak e City , Uta h84116-069 0

RandolphWoo d Director , Departmen t o f Environmenta l Qualit y 12 2 Wes t 25t hStree t Cheyenne , W Y8200 2