UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REGION IX 75 Hawthorne Street San Francisco, CA 94105·3901



## JUN 0 7 

## 2011

Mr. John Bravo 3618 Angeles Road Santa Maria, California 93454
Dear Mr. Bravo: Thank you for your letter dated April 18, 2011, concerning ourrulemaking to reduce emissions of visibility-impairing pollutants from the Navajo Generating Station.
EPA published an Advance Notice ofProposed Rulemaking on August 28, 2009. This notice contained a great deal oftechnical information and inresponse we received substantial technical comments. We are committed to carefully considering the information we received inresponse to the AdvanceNotice ofProposed Rulemaking as we complete ourBest Available Retrofit Technology determination. We intend to issue a proposedrulemaking for public comment in 2011 and we encourage you to participate in the public process for this proposal. During the public comment period we intend to hold information sessions and public hearings nearNGS and in Navajo communities to allow those interested to learn about the BARTprocess and our proposed decision, and to accept oral comments onthe proposed decision. Additionally, we have posted information concerning this project on our web site at: http://www.epa.gov/region9/air/navajo/.
We sincerely appreciate your interest as we move forward in addressing the issues concerning the Navajo Generating Station. Please do not hesitate to call Anita Lee at 415-972-3958 with any further questions.

Printed 0" Recycled Paper

# --- Of.n

.

### "C11O~~**~~~l)pir)** i [I.! 4/18/11
The notable Jared Blumenfeld 

### U.S. EPA Region 

### 9 75 Hawthorne Street San Francisco, CA, 94105
Dear Administrator Jared Blumenfeld, My name is John Bravo and I am a first year student who is currently stud Environmental Biology at Cuesta College in San Luis Obispo, CA. After discuss many major environmental issues over the course ofthis year, I have become aw the situation involving the Navajo Generating Station(NGS) as well as Arizona's u;e :H resources to power the station. I am writing you with concern involving the usage ofthe Generating Station and its impact onthe Grand Canyon National Park air quality. Thereis no doubt weneed to change our energy hungry mindset in America. With the growingpopulation ofthe State ofCalifornia, the southern region is in need ofa sustainable and renewable energy source. The Los Angeles Department ofWater and Power, being the largest energy supplier in our nation and has a 21% stake in the Navajo Generating Station. My three main concerns with the Station are as followed: the amount ofover-usage ofcoal and water resources, the loss ofwasted energy from the plant, and the odds between the Navajo Nation and Sierra club's environmental stance onthe Station. The stationarypollutingNavajo Generating Plant has beenrecorded as releasing 20 billion pounds ofcarbon dioxide as its primarypollutant as well as 8 billions gallons ofwater taken from Lake Powel for plant down. Thishas caused major depletion ofthe four comers aquifer and also is sending mercury, nitrous oxide, and sulfur dioxide down wind into the Grand Canyon National Park. With this amount ofresources unsustainably beingused, I find it an unsound way for energy production with a total of2/3 ofthe energy created by this coal plant wasted into the environment. My last point is the fact that the Navajo nations counsel have beenpushing for the continued production and use ofthe plant. With the Station givingjobs and much needed income to the Navajo people, it nothard to rationalize with them wanting the sole source ofincome for Navajo people continuingbut the environmental impact clearly out weight the profit in mymind.
Two possible solutions that Ihave came up wouldbeto look into a new coal source for the Station with less sulfur content or even removing the sulfur after combustion which would lessen the CO level and air pollution. My second suggestion would beto raise water prices. As the U.S. being the largest water consumer in the world, an increase in water price could ultimately create more incentive for businesses to invest in conservation and preservation. In closing I would like to know more about what the EPAhas done and is doing to see that this point source ofthis stationary pollutant and step to take for the closure of theplant. Sincerely,

# ~~ RA 

### l,tV \**-~** {)fJ. QRf, '1 AIR 

# :!.. Affl

--.-­ 

### CB: CEli 

### MTS MTS oPI\ ORe I QP;\ ORC # 

### FUND #RJNO " 

### SCfO hn 

### SCfO WASTE 

### ./WATEft ae in 

## .;'**'f~~1** 

### W