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 our rulemaking to reduce emissions of 

visibility-impairing pollutants from the Navajo Generating Station. 

EPA published an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on August 28, 2009. This notice contained 

a great deal oftechnical information and in response we received substantial technical comments. We 

are committed to carefully considering the information we received in response to the Advance Notice 

of Proposed Rulemaking as we complete our Best Available Retrofit Technology determination. We 

intend to issue a proposed rulemaking 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 near NGS and in Navajo communities to allow those interested to learn 

about the BART process and our proposed decision, and to accept oral comments on the 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 of this 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 of the 

Generating Station and its impact on the Grand Canyon National Park air quality. 

There is no doubt we need to change our energy hungry mindset in America. With 

the growing population of the State of California, the southern region is in need of a 

sustainable and renewable energy source. The Los Angeles Department of Water 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 

of over-usage of coal and water resources, the loss of wasted energy from the plant, and 

the odds between the Navajo Nation and Sierra club's environmental stance on the 

Station. The stationary polluting Navajo Generating Plant has been recorded as releasing 

20 billion pounds of carbon dioxide as its primary pollutant as well as 8 billions gallons 

of water taken from Lake Powel for plant down. This has 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 of resources unsustainably 

being used, I find it an unsound way for energy production with a total of 2/3 of the 

energy created by this coal plant wasted into the environment. My last point is the fact 

that the Navajo nations counsel have been pushing for the continued production and use 

of the plant. With the Station giving jobs and much needed income to the Navajo people, 

it not hard to rationalize with them wanting the sole source of income for Navajo people 

continuing but the environmental impact clearly out weight the profit in my mind. 

Two possible solutions that I have came up would be to 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 be to 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 EPA has done and is doing 

to see that this point source of this stationary pollutant and step to take for the closure of 

the plant. 

Sincerely, ~~

RA l,tV\ 

-~

QRf, {)fJ. '1 

AIR :!.. Affl 

--.-­

CEli CB:

MTS MTS

oPI\ 

ORe I 

QP;\ 

ORC 

#RJNO # FUND " 

SCfO 

hn 

SCfO 

WASTE 

./ WATEft 

ae 

in 

W .;' 'f~~1