p. 1



# OAR Box 1837 Prepped byKeeia Richards



### Document

Number: 

# 184 ) IV-H- 1
Docket Number: 

# A-84-3 3

Printed 11/14/20083:48:12 PM

Sheet 184of 238P. 2 >\ 

### rAf * V\V/ 

# v:

r ^ - i^l?*«J » 

### Departmen t o

fEnerg y Washington , DC 2058 5 Novembe r 6 , 198 5

Mr . Charle s Elkin s Acting Assistan t Administrato r fo r Ai r an

d Radiatio n U . S
. Environmenta l Protectio n Agenc y 40 1 MStreet , S
. W . Washington , D . C
. 2046 0 Dea r Mr . Elkins : ^ •< V

DO E staf f appreciate s the opportunit yt o informall yreviewth e Septembe r 198 5 draf t Regulatoryimpac t Analysi s (RIA ) prepare d fo r the rulemaking decisio n o n the Listing o f Surfac e coa l Mine s foi ' NewSourc e Review
. On January30 , 1985 , the Departmen t o f Energ yprovide d initia l comment s o n the Octobe r 198 4 initia l listing proposa l (Enclosur e 1) , an d ma yprovid e additional , forma l comment s o n the RI Aan d the listing proposa l during the upcoming publi c commen t period
. Give n the statutoryinterpretatio n o f sectio n 302(j ) o f the Clea n Ai r Ac t whic hthe Agenc yadopted , the draf t RI Ai s a usefu l attemp t t o quantif ythe potential " cost s an d benefit s o f severa l regulatoryalternatives
. Base d o n our experienc e wit h othe r document s o f thi s type , thi s RI Ai s mor e forthrigh t i n acknowledgin g the uncertaintie s o f its
. quantitativ e estimates
. W e continu e t o be concerned , however , tha t the inheren t difficultie s an

d lack o f accepted , standar d methodologica l approache s t o estimating the cost s an d benefit s o f an

yo f th e regulatoryoption s ma ysystematicall ymisrepresen t the socio-economi c impact s o f thes e option s t o the Administrator
. Mor e specifi c commen t o n thes e difficultie s an d o n the methodologie s use d i s provide d i n Enclosur e 2
. I t i s apparen t fro

m the estimate s provide d fo r genera l applicatio n o f "listing, " wit ho r withou t grandfathering (i.e. , Alternative' s I I an d III) , tha t nationa l environmental , economi c an d energ yinterest s woul d no t be serve d b yeithe r alternative
. Our analysi s woul d sugges t tha t th e assumption s use d t o estimat e the benefit s fo r thes e two alternative s woul d systematicall yprovid e a valu e tha t i s highe r than the likel y actua l value
. Therefore , i t appear s tha t i t i s saf e t olh O o o M 3 O 3 (t> r o n X 3 H - C O 3 O i Q c M rr O 3 " fD fD M 3 fD f D < f D H-Q , fD £rr ' O H- " H - C O rr 0 » 3 * < C O C c r i o O ) r r f D u a O M • < O M l C O C M l- h Q J O f D 3 H - 3 f D C Q fl ) A

) O J a •- I 3 3 t r f D Q> 0 > O J 0 ) I1 C

O c o O J K ; fD < •3 C O t-> 0 ) H - H - r rI- ' c o 3 O • < •f D C O a D " H - » fD c o s ; f D fD O J O C

Olh O * 0 O O fDII r r3 O Cffffl K O fD H - O

J H
- a n O J 1 3 f D l- 1 h- > ftII • < o f D r ro > H i H i t D O f D O n 3 r rH - fD H - o , r r 3 O fD 3 " r r3 3 f D r rlh r rH- > OITrti M « fD H - r r * < o tn r rOJ i-« 3-D J r r3 fD lh H - O

Jih O r r > O 3 H - Q , M < 3 Q i O f D H - l- h 3 3 M H- O J r r< D I D I T g«_ i

fD c fD i- l r rH
- H - C O 3 a 0 3 H - c o o oapiHTfJirt a CONi 3 O U ffO r rr rih Q i f

D r r 3 " O O 1 3 fD O * < n n n M D i a HfDQiQiOOJOJ O H
- r rf D f D r rt-
- r r n QJ

ft f D H - i- h •r r^<» 0 o fO O H -
, o H J 3 3 * n t rr rr ro

> 3 n r ro » < O 3 O J X O < OJ a »—«O J H - •Q , H - n (DrfoaHt t M K1 3 a C O 3 " fD O J rl - O i C 3 " r rO i 3 " Q
. oII CT H - f D r rf D H - 3 fD C O Q
. H N fD H - r rD J OJ OQiC0fDiQ3H« : r rr rn c DJ TT H - f D • < H3 O

J i Q cor r O O 3 H - M f D •3 " rtCi Q 3 H - H

•fD r rc

o r r r rr r* < - s i 3 * 3 " t rH -£f D fD f D fD C O 3 * H - 0

> f D 3 C CTH - O J O J 3 r rr ra

> Q i H - 3 (D ffgffH( D U O J Of D OJ O H- 3 H U M 3 n f

D r r 3 - t o » Q * < t o a H - < H - O J O < c f D C O C Q 1 3 f D M S V O O 0 0 1 1 c n fD «
. o < D J fD 3 ft 3 " o C £ 3 fD O fD 3 3 O fD r r 3 fD r r X ri H - 3 " r r D J tr r r H - r r3 3 " r r fD f D n O fD f D C O ce o corrojrrrDMiirjr r 0 ) H - O

J 3 " r rH - H - MC O nf D Of D rr o H - • < n C

O 3TJ J r rO •T J * < D J r r OQi^f h ft

OJrTH - r r fD H - 3 3 r r H - O O J ch1 1 1
H - r r 3 ft r rQ , fD trt ) H - i i DJ c o fD O J r rro 3 r ro fD O I- I O

J i- hll • < c H - r rr r tons ' H O Q i 0 > I- I fD C O H - a in rr H - H - W H ( B H - C O o 3 O i I

O O J rri Q f D O 3 3 O » < r r 3 - f D O O' O o H-r fSr t Hft i 0J 3 3 3 " fD f D O

J H fD o C

o r rrr o OJ H - C r rc

o 3"M > n n 3 H - lh O fD Cb

O t-i ft ft * D J 3 fD 3 O O H tn O fi D J 3 C 3 3 C o r rn U Q r r C 1 r r3 - f D r r3*f D 3 O O

J D J Q J 3 " t Q Oil —3 I t C

O f D ft ft f D fD Q i fD O J H O J 3H-0< H 3 r rOJ t n HH - rr 3"* < fD f D < 3 - > OJ f D OJ C H - f D H
- r rc rC

o 3 c o H-I I t o c o o r r n O fD >

MiQ J > O 3 H - C O O M rr n • cr H - 3 - D

J > M i D J M O O c o * •r rM 0

> H C O r rfD 3 O f D ft 3 fD r rr r O J O ft H)l < M £ C 3 O r ra , f D fD ft » v H - - O C O n o «-~ o O r r O o M C T
. 9^(1 n € H-ls j H«C n !-•• » o 3 c rO Jh1 f D f D C O D J X rt - C O r r€ C O O f D fD ft n n M fD 3 > fllO HH i n Q i r rfD fD H - f D Q
. O J H ) H fD C O H - 3 H fD O J O J ^an- H O H - 3 3 < O h->f- f D I- 1
•• < 3 O

J • ^ fD M C

O •C O < C O f t H| H C TO O J H D » rr n r rfD 3 " 3-O J O J f D C O < f D » t-i O J > 1- 3 3 tr c rx f D H - O H fD C fD 3 HM i n - a o n H - c rfD 3 fD ^ 1 3 D J r r* O O fD r r C O H-C O 3 c O O i Q 3 t-'iO C fD 3 Q i C O O J f D r r 3 Q
. ih r r D i C 3 " r rr rO

J O C r r n n * < f D D i H-HKnnHHH H O J a <T l D
. H H M fD f D v o fD O

J Q J O J u a 3<~3C 0 COHOJ H rr>rrc o cof D nc o H.s^ H. m I D Hlh H ) M M C

O O J 0 > H
- o H
- M M c

o r r O H i O C f D D J O i D

J D J 3 K Q i r rr rr rn n

a, tr H - C TH - fD f D fD H - fD OfDOOJOJUO B 3 3 C

O C O 3 " < D r rH - O H J O €

H - 3 " H - n ltifDI-hfD3fDCQ O 0 > H 3 H-3<fD>OC0 3 3 H - t->

M H - fD rr>co 3 rrfDiQ 3 f D H - H -O f D OJ 3 r t ( D U trr t M 3 H-D J n H - 3 ih H " D J > M C

O D J > H - M O H - f D r rH - o 1 3 rtrtr t K M Q

J n H 3 ft 0 ) O M H K C O C O H - H - C O 3 H - 3 3 f D a r t H 3 " O O Q J Q i r t O f D (- •C O o i Q D J H - O 3 D J f D M Q J • 1 0 ) 1 3 t r <-• < < 3O130 J H - O

J f D > r rr r C O 4 ^ O J 1 3 O M f D rtot n tt Hrt> < o 0 ) n < > r r c o O O J rr •i- - H - * J 3 a O O

— .» lh O C 3 C O H - O »T

J fD (t»rj 3 M oc o nc o f D Q J 1 3 H C r r ft O f D 1 3 r rQJ * k rrnH-fD f O arr r o rtr t X O B) C o o O J tr O J H 3 c o nHDi tar t •IJ- » rt h fl r t h h M M o O J O J 3 O O rtfi i C H 3 * lh H-r r fD ih r r t o f D 3"H - fD O t o r ra 3 H - »-<»- ' D J 3 H-f D rti Q c o t o H - r t t o O O H - 3 M 3 O O J D J i Q t-> h-> tn af D t o Q J H - 0 ) h 3 M 1 3 " • rr 1 3 f D D J I--3 - n 3 H- O fD Q i O X tn QJ f D r t s tr < C Q Q J H-f D *
. 3 l-" l Q i H > O J Q J r t H r t » < r t r t O 3 " trft o D J O ^ 3 r t C M D-H-iQfj*<r t f D 3 w i a • O J 3 Q . O f D O J M trt--

3 * D > l- h f D r t t o O 3 " t o fi

O J f D Q
. M r t O 5 d M 3-1 3 M O r t 3 r r> O

J t o H - Q ) Q J M H Wt-T D 3 " O • < 3 C O < C O fD i xO

J H M C O rt- . o r t fD t rl- 1 D

J t->

3 O t J Cr t rt e QJO J rrOJfD C 3"C 0 i-h 3 H - H f t (D H - M i a Ort^ o o o O J 3 C O H 3 3 ft

r t O fD • < Q

J Q , O « — fD 3 O fD t i CH-
. Q , M I Qi ^ I- " C O O J
•O fD r t r t O O C O M O Q

tr t-> t- 1 o r t n

fD OJ QJ rfi. lh H - • < C

O C O C O ^ » O O f D C O C 0 » H 3 t O M H-I< : C O " » ^ rt a tr O f D 3 crl 3 H O 3 r r f D f D Q , 3 r r C H - H - D J r r\-> tr i m o O f D 3 O O J t o t o t o C O r t - n M i 1 M > c r€ O J > UOfl H 3 C f D r r f D M f Dlh Q i O M H - O 3 r rc o D J Q J fD Hr t M H - < 3 < f D H-f D 3 f D l- l t o • < ^ H -

3 D J • o U M o 1 3 H H - O J r t f D O < f D M f D t o r r H 3 O J r t f D t o • C rt o r to f D 3 f D M i H - r r t o r rtr o C f D 3 Q i t o o H - fD !- • f D C t O O J Q
. t-- fD Q i r t M i Q J fD r t o M
r t r t i i 3 " O J 3 O J O J r t tr r t 3 " Q i H - Q

) f D t o f D Q J M r t fD M 3 O J f t H - < f D t o ^ X t o < o fD f t t rt o c f D •Q i f D \-- 3 i3 O ctr o t o H - t o f D t o r t O
. t o H - r t t o o o c f D r t f D t o « : t o 1 3 f D r rf D H - H - O i Q tr 3 H
- 3 " H - O 3 " C f D Q ) Q ) r rt- - QJ f D M O • < r r 3 c O r rO J n M »- • c rcr c f D !- • H - f D Q J fD c ry1f D H - t o 3 r t H -f D < K3 M i f D
r t o O H - Q J f D r t 3 t o Q.t d 2 M i D"3H O f D O O M M t r3
- t r H - f D O Q i O J r t H - H - 3 " r t n *< 3 " O M l t o

• o c oPA.

- 3 -
Again , we appreciat e thi s opportunit yt o commen t an d look forward t o continuing t o work wit hyo u an d you r staf f i n this , a s wel l a s other , regulatoryactions
. Sincerely ,

Ted William s Directo r Environmenta l Analysi s Enclosur e
cc : BarryAlbright , DO I Geral d Emison , EP

AP. 5

. ' i Enclosur e 1



### Departmen t

o f Energ y Washington , D.C

. 2058 5 Januar y30 , 198 5

Honorabl e Josep hA . Canno n Assistan t Administrato r fo r Ai r an d Radiatio n U . S
. Environmenta l Protectio n Agenc y 40 1 MStreet , S
. W . Washington , D . C
. 2046 0 Dea r Mr . Cannon : Th e Departmen t o f Energy(DOE ) i s please d t o provid e initia l comment s o n th e propose d additio n o f surfac e coa l mine s t o th e lis t o f stationar ysource s fo r whic hfugitiv e emission s mus t b e include d fo r threshol d applicabilit ydetermination s unde r pre-constructio n revie wan d permi t program s (4 9 FR 43210 ; Octobe r 26 , 1984)
. W e applaud th e Agency' s 30-dayextensio n o f th e initia l commen t perio d an d it s commitmen t t o reope n th e publi c commen t perio d fo r 6 0 day s afte r completio n o f th e Regulator yImpac t Analysi s (RIA)
. DO E expect s t o provid e furthe r commen t o n th e proposa l whe n th e RI Ai s available
. A s I expresse d i n m ylette r o f Decembe r 17 , 1984 , t o Mr . Ruckelshaus , th e unavailabilit yo f a draf t Regulator y Impac t Analysi s withi n thi s initia l commen t perio d compound s th e difficult yi n adequatel yassessin g th e proposal' s impact s upo n our nationa l energypla n an d nationa l security
. Ou r initia l analysis , however , support s our belie f tha t thes e impact s mayb e s o sever e a s t o jeopardiz e thes e interests
. Our initia l comment s ar e detaile d i n Enclosur e 1
. I n summary , thes e comment s and our initia l analyse s sugges t that : 1
. Lac k o f sitin g flexibilit yan d othe r uniqu e operationa l characteristic s o f surfac e coa l mine s provid e th e potentia l fo r mor e sever e socio-economi c impact s fromcomplianc e wit h PS D increment s fo r surfac e coa l mine s tha n fo r traditiona l stationar ysources .PJL.

- 2 -

2
. Limitatio n o n th e productio n siz e o f thes e mine s provide s the onl ycomplianc e method , potentiall yresultin g i n highe r cost s o f coa l an

d reduce d nationa l coa l production
. 3
. Th e quantitativ e tool s necessary , an d no wwidel yuse d b y permittin g agencies , fo r predictin g ambien t particulat e matte r concentration s froma surfac e coa l min e ar e unverified , and sufficientl ydifferen t a s t o mak e thei r us e i n a federally-require d permi t programinadvisable
. 4
. Federa l requirement s unde r othe r legislativ e program s provid e bot hadequat e environmenta l revie wo f new/modifie d mines , and th e potentia l fo r irreconcilabl e conflic t wit h Clea n Ai r Ac t requirement s i f th e proposa l i s finalized
. W e believ e tha t th e enclose d comment s and analysi s suppor t a decisio n no t t o lis t surfac e coa l mines , an d tha t a complete d Regulator yImpac t Analysi s wil l likel yprovid e furthe r suppor t fo r suc ha decision
. Shoul d furthe r analysi s indicat e otherwise , i t seem s preferabl e t o limi t th e applicatio n o f PS D requirement s t o mine s wit hth e potentia l t o affec t ai r qualit y i n nationall yimportan t pristin e areas , e.g. , Clas s I areas . Suc hlimite d applicatio n o f thes e requirement s woul d minimiz e thei r advers e socio-economi c effect s an d addres s th e specia l characte r o f thes e pristin e areas . W e loo k forwar d t o reviewin g th e Regulator yImpac t Analysi s upo n it s completion , an d wil l provid e additiona l comment s o n th e proposa l whe n th e publi c commen t perio d i s reopened
. I n addition , th e curren t programwit hth e Departmen t o f th e interio r an

d EPAt o shar e informatio n i n this

- are a shoul d continu e t o bot hprovid e usefu l exchange s betwee n ou r agencies , an d t o receiv e m

yful l support .



### Sincerely , 

# •7(Lt
. OXJJJU. Rober t C

. Odle , Jr

. Actin g Assistan t Secretar yfo r "Policy , Safety , an d Environmen t Enclosure s
cc : Docke t Numbe r A-84-3 3 Centra l Docke t Sectio n (LE-131 )P. 7

Enclosur e 1 Uniqu e Qualitie s o f Surfac e Coa l Mine s 1
. Th e locatio n o f surfac e coa l mine s i s determine d b yth e distributio n o f the resource , no t b yth e operator . Unlik e mos t traditiona l newstationar ysources , ther e i s n o flexibilit yt o relocat e a surfac e coa l min e source . 2
. Multipl e mine s mayrecove r coa l fromth e sam e deposi t wit h th e possibilit ytha t the mines ' area s o f ambien t ai r qualit yimpac t wil l overlap. ' 3
. Surfac e minin g i s no t a stati c stationarysource . A s i t progresses , th e source s withi n an operatio n mov e acros s th e coa l deposits , a s doe s th e locatio n o f maximumparticulat e concentration
. 4
. Surfac e coa l minin g i s heavil yregulate d —throughFederal , legislation , fo r example , unde r th e Surfac e Minin g Contro l an d Reclamatio n Act , 3 0 US C 1201 , and , wher e Federa l coa l i s involved , unde r th e Federa l coa l Leasin g Amendment s o f 197 6 (P.L
. 94-377)
. Environmenta l goal s ar e feature s o f permitte d min e desig n unde r SMCRA
. Conflic t mayexist * betwee n th e propose d listin g an d curren t requirement s fo r Federa l coa l leases
. 5
. Minin g operation s requir e long pre-operatio n planning , generall yhav e a 30-to-4 0 yea r life , an d mus t b e flexibl e t o accommodat e shiftin g demand durin g tha t period
. Restrictin g Productio n Siz e a s th e Sol e Complianc e Alternativ e Th e applicatio n o f Preventio n o f Significan t Deterioratio n o f Ai r Qualit y(PSD ) regulation s t o surfac e coa l mine s would , throughth e restrictio n o n th e allowabl e incrementa l additio n o f particulat e matte r ambien t concentrations , offe r thes e source s onl yon e viabl e metho d o f complianc e —sever e restriction s o n maximu mannua l production
. Ne wmines , an

d th e expansio n o f existin g mines , emplo ybes t availabl e contro l method s o n th e wid e variet yo f componen t source s o f "fugitive particulat e emissions , thu s offerin g little , i f any , possibilit ytha t increment s can b e met , withou tP. 8

- 2 - productio n limitation , througha greate r reductio n i n emissions
. I n addition , th e locatio n o f surfac e coa l mine s i s determine d b

yth e distributio n o f th e availabl e resource . Thes e mines, ' unlik e traditiona l stationar ysource s whic hhav e mor e sitin g flexibility , canno t determin e t o sit e elsewher e i n orde r t o minimiz e restriction s impose d b yvariou s site-specifi c ai r qualit yparameters , suc ha s th e PS D incremen t classification
. Th e discernibl e tren d i n surfac e coa l minin g i s tha t th e proportio n o f large r mine s i s increasing , wit hove r 7 0 percen t o f 198 3 nationa l productio n comin g from mine s producin g one-hal f millio n ton s pe r yea r (TPY ) o r more . Th e enclose d repor t b yPedc o Environmenta l (nowPE I Associates) , "Assessmen t o f Impact s o n th e Surfac e Coa l Min e IndustryResultin g fromPossibl e Change s t o PS D an d Ambient , Ai r Qualit yStandards, " Jun e 1984 , detail s th e siz e restriction s o n hypothetica l surfac e coa l mine s fo r complianc e wit hPS D increment s (Se e Enclosur e 2)
. Thi s repor t ("Pedc o report" ) analyze d hypothetica l mine s i n four coa l basins , usin g th e bes t availabl e and accepte d emissio n factor s an d dispersio n models
. Thes e mine s wer e evaluate d a s "single " sources , withou t consideratio n o f th e impac t tha t woul d occu r fromeithe r multiple-min e o r multiple-sourc e sitin g i n clos e proximit yan d th e resultin g combine d ambien t ai r qualit yimpacts
. Th e occurrenc e o f suc ha "stand-alone " min e woul d b e rare , give n th e natur e o f coa l resource s (seam s wit hcommericall ysurfac e retrievabl e coal) , an d th e transportatio n cost s fo r deliver yo f coa l t o th e user/combustor
. Tabl e 5- 7 o f th e PedC o repor t indicate s th e maximum min e siz e whic hwoul d b e allowe d unde r variou s scenarios
. Whil e obviousl yno t allowin g mine s o f a siz e comparabl e t o th e larges t existin g min e i n th e basin/state , PS D Clas s I I increment s woul d no t allo wmine s o f averag e existin g capacit y i n eithe r th e Powde r Rive r o r Sa n Jua n Rive r basins
. Clas s I increments'woul d preclud e averag e siz e mine s i n al l basins
. Oa r Offic e o f Fossi l Energy(FE ) ha s performe d a simplifie d analysi s fo r fou r planned , new/expande d coa l min e project s (Se e Enclosur e 3)
. Al l fou r woul d b e limite d b yth e annua l Clas s I I increment s t o one-hal f t o two-third s th e siz e o f th e planne d maximumproduction
. Th e PedC o repor t illustrate s tha t th e 24-hou r increment s ar e generall ysubstantiall ymor e restrictive ; 24-hou r incremen t restriction s wer e analyze d b yF E onl yfo r th e LaPlat a mine , du e t o th e unavailabilit yo f necessar ydat a fo r th e othe r min e projects
.P. 9

- 3 -

Durin g th e publi c hearing s on th e proposal , severa l example s o f th e advers e impac t o f PS D applicatio n t o planne d surfac e coa l mine s wer e presente d b yindustrywitnesses
. Perhap s th e mos t detaile d o f thes e statement s i s from Rober t T . Wallace , Peabod y Holdin g Company , Inc. , a t th e Decembe r 11 , 1984 , hearing
. Mr . Wallace' s quantitativ e statement s ar e base d o n applicatio n o f th e result s o f th e PedC o stud y(Enclosur e 2 ) t o actua l Peabod ycorporat e plan s an d facilities
. Mr . Wallac e testifie d tha t o f th e nin e new/expande d surfac e mine s Peabod yplan s fo r th e nex t decade , mos t neede d t o fulfil l existin g coa l suppl y contracts , onl yon e (0. 3 millio n TPY ) woul d b e permitte d a t th e planne d level
. Tota l productio n o f al l nin e i s planne d a t ove r 2 0 millio n TPY , bu t tha t complianc e wit hPS D incremen t limitation s woul d allo wonl ynin e millio n TP Y production , les s than hal f th e tota l contemplate d b ycorporat e plans
. * Mr . Wallac e als o presente d a quantifie d analysi s o f th e sensitivit yo f uni t cost s t o volum e reductions
. Usin g a n existin g Indian a min e wit hcurren t productio n o f 3 millio n TPY , Peabod yestimate s tha t limitin g productio n t o one-hal f millio n TP Y (maximu

m allowed , base d o n th e PedC o report) , cos t t o th e utilit yno wpurchasin g thi s coa l woul d increas e 4 8 percent , fromapproximatel y$27/to n t o ove r $40/ton
. Job s a t thi s particula r min e woul d decreas e b yove r 7 5 percent . (Mr
. Wallace' s prepare d testimon yan d supplemen t ar e .-attache d a s Enclosur e 4. ) Give n tha t surfac e coa l minin g essentiall yinvolve s material s handling , th e economie s o f scal e ar e essentia l element s i n projectin g no t onl ycosts , bu t whethe r a particula r operatio n i s economicall yviabl e a t all
. W e urg e tha t th e Regulator y Impac t Analysis , nowbein g prepared , full yaddres s thi s issue
. Lac k o f Accurac yo f th e Proces s t o Predic t Particulat e Concentration s Around Surfac e Coa l Mine s I n orde r t o predic t th e ambien t concentration s resultin g froma new/expande d min e project , a s fromal l sources , bot hemission s an d concentratio n estimate s mus t b e made
. Ther e i s fo r surfac e coa l mine s a wid e variet yo f emission s factor s an d dispersio n model s used , accepted , an d sometime s require d b ypermittin g agencies
. Th e PedC o repor t (Enclosur e 2 ) discusse s i n detai l th e difference s betwee n thes e predictiv e tool s i n Sectio n 7 , concludin g tha t th e alternat e method s no wwidel yemploye d can produc e emission s estimate s varyin g b ya facto r o f 2.6 , an d concentratio n estimate s varyin g b ya facto r o f 11
. No predictiv e concentration s around coa l mine s hav e eve r bee n verifie d agains t measure d concentrations
.H - O •HHftTJ I h O r t O O H 3 O J 3 T J t o r rH Q J H - o r r t o a 3-Q J f D 3 " M f D f D T J

t o f D O iQ

vO fD t o ft Qi C C M f D f D CKHD i f D O J O M D

J r t tOf D 1 f t \

M l f O H - f t H - I t h IO H O r ra 3 H- O Q i H - K > O T J f D v Q O 3 3 •3 m a at o 3 " a> x o t o 3 " M 3 f D f D i d r t >1 3 ft tr ft X f D t o O o i-i c ra o c Tjrte n H S 1 Hf t f D f D QJH - O O f D O O i 3 C O o a 3 Qif T ov a M o M i M f D f D t o O H t O t o O f D t o 3 v Q rrT J f

D II c r3 M « •kjr t t o n Q J 3 " fD r ro r t Q

i c iQ O O 3-r t 3 C M C f D Q i H - H O f D M f t Q i f t 3 M fD O r D fD 3 M 3 r t f

D 3 f D rrT J tr

3 f D t o 3"f D f D r r f D C M to r rH» < O **i r t f D fD ( D O O " D

J 3 Q i H i O H - M r t f D r t 3 M C

O tr O O O

J C f t MlM l H I r r3 " fD tr f D r rr ro O

i I D trtr

o c H - f D fD Q

J HP'S-HT J 3 M O t Q 3 H- K H f t 1 0 Q J f D X r r3 T J H - H-aor t O 0> rrtr tt Ch to 3 T J t o r t c o C H- O O Q J tr i—H - 3 O J o o 3 O M

, 3 f D H - M l 3 3 I- 1 fD T J H- 3 O J O r r t o r t t o t o < • f D 1

1 X tr o > f D 3 M O

J H M M I O L TIDA ) M O , H - Q

J r rf D r< C H tO M O l Q l O H-'f D H - t o 3 fO Q J T J O fD 3 M 3 Q i Q i O f D f D T J MOO O D i O t o M l H H O l H r r O M tr O f D H - f D OJi Q t o H C 3 H - H - O H M r rt

o fD f D t o r r O J 3 t o f D T J Q i fD 3 O H - t o r rr rt

o •t o f D r r 3 ft Q J r rf D »- 3 t o H-t o 3 " QJ t o (If fHH - C T3 Oif D Mii Q H-« < O H M H - H - C t

O V O O Q J t o ( D C C 3 H 3 " f D r ra , f D t o

Q J QiQ ) Q , H - fDT J 1 3 < T J O f D H 3 r r r rr rf

D H - a H» < tr H » < Q

» < 3 O O f D O 3flH Q ST J r t O 3 o o-c rO

J M i H > 3 M » 1 3 fD 3 O

J Hrt n f D v

Q o tr O O 3 f

D O f D Qi O Q i 3 M C O

J 3 fD t o OH(I) 3 fD 3 r t O Q. H r r M i f

D t o «- * f D t o C

O C O D J fD O f f O r i M i S 2 3* < » - • » fD H • < C O v o Q i f D ~ J 3 D i O " a\ O J M fD "» 3 O 3 M f D M i f D 3 3 H < r rH - H - H - 3 O f D Q J H - r r€ 3 3 Q,v Q c rO ( D M l O C r t T J O r r f D 3 r r H - O J H n O 3 M l H H - O r r t o X H - r r 3 " O r r 3 * f D M
t q f D Q i f D M Q J H f Q J X D J 3 a w f D O 3 X

r ri O 3 Q
. f D 3 " r rf D f D H - H - M 3 t o 3 C V ] f D T J a > c H O l r r H - O 3 C3TJ3TJQJTJ O

3 Q J f D H O K M 3 fD 3 f D M t o H-t o r t c r t • Q J t rt o H-V-l
. •* 3 fD M rt o a a H-r rQJ f D t o Q

) t o r rf D Q
. •3 " Q j Q i fD H O r r H - 3 H - 3 O Q
. r t 3 C 3" » t o f D r t QJ O t

O M M l r rt o f D f D C t o M 3 ft f D f D r rQ J 3 Q J H - 3 r rH m n t a i H I D X H t o O
• < f t f D M 3 " M H O Q J HQ , O r t O t o c < r t r t C O ( D H 3 - M » < f D y^-h- 3 M i T J T J T J H - M C H O O M H-Q J O O

J Q J 3 O ( a OO i 3 o r t O H - I D H - f D 3 T J O 3 r t 3 r t r t f D C ft tr o , H - Q i f D Q i r rT J f D H O M O .Q J f D t o 3 t o Qi O t o f D H- O OT J Q J X rt f D M H - H - ( D r r< Q I 3 " f D 3 < Q i f D T J r r M t o o f

D M H-Q.VQT J Ort*<OOM i *< 3 3 Q J H - r t o 3 O O H - C t o t o M f t H - 0 1 M v a O D

J M O Q

J H - Q i t o r rO 3 f D H- 3

O - t o O 3 M l t O H - O J •3 TJ T J 3 K r rT J t o r r H - H - M l O < H - M l f D O D J r rD i 3 3" 3 r rf D a t o Q
. f D v-i - f D C t--iQ o . P l CH - KQ i O t o 3 H - r rO J D J H - H 3 r t a Q J o r r3 - H - Q J H O >tr H - 3 f

D O C O t o O J H - 3 f D rtHif l H t - ,Q O rr C 3 t rtr

D J f D f D 3 r t t o r r O O J f D H - O r r t o tr Q l D J C H - M r t M f D f D H M i < < Q i f D r rf D O Q
. 3 * f D f D r r t ro < H O KH O f D H f D r r3 O v Q O f D H t o to > •r r O O 0 1 H D J r ro t o H 3 " TT H - t o O M l H M i t o n t o a > 3 H O O i O J 3 r t H 1 0 C - H t O C O

- r t r r H 3 * r t C

Tf D 3 " H - f D H - 3 X t o O Q

J H - M Q i Q , X I D Oif D H - 3 M Q i f D f D Q i f D 3 C

O H - r rt o M i < t O f D M i Q J Oif D M r r•M H-3 * f D f D f D 3 r rS O *< Q J JXf D > . H f D t o H M Q l O f D Q

J 3 X - 3 Q i Q J O C Tf D 3 r rH t o v

Q tr I D T J f D f D r r o tr H H-f D Q l Q) O H PI TH O

H - < f D 3 r r 3 " Q J r r H - M i r r tr f D TJ M o TJ o t o Q J H H - to M i H - 3 Q i H H - N f D Q i ^ H - r r € H - H H c r f D o M i •

• » 1

oP.1 1 

### United States Government Departmen t ofEnergy
ENCLOSUR

E 3 

# memorandu m

DAT EDecembe r5 , 198 4 • — REPL YT O ,- a ATT NOF : FE-1 3
SUBJECT : Comment s o nEPA' s Propose dFugitiv e Dus t fro m Surfac e Minin gRegulatio n
TO- . Te dWilliams , PE-1 6

Attache dpe r you r reques t ar e FE' s preliminar y comment s o nth e subjec t regulation . Genera l comment s ar e liste dbelow . A somewha t detaile danalysi s i nsuppor t o f thi s sectio ni s provide di nth e attachmen t t o thi s memorandum . Thes e comment s ar e preliminar y l nnatur e becaus e w e believ e tha t a significan t amoun t o f salien t infonnatio no nthi s regulatio nwil l b e presente da t a publi c hearin gt o b e hel db y EP A o nDecembe r 3 . M y staf f wil l atten dthi s hearin gan dwil l synthesiz e th e informatio nwhic hi s presented . Thi s informatio nwil l l ntur nb e forwarde dt o yo ua s soo na s possible . Sinc e i t i s no t possibl e t o asses s th e energ y an deconomi c impact s o f thi s regulatio nwithou t th e associate dregulator y impac t assessment , w e hav e limite dou r comment s t o thos e o f a technica l nature . I f yo uhav e an y

questions , o nthes e comments , pleas e cal l Dav e Beec y (353-2782 ) o r Bo bKan e (252-4753)» "

Davi dJ . Beec y Directo r Offic e o f Plannin gan dEnviromen t Attachment sP.1 2

Genera l Comment s 1 . W e believ

e that thi s rulemakin g coul dhav

e major impact s o

nth e coa l industry . Fo

r example , average siz e ne w mine s inbothth

e Easter

nan d WesternU.S . won' t b e abl e t

o obtai nconstructio npermit s without significant downsizin g o r withou t obtainin

g "buffer zones" . 2 . I f development o f large surfac e coa l mine s i s restricte db y application o f th e PS Drequirements , th e shor t ter

m an dlon g ter m effect s o

n domesti c energ

y supplie s mus t b

e considered . Th

e development o f coa l base dindustrie s ualn

g liquificatio

no r gasificatio

nprocesse s ma

y als o be impacted . 3 . I f surfac e coa l mine s are t o b e listed , th

e number o f mine s that woul d actually

be affecte

di s probably

limited . The major impac t wil l mos t likely fal l o nver y large mines , primaril y but no t exclusivel y lnth e west , where mos t o f th a Clas s I area s are located . However , thes e mine s ma y make major contribution s t o th e development o f th e nation' s low-sulfu

r coa l resource s an dt o future liquid-fuels-from-coa l industries . Therefore , ^i f surfac e mine s mus t b e listed , i t seem

s preferabl e t

o limi t th

e applicatio

no f PS Drequirement s t o thos e mine s that hav

e th e potentia l t

o affec t Clas s I areas , rather tha nt o ^list al l surfac e coa l mines . 4 . I f surfac e mine s 'd o becom e subjec t t

o tb e PS Drequirements , the y wil l have t o apply

th e bes t availabl e contro l technolog y (BACT ) t

o contro l emissions . BAC T l s generall y mor e stringent tha nne w sourc e performanc e standards , whichha s no t beenestablishedfor surface mines . BAC T determination s mus t conside r cost , economics , an denerg y Impacts , s

o we urg e EPA

to allo

w maximu m flexibility

i nadjustin

g th e stringenc

y o f associate

demissio

nlimits . 5 . F E als o ha s a number o f question s about th e scop e an deventua l Implementatio

no f th e proposal . Thes e question s involv e relate

d visibility

concerns , monitorin g methods , th

e focus o f th

e PS Drevie

w process , an

dconsideratio

no f th

e contributio

no f other source s t o ambient particulat e concentrations . Thes e wil l b e addresse

di ndepthi n th e detaile

danalysi s section .P.1 3

Detaile dAnalysi s Surfac e Coa l Minin

g Profil e

Surfac e coa l minin

g i s a significant segment o f th e coa l industry . I n1983 , surface min

e coa l accounte

dfo r 481. 7 millionshort tons , amountin g t o 61. 6 percent o f th

e tota l coa l produce d(coa l production , 1983 , DOE/EI A - 011 8 (83 ) Oct . 1984) . On e o f th e discernibl e trend s lnsurface coa l minin g i s that th e proportio

no f smaller mine s i s decreasin g an dth e tonnage fro

m larger mine s i s increasing . Tabl e 1 present s th e numbe r o f activ

e Bituminou s an dLignit e surfac e coa l mines , fo r th e las t fiv

e year s (Anthracit e coa l productio

nln198 3 accounte

dfo r les s tha

nI Z o f tota l surface coa l production) . The mine s are classifie db y tons produced . Tabl e 2 contain s th e coa l tonnage produce dfro m different siz e classe s o f mine s fo r th e las t 7 years .

Tabl e 1 Number o f Activ e Bituminou s an

dLignit e Coa l Surfac e Mines.b

y ProductionSiz e Class , 1977-1983 , 10" 3 Ton s Coa l Production , 1977-198 3 DerivedFrom : EIA , 198 4
EI A 0118 , Octobe r '8 4

Siz e

Tea r -198 3 198 2 198 1 198 0 197 9 197 8 197 7
I n1983 , w

. 10-5 0


### 79 3 100 9 

### 923 91 0 121 4 143 9 140 6

e ster ncoa l NUMBE RO F MINE S 50-9 9


### 34 0 39 5 40 9 41 6 46 7 62 8 61 4
accounte

dfo r 3 100-19 9


### 24 8 27 7 311 29 7 31 8 30 9 33 1 6 percent 

### o

f -
200-49 9


### 185 20 9 255 22 2 19 7 20 2 19 6
tota l coa l m : >50 0



### 140 153 143 152 140 12 5 • 

### 13 0 Lnin g —

productio

n(Annua l Energ

y Outlook , EIA , Ma

y 1984) . In1995 , westerncoa l productioni s projecte dt o accoun t fo r 3 9 percent of"coa l production .P.1 4

Tabl e2 Surfac eMin eProductio no f

Bituminou s & Lignite , coa l b yminesiz eclas s i n100 0 ton s annua l production , 1977-8 3 (Minesiz ei n100 0 ton s annua l production )

Prod' n b y Min e Yea r Siz e 198 3 

### Z 198 2 

### Z 198 1 

### Z 198 0 

### Z 197 9 

### Z 197 8 

### Z 197 7 Z 10-4 9

1958 8 4.1 2 2512 9 5.1 1 2410 6 4.8 3 2365 8 4.8 2 3061 1 6.6 9 3645 3 8.7 0 3522 0 8.3 7 50-9 9

2427 2 5.1 1 2848 9 5.7 9 2901 9 5.8 1 2979 4 6.0 8 3308 3 7.2 3 4306 1 10.2 8 4354 8 10.3 5 100-19 9

• 3509 6 7.3 9 3865 9 7.82 S 4425 9 8.8 7 4224 0 8.6 7 4450 4 9.7 3 4365 2 10.4 2 4619 6 10.9 8 200-49 9

5498 7 U.5 9 6209 7 12.6 3 7598 3 15.2 2 6728 5 13.7 1 5947 0 13.0 0 5971 3 14.2 6 6115 8 14.3 4 >50 0

340,92 4 71.7 9 337,29 1 68.6 0 325,85 8 65.2 7 327,66 3 66.7 8 289,72 5 63.3 4 236,00 4 56.3 4 234,57 3 55.7 0 Surfac e

Min e Tota l Production 47486 6 100.0 0 49166 3 100.0 0 49922 5 100.0 0 49064 3 100.0 0 45739 4 100.0 0 41888 3 100* . 0 0 42069 5 100.0 0

REF : SAM E A S TABL E 1 . Specifically , durin gth e perio dfro m 198 5 t o 1995 , surfac e minin g i s projecte dt o decreas e l nth e Eas t an dincreas e i nth e Wes t b y 1 1 millio n shor t ton s an d11 6 millio nshort , tons , respectively . Th e decreas e i nth e Eas t l s du e primaril y t o th e depletio no f economicall y minabl e surfac e coa l reserve s l ntha t region . (Annua l Energ y Outlook , EIA , Ma y 1984 ) Th e nex t 2 table s summariz e projecte dgrowt hincrease s o f ne w surfac e mines . Thi s informatio nha s bee nsummarize dfrom a Novembe r 198 4 Coa l Ag e article , an dothe r sources . Whil e onl y 1 0 o f th e to pfift y coa l producin gcompanie s (representin g7 ne w mine s an d4 expande dfacilities ) expec t futur e growth , th e ne w

capacit y

total s approximatel y 2 0 millio nton s pe r year . Th e larges t o f thes e facilitie s (Rochelle ) i s expecte dt o produc e 11,000,00 0 ton s o f coa l pe r yea r by

1986 , whe ni t i s expecte dt o b e operatin ga t ful l capacity .P.1 5

Tabl e 3 Coa l Ag e Surve yo f Ne wSurfac e Mine s and Min e Expansion s - 198 4

" ~ -Yea r Min e Capacit yMin e Capacit y Ne wMin e Yea r Projec t a t Ful l Adde d Min e Nam e o r Projec t t o b e Productio n (i f Expansion ) County/Stat e Expansio n Begin s Complete d (Ton s Pe r Yr ) (Ton s Pe r Yr ) Colowy o Coa l ' • Colowy o Min e Min e Expansio n 199 0 199 2 4,300,00 0 1,175,00 0 Moffa t Co
. Colo
. DiamondShamroc k Coa l Calvi n Branc h Min e Ne wMin e 198 5 200 5 2,000,00 0 Logan/Wyomin g Co.' s W . Va . Texa s Utilitie s - - - Minin g Fores t Grov e Ne wMin e 198 8 202 3 4,000,00 0 Min e Henderso n Co
. Tex . * Twi n Oak s Min e Ne wMin e 198 8 - 202 3 8,000,00 0 Robertso n Co. , N . Mex . Uta hInternationa l (San Jua n Coal ) Ne wMin e .198 6 201 7 1,500,000 * L a Plat a Min e Sa n Jua n Co
. N . Mex . Peabody Holdin g Nort hAntelop e Ne wMin e 198 3 198 4 5,700,00 0 3,000,00 0 Campbell , Co. , Wyo . Rochell e Min e Ne wMin e 1985/8 6 198 6 11,000,000 , Campbel l Co.
. Wyo . Peabod y Coa l Martwic k Min e Ne wMine , 198 6 198 7 1,100,00 0 Muhlenber g Co. , Ky .

* Publicatio n OS MEIS-1 7 indicate s 4 millio n to n capacit ya t ful l production
.fabl e 3 A Additiona l Ne

w Surfac e Hine s an

dMin e Expansion s (Fro m Variou s Additiona l Sources ) Mine Nam

e County Stat e

Westmorelan

d Resource s Abaaloka Bi

g HornCo , Mon t WesternEnerg

y Rosebu dMine Rosebu dCo,, * Mont . Eas t Gillette , Mine Campbel l Co , W

y Ne

w Min e or Expansio

n

Expansio

n

Mine Expansio

n

Ne w Min e Yea r Projec t Begin s

198 4

198 3 i i 198 7 Yea

r Of Completio

n

201 4

200 6

201 2 Mine Capacity

a t Ful l Product * (TPY )

5,000,00 0

3,800,00 0

11,000,00 0 Hlne Capacity Adde d (l f expansio

n- TPY )

4,000,00 0

-

* Fro m 1/14/8 5 Federa l Register ; document no t yet receive dP.1 7 1

PS DAnalysi s The analysi s whichi s summarize dinTabl e 4 present s a simplifie dapproacht

o determinin

g th e potentia l impac t of th e propose

dregulatio

no nfou r o f th e facilitie s liste

di nth e previou s table . (Montco , Abaloska , Eas t Gillette , an dLa Plata. ) First , w

e determine

dfro m ver y recent (July

1 , 1984 ) EP

A ambient ai r quality dat a that eacho f thes e mine s i s locate dina nattainment area for TSP . Thus , eacho f thes e mine s woul db e subjec t t

o PS Dreview . Only

th e Montc o mine , however , i s locate dnea r a Clas s I area . Next , fro

m variou s environmenta l impac t statement s prepare dfo r eacho f thes e mines , w

e hav e extracte

dvalue s for th

e maximu

m ai r quality

concentratio

ndu e to th e minin g operatio

ndetermine

db y ai r quality

modeling . (Colum

n2 )
I nth e next column , PM. Qconcentration s wer e calculate dbase do nInformatio

n containe

dInth

e PEDC O report . Th

e nex t colum

nlist s th

e allowabl e PS D increment for eac

hmine . A s previously state donly th e Montc o mine i s locate dnea r a Clas s I area . Predictiono f Productio nLevel s Usin g a productio

nalgorith

m base do na'simpl e rollbacktechnique , a n expressiono f th

e kin dshow nbelo w was'utilizedt

o estimat e th

e maximu

m allowabl e production , i n1 0 ton s for bot hTS P an dPM. Q Pe/C e • Pm/C m Wher e P m * planne

dproduction , milliontp y C m • modele

dmaximum , predicte d.concentratio

ndu e t o minin g operation , ug/m P e » allowabl e production , millio ntp y 3 C e » desire

dmaximu

m predictedconcentration , ug/m ( 5 fo r a clas s I area ; 1 9 for a Clas s I I area ) For example , th

e "propose

dexpande

dproductio

no f th e Montc o mine wil l resul t i na nadditiona l 6 millio ntp y an dth e maximu

m modele dof f sit e concentratio n resultin

g fro m thi s activity

i s estimate

dt o b e 4 5 Ug/m

. Therefore , solvin g fo r P E th e maximu

m increas e l nproductio nfor a clas s I Increment are a o f 5 Ug/ m woul db

e P E • ' PMxCe

C MP.1 8



### o r P E - .6x

5 - 3 £ - 0.67x1 0 millio ntons . 4 5 4 5 • Similarly , i f thi s minin goperatio nwer e to impac t a Clas s I I area , wher e the allowabl e Incremen t i s 1 9 ug/ m , solvingagai nfo r PE , (6x19 ) - P e . 4 5 - P e - 2.5x10 ° ton s Thi s analysi s conclude s tha t the PS Dincrements,coul db e exceede da t 0.67x1 0 ton s productio nnea r a Clas s I area , and2.5x1 0 nea r a Clas s I I area . Thi s indicate s tha t th e propose dexpansio nto 6 millio nton s woul dprobabl y b e preclude db

y thi s regulation . Similarly , the tabl e indicate s tha t the othe r 3 mine s woul dal l have to curtai l production , base do nthi s simplifie d analysis . Thi s analysi s wa s no t conducte dfo r the 2 4 hour , shor t ter m primar y standar dbecaus e th e Impact s o f the minin goperation s o nthi s standar dwer e no t generall y availabl e i nthe environmenta l impac t statements » Th e PM. Q

### analysi s i s Include dfo r illustratio nonly , sinc e EPA ha s propose d i nit s revision s t o th e NAAQ S fo r particulat e matte r tha t TS P shoul dbe retaine dfo r PS Dcalculations . Eve ni f PM. f l 

### increment s ar e adopted , the Montc o min e woul dbe limite dto approximatel y 1/ 3 o f it s projecte dincreas e i ncapacit y

nea r a Clas s I area . Thi s represent s a wors t cas e analysi s i ntha t maximu m value s o f productio ni n conjunctio nwit hmaximu m offsit e ambien t concentration s wer e used . Thi s analysi s indicate s tha t fo r TSP , maximu m productio na t the Montc o min e woul d b e limite dt o abou t 10 Z o f it s propose dpea kproductio n(.67x1 0 tons) .Tabl e 4 Potentia l Impac t o nCoa l Productio

nor Expansio

nFror a 4 Selecte

dProposedMine s on PS DIncrements - A

SIMPLIFIEDANALYSI S

\BI Co/State s

co/Roeebud/M

T Maximu

m Prppose d 1 0 TP Y Max . Offsit e Max . Offsit e

TS P Cone . (PM10 1 Cone * (ug/m

J ) (ug/m 3 )
Annua l 2 4 h

r Annua l 2 4 h

r Allowabl e Increment (ug/ m ) Max . Production Assumin g TS P (IO 5 TPY ) Max . Productio n Assumin g PMI O (10 ° TPY )
Annua l 2 4 h

r Annua l 2 4 h

r Annua l 2 4 h

r 4 5 1 3 0.6 7 1 9 2.5 3 8 .3 1 (C l •7 7 (C l Clas s I Area ) as s I I Area ) iloka/Bighorn/M T

: Gillette/Campbell/W Y

'lata/Sa nJuan/MN 5
1 1

4 37

4 5

3 0 4 0 1 1

1 3

9 <

i

1 3 1 9

1 9

1 9 3 7 2* 6

4. 6

2*5 3 ,

\

3* 7 8.6 3

11*0 8
9,1 8 11. 4

t

y C OOther Issue s

Monitorin

g Requirement s 1 . I t i s not clear where a facility mus t measur e fugitiv e emissions —

a t th e boundar

y line o f th

e property , o r of f th e property . I f th

e latte r criterio

ni s chosen , ho

w far fro

m th e propert

y i s appropriate ? 2 . Ho w are th e impact s o f other particulat e source s factore dinto backgroun

dconcentrations ? Fo r example , farming , especially i nth e Wes t cancontribut e substantia l particulat e loading s (probabl y MO O tons/year) . Som

e o f thes e particulate s coul db e inth e respirabl e range an dcoul dcontai nInsecticides , herbicides , an dfertitlzers , potentiall y compoundin

g th e deleteriou s natur e o f thes e particulates . Ye t farmin g i s no t on

e o f th e 3 0 major source categorie s propose dfo r coverage b

y thi s rulemaking . Focu s o f PS DRevie

w Proces s Assumin g surfac e mine s ar e liste da s a major sourc e category , at wha t point i nth e mine' s development wil l th e PS Drevie

w focus ? I f i t i s during.th e perio do f maximu

m production , w

e hav e show ntha t productio

ncoul db

e significantl y

limited . Also , i t i s unknow nho w large anexpansio

no f a facility

woul dhav

e t o b e t o b e considere

da major modification . Visibility Anothe r potentia l concer nrelate

dto thi s proposa l deal s withvisibility protectio

nfor Clas s I areas . Visibility protectio

ni s Intimatel y

connected withth e PS Dprogram . First , th e definitio

no f "majo

r stationar

y source " unde r th

e visibility

provision s i s identica l t o th e definitio

napplicabl e t

o PSD , wit hth

e exceptio

ntha t the

- emissio

ntrigge r leve l i s 25 0 tons per year , rathe r tha

n100 ; listin

g surfac e mine s unde r th e PS Dprogra

m might als o trigger a listin

g under th

e visibility

rules , requirin

g th e applicatio

no f emissionlimit s mor e stringent tha nBAC T i f visibility l nClas s I area s woul d b e impaired . Second , som e existin

g mine s coul db

e requiredt

o appl y retrofi t controls , unles s rulemakin g exempt s the

m fro m thi s requirement .P.2 1



### Testimony o f
Rober t T . Wallac e Senio r Vic e Presiden t - Corporat e Planning Peabody HoldingCompany , Inc .

a t
Publi c Hearing s 

### befor e
Th e Environmenta l Protectio nAgenc y

Docke t No . A-84-3 3 Listingof Surfac e Coa l Mine s a s Majo r Stationar y

Source s

Decembe r 11 , 198 4 Washington , D . C .P.2 2

Member s o f the panel , M y nam e 1 s Rober t T . Wallace . I a m Senio r Vic e Presiden t fo r Corporat e Planningo f Peabody Holdin gCompany , th e paren t o f Peabody Coa l Company , the nation' s larges t coa l producer . Peabody an dit s affiliate s operat e 4 5 coa l mine s 1 n1 1 states , o f whic h2 3 ar e surfac e mines . In additio nto our existin gfacilities , Peabody ha s plan s t o develo pa numbe r
o f ne w surfac e coa l mine s whic hwoul dbe adversel y Impacte do r perhap s preclude daltogethe r b y the requiremen t tha t suc hmine s be liste da s a designate dsourc e categor y fo r purpose s o f undertakin gPS D(Preventio no f Significan t Deterioration ) review fo r new source s unde r th e Clea nA1 r Act . Ou r testimony

toda y wil l no t onl y

show tha t suc hactio n1 s no t necessary , bu t als o tha t i t 1 s especiall y an dunreasonabl y

harmfu l to th e orderl y developmen t o f coa l reserves . At th e outset , le t me say tha t m y comment s toda y

are , o f necessity , rathe r general . EPA

ha s no t ye t publishe dit s Regulator y Impac t Analysi s require db

y Executiv e Orde r 12991 . Thi s make s 1 t ver y difficul t t o mak e
any detaile drespons e t o EPA' s positio no non e o f th e key question s 1nthi s rulemakin g—

th e economi c an

dsocia l Impac t o f EPA' s proposal . For thi s
reason , Peabody

ha s requeste danextensio no f th e publi c commen t period unti l afte r th e RI A

1 s released . Inany event , Peabody

Intend s t o submi t
mor e detaile dwritte ncomments .
Fugitiv e Dus t fro

m Coa l Minin gActivit y Inaddressin gEPA' s proposal , I thin k1 t 1 s appropriat e t o begi nb y discussin gth e natur e o f surfac e coa l minin ga s I t relate s t o th e issu e o f fugitiv e dust .P.2 3

t First , a s a genera l rule , coa l mine s ar e locate dinrura l areas , no t 1nthe mids t o f communitie s an dothe r highl y

populate dareas .

• Fugitive dus t fro

m minin gi s considere dharmless , non-toxic , an d non-respirable .

t Fugitiv e dus t emission s fro m minin gactivities , suc ha s topsoi l handling , overburde nremoval , blasting , an dhau l roadtravel , ar e difficul t an

dcostl y t o control .

• Individua l surfac e mine s ofte ngenerat e substantia l amount s o f fugitiv e dust , eve nafte r th e applicatio no f bes t availabl e contro l technology

(BACT) , bu t th e collectiv e contributio no f surfac e coa l mine s t o tota l fugitiv e dus t emission s 1 s negligible . Studie s indicat e tha t al l surfac e nines , includin ghardroc kmineral s a s wel l a s coa l mines , produc e les s tha n2 percen t o f the tota l fugitiv e dust , o f whic hsurfac e coa l minin gcontribute s onl y 0.0 5 percent . Unregulate dsource s suc ha s road s an dfarm s 1nrura l
area s produc e anestimate d9 5 percen t o f tota l fugitiv e dus t (attachmen t A) .

r Techn-ica l step s t o furthe r Umi t th e generatio no f fugitiv e dust , a t surfac e coa l mine s ar e impractical , prohibitivel y expensive , o r non-existent , leavin ga reductio ni nproductio nlevel s a s th e onl y practicabl e complianc e strategy .P.2 4

functij) ^ i s fo r minin goperations . Thi s uncertaint y furthe r demonstrate s the unjustiflabilit y

o f listin gsurfac e mines , becaus e w e canno t quantif y the ai r qualit y

impac t wit hsufficien t precisio nt o suppor t regulation .

Effec t onCoa l Developmen t Th e actio nonOctobe r 20 , 198 4 t o lis t surfac e coa l mine s a s a sourc e categor y fo r purpose s o f PS Dreview woul drequir e tha t fugitiv e particulat e emission s fro

m ne w -o r expande dmine s be counte dagains t consumptio no f th e PS DIncrement . Thi s wil l ^ery significantl y

imped e ne

w coa l min e developmen t an

dthe expansio no f existin gsurfac e coa l mines . Many mine s
ar e already

require dt o utiliz e BAC T 1ncontrollin gparticulat e emissions , ye t the y coul dno t mee t PS Dincremen t limitations . Hence , th e onl y reasonabl e optio nfo r complianc e a t ne w mine s woul dbe t o reduc e th e siz e
o f the mine . Insome cases , th e restricte dmin e siz e preclude s th e economically-viabl e developmen t o f the coa l reserve . Fo r thos e mine s whic h Involv e developmen t o f Federa l coa l — a majorit y

o f mine s 1nth e Wes t — • th e resultin glimitatio nonannua l coa l productio nfro m a propose dmin e ma y rende r th e min e incapabl e o f meetin gth e minimu m productio nrequirement s o f th e Minera l Leasin gAct . Peabody ha s testifie dmor e full y onthi s poin t a t th e Denve r hearing , an dwil l als o cove r I t inIt s writte ncomments . A recen t assessmen t o f th e impact s o f th e designatio no f surfac e coa l mine s a s a sourc e categor y wa s conducte db

y PEDC o Environmental , Inc . fo r th e Departmen t o f Energy . Th e study Indicate s tha t surfac e coa l mine s in
o r nea r Clas s I area s woul dbe limite dt o annua l productio nlevel s o f fro m

*Assessmen t o f Impact s onthe Surfac e Coa l Min e Industry Resultin gfro

m Possibl e Chanqe s InPS Dan dAmbien t Ai r Qualit y Standards , PEDC o Environmental , Inc. , Jun e 198 4 "P.2 5

0. 1 t o 1. 0 millio ntons , whil e mine s 1nClas s I I area s woul deffectivel y be restricte dt o annua l tonnag e level s o f fro m 0. 5 t o 3. 3 millio ntons , dependin gupo nth e sectio no f the country . Fo r example , maximu m min e productio ni nClas s I I area s i nWyomin g(2 4 hou r standard ) woul dbe limite d t o 3. 3 millio nton s pe r yea r (TPY) ; 1nNort hDakota , productio nwoul dbe limite dt o 2. 0 millio nTPY ; whil e 1nKentucky o r Illinoi s th e limi t fo r a
ne w min e woul dbe . 6 millio nTPY . A s wil l be discusse d1nit s writte n comments , Peabody

ha s some concern s tha t eve nthes e estimate s ma y be to o high . Bu t eve nacceptin gthem , thes e productio nlevel s ar e fa r below th e level s o f th e large r existin gmine s 1 nthos e state s (se e attachmen t B) . Th e ne t effec t o f Imposin gPS DIncremen t requirement s onsurfac e coa l mine s i s t o substantiall y alte r economic s o f coa l minin gi nmos t region s o f th e country , especiall y wher e reserv e configurations , coa l sea m thicknesses , an

dinvestmen t consideration s suc ha s railroa dspu r lines , extractio nequipment , an dcoa l handlin gan

dpreparatio nfacilitie s dictat e highvolume minin goperations .

9 Effec t onCompetitio n Limitation s onne

w min e size s bea r some importan t implication s fo r competitio ni nth e coa l market . Becaus e o f economie s o f scale , lowe r volume ne

w mine s simpl y

canno t compet e wit hlarge r existin gmine s whos e productio n1 s unimpede db y PS DIncremen t considerations . Moreover , 1 t woul dbe inappropriat e 1nou r view t o sugges t tha t overal l productio nfro m
new mine s ca nbe limite dfo r PS Dreason s becaus e ther e 1 s ampl e unuse d capacit y i nth e variou s coa l producin gregion s fro m existin gmines . Amon g othe r problems , th e concep t tha t ne w entr y Int o th e marketplac e ca nbe limite d1 nfavo r o f existin gelement s i s contrar y t o accepte dprinciple s o fP.2 6

promotingcompetition , yet thi s concep t ma y b e Inheren t 1nth e requiremen t tha t ne w surfac e mine s b

e limite dt o mee t PS Dincremen t consideration s no t imposedupo nexistin gfacilities .

Effec t onPeabody' s Futur e Plan s To satisf y

ne w market s an

dt o fulfil l It s obligation s t o existin g customer s currentl y

serve dfro

m mine s whos e reserve s wil l be exhausted , Peabody itsel f continuall y

seek s t o acquir e ne

w reserve s an

ddevelo pnew mines . Ou r norma l plannin ghorizo no f te nyear s project s severa l ne w surfac e coa l mine s whic hwoul dbe adversel y affecte db

y th e applicatio no f th e PS Drequirements . Ou r curren t corporat e planrequire s installatio no f nin e (9 ) new o r expande dsurfac e mine s withi nth e nex t decade . Mos t o f thes e facilitie s
ar e require dt o mee t existin gcoa l suppl y agreements . Fo r th e mos t part , thes e ar e no t simpl y

venture s connecte dwit hprospectiv e business , bu t installation s necessar y t o fulfil l presen t contractura l obligations . Inth e aggregate , thes e nin e mine s Involv e a ninvestmen t o f ove r $30 0 million , wil l produc e mor e tha n2 0 millio nton s o f coa l annually , wil l • generat e cumulativ e revenue s o f ove r $2. 7 billio ndollar s b y 199 3 an dwil l emplo y ove r 1,40 0 people . Ye t onl y on e o f thes e ne

w o r expande dmine s — a smal l midwester nmin e schedule dt o produc e 300,00 0 TP Y— woul dbe permittabl e a t th e contracte dlevel , accordin gt o th e PEDC o report . I n theory , th e Impositio no f th e PS DIncremen t limitation s o nthes e new o r expande dmine s woul dreduc e thei r collectiv e productio nlevel s b y mor e tha n 1 1 millio nton s pe r year . Inreality , w e woul dno t develo pthes e mine s a t limite dlevel s becaus e the y woul dsimpl y

no t be economic .P.2 7

T o say tha t the EPA

actio nma y

have seriou s economi c consequence s 1s , fro m ou r perspective , a gros s understatement , r t no t onl y severel y

hamper s
ou r abilit y

t o mee t ne

w marke t demand , i t preclude s ou r abilit y t o mee t ou r
curren t marke t obligations .

Summary Th e requiremen t tha t fugitiv e particulat e emission s fro m ne w o r expande dsurfac e coa l mine s be counte dagains t consumptio no f PS D increment s doe s no t reflec t th e realit y o f coa l minin go r th e very mino r contributio ni t make s t o overal l fugitiv e dus t emissions . Moreover , th e effectiv e limitatio nonth e siz e o f ne w surfac e coa l min e facilitie s wil l severel y alte r Investmen t strategie s an ddisrup t th e orderl y an deconomi c developmen t o f th e Unite dStates ' vas t coa l reserves . Suc hlimitation s bea r very

seriou s Implication s wit hrespec t t o marke t competition . Finally , th e proces s b y whic hthi s issu e ha s bee naddresse db y EPA i s troublesome . Th e actio nt o 11s t surfac e coa l mine s a s a sourc e categor y
wa s take nbefor e th e pendingrevision s t o th e Nationa l Ambien t Ai r Qualit y Standard s fo r particulate s have beenpromulgate dan dbefor e a decisio nha s bee nmad e onth e prope r definitio no f particulat e matte r t o be usedi nth e PS DIncrements . I neffect , th e coa l industr y ha s bee npresente dwit hth e officia l presumptio ntha t ne w mine s shoul dbe listed . W e ar e tol dther e woul dbe a perio do f time t o try t o rebu t th e presumptio nwit hgood evidence . Ye t i t appear s tha t th e pendingrevision s o f th e particulat e standard s andth e definitio no f particulat e matte r fo r PS Dpurposes , whic h
ar e s o critica l t o th e analysi s o f th e Impact s o f th e listing , wil l no t b e complete dwithi nth e time frame provided . Moreover , th e failur e o f EPA t o complet e th e Regulator y Impac t Analysi s require db y Executiv e Orde r 1299 1P.2 8

compound s th e difficult y 1nmakin ganeffectiv e rebuttal . Mor e importantly , 1 t call s int o seriou s questio nth e availabilit y o f th e factua l basi s onwhic hthe actio nt o 11s t wa s taken . We believ e i t woul dhav e bee n fa r mor e pruden t an

dfai r t o hav e determine dno t t o lis t coa l mine s a t thi s

o time , a t leas t unti l thes e missin gelement s wer e availabl e fo r consideration . For reason s state dabove , w e firml y believ e th e actio nt o lis t surfac e
coa l mine s a s a sourc e categor y fo r PS Dpurpose s i s bot hinappropriat e and impractical . Further , whe nal l th e pertinen t element s an dimpac t analyse s
ar e completed , we believ e ou r contentio nwil l be conclusivel y substantiated . Thi s complete s m

y testimony . I woul dbe happy t o respondt o questions .P.2 9

Attachmen t A

CONSTRUCTION " 3.7 % fa VOtES TFIRES 0.3 * MININ G 16 % 

# ( tailings 1.26 *

surfee e coo ! O.Oi X othe rsurfac e 0.32% , 1976 Cliiribvtiont f e teto i emu * kvrdmn if i a*re»n t

ficmrt 1
. Cateoorie s o fParticulat e Emission s From Ope n Sources i n th e U.S
.

Source : Evans , T.S
. an d Cooper , D.W. , "An Inventor yo f

Particulat e Emission s fro m Ope n Sources, " Journa t o fth e Ai rPoUutio n Contro l Association , Vol
. 30 , No
. 12 , 1298-130 3 C1980)
.P.3 0

Attachmen t B

Stat e Montan a Wyoming Limitatio nonne w Mine s resultingfro

m PS DIncremen t . Consumptio n(MMTPY) 1

3. 3 3. 3 Nort hDakot a 2. 0 Ne w Mexic o 1. 2 . Illinoi s Indiana Kentucky 0. 6

0. 5 0. 6 SURFAC E COAL MINE S 198 2

No . o f Mine s 9 Above Limitation 2 4 1 1 5 3 1 3 1 4 1 8 Averag e

Productio n Pe r Min e Above Limitatio n (MMTPY ) z 5. 5 8. 2 3. 2 5. 8 1. 8 1. 6 1. 4 Larges t

Existing Min e (MMTPY) 2 9. 9 16. 8 5. 2 7. 2 4. 0 3. 4 2. 8

assume s Clas s I I area , 2 4 hou r standar d(Assessmen t o f Impact s o nth e Surfac e Coa l Min e Industry Resultingfro

m Possibl e Change s i nPS Dan d Ambien t Ai r Qualit y

Standards , PEDC o Environmental , Inc. , Jun e 1984 )

z (Mine Safet y

an dHealt hAdministration ) Employment , Productio nan d Injurie s Dat a Bas e fo r 198 2P.3 1 

### Decembe r 14 , 198 4

EPA' S PROPOSE DLISTINGO F SURFAC E MINE S A S MAJORSTATIONARYSOURCE S

SUPPLEMENTARYCOMMENT S T OTH E TESTIMON YO F PEABODYHOLDINGCOMPANY , INC . O N DECEMBER11 , 198 4

EPA' s proposa l t o lis t surfac e coa l sine s a s designate dsource s fo r purpose s o f undertaking ; PS Dreview s i s generall y perceive dt o b e a significan t problem

wes t o f th e Mississippi . Thi s i s du e t o th e fac t tha t mos t large-capacit y (e.g. , 5 millio nton s o r more ) new surface nine s ar e schedule dt o ope ni nth e west . Wha t 1 s no t understoo di s th e fac t tha t th e propose dregulatory actio ncoul db e eve naor e seri ou s eas t o f the Mississippi . Thi s occur s becaus e uni t cost s ar e ouc h
•or e sensitive t o volua e fluctuation s du e t o the fac t tha t the over burde n1 s generall y

greate r thani t i s i nth e wes t an dth e coa l seaa s
ar e no t a s thick. I ntestimon

y give nonDecembe r 11 , 198 4 i nWashingto nD.C . (EP A Docke t No . A-84-33) , Peabody indicate dtha t It s plan s ove r th e nex t tenyear s includ e th e developmen t o r majo r expansio no f nin e surfac e mine s whic hcoul db e significantl y impactedb

y th e propose dlisting . Specifically , thes e nin e sine s woul dproduc e mor e tha n2 0 mi 1 1 io nton s
o f coa l annually , generat e cumulativ e revenue s o f ove r $2. 7 billion , andemploy

ove r 140 0 people . Althougha breakdow nwa s no t provide da s par t o f the forma l testimony , si xo f thes e sine s involv e coa l reserve s locatedi nthe state s o f Ohio , Indiana andKentucky . Together , they accoun t fo r almos t $1. 9 billio ni ntota l revenue , o r 6 8 percen t o f th e tota l note di nth e testimony , andapproximatel y 7 5 percen t o f th e tota l jobs .P.3 2



### Inorde r t o illustrat e the sensitivit y o f uni t cost s t o vol i reductions , particularl y i nthe Midwest , Peabod y conducte da bri« f analysi s o f a larg e existin gcoa l sin e currentl y operatin g1 nth e stat e o f Indiana . Unde r presen t circumstances , thi s Bin e produce s 3 Billionton s o f coa l a yea r fo r a majo r utility . Thi s 1 s accomplishe d throughth e us e o f thre e larg e excavator s whic htogethe r mov e approxi matel y 4 8 ni l Ho ncubi c yard s o f virgi noverburde na year . Th e aver ag e f.o.b . Bin e pric e pai db y th e utilit y

fo r thi s coa l approximate s 527.0 0 pe r ton . Base dupo nth e PEDC Ostud y fo r DOE , whic hindicate s tha t surfac e minin goperation s inth e stat e o f Indiana woul db e limitedt o onl y

500,00 0 ton s o f productiona yea r i f th e propose d listingwer e t o b e Bad e final , th e averag e f.o.b . sin e pric e wa s recalculated . Insummary , onl y 8 millio ncubi c yard s o f virgi n materia l woul db e require di norde r t o achiev e th e 500,00 0 to n productionlevel . However , becaus e o f th e depth s involved , a t leas t
on e o f tha larg e excavatin gshovel s wa s stil l required , eve nthoughi t woul donl y

operat e 3 0 percen t o f the tim e becaus e o f th e productio n constraint . Unde r thes e assumptions , i t wa s estlaate dtha t th e f.o.b . nin e pric e pai db

y th e utilit y

woul dris e t o approximatel y $40.0 0 per ton , o r a 4 8 percen t increas e i nthe cos t o f th e fuel . Th e employmen t impact s woul dals o be substantial . Tota l minin gjob s woul ddeclin e fro a 51 1 t o 118 .P.3 3

Enclosur e 2 Comment s on Benefit s Methodology Inapplicabilit yo f PMI O Healt hStudie s t o thi s RI A Inasmuc ha s a significan t portio n o f the benefit s estimate s use d i n th e surfac e coa l minin g listin g RI Aar e base d o n th e RI Afo r the propose d revisio n o f the Nationa l Ambien t Ai r Qualit y Standard s (NAAQS ) fo r Particulat e Matter , man yo f th e flaw s note d b yth e Departmen t o f Energyi n it s Jun e 7 , 1985 , comment s o n th e NAAQ S proposa l ar e applicabl e t o the surfac e minin g RIA . Attache d ar e thos e portion s o f ou r NAAQ S commen t lette r mos t relevan t t o the surfac e coa l minin g RIA ; ou r complet e lette r i s entere d i n Docke t Nos . A-82-37 , A-82-38 , an d A-83-48 , an

d referre d t o hereafte r a s "NAAQ S comments. " (Se e Enclosur e 3. ) Th e problem s w e addresse d i n ou r NAAQ S comment s ar e furthe r compounde d b

ythei r applicatio n o f th e NAAQ S dat a an

d finding s t o the surfac e coa l min e listin g proposal
. Fo r example , the analysi s o f healt heffect s benefit s derive d b yregulating flew surfac e coa l mine s unde r Alternative s I I an d II I i s extrapolate d fromthe epidemiologica l studie s EP Aused t o suppor t a propose d siz e indicato r o f 1 0 micron s fo r the propose d health-relate d primar ystandard
. Th e majorit yo f th e evidenc e fo r healt heffect s from particulat e exposur e ar e base d o n Britis hSmok e studie s carrie d ou t betwee n 1 0 an d 3 0 year s ago . Particulate s include d i n the Britis hSmok e measur e ar e substantiall ydifferen t in particl e compositio n from fugitiv e emission s fro msurfac e mines , sinc e mos t min e particle s wil l be dust , an

d sulfat e compositio n in min e particle s i s expecte d t o b

e especiall ylow
. Thi s i s particularl yimportan t sinc e severa l o f the healt heffect s studie s identif ysulfates , rathe r than unspecifie d particles , a s having th e potentia l fo r healt hrisk
. Th e siz e compositio n o f fugitive emission s from surfac e mine s can be expecte d t o contai n a muc hhighe r portio n o f larg e particle s i n compariso n t o typica l urban ambien t concentrations
. EP Aha s alread ydetermine d in the PMI O revie wtha t th e healt hris k from particulat e exposur e come s fro msmalle r particle s (th e so-calle d thoraci c particles) , no t coars e ones . The us e o f healt hdamag e estimate s fromthe PMI O revie wis , therefore , questionable , sinc e neithe r th

e particl e siz e exposur e profil e no r the chemica l compositio n i s expecte d t o b e a t al l simila r betwee n urban PMI O studie s an

d the surfac e mining case .Appropriat e Scop e o f Alternativ e I V

Alternativ e I V

consider s th

e benefit s an

d cost s o f re-siting mine s tha t woul d hav e an impac t o n Clas s I an d mandator yClas s I I areas . Th e analysi s in.the RI Aindicate s no perceptibl e impac t on the on e mandator yClas s I I are a studie d in the analysis , th e Chac o Cultur e Nationa l Histori c Park
. I f ne wsurfac e coa l mine s ar e projecte d t o hav e littl e o r n o impac t o n mandator yClas s I I areas , the justificatio n fo r considering themi n the alternativ e rul e appear s weak , an d sizabl e economi c dislocation s mayoccu r fo r no perceptibl e benefit
. I f a rul e simila r t o Alternativ e IV i s t o be considere d a t all , i t shoul d be restricte d t o mandator y Clas s I areas . Overestimate s in Benefit s Estimation s The surfac e minin g RI Acontend s tha t benefit s ar e probabl y underestimate d becaus e existenc e valu e i s no t quantitativel y estimate d excep t i n Alternativ e IV . In fact , existenc e valu e i s describe d a s "potentiall ylarge " in th e RI Atex t (e.g. , se e RI A pag e xv)
. Analyti c attempt s t o measur e existenc e valu e have , however , use d variou s definition s o f tha t concept . In som e cases , i t i s associate d wit ha paymen t fo r th e righ t t o participat e in the futur e (se e fo r exampl e Horvath , 1974) , a s indicativ e o f the desir e t o preserv e a n asse t (se e fo r example , Meyer , 1974 ; Schult z et . al. , 1980 ; o r Brookshire , Eubanks , an d Randall , 1983) , o r a s a paymen t fo r knowin g the resourc e exist s (se e fo r example , Walsh , Gillman , an d Loomis , 1982 ; o r Desvousges , Smith-an d McGivney , 1983)
. No t al l o f th

e abov e definition s ar e potentiall yapplicabl e t o the cas e o f surfac e mine s where , afte r a mine' s fixe d productiv e life , the lan

d resourc e i s t o b e returne d t o it s pre-min e stat e becaus e o f Federa l legislation , in some case s supporte d b y equall ystringen t Stat e laws
. Thus , th e min e -cease s t o caus e visibilit yimpact s afte r i t i s full yexploited
. Fo r larg e mines , a s ar e anticipate d t o b e regulate d b

ythi s proposal , th e tim e tha t particle s wil l fal l beyon d visua l propert yboundarie s i s generall yshorte r tha n the min e lifetim e sinc e th e actua l are a o f disturbanc e i s movin g an d wil l ofte n b

e locate d wel l awayfrom th e propert yboundary
. Additionally , visibilit yi s subjec t t o wind conditions
. Thi s implie s tha t day s wil l diffe r in term s o f visibilit ydamag e effects
. Existenc e valu e estimate s relate d t o the desir e t o participat e i

n the futur e an

d the othe r benefit s measure s must , unde r suc hconditions , reflec t the probabilisti c natur e o f the allege d visibilit ydamage
. Individual s migh t wis ht o pa yt o reduc e the " probabilit ythat , o n the da ythe yvisi t th

e site , th

e visibilit ycondition s woul d be o f a certai n leve l o r theymayP.3 5

alternativel ychoos e a lowcos t o r no cos t mitigatio n strategy . Example s woul d be t o choos e alternativ e visi t day s withi n the allotte d vacatio n tim e o r choos e a visi t tim e o f yea r whe n th e prevailing wind boost s the likelihoo d o f n o visua l interference
. Th e amoun t o f willingnes s t o pa yfo r thes e circumstance s woul d no t be nearl ya s larg e a s tha t whic hmigh t b e experience d wit h irreversibl e damage , o r a s tha t tha t woul d be anticipate d i f the visibilit ydamag e wer e continuou s an d constan t ove r a severa l yea r period , a s i s assume d i n mos t willingnes s t o pa ybenefit s survey s use d fo r thi s RIA . Lastly , visibilit yi s a highl ysit e specifi c benefit
. Panorama s o f the Grand Canyo n ar e in no waycomparabl e t o thos e over , say , portion s o f sparsel yinhabite d Norther n Plain s o r agricultura l mideas t coa l regions
. Usin g damag e estimate s from on e sit e fo r anothe r quit e differen t vist a i s a highl yquestionabl e procedure
. In thi s case , w e believ e the specifi c applicatio n o f Gran d Canyo n dat a t o Bryc e Canyo n i s inappropriate
. Existenc e benefit s a t Bryc e wer e functionall yrelate d in the RI At o Grand Canyon , estimate s by , in part , th e rati o o f visito r day s a t Gran d Canyo n an d Bryce . Thi s assume s a simpl e functio n for man d linearit y tha t ar e no t obvious
. Th e estimate s provide d should , therefore , be eve n mor e highl ycaveate d than i s presentl ydone
. Alarg e uncertaint yban

d surround s th

e estimates , an

d shoul d b

e bette r noted
. Give n the likel yoverestimat e o f healt han d visibilit yeffect s note d above , an

d controvers yabou t the presenc e o f existenc e valu e generall yan d in thi s specifi c application , i t seem s likel y tha t tota l benefit s hav e bee n overestimated , no t underestimated , i n the numeri c value s provided
. Additionally , suc ha variet yin definition s o f existenc e valu e suggest s tha t th e economic s professio n ha s no t reache d a consensu s on wha t constitute s th e benefi t achieve d b yit s protection
. Being extremel ysensitiv e t o questionnair e design , existenc e valu e i s therefor e a t a n experimenta l stag e o f developmen t an d shoul d no t be use d in a polic ydocument
. EP Aresearc hsuppor t fo r suc hwor k ma yyiel d benefit s fo r futur e polic yanalysis , however , an d w e suppor t continuing^researc ho n thi s concept . Consideration s o f the appropriatenes s o f existenc e valu e in th e visibilit ycase , an d o f it s potentia l magnitude , wher e the damag e leve l fluctuate s du e t o natura l condition s an d minin g patterns , sugges t tha t existenc e valu e ma ybe quit e smal l in thi s case . A s the RI Anotes , ther e have bee n ver yfewattempt s a t measurin g existenc e value , eve n unde r circumstance s wher e i t ha s bee n mor e traditionall yapplied
. DO E staff,•therefore , doe s no t believ e tha t the RI Ashoul d describ e th e insufficientl yanalyze d existenc e valu e a s "potentiall ylarge. "P.3 6

DO E staf f consider s the mos t appropriat e cours e i s t o provid e a short , objectiv e discussio n o f existenc e valu e an d it s applicatio n t o thes e regulatoryalternatives , noting tha t the RI A assign s no valu e t o thes e existenc e benefit s withou t presenting inadequately-supporte d conclusion s o r an yquantitativ e values
.P.3 7

5 BIBLIOGRAPHY
Brookshire , D.S. , L.S
. Eubanks , an d A . Randall , "Estimating Optio n Price s an

d Existenc e Value s fo r Wildlif e Resources, " Lan d Economics , 59(1):1-1 5 (1983 ) Desvousges , W.H. , V.K . Smith , an d M.P . McGivney , " ACompariso n o f Alternativ e Approache s fo r Estimating Recreatio n an d Relate d Benefit s o f Wate r Qualit yImprovements, " Repor t t o USEPA , Offic e o f Polic yAnalysis , Washington , D.C
. (1983)
. Horvath , J.C , "Economi c Surveyo f Southeaster n Wildlif e an d Wildlife-Oriente d Recreation, " Transaction s o f th e 39t hNort h America n Wildlif e an d Natura l Resource s Conference , 187-19 4 (1974)
. Meyer , P.A. , Recreatio n an d Preservatio n Value s Associate d wit h the Salmo n o f the Frase r River , Informatio n Repor t Series,*No
. PAC/N-74-1 , Vancouver , Canada ; Fisherie s an d Marin e Servic e (1974)
. Schulze , W.D. , D.S
. Brookshire , E.G
. Walthe r an d K . Kelley , "Method s Developmen t fo r Environmenta l Contro l Benefit s Assessment, " Volum e VIII , Th e Benefit s o f Preservin g Visibilit y in the Nationa l Parkland s o f the Southwest , USEPA , Offic e o f ExploratoryResearch , Offic e o f Researc han d Development , Washington , D.C
. (1980)
. Welsh , R.G. , R.A . Gillma n an d J.B . Loomis , "Wildernes s Resourc e Economics : Recreatio n Us e an d Preservatio n Values, " Americ a Wildernes s Alliance , Denver , Colorad o (1982)
.Othe r Comment s

Subjectiv e Terminology Th e RI Ai s generall yforthrigh t i n identifying thos e assumption s whic hcoul d have a significan t effec t o n the relativ e strength s o f th e variou s estimate s made
. Th e inheren t weaknesse s in the analysis , in grea t measur e cause d b ythe uncertaintie s o f th e site-specifi c natur e o f th e PS D regulatoryprogram , ar e generall y acknowledged
. Ther e is , however , ofte n a greate r degre e o f subjectiv e judgmen t used in presenting th e degre e wit hwhic hthe benefit s estimate s ma yvar yfro m"reality, " than fo r the cos t estimates
. In addition , th e geographi c exten t o f ai r qualit y improvement s need s t o b e pu t int o perspective , especiall yi n the Executiv e Summary
. Actua l populatio n exposur e figure s woul d be mor e appropriat e than stating tha t the populatio n i s lo w(RIA , pag e xxiv)
. Baselin e W e ar e concerne d tha t inadequat e attentio n ha s bee n give n t o severa l factor s whic hmayresul t i n th e over-estimatio n o f ai r qualit ybenefit s achieve d unde r th e regulatoryalternative s considered
. Amon g thes e ar e thos e requirement s which , although no t designe d fo r ambien t ai r qualit yprotection , provid e som e degre e o f emission s contro l fo r othe r reasons , including worke r safety
. Fo r example , State , Federa l and/o r collectiv e bargaining contracts ' worke r healt han d safet yrequirement s mayrequir e som e contro l o f fugitiv e emissions
. Ye t wit hthe exception , o f som e Stat e ai r quality-relate d permi t requirements , thes e ar e no t include d in the baseline
. I n addition , an yDO I Offic e o f Surfac e Mining permi t requirement s whic hmayprovid e som e ai r qualit y protectio n ar e no t addressed
. W e believ e tha t DO I shoul d furnis h the relevan t informatio n solicite d b yEPA , an

d tha t EPAshoul d analyz e ho wthes e impac t th e analysi s prio r t o reopening the listing commen t period
. Pi t Retention/Sensitivit yAnalysi s Whil e the RI Adoe s acknowledg e the counter-intuitiv e lac k o f pi t retentio n accommodatio n i n th e ambien t ai r impac t analysis , the onl ysensitivit yanalysi s performe d b yPE I appear s t o b e the Equivalen t Sourc e Metho d (ESM) , (PE I report , Appendi xC)
. ES M doe s no t includ e pi t retention , an d seem s t o compound the erro r i t wa s designe d t o cross-chec k against--tha t surfac e coa l mine s are , unlik e mos t source s subjec t t o PSD , no t static
. In addition , a s the estimate d rang e o f pi t retentio n o f particulat e matte r ma yb e 2 5 t o 9 0 percent , mentione d i n th e PE I repor t a s preliminar y(PE I report , pag e A-13) , potentia l ambien t emission sP.3 9

an d ai r qualit yimpac t woul d b e bette r reflecte d b yproviding a rang e o f result s tha t incorporat e suc hestimate d factor s fo r pi t retentio n o f particulates
. The us e throughou t th e RI Ao f linea r factor s t o allo wth e analysi s t o be complete d make s th e lac k o f a simila r assumptio n t o facto r i n some pi t retentio n effect s t o be singularl yunfortunate
. Bot hhealt han d visibilit yestimate s woul d be substantiall ychange d i f suc ha consisten t procedur e had bee n applied
. Analysi s o f Mine s Nea r Clas s I an d MandatoryClas s I I Area s The analysi s fo r Alternativ e IV , whic hassume s relocatio n o f an actua l propose d min e (for th e Clas s I area , Bryc e Canyo n Nationa l Park) , a t the distanc e fro mth e park wher e ambien t impac t i s belo wthe Clas s I increments , i s incomplete
. Whil e assuming th e relocatio n o f thi s min e approximatel y2 5 mile s fromthe park , severa l importan t factor s ar e no t addressed
. Fo r example , . wherea s downsizin g the min e fro m"historical " productio n siz e i s the ai r qualit ycomplianc e metho d analyze d in Alternatives'l l an d III , i t i s no t considere d a s a n alternat e complianc e metho d fo r Alternativ e IV . Rather , onl yrelocatio n a t a distanc e fro m the Clas s I area , withou t limiting production , i s analyzed
. In addition , the adequac yo f coa l reserve s a t the assume d locatio n an d distanc e i s no t discussed
. Us e o f Nationa l Cos t Dat a in Alternativ e IV Th e RI Apoint s ou t tha t i f a coa l sit e i n th e Southwes t i s no t available , the substitut e productio n wil l probabl ybe take n from thi s are a (RIA , pag e V-7 ; "Fo r the mos t part , th e San Juan Basi n i s th e onl ycompetito r in thes e tw o states, " referrin g t o Ne w Mexic o an

d Arizona)
. The tex t whic hfollow s i s eve n mor e restrictive
. Therefore , w e questio n th e us e o f the nationa l reserve s t o se t the pric e o f coa l fromth e alternativ e source, , rathe r than a pric e se t b yconsideratio n o f Sa n Jua n Basi n only
. W e assum e tha t sucha procedur e woul d caus e th e pric e o f competitiv e coa l in Alternativ e IV t o increase , causing the cos t elemen t o f the ne t benefit s calculatio n t o be increased
.

### Departnten t

o f Energy Washington , D.C

. 2058 5 P.4 0

Enclosur e 3

Jun e 7 , 1 9 8 5 Honorabl e Le e M . Thoma s Administrato r U . S
. Environmenta l Protectio n Agenc y 40 1 MStreet- , S
. W.

- Washington , D . C
. 2046 0 Dea r Mr . Thomas : Th e Departmen t o f Energ y(DOE ) appreciate s th e opportunit yt o provid e comment s o n the propose d revision s t o th e Nationa l Ambien t Ai r Qualit yStandard s (NAAQS ) fo r particulat e matte r (4 9 F R 10408 ; Marc h20 , 1984) , an d relate d revision s t o regulation s implementing thes e revise d standard s an d associate d ai r qualit yprogram s (5 0 F R 13130 ; Apri l 2 , 1985 ; an d 4 9 FR 10421 ; Marc h20 , 1984)
. Th e Department' s detaile d comment s an d supportin g analyse s ar e containe d i n enclose d Attachment s 1- A through1-F , an

d Attachment s 2 through6 , respectively
. W e not e the recen t extensio n (5 0 FR 21629 ; Ma y28 , 1985 ) t o July.3 , 1985 , o f the publi c commen t perio d o n the Apri l proposal , an d mayb e providing supplementa l comment s on thos e propose d regulations
. Our primaryconcern s regarding the propose d primary standard s includ e th e selectio n o f an imprope r siz e indicato r fo r healt hprotection
. Th e Departmen t o f Energy , recognizin g bot hthe complexitie s involve d i n revising th e 197 1 NAAQ S fo r particulat e matte r (PM) , an d th e scientifi c consensu s tha t the existing siz e indicato r fo r health-protectio n PMstandard s i s unsatisfactory , suggest s tha t fin e particulates , du e t o thei r abilit yfo r dee p pulmonarypenetratio n an d thei r specifi c (an d potentiall y biologicall yactive ) nature , ar e the appropriat e ambien t pollutio n targe t fo r control
. However , w e believ e that , i f the primarystandard s ar e se t base d o n th e te n micro n indicator , the uppe r en d o f eac hpropose d rang e provide s a t leas t th e requisit e statutorymargi n o f safet yt o protec t publi c health
. Th e lowe r end , fromwhic hyo u state d yo u ar e predispose d t o select , i s unnecessaril y restrictiv e base d o n know n an d suspecte d healt heffects , a s wel l a s documente d historica l change s i n specie s o f ambien t particulat e matter .P.4 1

- 2 -

Our primaryconcer n wit hthe propose d Tota l Suspende d Particulat e (TSP ) secondarystandar d i s tha t i t i s incomplete , potentiall yunnecessary , an d insufficientl y supporte d b

yth e dat a relating TS P t o th e singl e welfar e valu e the propose d standar d i s designe d t o protect . Ther e i s sufficien t evidenc e t o suppor t the conclusio n tha t the primarystandard s in the range s propose d fo r th e selecte d siz e indicato r wil l provid e adequat e protectio n fo r the soiling welfar e valu e on whic hthe proposa l i s based
. I n addition , sinc e othe r welfar e value s ar e no t addresse d b

ythi s propose d standard , th e potentia l exist s for ongoing studie s t o result- , ove r th e nex t severa l years , i n an additiona l regulatoryambien t program an d th e attendan t revie wan

d revisio n o f Stat e Implementatio n Plan s t o attain/maintai n an ysubsequentl yrevise d secondarystandard
. A s the Environmenta l Protectio n Agenc y(EPA ) ha s recentl y reporte d i n "Nationa l Ai r Qualit yan d Emission s Trend s Report , 1983, " averag e annua l TS P ambien t level s hav e decrease d 2 0 percen t sinc e 1975
. I n ligh t o f thi s trend , w e sugges t tha t withdrawa l o f th e propose d secondarystandard , unti l a mor e complet e welfare-protectio n standar d can b e justifie d an d designed , i s the appropriat e cours e o f action
. Our detaile d comment s on the Staf f Pape r an d , RegulatoryImpac t Assessmen t ar e als o enclose d a s Attachments
. I n summary , DO E ha s seriou s concern s regardin g som e o f the analyti c methodologyan d the presentatio n o f variou s scientifi c dat a use d t o suppor t the propose d range s fo r th e standards
. We believ e tha t thes e inadequacie s cas t seriou s doub t tha t the recommendation s presente d t o yo u i n th e Staf f Pape r ar e sufficientl yjustified
. Th e Departmen t support s your Agency' s effort s t o improv e th e managemen t o f our Nation' s ai r resources . I n grea t part , thes e regulatoryproposal s seek t o reflec t the increase d sophisticatio n in bot hscientifi c understandin g an d publi c polic yperspectiv e sinc e the clean Ai r Ac t wa s enacte d in 1970
. Th e recen t EP Areport s o n emission s level s an d ambien t ai r concentration s demonstrat e tha t the NAAQ S proces s ha s bee n remarkabl yeffective
. Revision s o f thes e standard s base d o n new , demonstrate d scientifi c finding s provid e an importan t continuatio n o f thi s effectiv e ai r qualit ymanagemen t program .P.4 2

- 3 -

I look forward t o continuing ou r mutua l effort s an d cooperatio n a s DO E an d EP Asee k the appropriat e balanc e in ou r Nation' s energ

yan d environmenta l goals , an d hop e our comment s prov e usefu l a s yo u see k t o tak e fina l actio n on thes e proposals
. Shoul d yo u wis hfurthe r informatio n or clarificatio n on the point s presented , pleas e cal l me o r Ted Williams , Directo r o f our Offic e o f Environmenta l Analysi s (252-2061)
. Your s truly ,



# BlM^.&Off^

Dann yJ . Bogg s Deput ySecretary Enclosure s
cc : Charle s Elkin s Acting Assistan t Administrato r fo r Ai r an d Radiatio n U.S
. Environmenta l Protectio n Agenc y Centra l Docke t Sectio n (LE-131 ) Docke t No' . A-82-3 7 Docke t No . A-82-3 8 Docke t No . A-83-4 8 - 3 copie sP.4 3

ATTACHMEN T 1-

A SIZ E INDICATO R FOR PRIMAR Y STANDARD S Whil e revisio n o f th e size-dependen t particulat e matte r standar d fromTota l Suspende d particulat e (TSP ) t o includ e onl y particle s wit han aerodynami c diamete r ( d ) smalle r o r equa l t o a nomina l 1 0 micrometer s (P M10 ) i s an improvemen t fromth e curren t primar ystandard , dat a indicate s tha t a fin e particulat e (FP).standard,.includin g onl ythos e particle s wit h an aerodynami c diamete r smalle r o r equa l t o a nomina l 2. 5 um , woul d provid e a bette r basi s fo r huma n healt hprotectiv e regulation
.
Recen t analyse s conducte d a t Harvar d Universit yfo r th e Departmen t o f Energy' s Healt han d Environmen t Ris k Analysi s Progra m(HERAP ) indicat e tha t variation s i n ambien t F P mas s correlat e bette r wit hhealt heffect s tha n variation s i n level s o f larger-size d particulat e measures. —i n thi s work , neithe r TS P no r I P (inhalabl e particulates ) mas s (d,-1 5 um , mas s roughl y1. 1 time s P M10 ) wer e found t o b e significan t predictor s o f residua l mortality ; i n contrast , F P wa s a statisticall ysignifican t predicto r o f variation s i n residua l mortality , and thu s provide s a preferabl e basi s fo r healt h protection
.

1 / Attachmen t 2
. Ozkaynak , H. , G
. D . Thurston , T . D . Tosteson , D . M . Smith , P . L . Kinney , B . Beck , W . Skornick , S
. D . Colom e and A . Schatz , "Analysi s o f Healt hEffect s Resultin g from Populatio n Exposure s t o Ambien t Particulat e Matter, " prepare d fo r th e Healt hand Environmen t Ris k Analysi s Program , U . S
. Departmen t o f Energy(Octobe r 1983)
.P.4 4

ATTACHMEN T 1-A(Cont. ) Eve n thoug hPM1 0 mas s woul d encompas s th e F P mass , i t r s importan t t o control , a s specificall ya s possible , th e mos t deleteriou s portio n o f particulat e matter . I t i s especiall y th e fin e particl e fractio n o f ambien t aerosol s whic hinclude s greate r amount s o f th e toxi c organi c an d acidi c component s resultin g from

uncontrolle d moto r vehicle, oil , an d coa l combustio n emissions
. Sinc e coars e particle s ar e largel y comprise d o f relativel ynon-toxi c natura l crusta l material , i t i s probabl e tha t th e inappropriat e practic e o f tradin g of f control s o f fugitiv e coars e particle s (e.g. , vi a th e pavin g o f dir t roads ) i n retur n fo r regulator yallowance s tha t d o no t stimulat e emission s reductions/contro l o f mor e toxi c fin e particle s wil l continu e unde r th e propose d P M1 0 standards
.
I t seem s clea r that , frombot hth e regulator yand publi c healt h perspective , i t i s th e F P mas s o r chemica l specie s withi n i t whic hshoul d b e regulated , no t P M1 0 o r TSP
.P.4 5 

# 1

ATTACHMEN T 1- B

PROPOSE D LEVE L FOR PRIMARY STANDARD S

I n hi s proposa l o f revise d primar yNAAQ S (4 9 FR 10408) , th e Administrato r state d hi s predispositio n t o selec t fina l standard s fromth e lo wen d o f th e range s o f ambien t level s unde r consideration , i n orde r t o provid e th e adequat e margi n o f safet yrequire d b

yth e Clea n Ai r Act . Th e Departmen t o f Energy believe s tha t th e various , and sometime s extremely , conservativ e assumption s use d i n mos t step s o f th e analyti c wor k leadin g t o proposa l o f thi s range , inappropriatel y compoun d th e margi n o f safet yprovide d t o level s wel l beyon d thos e necessar yfo r adequat e publi c healt hprotection
. I n addition , th e backgroun d documents , mos t notabl yth e Staf f Paper , fai l t o adequatel yinformbot hth e Administrato r and th e publi c o f th e identity , natur e and exten t o f thes e conservativ e assumptions
. Se e Attachmen t 3
.
Tw o majo r point s ar e mad e her e wit hregar d t o th e leve l o f th e propose d primar ystandards
. First , althoug hth e initia l range s evaluate d i n th e revisio n proces s (Staf f Paper , page s 11 1 e t seq. ) wer e 15 0 t o 35 0 ug/ m(24-hou r average ) and 5 5 t o 11 0 ug/ m(annua l average) , th e proposa l (4 9 FR 10408 ) reduce d th e range s o f consideratio n t o 15 0 t o 25 0 ug/ m and 5 0 t o 6 5 ug/ m, respectively
. Bot hOAQP S staf f (Staf f Paper , page s 11 1 e t seq. ) and CASA C (Closur e Memorandum ; Staf f Paper , pag e E-4 ) state d tha t th e uppe r portion s o f th e origina l (i.e. , 15 0 t o 350 , and 5 5 t o 110 ) range s o f interes t provide d littl e o r n o margi n o f safety
. Thus , b yeliminatin g th e uppe r hal f of-th e origina l rang e fo r bot hstandards , th e propose d range s se tP.4 6

ATTACHMEN T 1- B (Cont. )
fort hd o addres s a margi n o f safet ya t thei r uppe r level s a s propose d on Marc h20 , 1984
. Thus , th e predispositio n o f the Administrato r t o selec t from th e lowe r en

d o f th e revise d range s appear s t o "double-count " th e require d margi n o f safety , a s judge d b

ybot hEPAstaf f and th e statutoril yrequire d exper t revie wgroup .
Th e secon d poin t i s th e conservativ e approac huse d t o translat e dat a o f existin g studie s base d o n Britis hSmok e (BS ) and TS P ambien t level s t o PM10
. Sinc e neithe r th e B S no r TS P level s ar e easil yconverte d t o P M1 0 levels , th e conservativ e assumption s use d t o translat e th e effect s level s appea r t o provid e a furthe r "double-counting " towar d a highe r margi n o f safety , whic hi s neithe r adequatel yenumerate d no r documente d i n th e backgroun d reports .
Include d i n thes e conservativ e assumption s ar e th e conversio n factor s fo r Britis hSmok e concentration s t o P M1 0 concentration s a s equivalen t o r equivalen t plu s 10 0 microgram s (i.e. , P M1 0 = BS,

- or P M1 0 = B S + 100)
. Ye t th e Staf f Pape r point s ou t tha t 0. 8 PM1 0 = P M6 , and tha t B S i s a subse t o f P M4. 5 concentrations , henc e a smalle r subse t o f P M6 particles
. I f i t wer e (conservatively ) assume d tha t B S = 0. 7 3 P M10 , the n B S concentration s a s lo wa s 15 0 mg/ m conver t t o greate r tha n 21 0 ug/ m o f P M10
. Throug hus e o f overconservativ e assumption s o n th e physica l and chemica l propertie s o f B S concentration s relativ e t o P M10 , thes e conversio n factor s ar e improperl ydesigne d i n th e Staf f Pape r and th e proposa l (Se e Attachmen t 3)
.P.4 7

ATTACHMEN T 1- B (Cont. )

Adetaile d critiqu e o f thes e assumptions , a s wel l a s o n th e underlyin g scientifi c data , ar e provide d i n Attachment s 3 an d 4
. Since ' ou r vie wi s tha t th e analysi s leadin g t o selectio n o f bot hth e origina l range s (15 0 t o 350 , and 5 0 t o 11 0 ug/ m) , 3 an d th e reduce d range s (15 0 t o 250 , and 5 0 t o 6 5 mg/ m) o f th e standard s propose d includ e extremel yconservativ e (an d no t wel l documented ) assumptions , th e Departmen t o f Energ ysuggest s that , i f PM1 0 i s th e selecte d siz e indicato r fo r primar y standards , thes e standard s b e se t a s value s tha t ar e no t lowe r tha n th e uppe r en

d o f th e range s o f th e Marc h20 , 1984 , proposal
. Th e uppe r end o f th e presen t rang e provide s th e requisit e margi n o f safet ya s require d b yth e Act .ATTACHMEN T 1- C

SECONDAR Y STANDAR D PROPOSE D I S INSUFFICIENTL Y SUPPORTE D

B Y DATA , AND INCOMPLET E
Th e proposa l t o replac e th e curren t 24-hou r secondar yTS P standar d wit ha n expecte d annua l (arithmeti c mean ) TS P 3 standard , selecte d froma rang e o f 7 0 t o 9 0 ug/ m, i s state d a s base d solel yo n protectio n agains t th e soilin g effect s o f airborn e particulates
. Whil e soilin g ca n b e on e o f many welfar e effect s fo r whic ha secondar yambien t standar d i s designe d t o protect , i t i s b yn o mean s th e onl yone . EP A clearl ystate s tha t visibilit yan d preventio n o f significan t deterioratio n o f ai r qualit yar e welfar e aspect s protecte d throug hothe r regulator yprograms ; th e propose d secondar y standar d i s designe d solel yt o protec t agains t soilin g o f fabric s and surfaces
. Th e EP AStaf f Pape r specificall ynote s tha t a n additiona l (or separat e fro mth e primary ) standar d i s unnecessar yt o protec t agains t material s o r vegetatio n damag e (Staf f Paper , pag e 148)
.
Bot hth e Staf f Pape r and Regulator yImpac t Analysi s (RIA ) not e tha t soilin g dat a ar e largel yqualitative , and tha t i t i s impossibl e t o mak e clea r determination s o f particl e siz e dimension s wit hrespec t t o soiling
. Th e studie s relie d upo n r indicat e tha t n o additiona l cost s ar e incurre d b yth e publi c a s a resul t o f fabric/surfac e soiling , and tha t difference s i n cleanin g cycle s and cost s o f thes e item s ar e base d o n socio-economi c variables , no t o n level s o f airborn e particulates
. Th e Clea n Ai r Scienc e Advisor yCommitte e *' (CASAC) , i n it s Januar y29 , 1982 , Closur e Memorandum , state d tha t i t reache d n o consensu s regardin g retentio n o r eliminatio n o f a secondar ystandar d fo r TS P (Staf f Paper , pag e E-6)
.P.4 9

ATTACHMEN T 1- C (Cont. )
Th e Departmen t o f Energy' s basi c resourc e managemen t concer n her e i s th e issu e o f th e "movin g target " standard
. EPA , ofte n togethe r wit hothe r Federa l agencies , currentl yha s effort s underwa ywhic hmaylea d t o additiona l revision(s ) o f th e secondar yP Mstandard
. Perhap s the

- cleares t example s ar e th e interagenc yVisibilit yTas k Forc e o n "Phas e II " (haze ) visibilit yprotection , an d th e interagenc yNationa l Aci d Precipitatio n Assessmen t Progra m(NAPAP)
. DO E i s an activ e participan t i n bot hgroups .
Th e Visibilit yTas k Forc e studie d appropriat e mechanism s t o addres s th e impairmen t o f visibilit yb yregiona l haze-relate d emissions
. Th e curren t proposa l i s inconsisten t wit hth e recommendation s o f bot hOAQP S Staf f an d CASA C t o establis ha fin e particl e secondar ystandar d t o protec t thi s welfar e value
. Whil e sufficien t quantitativ e dat a neede d t o establis h suc ha standar d mayno t ye t b e available , recentl y(Apri l 1985 ) th e Tas k Forc e staf f preliminaril yrecommende d tha t an ylinkag e betwee n th e ongoin g NAAQ S program s an d regiona l haz e b e addresse d b

yth e Agency . An additiona l Tas k Forc e staf f preliminar yrecommendatio n suggest s furthe r examinatio n o f an alternativ e fin e particl e NAAQS , whic hmaylea d t o a n additiona l regulator yprogra mfo r secondar ystandar d settin g motivate d b

yth e visibilit ywelfar e concern . Thus , i f th e propose d secondar yTS P standar d i s promulgated , state s and EP A wil l expen d resource s t o revie wand revise , a s necessary , Stat e Implementatio n Plan s fo r th e ne wstandard , and the n subsequentl yg o throug hthi s proces s agai n fo r a visibility-base d secondar ystandard
.P__5 0

• ATTACHMEN T 1- C (Cont.)

-
Thi s sam e proces s coul d resul t fromth e determinations•o f the NAPAP . Th e welfar e effect s o f aci d depositio n related.t o particulat e matter , uncertai n a s t o bot hthei r natur e an d cause(s) , ar e als o specificall yno t addresse d b ythi s proposal
. Th e extensiv e ongoin g researc hi n thi s area , coordinate d b

yth e NAPAP , mayals o lea d t o an additiona l regulator yprogra m fo e secondar ystandar d setting
. Th e NAPAP' s finding s maylea d t o a contro l progra m fo r atmosphericall y forme d and emitte d acidi c particles , t o protec t agains t th e ecologica l impact s o f thes e deposite d particles
. Thus , th e proble mo f th e "movin g target " issu e involve s a t leas t thi s potentia l regulator yprogra mand th e possibl e regulator y progra mfo r regiona l haze
. Sinc e nationa l and regiona l PMai r qualit yar e improving , a s note d i n EPA' s recen t report , •Nationa l Ai r Qualit yand Emission s Trends , 1983" , ther e appear s t o b e n o nee d t o promulgat e suc ha n incomplet e secondar ystandar d revisio n a t thi s time
.
O f eve n deepe r concer n i s th e uncertaint yfo r existing , new , and planne d emissio n source s a s t o necessar ycontro l requirements , an

d th e potentia l fo r sitin g constraint s fo r ne w fossil-relate d facilitie s (Se e Attachmen t 6)
. Give n ; th e weaknes s o f th e dat a utilize d t o suppor t th e propose d soiling-base d secondar ystandard , and conflictin g dat a which , i n part , support s th e conclusio n tha t th e propose d primar y standar d wil l provid e th e sam e degre e o f soilin g protectio n a s th e propose d secondar ystandard , w e sugges t withdrawa l o f th e propose d additiona l welfar e standar d unti l decision s o n visibilit yhaz e protectio n and othe r particulat e impact s regulation s ar e made
. Multiple , sequentia l change s t o a nationa l standard , especiall yon e o f suc hbroa d scop e a s th e secondar yNAAQ S fo r PM , ar e inappropriate , particularl ywher e th e firs t revisio n i s don e fo r a relativel ymino r reaso n whic h include s n o measurabl e benefit
.P.5 1

ATTACHMEN T 1- D

TH E STATISTICA L DETERMINATIO NOF NONATTAINMEN T
Statistica l Form

vs . Deterministi c Form- EPAindicate s estimate d exceedance s improv e th e probabilit yo f detectio n o f a violation
. However , th e us e o f a n estimate d exceedance s concep t doe s no t improv e th e probabilit yo f th e detectio n o f actua l exceedance s o f th e standar d level , th e basi c elemen t use d i n th e determinatio n o f a violation
. A t a give n monitorin g sit e currentl yunde r a partia l samplin g schedul e (e.g. , onc e ever ysi xdays) , th e probabilit yo f detectin g exceedance s doe s no t increas e unles s th e samplin g frequenc yi s increased , or th e leve l o f th e standar d i s lowered
. Th e propose d standar d wit ha singl e exceedanc e i n fac t increase s th e probabilit yo f havin g an are a classifie d a s nonattainment , compare d t o th e curren t standar d whic hrequire s tw o exceedance s t o determin e an are a a s nonattainment
. Thi s fac t i s no t th e resul t o f th e us e o f th e estimate d exceedanc e concept , bu t o f th e samplin g frequenc ycausin g a reductio n i n th e numbe r o f exceedance s considere d i n th e determinatio n o f a violation
.
Th e us e o f th e estimate d jexceedance s concep t increase s th e numbe r o f exceedance s b yadjustin g fo r th e undetected , bu t potential , exceedance s durin g th e day s withou t sample s i f ther e ar e on e o r mor e exceedance s detected
. Fo r example, i f ther e wer e on e o r mor e detecte d exceedance s i n on e o f th e las t thre e year s (whe n th e samplin g frequenc ywa s onc e ever ysi xdays) , the n th e numbe r o f estimate d exceedance s i n tha t yea r a t th e sampl e monitorin g sit e i s si xo r highe r and th e numbe r o f expecte d annua l exceedance s (pe r th e EP Aproposal ) becomes' * two o r higher , resultin g i n a n attainmen t violatio n fo r thre e years . However , i f ther e wer e n o detecte d exceedances , i.e. , zer o observe d exceedances- , the n th e numbe r o f estimate dP.5 2

ATTACHMEN T 1- D (Cont. )
exceedance s a s wel l a s th e numbe r o f expecte d exceedance s i s zero , resultin g i n n o violatio n eve n i f th e sit e ha s severa l actua l exceedance s i n th e yea r o n day s wher e n o sampl e i s taken
. Therefore , unles s th e probabilit yo f detectio n o f exceedance s i s increased , th e probabilit yo f detectio n o f a violatio n i s no t increased
. Thus , sinc e th e EP Aproposa l doe s no t modif y th e samplin g frequency , th e probabilit yo f detectin g a n exceedanc e i s unchanged
. Th e probabilit yo f misclassifyin g areas , particularl ythos e i n margina l nonattainment , i s no t reduce d wit hth e us e o f th e estimate d exceedance s concept , bu t ma yb e perpetuate d fo r a muc hlonge r time
. Exception s fo r unusua l Event s an d Trend s - Th e proposa l state s tha t exception s woul d b e allowed , unde r th e guideline s currentl ybein g developed , t o reduc e th e effect s o f unusua l event s and othe r trends
. I t i s no t possibl e t o determin e ho w objectiv e th e guideline s woul d be
. Th e guideline s ma yno t b e usefu l i n identifyin g marginall yunusua l event s whic har e no t identified , bu t whic hresulte d i n a n exceedanc e tha t happene d t o b e detected
. Thi s "exceptio n allowance " i n th e guideline s coul d als o b e inappropriatel yused , resultin g i n misclassifyin g nonattainmen t area s a s attainmen t areas .
Th e propose d statistica l formwit hallowabl e exceptio n introduce s a subjectiv e huma n elemen t i n determinin g whethe r singl e o r multipl e detecte d exceedance s i n on e yea r ar e du e t o unusua l event s o r not , whil e th e curren t form i n effec t automaticall yallow s on e (th e highest ) exceedanc e pe r yea r t o b e exclude d fro mbein g considere d i n determinin g attainmen t status .P.5 3

ATTACHMEN T 1- D (Cont. )

o Thre e Year s o f Dat a 'vs . On e Yea r o f Dat a - Th e propose d requiremen t o f thre e consecutiv e year s o f dat a i n determinin g attainment/nonattainmen t statu s mayb e usefu l unde r certai n circumstances , e.g. , whe n th e dat a recover yrat e i s ver ypoo r durin g th e lates t yea r o f sampling , thu s missin g detectio n o f a numbe r o f actua l exceedance s altogether
. However , th e requiremen t coul d adversel ypenaliz e site s wit hgoo d dat a recover yi n remot e pas t year s (resultin g i n detecte d exceedances) , o r rewar d site s wit hpoo r dat a recover yrate s i n th e pas t (missin g actua l exceedance s altogether)
. It^coul d als o penaliz e a n are a wit hpas t detecte d exceedances , bu t withou t curren t exceedances , du e t o slightl yimprovin g ai r quality , trend s tha t ma yno t hav e bee n full yidentified , o r ma y penaliz e an are a wit hpas t exceedance s du e t o unusua l event s whic hma yno t hav e bee n documented
. Thes e trend s or- unusua l events , whe n no t full ydocumented , coul d no t b e use d t o exclud e thes e pas t exceedance s frombein g considere d i n determinin g nonattainmen t status . Fo r example , on e singl e exceedanc e tha t occurre d thre e years.ag o coul d inappropriatel yclassif yan are a a s nonattainment
. W e sugges t tha t us e o f on e yea r o f data , wit han increase d samplin g frequenc yan d improve d dat a recover y rate , i s preferre d ove r th e thre e year s o f dat a fo r nonattainmen t determinations
. Singl e Exceedanc e vs . Multipl e Exceedance s - Sinc e th e numbe r o f allowabl e exceedance s and th e associate d leve l o f standar d unde r th e multipl e exceedanc e formo f standar d ar e no t proposed , i t i s no t possibl e t o provid e comment s a s t o whic h alternativ e woul d provid e bette r protection
. However , fro mth e standpoin t o f eliminatin g th e huma n elemen t i n determinin g observe d exceedance s a s du e t o unusua l event s o r not , th e multipl e exceedanc e alternativ e i s preferre d t o singl eP.5 4

exceedanc e form
. I t i s wort hnotin g that , fo r a once-every-six-da ysamplin g schedule , a cas e o f allowin g fiv e expecte d exceedance s i s almos t equivalen t t o th e curren t form o f th e standar d i n eliminatin g on e (the highest ) observe d exceedanc e i n on e yea r frombein g considere d i n th e determinatio n o f attainmen t status . Wit hfiv e expecte d exceedance s allowed , a sit e mus t hav e a t leas t thre e observe d exceedance s i n thre e year s (e.g. , on e occurrenc e eac hyea r fo r thre e years ) t o b e classifie d a s nonattainment , whil e tw o o r les s exceedance s i n thes e year s wil l resul t i n attainmen t certification
.ATTACHMEN T 1- E

IMPLEMENTATIO NO F REVISE D STANDARD S

I n ligh t o f th e recen t extensio n o f th e publi c commen t perio d o n th e propose d implementin g regulation s (5 0 F R 21629 ; May28 , 1985) , th e Departmen t o f Energ yma yprovid e supplementa l comment s o n th e Apri l 2 , 1985 , proposal
. Th e followin g present s ou r initia l comments , whic hma yb e expande d o r modifie d withi n th e extende d commen t period
.
SI P Developmen t Polic y- Primar yP M1 0 NAAQ S
Th e DO E believe s tha t th e procedure s outline d i n th e Apri l 2 , 1985 , proposa l (5 0 F R a t 13140 , e t seq ) fo r classifyin g area s int o thre e classes , eac hdeterminin g th e schedul e and requirement s fo r adequat e Stat e Implementatio n Pla n (SIP ) submittal s fo r attainment/maintenance , provid e a reasonabl e and practica l approac ht o implementin g th e requirement s fo r attainmen t demonstrations
. Th e approac houtline d b yEP A provide s an appropriat e balancin g amon g th e paucit yo f availabl e PM1 0 ambien t dat a upo n whic ht o bas e determination s o f attainmen t status, th e resource-intensiv e natur e o f developin g a sound attainmen t demonstration , an d th e health-protectiv e purpos e o f th e primar ystandard
.
SI P Developmen t Polic y- Secondar yTS P NAAQ S

I f th e EP Apromulgate s a secondar ystandar d fo r TS P a t th e uppe r end o f th e propose d rang e (se e Attachmen t 1-C , "Secondar y Standar d Propose d i s Insufficientl ySupporte d b yData , and* ' Incomplete, " fo r a discussio n o f th e lac k o f nee d fo r suc ha standard) , .DO

E ha s n o stron g initia l preferenc e betwee n th e implementatio n alternative s o f Par t D o r Sectio n 110
.P.5 6

ATTACHMEN T 1- E (Cont. )
Sinc e th e revise d secondar ystandard , a t th e uppe r en d o f th e rang e proposed , woul d b e roughl yequivalen t t o th e curren t primar yNAAQ S fo r whic hth e attainmen t dat e ha s long-passed , equitabl e consideration s maysuppor t th e par t D alternativ e .wit hit s potentiall ymor e onerou s SI P .requirements , and clearl y availabl e fundin g sanction s wher e State s fai l t o respon d t o notice s o f SI P inadequacy.
.
Th e unsettle d questio n o f EPA' s authorit yt o redesignate , unde r Sectio n 107(d) , area s a s nonattainmen t withou t Stat e concurrenc e (Se e Bethlehe mStee l Corp
. vEPA , 72 3 F . 2 d 130 3 (7thCir
. 1983)) , mayprovid e a metho d fo r State s t o dela yth e deadlin e submitta l o f a n adequat e secondar ystandar d SI P b y merel ychoosin g no t t o designat e a n are a a s nonattainmen t eve n thoug hviolation s o f th e revise d secondar ystandar d ar e found
.
Fo r thes e reasons , th e Administrato r shoul d carefull yconside r whethe r th e potentia l eas e o f administratio n o f th e revise d secondar ystandar d unde r th e Sectio n 11 0 alternative , selecte d fo r implementin g th e revise d primar ystandard , i s preferable
.P.5 7

ATTACHMEN T 1- F

SUGGESTION S FOR IMPROVEMENT O F PROBABILIT Y GUIDELIN E

EP Aha s requeste d comment s o n th e Februar y198 4 draf t "Procedure s fo r Estimatin g Probabilit yo f Nonattainmen t o f a PMI O NAAQ S Usin g Tota l Suspende d Particulat e o r Inhalabl e Particulat e Data. " Applicatio n o f th e procedure s i n thi s guidelin e t o existin g particulat e ambien t dat a wil l determin e th e timin g an

d detail s o f acceptabl e Stat e Implementatio n Pla n submitta l provisions
.
Mos t o f th e guidelin e procedure s ar e straightforward
. Tw o mino r point s ar e worthyo f mentio n here , and describe d i n mor e detail.i n Attachmen t 5
. First , region

- and season-specifi c probabilit ydistributio n curves , i n plac e o f th e nationa l curve , shoul d b e investigated , i n orde r tha t prope r evaluatio n b e give n t o known variation s i n th e PM10/TS P rati o b yregio n and season . Second , a consisten t dat a requiremen t (i.e. , numbe r o f dat a points ) fo r us e o f variou s year s o f PMI O dat a shoul d b e expresse d i n th e guideline
.ATTACHMEN T 3 CRITIQU E O F TH E PMI O STAF F PAPE R AND TH E REGULATOR Y IMPAC T ASSESSMEN T

INTRODUCTIO N
Ther e ar e a numbe r o f fundamenta l problem s i n th e Offic e o f Ai r Qualit yPlannin g and Standard s (OAQPS ) Staf f Pape r entitled , •Revie wo f th e Nationa l Ambien t Ai r Qualit yStandard s fo r Particulat e Matter : Assessmen t o f Scientifi c and Technica l Information " (Staf f Paper) , an d wit hth e "Regulator yImpac t Assessmen t o n th e Nationa l Ambien t Ai r Qualit yStandard s fo r Particulat e Matte r " (RIA)
. Thes e problem s ar e o f suc h consequenc e tha t the yrende r th e Staf f Pape r unacceptabl e a s a basi s fo r standar d setting
.
Acarefu l examinatio n o f th e Staf f Paper , wit hit s us e o f overl yconservativ e assumption s apar t from appropriat e consideratio n fo r th e qualit yo f th e availabl e scientifi c data , leave s th e impressio n tha t EP AStaf f wa s predispose d t o justif y a s lo wa standar d a s possible
. I n th e opinio n o f DO E staff , th, e scientifi c evidenc e doe s no t adequatel ysuppor t th e EP A staf f recommendatio n tha t th e Administrato r choos e a primar y standar d fro mth e lo wen d o f th e rang e provide d b yhi s staff
. No t onl ydoe s th e availabl e scienc e no t suppor t suc ha choice , bu t eve n consideration s o f uncertaintie s and th e statutor y requiremen t t o provid e an adequat e margi n o f safet yfai l t o justif ya standar d fromth e extrem e lowe r boun d o f th e range .

I n th e tw o document s (the Staf f Pape r an d th e RIA) , th e problem s ar e o f severa l classes :P.5 9

- 2 -

(1 ) methodologica l error s i n th e interpretatio n and/o r us e o f scientifi c studie s o n th e healt heffect s o f particulat e exposures ;
(2 ) presentationa l error s whic hindicat e bia s an d poo r organizatio n o f th e subjec t matter ; an d
(3 ) extrem e extrapolatio n and unjustifie d us e o f scientifi c dat a i n th e calculatio n o f cost s an d benefits
.
METHODOLOGICA L PROBLEM S

o Existenc e o f Threshol d Effect s - Th e Staf f Pape r states , "Th e dat a d o not , however , sho wevidenc e o f clea r populatio n threshold s bu t sugges t a continuumo f respons e wit hbot hth e ris k o f effect s occurrin g and th e magnitud e o f an ypotentia l effec t decreasin g wit hconcentration. " (Staf f Paper , p.xiii ) Thi s assertio n i s no t justifie d b y th e evidenc e presented
. Severa l o f th e epidemiologica l studie s hav e bee n misinterprete d o r incorrectl yapplie d (Se e th e discussio n belo wo f th e Lawther , e t al , result s fo r documentation)
. Additionally , th e Staf f Pape r i s confusin g and contradictor yo n th e questio n o f th e existenc e o f threshol d effec t levels
. Fo r example , th e existenc e o f threshold s (a t leas t fo r effect s o f consequence ) i s indicate d b y Table s 1 and 2 (Staf f Paper , pp . xi vand xvi)
. Tabl e 2 , which , present s th e dat a o n healt heffect s fro mchroni c exposure , indicate s tha t a t concentration s belo w5 5 ug/m 3 ther e ar e "no significan t effect s noted. " Th e lac k o fP.6 0

- ' 3 -
observe d effect s belo wsom e chroni c leve l o f exposur e strongl ysuggest s th e presenc e o f a threshold
. Tabl e 1 (whic hindicate s acut e exposur e risks ) fail s t o sho wa "n o significan t effect s noted " leve l o f risk
. Tha t chroni c exposur e coul d exhibi t a threshold , bu t acut e exposur e woul d not,•violate s ou r understandin g o f biologica l processes .
I f th e chroni c exposur e dat a sugges t a threshol d belo w whic hn o significan t effect s ar e noted , the n th e onl yothe r sourc e o f informatio n indicatin g a threshol d woul d com e fro mqualitativ e scientifi c data
. Ye t th e qualitativ e scientifi c evidence , accordin g t o th e Staf f Paper , suggest s th e existenc e o f a threshold
. "Neithe r th e studie s summarize d abov e (thos e studie s i n Tabl e 2 ) no r mor e qualitativ e studie s o f effect s i n othe r sensitiv e populatio n group s (e.g , asthmatics , children) , o r effect s i n controlle d huma n o r anima l studie s provid e scientifi c suppor t fo r healt hrisk s o f consequenc e belo w15 0 ug/m3. " (Staf f Paper , p . xv , referrin g t o Thoraci c particles )

DO E staf f believ e tha t th e availabl e evidenc e doe s sugges t th e rea l possibilit yo f a threshol d and th e remainin g relevan t questio n i s a t wha t level
. Conversio n Procedure s - Table s 1 and 2 trea t th e conversion s betwee n Britis hSmok e (BS) , Thoraci c Particle s (TP) , and Tota l Suspende d particulate s (TSP ) exposur e measurement s differently
. I n Tabl e 1 , B S i s assume d t o b e equa l t o T P i n th e cas e o f th e "effect s possible " leve l o f uncertainty
. Thi s is , therefore , th e lowe r boun d estimat e o f healt heffects
. Th e uppe r bound rang e use d i n th eP.6 1

- 4 -
conversion s i s define d a s TS P = T P = 3 S + 10 0 g/m3
. I n Tabl e 2 , a TSP/T P rati o o f betwee n 0. 5 an d 0. 6 i s used , base d o n estimate s -o f U . S
. atmospheri c composition

- i n th e •year s 1980-81
. (The RI Aals o use s tha t range , bu t doe s tak e not e o f a n update d estimat e o f 0.4 3 fo r th e ratio. ) Ther e ar e tw o importan t problem s wit hthes e conversio n procedures :
(1 ) Fo r reason s o f consistency , bot htable s shoul d us e th e sam e conversio n procedures ; and
(2 ) th e assumptio n o f B S = T P i s inappropriat e and unnecessary . Whil e th e precisel ycorrec t conversio n formul a mayb e impossibl e t o know , b yth e sam e toke n th e actua l conversio n procedur e use d i s known t o b e scientificall yincorrect
. B S is , i n fact , compose d o f a subse t o f th e atmospheri c particle s les s tha n 4. 5 microns
. T P include s al l particle s les s tha n 1 0 microns
. . Hence , B S i s les s tha n T P i n atmospheri c concentrations
. Whateve r th e appropriat e conversio n assumption , i t i s methodologicall yunsoun d t o choos e on e tha t i s demonstratabl yincorrect
.
U . S
. ai r quality , dat a shoul d b e us-e d t o generat e th e B S and T P ratio s fo r curren t dat a determinations ; us e o f prio r year' s data , whic hi s expecte d t o hav e significantl y differin g siz e an

d chemica l distributions , deserv e an adequat e and reviewabl e discussion
. Dat a fro m th e Uni'te

d Kingdo m

studie s o f th e 1950' s an d 1960' s certainl yrequir e suc ha process .
Th e Staf f Pape r choose s th e assumptio n (TP = BS ) becaus e i t •incorporate s som e margi n o f safety. " (Staf f Paper , p . xiv ) However , give n th e distributio n o f particl e size s- 5 -

typicall yfound i n severa l Californi a citie s and presente d i n Figure s 4- 2 an

d 4- 3 (Staf f Paper , p . 15) , i t i s a considerabl e understatemen t t o saytha t "some margi n o f safety " ha s bee n incorporated
. B S particle s are , i n som e cases , a subse t composin g les s tha n 6 0 percen t o f T P particles
. . Correctio n o f thes e problem s i s especiall yimportan t sinc e thes e table s ar e incorporate d i n th e Executiv e Summar yo f th e Staf f Pape r whic hwil l hav e a relativel ylarg e impac t o n publi c opinio n and understanding , a s i t wil l hav e greate r readershi p tha n th e basi c report . Also , i n thi s sectio n o f th e Staf f Pape r thes e table s ar e th e principa l presentationa l devic e use d t o persuad e th e reade r o f th e appropriatenes s o f th e staff' s recommende d range s fo r th e 24-hou r an

d annua l averag e PMI O standards
.

o Size-base d versu s Chemical-base d Standard s - Th e Staf f Pape r 'note s tha t ther e i s grea t variabilit yi n the'chemica l compositio n o f particle s i n variou s presen t and histori c ambien t concentration s and tha t no t al l particle s ar e equall yharmfu l t o huma n health
. However , i t concludes , "Identificatio n and contro l o f eac ho f th e manyambien t aeroso l component s (whic har e believe d t o b e harmful ) woul d b e difficul t t o accomplish , time-consuming , and woul d plac e excessiv e monitoring , compliance , and othe r requirement s o n affecte d agencie s an d industrie s wit hn o clea r potentia l fo r improvin g publi c healt hprotectio n ove r genera l particulat e regulation. " (Staf f Paper , p . 67 )
Th e formo f th e standar d (size-base d o r chemical-based ) i s a fundamenta l questio n wit hrespec t t o effectiv e policymaking
. I t shoul d no t b e dismisse d withou t empirica lP.6 3

- 6 -

suppor t (a s was . don e i n th e Staf f Paper)
. I t i s amenabl e t o quantification , an d an adequat e Staf f Pape r an d RI A woul d provid e supportin g estimate s fo r th e assertio n tha t th e cost s o f chemically-base d standard s excee d th e benefit s o f regulatin g specificall ythos e pollutant s whic hcaus e healt hand welfar e damage
. Th e potentia l cos t o f size-base d standard s i s considerable , a s nonharmfu l particle s wil l b e needlessl ycontrolled
. Th e RI Adoe s no t eve n rais e th e issue , and th e Staf f Pape r relegate s i t t o a n assertio n withou t an ysupportin g evidence
.

r f a n adequat e margi n o f safet yca n b e obtaine d wit ha chemical-base d standar d and a t les s cost , the n i t shoul d b e chose n sinc e i t meet s regulator yobjective s a t les s cos t t o society
. I n eithe r case , som e empirica l suppor t fo r EP A staff' s positio n i s necessary , give n th e importanc e o f thi s issu e o f acceptabl e standard-settin g practice
. Generalizatio n fromAtypica l Particl e Dat a - Th e rang e o f •possibl e effects, " a s indicate d b yth e epidemiologica l studies , i s use d a s th e basi s fo r determinin g th e rang e (fror a whic hth e Administrato r wil l choos e th e actua l standard ) fo r th e long-ter mprimar ystandard
. I t i s obtaine d b

yusin g 1961-197 3 dat a fromBerlin , Ne w Hampshire , wher e th e majo r loca l sourc e o f particulat e emission s wa s a pul p mill
. Thi s studyprovide s th e onl y quantitativ e result s justifyin g th e rang e o f th e annua l

_. averag e standard , and ye t i t come s fromessentiall ya single-industr yare a (froma n emissio n perspective)
. Thes e pul p mil l emission s hav e a particula r chemica l composition , no t typica l o f nationa l emission s profiles , and woul d i n fac t b e highl yatypical
.- 7.

-

I t i s neithe r scientificall yjustifie d no r goo d publi c polic yt o regulat e al l industrie s o n th e basi s o f a rang e derive d (wit hsuspec t conversio n procedures ) from on e study o f particulat e emission s frompape r and pul p manufacturing
. Significan t Weaknesse s in.Epidemiologica l Studie s - Th e Staf f pape r and th e RI Atak e not e o f th e difficultie s inheren t i n establishin g a relationshi p betwee n particulat e emission s an

d mortalit yan

d morbidity , usin g ~~ ~ epidemiologica l studies
. However , th e Staf f Pape r doe s no t adequatel yaddres s th e considerabl e weaknesse s i n th e quantititiv e record
. Som e o f thos e difficultie s include :
(1 ) th e omissio n o f potentiall yimportan t explanator y factor s fromth e analysis ;
(2 ) interdependencie s amon g include d explanator yfactor s and betwee n include d and exclude d factors ; an d
(3 ) difference s i n th e concept s and technique s use d t o measur e ambien t concentration s o f ai r pollutant s i n differen t geographi c area s and a t differen t times
.
I n spit e o f thes e substantia l limitations. , th e Staf f Pape r conclude s tha t th e actua l standard s chose n shoul d com e from th e range s whic hwer e develope d fromthes e ver yfe w studies
. DO E staf f believe s tha t th e quit e limite d geographi c and chemica l compositio n profile s o f thes e studie s (a s note d above) , an d thes e othe r weaknesses , hav e th e effec t o f callin g int o questio n th e scientifi c validit y o f th e quantitativ e informatio n available , especiall ybelo w 25 0 ug/m 3 TP .- 8 -

I n addition , Attachmen t 4 contain s a detaile d examinatio n o f th e healt heffect s literatur e a s i t applie s t o acut e exposur e belo w25 0 ug/m 3 BS
. Tha t documen t find s n o supportiv e evidenc e o f healt heffect s belo wtha t level
. Ther e appears.t o b e a substantia l gul f betwee n substantiate d effect s level s and th e lower-en d o f th e standar d rang e propose d b yEP Astaff
. Thi s differenc e implie s a ver yconsiderabl e margi n o f safet ywhic hapear s t o b e a muc hgreate r facto r tha n ha s bee n use d i n othe r earlie r and contemporar ystandar d setting
.

o Unsupportabl e Extrapolatio n o f Author' s Result s - On e o f th e author s o f th e centra l wor k use d t o suppor t th e EPA rang e disagree s wit hth e us e t o whic hhi s wor k ha s bee n put . Tha t i s th e wor k o n th e Londo n dat a o f th e 1950' s and 1960' s b

yLawther , e t al
. Th e autho r ha s informe d th e EPA , i n th e stronges t possibl e term s o n manyoccasions , tha t th e EP Astaf f interpretatio n o f hi s wor k wa s inappropriat e and scientificall yillegitimate
. Copie s o f thos e letter s ar e enclose d a s Attachmen t 4-A
. Th e dept ho f th e author' s disagreemen t wit hth e EPA' s us e o f hi s wor k i s demonstrate d b yhi s ow

n words
. " I mus t sayye t again , wit hal l th e forc e a t m

ycommand , tha t i t i s a complet e and absur d misus e o f ou r Tabl e II I t o clai mtha t i t present s evidenc e
o f advers e effect s o f 24-hou r level s belo w25 0 ug/m 3 BS. " (Lette r fromP . J . Lawthe r t o J . Bachman , 2 6 Februar y 1982 ; se e Attachmen t 4-A. )

o ' Hidde n and Compounde d Margin s o f Safet y- A t manypoint s i n th e analysis , th e Staf f Pape r take s ver yextreme, , conservativ e assumption s i n buildin g a cas e fo r th eP.6 6

- 9

- -

propose d standar d ranges , an d fo r thei r recommendatio n tha t th e Administrator' s choic e fo r a standar d b e selecte d from th e lowe r en

d o f tha t range : e.g. , b ychoosin g extrem e conversio n procedure s fo r TSP , BS , and T P equivalency ; b y extrapolatin g result s fro mhealth'effect s studie s t o level s lowe r tha n i s justifie d b yth e dat a o r lowe r tha n acceptabl e b

yth e origina l authors , a s i n th e Lawther , e t al , studies ; and b yrequirin g unassailabl e evidenc e befor e acceptin g existenc e o f threshol d effect s fo r th e analysis
.
Whil e previou s judicia l decision s hav e permitte d th e Administrato r t o choos e t o buil d an adequat e margi n o f safet ytha t incorporate s som e consideratio n o f thes e factors , DO E staf f believ e tha t th e wholesal e implementatio n o f suc hpractice s i s ill-advise d i n th e cas e presente d fo r th e revisio n o f th e particulat e standard
. Th e majo r reaso n i s th e leve l o f scientifi c ignoranc e abou t th e healt himplication s o f a generalize d particulat e standar d belo w25 0 ug/m 3 BS
. Whe n s o manyconservativ e assumption s ar e integrate d int o th e analysis , and ar e neithe r quantitativel ystate d no r discussed , i t make s i t impossibl e fo r th e Administrato r t o kno wwha t margi n o f safet ywa s implicitl yincorporate d i n th e option s provide d fo r hi s decision
. Additionally , whil e th e exac t margi n i s o f cours e unknowable , effort s t o dea l wit huncertaint y throug hth e method s found (or allude d to ) i n th e staf f documen t mas k fromth e publi c th e genera l leve l o f th e margi n o f safet yembodie d i n th e Administrator' s decision
. W e believ e tha t a documente d estimat e o f th e probabl e range s o f th e margi n o f safety , and associate d comment s b y reviewers , shoul d b e par t o f th e recor d provide d th e Administrato r fo r thi s se t o f decisions
.P.6 7

- 1 0 -

PRESENTATIONA L PR03LEM S -

o Misleadin g Table s - Tabl e 1 o f the Staf f Pape r provide s tw o qualitativ e categorie s o f ris k levels.associate d wit h• short-ter m(24-hour ) particulat e exposure . Th e firs t ris k leve l i s calle d "effect s likely, " and i s define d a s th e •concentratio n range s derive d fromth e criteri a documen t a t o r abov e whic hther e appear s greates t certaint ytha t effect s woul d occur" . Th e second leve l i s identifie d a s •effect s possible. " Thes e judgmenta l label s ar e especiall y inappropriat e becaus e o f thei r imprecision , a s wel l a s thei r potentiall ymisleadin g and biase d connotations
. •Effect s likely " means , i n commo n usage , tha t ther e i s a hig hprobabilit yo f ther e bein g som e damage
. I n general , thi s woul d a t leas t impl ya probabilit yo f happenin g tha t woul d excee d 0.5
. "Greates t certainty, " however , ha s n o suc himplication
. I t i s simpl yth e outcom e wit hth e greates t probabilit yo f occurrence , an d ma yhav e an

y probabilit yassociate d wit hit , includin g on e muc hles s tha n 0.5
.
I n usin g th e labe l "effect s likely, " th e Staf f Pape r implie s tha t i t i s probabl e tha t an effec t wil l b e observe d a t th e concentratio n level s noted
. A s indicate d above , DOE' s assessmen t o f th e healt heffect s literatur e i s tha t th e contrar youtcom e i s mos t probable , namel ytha t i t i s highl yunlikel ytha t an effec t wil l b e observed
. I n eithe r event , EPAshoul d b e cleare r i n it s meanin g i n Table s 1 and 2
. Whil e i t i s impossibl e t o associat e precis e probabilitie s wit hth e concentratio n ranges , i t i s nevertheles s inappropriat e t o us e suc hpoorl ydefine d an d value-oriente d expression s fo r summarizin g th e relativ e risks..
.P.6 8

- 1 1 -

PROBLEM S WIT H COST S AND BENEFIT S

o Weaknesse s in Electricity-Generatin g Contro l Cos t Estimate s - Attachmen t 4 contain s a n analysi s o f th e methodolog yuse d i n th e RI Afo r estimatin g contro l cost s fo r electri c generatio n plants
. Severa l weaknesse s and a t leas t on e majo r fla war e noted , namel yth e failur e t o conside r othe r plan t an d fue l characteristic s upo n whic h contro l cost s ar e dependent
. Particulat e contro l cost s ar e sensitiv e t o resistivit yand sulfu r conten t o f fuel
. Th e mode l use d i n th e RI Aappear s t o onl yus e on e typ e o f coal , namel yEaster n coa l wit ha sulfu r conten t o f 3. 5 percent . Th e effec t o f thi s assumptio n i s tha t th e cos t o f meetin g th e PMI O standar d i s significantl yoverstate d fo r plant s burnin g lo wsulfu r coal
.
I n additio n t o incorrectl yestimatin g th e cost , improbabl e choic e o f contro l devic e i s selecte d b yth e mode l fo r low-sulfu r coa l burnin g powe r plants
. Th e model , becaus e . o f variou s assumptions , alway s select s electrostati c precipitator s i n preferenc e t o baghouses
. Th e analysi s i n Attachmen t 4 indicate s tha t i n som e case s baghouse s wil l b e selected
. Arecen t descriptio n o f highlight s i n ne w powerplan t pollutio n contro l indicate s tha t ba g filter s ar e use d i n abou t hal f o f th e recen t powerplan t contro l devic e installations
. (Se e Attachmen t 4. ) Thei r us e i s correlate d wit hlo wsulfu r coa l use . * o Weaknesse s i n Soilin g Cos t Estimate s - Th e Staf f Pape r conclude s that , "Becaus e fin e particle s ar e a significan t contributor , soilin g effect s als o shoul d b e considere d i n- 1 2 -

determinin g whethe r a fin e particl e secondar ystandar d i s needed
. Give n th e uncertaintie s in th e data , recommendation s on . range s o f interes t ar e no t appropriate. " (Staf f Paper , p . 141. ) DO E staf f believ e tha t th e studie s cite d b yth e Staf f Pape r contai n severa l fundamental.weaknesse s and therefor e d o no t suppor t th e conclusio n tha t soilin g cost s ar e substantial
. Therefore , suc hpotentia l damage s ar e insufficientl ydocumente d t o b e considere d i n th e establishmen t o f a secondar ystandard
. Th e weaknesse s can b e summarize d a s follows' :
(1 ) Ther e i s a failur e i n severa l o f th e paper s t o contro l fo r factor s tha t ca n covar ywit hparticulat e emissions
. F6 r example , th e studyb yMathetech , Inc. , doe s a multivariat e statistica l analysi s o f th e relationshi p betwee n productio n cost s i n th e manufacturin g secto r and ambien t level s o f particulat e matte r and SO. , wag e rates , capita l costs , taxbills , cost s o f inpu t materials , and ambien t temperature s and precipitation
. - O f th e si x industria l sector s considered , a statisticall ysignifican t relationshi p wa s found i n onl ytwo . Mor e significantly , th e studyfail s t o contro l fo r th e exten t o f unionizatio n and th e ag e o f th e plants , bot ho f whic haffec t productio n cost . I n th e mor e pollute d Easter n par t o f th e Unite d States , th e plant s are , o n average , olde r and th e exten t o f unionizatio n i s greater . Accordingly , th e productio n cost s ar e greater . Thes e importan t variable s therefor e covar y wit hpollution
.

Mos t o f th e studie s fai l t o accoun t fo r importan t covaryin g variables
. On e exceptio n i s th e Wasto n and Jaksc hstudy , whic hdi d incorporat e suc hconsideration s int o an estimatio n o f cleanin g and maintenanc e cost . Accoun t wa sP.7 0

- 1 3 -
take n o f sociecbnomi c an d attitudina l difference s amon g resident s o f differen t pollutio n areas . Thei r result s indicat e tha t suc hcost s ar e statisticall yinsignificant
. (2 ) Th e analysi s i n th e Criteri a Documen t an d th e RI Afai l t o accoun t fo r threshold s o f perceptio n fo r soiling
. Whe n th e Criteri a Documen t discusse s th e wor k o f Watso n and jaksch , i t extrapolate s th e benefit s o f reducin g soilin g t o zer o (whic hi s wel l belo wbackgroun d levels , an d i s therefor e no t achievable) , i n fact , sinc e particulat e concentration s nationall yaverag e roughl y5 0 ug/m3 , and backgroun d nationa l average s ar e 4 0 ug/m3 , ther e i s littl e benefi t fromfurthe r reduction s i n th e level s fo r mos t area s o f th e country . (3 ) Th e Staf f Pape r and th e RI Aconside r a n importan t elemen t o f cos t t o b e indoo r cleanin g and maintenanc e cost s resultin g fro moutdoo r pollution
. But , increasingl yth e us e o f ai r conditioning , and change s i n hous e constructio n fo r heatin g efficienc yhav e th e effec t o f decouplin g th e indoo r ambien t concentration s fro m th e externa l ai r environment
. Thi s typ e o f potentia l cos t associate d wit h indoo r effect s i s no t a s importan t a s i t wa s 2 0 year s ago .
Thus , DO E staf f doe s no t believ e tha t th e availabl e quantitativ e studie s o n th e cos t impose d b ysoilin g ar e o f sufficien t scientifi c meri t t o us e a s a basi s fo r settin g a secondar ystandard
. Th e Staf f Paper' s conclusio n tha t a n effect s rang e canno t b e quantitativel yascertaine d i s an implici t admissio n o f th e meri t o f thi s position
. I n effect , th e Staf f Pape r conclude s tha t EP AP.7 1

- 1 4 -
staf f believ e a damag e occur s wit hsoilin g an d tha t th e damag e i s considerable , bu t canno t deriv e a quantitativ e relationshi p (betwee n ambien t concentration s and damage) , o r estimat e th e empirica l magnitude
. Th e mer e belie f tha t th e damag e i s large , withou t bein g abl e t o relat e siz e o f damag e t o an

ymeasur e o f concentration , i s hardl yth e basi s fo r settin g a quantitativ e standard
. Indequat e Scientifi c Basi s fo r Benefit s Estimate s - Th e considerabl e weaknesse s ir i th e healt heffect s literatur e hav e bee n documente d i n Attachmen t 4 and note d above
. Th e RI Ause s thi s wea k bas e t o estimat e th e benefit s o f reducin g particulat e emissions
. Th e DO E staf f believe s tha t th e RI Aoverstate s benefits , a s a resul t o f th e deficien t us e o f th e healt heffect s literature , a s discusse d earlier
. Underestimate s o f Nationwid e Contro l Cost s - Th e estimate s i n Tabl e 2 o f EPA' s RI Aindicat e th e tota l nationwid e particulat e matte r contro l cost s require d t o achiev e ful l complianc e wit hvariou s alternativ e NAAQ S levels
. DO E staf f believ e tha t thos e estimate s understat e th e actua l nationwid e cost s o f achievin g complianc e wit h thos e standard s b

ya substantia l amount . Th e RIA' s underestimatio n o f tota l nationwid e contro l cost s originate s from

fou r majo r sources :
(1 ) usin g dat a base s fo r ai r quality ; and particulate ' matte r emissio n level s tha t ar e incomplet e and inaccurate ;
(2 ) assumin g tha t onl y1 percen t o f th e emission s from are a source s (sucha s pave d and unpave d municipa l roads ) affec t th e leve l o f monitore d ai r qualit yfo r anycounty ;P.7 2

- 1 5 -

(3 ) excludin g fromth e nationwid e cos t estimate s al l cost s o f emissio n control s tha t ar e applie d t o poin t source s fo r th e purpos e o f meetin g Ne wSourc e Performanc e Standards ; an d
(4 ) assumin g tha t incrementa l cost s o f reachin g ful l compliance , i n geographi c area s wher e residua l nonattainmen t i s projected , woul d b e directl yproportiona l t o th e averag e cos t o f al l control s applie d i n achievin g th e attainabl e level s o f ai r quality
.
T o asses s th e quantitativ e importanc e o f thes e source s o f cos t estimation , independen t estimate s o f th e tota l nationwid e cost s o f particulat e matte r contro l hav e bee n derive d o n th e basi s o f historica l expenditure s o n particulat e matte r contro l equipmen t and associate d improvement s i n nationa l averag e ambien t level s o f particulat e matter . (Se e Attachmen t 4. ) Thes e independen t estimate s indicat e tha t th e estimate s o f tota l nationwid e contro l cost s reporte d i n th e RI Aar e understate d b ya t leas t a facto r o f two , and quit e probabl yb ya considerabl y highe r multiple
. Moreover , thos e independen t estimate s hav e bee n derive d o n th e basi s o f consistentl yconservativ e assumption s tha t caus e th e independen t estimate s t o represen t extrem e lowe r boun d estimate s o f actua l nationwid e cost s o f control
. Mos t notably , i t ha s bee n conservativel yassume d tha t al l improvement s i n nationa l averag e ambien t level s betwee n 197 5 and 198 3 ar e attributabl e t o th e installatio n o f additiona l contro l equipment , an

d no t t o othe r effects , includin g th e genera l downtur n i n industria l activit ydurin g th e perio d from197 9 throug h1982 , and th e subsequen t relativel yslo wrecover y o f th e heavil ypollutin g basi c manufacturin g sector .