Case 1:11-cv-01548-ABJ Document 83-2 Filed 05/07/14 Page 1 of 13 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 

NATIONAL PARKS CONSERVATION 

ASSOCIATION, MONTANA ENVIRONMENTAL 

INFORMATION CENTER, GRAND CANYON 

TRUST, SAN JUAN CITIZENS ALLIANCE, 

OUR CHILDREN'S EARTH FOUNDATION, 

PLAINS JUSTICE, POWDER RIVER BASIN 

RESOURCE COUNCIL, SIERRA CLUB, 

AND ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENSE FUND 

Plaintiffs, 

v. 

GINA MCCARTHY, in her official capacity as 

Administrator, United States Environmental 

Protection Agency, 

Defendant. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

CIVIL ACTION NO. 

1: 11-cv-0 1548 (ABJ) 

I, Samuel J. Coleman, under penalty of perjury, affirm and declare that the following statements 

are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information, and belief. These statements are 

based on my own personal knowledge or on information contained in records of the United 

States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), or supplied to me by EPA employees. 

1. I am the Deputy Regional Administrator ofEPA Region 6. I have held this position 

since 2012. I work directly for the Regional Administrator to assure the effective 

implementation of all EPA programs managed in the Region, including air and air 

permitting. I lead a team of career executives in developing strategic objectives and 

implementation ofthose strategies to assure protection of human health and the 

environment in our area of jurisdiction. I advise the Regional Administrator in all policy 
Case 1:11-cv-01548-ABJ Document 83-2 Filed 05/07/14 Page 2 of 13 

areas, and work with the managers and staff in the furtherance and implementation of 

policy decisions made by the Regional Administrator. 

I. EPA Region 6 Organization and Responsibilities 

2. EPA's Region 6 partners with and is responsible for the execution of EPA programs in 

the States of Arkansas, Louisiana, New Mexico, Oklahoma, and Texas and for 66 tribal 

nations. 

3. EPA Region 6 is organized into eight Divisions: the Compliance Assurance and 

Enforcement Division, the Water Quality Protection Division, the Superfund Division, 

the Management Division, the Office of Regional Counsel, the Office of External 

Affairs, the Office of Environmental Justice and Tribal Affairs, and the Multimedia 

Planning and Permitting Division. 

4. The Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division includes the Air Program, which is 

responsible for implementation of the federal Clean Air Act (CAA). The Air Planning 

Section is responsible for the review of certain types of state implementation plans 

(SIPs), including the Texas and Oklahoma Regional Haze SIPs. 

II. Region 6 Workload in Response to Court Deadlines since this Consent Decree 

was Entered 

5. Since the consent decree in this matter was entered by the Court on March 30, 2012, the 

EPA Region 6 Air Program has been subject to approximately 95 deadlines relating to 

various SIP submissions under settlement agreements or court orders, including ~onsent 

decree. 

2 
Case 1:11-cv-01548-ABJ Document 83-2 Filed 05/07/14 Page 3 of 13 

6. Since March 30, 2012, EPA Region 6 has published Ill proposed and 99 final Federal 

Register rulemaking notices taking action on SIP submissions. A substantial number of 

these actions were done in satisfaction of such obligations. 

7. In light of ongoing and pending lawsuits, EPA Region 6 reasonably expects to continue 

working on and publishing Federal Register rulemaking notices at a high pace in 

response to court deadlines. 

III. Evaluation of Texas and Oklahoma Regional Haze SIPs 

i. Overview of Regional Haze Program Requirements 

8. Evaluation of the Texas and Oklahoma Regional Haze SIP submissions involves the 

evaluation of complex technical and legal issues that requires coordination within EPA, 

in order to ensure a rulemaking that satisfies the Regional Haze requirements of the 

CAA. Regional Haze SIPs must ensure that reasonable progress is made toward the 

national goal of achieving natural visibility conditions at all Class I areas by 2064. Class 

I areas include certain national wilderness areas, memorial parks, and national parks. 42 

u.s.c. 7472. 

9. Section 169A ofthe Clean Air Act (CAA), 42 U.S.C. 7491 and EPA's Regional Haze 

Rule ( 40 CFR 51.308) require that states establish reasonable progress goals for the 

Class I areas within their borders, and fulfil certain reasonable-progress requirements 

toward this goaL In recognition that visibility impacting pollution crosses state borders, 

states must also establish long-term strategies for improving the visibility at Class I 

areas in other states, which are impacted by their emissions. 

10. These Regional Haze SIPs, prepared approximately every ten years, must contain 

measures that ensure reasonable progress is made towards improving visibility at Class I 

3 
Case 1:11-cv-01548-ABJ Document 83-2 Filed 05/07/14 Page 4 of 13 

areas. Therefore, EPA must evaluate the Texas and Oklahoma Regional Haze SIPs, 

including Texas and Oklahoma's reasonable progress goals and Texas' reasonableprogress determinations and long-term strategy. 

11. A key aspect ofEPA review ofboth the reasonable-progress determinations and longterm strategy, as is discussed further below, is the balancing of the cost of the pollution 

controls versus the benefits those controls provide in terms of improving visibility at 

Class I areas. 

ii. Complexities Unique to Evaluating the Texas Regional Haze SIP 

12. The Texas Regional Haze SIP submission in particular poses unique technical and 

resource challenges for EPA, such as the following complexities. 

13. Due to a requirement in the Regional Haze Rule, states with pollution sources that 

significantly impact the visibility at Class I areas located in other states are required to 

collaborate while addressing the reasonable-progress requiremen~ discussed above. In 

evaluating the separate Oklahoma Regional Haze SIP (76 Fed. Reg. 81,728), the Agency 

noted the significant impact of pollution from sources located in Texas on Oklahoma's 

Class I area, and delayed action on that aspect of the Oklahoma Regional Haze SIP until 

EPA could review and assess the Texas Regional Haze SIP. 

14. For this reason, the Agency must evaluate this remaining portion of the Oklahoma 

Regional Haze SIP simultaneously with processing the Texas Regional Haze SIP. 

15. The technical challenges to completing the Texas and Oklahoma rulemakings partly 

relate to utilizing and evaluating the appropriate modeling analyses. EPA and the States 

use computer modeling to evaluate the contributions of different sources of pollutants 

that contribute to regional haze, and to evaluate potential benefits of control methods on 

4 
Case 1:11-cv-01548-ABJ Document 83-2 Filed 05/07/14 Page 5 of 13 

sources to reduce regional haze. Modeling thus allows EPA and the States to use 

existing data to project the future effects of regulatory decisions that are required by the 

CAA to be made in the present. 

16. The modeling required here is particularly complicated because of the large number of 

sources located within Texas and the vast geography of the state. Dozens oflarge 

sources in Texas must be evaluated for their individual contributions to the visibility 

problems at a number of Class I areas. Many ofthese sources are located large distances 

from the Class I areas whose visibility they impact, requiring that specialized modeling 

analyses be utilized. 

17. EPA is undertaking the appropriate modeling. The additional modeling will enable EPA 

to develop more specific information concerning the visibility impairment caused by 

individual sources. Due to the large distances involved and the large number of sources 

being analyzed, EPA is utilizing a different model than the standard models used 

previously by EPA and States for Regional Haze SIPs. This model is complicated and 

the results it generates are not directly comparable to the modeling platform used in 

most other States' Regional Haze submittals. Appropriate review of this model therefore 

requires thorough technical and policy analysis and interpretation to ensure compliance 

with the Regional Haze Rule, without the benefit of prior precedent to streamline the 

process. As such, careful policy deliberation was required by EPA management, and 

involved intensive briefings and preparation of material by EPA Region 6 staff. 

18. The model requires specialized and extensive computing hardware and expertise in order 

to use it properly. Unlike typical computer software, this setup alone requires weeks of 

intensive effort. Once the models have been properly set up, one typical modeling run 

5 
Case 1:11-cv-01548-ABJ Document 83-2 Filed 05/07/14 Page 6 of 13 

may require up to eight high-end multi-processor computers running continuously for 

four to five weeks to complete one modeling run scenario. EPA Region 6 anticipates 

two modeling runs will have to be completed for evaluating the Texas Regional Haze 

SIP. 

19. The model generates a very large data set (modeling files take several terabytes of data 

storage) that must then go through several extensive post-processing steps to yield 

visibility impacts for each individual source identified from the model and estimated 

pollution concentrations at each Class I area. Such post-processing may take another 1-2 

weeks to generate and then perform initial Quality Assurance/Quality Control. 

20. The intensive nature of the modeling also required that EPA hire contractors at great 

cost to the Agency at a time when the Agency is operating under a minimal budget and 

with resource constraints. EPA Region 6 has only two employees who are Air Quality 

Modeling Specialists who work on all SIP-related modeling issues on a limited basis, so 

the ability to quality assure and quality control the modeling data is constrained by the 

limited number of employees with the necessary expertise. EPA Region 6 also has a 

limited number of multi-processor computers capable of doing the necessary modeling 

runs. Given the unique complexity ofthe modeling that needed to be performed in a 

short time frame with sophisticated hardware, and the importance of ensuring the 

integrity ofthe data results, contracting with specialists in conducting this modeling was 

deemed the most appropriate and efficient route. Though this work has been contracted 

out, EPA Region 6 also assists in assessing the data and providing clarification regarding 

the work as needed. 

6 
Case 1:11-cv-01548-ABJ Document 83-2 Filed 05/07/14 Page 7 of 13 

21. Each unit of each pollution source identified by the modeling must also undergo control 

cost analysis. In other words, each unit must be individually analyzed to determine (1) 

which types of pollution controls can be retrofitted to it, (2) how effective those controls 

are at removing pollutants, and (3) the cost of those controls. Because of the highly 

specialized nature of this work and the fact that one high-end control may cost hundreds 

of millions of dollars to install, EPA must proceed carefully and deliberately. 

22. EPA is reviewing its evaluation of the cost and efficiency of pollution controls at various 

sources against information that is proprietary in nature in order to ensure a legally and 

technically defensible record. Review of this proprietary information requires careful 

compliance with Confidential Business Information (CBI) regulations and practices, and 

such information is obtained via EPA's authority under Section 114 of the CAA. Such 

review and exercise of Section 114 authority has resulted in extra time and effort from 

the same staff working on development ofthe Texas Regional Haze action. 

23. Given the voluminous amount and complex nature of the information needed to be 

processed for analyzing control costs, EPA has also hired contractors to assist with the 

work burden. These contracts must be carefully managed, and have already posed 

significant challenges requiring attention from the same legal and technical staff 

working on the Texas and Oklahoma Regional Haze actions. For instance, one ofEPA's 

contractors must have access to CBI that includes proprietary information concerning 

the design and running of various parts of a number of coal-fired power plants. This 

information was submitted to EPA by a company that has claimed it as CBI under 40 

CFR 2.301(h), and EPA must ensure that it is transferred to its contractor properly, and 

subsequently handled properly. EPA's contractual relationship with its principal 

7 
Case 1:11-cv-01548-ABJ Document 83-2 Filed 05/07/14 Page 8 of 13 

contractor, and that contractor's subcontractor, had to be carefully reviewed and 

modified in order to ensure such transferral and handling of CBI in compliance with 

appropriate regulations and practices. Resolution of such contractual issues is ongoing, 

and EPA is still working on transferring the information to the contractor. These issues 

require a great deal of coordination, the responsibility for which involve the same staff 

working on the Regional Haze SIP actions. 

iii. Progress Made Towards Evaluating the Texas and Oklahoma 

Regional Haze SIPs 

24. Despite these challenges and complexities, EPA has made significant progress in its 

evaluation ofthe Texas and Oklahoma Regional Haze SIPs since the consent decree 

regarding EPA's action on these SIPs was entered by this Court on March 30, 2012. 

The areas of significant progress are as follows. 

25. EPA has conducted ari initial review ofthe Regional Haze SIPs submitted by Texas and 

Oklahoma. The information in the following paragraphs outline the steps EPA is taking 

in its evaluation of the SIPs in relationship to the requirements under the Clean Air Act 

and its corresponding regulations. 

26. Preliminary visibility modeling has been performed that has enabled the Agency to 

quantify the degree of visibility impairment caused by the highest impacting sources in 

Texas. Also, some ofthese sources of visibility causing pollution have been 

preliminarily evaluated for potential pollution controls. 

27. An information-collection effort regarding the cost and efficiency of pollution controls 

has been undertaken, and a substantial amount of the necessary information has already 

been gathered. 

8 
Case 1:11-cv-01548-ABJ Document 83-2 Filed 05/07/14 Page 9 of 13 

28. EPA is working closely with its contractor in the remaining control-cost evaluation and 

expects to finish in the next couple of months, as further described in Section IV of this 

Declaration. Furthermore, as previously discussed, there are remaining contracting 

issues that have arisen since the consent decree was entered by the Court on March 30, 

2012, and EPA Region 6 is in the process of resolving those issues. 

29. EPA is close to being finished with the configuration ofthe next round ofvisibility 

modeling, which will include two modeling scenarios to evaluate potential visibility 

benefits from controls. Upon authorizing the contractor to run those models, it will take 

another two months to complete the technical work and provide information for review 

before finalizing in a report. 

IV. Timetable for Action on Texas and Oklahoma Regional Haze SIPs 

30. Taking careful consideration ofthe unique and complex technical and legal factors 

regarding the Texas and Oklahoma Regional Haze SIPs as described in this Declaration, 

EPA has p~ojected the necessary time for completion and requests the Court to grant a 

schedule to propose action on the Texas and Oklahoma Regional Haze SIPs by 

November 26, 2014, and to take final action by September 4, 2015. 

31. This schedule reflects the work needed to meet the rulemaking requirements set forth in 

the Administrative Procedure Act, and to fulfill the legal and technical requirements of 

the CAA. EPA has projected a schedule addressing the interim steps EPA intends to 

take between now and the requested dates for proposal and final action on the Oklahoma 

and Texas Regional Haze SIPs. These steps are intended to achieve satisfaction of the 

pertinent statutory and regulatory requirements by the described projected dates and 

time frames, and are outlined as follows. 

9 
Case 1:11-cv-01548-ABJ Document 83-2 Filed 05/07/14 Page 10 of 13 

32. April- August 2014: EPA's/Contractor's preliminary assessment of the set of feasible 

pollution controls at a number of facilities, including preliminary assessments ofthe 

control costs. A critical aspect ofEPA's analyses involves consideration ofthe (1) the 

improvement in visibility that is projected to occur at a number of Class I areas (e.g., 

national parks) due to the installation of a range of potential air pollution controls (low 

to high control efficiencies) and (2) the cost of installing those controls at the sources of 

pollution. This task involves the latter portion of this assessment. Because the cost of a 

typical high-end control at a coal-fired power plant can run in the hundreds of millions 

of dollars, EPA's work is non-trivial, requires thoughtful and careful analyses, and in 

this case requires the services oftwo contractors with expertise in this area. 

33. April- August 2014: Contractor modeling for visibility benefits: This task involves the 

former portion of the· assessment discussed in the previous item. Due to the sheer 

number of potential sources of pollution under consideration and their large distances 

from the Class I areas, a complex modeling approach as discussed in Section II of this 

Declaration is required to properly analyze the individual contribution each of these 

sources has on visibility at a number of Class I areas. 

34. July- August 2014: Assess results from supplemental modeling runs received from the 

contractor to inform benefits of potential controls. Although EPA has contracted to have 

the visibility modeling discussed above performed, EPA's contractor is not tasked with 

analyzing the results of that modeling. Therefore, EPA must still spend considerable 

time in analyzing the results of that modeling, which can extend to the review of 

terabytes of data. 

10 
Case 1:11-cv-01548-ABJ Document 83-2 Filed 05/07/14 Page 11 of 13 

35. September 2014: Complete all technical analyses and brief management. Following the 

cost analyses and visibility modeling discussed previously, EPA must review the 

potential visibility benefits of a range of potential air pollution controls for each source 

of air pollution under consideration. For each ofthese sources, EPA must judge whether 

the high, low, or no level of control (with commensurate levels of cost) is warranted and 

must prepare its management for proposing an action in the Federal Register reflective 

of such judgment. 

36. October 2014: Incorporate all input from EPA Region 6 and Headquarters offices. Due 

to the complex nature ofEPA's review ofthe Texas Regional Haze SIP, including issues 

of national significance, a wide and involved range of input must be sought. This 

includes both legal and technical input from EPA Region 6' s Office of Regional 

. Counsel (ORC), and from outside ofEPA Region 6, including EPA's Office of General 

Counsel (OGC), EPA's Office of Air Quality Standards and. Planning (OAQPS), and 

EPA's Office of Air and Radiation (OAR). 

37. April- November 2014: Draft proposal and accompanying Technical Support 

Document. The culmination of the technical review described previously is documented 

in a Technical Support Document. Then, regional staff, with input from Headquarters as 

appropriate, drafts a Federal Register notice (FRN) setting forth EPA's proposed action 

and the legal and technical rationale for that action. Once the proposal is drafted to the 

satisfaction of regional and headquarters staff, it is then put into concurrence for 

management review. Technical and legal front-line supervisors, branch chiefs, and 

division director's review and comment on the proposal prior to it going to the Regional 

Administrator for review and signature. 

11 
Case 1:11-cv-01548-ABJ Document 83-2 Filed 05/07/14 Page 12 of 13 

38. November 2014: Regional Administrator signs by November 26, 2014 a notice of 

proposed rulemaking. In the event EPA proposes disapproval of either the Texas or 

Oklahoma Regional Haze SIPs, EPA must sign, by November 26, 2014, a notice 

proposing promulgation of a FIP per the terms ofthis consent decree. 

39. December 2014: Once the proposal is signed by November 26, 2014, the proposal is sent 

to and published in the Federal Register. Publication in the Federal Register typically 

takes between one to two weeks. 

40. December 2014- March 2015: Public comment period. Upon publication of the 

proposal in the Federal Register, a specified comment period will run during which the 

public will be given an opportunity to comment on the proposal. Given the complexity 

of the rulemaking and public interest in the Texas and Oklahoma Regional Haze SIPs, 

EPA expects to specify at minimum a 60-day comment period. 

41. In the event EPA proposes a FIP, the CAA requires EPA to provide an opportunity for a 

public hearing. EPA will provide adequate notice of any public hearings that are 

scheduled, and is required by the CAA to keep the record from such hearings open 30 

days for comment following the proceedings. These time frames have been 

contemplated and accounted for with the extension EPA requests from the Court. 

42. April- June 2015: Review all comments, and decide based on relevant comments 

whether or how to amend the proposed rule. Briefings and discussions must occur with 

EPA decision makers in the event information is received that compels EPA to consider 

amending the proposed rule. EPA will also draft responses to all relevant comments, 

which must be reviewed by and coordinated with EPA Region 6 ORC, OGC, OAQPS, 

and OAR as appropriate. 

12 
Case 1:11-cv-01548-ABJ Document 83-2 Filed 05/07/14 Page 13 of 13 

43. July- August 2015: Draft and sign final action notice. The final action includes EPA's 

response to comments. The final action goes through the same review and concurrence 

process as the proposal. However, in the event the final action is a FIP, such action must 

be signed by the Administrator which necessitates additional internal review and 

concurrence processes. 

44. Additionally, EPA has separately committed to providing status updates on these steps 

to the litigants so as to keep them apprised of the Agency's productive efforts in timely 

completing the actions required by this consent decree. EPA intends to also provide the 

same updates to the affected States and keep an open dialogue and pathway of 

information in anticipation of an effective rulemaking process. 

45. For the reasons stated in this Declaration, including EPA Region 6's workload and 

resource constraints, the technical complexities involved, and projected interim steps 

toward completion, EPA requires the additional time requested in order to properly 

complete the required actions on the Texas and Oklahoma Regional Haze SIPs. 

13