p. 1


# OAR Box 1837 Prepped by Keeia Richards



### Document

Number: 

# 183 ) IV-F-3 Docket Number: 

# A-84-3 3

Printed 11/14/2008 3:48:12 PM

Sheet 183 of 238P. 2 *-? H -3>3 > VT-F-1>, *. 

# ' D

'^(-.tivc u

Ce w A 

### P R 

### 1 8 198

6 SECTn/ u :CT/O/ M

PRESENTATION S B YNCA/AM C A THEARING S BEFOR E TH E UNITE D STATE S ENVIRONMENTA L PROTECTIO N AGENC Y O N TH E PROPOSA L T O LIS T SURFAC E COA L MINE S UNDE R SECTIO N 202( n O F TH E CLEA N AI R AC T

Apri l 9 , 198 6P. 3 ! .



### STATEMEN T O F PAUL D . PHILLIP S HOLLAND & HAR T A T U.S . EPAPUBLI C HEARIN G O NPROPOSAL T O LIS T SURFAC E COAL MINE S UNDE R SECTION302(j ) O F TH E CLEA NAI R AC T Denver , Colorad o Apri l 9 , 198 6 Mynam e i s Pau l Phillip s an d I a mappearing o n behal f o f th e America n Minin g Congres s (AMC ) an d th e Nationa l Coa l Asso ciatio n (NCA) . Th e mai n subject s I wil l addres s ar e (1 ) whethe r surfac e coa l mine s ar e i n fac t "significant " source s wit h potentia l t o degrad e ai r quality ; an d (2 ) whethe r th e "benefits " projecte d i n EPA' s RegulatoryImpac t Analysi s (RIA ) fromadditiona l control s an d reduce d productio n a t sur fac e coa l mine s woul d b e realized . I wil l discus s thes e tw o issue s i n revers e order , becaus e th e negligibl e healt h o r wel
far e "benefits " fromlisting surfac e coa l mine s i s perhap s th e trues t indicato r o f thei r virtua l insignificance . I wil l als o touc h o n whethe r ther e shoul d b e a separat e sourc e categoryfo r minin g activity . EPA' s RI Ao n th e listin g o f surfac e coa l mine s fo r ne w sourc e revie w(NSR ) conclude s tha t th e benefit s o f listing sur fac e coa l mine s a s Preventio n o f Significan t Deterioratio n (PSD ) source s woul d b e negativ e fo r tw o o f it s thre e regulatory alternatives ; namely , regulatin g mine s wit h grandfatherin g (Alternativ e II ) an d withou t grandfatherin g (Alternativ e III) . Fo r th e fina l regulatoryalternative—regulatin g mine s tha t impac t Clas s I o r mandator yClas s I I areas—th e result s o f EPA' s cost-benefi t analysi s ar e (a t best ) ambiguous .P. 4



### Whil e w e agre e wit h EPA' s overal l conclusio n tha t "bene
fits " o f les s tha n zer o generall yresul t from listing surfac e coa l mines , w e als o believ e tha t th e analyse s purportin g t o sho wan y"benefits " whatsoeve r fromPS D regulatio n o f surfac e coa l mine s ar e seriousl yflawe d an d considerabl yoverstated . I . SURFAC E COAL MINE S D O NO T HAVE SUBSTANTIAL HEALT H OR WEL FAR E IMPACTS . A . Ther e Ar e N o Healt h Benefit s T o B e Derive d FromPS D Regulatio n o f Surfac e Coa l Mines . Fugitiv e dus t fromsurfac e coa l minin g operation s differ s dramaticall yfromth e urba n particulat e matte r ("PM" ) t o whic h healt h and welfar e impact s ma yb e attributable . First , fugi

tiv e dus t i s overwhelmingl ycompose d o f large , coars e particle s o f natura l substance s produce d bytransport , grinding , fracturin g an

d lik e processes . Thes e particle s ar e non respirable , non-toxic , no t i n th e light-scatterin g rang e whic h reduce s visibility , d o no t remai n suspende d fo r an ysubstantia l distance , and are , a t worst , a ver ylocalize d nuisance . Th e level s establishe d t o protec t worke r healt h fro mnuisanc e dus t o f thi s natur e i s 10,00 0 ug/m3 . (Threshol d Limi t Value s an d Biologica l Exposur e Indice s fo r 1985-86 ; America n Conferenc e o f Governmenta l Industria l Hygienists , p . 68 , Appendi x D. ) Non e o f th e ambien t ai r qualit ylevel s projecte d b yth e RI Ao r numerou s othe r studie s o f surfac e coa l mine s approac h thes e levels .

-2
-P. 5



### Asecond reaso n wh yther e ar e woul d b e n o healt h benefit s fro mPS D revie wo f surfac e coa l mine s i s tha t PS D revie w applie s onl yi n area s wher e ai r qualit yi s bette r tha n th e Nationa l Ambien t Ai r Qualit yStandard s (NAAQS ) fo r particulat e matter ; and , therefore , P M level s ar e b ystatutorymandat e belo wthos e a t whic h ther e ar e an yknown o r anticipate d advers e healt h o r welfar e impact s o f an ykind . Thi s i s tru e no t onl y fo r th e coarse , non-respirabl e particle s mine s generate , bu t als o fo r th e smal l fractio n o f PMI O (an d less ) particle s gener ate d bymining . Medica l an

d exper t opinio n o n th e potentia l healt h effect s o f fugitiv e dus t a t level s a t o r belo wth e Nationa l Ambien t Ai r Qualit yStandard s is , wit h virtua l unanimity , negative . Th e conclusio n wa s perhap s bes t state d b yDr . Chatte n Cowher d o f Midwes t Researc h Institute , wh o ha s performe d man ystudie s fo r EP Aan d other s o n fugitiv e dus t emissions : "Fugitiv e dus t emissions , whethe r frommin

ing , agriculture , o r fromtraffi c o n unpave d publi c road s consis t largel yo f coars e particle s whic h settl e ou t o f th e atmospher e clos e t o th e source . Thes e par ticle s d o no t accoun t fo r an yknown advers e effect s t o healt h o r welfar e othe r tha n localize d nuisanc e problem s usuall yassoci

ate d wit h period s o f dry , windyweather. " Commen t o n Fina l an d Propose d PS D Regula
tion s b yDr . Chatte n Cowherd , Midwes t Researc h Institut e (January30 , 1978) . Th e same conclusio n ha s bee n reache d i n pas t testimon y presente d t o EP Ab ynumerou s physician s an d othe r ai r pollutio n
-3
-P. 6



### experts , includin g Drs . Swif t an d Proctor , Dr . W.K.C . Morgan , Dr . Davi d CF . Mui r an d Dr . Davi d Natusch . Ther e i s n o exper t opinio n t o th e contrary . I n summary , fugitiv e dus t fromsurfac e coa l minin g operation s i s no t significan t becaus e o f it s coars e particl e size , chemica l composition , origin , an d th e failur e t o approac h level s i n th e ambien t ai r whic h coul d b e harmfu l t o health . Ther e i s genera l consensu s o n EPA' s Clea n Ai r Scienc e Advisor y Committe e ("CASAC") , i n th e Congress , an d i n th e scientifi c communit ytha t i t i s th e fin e particle s resultin g from combustio n o r chemica l processe s that , a t sufficientl yhig h levels , pos e a potentia l threa t t o huma n health . Th e RI Aha s no t controverte d unanimou s exper t opinio n o n thi s subjec t an

d (t o it s credit ) ha s concede d th e dramati c dif

ference s i n siz e an d chemica l compositio n betwee n mining

relate d fugitiv e dus t versu s th e combustion-relate d P M analyze d i n th e Londo n healt h effect s studies . Nonetheless , constraine d byit s mandat e t o perfor ma benefi t analysis , th e RI Aha s take n th e Londo n studies , base d upo n Britis h Smok e samplin g i n an urba n atmospher e wit hhig h concentration s o f bot h P M an d S02 , and appliedthe

m t o America n rura l areas . Thi s applicationo f Londo n dat a t o th e surfac e coa l minin g contex t i s demonstrabl yinvalid , a fac t note d byindependen t pee r reviewer s o f th e RIA . A s Dr . War e o f th e Harvar d Schoo l o f Publi c Healt h states :
-4
-P. 7



### ".. . th e studie s cite d wer e designe d t o investigat e th e healt h effect s o f particu

lat e ai r pollutio n cause d b yth e burnin g o f fossi l fuels . Fugitiv e dus t i s compose d o f larg e particle s unlikel yt o b e inhale d int o th e dee p lung [and ] primaril ycompose d o f chemicall yiner t substance s unlikel yt o caus e toxi c reactions. " Extrapolatio n o f Britis h Smok e sampl e result s t o TS P concentra tion s i s scientificall yquestionable . Also , th e absenc e o f S02 , an d th e drasti c difference s i n siz e an d chemica l composi

tio n o f mining-relate d dust , mean s tha t whateve r healt h effect s occurre d i n Londo n ar e simpl yno t translatabl e t o U.S . surfac e coa l mining . Applyin g Londo n dat a t o Gillette , Wyoming , th e Sa n Jua n Basi n o f Ne wMexic o an d lik e areas ; an

d projectin g healt h bene
fit s i n area s wher e P M level s ar e fa r belo wth e ambien t stan dards , stretche s mor e tha n th e imagination . W e respectfull y sugges t tha t i n it s decision-makin g EP Arecogniz e th e overwhelmin g scientifi c consensu s tha t mining-relate d fugitiv e dus t doe s no t resul t i n advers e healt h effects . W e likewis e sugges t tha t EP Arecogniz e tha t ther e ar e n o real-worl d healt h "benefits " t o b e derive d fromsubjectin g surfac e coa l mine s t o PSD . B . Ther e I s N o Vali d Basi s Fo r Th e Soilin g "Benefits " ProjectedB

y Th e RIA . The work o f Mathtech , Watso n an d Jaksc h an

d Cummings , whic h serv e a s th e basi s fo r th e RIA' s projectio n o f househol d soilin g "benefits, " ha s bee n thoroughl ydiscredite d by
-5
-P. 8



### Dr . Jame s Lodge , Consa d Research , an d others . (See , e.g. , Lodge , J.P. , "Inadequac yo f Suppor t fo r a Separat e Secondary Particulat e Standard, " Augus t 29 , 1983. ) Thes e studie s ar e essentiall ytheoretica l economi c modelin g exercises , wit h littl e relatio n t o real-worl d impact s o r huma n behavio r an d eve n les s relevanc e fo r policy-makin g purposes . W e wil l no t repea t ou r prio r testimon yher e excep t t o not e tha t th e basi c dat a relie d upo n byMathtec h an d th e others--th e 197 0 Booz , Alle n stud

yo f Philadelphi a households—showe d tha t ther e wa s n o chang e i n cleanin g behavio r o r cleanin g cost s wit h increasin g level s o f particulat e matte r from5 0 t o 15 0 ug/m 3 TSP . Watso n an

d Jaksc h i n effec t "assume thei r conclusion " tha t ther e mus t b e benefit s wit h lowe r P M levels , eve n though th e household s Booz , Alle n studie d di d no t recogniz e suc h bene
fit s o r otherwis e respond . Tha t i s a bi t lik e tellin g you r childre n ho wmuc h the ywil l benefi t fromhavin g cleane r rooms . Quit e apar t fromth e conceptua l defect s o f thes e "soiling benefits " studies , i t i s essentia l t o recogniz e tha t th e effec t o f urba n P M i n Philadelphi a i n 197 0 i s completel ydifferen t fromth e effec t o f fugitiv e dus t i n rura l Wyoming , Ne wMexico , Illinoi s o r Appalachia . Th e coars e particle s comprisin g fugi

tiv e dus t trave l ver yshor t distances ; hav e a lowpotentia l t o cove r surfaces ; lac k th e dark , carbonaceou s colo r an d chemica l compositio n o f combustio n particles ; an d s o d o no t discolo r o r "soil " surface s a s smal l particle s do . (Se e America n Minin g
-6
-P. 9



### Congres s Presentatio n t o CASAC o n Propose d Revise d P M Nationa l Ambien t Ai r Qualit yStandards , Decembe r 16-17 , 1985. ) Indeed , CASA C ha s recentl yreache d consensu s tha t fin e particle s ar e a bette r indicato r o f soiling tha n th e coars e particle s o f whic h fugitiv e dus t i s mainl ycomposed , an d rejecte d TS P a s a usefu l indicato r o f "soiling " o r indee d anything else . I n an ycase , ther e i s simpl yn o evidenc e tha t fugitiv e dus t a t concentration s belo wth e P M NAAQ S cause s an ysoiling damage . Onl ya fe wparticle s th e siz e o f a grai n o f san d woul d violat e th e presen t Clas s I I increment . Ther e i s simpl yn o way suc h concentration s coul d conceivabl ycaus e soiling damage . W e urg e EPAt o rejec t theoretica l economi c exercise s base d o n pre-197 0 urba n P M concentrations , an d recogniz e tha t ther e wil l b e n o discernibl e househol d cleanin g benefit s frommakin g surfac e mine s subjec t t o PSD . Th e onl yconceivabl e benefi t migh t resul t fromabatemen t o f ver ylocalize d nuisances . Whil e suc h benefit s ar e theoreticall ypossible , non e hav e been , docu
mented . Further , i f the yexist , curren t stat e ai r pollutio n contro l an

d loca l nuisanc e law s ar e full ysufficien t t o addres s them . Virtuall yever y ne w surfac e min e i s alread ysubjec t t o extensiv e ne

w sourc e review , includin g contro l requirement s equivalen t t o Bes t Availabl e Contro l Technology , unde r existin g stat e ai r qualit yregulation .

-7
-P.1 0



### I n summary , soilin g "benefits " ar e alread yprojecte d t o b e ver ysmal l i n th e RIA . I n fact , the yar e virtuall ynon existen t an

d shoul d no t b e considere d i n EPA' s relativ e weighin g o f th e cost s an d benefit s o f subjectin g surfac e mine s t o PSD . II . MINE S AR E NO T "SIGNIFICANT " SOURCE S WIT H POTENTIAL T O DEGRAD E AI R QUALITY . Th e RI Aconcede s tha t mine s ar e no t a broa d rangin g nationa l problem , bu t ma yhav e loca l significanc e (p . IV-2) . I n assessin g th e significanc e o f fugitiv e dus t emissions , i t i s essentia l t o understand th e differenc e i n threshol d betwee n wha t constitute s a significan t sourc e o f fin e particl e PM , and wha t constitute s a significan t sourc e o f fugitiv e dust . Fo r P M generally , th e PS D regulation s trea t source s emittin g 10 0 o r 25 0 ton s o f P M pe r yea r a s significan t o r major . Thi s i s base d o n stationar ycombustio n o r proces s source s o f smal l particles . Bycontrast , thos e amount s o f fugitiv e dus t ar e completel y insignificant . Fo r instance , a pickup truc k travelin g continu

ousl yo n a grave l road , whic h produce s 50 0 ton s pe r yea r o f particulat e matter , i s no t a "majo r stationarysource" ; neithe r i s tillin g a far

m o f 62 0 acres , o r a quarte r mil e o f min e hau l road . Ye t al l o f thes e excee d th e 25 0 to n pe r yea r "major " threshold . Wha t i s a "significant " o r "major " fugitiv e dus t sourc e i s completel ydifferen t fromtha t fo r combustio n o r othe r fin e particl e sources .

-8
-P.1 1



### The sam e i s generall ytru e fo r ambien t measurements . On e fugitiv e dus t particl e th e siz e o f a grai n o f san d i s suffi

cien t t o excee d th e allowabl e Clas s I increment . Surely , fe w woul d contend tha t addin g on e particl e o f san d pe r cubi c mete r t o a Clas s I are a i s a significan t degradation . Thus , i t i s essentia l t o shif t one' s perspectiv e whe n considerin g fugitiv e dust , sinc e clearl yinsignifican t source s excee d th e threshold s designe d fo r stationarycombustio n an d chemica l sources . A sourc e o f hundred s o f ton s a yea r o f fugitiv e dus t ca n indee d b e insignifican t byan ycommo n sens e reckoning . Also , a s th e followin g char t shows , surfac e coa l mine s ar e insignifican t nationa l source s o f fugitiv e dus t emissions , contributin g wel l unde r on e percen t o f tota l man-mad e fugitiv e dus t emission s fromope n sources .

, g l»7 « Comnbmoaj to tota l emoBM t bufdt n i n pcm i

Constructio aJ *« T r*r«m Km 03* vtmio fI 44 * ' latitat ) lit * >urf*e * coa l 0.0X »

. dine riitif M 0.1t%) Minin g i w

w /latitat * l 2* % \ [ .urfac * coa l 0.0J * I V dine rtitifas a 0.12%I 

### Source : Evans , T.S. , & Cooper , D.W. , "A n Inventoryo f Particulat e Emission s Fro mOpe n Sources, " JAPCA , Vol . 30 , No . 12 , 1298-130 3 (1980) .

-9
-P.1 2



### A s th e char t shows , some 46 % o f fugitiv e dus t emission s fro m man-mad e source s ar e du e t o agriculture , whil e 48 % ar e du e almos t entirel yt o unpave d roads . Togethe r thes e tw o source s accoun t fo r almos t 95 % o f tota l fugitiv e dus t emissions . Con
structio n (3.7% ) cause s fa r mor e fugitiv e dus t tha n surfac e coa l mining , liste d a t .05% . Eve n fores t fire s (.3% ) contrib

ut e mor e fugitiv e dus t tha n surfac e coa l mining . Inasmuc h a s surfac e coa l minin g operation s rank dea d las t o n th e lis t o f man-mad e fugitiv e dus t emissio n sources , i t seem s inexplicabl e an d arbitrar ytha t EP Aha s chose n t o propos e themfirs t fo r potentia l listin g a s PS D sources . I f EP Adoe s conclud e tha t fugitiv e dus t from ope n source s ar e a nationa l environmenta l proble mworth yo f attention , th e mos t importan t source s o f tha t fugitiv e dus t ar e agricultur e an d unpave d roads . Thes e activitie s ar e pervasiv e an d affec t a fa r greate r numbe r o f peopl e tha n surfac e coa l minin g operations , whic h ar e typicall yi n remot e area s and d o no t affec t majo r populatio n concentrations . Th e contributio n o f fugitiv e dus t fromsurfac e coa l minin g amount s t o les s tha n 1 % o f th e 58 3 millio n ton s tota l annua l fugitiv e dus t fromope n sources . Surel y

an y environmenta l benefit s from applyin g th e PS D programt o surfac e coa l minin g operation s ar e insignifican t and inconsequentia l i n a nationa l perspective , an d ar e fa r outweighe d b yth e drasti c economi c consequence s whic h woul d resul t from

listin g them .

-10
-P.1 3



### Finally , i t i s significan t tha t surfac e coa l minin g i s a temporar yactivity . Onc e th e coa l i s mine d an d th e surfac e reclaimed , it s ai r qualit yimpact s cease . Thi s temporarychar
acte r mus t als o b e considere d i n assessin g th e relativ e insig

nificanc e o f mine s a s sources . III . TH E VISIBILIT Y "BENEFITS " PREDICTE D FROM SUBJECTIN G MINE S T O PS D REGULATIONAR E ILLUSORY . Particle s i n th e rang e of•. 1 t o 1 micro n scatte r ligh t an d obscur e visibility . Mine s produc e a n minut e amoun t o f suc h particles , les s tha n on e percent . ("Characterizatio n o f PM-1 0 an d TS P Ai r Qualit yAround Wester n Surfac e Coa l Mines, " PEDC O and TRC , 1982) . Therefore , surfac e coa l mine s hav e minima l potentia l t o adversel yaffec t visibility . Othe r speaker s fo r AMC-NC Awil l elaborat e o n th e consequence s o f thi s ke yfact , an d o n th e fundamenta l shortcoming s i n th e RIA' s visibilit y analysis , includin g it s omissio n o f Appendi x C . Thes e factor s furthe r militat e agains t an yPS D regulatio n o f surfac e coa l mines , includin g thos e locate d i n th e vicinit yo f Clas s I o r mandator yClas s I I areas . IV . MINE S SHOUL D B E ASEPARAT E SOURC E CATEGORY . Minin g operation s ar e distinc t an d indee d uniqu e source s o f particulat e matter . Th e fugitiv e dus t fromminin g operation s i s differen t i n size , weight , chemica l compositio n and effect s fro mal l othe r stationar ycombustio n an d proces s source s currentl ysubjec t t o PSD . Whil e th e SI C Code s ar e a convenien t sourc e classificatio n system , ther e i s goo d reaso n
-11
-P.1 4 / .



### t o depar t from themwhe n the ycombin e source s whic h ar e a s dis

parat e an

d distinc t a s mine s ar e fromstationarycombustio n an d proces s sources . Th e SI C Code s wer e no t devise d fo r ai r qual
it ypurposes . Where , a s i s currentl yth e case , the yresul t i n combinin g a surfac e min e wit h a stationarysource , thereb ypro hibitin g bot hwithou t an ysubstantia l healt h o r welfar e bene
fit , th e SI C Code s shoul d no t b e rigidl yadhere d to . Indeed , w e believ e thi s woul d violat e bot h th e lette r an d spiri t o f th e D.C . Circuit' s decisio n i n Alabama Powe r Co . v . Costle , 63 6 F.2 d 323 , 36 9 (1979) , wher e th e Cour t rule d tha t EP Acanno t subjec t fugitiv e emission s froman ysourc e categor yt o ne w sourc e revie wunles s an d unti l EP Aconduct s appropriat e rulemakin g unde r § 302(j ) o f th e Clea n Ai r Act . Instead , w e believ e EP Ashoul d gran t AMC' s Marc h 15 , 198 5 Petitio n fo r Reconsideratio n (including th e portion s dealin g wit h secondary fugitiv e dus t emissions ) an d (1 ) rul e tha t fugitiv e dus t emission s fromminin g operation s ar e no t subjec t t o ne wsourc e revie wrequirement s a s a componen t o f an yon e o f th e liste d sources ; and (2 ) revis e th e ne wsourc e revie wregulation s t o clarif ytha t minin g operation s alway s constitut e a separat e sourc e categor ywhic hneve r i s par t o f o r combine s wit h an yo f th e liste d categorie s fo r ne wsourc e revie wapplicabilit y determinations . I n th e writte n submissio n w e wil l mak e i n th e reopene d commen t period , w e wil l includ e detaile d discussio n o f thi s ke yissue , includin g a respons e t o EPA' s reques t fo r com men t o n wha t "administrativ e procedure s an d safeguards " migh t b e appropriat e i f thi s cours e i s followed .
-12
-P.1 5



### V . CONCLUSION . Al l available , credibl e factua l evidenc e demonstrate s tha t fugitiv e dus t emission s from surfac e coa l minin g operation s d o no t caus e o r contribut e t o significan t ai r qualit ydegradation . Suc h emission s als o d o no t caus e detrimenta l impact s t o th e publi c healt h o r welfare . Finally , th e uncontroverte d evidenc e befor e EPA , th e courts , an d Congres s demonstrate s tha t includin g fugitiv e dus t emission s fromal l bu t th e smalles t surfac e coa l mine s woul d resul t i n prohibitin g th e permittin g o f suc h mine s an

d an yliste d source s o f whic h the yar e deeme d t o b e a part— a draconia n effec t no t intende d b yCongres s an

d no t necessar yo r conduciv e t o achievemen t o f th e ai r qualit y objective s o f th e PS D program . Therefore , NCA/AM C urge s EP At o recogniz e an

d ac t upo n th e conclusio n tha t ther e i s n o soun d legal , factua l o r polic ybasi s fo r listing surfac e coa l mine s unde r § 302(j ) o f th e Clea n Ai r Act . Th e nex t speake r i s John Wootten , wh o wil l summariz e fo r yo u th e detaile d technica l an d economi c analyse s prepare d fo r th e minin g industryt o quantif yth e socio-economi c cost s o f listing surfac e coa l mines . Thes e analyse s demonstrat e tha t EP Aha s considerabl yunderestimate d th e tru e societa l cost s o f Alternative s II , II I an d IV , an

d tha t th e substantia l negativ e ne t benefit s o f eac h o f thes e Alternative s dictate s a "n o list " decision .

-13
-P.1 6



### Testimon

yo f Joh n M . Wootte n a t th e Environmenta l Protectio n Agenc y

Publi c Hearin g O n EPA' s Proposa l t o Lis t Surfac e Coa l Mine s unde r § 302(j ) o f th e Clea n Ai r Ac t

Denver , Colorad o Apri l 9 , 198 6 Goo d morning . Mynam e i s John M . Wootte n an d I a mDirec

to r o f Researc h & Technologya t Peabod yHoldin g Company , Inc. , th e paren t o f Peabod yCoa l Company . Peabod yCoa l Compan

yi s th e larges t produce r o f coa l i n th e Unite d States . Muc h o f tha t productio n come s fromsurfac e mines . Peabod yi s a membe r o f bot hth e Nationa l Coa l Associatio n an d th e America n Minin g Congres s and I a

mspeakin g todayo n behal f o f bot h o f thes e organizations . I . INTRODUCTION Accordin g t o EPA , th e sol e prerequisit e fo r it s decisio n t o propos e t o add a categor yo f source s t o th e § 302(j ) lis t i s a findin g tha t source s i n th e categor y"coul d degrad e ai r qual
it ysignificantly. " Onc e thi s findin g i s made , th e Agenc y establishe s a "presumption " i n favo r o f listin g whic h ca n onl y b e rebutte d bya showin g tha t "unreasonabl e cost s woul d resul t takin g int o accoun t al l positiv e aspect s o f th e listing. " Yo u hav e jus t hear d Pau l Phillip s explai n wh yther e wa s n o basi s fo r EPA' s initia l determinatio n tha t emission s fro msur fac e coa l mine s degrad e ai r qualit ysignificantly . M yremark sP.1 7



### todaywil l addres s th e secon d hal f o f EPA' s tw o par t tes t fo r listing . W e believ e tha t th e rulemakin g record , including th e Agency' s February18 , 198 6 RegulatoryImpac t Assessmen t (RIA ) an d studie s performe d fo r NC Aan d AMC , whic h w e wil l submi t durin g th e reopene d commen t period , conclusivel ydemonstrate s tha t th e socio-economi c cost s o f subjecting surfac e coa l mine s t o ne wsourc e revie wan d PS D regulatio n fa r outweigh an yenvi

ronmenta l o r othe r benefit s o f doin g so . I n vie wo f thi s fact , a decisio n byEPAt o subjec t an ysurfac e coa l mine s t o PS D revie wwoul d b e arbitraryand capriciou s an d woul d constitut e a n abus e o f th e Agency' s discretion . Th e bul k o f m

ycomment s todaywil l dea l generall ywit h EPA' s RI Aan

d a n analysi s o f EPA' s proposa l t o lis t surfac e coa l mine s an

d thereb

ysubjec t themt o PS D revie wtha t wa s pre pare d fo r NCAan

d AM C byTR C an

d ICF , Inc . NCAan d AMC' s writ

te n comments , whic h wil l b e file d late r thi s month , wil l addres s th e Agency' s RI Ai n mor e detai l a s wel l a s a numbe r o f othe r issue s raise d byEPA' s Octobe r 26 , 198 4 an d February28 , 198 6 Federa l Registe r notices .

A . EPA' s RIA The RI A preparedbyEP Apresent s cost-benefi t analy
se s fo r fou r differen t regulatoryalternatives . Th e first , Alternativ e I , i s th e statu s quo . Th e second , Alternativ e II ,

-2
-

### woul d lis t mine s tha t commence d constructio n afte r promulgatio n

o f a listin g decision , a s wel l a s modification s o f existin g mines . Th e third , Alternativ e III , woul d lis t al l mine s tha t commence d constructio n afte r January6 , 1975 . An d th e fourth , Alternativ e IV , woul d lis t onl ythos e mine s whos e emission s woul d impac t Clas s I an d mandator yClas s I I areas . Th e scop e o f EPA' s analysi s o f eac h o f thes e regula
toryalternative s differe d fo r eac h alternativ e considered . Th e benefi t analyse s fo r Alternative s I I an d II I consiste d o f assume d decrease s i n ambien t ai r qualit yimpacts , whil e th e benefi t analysi s fo r Alternativ e IV focuse d o n improvement s i n visibilit yrelate d perceptio n resultin g frommovin g th e hypo
thetica l mine s awayfromth e Clas s I areas .

EPA' s RI Aconclude s tha t Alternative s I I an d II I "woul d no t b e economicall yefficien t sinc e th e ne t benefit s estimate s wer e les s tha n zero. " RIA , p.xv . However , fo r Alternativ e IV , EP Aconclude s tha t "th e rang e o f incrementa l ne t benefit s spanne d bot h positiv e an d negativ e values. " Id . I n othe r words , EP Aconclude s tha t unde r certai n circumstances , th e benefit s o f subjectin g surfac e coa l mine s whic h impac t Clas s I and mandator yClas s I I area s t o PS D revie wma youtweigh th e costs .

-3
-P.1 9



### Georg e Roope , wh o wil l spea k next , wil l discus s th e defect s i n EPA' s Alternativ e I V analysis . Thos e defect s mak e tha t analysi s totall yinadequat e t o suppor t a decisio n t o lis t mine s locatin g nea r Clas s I an d mandatoryClas s I I areas . B . NCA-AM C Analysi s Th e analyse s o f EPA' s proposal s prepare d fo r NCAan d AM C byTR C an

d IC F suppor t EPA' s conclusion s o n Alternative s I I an d II I bu t diffe r considerabl yfromEPA' s analysis . Tabl e 1 summarize s th e NCA/AM C approac h t o evaluatin g th e impact s o f listin g surfac e coa l mines . First , NC Aan d AM C aske d TR C t o examin e th e ai r qualit yimpact s o f si x differen t hypothetica l coa l mine s a s show n i n Tabl e 2 . TR C the n estimate d th e reduction s i n th e siz e o f thes e mine s tha t woul d b e necessary t o mee t th e allowabl e PS D increment s i n th e respectiv e coa l basin . Th e engineerin g cost s o f th e resultin g mine s wer e the n develope d b

yhavin g individua l coa l companie s wit h operation s i n th e coa l basin s a t issu e prepar e specification s fo r th e mine s a s the ywoul d d o i f the ywer e actuall ygoin g t o instal l an d operat e suc ha mine . Thi s engineerin g cos t dat a wa s the n use d byIC F t o estimat e th e economi c impact s o f subjecting ne w an d existin g surfac e coa l mine s t o PS D review . IC F separatel y examine d EPA' s Alternativ e IV , includin g EPA' s conclusion s con cernin g th e ne t benefit s associate d wit h subjectin g mine s locatin g nea r Clas s I an d mandator yClas s I I area s t o PS D review .

-4
-

### II . EMISSIONFACTOR S AN D MODELING UNCERTAINTIE S Befor e turnin g t o ou r analysi s o f th e economi c impact s o f EPA' s proposal , I believ e tha t i t i s importan t t o not e a funda
menta l proble mwit hEPA' s proposa l t o lis t surfac e coa l mine s an d thereb

ysubjec t themt o PS D review . EPA' s curren t emissio n factor s an

d model s simpl ydon' t allo wdefensibl e calculation s o f th e ambien t impact s o f fugitiv e emission s fromsurfac e coa l mines . I t make s n o sens e fo r EP At o propos e t o subjec t surfac e coa l mine s t o ne wsourc e revie wwhe n th e tool s necessar yt o performth e analyse s require d b yth e Agency' s rule s ar e no t available . Tabl e 3 summarize s a detaile d analysi s whic h TR C performe d fo r NC Aan

d AM C an

d verifie d wit h fiel d measurements . TRC' s analysi s demonstrate s tha t th e us e o f EPA' s AP-4 2 emissio n factor s an

d th e ISCS T mode l doe s no t accuratel ypredic t actua l particulat e concentration s du e t o th e model' s failur e t o prop erl ysimulat e particl e depositio n an d pi t retention . Moreover , EPA' s emissio n factor s an d model s introduc e randomuncertaint y i n predicte d 2 4 hou r TS P concentration s du e t o fugitiv e partic

ulat e emission s fro m surfac e coa l mine s o f a facto r o f thre e t o four . Perhap s equall ya s importan t i s th e fac t tha t ther e ar e n o establishe d emissio n factor s fo r us e a t easter n surfac e coa l mines . Th e TR C report s whic h for mth e basi s fo r thes e conclu
sion s wil l b e submitte d t o th e Agenc yalon g wit h NC Aan d AMC' s comment s o n Apri l 29 .

-5
-P.2 1



### Thes e deficiencie s i n EPA' s curren t emissio n factor s an d model s fundamentall yflawan yrea l worl d analysi s o f th e ambien t ai r qualit yimpact s o f fugitiv e emission s fromsurfac e coa l mines . Despit e thes e deficiencie s w e hav e use d EPA' s factor s an

d model s i n ou r analysi s o f th e Agency' s proposa l t o subjec t surfac e coa l mine s t o PS D revie wsinc e thos e factor s woul d b e applie d unde r curren t EP Ane wsourc e revie w guidelines . III . DIFFERENCE S I NEPAAND NCA/AMC' S APPROAC H T O MODELING AI R QUALIT Y IMPAC T O F HYPOTHETICAL MINE S A . NCA/AM C Approac h Th e approac h use d byTR C fo r NCA/AM C t o estimat e emission s fromth e si x hypothetica l mine s i t examine d an d th e reductio n i n th e siz e o f thos e mine s tha t woul d b e require d t o mee t PS D increment s ca n b e summarize d a s follows . First , hypo
thetica l mine s wer e develope d base d o n previou s studie s b y PEDC o an

d TR C an

d from othe r sources . Onc e th e activit y parameter s fo r eac ho f th e mine s examine d b yTR C wer e estab
lished , th e fugitiv e emission s o f eac h o f thos e parameter s wer e calculate d usin g th e applicabl e AP-4 2 emissio n factor s an d assumin g 50 % efficien t chemica l dus t suppressan t contro l o f hau l road s and acces s roads , a s wel l a s 99.5 % efficien t baghous e contro l o n emission s fromcoa l crushing , screening , conveying , an

d sil o storag e facilities . Wher e emissio n factor s wer e no t establishe d i n AP-42 , TR C calculate d themusin g EPA
-6
-P.2 2



### recommende d methods . Wester n surfac e coa l min e emissio n factor s wer e use d fo r easter n surfac e coa l mine s (a s wa s don e i n th e RIA ) eve n though th e developmen t document s recommen d agains t it .

Thes e calculation s o f emissio n rate s fro mactivitie s a t eac hmin e wer e performe d b yTRC . Usin g eithe r th e ISCS T model , o r th e Valle ymode l i n th e cas e o f th e hypothetica l Appalachia n mountain-to p mine , TR C the n conducte d short-ter m modelin g analyse s fo r eac h hypothetica l mine . Amon g othe r things , TRC' s modelin g analysi s incorporate d a hypothetica l 24-hou r meteorologica l dat a bas e tha t coul d b e expecte d t o occu r tw o o r mor e time s pe r yea r a t eac h o f th e hypothetica l mine s sites . A s ca n b e see n fromTabl e 4 , TS P concentration s fromal l o f th e mine s wer e predicte d t o excee d th e allowabl e 24-hou r PS D incremen t bya n orde r o f magnitud e o r more . Th e EPApredicte d TS P concentration s ar e als o show n wit h th e modele d min e siz e i n parentheses .

T o determin e th e leve l o f productio n tha t woul d show modele d complianc e wit h th e increments , TR C scale d down th e emissio n rate s tha t i t ha d calculate d fo r eac h activit ya t th e hypothetica l mine s a s show n i n Tabl e 5 . Thi s wa s don e firs t b y assumin g tha t modeledconcentration s o f TS P ar e linearl ypro portiona l t o a mine' s productio n rate . Th e rati o o f th e 24-hou r Clas s I I PS D increment , divide d b yeac h mine' s pea k

-7
-P.2 3



### modele d impact , wa s determine d fo r eac h mine . Thes e ratio s wer e the n multiplie d b yth e appropriat e min e activit y parameter s an

d th e revise d emissio n rate s wer e compute d a s before . Finally , usin g th e ISCS T an d Valle ymodels , TR C com pute d th e TS P impact s fromth e reduce d siz e mines . Th e result s o f thes e computations , whic h ar e displaye d o n Tabl e 5 sho wtha t wit h th e exceptio n o f th e Appalachia n mountai n top mine , th e maximu mpredicte d 24-hou r TS P concentration s fro mth e hypothet
ica l mine s examinedb yTR C ar e muc h large r tha n th e 3 7 ug/m 3 expecte d fromth e assumptio n o f linearit ybetwee n a mine' s pro ductio n rat e an

d it s resultin g ai r qualit yimpact . TRC' s anal
ysi s conclude s tha t emission s frommine s wher e th e minin g pi t produce s th e greates t concentratio n o f emission s d o no t chang e i n direc t proportio n t o th e mine' s productio n rate .

Usin g it s conclusion s concernin g non-linearity , TR C calculate d th e productio n rate s a t whic h th e hypothetica l mine s woul d compl ywit h th e Clas s I I 2 4 hou r PS D increment . Thos e productio n rate s are show ni n Tabl e 5 . Init s analysi s fo r EPA , PE I assume d a linea r rela
tionshi p betwee nmine emission s an d productio n rates . A s a result , PE I significantl y overestimate s th e siz e o f mine s tha t woul d be abl e t o operat e i n variou s region s o f th e country unde r PS D an

d significantl yunderestimate s th e economi c impact s

-8
-P.2 4



### o f EPA' s proposal . Tabl e 5 compare s th e reduce d min e size s tha t TR C calculate d woul d b e necessaryt o mee t th e 2 4 hou r Clas s I I PS D incremen t wit h thos e calculate d fo r EPAb yPEI . B . PEI' s Approac h PEI' s analysi s fo r EPAo f th e ai r qualit yimpact s o f hypothetica l mine s i n th e fiv e coa l basin s i t examine d differ s substantiall yfromtha t performe d b yTRC . Afte r determinin g th e ai r qualit yimpact s o f th e prototypica l mine s i n muc h th e same waya s TRC , PE I develope d a "production-pollutio n algorithm " t o quantif yth e relationshi p betwee n coa l productio n an d particulat e concentrations . Thi s algorith mi s nothin g othe r tha n a simpl e roll-bac k techniqu e whic h assume s a linea r relationshi p betwee n predicte d concentration s an d production . A s I mentione d a momen t ag o thi s assumptio n i s incorrect . PE I itsel f admit s tha t it s algorith mi s a n "oversimplification " bu t conclude s tha t i t i s a "reasonabl e alternative. " PE I use d it s production-pollutio n algorith m i n combinatio n wit h th e PS D increment s an

d P M NAAQ S t o estimat e allowabl e min e size s unde r th e PS D regulation s an d curren t ambien t standards . PE I als o modele d th e advers e effec t o n visibilit yo f th e hypothetica l mine s i t examine d unde r Alternativ e I I an d th e improvement s i n visua l rang e attributabl e t o complianc e wit h th e PS D increments . I n bot h case s PE I conclude d tha t th e impact s o n visibilit ywer e no t perceptible .

-9
-P.2 5



### Th e primarypoin t t o b e mad e her e i s tha t EPAsignif

icantl yoverestimate d th e siz e o f a surfac e coa l min e tha t coul d compl ywit h th e PS D regulations . IV . DEVELOPMENT O F COS T DATA Th e derivatio n o f th e productio n cos t dat a fo r mine s size d t o compl ywit h applicabl e PS D increment s tha t wa s use d b yth e NCA/AM C analysi s differe d substantiall yfromtha t use d byPEI . NC Amembe r companie s provide d actua l figure s fo r equipment , labor , power , supplies , an d othe r cost s fo r bot h th e bas e cas e hypothetica l mine s examine d byTR C an d th e reduce d siz e mine s tha t TR C calculate d woul d b e necessar yt o mee t th e 24-hou r Clas s I I PS D increments . Thes e cost s ar e displaye d i n Figur e 1 fo r th e bas e an

d PS D complianc e cases . I n contrast , PE I use d a min e costin g mode l develope d by th e Electri c Powe r Researc h Institut e t o generat e productio n cost s fo r th e reduce d siz e mine s generate d byit s production

pollutio n algorithm . Tha t EPR I min e costin g model , however , ha s a numbe r o f deficiencie s an d omissions . I n fact , EPR I itsel f ha s develope d a revise d versio n o f it s mine-costin g mode l an

d n o longe r use s th e versio n employe d b yPEI . Th e us e o f th e outdatedEPR I mode l b yPE I ha s cause d i t t o greatl y underestimat e th e increas e i n cos t pe r to n o f coa l tha t woul d resul t a t eac ho f PEI' s prototypica l mine s fromsubjectin g thos e mine s t o PS D review . Tabl e 6 compare s PEI' s increase d

-10
-

### productio n cos t estimate s fo r eac h basi n i t examine d wit h thos e

develope d byNC Aan d AMC . V . TH E ECONOMI C IMPAC T O F EPA' S PROPOSAL ICF' s analysi s o f th e economi c impac t o f EPA' s proposa l t o lis t surfac e coa l mine s show s tha t thes e cost s woul d b e signif

icantl ygreate r tha n predicte d i n th e RI Afo r th e same ai r qualit yimpact . ICF' s analysi s fo r NC Aan d AM C conclude s tha t EPA' s proposa l coul d increas e electri c utilit yconsume r cost s bybetwee n 1 billio n an d 8 billio n dollar s pe r yea r betwee n 199 5 an d 2005 , dependin g o n whethe r existin g mine s ar e grandfathered . Moreover , ICF' s analysi s show s tha t th e Agency' s proposal s coul d caus e substantia l change s i n th e typ e o f coa l purchase d byconsumer s an d i n regiona l coa l production . A . ICF' s Approac h ICF' s analysi s relie s o n coa l suppl ycurves . Thes e curve s ar e base d o n th e fac t tha t differen t coa l reserve s hav e differen t costs . Thes e reserve s can , therefore , b e organize d i n orde r o f ascendin g minin g costs . Th e lowe r cos t reserve s wil l b e produce d first . A s Figur e 2 demonstrates , th e effec t o f increasin

g min e cost s an

d removin g coa l reserve s wil l b e t o increas e th

e cos t o f producin g th e nex t incremen t o f coa l supplie d whic hwil l shif t th e suppl ycurv e u p an d t o th e left . Th e exac t exten t o f thi s shif t wil l var ybyregio n sinc e th e characteristics , o f coa l var ybyregion .

-11
-P.2 7



### Base d o n TRC' s estimate s o f th e min e productio n rate s necessar yt o mee t th e PS D increment s an d th e productio n cos t dat a provide d byNC Aan d AMC , IC F estimate d th e impac t o f EPA' s proposa l o n surfac e min e costs . IC F the n estimate d th e impac t o n coa l suppl ycurve s fo r eac h o f thre e cases : th e firs t assumin g n o PS D review ; th e second , o r grandfatherin g case , assumin g tha t onl yne wmine s ar e subjec t t o PS D review , an d th e third , o r no-grandfatherin g case , assumin g tha t bot h ne wan d existin g surfac e coa l mine s ar e subjec t t o PS D review .

IC F the n use d it s Coa l an d Electri c Utilitie s Mode l (CEUM ) a s th e primar ytoo l i n it s analysi s o f th e economi c impac t o f EPA' s proposals . CEU M i s a highl ydisaggregate d engineering-economi c base d (no t econometric ) mode l o f U.S . coa l supply , coa l transportation , an d o f th e electri c utilit yan d othe r consumin g sectors .

Coa l marke t forecast s wer e develope d b yIC F usin g th e bas e cas e (no PS D review ) coa l suppl ycurve s an d th e suppl y curve s fo r eac h o f th e tw o regulatorycase s tha t I hav e jus t mentioned . Th e impac t o f EPA' s propose d regulation s wa s esti

mate d a s th

e differenc e betwee n th e bas e cas e an d th e regula
torycases .

-12 -P.2 8



### B . Result s o f IC F Analysi s 1 . Effect s o n Min e Cost s Base d o n th e productio n cos t informatio n pro vide d b yNC Aan

d AMC' s members , IC F estimate d tha t increase d cost s o f minin g i n th e Sa n Jua n Basin , Illinoi s Basi n an d i n Texa s woul d b e substantia l i n absolut e dolla r term s an d tha t th e increase d cost s woul d b e larg e i n percentag e term s i n th e othe r area s examined . Fo r example , Illinoi s Basi n cost s increase d b

y$7 6 pe r to n ove r a bas e o f approximatel y$3 0 pe r ton , wherea s Powde r Rive r Basi n cost s increase d b y$1 9 pe r to n ove r a bas e o f approximatel y$ 8 pe r ton .

2 . Effect s o n Coa l Suppl y ICF' s analysi s als o contain s 199 5 coa l suppl y curve s fo r eac hregio n an d coa l typ e examined . Figur e 3 i s an exampl e o f on e o f thes e curves .

Fo r eac h o f thes e suppl ycurves , th e bas e case , tha t is , n o PS D review , productio n forecas t i s show n t o provid e perspectiv e o n th e likel yimpact s o f EPA' s proposals . I n th e grandfatherin g case , th e impact s ar e greates t i n thos e area s wher e deman d exceed s existin g capacit yand wher e surfac e reserve s ar e a substantia l par t o f ne wproduction , suc h a s Cen
tra l Appalachia . I n area s wher e existin g capacit yexceed s demand , a s i n th e Powde r Rive r Basin , th e impact s ar e les s unti l th e late r year s becaus e th e grandfathe r case , by definition , doe s no t affec t existin g mines .

-13
-P.2 9



### Ake yassumptio n tha t affect s th e impac t o n coa l suppl yi n th e grandfathe r cas e examine d byIC F i s th e defini

tio n o f existin g capacity . A t th e directio n o f NCAan d AMC , IC F define d existin g capacit ya s tha t whic h ha s bee n permitte d an d t o whic h substantia l financia l commitmen t ha s bee n made . Th e capacit yestimat e develope d usin g thi s definitio n i s highe r tha n alternativ e definitions , suc h a s 198 4 production , particu

larl yi n th e Powde r Rive r Basi n an d Texas . I n th e no-grandfathe r cas e th e impact s ar e sever e i n thos e area s wher e surfac e mine s ar e a substantia l par t o f existin g capacity , suc h a s th e Powde r Rive r Basi n an d Texas . 3 . Effect s O n Regiona l Coa l Productio n

ICF' s analysi s demonstrate s tha t th e change s i n coa l suppl ycurve s tha t woul d resul t fromsubjectin g surfac e coa l mine s t o PS D revie wwoul d caus e significan t change s i n regiona l coa l production . Productio n woul d decreas e i n region s whos e coa l suppl ywoul d b e relativel ymor e affecte d byPS D revie wan

d productio n woul d shif t t o thos e suppl yregion s rela
tivel yles s affected . Ove r tim e thes e shift s woul d tend t o increas e becaus e ne welectri c generatin g unit s comin g o n lin e hav e greate r flexibilit yt o chang e coa l supplies . Th e nex t chart , Figur e 4 , show s thes e impact s fo r th e yea r 2000 .

-14
-P.3 0



### I n particular , ICF' s analysi s show s tha t produc
tio n i n Texa s (Gulf ) an d th e Powde r Rive r Basi n woul d decreas e substantiall yi n th e no-grandfathe r cas e du e t o th e significan t increase s i n minin g cost s a t bot h existin g an d ne wmines . ICF' s analysi s als o indicate s tha t tota l coa l productio n woul d decreas e du e t o th e shif t t o highe r Bt u coal , an d tha t lower-bt u lignit e i n Texa s an d subbituminou s coa l i n th e Powde r Rive r Basi n woul d b e displace d byhigher-bt u bituminou s coal s fromth e Rockies , Midwest , an d Norther n Appalachia . 4 . Effec t o n Mine-Mout h Price s

IC F als o conclude s tha t coa l price s pai d by consumers , includin g th e electri c utilities , wil l increas e i f surfac e coa l mine s ar e liste d an d thereb

ysubjec t t o PS D review . Th e increas e i s du e t o change s i n a region' s coa l sup pl ycurv e an

d change s i n demand du e t o change s i n coa l suppl y i n othe r regions .

Tabl e 7 demonstrate s thes e pric e effect s fo r th e yea r 2000 . Th e increase s ar e greates t i n th e suppl yregion s tha t woul d b e mos t affecte d byPS D review . However , pric e increase s als o occu r i n region s wher e th e suppl yeffect s ar e relativel ysmal l (Midwes t and Rockies ) becaus e productio n woul d increas e du e t o shift s from othe r regions .

-15
-P.3 1



### 5 . Effect s o n Consume r Cost s Finally , ICF' s analysi s show s tha t th e increas e i n electri c utilit yconsume r cost s resultin g fromEPA' s pro posa l woul d b e substantial . Tabl e 8 show s th e forecaste d increases . I n th e grandfathe r case , th e cost s impact s woul d increas e ove r time a s growt h i n coa l consumptio n increase s th e coa l productio n tha t woul d b e affecte d b yPS D regulation . I n th e no-grandfathe r case , th e cost s impact s woul d b e muc h highe r becaus e o f th e existin g productio n capac it ytha t woul d b e affected . However , thes e cost s impact s woul d declin e somewha t throug h 200 5 a s consumer s shif t coa l purchase s t o lowe r cos t regions .

Th e nex t chart , Tabl e 9 , demonstrate s graphi

call yth e forecaste d increase s i n consume r cost s b yregion . I n th e grandfathe r cas e th e cos t impact s woul d b e highe r i n 199 5 i n th e Eas t wher e substantia l ne wsurfac e minin g capacit ywoul d b e affected . Th e wester n region s woul d incu r highe r cost s late r a s existin g min e capacit ybecome s full yutilize d an d ne w mine s ar e required .

I n the no-grandfathe r case , cost s woul d increas e substantiall yi n 199 5 i n th e West , sinc e existin g mine s woul d b e affected .

-16
-

### C . ICF' S Analysi s Probabl yUnderstate s Th e Tru e Cos t Impact s o f EPA' s Proposa l Whil e w e believ e tha t th e analysi s prepare d b yIC F provide s a mor e realisti c assessmen t o f th e likel yeconomi c impact s o f EPA' s proposa l tha n doe s th e RIA , w e think tha t bot h analyse s probabl yunderestimat e th e rea l economi c effect s o f tha t proposal . First , bot h assume tha t mine s o f th e siz e nec essaryt o mee t PS D increment s woul d b e opened . I t i s unlikely , however , tha t thi s woul d i n fac t happe n particularl yi n th e cas e o f Texa s lignit e mines . Second , i t i s entirel ypossibl e tha t EPA' s proposa l coul d resul t i n a significan t increas e i n coa l import s int o thi s countryan d a significan t decreas e i n coa l export s thereb yworsenin g th e Unite d State s trad e deficit . Third , neithe r th e RI Ano r ICF' s analysi s fo r NCAan d AM C conside r th e cost s associate d wit h th e fac t tha t i f ne w surfac e coa l mine s ar e liste d unde r § 302(j) , majo r modifica

tion s a t existin g mine s woul d subjec t thos e mine s t o PS D review . VI . CLOSING REMARK S I n closing , I wis h t o stat e tha t th e NCA/AM C analysi s o f th e impact s o f listin g surfac e coa l mine s fo r ne wsourc e revie w purpose s i s a mor e accurat e an d comprehensiv e revie wtha n tha t undertake n b yEPA . EP Aha s estimate d nationa l impact s fo r onl y Alternativ e I I whic h amoun t t o $68. 2 millio n i n cost s wit h $815,90 0 i n benefits . NCA/AM C projec t thos e cost s t o b e $1. 3

-17
-P.3 3



### billio n i n 1995 , rising t o $4. 3 billio n i n 2005 . EPAestimate s tha t Alternativ e II I woul d cos t $15. 5 millio n wit h benefit s o f $242,50 0 fo r th e Powde r Rive r Basi n only . NCA/AM C estimat e th e nationa l cos t t o b e $8. 2 billio n i n 199 5 an d $7. 1 billio n i n 2005 . Ther e shoul d b e n o questio n i n eithe r th e Panel' s mind o r i n th e Agency' s deliberation s tha t th e cost s o f listing sur fac e coa l mine s ar e s o grea t i n compariso n t o th e benefit s tha t a decisio n no t t o lis t mus t b e a foregon e conclusion . NCA/AM C believ e thi s conclusio n no t t o lis t i s equall y apparen t fo r Alternativ e IV whic h wil l no wb e addresse d by Georg e Roope . I woul d b e gla d t o answe r an yquestion s a t th e en d o f th e NCA/AM C presentation .

-18
-

# r FIGUR E 1

EFFEC TO F PS D REVIE W O N SURFAC E COA L MINE S
2 0 0 180- -

O 1 6 0 140- - 120- - I —^ ~ 

## o o I D C O c o 8 0 - 6 0 4 0 - - 2 0 - 

### OPERATIN G COST S CAPITA L COST S ROYALTIE S AN D SEVERANC E TA X

^^A ^ ^ ^ _J9EfSH
_ t



### BAS E PS D BAS E PS D BAS E PS D BAS E PS D BAS E PS D 

## PW D RV R N DA KSA N JUA N TEXA S ILLIN S

COA L PRODUCIN G REGION S BAS E PS D 

## APALCH A

# FIGUR E 2

TYPICA L COA L SUPPL YCURV E
6 0

50- -

4 0 "

O I —3 0 +

2 0 e o o o o e

<aoo o

< p •o e e o XiX X X X X
Xi XX XX - A e o » * xxxx it XXXX -

- •B 

### oCOA L SUPPL YWIT H HIGHE R MININ G COST S Sc LES S RESERVE S 1 0 + 

### XBAS E COA L SUPPL Y

o - J 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 •1 •' •' ' ' ' •- 

### 5 0 

### 10 0 15 0



## TONS/YEA R 20 0 25 0r

40- r

3 5 -
3 0

2 5

: C O P CT» C ~ i " " 4* * 2 0

15- -
10- - 

# FIGUR E 3 A

199 5 COA L SUPPL YCURV E POWDE R RIVE R BASI N

oooooo o OOOOOOOO O OOOOOOOOOOOO O IOOOOOO O OOOOOOOOO O

• ••UIO() (



### •••••••••••••••••• • e x 

# T
- x XXXXX X X)() < x ^ )(,(>.)()(y )(><>(><)() ( 

# J y )00()0()() ( ' XXX X



### © GRANDFATHE R CAS E XBAS E CAS E

O ' II I. IIIIIIIIIIIIIIII III II IIIIiIIIIIIIIIIII IIII I III) II I I IIII(II I IIIIIIt



### 8 0 15 0 22 0 

### 29 0 36 0 43 0 

## TONS/YEA R (MILLIONS ) 50 0 57 0 

## 64- 0r 

# FIGUR E 3 B

199 5 COA L SUPPL YCURV E POWDE R RIVE R BASI N
4 0

3 5

3 0

2 5

1 5

10-
-

5
- QOO O OOO O ~ toooooooooo o ooo? "oooooo o OOOOOOOO O OOOOOOO ' 

## f ooo o ' 0000 9 Q •

txxxx x MXXXXi i

X X X yxx xIXXXX X xxxxxx x

••PtXXXXXXXXXXXXXMM X XXXXX X 

# f XXXX X X X' **x oN O GRANDFATHE R CAS E XBAS E CAS E I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I H- I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I - . I I I I l- l I I I I t-H-H H I I I I I I I I H I j 

## 8 0 15 0 22 0 29 0 36 0 43 0 50 0 57 0 64 0 TON S 'YEA R (MILLIONS )

# FIGUR E 4 A

EFFEC TO F PS D REVIE W REGIONA L COA L PRODUCTIO N

EAS TOF
. MISSISSIP P O N 200 0

5 0 0 450- - 400- - 350- - 300- - 

## 3^25 0 + O 200- - 1SO- - 100- - 5 0 - 

# LYlpL ] N O GRANDFATHE R GRANDFATHE R BAS E

N
. APPALCH AC
. APPALCH AS
. APPALCH A



## COA L PRODUCIN G REGION S MIDWES T

o o

# FIGUR E 4 B

EFFEC TO F PS D REVIE W REGIONA L COA L PRODUCTIO N

WES TO F MISSISSIP P O N 200 0

3 0 0

250- -
20 0 - - 

### 3^15 0 

## + CO 

## o 1 DO -

SO- - 

### N O GRANDFATHE R GRANDFATHE R BAS E

C . WES T E . N . GR TPLAIN S ROCKIE S

GUL F W . N . GR TPLAIN S SOUTHWES T 

## COA L PRODUCIN G REGION S
C OTABL E 1 NCA/AM C APPROAC H T O EVALUATIN G TH E IMPACT S O F LISTIN G SURFAC E COA L MINE S INVESTIGATE D UNCERTAINTIE S ASSOCIATE D WIT H EMISSIO N FACTOR S AN D MODEUN G FO R SURFAC E COA L MINE S

TR C ENVIRONMENTA L CONSULTANTS
. INC. , QUANTIFICATIO N O F UNCERTAINTIE S I N EPA' S FUGITIV E EMISSION S AN D MODEUN G METHODOLOG YA TSURFAC E COA L MINES
. FEBRUAR Y1985 . MODELE D AI R QUAUT YIMPACT S O F HYPOTHETICA L COA L MINE S I N TH E MAJO R COA L PRODUCIN G REGIONS : APPALACHIA
. ILLINOIS
. POWDE R RIVER
. SA N JUAN
. N
. DAKOT A AN D TEXAS ; TR C ENVIRONMENTA L CONSULTANT S INC. ; 1.)MODELE D AI R QUAUT YIMPACT S O F FOU R HYPOTHETICA L SURFAC E COA L MINES
. MA Y1985
. 2.)MODELE D AI R QUALIT YIMPACT S O F HYPOTHETICA L NORT H DAKOT ALIGNIT E MINE
. JUN E 1985
. 3.)MODELE D AI R QUAUT YIMPACT S O F HYPOTHETICA L TEXA S LIGNIT E MINE
. JUL Y1985
. ASSESSE D REGIONA L AN D NATIONA L IMPACT S O F USTIN G SURFAC E COA L MINE S O N MIN E SIZ E AN D COSTS
. UTIUT YFUE L US E COA L PRODUCTIO N AN D ELECTRI C CONSUME R COST S IC F INCORPORATED
. ECONOMI C IMPACT S O F U.S.EPA' S PROPOSE D REGULATIO N SUBJECTIN G SURFAC E COA L MINE S T O PS D PERMITTIN G REQUIREMENTS
. APRI L 1986 .

# TABL E 2

HYPOTHETICA L SURFAC E COA L MINE S

T O B E REGIO N APPALACHI A ILLINOI S POWDE R RIVE R SA N JUA N N
. DAKOT A TEXA S ANALYZE D PRODUCTIO N MILLIO N TONS/YEA R

0. 5 3. 0 1 5. 0

. 0. 0 5. 2 5 . 4

T lTABL E 3 UNCERTAINTIE S I N EP AFUGITIV E PARTICULAT E EMISSION S AN D MODELIN G METHODOLOG YA TSURFAC E COA L MINE S

EMISSIO N SOURCE S O F

FACTO R EQUATION S ACTIVIT YPARAMETER S EMISSIO N CONTRO L ERRO R DIPERSIO N MODE L PARTICL E DEPOSITIO N PI TRETENTIO N RANDO M ERROR S EXPRESSE D A S TH E WIDT H O F UNCERTAINT Y ACTUA L VALU E A TTH E 95 % CONFIDENC E MIN E UNCERTAINT Y 2 4 HOU R ILLINOI S 4. 3 POWDE R RIVE R 3. 9 SA N JUA N 2. 9 ABOU TTH E LEVE L FACTO R I N TS P CON C

ANNUA L 3 . 8 3. 4 2 . 7 SYSTEMATI C ERROR S RESUL TI N TH E OVER-PREDICTIO N O F TS P CONCENTRATION S SOURC E SETTLING-DEPOSITIO N ALGORITH M

PI TRETENTIO N COMBINE D OVER-PREDICTIO N FACTO R I N TS P CON C 4 1. 4 5

r oTABL E 4 MODELE D AI R QUAUT YIMPACT S O F HYPOTHETICA L

REGIO N APPALACHI A ILUNOI S POWDE R RIVE R SA N JUA N N . DAKOT A TEXA S PRODUCTIO N

MILUO N TP Y O. S 3 . 0 15. 0 10. 0 5 . 2 5. 4

4 » * * A TEXA S 2 4 H R PS D CLAS S I I INCREMEN T UG/M 3 3 7 3 7 3 7 3 7 3 7 3 7 EP A MODELE D MIN E UGNIT E MIN E WA S SIZ E NO T SURFAC E COA L

MA XPREDICTE D 2 4 H R TS P CON C UG/M 3 3 4 7 5 9 2 3 4 3 6 2 9 16 0 5 4 7
MODELE D B YEP A MINE S EP A MA XPREDICTE D 2 4 H R TS P CON C UG/M 3 27(0.5) * 35(1.5 ) 80(10.0 ) 46(2.5 ) 54(3.0 ) * »SURFAC E

REGIO N APPALACHI A ILLINOI S POWDE R RIVE R SA N JUA N N . DAKOT A TEXA S COA L MIN E SIZ E

MODELE D MIN E SIZ E MILLIO N TP Y 0 . 5 3 . 0 15. 0 10. 0 5 . 2 5 . 4 TABL E 5

ABL E T O ACHIEV E COMPLIANC E WIT H TH E PS D
LINEA R REDUCE D MIN E SIZ E MILLIO N TP Y 0.0 5 0 . 2 1 . 6 0 . 6 1 . 2 0 . 4

* A TEXA S LIGNIT E MIN E REDUCE D MIN E MA XPREDICTE D 2 4 H R TS P CON C UG/M 3 3 5 1 1 3 6 2 1 5 2 4 3 1 6 1
WA S NO TMODELE D CLAS S I I PS D MIN E SIZ E INCREMENT S

MILLIO N TP Y 0.0 5 0.0 3 0 . 8 0.0 4 1. 0 0.01 4
B YEP A EP A CLAS S I I PS D MIN E SIZ E MILLIO N TP Y 0 . 5 1. 6 4 . 6 1. 7 1 . 7 *REGIO N

APPALACHI A ILUNOI S POWDE R RIVE R SA N JUA N N . DAKOT A TEXA S * TABL E 6 EFFEC TO F PS D REVIE WO N NE W

BAS E MIN E SIZ E MILLIO N TP Y 0 . 5 3 . 0 15. 0 10. 0 5 . 2 5 . 4 MIN E COST S BAS E

MIN E COS T •/TO N 30.2 4 29.7 8 7.9 2 21.1 3 15.6 6 13.5 6 (198 5 $/TON )

PS D MIN E SIZ E MILUO N TP Y 0.0 5 0.0 3 0.8 0 0.0 4 1.0 0 O.01 4 FO R A TEXA S UGNIT E MIN E SURFAC E COA L

PS D MIN E COS T •/TO N 36.4 6 106.2 1 26.8 0 69.9 8 20.5 1 47.2 6 WER E NO T MINE S
EP A MINIMU M MIN E SIZ E ESTIMATE D MILUO N TP Y 0.2 5 0.7 5 5.0 0 1.2 5 1.5 0 * ESTIMATE D B YEP A EP A PS D MIN E COS T 198 3 */TO N 40.6 0 51.4 0 7.5 0 25.2 0 14.2 0 *

UtEFFEC TO F PS D

REGIO N N
. APPALACHI A C
. APPALACHI A MIDWES T GUL F W
. N
. GREA TPLAIN S ROCKIE S N.M
. SA N JUA N N
. DAKOT A REVIE WO N
MILLIO N BTU/TO N 2 5 2 5 2 2 1 3 1 7 2 4 1 7 1 3 TABL E 7

LON G TER M CONTRAC T 198 5 $/TO N 200 0 BAS E 3 9 4 1 3 2 1 5 9 2 5 2 2 6 MINE 200 0 -MOUT H

GRANDFATHE R 4 1 4 7 3 2 1 5 9 2 6 2 3 7 N O PRICE S

200 0 GRANDFATHE R 4 1 4 7 3 3 6 5 2 8 2 8 3 1 2 0CHANGE S I N ELECTRI C

199 5 GRANDFATHE R + 1.3 N O GRANDFATHE R +8. 2 TABL E 8 UTILIT YANNUALIZE D CONSUME R (198 5 $ BILLION )
200 0 200 5 -1-2. 3 -1-4. 3 +8. 1 +7. 1

* 4.3 % REA L DISCOUN TRAT E COST S PRESEN TVALU E 199 5 —200 5 I N 1985 * 13. 9 44. 7TABL E 9 CHANGE S I N ELECTRI C UTIUT YANNUAUZE D COST S B YREGIO N (198 5 $ BILUON )
REGIO N NE WENGLAN D MIDDL E ATLANTI C UPPE R SOUT H ATLANTI C LOWE R SOUT H ATLANTI C EAS TNORT H CENTRA L EAS TSOUT H CENTRA L WES TNORT H CENTRA L WES TSOUT H CENTRA L TOTA L U.S . 199 S GRANDFATHE R + . 0 +0. 1 +0. 2 +0. 4 -f-O. 2 +0. 2 + . 0 +0. 1 199 9

N O GRANDFATHE R +. o +0. 1 +0. 2 +0. 4 + 1. 1 +0. 4 . + 1. 7 +2. 4 200 0

GRANDFATHE R +. 0 +. 0 +0. 4 +0. 6 + 1. 5 +0. 2 +. o +0. 2 N O 200 0

GRANDFATHE R +. o +0. 3 +0. 2 +0. 9 + 1. 9 +0. 8 +0. 9 + 1. 7 200 5

GRANDFATHE R +. 0 + 1. 9 -0. 7 +0. 8 + 1. 2 +0. 3 +0. 2 +0. 7 200 5

N O GRANDFATHE R +. o + 1. 7

—1. 1 +0. 8 +2. 1 +0. 7 +0. 5 + 1. 4
+ 1. 3 +8. 2 +2. 3 +8. 1

NOTE : TOTAL S MA YNO TAD D DU E T O ROUNDING . +4. 3 +7. 1

o oP.4 9

Statemen t o f Mr . Georg e Roop e Uta h International , Inc .

a t Publi c Hearing s befor e th e U.S . Environmenta l Protectio n Agenc y

Docke t No . A-84-3 3 Apri l 9 , 198 6 Denver , Colorad o Goo d morning . M ynam e i s Georg e Roop e an d I amwit hUta h International , Inc . I amcurrentl yth e Alto n Projec t Environ

menta l Coordinato r an d responsibl e fo r ai r qualit ypermittin g a t th e Alto n mine . I a mappearin g her e toda yo n behal f o f th e Nationa l Coa l Associatio n an d th e America n Minin g Congres s a s wel l a s Uta hInternational . M ycomment s toda ywil l focu s o n th e Agency' s analysi s i n th e RI Ao f "Alternativ e IV " whic h woul d subjec t surfac e mine s whos e operation s woul d impac t Clas s I an d mandator yClas s I I (Clas s I/II ) area s t o PS D regulation . I n sum , w e believ e tha t th e Agency' s assumption s an d meth
odology , an d therefor e it s conclusions , wer e flawed . Conse
quently , EPA' s Alternativ e I V analysi s canno t serv e a s th e basi s fo r subjectin g mine s locatin g nea r Clas s I an d mandator y Clas s I I area s t o PS D review . I . EPA' s Analysi s Unde r EPA' s Alternativ e IV , al l ne wsurfac e coa l mine s havin g ambien t impact s o n Clas s I/I I area s woul d b e subjec t t o NS R an d PS D constraints . Th e Agenc yha s conclude d tha t neithe r o f it s othe r proposals , Alternativ e I I (regulat e onl yal l ne wP.5 0

mines ) o r Alternativ e II I (ne wan d existin g mines) , i s economi

call yefficient . Th e RI Asuggest s tha t Alternativ e I V ma yb e . economicall yefficient , bu t concede s th e result s ar e ambiguous . Th e result s ar e ambiguou s a t best , bu t th e analysi s i s clearl yflawed . Th e Agency' s analysi s i s premise d o n a numbe r o f unfounde d assumptions . First , th e RI A"assumes " tha t unde r Alternativ e I V

al l mine s wil l mov e beyon d th e ambien t impac t rang e o f anyClas s I/I I are a i n orde r t o avoi d bein g subjec t t o PS D review . Th e RI Aacknowledge s tha t som e mine s migh t choos e t o operat e unde r th e PS D standards , bu t doe s no t evaluat e th e cost s o r benefit s o f tha t scenario . ( p IV-13) . Eve n thoug h th e RI Alimite d th e scenario s i t considered , i t di d no t full y analyz e th e one s i t included . Fo r example , whil e positin g tha t mine s woul d relocat e t o avoi d regulation , th e RI Adoe s no t attemp t t o quantif yth e cost s associate d wit htha t min e reloca
- "jj tion . Second , EPA' s nationa l analysi s o f Alternativ e I V i s base d o n predicte d effect s a t jus t tw o hypothetica l min e locations . Th e RI Adoe s no t estimat e ho wman yarea s ar e potentiall y affecte d b yth e regulation . Rathe r i t assert s tha t les s tha n on e percen t (1.4 1 billio n tons ) o f al l U.S . surfac e mineabl e reserve s woul d b e affecte d b yth e propose d regulation . (Tabl e V-13) . Th e RI Adoe s no t explai n th e derivatio n o f tha t number . ) A n analysi s whic hIC F prepare d fo r NC Aan d AM C concludes , how
ever , tha t a t leas t 2 0 coa l field s i n nin e states , wit hP.5 1

reserve s exceedin g 8. 5 billio n tons , coul d b e affecte d b yEPA' s proposal . Approximatel y4. 5 billio n ton s o f thi s amoun t i s \/J foun d i n Montana . Thi s represent s abou t 1 0 percen t o f th e tota l recoverabl e reserve s foun d i n southeas t Montan a wher e nearl yal l activ e mine s i n th e Stat e ar e located . Third , th e RI Afail s t o conside r productio n an d permittin g cost s fo r mine s affecte d b yAlternativ e I V becaus e i t assume s tha t al l mine s wil l mov e beyon d th e regulator yboundary . Fourth , i n estimatin g th e benefit s o f Alternativ e I V regu- ' lation , th e RI Aevaluate s eac h min e sit e i n on e yea r only , th e predicte d yea r o f pea k minin g activity . Th e decisio n t o rel y o n thos e figure s fo r calculatin g overal l benefit s clearl y result s i n thei r overstatement . II . Th e Benefit s o f Regulatio n ar e Overstated . EP Acontend s tha t significan t benefit s accrue , a t leas t a t Bryc e Canyon , fro m th e impositio n o f PS D requirement s i n Clas s I/I I areas . However , th e onl ybenefit s predicte d ar e improve

ment s i n visibilit ytha t a t bes t ar e a t th e margi n o f huma n perception . Moreover , eve n thes e benefit s ar e overstated . Th e RI Afind s benefit s onl ya t Bryc e Canyo n an d onl yfro m movin g a potentia l min e ou t o f vie wfro mth e park . Thi s typ e o f benefi t i s no t cognizabl e unde r th e PS D program . Th e PS D progra m

doe s no t regulat e th e effect s o f change s i n landscap e o n a par k visitor' s healt h o r welfare . Moreover , i n 1980 , th e Departmen t o f th e Interio r designate d th e are a aroun d Bryc e 

# 1

1

-3
-P.5 2

Canyo n "unsuitable " fo r surfac e minin g unde r § 52 2 o f th e Sur
fac e Minin g Contro l an d Reclamatio n Ac t o f 1977 . Thi s elimi

nate d par t o f Uta hInternational' s Alto n mine . A s a result , unde r curren t law , n o min e ca n locat e withi n vie wo f Bryc e Can
yon . Thus , EPA' s propose d Alternativ e I V wil l resul t i n n o benefit s a t Bryc e Canyon . EPA' s regulation , however , coul d forc e th e Alto n min e t o mov e furthe r beyon d th e par k bound
aries . Thus , Alternativ e I V coul d irrationall yimpos e grea t ^ cost s fo r n o ai r qualit yo r visibilit ybenefit . v I woul d lik e t o tak e a fe wminute s t o discus s th e Secre
tar yo f Interior' s decisio n regardin g th e unsuitabilit ypeti

tion . Th e document s pertainin g t o th e petitio n an d subsequen t decisio n ar e i n th e publi c recor d an d ar e availabl e a t variou s locations . Th e Secretar ymad e hi s decisio n t o declar e certai n lease s o f th e Alto n coa l fiel d a s unsuitabl e fo r surfac e minin g base d o n thre e criteria : visibility , visua l resource , an d nois e effect s o n Bryc e Canyon . Hi s decision , a s supporte d i n hi s statemen t o f reason s issue d i n Januar yo f 1981 , implie s tha t surfac e minin g effect s fro mth e area s declare d suitabl e fo r surfac e coa l minin g woul d no t hav e an ysignifican t impac t o n Bryc e Canyo n Nationa l Park . Th e Secretar ystate d i n hi s pres s releas e announcin g th e decisio n tha t 2 4 millio n ton s o f coa l ar e foun d i n th e lease s declare d unsuitabl e fo r surfac e mining . Thi s figur e i s almos t 1 0 time s greate r tha n th e amoun t o f coa l reserve s i n th e stat e o f Uta hwhic hEP Aassume s woul d b e
-4
-P.5 3

affecte d b yAlternativ e IV . Th e unsuitabl e lin e i s draw n a t a poin t suc h tha t coa l lease s tha t coul d b e mine d b ysurfac e method s ar e no t visibl e fro manypoin t i n Bryc e Canyo n Nationa l Park . Eve n i f EPA' s proposa l di d no t duplicat e existin g regula
tor ystructures , th e RIA' s benefit s analysi s woul d stil l b e overstated . I n evaluatin g th e benefit s o f Alternativ e IV , th e RI Aignore s th e extensiv e analyse s undertake n b yth e Offic e o f Surfac e Minin g (OSM ) i n 198 0 whe n i t mad e th e "unsuitability " determinatio n I hav e jus t discussed . Thes e analyse s include d comprehensiv e studie s assessin g ai r quality , visibility , an d nois e effects . B yignorin g thes e analyses , th e RI Awa s force d t o rel yo n studie s and finding s fro mver ydifferen t situations . I n orde r t o appl yth e result s o f thos e othe r studies , EP Amake s imprecis e adjustment s i n th e dat a t o attemp t t o simulat e comparability . Thos e estimate s ar e suspec t becaus e o f th e natur e o f th e initia l research . Al l th e benefi t estimate s fo r Alternativ e I V ar e base d o n "willingness-to-pay " (WTP ) estimate s derive d fro m "contingen t valuation " o r "biddin g games. " A s a group , thes e studie s suffe r fro minheren t bias . Respondent s ofte n kno wwha t answe r th e researche r i s seekin g an d repl yaccordingl ybecaus e the ykno wthe ywil l no t actuall yb e force d t o pa ywha t the y bid . Tha t inheren t bia s combine d wit hth e extrapolatio n o f th e result s fro m

othe r site s render s th e RI Abenefit s figure s almos t useles s a t th e threshold .

• 5
-P.5 4

Th e RI Amake s exaggerate d claim s o f significan t improve

men t i n visibilit yfro mAlternativ e IV . I t attempt s t o quantif yth e visibilit yimprovemen t associate d w-it hregulatio n befor e estimatin g th e valu e o f tha t improvement . Th e RI A consider s tw o scenarios : improvemen t whe n th e min e i s move d bu t stil l visibl e fro ma par k an d improvemen t whe n th e min e move s ou t o f visua l rang e o f th e park . Th e RI Apredict s tha t th e visua l rang e improvement s wil l b e imperceptibl e t o th e huma n ey e a t bot h Chac o Cultur e an d Bryc e Canyo n whe n th e min e i s stil l visible . Visua l improvemen t continue s t o b e impercep

tibl e a t Chac o Cultur e whe n th e min e i s move d ou t o f sigh t o f th e park . Th e RI Apredict s significan t reduction s a t Bryc e Canyo n unde r "advers e metereologica l conditions, " bu t fail s t o specif ythei r natur e o r frequency . Th e RI Aestimate s th e averag e improvemen t t o b e a mer e thre e t o fiv e percent . Tha t rang e o f averag e visibilit yimprovemen t i s o n th e margi n o f huma n perceptibility . It s valu e i s furthe r undermine d b yth e fac t mentione d earlier : n o min e i s currentl yallowe d t o locat e i n th e are a visibl e fro mBryc e Canyo n Nationa l Park . I n short , EP Adi d no t analyz e th e appropriat e size , shap e o r locatio n o f a min e currentl yallowe d unde r SMCRAprovision s o n whic ht o bas e thei r benefi t estimates . Th e RIA' s attemp t t o estimat e th e valu e o f th e "benefits " i s equall yflawed . Th e RI Abase s it s valuation s o n th e willingness-to-pa y(WTP ) estimate s generate d i n a 198 1 studyo f

-6
-P.5 5

recreationa l user s a t Mes a Verd e Nationa l Park . Tha t study showe d a $2.8 4 pe r visito r valuatio n fo r a guarante e o f a "clea r view " instea d o f "moderat e haze. " Th e RI Aadopt s th e $2.8 4 figure , bu t fail s t o establis htha t th e visua l rang e chang e t o whic hi t relate s i s remotel ycomparabl e t o th e averag e thre e t o fiv e percen t improvemen t predicte d a t Bryc e Canyon . I n fact , th e tw o situation s ar e no t comparabl e becaus e the yrelat e t o tw o differen t park s an d becaus e th e predicte d improvemen t a t Bryc e i s onl ymarginall yperceptible , whil e th e Mes a Verd e studyhypothesize d a dramati c chang e fro ma "moder
atel yhazy " t o a "clear " view . Whe n tryin g t o valu e th e benefi t o f havin g a min e ou t o f sigh t o f a nationa l park , th e RI Arelies , withou t qualifica

tion , o n anothe r uninstructiv e study . Th e studyestimate d th e valu e pe r mont ht o a househol d residin g i n th e vicinit yo f a surfac e min e o f havin g th e lan d reclaimed . EP Adivide d th e pe r mont hfigur e t o obtai n a pe r da yvaluatio n whic hi t the n applie d t o th e annua l numbe r o f visito r day s fo r bot hChac o Cultur e an d Bryc e Canyon . Thi s methodolog yproduce d a benefi t valu e o f $37,40 0 fo r Bryc e Canyon . Th e proces s clearl yover state d th e benefi t becaus e th e population s ar e no t comparabl e fo r tw o reasons . First , ther e i s n o reaso n t o assum e tha t th e valu e place d o n reclamatio n bya residen t o f th e vicinit yo f a surfac e min e i s remotel yrelate d t o th e valu e t o a par k visito r o f havin g th e ai r clea r o n th e da yhe/sh e visit s th e park .
-7
-P.5 6

Second , th e residentia l valuatio n relie d o n wa s pe r household , presumabl yaccumulatin g th e benefit s t o mor e tha n on e individ

ual , bu t EP Aapplie d it s derive d dail yvaluatio n pe r visito r t o th e tw o parks , therebyinflatin g th e result s b ya n unknow n factor . Finally , th e RI Apurport s t o measur e th e "existenc e value " o f visua l rang e improvemen t a t Bryc e Canyon . Thi s exercis e result s i n th e largest , an d mos t flawed , benefit s estimat e i n th e study . Lackin g anydat a relate d t o th e existenc e valu e o f Bryce , th e RI Aattempt s t o extrapolat e fro ma stud ydon e abou t th e Gran d Canyon . I t trie s t o justif yusin g th e stud yb y acknowledgin g tha t th e benefit s estimat e i s probabl yover stated . Th e RIA' s attemp t a t compensatin g fo r th e overstatemen t i s inappropriat e an d inadequate . I t reduce s th e Gran d Canyo n existenc e valu e b yth e rati o o f Bryc e t o Gran d Canyo n visito r days . However , th e numbe r o f visito r day s ha s n o establishe d relatio n t o th e valu e o f a site' s existenc e t o person s wh o wil l neve r visi t th e parks . Th e adjustmen t mixe s apple s an d oranges . I n addition , thi s benefi t ha s n o valu e fo r non-natura l resourc e Clas s I area s suc ha s th e India n reserva tion s i n Montana . Ill . Th e Cost s o f Alternativ e I V Ar e Underestimate d Th e RIA' s cos t analyse s ar e deficien t becaus e th e rang e o f cost s considere d i s to o narrow . Consequently , th e overal l cost s o f Alternativ e I V ar e understated .

-8
-P.5 7

Th e RI Aassume s tha t th e onl ycost s associate d wit hpro mulgatio n o f Alternativ e I V woul d b e th e possibl e los s o f plan*
- nin g an d developmen t cost s fo r propose d mine s tha t woul d hav e t o b e abandone d i f subjecte d t o PS D regulation . Th e nationa l socia l cost s o f Alternativ e I V wer e estimate d t o b e betwee n $200,00 0 an d $400,000 , th e su mo f estimate d sun k cost s a t Chac o Cultur e an d Bryc e Canyon . Uta hInternationa l ha s spen t i n exces s o f $400,00 0 jus t t o studypotentia l ai r qualit yan d vis

ibilit yeffect s nea r Bryc e Canyon . Thi s tota l doe s no t includ e cost s o f studie s fo r othe r require d environmenta l assessment s no r doe s i t includ e incrementa l cost s Uta hanticipate s fo r fugitiv e .dus t controls . Tha t estimat e ignore s th e cost s asso ciate d wit h a t leas t 1 8 othe r potentiall yaffecte d site s iden

tifie d i n ICF' s studyfo r NCA/AMC . Th e RI Aexclude s anyconsideratio n o f th e change s i n th e cost s o f transportation , infrastructure , an d othe r items . Whil e thes e cost s wil l var yfro msit e t o site , the yrepresen t th e increase d cost s o f supplyin g coa l t o customer s wh o woul d hav e bee n serve d fro mth e reserve s nea r th e Clas s I/I I areas . IV . Redundan t Regulatio n Th e notio n o f subjectin g Bryc e Canyo n t o additiona l minin g restriction s illustrate s mos t clearl yho wwholl yunnecessary , ye t potentiall yharmful , Alternativ e I V is .

-9
-P.5 8

Th e Surfac e Minin g Contro l an d Reclamatio n Ac t o f 197 7 (SMCRA ) prohibit s authorizatio n o f surfac e mine s whic hwil l substantiall ydegrad e th e environmen t an d ban s surfac e operation s withi n th e boundarie s o f nationa l parks , wildlif e preserve s an d nationa l forests , i.e. , Clas s I areas . Th e Sec
retar yan d th e stat e authoritie s als o hav e th e discretionar y authorit yt o designat e othe r area s a s "unsuitable " fo r mining . Visibilit ywa s th e onl y"benefit " valu e considere d i n th e unsuitabilit yproceedin g involvin g Bryc e Canon . I shoul d not e tha t anypart ysubmittin g a permi t applica

tio n t o min e th e undesignate d portion s o f th e Alto n coa l fiel d mus t asses s th e potentia l effect s o n Bryc e Canyo n Nationa l • Park . A s th e Secretar ynote d "[a] t tha t time , th e Nationa l Par k Servic e an d th e Offic e o f Surfac e Minin g wil l revie wth e applicatio n t o determine , a s require d b yparagrap h5 o f m y decision , whethe r minin g o f thes e Federa l lease s woul d caus e advers e impact s o n "th e visua l resource s an d nois e level s i n Bryc e Canyo n Nationa l Park . The yma ythe n recommen d tha t spe cia l stipulation s o r condition s t o mitigat e suc hdamag e b e include d i n th e Department' s decisio n o n th e minin g plan/permi t application , a s provide d i n 3 0 C.F.R . 741,18 , 761.1 2 an d 786.19. " (Secretary' s Statemen t o f Reason s Jan . 1981 ) Th e existin g SMCRAprogra mi s mor e efficien t tha n th e blanke t ba n propose d byEP Abecaus e i t permit s area-by-are a scrutinyan d th e balancin g o f uniqu e cost s an d benefits . SMCRA
-10
-P.5 9



### require s a balancing o f legitimatel ycompeting interest s i n the decisio n t o designat e o r no t designate . I n addition , othe r stat e an

d federa l regulatoryprogram s - - including Stat e new sourc e review , the § 169 Avisibilit yprogram , an d states ' obli

gatio n t o protec t the PS D increment s - - provid e additiona l mechanism s fo r preventing visibilit yo r an yothe r ai r qualit y impairment . Th e duplicatio n o f an existing regulatorysyste m an d the conflict s betwee n agencie s inheren t i n tha t duplicatio n repre sen t an additiona l cos t o f Alternativ e I V no t addresse d b

ythe RIA .

* * * * 

### EPAadmit s tha t the result s o f it s cost-benefi t analysi s ar e ambiguous . Th e flaw s an d omission s whic h I hav e discusse d thi s mornin g magnif ytha t ambiguit yan d rende r th e cost-benefi t analysi s nearl yuseles s i n th e decision-making process . I urg e th e Agenc yt o conside r the cost s o f regulatio n I hav e raise d her e toda

yan d t o balanc e the

magains t the diminishe d benefit s o f Alternativ e IV . Th e rationa l conclusio n shoul d b e clear ; Alternativ e I

V woul d impos e significan t burden s o n fue l consumer s an

d th e coa l industrywit h (a t best ) onl yimpercepti

bl e environmenta l benefits . Th e nex t speaker , Mr . Gal e Hoffnagl e o f TRC Environmenta l Consultants , wil l addres s cer tai n additiona l technica l flaw s i n Alternativ e IV , including
-11
-P.6 0



### underestimatio n o f cost s an d overestimatio n o f benefit s i n th e RIA . Thank yo u fo r you r tim e an d attention . I wil l b e happyt o answe r an

yquestions , including specifi c question s regarding the analysi s o f th e Alto n projec t a t th e en d o f the NCA/AM C statement .

•12
-

# IT P.6 1



### STATEMEN

T O F GAL E F . HOFFNAGL E TRC ENVIRONMENTA

L CONSULTANT S O NBEHAL F O F NCA/AMC AT U.S . EP

APUBLI C HEARIN

G ONPROPOSA

L TO LIS T SURFAC E COA L MINE S UNDE R SECTIO

N302(j ) O F TH E CLEA NAI R AC T 1 . INTRODUCTION . EPA' s modeling o f bot h ambien t ai r qualit yan d visibilit y i s flawe d an

d therefor e drasticall yunderstate s the effec t o f Alternativ e I

V on mining . 2 . TH E RI AUNDERSTATE S TH E IMPAC T O NMINE S O F ALTERNATIVE IV . 3 A . Definitio n o f "significan t impact: " 1 ug/ m o r les s a t an ydistance . B . Th e analysi s o f mine s whic h coul d hav e a significan t impac t on "protecte d areas " assume s the trivia l min e siz e whic hmeet s Clas s I I increment s (which itsel f i s a n overestimate) . Th e RI Afail s t o analyz e the mor e importan t question : wha t mine s hav e a "significan t impact " o n th

e protecte d areas . Economically-size d mine s coul d hav e a "significan t impact " a t distance s u p t o 18 0 kilometer s or more . Fo r instance , an ymin e i n the entir e Powde r Rive r Basi n migh t be require d t o b e listed . Ther e migh t eve n be a patchwor k o f thos e tha t ar e an

d ar e no t listed . Mor e importantly , mine s wit h a significan t impac t woul d b e require d t o mee t Clas s I I increment s a t thei r boundaries , far fro mth e "protecte d area" , whic h in man yo r mos t case s woul d

# ¥ P.6 2



### 3 .

4 . 

# i resul t in permi t denia l an d resulting increase d advers e impacts . TH E RI AOVERSTATE S TH E VISIBILITY BENEFIT S O F ALTERNATIVE IV . A . Mining woul d be preclude d ou t t o th e averag e visua l rang e a t each protecte d are a becaus e the visibilit y analysi s is , counterintuitively , independen t o f dis

tanc e fro

m the observer . B . Detail s o f the visibilit yanalysi s hav e no t ye t bee n mad e available . TH E RI AFAIL S T O RECOGNIZ E TH E ADMINISTRATIVE IMPRACTIBILITY AN D OTHE R "HIDDEN " COST S OF ALTERNATIV E IV . Determining "significan t impact " unde r Alternativ e I V i s a highl ycomple x technica l determinatio n involving extensiv e analysi s an

d agencyinteraction . Al l o f thi s analysi s woul d hav e t o occur prio r t o applicatio n fo r a permit .

-2
-

# F

>- '

/D O •*•!« &

UWOMIWG



# T iP.6 4



### SUMMARY & CONCLUSION S PETE R KEPPLE R ASSISTAN

T GENERAL COUNSE L AMAX , INC . AT U.S . EP

APUBLI C HEARIN

G O NPROPOSA

L T O LIS T SURFAC E COA L MINE S UNDE R SECTIO

N302(j ) O F TH E CLEA NAI R AC T Denver , Colorad o Apri l 9 , 198 6 Surfac e coa l mine s ar e no t a significan t sourc e o f partic

ulat e matter , a s compare d t o agricultur e an d unpave d roads . Benefit s fro

mregulating surfac e coa l mine s ar e les s than zer o for Alternativ e I I an d II I an

d uncertai n o r minima l fo r Alternativ e IV :

W e believ e EPA' s analyse s showing an ybenefit s fo r listing surfac e coa l mine s ar e flawe d an d overstated . A s w e hav e stated , fugitiv e emission s fro msurfac e coa l mine s d o no t have significan t healt h or welfar e impacts . Ther e i s no basi s for th e soiling "benefits " pro jecte d b

yth e RIA . Mine s shoul d be a separat e sourc e category ; theyar e dis

tinc t an

d uniqu e source s o f particulat e matte r a s compare d t o othe r source s subjec t t o PSD . Th e cost s o f subjecting surfac e coa l mine s t o newsourc e reviewan

d PS D regulation s fa r outweigh the benefits :

- Studie s don e for AMC an d NC Ab yTRC an

d IC F show cost s o f Alternative s II-I V ar e muc h greate r tha n estimate d b

yEPA . Cost s coul d g o a s hig h a s $ 8 bil

lion/year , an

d coul d be eve n higher . Also , ICF studie s sho wsubjecting surfac e coa l mine s t o PS D reviewwoul d caus e significan t change s in regiona l coa l production , wit h a n overal l declin e in production .

### Alternativ e IV woul d subjec t surfac e mine s whos e emission s impac t Clas s I an

d mandatoryClas s I I area s t o PS D regulation . A s pointe d ou t i n ou r testimony , EPA' s analysi s o f Alternativ e I

V i s flawed : I t i s premise d o n unfounde d assumptions , fo r example , mine s wil l mov e beyon d ambien t impac t rang e o f Clas s I/I I areas ; I t i s base d on predicte d effect s o f two hypothetica l min e location s an

d assert s tha t les s than 1 % o f al l U.S . surfac e minabl e reserve s woul d be affected ; Th e IC F analysi s conclude s a t leas t 2 0 coa l field s in nin e state s woul d b e affected . Impact s ar e muc h greater.,whe

n yo u conside r significanc e leve l ( 1 ug/ m) . Th e RI Afail s t o conside r productio n an d permitting cost s for mine s affecte d b yAlternativ e I

V becaus e i t assume s tha t al l mine s wil l mov e beyon d the regula
tor yboundary . Also , the cost s o f Alternativ e IV ar e underestimate d becaus e th

e RI Aignore s planning an d developmen t cost s associate d wit h 1 8 potentiall yaffecte d coa l field s identifie d in ICF' s stud yan d th e change s i n cost s o f transportation , infrastructur e an d othe r items . Ther e i s overlap an d duplicatio n wit h the SMCR Aprogram : SMCR Abar s mining i n Clas s I areas . Th e Secretaryo f Interio r an d state s hav e authorit yto designat e area s "unsuitable " for mining .

-2
-P.6 6

til' s

### Iffn n •'11 ' i I ' i :.''( : i! : J i ' -. •I l ( ! H i li'"' "P.6 7

4 0 Wyi » Futl i IWvno l *_Mont i RochtP t (STwn i 4 1 RoClWll l (PutKKtV l 4 4 Nor m Anttlop t INorO I AnMcetCoil ) 4 5 Anulop t INERCO I Selecte d Coe l Tract * 4 6 COUIM B *> « C IMwiiffwict ) 4 7 Coliu wUaiminen n *t Oowni vCaul* . G O Norihwi t Ottt rCrtt * S t MuoSDring i 5 2 Hingin g Wom wCrtt k 5 1 Nori n Deck * 1 (Muntirunct l S 4 Nort h Decke rl l IMiintmmce ) 5 6 Wal t Mounu m IMimtinwce l G ' VoungiOn k S O Hiy&w * S 3 Moun t Loa m 8 5 Thunderclou d 6 7 fl.dg.'u~>- Conflic t Art s betwee n Selecte d Coa l Tract i in d Coa l Enchanga * Conflic t AI M betwee n Selecte d Coa l Tri e i t sn d Producin g o rNo n producin g Min n Coa l Eiching n S S Gul f J O B*lc o 7 1 KerrMcGe e A V fE.chingr . 7 1 Whiinr yBentl m Norther n (Nv«w i E leninge i 7 3 PMMOVCM I 7 4 Como l ^

A • ..-«—, . -»-,.-• -

-t-1- - U N TE C M d ThunderbJrd Join !

10 3 "m o Roed _. Sit u 104 Ch*rli e Or t BodyM'n e an d Mil l 10 5 Maor i flinch Min e 10 7 Ope n "i t en d Sectio n 3 4 Mine i 10 6 IetonE«plo»ilioninSm i 10 9 Bil l Smit h H n SPRBU. N 11 0 HioMtndMme.ncM.i l

Bemonit e Min e in d Mil l Are a 11 3 America n Colloi d Min t in d Wil l 11 5 Intfriunioni l Mineri l Compan v 1 I S Ftderi l Btntonii e Corpoitio n • 11 7 America n Colloi d M.n » M B Fetfcri l Bentonit t Omiio n Min t 11 0 Bento n Oi vCorporatio n Min t 17 0 Ktit H Bentonit e Corporatio n 1 13 1 Bento n Ol yCorporatio n Mil l Oi l an d GaiFiti d Are a Propoae d Coa l Slurr yPreparati o Exiitin g Tranwniuio n Lin a PropoM d Trenimitjio n Lin a E ninin g Railroa d Propoae d Railroa d Propoae d ETS I Pipelin e

198 4 Coa l Leas e Sal e Regiona l Activity Powde rRive rCoa l Environmenta l Impact Statemen tP.6 8

TESTIMONYBYJOHN

DWYER , PRESIDEN T NORTHDAKOT A

LIGNIT E COUNCI L PUBLI C HEARING S O

N SURFAC E COAL MIN E FUGITIV E EMISSION S BEFOR E TH E U.S . ENVIRONMENTA L PROTECTIO N AGENC Y DOCKE T #A-84-3 3 APRI L 9 , 198 6 DENVER , COLORAD O

M y name i s JohnDwye r an dI a m presiden t o f th e Nort hDakot a Lignit e Council . Th e Nort hDakot a Lignit e Council' s membershi pinclude s ou r state' s majo r pro ducers , wh o togethe r produc e ove r 2 5 millio nton s annuall y from surfac e coa l mines , a s wel l a s th e investor-owne dutilitie s an drura l electri c cooperative s wh o generat e electricit y from lignite . Thos e companie s plannin g futur e project s ar e als o represente db y th e Lignit e Council .

I nth e Februar y

28 , 198 6 Federa l Register , EPA request s comment s o nfou r regu lator y alternatives . Th e Nort hDakot a Lignit e Counci l urge s EPA t o selec t Al ternativ e I--Do no t lis t surfac e coa l mine s a s majo r source s fo r New Sourc e Revie w andPS Dregulation .

W e agre e wit hEPA' s statemen t i nth e Federa l Registe r tha t ..."th e cost s de termine dunde r Alternativ e I I andII I considerabl y excee dth e benefits" . A s reporte db

y TR C Environmenta l Consultant s i na repor t prepare dfo r th e Nort h Dakot a Lignit e Counci l onthi s issue , Nort hDakot a lignit e mine s woul dbe re stricte dt o n o mor e tha non e (1 ) millio nton s pe r yea r ( a copy o f thi s repor t wil l b e submitte dprio r t o Apri l 29 , 1986) . Thi s i s assumin g tha t no othe r source s i nth e are a hav e consume dany PS Dincrement . Mos t mine s i nNort h -1 -P.6 9

Dakot a ar e muc hlarge r tha nthi s inorde r t o suppor t othe r facilities , namel y electrica l generatin g plant s an dth e Grea t Plain s Coa l Gasificatio nPlant . Therefore , i t i s unlikel y tha t a min e smalle r tha non e (1 ) millio nton s pe r yea r coul db e opened . Accordin g t o studie s don e b y ICF , Inc. , onbehal f o f th e America nMinin g Congres s andth e Nationa l Coa l Association , Alternativ e I I woul dcaus e Nort hDakot a lignit e cost s t o increas e b y mor e tha n30 % an

dAlter nativ e II I woul dcaus e th e cost s t o increas e b y mor e tha n230% . Eithe r cas e woul dreduc e ou r abilit y t o compet e wit hothe r energ y sources , particularl y wit hhydroelectri c powe r importe dfro m Canada .
Afte r reviewin g Alternativ e I V o f th e RIA , w e believ e tha t th e cost s woul dfa r outweig hth e imperceptibl e environmenta l benefits . Inaddition , Alternativ e I V woul drestric t 88 9 millio nton s o f Nort hDakot a lignit e fro m bein g use dac cordin g t o th e ICF , Inc . studies .
Furthermore , Alternativ e II , II I an dI V woul dhav e sever e economi c hardship s onou r state' s lignit e industr y whic hha s alread y

bee nhar dhi t b

y productio n losse s andjo blay-offs .

A brie f revie w

o f recen t productio nlosse s indicate s Nort hDakot a ha s los t fiv e (5 ) millio nton s annually .

Annua l productio ncutback s a t Knif e River' s Gascoyn e andBeula hmine s tota l 1. 5 millio ntons . Th e shutdowno f Basi nElectric' s William J . Nea l Statio n resulte di na los s o f 250,00 0 ton s annually . Wit hth e two unit s o f th e Lelan d Old s Statio noperatin g ona nalternatin g basis , productio na t th e Glenharol dP.7 0

Min e ha s bee ncu t b

y 1. 8 millio ntons . Th e amoun t o f lignit e burne da t th e Antelop e Valle y

Statio nthi s yea r wil l be 1. 2 millio nton s les s tha nori ginall y planned .
Thi s los t lignit e productio no f 5 millio nton s annuall y i nNort hDakot a ha s resulte dinlos t jobs , los t lignit e expenditure s an dreduce deconomi c growth . Preventin g furthe r declin e i nproductio nwil l b e difficul t unles s mor e elec tricit y ca nb e sol da t competitiv e rate s fro m Nort hDakota' s lignite-fire d powe r plants .

I f Alternative s II , II I o r I V o f th e RI A

ar e adopted , w e believ e the remainin g 4,00 0 job s involve di nNort hDakota' s lignit e mine s andenerg y conversio nfa cilitie s wil l b e seriousl y jeopardized . Thi s woul dfurthe r compoun dth e eco nomi c proble m

facin g ou r stat e du e t o declinin g oi l andga s price s anda very stagnan t farm

economy .

Inth e Federa l Registe r notice , EP A als o solicite dcomment s onth e issu e o f mine s associate dwit hothe r source s tha t ar e subjec t t o new sourc e review . In othe r words , i t coul db e construe dtha t a min e mout hpowe r plan t an dassoci ate dmine s ar e a singl e source . Virtuall y every larg e existin g surfac e coa l min e inNort hDakot a would , unde r thi s interpretation , b e subjec t t o new sourc e review . We believ e thi s t o b e unreasonable . Powe r plant s an dmine s ar e generall y

unde r separat e ownershi pan dar e subjec t t o differen t set s o f regulations . Generally , operation s othe r tha ntransfe r o f coa l betwee nth e min e andth e powe r plan t ar e completel y independent . Coa l mine s ar e intensel y



### -3 -P.7 1

regulate db

y the Offic e o f Surfac e Minin g an dar e require db

y la w t o minimiz e erosio nb

y ai r andwater .

W e agre e wit hth e America nMinin g Congress , a s state di nth e Federa l Register , tha t coa l mine s whic har e source s o f fugitiv e emission s o f larg e iner t parti cle s ar e no t th e typ e o f source s Congres s intende dt o regulate . We urg e EP A t o chang e th e appropriat e regulator y definition s t o clarif y tha t minin g oper ation s constitut e a separat e sourc e categor y whic hnever i s par t of , o r com bine s with , an

y o f th e liste dcategorie s fo r New Sourc e Review .
Th e EPA ha s no t demonstrate dtha t surfac e coa l min e emission s adversel y affec t publi c healt ho r welfare . Th e overwhelmin g technica l informatio navailabl e suggest s tha t particulat e matte r fro m surfac e coa l mine s doe s no t hav e anad vers e impac t onhuma nhealt ho r welfare . I t appear s EPA ha s conclude dtha t surfac e coa l mine s hav e th e potentia l t o significantl y degrad e ai r qualit y be caus e the y

ar e capabl e o f producin g mor e tha n25 0 ton s pe r yea r o f fugitiv e emissions . However , a repor t b y Evan s an

dCoope r i nth e Decembe r 198 0 Journa l o f th e Ai r Pollutio nContro l Associatio nstate s tha t surfac e coa l mine s col lectivel y

contribut e les s tha n.0 5 percen t o f th e tota l nationa l fugitiv e emissio nburden .

I nproposin g t o includ e surfac e coa l mine s a s a majo r stationer y source , i t woul dappea r tha t EPA ha s gon e rabbi t huntin g wit ha cruis e missile . Surfac e coa l mine s cannot , i ngoo dconscience , b e considere da significan t threa t agains t ai r qualit y

whil e al l othe r contributors , includin g unpave droad s (48 % o f tota l fugitiv e emissions ) an dagricultur e (46% ) ar e virtuall y ignored . -4 -P.7 2

I t i s importan t t o understan dtha t i nproposin g thi s rulemaking , EPA woul dbe restrictin g coa l development , increasin g th e cos t o f powe r t o th e consume r and jeopardizin g a fragil e Nort hDakot a lignit e econom y tha t ha s already

bee nhar d hi t du e t o it s inabilit y t o compet e wit hothe r energ y sources . Thi s i s par ticularl y

distressin g whe nyo uconside r th e fac t tha t fugitiv e dus t fro m sur fac e mine s i s very

insignifican t whe ncompare dt o simila r unregulate dfugitiv e dus t source s suc ha s unpave droad s andagricultura l operations , whic har e in abundanc e i nNort hDakot a an dothe r Wester nstates .
Than kyo ufo r you r time an dattention . I wil l be happy t o answe r any question s yo uhav e a t thi s time .P.7 3

TESTIMONYO F ROBER T B . FLAGG MANAGER , TECHNICA L & RESEARC HSERVICE S MININGANDRECLAMATION COUNCI L O F AMERICA

AND KE N WILLIAM S DIRECTOR , GOVERNMEN T AFFAIR S WESTERN ENERGYCOMPAN

Y

O N BEHAL F O F TH E MININGANDRECLAMATION COUNCI L O F AMERICA

A T TH E ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENC Y PUBLI C HEARING O N TH E PROPOSE DLISTINGO F SURFAC E COAL MINE S

FO RPS DPURPOSE S Docke t No . A-84-3 3

APRI L 9 , 198 6 DENVER , COLORAD OP.7 4

Goodmorning , m

y name i s Rober t Flagg , Manage r o f Technica l an d Researc hServices , o f the Minin g an dReclamatio nCounci l o f America , bette r know na s "MARC" . MAR C i s a nationa l trad e association , representin g th e surfac e coa l minin g an dancillar y

industries . MARC' s member s min e coa l i nal l producin g region s o f the Unite dState s an di t i s o

nthei r behal f tha t I appea r befor e yo utoday .

Thi s testimony

i s inrespons e t o th e Octobe r 26 , 198 4 proposa l b y EPA t o lis t surfac e coa l minin g a s majo r stationer y source s subjec t t o PS Dan d non-attainmen t ne

w sourc e review . I

nadditio nt o addressin g majo r philosophical , factua l an dlega l issue s raise db y the propose dregulation , the remark s wil l focu s onsevera l o f th e majo r flaw s i nth e regulator y impac t analysi s (RIA ) andbackgroun ddocument s associate dwit hthi s rulemakin g effort .

Today' s remark s wil l cente r aroundfou r points :
0 I t i s inappropriat e t o regulat e fugitiv e dus t fo r surfac e coa l mines . Suc hemission s caus e neithe r significan t advers e healt ho r welfar e effect s no r do they significantl y

degrad e ai r quality . Surfac e coa l min e emission s accoun t fo r onl y .05 % o f th e tota l inventor y

o f suchemission s nationwid e an dtherefor e regulatio nwoul d hav e a d e minimu s ai r qualit y impact . 0 Th e rulemakin g i s premature . Th e natur e o f the pollutan t i s subjec t t o EP A

rulemakin g andno accurat e method s exis t t o model , monitor , o r measur e emission s ar e available . 0 Th e genera l conclusion s reache dinEPA' s regulator y impac t analysi s regardin g option s tw o an dthre e ar e correct , howeve r th e cost/benefi t analysi s i s seriousl y flawe dan

dgrossl y

underestimate s costs . I f meteorologica l andeconomi c modelin g assumption s ar e change dt o mor e closel y reflec t reality , EPA' s conclusion s tha t cost s fa r outweig hbenefit s under option s 2 an d3 ar e understate d substantially .P.7 5

- 2 - 0 EPA' s conclusio ntha t benefit s may outweig hcost s unde r optio n4 i s base dupo na grossl y flawe danalysi s o f tn e actua l impac t onth e industr y andonai r quality . Today s comment s ar e genera l andwil l be furthe r substantiate din writte ncomments . Regardin g the latter , I wis ht o tak e thi s opportunit y t o formall y reques t a thirt y

day extensio no f th e commen t period . Th e currentl y allotte dsixt y

day s doe s no t permi t sufficien t tim e t o adequatel y

addres s th e assumption s anddocumentatio nEP A ha s take nsevera l year s t o compile . Absen t a nextension , th e administrativ e recor dmay no t be sufficien t fo r EPA t o bas e a fina l decision . MAR C look s forwar dt o favorabl e actio nonthi s reques t a s soona s possible .

Tn e reaso nfo r m

y appearanc e her e toda y i s quit e simple . MARC' s member s hav e a vita l interes t inthi s rulemakin g proceeding . Th e abilit y t o ope nsurfac e mine s o r expandexistin g one s wil l b e substantiall y andadversel y effecte db

y an y o f EP A fugitiv e emission s regulator y option s whic hdiffe r fro m th e statu s quo . Th e primar y concer ni s tha t unde r the curren t definitio no f particulat e matte r a s tota l suspende dparticulate , i t woul db e impossible , a s distinc t fro

m bein g costly , t o permi t al l Du t th e smalles t new o r expande d surfac e minin g operatio ni nspit e o f th e absenc e o f an y significan t environmenta l benefit . Surfac e minin g i s already subjec t t o BAC T o r it s equivalen t throug hcomplianc e wit hOSM , MSHA , EPA an dothe r stat e regulator y scheme s tha t contro l fugitiv e emission s t o protec t agains t advers e healt ho r welfar e effects . Thes e facts , togethe r wit hth e inadequac y o f the curren t regulator y

tool s t o model , measure , andmonito r fugitiv e emission s caus e MAR C t o questio nbot hth e basis , necessit y andpracticalit y

o f thi s rulemakin g effort .P.7 6

- 3 - I . Genera l Regulator y Deficiencie s
A
. Timelines s
First , andcritica l t o an y discussio no f appropriatenes s o f thi s rul e makin g i s whethe r i t i s timely . MARC woul drespond"NO" . Issue s o f critica l importanc e indeterminin g th e applicabilit y an dimpac t o f thi s proposa l hav e no t bee nresolve da s th e propose drevision s t o EPA' s ambien t ai r qualit y standard s fo r particulat e matter . Tha t rulemakin g propose s definition s and option s fo r definin g particulat e matte r fo r PS Dpurposes . Inadvanc e o f a decissio nonthi s issue , i t i s basicall y impossibl e fo r oot hEPA andth e genera l publi c t o asses s the nee dfor , ramification s andpotentia l cost s and benefit s o f surfac e coa l min e listing . Primar y andsecondar y

ambien t ai r qualit y standard s ar e the controllin g factor s i ndeterminin g th e impac t o f PS D regulatio no f mines . Th e very standar dupo nwhic hth e listin g decisio ni s predicate dremain s subjec t t o chang e andi na stat e o f confusion . I t i s inconceivabl e ho

w EPA ca njustif y

no t onl y

it s ow neffort s t o date , bu t forcin g industr y

t o expendmillion s o f dollar s t o evaluat e listing , whe ni n fac t we ar e very

likel y chasin g no t onl y

a movin g targe t bu t perhap s the wron g on e altogether .

B . Th e 25 0 tons/yr . Threshol d

I t furthe r appear s tha t EPA ha s conclude dtha t surfac e coa l mine s (SCM's ) pos e a significan t threa t t o ai r qualit y degradatio ndu e solel y t o th eP.7 7

- 4 - suppositio ntha t mos t mine s o f economicall y viabl e siz e emi t i nexces s o f 25 0 ton s pe r yea r o f particulat e matter . MAR C doe s no t believ e a presumptio ntha t a sourc e pose s a threa t o f significan t ai r qualit y degradatio nshoul daris e fro m th e mer e fac t tha t i t produce s 25 0 ton s pe r yea r o f fugitiv e dust . Ther e i s n o basi s i nth e Clea nAi r Ac t o r it s legislativ e histor y fo r a conclusio n tha t Congres s believe do r inferre dtha t 25 0 ton s a yea r o f fugitiv e dus t emission s wer e "significant" . T o interpre t th e Ac t insuc ha nexpansionar y manne r woul drequir e EP A t o lis t a s a majo r sourc e suc hactivitie s a s a pick-u ptruc kona dir t roadandfarming . Thi s concep t i s clearl y absurd . Becaus e EPA' s presumptio ntha t a sourc e o f 25 0 ton s pose s a significan t threa t t o ai r qualit y

i s unfounded , MARC submit s ther e i s no basi s fo r listin g mines . Th e recor ddoe s no t indicat e a demonstrativ e connectio nbetwee nthos e emission s andadvers e healt ho r welfar e effects , a predicat e fo r action . Protectio nfro

m thes e effects , a s clearl y state dinSectio n16 0 o f the Clea n Ai r Ac t (CAA) , i s the principa l goa l o f th e PS Dprogram .

C . Emissio nFactor s

Moreover , EPA

ha s propose dt o ad

dSCM' s t o th e §302(j ) lis t o f sourc e categorie s withou t makin g anattemp t t o asses s th e reliabilit y o f availabl e method s t o mode l andquantif y fugitiv e emission s fro m suchmines . Th e quantificatio nissu e mus t b e resolve dbefor e an y reasonabl e decisio nt o lis t ca nb e made , rathe r tha nafte r th e fact . A t presen t ther e ar e no emissio n factor s fo r easter nmine s andno metho dt o accoun t fo r pi t retention . Curren t emissio nfactor s ar e estimate dt o hav e anerro r facto r o f 2 t o 1 0 whil e- 5 -

applicabl e ai r qualit y model s hav e anerro r facto r o f 6 t o 30 . Withou t thes e analytica l tools , andi nth e absenc e o f a causa l connectio nbetwee nemission s andhealt handwelfar e effects , th e agenc y i s clearl y

actin g i na manne r contrar y t o Sec . 307(d)(3 ) o f the CAA .

D . Sectio n307(d)(3 ) Requirement s
Sectio n307(d)(3 ) require s tha t a notic e o f rulemakin g b e accompanie d b y a statemen t o f th e rule' s basi s andpurpose . Thi s require s inclusio no f th e factua l dat a onwhic hth e rul e i s based , th e methodolog y use di nobtainin g andanalyzin g th e data , an dth e majo r lega l andpolic y consideration s underlyin g th e proposal . Thi s proposa l violate s th e fundamenta l principle s o f rulemakin g anddu e proces s b y failin g t o inform

th e publi c o f th e purpos e and inten t o f th e proposa l andth e relationshi pt o othe r regulator y requirements . Thi s i s clea r whe non e recognize s tha t althoug hEPA ha s conclude dth e propose d rulemakin g woul db e applicabl e t o majo r stationer y source s andmajo r modification s o f suc hsources , i t ha s no t give nan y indicatio no r definitio n o f type s o f activitie s though t t o constitut e a majo r modification . Since , unde r curren t definition , a majo r modificatio nrelativ e t o P M i s an y activit y wit hth e potentia l t o emi t twenty-fiv e ton s pe r year , thi s i s very troubling . Thi s leve l ca nb e exceede db y addin g a s littl e a s thirty-seve nfee t o f hau l roada t a si xmillio ntonpe r yea r min e o r b y a sligh t chang e instrippin g ratios , minin g equipmen t changes , etc . Th e EPA ha s no t eve nbegu nt o addres s thi s issu e an

dtherefor e onc e agai nsimpl y ha s no t afforde dth e potentiall y regulate dcommunit y

a nappropriat e opportunit y t o formulat e aninforme d response .P.7 9

- 6 - E . Burde no f Proo f

A s illustrate di nth e preceedin g points , EPA' s sequencin g o f event s i s highl y

questionabl e an

dillegall y

snift s th e burde no f proo f fro m EPA t o th e privat e sector . Th e Supreme Cour t ha s state dtha t ordinaril y i t i s th e proponen t o f a rul e o r orde r wh o ha s th e burde no f proo f i nadministrativ e proceeding s an

dtha t unles s Congres s ha s specificall y provide dotherwis e i t intende dth e agenc y

t o bea r th e burde no f establishin g th e nee dfo r a propose s rule . Th e EPA

na s no t demonstrate drequire dnecessit y fo r the rul e an

dfaile d t o mee t it s burde no f proo f i nderogatio no f it s statutor y mandates . Th e cour t i nAlabama Powe r cas e di dno t creat e a "presumption " i nfavo r o f regulatio no f fugitiv e dus t emissions , bu t instea dcreate da "precondition " t o suc hregulation , namel y appropriat e EPA

rulemaking . I t neithe r create da presumptio ntha t al l source s emittin g 25 0 ton s o r mor e o f fugitiv e emission s pe r yea r shoul db e regulate da s majo r stationar y sources , no r suggeste dtha t industry mus t carr y

th e burde no f provin g anunacceptable benefi t t o cos t ratio . Tn e 302(j ) rulemakin g requirements , a s clarrifie di nAlabama Powe r case , ar e clearl y

o nEPA , no t o

nindustry . F
. SCM' s Contributio n t o Fugitiv e Emission s Centra l t o th e entir e fugitiv e dus t an d surfac e min e listin g questio n i s "wha t effec t do fugitiv e emission s hav e o n ai rqualit yan d healt h an d welfar e values"
. T

o answe rthi s EP

Amust acknowledg e th e scientifi cfact s an d th e result s o fthei row n studie s —tha t th e relativel ysmal l contributio n o fP.8 0

fugitiv e emissio nfro m SCM' s t o tota l particulat e concentrations , andth e locatio no f suc hmine s insparsel y populate dareas , sugges t th e overal l impac t o nai r qualit y

i s minimal . A

198 0 stud

y ha s foundtha t onl y

one-twentit ho f on e percen t o f fugitiv e emissio ncome s fro m surfac e coa l mine s whil e 3% , 46% , and48 % come fro

m construction , agricultura l an dunpave droad s respectively . Further , ther e i s anothe r recen t stud y whic hconclude s tha t i narea s wher e SCM' s hav e displace dagricultura l activitie s a s the land' s use , overal l ambien t particulat e concentration s hav e bee nreduced . I t therefor e appear s tha t EPA i s attemptin g t o regulat e no t onl y the wron g "pollutant " bu t th e wron g entit y

a s well .
Thi s i s reinforce db

y th e fac t tha t the vas t majorit y o f particulate s emitte dfro

m SCM' s ar e larg e particle s whic hfal l t o the groundrapidl y and correspondingl y

hav e onl y

a temporar y

effec t onai r qualit y i nth e min e area . Moreover , suc hparticles , bein g o f crustl e composition , ar e chemicall y iner t ando f a siz e tha t hav e littl e impac t onvisibility . A substantia l bod

y o f scientifi c evidenc e support s the innoucuou s effect s onpubli c healt hand welfar e associate dwit hthes e fugitiv e emissions . Determinatio no f a threa t i s scientificall y

unfounded . Th e proposa l constitute s a regulator y over-reactio nt o littl e mor e thana loca l nuisanc e problem , th e latte r o f whic hi s already

bein g addresse db

y loca l ordinance s inmos t area s o f th e country . Th e coa l industr y inth e Unite dState s i s already on e o f the mos t heavil y regulate dandenvironmentall y controlle dindustrie s inth e world , t o forc e hundred s o f suc hoperation s ou t o f busines s base dupona perceive d rathe r thanactua l problem i s unconsionable .P.8 1

- 3 - Thre e additiona l point s I wis ht o address , prio r t o turnin g rn y attentio nt o a fe

w o f th e majo r deficiencie s o f the RIA , concer nthe lega l efficac y o f portion s o f EP

A proposal , the legalit y o f EPA' s listin g o f a "sub-class " o f mine s and , th e lega l deficienc y o f EPA' s disregar dfo r the §302(j ) rulemakin g proces s a s i t pertain s t o certai nminin g operations .
G . Statutor y

Concern s andConflict s
1 . Grandfathe r Provision s
Th e firs t poin t i s easil y illustrate dfro

m the standpoin t o f th e "diligence " requirement s o f the Federa l Coa l Leasin g Amendment s Ac t (FCLAA ) o f 197 6 an dEPA' s propose dgrandfathe r provision . I norde r t o compl y

wit hPS D requirements , EPA' s ow nstudie s sho

w tha t min e size s woul dhav e t o be restricte dan

dexistin g mine s woul dnee dt o b e downsized . Thi s raise s seriou s lega l concern s i nligh t o f th e FCLA A requirement s tha t federa l coa l lessee s diligentl y

develo pthei r propertie s withi ntenyear s fro m leas e issuanc e o r relinquis hth e lease . Diligen t developmen t i s define da s 1 % o f lease d reserve s b

y th e endo f the tent hyea r fro m leas e issuance . Afte r yea r 10 , i f the operato r wishe s t o avoi dpayin g advanc e royalties , h e mus t maintai nth e lease s ina stat e o f continue doperation . Continue doperatio nmean s continuin g productio no f 1 % a yea r afte r diligenc e i s met . The 197 6 Ac t als o require s tha t th e lease dreserve s b e mine dou t i na perio dno t t o excee d4 0 year s i f the lease s ar e unitize di na logica l minin g unit . Th e statutor y catc h2 2 dilemma i s eas y t o se e fro

m th e followin g example .P.8 2

- 9 - I f 36 0 millio nton s o f reserve s ar e unde r lease , the productio n obligatio nwoul drequir e a minimu m productio no f 3.6 0 millio nton s annuall y b y th e endo f th e firs t 1 0 year s anda minimu m o f 3.6 0 m

ton s eac hyea r thereafter . Th e min e woul drequir e a naverag e o f 1 2 mt y

afte r th e tent hyea r t o satisf y

the 4 0 yea r mineou t requirement . Bot hthes e condition s woul d resul t i nfugitiv e emission s tha t violat e PS Dincrements , andthu s preclud e suc hanoperatio nfro m bein g permitted . Applicatio no f th e propose drul e woul dresul t i nthe los s o f coa l reserve s which , onit s face , woul dappea r t o be anunconstitutiona l taking . Th e proposa l woul dfurthe r hav e a deliteriou s impac t onth e futur e o f th e federa l coa l managemen t andleasin g progra m and resul t ina substantia l los s o f revenu e t o bot hthe federa l an dstat e governments .

EPA ha s propose dtha t actua l emission s o f mine s o nwhic hconstructio n commence dprio r t o th e dat e o f fina l actio nonth e rulemakin g notic e shoul db e grandfathere dfro

m retroactiv e consumptio no f PS Dincrement . Thi s rul e woul d appl y unles s suc hemission s occurre dafte r anapplicabl e baselin e dat e ha s bee nestablishe dfo r th e effecte darea . Inmany states , a s Wyomin g wher e a statewid e baselin e wa s se t i n1977 , an y benefi t o f th e grandfatherin g provisio nwoul db e largel y negated . I f al l existin g site s ar e grandfathered , a provisio nstrongl y

supporte db

y MARC , th e qualifyin g phras e restrictin g grandfatherin g t o emission s tha t occure dprio r t o a napplicabl e baselin e dat e shoul db e deleted . T o retroactivel y appl y th e propose drulemakin g t o existin g operation s woul dconstitut e anunconstitutiona l takin g an dbadpubli c policy .P.8 3

- 1 0 - A nadditiona l key

phras e inthe grandfatherin g proposa l i s the ter m "commencemen t o f construction " a s note di nth e preamble . Thi s ter m shoul d includ e new

mine s an

dplanne dminin g extention s wher e commitment s have bee n made . Example s o f suc hwoul db e wher e a company ha s expende dresource s i n acquirin g coa l reserves , conductin g environmenta l baselin e studies , alterin g it s min e plans , o r obtainin g contractua l commitment s fo r th e coal . I t i s unlikel y tha t th e compan

y woul db e abl e t o obtai nPS Dpermit s t o min e thes e reserve s under th e propose drules , raisin g th e "takings " issu e note dearlier .

2 . Optio n4
I n additio n t o grandfathering , a n issu e o n whic h EP Asolicite d commen t wa s whethe ri t shoul d lis t onl ythos e SCM' s tha t "effect " Clas s I o r mandator yClas s I I area s —know n a s optio n four
. Beyon d th e negativ e ne t benefit s associate d wit h suc h a listin g whic h wil l be discusse d later , MAR C question s EPA' s lega l authorit yt o distinguis h a "sub-class " o fClas s I I areas . Althoug h tni s appears t o be EPA' s preferre d option , unde rth e CA Abot h mandator yan d non-mandator

yClas s I I area s wer e asigne d th e sam

e PS D protection s an d increment
. The Congres s specificall yse t thre e classe s an d thre e incremen t level s no t fou rclasses
. The onl ydistinctio n mad e b y Congres s wa

s tha t mandator

yClas s II' s ma

yonl yb e redsignate d t o highe r qualit ywhereas regula rClas s II' s ma yb e redesignate d t o eithe rhighe ro r lowe rclasses
. A

s a practica l matter , ther e ar e no ground s fo rEPA' s distinction
. N

o Clas s II' s area s hav e eve rbee n redesignate d as Clas s II I an d non e ar e contemplated
. Ther e i s neithe ra lega l no rpractica l basi s fo rEPA' sP.8 4

- 1 1 - propose ddistinctio nbetwee nthes e type s o f Clas s I I areas . Moreove r ther e i s no lega l basi s fo r separatin g ou t Clas s I area s fo r specia l PS Dtreatmen t relativ e t o SC

M listing . Th e PS Dprogram afford s th e sam

e genera l protection s o r consideration s t o al l thre e classe s o f areas , wit hth e increment s servin g a s the mechanis m

whic hdictate s the actua l ai r qualit y t o b e protected . Th e Congres s di dno t intendt o se t upa fragmente dan dconfusin g PS Dprogram whic h woul dprovid e a differen t regulator y scheme fo r pollutant s an dindustria l practice s amon g th e thre e classes . I t seem s EPA , throughoptio n4 , i s attemptin g t o legislat e suc ha distinctio nb y regulation .
3 . Sectio n302(j )
Third , i nth e preambl e t o the fina l rul e EPA summarize dit s rulemakin g responsibilit y a s follows :

"EPA may requir e th e inclusio no f fugitiv e emission s i nthreshol d applicabilit y

determination s fo r project s i na particula r [source ] categor y onl y i f i t ha s firs t satisfie d the rulemakin g requiremen t o f §302(j ) a s t o tha t category... " 4 9 Fed . Reg . 43203 .

EPA ha s disregarde dthi s admission , however , anddecide dt o regulat e fugitiv e emission s fro m certai nminin g operation s withou t prope r consideratio n o f th e requirement s o f 302(j) . Specifically , problem s exis t regardin g (1 ) the SI C code/sourc e definition , (2 ) the reaffirme dlis t an d"adjacen t sources, " and(3 ) secondar y

emissions .P.8 5

- 1 2 - a . SI C Cod e

Inrespons e t o Alabama Powe r EPA determine dtha t i t woul dredefin e "source " an

dclassif y

a groupo f pollutan t emittin g activitie s a s a singl e PS D "source " i f thos e activitie s wer e include dwithi nth e definitiona l ter m o f th e firs t tw o digit s o f th e SI C code .
Accordin g t o the SI C tw o digi t groupings , th e fugitiv e emission s fro m minin g activitie s associate dwit hcleanin g plant s o r the extractio nprocesse s woul db e considere di nth e PS Dai r qualit y impac t analysi s an

dreview requirements . Thi s wil l occu r eve nthoughEP A hadneve r conducte d§302(j ) rulemakin g onthe impact s o f regulatin g fugitiv e dus t emission s fro m thes e mine s o r minin g operations . Inclusio no f fugitiv e dus t emission s fro m al l bu t th e smalles t minin g operation s withi nth e two digi t SI C cod e woul dhav e th e effec t o f prohibitin g issuanc e o f the PS Dpermi t t o th e source . I t i s arbitrar y

fo r EPA

t o "incidentally " o r "indirectly " subjec t fugitiv e dus t emission s fro

m minin g operation s t o PS Drequirement s simpl y o nthe basi s o f SI C code .
b . "Adjacen t Sources "

MAR C furthe r believe s tha t EPA' s reaffinne dlis t an dprovision s fo r adjacen t source s i s flawed . Specifically , mine s tha t ar e adjacen t t o on e o f th e source s include donth e reaffirme dlis t shoul dno t b e considere dpar t o f tha t "source. " I t make s n o sens e t o constru e mine s a s par t o f anothe rP.8 6

- 1 3 - sources , suc ha s a powerplant , merel y becaus e the min e i s adjacen t t o o r nea r a PS Dregulate dsource . I f "geographi c proximity " i s use dt o defin e inclusio n wit ha "source, " the nowner s an doperator s o f suc hfacilitie s wil l be encourage dt o relocate . Thi s woul dcaus e expande denvironmenta l impact s and reduce deconomi c efficiencies . EPA shoul dclarif y

tha t mine s ar e a separat e sourc e categor y

fo r al l PS Dpurposes . MAR C i s positiv e however , tha t whe n prope r rulemakin g i s undertaken , the evidenc e wil l establis htha t fugitiv e dus t emission s fro

m minin g operation s shoul dno t b e regulated .

c . Secondar y

Emission s

MAR C furthe r take s exceptio nt o EPA' s opinio no nsecondar y

emissions . The settlemen t agreemen t inCM A include da provisio ntha t EPA remov e the requiremen t tha t the "secondary emissions " o f a majo r stationar y sourc e ar e subjec t t o ai r qualit y impac t analysis . T o date , thi s ha s no t occurred . Therefore , sinc e secondary emission s include :
"Emission s fro

m an y offsit e suppor t facilit y whic hwoul dno t otherwis e be constructe do r increas e it s emission s a s a resul t o f th e constructio no r operatio no f the majo r stationar y sourc e o r majo r modification. " 4 0 CFR 52.21 , 618 ;
mine s constructe di nconnectio nwit hprocessin g o r burnin g facilitie s coul d preven t permittin g o f suc hsources .P.8 7

- 1 4 - Non e o f the abov e mentione dscenario s hav e bee nscrutinize dunde r §302(j ) rulemakin g procedures , whic hironicall y EPA recentl y

characterize da s a "safet y

valve " functio nno r hav e the cost s an dbenefit s associate dwit h thes e action s bee nexamine di nth e RIA . thi s potentia l regulatio nrun s directl y counte r t o the very objective s o f thes e rule s an dthe RI A

a s state d i nth e preamble . Ther e i s n o reasonabl e lega l o r scientifi c basi s fo r automaticall y

subjectin g the abov e mentione dcategorie s o f minin g operation s t o preconstructio nreview an dpermi t requirements . Thi s i s especiall y tru e considerin g the fact s tha t no detrimenta l impact s o nth e publi c healt ho r welfar e wil l resul t an dno attemp t ha s bee nmad e o r i s contemplate dwhic hwil l quantif y the cost/benefi t factor s o r the numbe r o f operation s effected .
Fo r the remainde r o f the allotte dtim e I wis ht o tur nt o Mr . Ken Williams , Directo r o f Governmen t Affair s fo r Wester nEnergy Company . Kenwil l addres s a numbe r o f th e deficiencie s i nthe variou s backgroun dmodelin g studie s relie dupo nb y EP A andproblem s i nthe RIA .

II . Backgroun dModelin g Studie s

Ove r th e pas t severa l year s many modelin g studie s hav e bee nconducte d regardin g the fugitiv e dus t issu e a s i t relate s t o surfac e coa l mining . I wil l no t detai l th e result s fo r th e sak e o f brevity . Suffic e i t t o sa y tha t al l hav e arrive da t the same genera l conclusio n— tha t mine s o f size s whic h ar e typica l i ntoday s econom y may excee dth e increment s ten s o f kilometer s fro m th e minesit e and , sinc e SCM' s already appl y the equivalen t t o BACT , th eP.8 8

- 1 5 - onl y metho do f complianc e i f liste dwoul db e a mandator y reductio ninmin e siz e an dproduction . I

nfact , th e studie s conducte dunde r contrac t t o EPA b y PE I Associate s fo r us e a s the basi s o f th e RI A sho w th e same results .

A . Modelin g Result s

Fo r th e purpos e o f illustratio no f the magnitud e o f suc hconstraint s I wis ht o recoun t thos e genera l results . PE I ha s estimate dtha t the maximu m permittabl e min e size s unde r Clas s I I constraint s woul db e 4. 6 mt y i nth e Powde r Rive r Basin , 1. 7 mt y i nth e SanJua nandFor t Unio nBasins , 1. 6 mt y i n th e Illinoi s Basi nand. 5 mt y i nAppalachia . Thos e unfamilia r wit hminin g ma y believ e tha t thes e figure s see m very larg e andunrestrictive . Thos e i nth e industry however , shudde r t o thinko f th e implie dconstraint s recognitin g th e fac t tha t mine s ar e currentl y permitte dwit hcapacitie s o f ove r 2 0 mty . I t i s importan t t o pu t thes e value s i nperspective . Eacho f th e modelin g studie s show s a mandator y

productio nrollbac ko f abou t fou r fol dfro m th e larges t existin g mine s i neac hbasin , andi nsevera l case s th e predicte dmaximu m permittabl e siz e i s fa r les s tha neve nth e averag e min e siz e currentl y operationa l inth e stud y areas .

I f thes e result s wer e no t enoug ht o cas t doubt s uponthe prudenc e o f listing , th e member s o f MARC believ e th e result s o f thes e studie s t o overstat e th e permittabl e min e size . Infact , modelin g wor kcommissione db y MAR C an d th e othe r coa l associations , whic hwil l b e submitte dfo r th e recor da t a late r date , show

tha t th e PE I figure s hav e consistantl y overestimate dproductio nP.8 9

- 1 6 - figure s b

y factor s o f betwee n5 an d20 . Inbrie f the result s o f thes e studie s sho w th e followin g a s maximu m permittabl e min e sizes : 80 0 thousand(k ) tp y i n th e Powde r Rive r Basin , 4 0 ki nthe SanJuan , 3 0 ki nthe Illinois , 5 0 ki n Appalachia , and1 mt y i nthe Nort hDakot a Lignit e regions . I f thes e figure s ar e accurat e the cost s associate dwit hthe regulator y proposa l a s compute di n th e RI A ar e severel y

underestimated .

B . Modelin g Deficiencie s

1 . Fals e Assumption s

Two majo r reason s fo r th e difference s i nproductio nfigure s note d abov e aris e fro

m the fac t tha t the PE I report s oversimplifie dthe meteorologica l modelin g processe s an duse dsevera l overl y broa dan

derroneou s assumptions . A

majo r deficiencie s i s tha t PE I di dno t assume "wors t case " meteorologica l conditions , howeve r a min e operato r woul db e force dt o d o s o t o sho w compliance . I t i s ou r understandin g tha t PE I use dC an dDstabilit y classe s wherea s E andF ar e wors t cas e andwer e use di nou r studies . Further , an dmor e importantly , the PE I wor kuse danapproac hwhic hassume dtha t coa l productio nandparticulat e emission s ar e linearl y related . Th e industr y stud y i nadditio nt o modelin g the linea r scenario , compute dfigure s usin g a mor e realistic , exponentia l approach . Th e number s mentione dearlie r reflec t th e result s o f the latter . Wha t i s importan t t o not e however , i s eve nusing a linea r relationshi passumption , MARC' s result s ar e fro m 3 t o 1 0 fol dmor e restrictiv e tha nPEI's .P.9 0

- 1 7 - A flaw commo nt o bot hthe PE I andindustry study , on e whic hwoul dtend t o overstat e permittabl e min e siz e figures , wa s tha t mine s wer e assume dt o b e operated/locate di nisolatio no f othe r mine s an dothe r source s o f particulat e emissions . ( i.e . i t wa s assume dtha t the ful l incremen t wa s availabl e fo r consumption ) Give nthe curren t patter no f min e location s exihibite dinth e U.S. , bot hi nth e Eas t an dthe West , thi s i s a gros s oversimplification . No t onl y i s i t commo nt o hav e min e mout hgeneratin g facilities , i.e . mine s operate di nconjunctio nwit ha powe r plant , mine s locat e nea r eac hothe r frequentl y

becaus e tha t i s wher e th e coa l seam s ar e deposited . A s such , fugitive s fro

m on e min e o r a majo r sourc e suc ha s a powe r plan t o r preparatio n plan t wil l impac t other s i nthe are a o r affec t the abilit y o f othe r mine s t o obtai npermits . Thi s conditio nwoul dfurthe r restric t the siz e and/o r numbe r o f mine s beyondthos e whic hth e studie s indicate .

2 . Definitio no f Significan t Ambien t Impac t Are a
Th e EPA , sinc e i t i s considerin g a regulator y optio no f listing onl y thos e mine s tha t affec t Clas s I an dmandator y

Clas s I I area s commissione dPE I t o stud y th e impact s o f suc ha regulator y scenario . I t is , perhaps , thi s stud y wit hwhic hw e findth e mos t seriou s problems . Thes e problem s ar e s o sever e a s t o rende r th e entir e portio no f th e RI A whic hwa s base dupo ni t useles s andmeaningless . Th e study , i f don e correctly , woul ddefinitel y prov e tha t th e cost s o f optio n4 significantl y outweig hbenefits . The purpos e o f th e stud y wa s t o "establis hthe are a o f impac t fo r mine s propose dnea r Clas s I lands. " Th e are a o f ambien t impac t fo r us e i nthes e studie s wa s decide dt o b eP.9 1

- 1 8 - 3 1 ug/ m . Furthe r PE I attempte dt o quantif y the amoun t o f los t coa l reserve s base dupo nanassumptio ntha t mines , du e t o additiona l permittin g cost s an d 3 othe r complications , woul dchoos e t o locat e outsid e th e 1 ug/ m impac t are a o f Clas s I andmanditor y Clas s I I areas . T o accomplis hth e task s a t han dPE I firs t compile dlist s o f the Clas s I andClas s I I areas . I t the nchos e t o mode l tw o hypothetica l mine s fo r th e purpos e o f showin g ai r qualit y impact s t o tw

o o f thes e areas . Th e problem wit hthe stud

y begin s wit hthes e point s andi s exacerbate da s th e RI A proces s continues . First , i t i s unclea r t o MAR C wher e 3 th e magica l 1 ug/ m

figur e came fro

m t o defin e significan t ambien t impac t . I t appear s t o ste

m fro m 4 0 CF R52.21(b)(23)(iii) , howeve r i f thi s wa s the genesis , i t i s never

explaine dwh

y thi s portio nwa s separate dfro m th e othe r portio no f tha t definitio nwhic hinclude s a 1 0 kilomete r distanc e restriction . Nonetheless , anexplanatio nandjustificatio no f th e figur e i s necessary .
C . Incomplet e Lis t o f Impacte dClas s I an dClas s I I Area s
Asid e fro

m th e preceedin g question s whic hmus t be addressed , th e majo r shortfall s begi nwit hth e fac t tha t th e list s o f Clas s I andI I area s relie d uponb y PE I wer e incomplete . A t a minimum , th e list s di dno t includ e thre e IndianReservation s whic hhav e bee nredesignate da s Clas s I areas . Mos t notabl y i t di dno t includ e th e Norther nCheyenn e reservatio ninMontana . Wha t i s importan t t o realiz e however , i s tha t virtuall y al l o f Montana' s 198 5 production , approximatel y 3 3 millio ntons , occur s withi n2 5 mile s (4 0 kilometers ) o f thi s area .P.9 2

- 1 9 - Whe nPE I claime di t modele dth e impact s o f th e Alto nMine , a min e fo r whic hplan s wer e submitte dandpermit s grante dye t wa s no t operational , becaus e ther e wer e no currentl y operationa l mine s impactin g Clas s I areas , i t wa s seriousl y

mistaken . A s I wil l illustrate , virtuall y al l o f Montana' s 3 productio nmay

likel y hav e a 1 ug/ m

impac t o

nth e Norther nCheyenn e reservation . Infact , initia l modelin g studie s performe db y Wester nEnergy whic happlie dEPA' s modelin g technique s t o on e o f it s existin g mine s inthi s 3 are a ha s show

nit s 1 ug/ m

isoplet hextend s approximatel y 11 0 mile s andtha t othe r mine s predic t the same typ e results . Some studie s onexistin g mine s i n 3 th e Wyomin g portio no f th e Powde r Rive r Basi nshow a potentia l 1 ug/ m impac t o nth e Norther nCheyenn e reservatio ni nMontan a an dth e WindCav e Clas s I are a o f Sout hDakot a — bot habou t 10 0 mile s away . Mine s inthe Souther n

3 Powde r Rive r Basi nshow a potentia l 1 ug/ m

impac t onPat hFinde r Nationa l Wildlif e Refuge , a manditor y Clas s I I are a - onc e agai nnearl y 10 0 mile s away . Give ntha t EPA

acknowledge s tha t thei r model s hav e no t bee nvalidate d beyond50km , we us e thes e figure s mor e fo r illustrativ e purpose s o f showin g potentia l impact s andt o demonstrat e th e nee dfo r EPA t o develo pmor e precis e models . A s i t stand s i t i s unclea r how EP A intend s t o determin e impact s beyond50k

m ye t thes e may

b e releven t i nligh t o f optio n4 . Wha t i s clear , however , i s tha t al l o f th e mine s currentl y opperationa l withi n2 5 mile s o f th e Norther nCheyenn e woul dbe subjec t t o PS Deve nwithou t relianc e upo nth e larg e figure s fo r th e lug/m 3 isopleth s mentione dearlier . B y virtu e o f thei r showin g a lug/m 3 impac t ona clas s I are a whic hi s locate dwithi nth e 50k mP.9 3

- 2 0 - distanc e t o whic hEPA believe s it s model s t o be accurate , ther e woul dbe no recours e unde r optio n4 bu t t o lis t thes e operation s a s majo r sources .
Thi s present s substantia l ramification s whic hwer e no t considere di n 3 th e RIA . B

y subjectin g mine s t o PS Dreview b y virtu e o f the 1 ug/ m impac t area , th e mine s woul dno t onl y hav e t o sho

w complianc e wit hth e Clas s I o r I I incremen t a t th e boundar y o f the affecte dClas s I o r I I area , whic hthey may likel y b e abl e t o do , i t woul dfac e the potentiall y impossibl e tas ko f showin g complianc e wit hthe Clas s I I increment s a t the mine s fenc e line . Wha t seem s t o be overlooke dwhe npeopl e loo ka t optio n4 i s th e fac t tha t onc e a min e show s a lug/m 3 impact , the operatio ni s throw nint o the entir e real m o f th e PS Dprovisions . T o compoundmatter s stil l further , EPA mus t recogniz e thes e ar e no t isolate dcases . The sam e type s o f scenarios , althoug ho f a lesse r magnitud e ma y

als o b e tru e o f numerou s existin g Easter nan dMid-Wester n operations . Fo r exampl e severa l mine s ar e currentl y operatin g withi n9k m o f Doll y Sod s a mandator y

clas s I i nWes t Virgini a and9 existin g mines , wit ha cumulativ e 198 4 productio no f nearl y 1 0 mt , ar e operatin g withi n20k m o f Cra b Orchar da mandator y

clas s I I i nIllinois . I nbot hthes e situation s i t i s expecte dtha t th e lug/m 3 isopleth s fro m thes e minin g operation s woul dcros s th e boundarie s o f th e protecte darea s an dye t th e EP A

ha s no t attempte dt o quantif y the cost s associate dwit hregulatin g thes e sources. .P.9 4

- 2 1 - D . Impac t onCoa l Reserve s

I no w wis ht o tur nt o how thes e oversight s an dother s t o b e mentione d later , translat e int o potentia l reserv e losses . T o begin , PE I note dtha t 1 3 Clas s I area s i n1 0 state s and2 2 mandator y Clas s I I area s coul dbe impacte d b y surfac e coa l mining . Fo r th e reason s state dearlie r regardin g th e 1 3 ug/ m isopleth s fro

m existin g mine s andbecaus e PE I use dunrealisticall y smal l mine s whe nattemptin g t o quantif y anunmineabl e are a o r buffe r zon e aroun dClas s I andI I areas , thei r estimate s o f los t reserve s ar e totall y unrealistic . PE I estimate dthat , usin g thei r buffe r approach , approximatel y 1. 4 billio nton s o f reserve s woul db e los t acros s th e nation , o r approximatel y .9 % o f tota l U.S . surfac e mineabl e reserves . Althoug hMAR C ha s no t ye t compile da mor e realisti c nationwid e estimat e i t ha s studie dth e impact s i n th e vicinit y

o f th e Norther nCheyenn e . We believe , however , tha t thi s exampl e wil l illustrat e the poin t quit e well . T o be conservative , MARC chos e a buffe r stri po f 2 5 mile s aroundth e Reservatio n- roughl y comparabl e t o the 4 0 k m impac t are a show

nb y PE I t o resul t a t th e Alto nMine . Du e t o lac ko f geologic/reserv e bas e data , MAR C exclude dreserve s locate dunde r th e Crow Reservatio nt o th e West . Accordin g t o ou r estimate s the likel y strippabl e reserve s withi nth e buffe r zon e whic hma y be los t t o productiv e us e i s conservativel y

approximate da t 2 5 billio ntons . Further , th e reservatio n itsel f i s underlai nb y approximatel y

5 0 billio nton s o f coa l resource s o f whic happroximatel y

10 % o r 5 billio nton s ar e strippabl e give ntoday s econom y andtechnology . Al l togethe r thi s yield s a figur e o f 3 0 billio nton s i nthi s on e are a o f th e countr y itself .- 2 2 -

Whe nthes e value s ar e summe dandadde dt o th e extremel y understate d figure s o f PEI , MAR C compute s a figur e o f 31. 5 billio nton s o f los t reserves . Comparin g thi s t o th e tota l U.S . reserve s believe dt o be mineabl e b y surfac e methods , 15 7 billio ntons , I'lAR C arrive s a t a figur e o f 20 % fo r los t reserves . Evenmor e troublesome i s th e fac t tha t thi s to o ma y be optimisti c dependin g 3 upo nactua l 1 ug/ m

isopleth s andth e ful l numbe r o f "affected " Clas s I and mandator y

Clas s I I areas .

I t i s apparen t fro

m thes e example s tha t th e PE I studie s ar e a grossl y inadequat e basi s fo r th e RI A and , b y virtu e o f thei r use , th e RIA' s conclusion s regardin g optio n4 ar e severely skewe dtowar da potentia l fo r positiv e ne t benefits . A close r loo kwil l mos t definitel y prov e otherwise .

III . Regulator y

Impac t Analysi s Finally , I wis ht o addres s briefl y some o f th e mor e obviou s deficiencie s o f th e RI A itself . Firs t however , I wis ht o recogniz e the fac t tha t eve nwit hth e severit y o f th e shortfall s o f th e stud y fro m th e standpoin t o f understate dcosts , MARC note s tha t th e RI A ha s prove nconclusivel y tha t ther e ar e no positiv e ne t benefit s t o regulator y option s 2 and3 . Togethe r wit ha mor e complet e stud y o f optio n4 , EPA

mus t conclud e tha t optio n1 mus t be selected .

Thi s review

o f EPA' s analysi s wil l devot e particula r attentio nt o th e RI A i nth e contex t o f optio n4 du e t o th e belie f tha t th e RIA' s finding s wer e- 2 3 - sufficien t i n an d o fthemselve s t o rejec t option s 2 an d 3
. Severa l o fth e problem s mentione d belowhowever , do persis t i n EPA' s analysi s o foption s 2 an d 3 a s well
. Severa l o fth e problem s whic h limi t th e accuracyo fEP A analysi s ar e as follows
.

A . Cost s I

nImpacte dArea s

Fo r optio n4 EP A

estimate dth e benefit s andcost s fo r onl y 2 area s whe ni nfac t a conservativ e estimat e woul dsho w a t leas t 3 0 impacte dareas . Moreover , althoug hPE I wen t throughanexcercise , al l be i t cursory , t o comput e los t reserve s fo r some 3 0 areas , i t seem s th e RI A ha s mad e no attemp t t o valu e th e los t reserve s andfacto r thes e amount s int o th e tota l cost s associate dwit hregulator y optio n4 . A s i t is , EPA appear s t o evaluat e onl y th e adde dcost s o f having t o min e mor e expensiv e reserve s an dadde d engineerin g cost s whil e assumin g tha t los t reserve s ar e bot hinsignifican t i n amoun t an

dhol dno monetar y

value . Thes e ar e clearl y absur dassumptions . Thi s approac hoverlook s factor s importan t t o th e overal l financia l impact s o f optio n4 . Th e marke t value s o f al l los t reserve s mus t be calculate dt o giv e anaccurat e depictio no f economi c impacts .

Suc hananalysi s woul dals o focu s mor e attentio nandplac e mor e emphasi s onth e loca l andregiona l impact s o f suc ha listing . Further , relativ e t o th e Bryc e Canyo nanalysis , th e RI A appear s t o hav e ignore dth e OSM' s 198 0 stud

y compile dt o addres s anunsuitabilit y petitio nwhic hinclude dP.9 7

- 2 4 - analyse s o f impact s o f variou s min e size s andconfiguration s onai r quality , visibility , etc . Instea dth e RI A relie dupo nsevera l indirec t studie s an d numerou s adjustment s t o simulat e comparability .
Cost s a s thos e associate dwit hre-sitin g effecte dmine s andminin g communitie s andthe cost s o f los t capital , al l o f whic har e very substantial , hav e no t bee nconsidered . Fo r example , hundred s o f million s o f dollar s wort h o f equipmen t whic hwa s purchase donth e basi s o f presentl y acceptabl e min e size s may

no longe r b e appropriat e fo r th e restricte dmin e sizes . A t a minimum , sinc e the RI A recognize s tha t a s muc ha s 13. 5 millio nton s o f surfac e coa l productio nma y

be displace db

y undergroun dmining , i t shoul dequall y realiz e tha t th e displace dequipmen t i s no t interchangeable . Further , sinc e us e o f thi s equipmen t require s larg e mines , mine s o f size s whic hmay be mad e illegal , no secondar y marke t woul dexis t fo r thi s machiner y an dothe r larg e pieces . Whe non e consider s fo r exampl e tha t dragline s o f thi s siz e cos t nearl y $4 0 millio ni t i s no t difficul t t o envisio nho w financia l impact s o f los t capita l expenditure s adduprapidly . Ther e doe s no t appea r t o have bee n an y quantificatio no f los t AML fundrevenue s andlos t socia l benefit s resultin g fro

m th e productio no f les s coa l vi a surfac e mining . Th e AML fund se t u pb y Congres s i nth e 197 7 Surfac e Minin g Contro l andReclamatio nAct , provide s fo r anindustr y taxo f 15#/to no f undergroun dproductio nan d35#/to n fo r surfac e productio nt o b e expende dt o reclai m site s abandone dprio r t o 197 7 whic hthreate nhealth , welfar e andth e environment . Therefor e an y actio n whic hcause s reduction s i nsurfac e coa l productio nallow s les s reclamatio n wor kt o b e accomplishe donthos e site s andreduce dsocia l benefits .P.9 8

- 25 - B
. Visibilit yBenefit s Bryc e Canyo n Recreationa l Visua l Rang e benefit s whic h constitute s th e secon d larges t potentia l benefi t i n th e RI Aar e base d o n a stud yo f willingness-to-pa yfo rvisibilit yprepare d byRa e i n 1980
. Th e averag e improvement s t o visibilit yb ylistin g a t Bryc e i s sai d t o b e 3-5 % whil e EP

A acknowledge s tha t th e threshol d fo rperceptio n rang e i s generall yfro m 2-5%
. I t i s difficul t t o accep t tha t a 3-5 % improvement , whic h i s o n th e margi n o f perceptability , correspond s t o a chang e fro m a "moderatel yhazy " vie wt o a "clea rview " a

s wa s th e basi s fo rth e Ra e willingness-to-pa yfigures
. C
. Existenc e Value s
"Existenc e values " wer e base dupo nvalue s an dstudie s fo r th e Grand Canyo nandeve nthoughadjuste dfo r bias , probabl y yiel dinflate dresults . Moreover , althoug hEP A ha s no t seemingl y

include dbenefit s fro m nois e reduction , etc . du e t o quantificatio ndifficulty , i t ha s mad e i t clea r tha t thes e value s shoul db e considere dbefor e makin g a fina l decision , fo r they woul dyiel dhighe r ne t benefits . Ther e i s no basi s fo r inclusio no f suc h benefits . Non-ai r relate dbenefit s hav e nothin g t o d o wit hth e PS Dprogram andth e protectio ngoal s o f th e CAA . Non-ai r value s shoul dno t b e entere d int o th e decisio nmakin g process .

A furthe r questio ni s presen t regardin g whethe r "existenc e values " hav e a plac e i nth e PS D decisio nmakin g proces s sinc e they see m t o hav e littl eP.9 9

- 26 - t o do wit h th e protectio n fro m advers e physica l healt h an d welfar e affects , th e primarygoal s o fth e PS D program . The progra m wa s no t se t u p fo rth e protectio n o f"mental " healt h a s EPA' s inclusio n an d heav yrelianc e o n "existenc e values " woul d see m t o suggest .

D . Suppl y

andDemandModelin g

Mor e critica l t o th e study' s accurac y i s tha t EPA

use dnationa l suppl y an ddemandcurve s t o evaluat e th e change s i nthe market s du e t o remova l o f coa l suppl y

fro m th e tw o stud y areas . However , importan t regiona l difference s i ncoa l suppl y

an ddemand , a s wel l a s the importanc e o f transportationcosts , dictat e a

nanalysi s o f th e interactio no f regiona l demandan dsuppl y t o asses s accuratel y

th e impac t onconsumer s t o th e remova l o f coa l supply . EP A di dno t conside r regiona l coa l markets . Suc hanalysi s i s necessar y an dwil l demonstrat e vastl y

differin g results . Fo r example , unde r optio n4 Montana' s surfac e productio nma y cease . Thi s wil l caus e significan t regiona l change s i n suppl y anddemandan

dportendsever e impact s fo r the stat e an dloca l resident s andgovernments . Thes e impac t level s mus t b e analyzed , i nadditio nt o thos e a t a nationa l level .

E . Fue l Competitio n
Th e RI A fail s t o captur e th e interrelationship s betwee nvariou s fuel s an dcoa l suppl y

regions , ofte nassumin g tha t suchcompetio ndoe s no t exist . Thi s latte r assumptio ni s ridiculous . Coa l fro m on e are a no t onl y

compete sP. 1

- 2 7 - wit hcoa l fro

m othe r area s o f th e continenta l U.S. , bu t als o wit himporte d coa l i nsom

e region s andwit hothe r fuel s andsource s lik e natura l gas , hydropowe r andbul kpowe r purchase s fro m othe r state s o r countries . Fo r exampl e coa l fire dpowe r plant s i nth e Pacifi c Northwes t ar e i ndirec t competitio nwit hU.S . andCanadia nhydropowe r andcoal s fro m severa l basin s compet e fo r it s suppl y contracts . A s such , eve nsmal l cos t increase s ca n weig hheavil y

onpowe r generatio ndecisions .

I nit s nationa l suppl y anddemandanalysis , EPA faile dt o evaluat e th e validit y andconsistenc y

o f many

o f th e assumption s use di nth e calculations . Th e deman delasticit y o f -0.2 2 assume di nth e RI A implie s tha t demandfo r coa l i nthe U.S . i s relativel y unaffecte db

y pric e change s (i.e. , demandi s inelastic) . Thi s assumptio ni s unfounde dfallin g oi l andga s price s i nrecen t year s mak e thos e commoditie s alternative s t o coal-fire dgeneratio ninmany applications . Also , whil e coa l i s stil l very competitiv e fo r large , centra l statio ngeneratio nplants , othe r form s o f generation , suc ha s cogeneratio no r direc t powe r purchases , ar e i ndirec t competitio nwit hcoal-fire dunits . Tin' s competitio nha s bee nresponsibl e fo r th e cancellatio no r deferra l o f a numbe r o f coal-fire dunit s i nth e las t severa l years .

Problem s als o ar e presen t wit hEPA' s nationa l coa l suppl y elasticity . Th e RI A cite dananalysi s publishe di n198 3 (Kalt , 1983 ) whic hinturnrelie d upona 197 8 U.S . Departmen t o f Energy documentatio no f th e suppl y curve s i n th e Nationa l Coa l Mode l (NCM ) a t tha t time . Th e numerou s problem s wit hth e suppl y curve s the ninus e i nth e NCM , whic har e wel l documented , greatl yP. 2

- 2 8 - weake nan

y estimate s o f coa l suppl y elasticit y

derive dfro

m them . Also , th e structur e andcost s o f th e coa l industry have change ddrasticall y sinc e 1978 . Fo r example , undergroun dproductivit y ha s increase db

y 5 0 percent .
I naddition , Kal t (1983 ) andtherefor e EPA indirectl y

assume s a constan t nationa l suppl y elasticit y

acros s al l productio nranges . Coa l suppl y canno t b e accuratel y

represente db

y suc ha curve ; the shap e o f coa l suppl y curve s ar e irregular . I nterm s o f EPA' s analysis , the nationa l coa l suppl y curv e ha s differen t elasticitie s dependin g o nproductio nlevel . Implici t i nEPA' s analysi s ar e pric e increases . Thes e pric e increase s resul t i nincrease dconsume r costs . Th e chang e i nconsume r cost s i s a n importan t polic y

consideratio nsinc e i t doe s involv e transfer s an di t wil l determin e change s i nelectricit y price s whic haffec t the secondary market s wher e electricit y

i s aninput .

IV . Conclusio n
Overall , th e RI A

ha s focuse dinadequat e attentio no nquantifyin g numerou s direc t cost s an dha s appearentl y

ignore dthe entir e rang e o f secondary

costs . EPA

ha s faile dt o stud

y impact s associate dwit hchangin g employment , capita l losse s and/o r movement , loca l an dregiona l taxbases , highe r cost s fo r powe r generation , balanc e o f trad e ramification s an dmany , others . Fo r the reason s outline di nthe remarks , the RI A fall s fa r shor t o f wha t i s necessar y

t o justif y

an y regulator y

actio nothe r thanoptio n1 .P. 3

- 2 9 - Th e member s o f the Minin g an dReclamatio nCounci l o f Americ a strongl y urg e EP A t o withdra w

the proposa l t o lis t surfac e coa l mine s a s majo r emissio n sources . A

decisio nb

y EPA t o includ e fugitiv e emission s fro m SCM' s i nPS D threshol dapplicabilit y determination s woul dbe arbitrary , unsupporte db y statutor y

authorit y

andinconsisten t wit hth e nationa l interest . Th e preponderenc e o f evidenc e conclusivel y illustrate s tha t the advers e economi c impact s o f suc haction s clearl y outweig han

y actua l o r perceive dbenefit s t o publi c healt handwelfare . I f EPA decide s t o continu e thi s rulemakin g proceeding , a t a minimu m a mor e i ndept hRIA , usin g realisti c assumption s and modelin g work s mus t b e developed .

Thi s conclude s m

y prepare dstatement . I wil l be happ y t o addres s an

y question s reservin g the righ t t o respondinwriting . MARC' s membershi p appreciate s thi s opportunit y t o presen t it s view s o nthi s rulemakin g proposal .P. 4

TESTIMON Y O FTERR Y O'CONNO R WESTER NREGIONA LCOUNSEL PEABOD Y HOLDIN GCOMPANY , INC .

A TPUBLI C HEARIN GBEFOR E TH EENVIRONMENTALPROTECTIO NAGENC Y

DOCKE T NO . A-84-3 3 LISTIN GO FSURFAC ECOALMINE S A S MAJO RSTATIONAR Y SOURCE S - REVIE WO FREGULATOR Y IMPAC T ANALYSI S

APRI L9 , 198 6 DENVER , COLORAD O 

## f 9 A-**-y sP. 5

Goo dmorning . M

y nam e i s Terr y O'Connor . I a mWester nRegiona l Counse l fo r

Peabod y Holdin g Company , Inc . locate dher e i nDenver , Colorado . Variou s subsidiarie s o f Peabod y Holdin g Company , includin g Peabod y Coa l Compan y (th e nation' s larges t coa l producin g company) , cur rentl y emplo y ove r

13,00 0 employee s an doperat e som e 4 5 surfac e an dunder

groun dcoa l mine s i n1 1 eastern , midwester nan dwester nstate s i nth e Unite d States . Ia mappearin g toda y t o expres s Peabody' s comment s regardin g th e Reg

ulator y Impac t

Analysi s ("RIA") , whic hEPArecentl y release dfo r publi c com ment . Thi s RI Aevaluate dfou r alternative s t o regulatin g ne w an dmodifie d surfac e coa l mine s a s majo r constructio nproject s unde r ne w sourc e revie w criteria . I t

considere dbenefits , cost s an dgenera l environmenta l an deco nomi c impact s o f

thes e fou r

alternatives . Whil e Peabod y wil l submi t mor e detaile dwritte ncomment s prio r t o th e en do f th e publi c commen t

perio drelating , no t jus t t o th e RI Aitself , bu t als o t o anumbe r

o f othe r issue s relatin g t o th e listin g o f surfac e coa l mine s a s majo r stationar y sources , ou r ora l comment s toda y wil l focu s principall y upo n th e fourt halternativ e o f th e RIA , i.e . t o lis t onl y surfac e coa l mine s impact

in g Clas s Ian dMandator y Clas s I Iareas , an dspecificall y ho w thi s fourt h alternativ e coul dimpac t Peabody' s existin g an dpropose dsurfac e coa l minin g operation s i nMontana . Peabod y Coa l Compan y own s an doperate s th e Bi g Sk y surfac e coa l min e i nRosebu dCounty , Montana , whic hmin e produce s i nexces s o f 3 millio nton s o f coa l pe r

year . Th e curren t minin g operatio ni s locate dapproximatel y 1 2 mile s fro mth e norther nboundar y o f th e Norther nCheyenn e Reservation . A s yo u shoul db e aware , whil e th e Reservatio nwa s originall y no t astatutor y Clas s I area , i t

wa s reclassifie dt o Clas s Istatu s i nth e lat e 1970s . A s a
1 -P. 6

consequence , w e fea r tha t ou r Bi g Sk y operatio nwoul db e jeopardize db y it s proximit y t o thi s redesignate dClas s Iarea . W e hav e continuousl y operate dthi s min e fo r ove r 1 5 year s an dcurrentl y emplo y som e 13 2 person s a t th e min e site . I n1985 , th e Bi g Sk y min e gen erate da nannua l payrol l o f $5,320,00 0 an dals o generate dapproximatel y $4,160,00 0 i nadditiona l revenue s t o Montan avendors . W e pai d$285,00 0 t o th e federa l governmen t fo r federa l coa l royaltie s (50% o f whic hi s returne dt o th e stat e o f

Montana) . W

e als o pai d$128,00 0 i nRosebu dCount y propert y taxes . However , eve nmor e significantly , las t yea r alon e Peabod y pai d approximatel y $1,175,00 0 t o th e federa l governmen t fo r th e federa l reclamatio n fee , almos t

$1,500,00 0 i nBlac k Lun g fees , an dapproximatel y $8,925,00 0 t o th e stat e o f

Montan ai nstat e severance , gros s proceeds , an dresourc e indem

nit y trus t

fun dtaxes . I mentio nal l thes e number s because , i f EPApromul

gate s regulation s supportin g Alternativ e IV o f th e RIA , al l o f

thes e source s o f revenu e t o th e stat e o f Montan aan dt o th e federa l governmen t coul db e jeopardized . A s w e hav e pointe dou t i nprio r

comments , eve ni f EPAattempt s t o "grandfather " existin g operation s (unde r an y alternative) , w e hav e seriou s fear s tha t

suc hgrandfathe r

protectio nwoul db e inadequat e fo r surfac e coa l mine s inasmuc ha s surfac e coa l mine s ar e trul y no t stationar y sources . A s a result , w e fea r

tha t th e majo r

modificatio nprovision s o f th e regulation s an d i nth e Ac t

coul dver y wel l negat e an y grandfathe r protectio nEPAmigh t pur por t t o gran t

t o existin g operations . I nan y event , w e wis ht o poin t ou t tha t th e surfac e mineabl e reserve s i n th e existin g Bi g Sky , Are a"A " wil l b e deplete di nafew years , a t whic htim e i t wil l b e necessar y t o mov e ou r dragline s an dancillar y equipmen t severa l mile s sout ht o anothe r are awhic hw e cal l Bi g Sky , Are a"B " (whic h

- 2 -P. 7

I ' incidentall y i s les s tha n1 0 mile s fro mth e Norther nCheyenn e Reservatio n boundary) . Whil e w e hav e no w progresse dwel l int o th e permittin g stag e fo r Are a"B, " promulgatio no f regulation s a s propose db y EP Acoul dconstru e Are a"B " a s ane w mine , o r a t leas t amajo r

modificatio nt o th e existin g oper ation , thu s jeopardizing , i f no t precluding , furthe r coa l minin g operation s a t th e Bi g Sk y mine . W e d o no t believ e tha t

th e RI Ai nan y respec t addresse d an y o f thes e economi c o r

huma nimpacts . I nadditio nt o th e existin g Bi g Sk y operations , Peabod y als o control s tw o othe r reserv e area s whic har e nea r th e Norther nCheyenn e Reservation . Thes e includ e th e Nort hAshlan dreserve s an dth e Beave r Cree k reserves . Th e Nort hAshlan dreserve s ar e i nfac t virtuall y adjacen t

an dt o th e nort ho f th e Norther nCheyenn e Reservatio nan dcontai n400-50 0 millio nton s o f coal , whic hi s significantl y i nexces s o f ou r Bi g Sk y reserves . B y 199 5 Peabod y plan s t o ope nasurfac e coa l min e a t leas t twic e th e siz e o f

th e existin g Bi g Sk y min e o nthes e Nort hAshlan dreserves . Assumin g a3 0 yea r min e lif

e an d a n8 millio nto npe r

yea r operation , thi s ne w min e woul dgenerat e apositiv e payrol l impac t

t o southeaster nMontan afro mPeabod y employee s an dthei r ven dor s o f approximatel y $568,000,00 0 ove r th e life o f

th e operation . Further

more , Rosebu dCount y woul dexpec t t o recove r

a t leas t $8,000,00 0 i nprop ert y taxes . Th e stat e o f Montan awoul drecove r almos t $ 1 billio ni nstat e severanc e an drelate dtaxes , an dth e federa l governmen t woul drecove r

almos t $165,000,00 0 i nfedera l coa l royaltie s plu s significan t Blac k Lun g an dreclama

tio nfees . Thes e number s ar e actuall y conservativ e becaus e the y onl y reflec t 8 millio nton s o f

coa l productio npe r yea r fo r 3 0 years , whic hwoul dno t resul t i nleas e reserv e exhaustio no r maximu meconomi c recover y ("MER" ) o f th e reserve .

- 3 -P. 8

/ * ' A s yo u ar e aware , b y federa l la w BL M require s ME

Ro f federa l reserves , whic hconstitut e almos t one-hal f

o f th e Nort hAshlan dproperties . Assumin g MER , th e federa l governmen t woul dreceiv e ove r $320,000,00 0 i nfedera l coa l royaltie s alon e an dove r $ 2 billio ni nstat e taxe s woul db e pai dove r th e even tua l lif e o f th e operation . I f

Alternativ e IV o f

th e RI Awer e implemente dan d al l surfac e coa l mine s impactin g Clas s Ian dMandator y Clas s I I area s wer e require dt o b e liste da s majo r stationar y sources , th e Nort hAshlan dmin e woul dprobabl y neve r b e opene dan dthi s sourc e o f revenu e t o Montan aan d t o th e federa l governmen t woul db e lost . W

e d o no t believ e tha t

th e RI Ai n an y fashio naddresse dth e advers e economi c o r huma nimpact s o f

suc hlosses . A s I mentione dearlier , w e als o hol dsignifican t reserve s i nth e Beave r Cree k area , whic hi s locate dwithi nthre e mile s o f th e Norther nCheyenn e Reservation . Whil e tim e doe s no t permi t arecitatio no f

financia l forfeiture s fo r thi s reserv e area , on e ca ngenerall y assum e that , inasmuc ha s th e Beave r Cree k propertie s contai ncoa l reserve s approximatel y equivalen t i nquantit y t o th e Bi g Sk y mine , th e advers e financia l impact s fro mfailin g t o develo p thi s reserv e woul db e comparabl e t o th e recite dlosse s a t ou r Bi g Sk y mine . A s Iexplaine dearlier , thi s testimon y relate s onl y t o Peabody' s operation s an dreserv e positio ni nsoutheaster nMontana . A s EPAi s o r shoul db e aware , anumbe r o f othe r companie s als o hav e existin g surfac e coa l minin g operation s nea r th e Norther nCheyenn e Reservatio nan dsignifican t undevelope dreserve s i nclos e proximit y thereto . I nfact , virtuall y al l o f Montana' s existin g coa l productio ncome s fro msoutheas t Montana . On e esti

mat e reveal s a t

leas t 4. 5 billio nton s o f

coa l reserve s ar e locate di nsoutheas t Montana . I f

Alternativ e IV o f

th e RI Ai s promulgate di nregulator y forma s written , on e mus t

logicall y conclud e that , a t best , existin g surfac e coa l minin g operation s i nsoutheaster nMontan awil l b e require dsignificantl y t o

- 4 -P. 9

reduc e existin g productio nan dn o ne w surfac e coa l mine s woul db e con structed , and , a t

worst , al l surfac e coa l minin g activitie s i nsoutheaster n Montan awoul dcease . B y EPA' s ow nanalysis , thes e mine s woul dhav e t o close , becaus e Alternativ e I V "regulator y cost s woul dincreas e productio n cost s t o suc ha nexten t tha t th e mine s woul dno t b e abl e t o marke t

thei r coal. " I neithe r

event , southeaster nMontan aan dindee dth e entir e stat e o f Montan awoul dincu r

dramaticall y advers e economi c an dhuma nconsequences . Fo r thes e reasons , w e mus t urg e tha t

EPAformall y acknowledg e i nfina l rul e makin g tha t

Alternativ e IV o f

th e RI Adi dno t

adequatel y recogniz e th e significan t

advers e socioeconomi c effect s whic hwoul dresul t i f presen t

an d propose dsurfac e coa l mine s nea r th e Norther nCheyenn e Reservatio nwer e t o b e classifie da s majo r stationar y sources . Furthermore , w e mus t urg e th e U.S . Environmenta l Protectio nAgenc y no t t o lis t surfac e coa l mine s a s majo r stationar y sources , whereve r suc hcoa l mine s ar e located , an dirregardles s whethe r suc hcoa l mine s ar e classifie da s ne w o r existin g operations . T o d o otherwis e woul dhav e significan t advers e economi c impact s o nth e local , th e regiona l an dth e nationa l economies . I nclosing , Iwoul dagre e wit hEPAt o th e exten t i t conclude dtha t

Alter

native s I Ian dII Iwoul dresul t i nnegativ e economi c impacts . However , w e believ e tha t

th e implementatio ncost s o f thes e tw o alternative s wer e greatl y underestimate dan dtha t th e benefit s wer e greatl y overestimate db y EPA . W e wil l discus s thi s matte r i ngreate r

detai l i nou r

writte ncomments . A s Itestifie dbefor e asimila r EP Apane l o nDecembe r 7 , 198 4 relatin g t o th e surfac e coa l minin g listin g issue , w e d o no t believ e tha t

surfac e coa l mine s pos e asignifican t threa t o f ai r qualit y degradation , particularl y inas

muc ha s surfac e coa l minin g onl y contribute s a nestimate d1/2 0 o f 1 % o f al l fugitiv e dus t

emission s i nthi s country . EP Ashoul ddetermin e no t t o lis t

5 -P.1 0

J • surfac e coa l mine s an dshoul dexercis e Alternativ e Ian dcontinu e t o requir e tha t surfac e coa l mine s mee t th e presen t

Nationa l Ambien t

Ai r Qualit y healt h base dstandards . Than k yo u ver y muc hfo r

you r tim e an dattention . I f yo u hav e an y questions , w e wil l b e happ y t o answe r them .

- 6 -P.1 1

TEXAS MININ G & RECLAMATIO N ASSOCIATIO N 80 7 Brazo s Th e Vaugh n Building , Suit e 40 0 Austin , Texa s 7870 1 (512)478-364 6 Apri l 9 , 198 6

Environmenta l Protectio n Agenc y Federa l Building , Roo m23 9 Stou t Stree t a t 20t h Denver , C O 8020 5 Gentlemen : Th e Texa s Minin g an d Reclamatio n Associatio n woul d lik e t o presen t th e attache d comment s regardin g puttin g coa l mine s unde r PS D an d th e impac t i t woul d hav e o n Texa s mining . Thes e ora l comment s ar e bein g presente d byD . R . Trigg , Chairman , Environmenta l Committee , TMRA. Sincerely ,

D . R . Trigg^—• * /b bP.1 2

TEXA S MININ G & RECLAMATIO N ASSOCIATIO N 80 7 Brazo s Th e Vaugh n Building , Suit e 40 0 Austin , Texa s 7870 1 (512)478-364 6

TEXA S MININ G AN D RECLAMATIO NASSOCIATION' S COMMENT S O NEPA' S PROPOSA L T O SUBJEC T SURFAC E COA L MIN E T O PREVENTIO NO F SIGNIFICAN T DETERIORATIO NREVIE W
M ynam e i s Da n Trigg . I a mSit e Manage r o f Th e Do wChemica l Company' s lignit e operation . I a mals o Chairma n o f th e Texa s Minin g an d Reclamatio n Association' s Environmenta l Committee . Today , I a m appearin g o n behal f o f TMR Aregardin g EPA' s propose d rulemakin g an d Regulator yImpac t Analysi s o n Listin g o f Surfac e Coa l Mine s fo r Ne w Sourc e Review . Th e Texa s Minin g an d Reclamatio n Associatio n (TMRA ) i s a n organiza

tio n consistin g o f 8 0 companie s an d individual s representin g al l aspect s o f th e surfac e minin g industr yi n Texas . Lignit e i s on e o f th e primar ymineral s whic h i s mine d an d utilize d byth e companie s i n th e TMRA . Th e lignit e industr yplay s a majo r rol e i n th e economi c statu s an d developmen t o f Texas . Texa s ha s vas t reserve s o f lignite . EPA' s "Stud yo f Potentia l Effec t o f Regulatin g Stri p Mine s Unde r Ne wSourc e Review " show s tha t i n 1982 , Texa s wa s fourt hi n th e natio n i n bot h potentia l surfac e mineabl e coa l reserve s (13. 5 billio n tons ) an d surfac e mine d annua l coa l productio n (34. 8 millio n tons) . Curren t productio n ha s increase d t o 4 1 millio n ton s i n 198 5 an d i s projecte d t o mor e tha n doubl e t o 8 5 millio n ton s by1995 . Annua l salarie s fo r th e lignit e an d coa l industr yi n Texa s ar e ove r $5 5 millio n pe r year . Lignit e i n Texa s i s use d primaril yi n mine-mout hpowe r plant s t o generat e electricity . Approximatel yone-fourt ho f th e electricit y need s o f Texa s ar e me t throug hth e us e o f lignite . Companie s o f th e Texa s Minin g an d Reclamatio n Associatio n hav e reviewe d th e fou r alternative s evaluate d byEP Aincluding : 1 . No t listin g mines ; 2 . Grandfatherin g existin g mines ; 3 . N o grandfathering ; an d 4 . Onl ylistin g mine s impactin g Clas s I an d mandator yClas s I I areas . TMR Abelieve s alternative s 2 . an d 3 . woul d greatl yrestric t lignit e minin g i n Texa s an d woul d resul t i n sever e economi c an d socia l impacts .P.1 3

TMRACOMMENT S T O EP A(continued ) 2 Th e state d purpos e o f EPA' s Regulator yImpac t Analysi s wa s t o evaluat e th e consequence s o f alternativ e approache s t o regulatin g surfac e coa l mine s unde r Ne wSourc e Revie wconsiderin g benefits , costs , an d genera l environmenta l an d economi c impacts . TMR A agree s wit h th e RIA' s conclusio n tha t alternative s 2 an d 3 ar e no t economicall yreasonable , bu t w e als o believ e EP Aha s stil l greatl y underestimate d th e cost s an d overestimate d th e potentia l benefit s o f thes e tw o alternatives . W e ar e deepl yconcerne d tha t th e RI A di d no t includ e Texa s lignit e i n it s evaluatio n eve n thoug hth e growt ho f coa l productio n i n Texa s durin g th e las t 1 0 year s ha s bee n secon d onl yt o Wyomin g an d productio n o f Texa s lignit e i s projecte d t o doubl e durin g th e nex t 1 0 years . Texa s lignit e ha s a lo whea t valu e an d i s foun d i n thin , shallo w seam s tha t ca n b e recovere d onl ybysurfac e mining . T o compet e economicall ywit hout-of-stat e coa l an d foreig n coal , Texa s lignit e mus t b e produce d fro mlarg e mine s an d use d nea r thos e mine s t o minimiz e transportatio n costs . Texa s lignit e mine s ar e typicall y producin g thre e t o te n millio n ton s pe r yea r an d locate d nea r a larg e powe r plan t wit hboiler s speciall ydesigne d an d constructe d t o bur n lignit e ove r a 3 0 t o 4 0 yea r period . Th e problem s tha t EP Aha s identifie d wit hpredictin g an d calculatin g PS D incremen t consumptio n bymine s i s magnifie d i n Texa s becaus e o f larg e surfac e area s disturbe d ove r th e lif e o f th e mines . Mine s ar e locate d i n rural , lo wpopulate d areas , bu t privat e propert y withi n an d adjacen t t o min e permi t area s mak e buffe r zone s cost s prohibitiv e o r unavailable . Thi s i s furthe r complicate d b yth e variabl e locatio n o f minin g equipmen t an d hau l road s ove r a rang e o f mile s durin g th e lif e o f a mine . Thes e factor s mak e applyin g PS D revie wparticularl yrestrictiv e fo r Texa s lignit e mines . Th e Nationa l Coa l Associatio n an d th e America n Minin g Congres s (AMC ) wil l present , a s par t o f th e record , a studybyICF , Inc . whic h assesse s th e economi c impact s o f EPA' s propose d rules . Th e repor t use s maximu m

min e size s allowe d unde r PS D increment s (a s determine d b ymodelin g byTRC , Inc. ) fo r eac ho f fiv e coa l basin s reviewe d b y EPA , bu t als o include s th e Texa s lignit e basin . Th e IC F Stud ygive s a mor e accurat e economi c impac t analysi s tha n EPA' s study , bu t i s stil l conservativ e becaus e o f assumption s tha t th e grandfatherin g optio n woul d no t affec t existin g mines . W e woul d lik e t o addres s som e o f th e specifi c result s o f th e IC F studya s the ypertai n t o Texa s lignite . Th e IC F stud ypredict s tha t becaus e o f min e siz e limitations , lignit e cos t wil l increas e fro m$13.5 6 pe r to n t o $47.2 6 pe r ton . Wit h thi s increase , lignit e woul d n o longe r b e economicall yviabl e an d futur e coa l us e i n Texa s wil l b e onl yfro mout-of-stat e o r foreig n coa l sources . Th e stud yals o predict s a 90 % reductio n i n Texa s minin g employment .P.1 4



### TMR ACOMMENT S T O EPA(continued ] Th e adoptio n o f EPA' s proposa l t o lis t surfac e mine s woul d hav e sever e regiona l impact s t o Texa s du e t o los s o f th e abilit yt o recove r a valuabl e loca l resource , los s o f thousand s o f job s fo r loca l min e workers , los s o f loca l ta x bas e an

d sever e increase s i n the cos t o f fue l fo r generatio n o f electricity . IC F predict s tha t nationa l electricit ycost s wil l increas e fro m 1. 2 t o 8. 3 billio n dollar s pe r year . Th e cos t i n Texa s wil l b e highes t becaus e o f expensiv e requirement s t o conver t existing loca l lignit e facilitie s t o bur n a differen t typ e coal . W e reques t tha t thi s informatio n o n Texa s lignit e b e adde d t o EPA' s recor d a s furthe r evidenc e tha t th e listing o f surfac e coa l mine s fo r PS D purpose s i s no t justified , TMR Afull ysupport s th e comment s o f NCAan d AM C bein g submitte d o n thi s rulemaking . W e appreciat e thi s opportunit yt o presen t ou r views . Additional , mor e detailed , comment s o n th e RI Awil l b e submitte d prio r t o th e clos e o f th e commen t period .P.1 5 

### fa r\-?*-1%

Apri l 9 , 198 6

Texa s Utilitie s Mining Compan yan d Texa s Utilitie s Generating Compan yComment s o n EPA' s Proposa l t o Subjec t Surfac e Coa l Mine s t o Preventio n o f Significan t Deterioratio n Revie w

M yname i s Dic k Robertson . I a mManage r o f Permit s fo r Texa s Utilitie s Generating Compan

y(TUGCO) . Toda

yI a mpresenting comment s o n behal f o f Texa s Utilitie s Mining Compan yan d Texa s Utilitie s Generating Compan yo n propose d rulemaking concerning PS D permit s fo r surfac e coa l mines .

Texa s Utilitie s Mining Compan yconduct s surfac e mining operation s i n Texa s t o suppl ylignit e t o the stea melectri c powe r plant s operate d b yTexa s Utilitie s Generating Company . Th e Texa s Utilitie s Syste mprovide s electri c powe r t o approximatel yone-third o f the populatio n an d are a o f the stat e o f Texa s including Dalla s an d For t Worth . Th e lignit e mine d b yTexa s Utilitie s Mining Compan yi s burne d a t mine-mout hpowe r plant s t o produc e ove r 50 % o f the electri c powe r use d b ycustomer s o f the Texa s Utilitie s electri c powe r system . Th e mining compan yemploy s ove r 2,65 0 peopl e an d surfac e mine s ove r 3 0 millio n ton s o f lignit e pe r year . Tw o ne wpowe r plant s an

d associate d mine s o f approximatel y12. 5 million s ton s pe r yea r ar e schedule d t o begi n operatio n during the nex t 1 0 years .P.1 6 l

Becaus e o f our heav ycommitmen t t o existing an d futur e use s o f lignit e w e ar e extremel yconcerne d abou t the potentia l effec t o f the propose d rule s o n our abilit yt o provid e powe r t o a growing Texa s economy . Existing generating unit s an d futur e unit s no wunde r constructio n hav e bee n designe d t o handl e the specia l propertie s o f lignit e wit hlowBT Uan d high as h content . Conversio n t o a highe r BT Ucoa l fro

mout-of-stat e woul d requir e majo r modification s t o boilers , coa l handling faciltie s an d pollutio n contro l equipment . Compan yinvestment s fo r minin g equipmen t an d lignit e deposit s alread

yunde r leas e woul d b e los t a t grea t expense . W e believ e tha t adoptio n o f eithe r o f the alternative s tha t woul d lis t surfac e mine s woul d hav e a significan t advers e effec t on our abilit yt o mee t electri c powe r need s o f Texa s an d greatl yincreas e cost s t o electri c • powe r consumers .

W e hav e reviewe d the EPA' s RegulatoryImpac t Analysi s (RIA) . W e not e tha t the RI Adi d no t addres s the impact s on Texa s lignit e operation s o r the effec t o n electri c utilitie s i n Texas . W e believ e tha t i f EP Ahad include d Texa s lignit e i n it s analysis , the RIA' s apparen t conclusio n tha t listing o f surfac e mine s i s no t cos t justifie d woul d hav e bee n eve n stronger .

A n economi c analysi s b yIC F Inc . i s being submitte d int o the record b ythe Nationa l Coa l Associatio n an d America n Mining Congress . Th e stud yexpand s upo n the EPARegulatoryImpac t Analysi s t o includ e impact s o n the Texa s lignit e basin . Result s o f thi s stud yshowtha t the maximu mallowabl e siz e o f a Texa s lignit e min e woul d onl yb e 14,00 0 ton s pe r year . Mine s o f thi s siz e woul d b e fa r to o smal l t o suppl ythe need s o f Texa s Utilitie s powe r plant s an

d woul d b e uneconomical . The effec t woul d b e tha t the significan tP.1 7

planne d developmen t o f ne wmine s t o suppor t powe r plant s alread yunde r constructio n woul d b e severel yjeopardized .

W e ar e als o concerne d abou t EPA' s assumptio n tha t existing mine s woul d no t b e affecte d i f grandfathering i s adopted . Mining permit s ar e issued i n Texa s fo r onl yfive years . Renewal s fo r existing mine s can includ e ne w area s a s the min e pi t progresses . Als o ove r the lif e o f a 30-yea r mine , modification s o f minin g procedure s o r extension s o f hau l road s coul d affec t fugitive emission s an d the applicabilit yo f PS D permitting . EPAshoul d no t assume tha t th

e "grandfathering " o f existing mine s wil l allowthe avoidanc e o f the sever e economi c regiona l an d nationa l impact s tha t woul d occu r i f surfac e mine s ar e regulate d unde r PSD . Texa s Utilitie s believe s the onl y reasonabl e alternativ e fo r EPAt o adop t i s alternativ e on e - no t listing surfac e mines .

EPAha s aske d fo r comment s concerning mine-mout hpowe r plants . W e believ e th e curren t definition s an d regulation s recogniz e tha t powe r plant s an d mine s ar e separat e sourc e categorie s becaus e the yhav e differen t Standard Industria l Code s (SIC) . However , withou t furthe r clarificatio n fro mEPA , ther e i s potentia l fo r misinterpretatio n tha t the min e i s the sam e "source " a s the plan t and , therefore , subjec t t o inclusio n o f fugitiv e minin g emission s i n PS D applicabilit ydeterminations . Amin e i s simpl ya fue l sourc e an

d no t a "support " facilit yfo r a nearb ypowe r plan t an

ymor e than i t i s a suppor t facilit yfo r distan t powe r plants . EPAshoul d mak e clea r i n it s fina l decisio n tha t mine s an d powe r plant s ar e separat e source s unde r al l cases .P.1 8

W e hav e contribute d t o the comment s o f the Texa s Mining an d Reclamatio n Associatio n being presente d separatel ya t thi s hearing . W e full ysuppor t thei r comment s a s wel l a s NCAan d AM C join t comments . W e appreciat e thi s opportunit yt o contribut e t o thi s rulemaking .P.1 9

«-." ' *NOTE : Thi s i s a cop yo f the ora l statemen t presente d b yRandolphWood .

THE STAT E ^MPM^grg ? O F WYOMIN G E D HERSCHLE R GOVERNO R 

# Wefiattment

ct (Dnwitonmenial

zluaiitu oddtn in iiAa /ic n TELEPHON

E 307-777-793 7 HERSCHLERBUILDIN G 12 2 WES T 25T

H STREET CHEYENNE . WYOMIN G8200 2 TRANSCRIP T O F STATEMEN T O F RANDOLP H WOO D Apri l 9 , 198 6 - Publi c Hearing - Denver , Colorad o

Ladie s an

d Gentlemen , M ynam e i s RandolphWood . I a mthe Directo r o f the Wyoming Departmen t o f Environmenta l Quality . Th e rul e proposa l befor e yo u toda yrelating t o the questio n o f listing surfac e coa l mine s a s a "majo r source " fo r ne wsourc e revie wpurpose s i s o f extreme interes t t o m e an d the Stat e o f Wyoming . Withi n the Departmen t o f Environmenta l Qualit yI hav e responsibilit yfo r bot hthe min e reclamatio n progra mincluding a n approve d coa l min e reclamatio n progra m throug h the Offic e o f Surfac e Minin g an d a progra

mfo r ai r pollutio n contro l approve d b

yEPAunde r the Clea n Ai r Act . Th e comment s whic hI wil l presen t t o yo u toda

yreflec t the knowledg e o f the Departmen t i n bot hthe coa l min e reclamatio n progra

man d th e ai r pollutio n contro l program . I woul d firs t lik e t o star t b ysaying tha t the comment s presente d fo r Governo r E d Herschler , Stat e o f Wyoming a t the Decembe r 7 , 198 4 hearing o n the same subjec t an

d the writte n comment s date d January25 , 198 5 maile d t o EPAo n thi s same docke t ar e particularl ysalien t t o the discussio n a t han d an d w e woul d incorporat e the

ma s par t o f ou r testimon yt o yo u today . Governo r Herschler' sP.2 0

Statemen t - RandolphWoo d 2 . Apri l 9 , 198 6 - Publi c Hearing - Denver , C O earlie r comment s ar e particularl ypertinen t t o the subjec t o f the hearing to da ysinc e h e discusse d the economi c impac t o n the Stat e o f Wyoming i f surfac e coa l mine s wer e listed . Th e comment s submitte d b ythe Ai r Qualit yDivisio n i n 198 5 ar e als o particularl ypertinen t sinc e the yprovid e a technica l basi s fo r the positio n o f the Stat e o f Wyoming tha t the listing o f surfac e coa l mine s wil l preclud e the issuanc e o f permit s fo r an yne wsurfac e coa l min e i n the future . Wyoming i s vitall yintereste d i n thi s rulemaking proposa l sinc e Wyoming i s th e secon

d larges t coa l produce r i n the nation . I t i s the larges t coa l pro duce r fro

msurfac e mine s an

d coul d wel l b e the larges t coa l produce r i n the natio n i n the no t to o distan t future . I n additio n 20-30 % o f the Unite d State s recoverabl e reserve s ar e withi n the border s o f the Stat e o f Wyoming . I f adopte d as , proposed , thes e rule s wil l dictat e the futur e fo r coa l developmen t an d economi c developmen t i n the Stat e o f Wyoming . Th e prospect s o f health yecon omi c coa l developmen t unde r thes e proposal s i s bleak . I n considering the listing o f surfac e coa l mine s a s majo r fo r ne wsourc e re vie wpurpose s an

d thu s including fugitiv e emission s i n al l o f the require d considerations , the Environmenta l Protectio n Agenc ymus t mak e tw o applicabilit y determination s unde r Sectio n 302 J o f the Clea n Ai r Act . Th e firs t o f thes e i s tha t th e source s hav e the potentia l t o degrad e ai r qualit ysignificance . Th e secon d determinatio n tha t mus t b e mad e i s tha t n o unreasonabl e soci o economi c impact s relativ e t o benefit s woul d resul t fro msubjecting the sourc e t o ne w sourc e review . Th e secon d determinatio n i s pivota l i n thi s issu e an d i n the opinio n o f th

e Stat e o f Wyoming the languag e "no unreasonabl e soci o economi cP.2 1

Statemen t - RandolphWoo d 3 . Apri l 9 , 198 6 - Publi c Hearing - Denver , C O impact s relativ e t o benefit s woul d resul t fro mthe action " require s a straigh t forward an

d absolut e determination . W e believ e tha t w e ca n clearl ysho wtha t tremendou s soci o economi c impact s relativ e t o benefit s wil l occur i n the Stat e o f Wyoming i f EP

Aadopt s thi s proposal . I t i s certainl ynecessaryt o discus s the benefit s whic hmigh t deriv e fro m the listing o f surfac e coa l mines . Th e importan t provision s o f the Clea n Ai r Ac t i n thi s consideratio n ar e thos e provision s dealing wit hthe progra mfo r the preventio n o f significan t deterioratio n (PSD ) an d the requirement s i n Sectio n 10 9 pertaining t o the establishmen t o f nationa l ambien t ai r qualit ystandards . Th e latte r o f thes e tw o statutor

yprovision s requir e EPAt o establis hnationa l ambien t ai r qualit ystandard s whic hi n the judgmen t o f the administrato r ar e requisit e fo r the protectio n o f the publi c healt hincluding an adequat e margi n of.safety . I n additio n the administrato r i s require d t o specif ylevel s o f ai r qualit ywhic hi n the judgmen t o f the administrato r i s requisit e o f the protectio n o f the publi c welfar e fro man yknow n o r anticipate d advers e effect s associate d wit hthe presenc e o f ai r pollutant s i n the ambien t air . Thu s i t i s patentl y clea r tha t EPAi s t o provid e fo r the protectio n o f the publi c healt han d welfar e throug hthe establishmen t o f nationa l ambien t ai r qualit ystandard s unde r Sectio n 109 . I f thes e nationa l ai r qualit ystandard s do no t provid e protectio n fo r the publi c healt han d welfar e wit hthi s adequat e margi n o f safet yEP Aha s a n affirmativ e dutyt o revis e the mt o accomplis hthi s end . O n the othe r han d the purpos e o f the PS D progra mi s clean ai r resourc e managment . Thi s progra mi s designe d t o assur e tha t state s mak e conscientiou s decision s i n the publi c arena regarding economi c developmen t an d the allocatio n o f tha t clean ai r resourc e fo rP.2 2

Statemen t - RandolphWoo d 4 . Apri l 9 , 198 6 - Publi c Hearing - Denver , C O the purpose s deeme d appropriat e b ytha t state . I n fac t Congres s clearl yacknow
ledge d i n the developmen t o f the PS D progra mstatutor

yprovision s tha t the PS D increment s wer e merel yfractiona l portion s o f the ambien t ai r qualit ystandard s whic hexiste d a t tha t tim e an d wer e no t relate d t o publi c healt han d welfar e protection . Therefore , sinc e the PS D increment s d o no t hav e anything t o do wit hthe protectio n o f the publi c health , Wyoming i s totall yunabl e t o understan d ho wcost s fo r publi c healt hbenefit s coul d b e calculate d fo r thi s analysis . Th e whol e con cep t make s a mockeryo f EPA' s responsibilitie s t o establis hnationa l ambien t ai r qualit ystandard s fo r the protectio n o f the publi c healt han d welfare . W e be
lieve tha t the publi c healt hbenefit s fo r listing surfac e coa l mine s ar e zer o s o lon g a s the ambien t standard s ar e maintained . O n the othe r hand , an yothe r type s o f benefit s (no n publi c healt han

d welfar e benefits ) represen t considera

tion s reserve d t o the state s themselves . I n considering thes e othe r type s o f benefit s the state s hav e the abilit yan d the mandat e t o weighcompeting demand s an d mak e decision s o n the overal l managemen t o f the tota l clean ai r resource . Thi s implicitl yrequire s the balancing necessaryeconomi c developmen t agains t nee d an d desir e t o hav e a n arra yo f clean ai r resourc e possibilities . Therefore , i n defining benefit s whic hmigh t accru e a s a resul t o f a listing w e believ e tha t EP Aha s the responsibilit yt o weighhealt han d welfar e benefit s an d th e state s hav e the responsibilit yt o weighothe r type s o f benefits . Finally , w e believ e tha t sinc e th

e nationa l ambien t ai r qualit ystandard s ar e establishe d a t level s whic har e requisit e fo r th e protectio n o f publi c healt han d welfar e wit ha n adequat e margi n o f safety , ther e ar e no healt han d welfar e benefit s whic h EP A ha s define d a s being possibl e throug ha listing .P.2 3

Statemen t - RandolphWoo d 5 . Apri l 9 , 198 6 - Publi c Hearing - Denver , C O Th e othe r hal f o f the questio n whic hmus t b e addresse d unde r Sectio n 302 J i s whethe r o r no t unreasonabl e soci o economi c impact s woul d occu r a s a resul t o f listing . Fo r the issu e a t han d thi s translate s t o a questio n o f whethe r o r no t permit s coul d b e issue d fo r ne wsurfac e coa l mine s i f fugitiv e emission s ar e include d i n the analyse s an d the analyse s mus t demonstrat e complianc e wit h PS D increment s fo r particulat e matter . I believ e tha t sinc e 197 4 the Stat e o f Wyoming ha s issue d mor e permit s fo r larg e surfac e coa l mine s than an yothe r stat e i n the natio n an

d ha s conducte d literall yhundred s o f ai r qualit yanalyse s fo r suc hsurfac e coa l mines . Thes e permit s an d analyse s hav e include d mine s u p t o a capacit yo f 2 5 millio n ton s pe r yea r an d tota l somewher e betwee n 25 0 an d 30 0 millio n ton s pe r yea r coa l production . Wit hthi s experienc e i n the permitting o f surfac e coa l mine s i n the wes t I ca n tel l yo u i n n o uncertai n terms tha t thi s proposa l woul d b e devastating t o the coa l mining interes t o f the Stat e o f Wyoming . Small , isolate d coa l mine s a s woul d b e require d b ythi s proposa l ar e no t viabl e t o Wyoming . Thi s i s no t becaus e w e do no t requir e the bes t o f contro l technology . W e hav e require d fo r 1 2 year s the verybes t an d hav e lead the natio n i n thi s area . W e inten

d t o continu e t o d o so . Howeve r surfac e coa l mining i s a n activit y whic h involve s the handling o f million s o f ton s o f eart han d mineral s outsid e i n the element s wher e ther e i s onl ys o muc htha t can b e don e t o eliminat e the emis

sions . Th e residua l uncontrolle d emission s mus t b e accepte d an d analyze d agains t the standards . W e hav e bee n doing thi s fo r 1 2 year s now . Thus , w e ar e unabl e t o se e ho wi n you r regulator yimpac t analysi s yo u ar e abl e t o assign a cos t t o in

crease d contro l effectivenes s sinc e w e do no t believ e tha t suc hincrease d con tro l i s availabl e unles s yo u ar e proposing t o requir e the constructio n o f a superdome ove r the mine , thu s restricting al l o f the emissions . Rather , w e ar eStatemen t r > RandolphWoo d 6 . Apri l 9 , 198 6 - Publi c Hearing - Denver , C O

o f the opinio n tha t thi s proposa l wil l literall ymea n tha t surfac e coa l mining i n Wyoming wil l cease . Ou r surfac e coa l mine s wer e develope d du e t o the econ omic s o f size . Thes e vas t investment s canno t b e recovere d a t the coa l productio n whic h woul d b e require d i f complianc e wit hPS D increment s i s mandated . W e thin k the analyse s i s seriousl yflawe d i n thi s area . I n summar

yw e ar e convince d tha t the rea l soci o economi c cos t t o the Stat e o f Wyoming wil l b e enormou s an d wel l i n exces s o f thos e calculate d i n you r analyse s an d tha t the benefit s wil l b e zer o o r minima l sinc e publi c healt han d welfar e wil l b e protecte d throug hthe requirement s fo r complianc e wit hthe ambien t ai r qualit ystandards . Therefor e w e believ e quit e clearl ytha t EPAcanno t lis t surfac e coa l mine s a s majo r fo r ne wsourc e revie wpurpose s sinc e th e secon d tes t o f Sectio n 302 J o f the Clea n Ai r Ac t i s faile d sinc e significan t unreasonabl e soci o economi c impact s relativ e t o benefit s woul d resul t fro mthe subjecting the source s t o ne wsourc e review . A s an associate d issu e EPAha s requeste d comment s o n the basi c questio n o f whethe r i f a surfac e coa l min e i s someho wassociate d wit ha facilit ywhic h i s a majo r emitting facilit yan d thu s subjec t t o ne wsourc e review , i s tha t min e a par t o f the majo r emitting facilit yan d thu s the fugitiv e emission s fro mthe min e mus t b e include d i n the analyses . W e believ e tha t thi s i s a reli c o f EPA' s us e o f the standard industria l classificatio n (SIC ) proces s o f identifying facilties . W e hav e alway s maintaine d tha t the us e o f the SI C proces s had an inheren t problemdu e t o the potentia l t o bot hexclud e an d includ e - erroneousl y- source s int o the ne wsourc e reviewprocess . W e hav e note d thes e problem s i n th e pas t an d w e believ e the curren t proposa l woul d continu e t o propogat e thi s error .Statemen t - RandolphWoo d

Apri l 9 , 198 6 - Publi c Hearing - Denver , C O 7 . W e d o no t believ e fo r instanc e tha t a coa l min e i s a par t o f a min e t o mout h powe r plan t an

d thu s i t shoul d b e subjec t t o ne wsourc e revie wsimpl ybecaus e the min e mout hpowe r plan t i s a majo r facilit yan d itsel f subjec t t o ne wsourc e review . W e believ e tha t a surfac e coa l min e i s a facilit yunt o itself , tha t i t produce s a produc t whic hmaythe n b e utilize d b ysome othe r facilit yeithe r o n sit e o r thousand s o f mile s dow n the railroad trac k an d thu s the surfac e min e shoul d no t b e gathere d int o the ne wsourc e reviewproces s simpl yb yvirtu e o f it s location . I f EP Ano wattempt s t o bring throug hthe bac k doo r int o the ne w sourc e reviewproces s surfac e coa l mine s an d conside r fugitive emission s from suchmine s i n an applicabilit ydeterminatio n w e believ e tha t EP Amus t mak e suc h applicabilit ydetermination s pursuan t t o the provision s o f Sectio n 302 J o f the Act . W e do no t believ e tha t EP Aha s conducte d a n analysi s t o determin e i f un reasonabl e soci o economi c impac t relativ e t o benefit s woul d resul t fro maggre gating surfac e coa l min e wit hothe r ne wsourc e revie wfacilitie s an d thu s suc h an effor t woul d b e improper . W e als o believ e w e mus t commen t specificall yo n Alternativ e 4 a s presente d b y EPA . Sectio n 16 5 (d)(2)(c)(ii ) o f the Clean Ai r Ac t charge s the stat e wit h the fina l determinatio n o f whethe r o r no t advers e impact s including impact s o n visi

bilit ywil l occu r i n a Clas s I are a a s a resul t o f emission s fro ma ne wfacility . EP Adoe s no t mak e tha t determination : Th e federa l lan d manage r doe s no t mak e tha t determination : Tha t determinatio n i s reserve d t o the State . Through the consideration s i n Alternativ e 4 w e believ e EPAi s attempting throug hthi s rule
making t o preemp t the prerogative s o f the Stat e i n protecting visibilit yo f Clas s I areas . W e believ e tha t thi s i s a seriou s fla wo f the proposa l i n Alternativ e 4 an

d w e believ e EP

Ashoul d recogniz e State' s prerogative s an d rejec t Alternativ e 4 .Statemen t - RandolphWoo d

Apri l 9 , 198 6 - Publi c Hearing - Denver , C O 8 . I n additio n t o the abov e overal l genera l evaluatio n the following specifi c comment s ar e offered . Refe r t o pag e XV I - i n the middl e o f the pag e EPAmake s the statement s "SCM' s lik e othe r industria l emitter s dispos e o f unwante d byproduct s b yemitting the

m o r failing t o preven t thei r releas e t o the outdoo r ai r essentiall ywithou t cos t o r impac t t o the sourc e itself. " Thi s statemen t clearl ydemonstrate s EPA' s lac k o f understanding o f surfac e coa l mining operations . Th e fugitiv e emission s fro msurfac e coa l mine s ar e no t unwante d byproducts . Theyar e i n fac t the residu e whic hresul t eve n fro mmine s whic hhav e extensiv e abatemen t measure s i n existence . Ou r experienc e lead s u s t o believ e tha t surfac e coa l mine s exercis e extremel ygoo d fait heffort s t o mitigat e fugitiv e emission s an d fo r EPAt o mak e thi s statemen t i s an absolutel yunwarrante d an d unfounde d accusation . Refe r . . t o pag e X

V (iii ) - the footnot e o n thi s tabl e denoting allowabl e PS D particulat e matte r increment s an d nationa l ambien t ai r qualit ystandard s state s tha t Wyoming regulation s establishe d Clas s I I annua l increment s a t 1 0 microgram s pe r cubi c meters . Thi s footnot e i s incorrect . Th e Wyoming Clas s I I annua l incremen t i s 1 9 microgram s per - cubi c mete r a s prescribe d i n the Clea n Ai r Act . Refe r t o pag e XX

V - nea r the to

p o f thi s pag e EP

Amake s the statemen t "Unde r Alternativ e 4 mine s proposing t o locat e nea r Clas s I i n mandatoryClas s I I area s wer e assume d t o mov e beyon d the ambien t impac t rang e o f suc hprotecte d areas. " Thi s statemen t seem s t o indicat e tha t EP Adoe s no t understan d tha t coa l mus t b e mine d wher e i t i s foun d an d tha t an assumptio n tha t a min e i s going t o mov e i s an assumptio n whic hmus t b e examine d unde r the situation s whic hexis t locally . Fo r EPAt o mak e thi s assumptio n i n it s mode l withou t considering loca lP.2 7

Statemen t - RandolphWoo d Apri l 9 , 198 6 - Publi c Hearing - Denver , CO 9 . circumstance s i s t o rende r the result s o f the mode l absolutel ymeaningless . I n addition , EPAdoe s no t appea r t o hav e considere d tha t eve n i f unde r some circum

stance s the assumption s wer e correct , EP Ai s making a nationa l resourc e decisio n whic h wil l eliminat e fro mproductio n i n perpetuit ytha t coal . W e believ e tha t thi s i s a n absolutel yinappropriat e process . Refe r t o pag e XX

V - nea r the bottomo f thi s pag e EPAdiscusse s the incrementa l cos t o f additiona l contro l an d make s the statemen t tha t mine s i n state s wit h existing stric t control s woul d hav e lowcost . W e believ e tha t thi s i s a n absolutel yincorrec t statement . Thos e state s whic hhav e require d existing stric t control s hav e alread yrequire d thos e whic hhav e lowcos t associate d wit h them . Th e remaining availabl e control s ar e thos e whic hhav e extremel yhigh cos t relate d t o them . Thu s a s the contro l requirement s increase , the cost s increas e exponentially . Theyd o no t decrease . Th e Stat e o f Wyoming appreciate s the opportunit yt o presen t comment s o n thi s extremel yimportan t issu e an d w e remai n availabl e t o provid e an yclarificatio n shoul d EP

As o desire .