P. 1



# OAR Box 1859 Prepped byCharmelle Mathews



### Document

Number: 

# 77 ) V-C- 2
Docket Number: 

# A-84-3 3

Printed 11/24/200811:02:14 AM Sheet 77 of 79

## J RESPONS E T O TECHNICA L COMMENT S ONRI AFOR EP A PROPOSA L T O LIS T SURFAC E COAL MINE S FO R NE W SOURC E REVIE W

Contrac t No . 68-02-389 0 Wor k Assignmen t No . 3 6 PN3655-3 6 and Contrac t No . 68-02-439 4 Wor k Assignmen t No . 1 3 P N3759-1 3 

# I Prepare dFo r U.S . ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENC Y AI RQUALIT YMANAGEMEN T DIVISION Researc hTriangl e Park , N.C . 2771 1 P. 2 

# A-fl-33 V-C-2

Prepare d B

y PE I Associates , Inc . 560 0 S . Quebe c Suit e 320 B Englewood , C O 80111 

## B - S B fl Wf g NOV I 4198 9 

# n

EPAASRDQCKFT

Septembe r 198 6 (Revise dJanuar y

1989 )P. 3



# I

L ! CONTENT S

Pa^ e

1. 0 Introductio n 1- 1 2. 0 Comment s and Response s o n Propose d Rul e Issue s 2- 1 2. 1 Healt hand Welfar e Effect s 2- 1 2. 2 Definitio n o f a Stationar ySourc e 2- 5 2. 3 Duplicatio n o f Regulation s 2- 7 3. 0 Overvie wo f Comment s and Response s o n th e Regulator y Impac t Analysi s 3- 1 3. 1 Underestimatio n o f Cost s 3- 1 3. 2 Overestimatio n o f Cost s 3- 8 3. 3 Overestimatio n o f Benefit s 3-1 1 3. 4 Underestimatio n o f Benefit s 3-1 6 4. 0 Comment s and Response s o n Interpretation s and Procedure s fo r Determinin g Ai r Qualit yImpac t 4- 1 4. 1 Definitio n o f Significan t Impac t 4- 1 4. 2 Spacin g o f Receptor s 4- 1 4. 3 Ai r Qualit yImpac t o f Coa l Mine s 4- 2 5. 0 Respons e Summar yand Interpretatio n 5- 1 5. 1 Summmar y5- 1 5. 2 Interpretatio n 5- 1 Reference s



### nP. 4



# I

E 0 TABLE S Pag e

Tabl e 1 - Compariso no f Min e Dat a 3- 5 Tabl e 2 - Particulat e Concentration s Annua l Geometri c 4- 3

Mean s (ug/m3 )

FIGURE S Pag e Figur e 1 - Compariso no f Source/Recepto r Geometrie s 3- 9



### mP. 5



# I

G SECTIO N1. 0 INTRODUCTIO N

I n November , 198 6 EP Apublishe d it s Regulator yImpac t Analysi s (RIA ) fo r it s Octobe r 26 , 198 4 proposa l t o requir e fugitiv e emission s fro msurfac e coa l | j mine s (SCMs ) t o b e include d i n threshol d applicabilit ydetermination s unde r

EPA' s preventio n o f significan t deterioratio n (PSD ) progra m(EPA1985)
. Th e I f RI Awa s mad e publicl yavailabl e an d comment s hav e bee n accepte d o n it
. Publi c

comment s hav e raise d variou s issue s abou t th e RIA . Th e purpos e o f thi s repor t 1 8 i s t o addres s a variet yo f technica l comment s mad e regardin g th e RIA . * * Th e RI Acompare d th e projecte d cost s an d benefit s o f fou r alternat e t

- approache s t o regulatin g SCM s unde r PSD . Alternativ e I (n o listing ) assume d I L tha t th e propose d rul e woul d no t b e promulgated
. Alternativ e I I woul d affec t

ne wand modifie d SCM s o f a significan t siz e commencin g constructio n afte r th e promulgatio n o f th e regulation
. Thes e mine s woul d b e subjec t t o PS D review
. Mine s commencin g constructio n prio r t o implementatio n o f th e regulatio n woul d | | no t b e affected
. Alternativ e II I i s ver ysimila r t o Alternativ e II , excep t

tha t mine s qualifyin g a s majo r source s tha t commence d constructio n afte r H Januar y6 , 197 5 woul d b e counte d a s consumin g PS D increments
. Consequently ,

existin g mine s woul d nee d t o retroactivel ycompl ywit hth e PS D requirement
. Alternativ e I

V woul d affec t onl yne wand modifie d mine s tha t hav e ambien t impact s o n area s designate d b yth e Clea n Ai r Ac t (CAA ) a s havin g specia l sceni c and ecologica l value
. Thes e area s ar e designate d a s Clas s I and mandator yClas s I I areas . Thi s repor t present s th e majo r technica l comment s submitte d o n th e RI A and response s t o thos e comments . A t leas t on e citatio n i s offere d fo r eac h comment . Th e specifi c comment s pertai n generall yt o thos e addressin g th e emissio n an d dispersio n analysi s performe d byPE I Associates , Inc . an d include d i n th e RIA . Genera l response s t o th e comment s concernin g th e economi c analyse s ar e include d i n thi s report . Thi s repor t i s divide d int o fou r additiona l sections
. Sectio n 2 discusse s comment s and response s o n th e propose d rul e issues
. Sectio n 3 1- 1P. 6



# e present s comments and response s o n th e RI Aand include s a compariso n c f th e

RI Atechnica l analyse s t o thos e performe d o n behal f o f industr ytrad e associations
. Sectio n 3 als o include s comment s mad e b yenvironmenta l groups , Sectio n 4 contain s comment * and response s o n determinin g th e ai r qualit y impac t o f coa l mines
. Finally , Sectio n 5 present s a summar yand interpretation s o f th e comments .



### 1- 2P. 7

g SECTION 2. 0

raCOMMENT S ANDRESPONSE S ON PROPOSE DRUL E ISSUE S 

# 1
Thi s sectio no f th e repor t present s comment s tha t have bee nreceive don [ | certai nbasi c issue s pertainin g t o th e natur e andeffect s o f SCMs . Many o f the comment s tha t wer e receive donth e propose drul e raise dquestion s onth e Happlicabilit y o f the rule . Below

i s a summary

o f th e key

issues . Th e comment s hav e bee nparaphrase dfro m th e origina l statement s an deac hi s g | followe db

y a technica l respons e addressin g th e specifi c issue .
H2. 1 HEALT HANDWELFAR E EFFECT S

Below i s a summary

o f comment s receive dfro m variou s organization s concernin g healt han

dwelfar e effect s relate dt o SCMs .

p» . 

# I 2.1. 1 Nationa l Emission s

COMMENT : Many

o f the comment s note dthe relativel y smal l contributio no f fugitiv e emission s fro m SCM s t o tota l nationa l particulat e emissions . Citin g a 198 0 paper , severa l comment s state dthat , o na nationa l annua l average , SCM s represen t les s thanon e percen t o f al l particulat e emission s fro m ope nsource s (Evan s an

dCoope r 1980) . Further , the y state dtha t unpave droad s an d agricultur e wer e th e larges t fugitiv e dus t source s ona nationa l basis . RESPONSE : Th e 197 6 nationa l inventor y performe db

y Evan s andCooper , present s a

nunrealisti c evaluatio no f coa l mines . I t i s no t appropriat e t o conside r nationa l emission s whe nevaluatin g th e loca l impac t o f minin g sources . Any

nationa l inventor y

doe s no t tak e int o accoun t the geographica l distributio no f mines . Du e t o th e locatio no f th e resource , mine s tendt o b e clustere daroun da primar y coa l seam . Consequently , aninventor y wit ha fine r resolutio n(smalle r geographi c area ) ma y sho w tha t coa l mine s ar e a significan t sourc e i ncertai nlocations . Also , th e 197 6 inventor y doe s no t full y accoun t fo r th e increase dleve l o f minin g activit y inrecen t years . Th e 2- 1P. 8



# D



# D increas e i nth e numbe r andproductio no f mine s i nth e Powde r Rive r Basi nsinc e

197 6 i s jus t on e example . Calculate dparticulat e emission s fo r an y give nmin e ar e large . Fo r example , annua l particulat e erission s fro m th e fiv e mine s evaluate di nth e RI A range dfro

m 64 4 t o 4,11 7 tons/year . Simila r calculation s performe db y a contracto r fo r fou r othe r mine s range dfro m 1,40 4 t o 15,45 4 tons/yea r (TR C 1985) . Consequently , eve nthoug hSCM s ma y represen t a smal l fractio no f tota l nationa l emissions , any give nmin e ma y

b e a significan t loca l source . Finally , i t i s somewha t incongruou s t o compar e intermitten t disperse d sources , suc ha s unpave droad s andagricultur e t o a coa l min e whic hoperate s 2 4 hours/da y

andwhos e emission s ar e concentrate dina relativel y smal l area . Again , i t i s no t appropriat e t o compar e tota l nationa l emission s t o th e potentia l loca l impac t o f minin g sources . Tota l annua l nationa l emission s ma y bea r littl e relationshi pt o th e loca l impac t i f a smalle r geographi c are a and a 24-hou r time frame ar e considered . COMMENT : Severa l comment s state dtha t coa l mine s ar e generall y locate d insparsel y

populate darea s an

dtherefor e hav e a minima l ai r qualit y impact . RESPONSE : Th e fac t tha t mine s ma y no t affec t a larg e populatio ni s no t particularl y

important . Th e PS Drule s d o no t conside r populatio nimpact . In addition , th e RI A

showe dtha t th e ai r qualit y impac t fro

m a min e ma y

be quit e substantial . Th e loca l impac t fro

m mine s ma y

be substantia l andno t onl y impac t populatio ncenter s bu t als o impac t Clas s I area s suc ha s nationa l parks . Also , th e emission s fro m th e mine s ar e generall y concentrate dove r a relativel y

smal l geographi c area , unlik e th e emission s fro m rura l unpave d road s an dagricultur e whic har e sprea dove r larg e areas . Consequently , th e ai r qualit y

impact s o f SCM s canno t be dismisse da s minimal .
2.1. 2 Particl e Siz e COMMENT : A

numbe r o f comment s concerne dth e particl e siz e distributio n o f SCM emissions . Specifically , coars e particle s tha t rapidl y fal l ou t o f th e plume represen t a substantia l mas s o f th e emission s (EPA 1986) . Anothe r commen t note dtha t a singl e particl e th e siz e o f a grai no f sand(roughl y 250 0 micrometers ) woul dbe sufficien t t o caus e anexceedanc e o f th e PS Dincrement s (MARC 1984) . 2- 2P. 9



# 1

I RESPONSE : Minin g emission s ar e compose do f substantia l number s o f coars e

particles . Althoug hsan dparticle s coul dtheoreticall y contribut e t o measure d excursion s abov e the NAAQ S o r PS Dincrements , i t i s unlikel y tha t an

y particle s o f thi s siz e woul db e measure dbeyondth e fenceline . Rather , smalle r particle s woul dbe measured . I nth e RI A

analyses , onl y

particulat e emissio n factor s representin g 3 0 micromete r andsmalle r particle s wer e use dt o estimat e SCM emissions . Consequently , large r particle s emitte da t th e sourc e ar e no t reflecte dinth e SC

M emissio nestimate s containe dinth e RIA . Th e origina l researc hdat a reference dinth e comment s wa s base don microscopi c analysi s o f open-face dfilte r sample s collecte dnea r the source s (EPA 1974) . Thes e dat a showe dth e presenc e o f larg e particle s nea r the source . Th e result s ar e no t directl y comparabl e t o th e method s use dinth e RIA , a s note dabove , no r ar e the y relate dt o the EPA' s ambien t measuremen t method s fo r particulat e matter . EPA' s curren t ambien t measuremen t metho dfo r particulat e 1 0 micrometer s an dsmalle r (PM, n ) physicall y exclude s th e large r particle s discusse dabove . Consequently , the presenc e o f larg e particle s a t th e source s ha s littl e impac t o nth e resultin g off-sit e measure d concentrations . Predicte dexcursion s abov e the NAAQ S o r PS Dincrement s inth e RI A ar e du e t o th e magnitud e o f th e emissio nestimate s no t the presenc e o f larg e particles . Base dona previou s study (EPA 1982) , attainmen t o f the PM, ~ NAAQ S ma y be a problem

fo r SCMs , eve nthoug hthe samplin g metho dexclude s th e larg e particle s discusse dinth e comments .
2.1. 3 Compariso no f NAAQ S an dWorke r Exposur e Limit s COMMENTS : Some o f th e comment s referre dt o the threshol dlimi t valu e 3 (TLV ) fo r nuisanc e particulate s fo r worker s (10,00 0 ug/ m ) an dcompare dthi s valu e t o the PS Dincrement s andth e NAAQ S (EPA 1986) . RESPONSE : Th e TLV

fo r worke r exposur e t o nuisanc e particulate s ha s bee n develope dfo r us e inth e practic e o f industria l hygien e a s guideline s o r recommendation s fo r contro l o f potentia l healt hhazard s inth e workplace . The y hav e bee ndevelope dfo r a populatio no f healthy , non-smoking , adul t worker s fo r a norma l 8-hou r workda y anda 40-hou r workweek . Th e TL V liste d abov e represent s tota l dus t containin g n o asbesto s andles s tha non e percen t 2- 3P.1 0



# F. fre e silica . Th e TLV s ar e no t intende dfo r us e i nevaluatin g o r controllin g

communit y

ai r pollutio nnuisances , o r continuous , uninterrupte dexposure s (ACGI G1988) . Thes e limitation s als o appl y t o measure do r predicte d concentration s o f particulat e downwin do f a SCM . I t i s inaccurat e t o compar e th e TLV fo r worke r exposur e t o nuisanc e particulate s t o th e NAAQ S fo r th e populatio na s a whole . Th e genera l populatio nno t onl y

include s healthy

worker s bu t als o smal l children , th e elderly , andpeopl e wit hhealt hproblems . Th e NAAQ S ar e designate dt o protec t th e mos t sensitiv e segmen t o f th e populatio nwit ha degre e o f safety . In addition , th e NAAQ S reflec t potentia l fo r longer-term exposure , rathe r tha nan 8-hou r workday . Also , worker s expose dt o nuisanc e dust s ar e provide dwit h persona l protectiv e equipment , th e genera l populatio ni s not . Sinc e th e TLV

fo r nuisanc e dus t i s unrelate dt o th e NAAQ S an dth e PS D increments , th e TL

V shoul dno t be include da s a consideratio ni nth e rulemakin g process .
2.1. 4 Visibilit y

Impact s COMMENT : Onl y

a smal l fractio no f th e fugitiv e emission s ar e fin e particle s o f th e siz e whic himpai r visibility . RESPONSE : A

previou s respons e addresse dth e commen t tha t fugitiv e emission s ar e primaril y coars e particle s tha t rapidl y fal l ou t o f th e plum e b y sayin g tha t onl y

emissio nfactor s representin g 3 0 micrometer s andsmalle r particle s wer e use dt o estimat e surfac e coa l min e emissions . Inadditio nt o tha t response , i t shoul dbe note dtha t althoug hfin e particle s (2. 5 micrometer s an

dsmaller ) ar e mos t efficien t (fo r thei r mass ) a t scatterin g ligh t andthereby

impairin g visibility , large r particle s suspende dinth e atmospher e als o impai r visibility . (U.S . EPA 1979 ) COMMENT : Th e wors t cas e visibilit y impairmen t predicte dfo r Bryc e Canyo n wa s predicte dt o occu r a t nigh t inth e winte r whe nther e woul db e n o visitor s present . RESPONSE : Thi s RI A

doe s sugges t tha t thi s predicte dwors t cas e situatio n woul dno t hav e any

significan t effec t o npar kvisitors , bu t th e benefit s estimate s develope dfo r Alternativ e I V wer e base donth e averag e chang e i n 2- 4P.1 1



# D visua l range , no t th e wors t case .

COMMENT : Chac o Cultur e Nationa l Histori c Par k wa s establishe dt o preserv e th e activitie s o f earlie r man , no t a s a wildernes s preserve , s o evidenc e o f a surfac e coa l min e woul dno t b e repugnant . RESPONSE : Th e primar ypurpos e o f th e par k bein g histori c preservatio n doe s no t preclud e tha t visibilit yma yb e importan t t o par k visitors
. Fo r example , tw o Clas s I area s tha t hav e bee nliste db yth e Nationa l Par k Service a s havin g visibilit ya s a nimportan t valu e ar e Mes a Verd e Nationa l Par k an d Bandelie r Nationa l Monument , bot har e park s wher e preservatio no f archeologica l remain s i s th e primar ypurpose . 2. 2 DEFINITIO NO F ASTATIONAR YSOURC E 2.2. 1 Sourc e Locatio n t- COMMENT : Man ycomment s discusse dth e fac t tha t coa l minin g i s a dynami c operatio nwit hn o well-define demissio nlocation
. Therefore , mine s shoul dno t j b e classifie da s stationar ysource s (EP A1986)
.

RESPONSE : Coa l mine s ar e non-traditiona l sources . The ybea r littl e relationshi p t o mor e conventiona l "smok e stack " majo r stationar ysources , suc h a s powe r plants
. However , th e leas e area s o f coa l mine s ar e wel l established , l l Clearly , Congres s intende dfo r SCM s t o b e considere da s stationar ysources , ®sinc e th e onl ymobil e source s specificall yseparate dfro mstationar ysource s

unde r Titl e I I o f th e CA Aar e moto r vehicle s andaircraft
. Therefore , SCM s E3



# G ar e considere dt o b e stationar ysource s b yEP Aan dn o chang e i nth e definitio n i s bein g considere da t thi s time
. COMMENT : Som e comment s note dtha t th e locatio nandconfiguratio no f th e operation s ar e continuall ychanging
. Therefore , SCM s ar e temporar ysources . RESPONSE : Give ntha t th e lif e expectanc yo f man ymine s i s 25-4 0 years , i t i s difficul t t o conside r the mt o b e temporar ysources . Atypical , "permanent " powe r plan t usuall yha s a desig nlif e expectanc yo f 40-5 0 years . Additionally , th e leas e are a o f a min e ma yincreas e severa l times , extendin g th e min e life
. Therefore , SCM s shoul dno t b e considere dt o b e temporar y sources . 2- 5P.1 2



# i D



# 1 2.2. 2 Definitio no f Sourc e Modificatio n

COMMENT : Some comment s expresse dconcer nabou t how a modificatio nt o an SCM wil l b e treated , sinc e many o f the operationa l change s tha t occu r ove r th e lif e o f a min e wil l resul t i nincrease demission s (i.e . addin g hau l roads) . RESPONSE : Th e inten t o f th e definitio ni nSectio n111(a ) o f th e CA A i s tha t onl y

a significan t chang e i noperation , suc ha s a productio nincrease , whic hresult s i na substantia l increas e i nemission s woul db e considere da modification . Inth e cas e o f SCMs , increase dproduction , extendin g hau l roads , increase doverburde nthickness , o r a chang e i nth e minin g pla ncoul d resul t i nsubstantia l increase s inemissions . Furthe r study o f thi s questio n b y EPA i s neede dt o establis hanappropriat e definitio nfo r SCMs . On e optio n t o conside r woul db e t o defin e anemissio nceilin g fo r a min e base don worst-cas e predicte demission s ove r th e lif e o f th e mine . Thi s ceilin g coul d b e incorporate dint o th e permit . Any chang e inoperation s causin g emission s t o excee dthi s ceilin g coul dbe considere dunde r th e revise ddefinitio no f a majo r modification . Thi s questio nwoul dnee dt o b e addresse dprio r t o fina l promulgatio no f th e rule .
2.2. 3 Definitio no f Secondar y Emission s COMMENT : On e se t o f comment s argue dtha t EPA shoul dexclud e secondar y (minin g related ) emissions , suc ha s emission s from hau l truc ktraffic , sinc e dus t generate db

y traffi c on-sit e doe s ne t constitut e anemissio no f the min e itsel f (Dine h1986) . RESPONSE : Logically , al l operation s a t anSCM ar e directl y

relate dt o th e surfac e minin g o f coal . Fo r example , overburde nremova l mus t occu r t o expos e th e coa l seam

andth e truck s mus t transpor t th e coa l t o th e coa l preparatio nfacilit y

fo r processing . A s par t o f th e RIA , th e entir e coa l minin g proces s wa s treate da s a singl e facility , sinc e off-sit e particulat e concentration s ar e directl y relate dt o emission s from al l source s no t jus t a few . Thes e off-sit e concentration s wer e use dfo r compariso nt o th e NAAQ S an d th e PS Dincrements .



### 2- 6P.1 3



# 1 1

•:l



# fl 2. 3 Duplicatio no f Regulation s

COMMENT : Severa l comment s argue dtha t PS Dregulation s fo r SCM s woul dbe duplicativ e o f othe r pre-existin g environmenta l regulation s an dauthorities , andthu s unnecessary , costl y ando f no additiona l benefit . Regulation s an d authoritie s mentione dinclude dBACT , P M NAAQS , authoritie s allowin g DO I t o declar e land s unsuitabl e fo r surfac e mining , andNEP A EI S requirements . RESPONSE : Al l cost s andbenefit s ar e measure drelativ e t o a baselin e leve l o f ai r qualit y

expecte dt o exis t unde r Alternativ e I wher e SCM s ar e no t subjec t t o PS Dregulations . Th e RI A explicitl y

assume dP

M NAAQ S complianc e i n th e baseline . Thus , ther e i s no duplicatio nwit hP M NAAQS . Th e RI A characterize s PSD , inpart , a s extendin g BAC T t o SCMs . I t i s appropriat e fo r th e RI A t o estimat e th e cost s andbenefit s o f extendin g BACT
^ j t o SCM s whic hwoul dno t hav e otherwis e bee nsubjecte dt o BAC T requirements ,



### 2- 7P.1 4

i M



# I

I SECTIO N3. 0

OVERVIE WO F COMMENT S AN D RESPONSE S ONTH E REGULATOR Y IMPAC T ANALYSI S

In general , th e comment s state d tha t th e RI Aoverestimate d th e benefit s an d underestimate d th e cost s o f th e regulator yalternatives
. Th e opposit e opinio n wa s state d i n a fe wcomments . Thi s sectio n mainl ycompare s th e technica l analysi s performe d b yPE I wit hthos e performe d b yanothe r consultan t o n behal f o f th e coa l interests
.
3. 1 UNDERESTIMATIO NO F COST S COMMENT : Severa l comment s enumerate d th e potentia l advers e economi c impact s o f th e PS D regulations : los s o f som e developabl e coa l reserves ; highe r price s t o consumer s fo r fue l an d electricity ; an d los s o f jobs , ta xrevenues , and royaltie s t o counties , state s and th e federa l government . RESPONSE : Th e cite d impact s ar e primaril ydistributiona l impacts , rathe r tha n tru e economi c losse s (e.g. , GN P reductions)
. Coa l reserve s los t i n on e are a ma yb e offse t b

yreserve s o f comparabl e cos t and qualit yelsewhere
. I n tha t cas e productio n ma yshif t fro mon e locatio n t o another , bu t productio n woul d occu r nonetheless
. Likewise , jobs , taxe s and royaltie s ma yb e reduce d i n on e area , bu t increase d a correspondin g amoun t i n th e othe r area s t o whic h productio n shifts
. Highe r electri c price s fo r distan t consumer s enabl e SC M population s t o experienc e improve d health , reduce d soiling , etc . I f benefit s o f PS D regulatio n excee d cost s (i.e. , ther e ar e ne t economi c gains) , the n a t leas t i n principl e i t woul d b e possibl e fo r gainer s t o compensat e loser s s o tha t al l ar e bette r off
. COMMENT : Th e RIA' s assumptio n tha t eac hregiona l coa l basi n i s a n independen t marke t wa s criticize d byindustr ycommenters . The yclaime d tha t thi s assumptio n woul d caus e economi c impact s t o b e understate d becaus e i t woul d underestimat e th e exten t t o whic hproductio n woul d shif t amon g regions
.



### 3- 1

# G

G I RESPONSE : Th e assumptio ncoul dals o caus e cost s t o b e overstated ,

becaus e i t restrict s substitutio npossibilities . Tha t is , rathe r tha n continuin g t o produc e from mine s whos e cost s ar e increase db y PS Dregulations , i t ma y be les s costl y

t o impor t lowe r cos t coa l from othe r regions . Th e latte r possibilit y

woul dbe ignore db

y th e assumptio no f regionall y independen t markets . Similarly , th e RIA' s estimate s o f electricit y pric e increase s ma y

be overstate dbecaus e increase dsubstitutio no f oi l andga s fo r coa l a s a fue l in electri c powe r generatio nwa s no t considered . COMMENT : Th e RI A

wa s criticize dfo r assumin g a constan t nationa l coa l suppl y elasticit y

acros s al l productio nranges . RESPONSE : Separat e suppl y elasticitie s wer e use dfo r dee pcoal , surfac e coa l i nAppalachia , surfac e coa l i nth e midwes t andsurfac e coa l i nth e west . However , withi na give nregion , a constan t elasticit y wa s assumed .
3.1. 1 Min e Siz e COMMENT : Severa l comment s state dtha t th e size s o f the prototypica l mine s (production ) use dinth e RI A wer e to o smal l (NC

A 1986) . Consequently , th e cos t figure s ma y

b e to o low . Conversely , th e Sierr a Clubstate dtha t th e RI A use dth e larges t mine s i nth e region s andth e cos t figure s wer e to o high . RESPONSE : Fo r th e purpos e o f th e RIA , i t wa s EPA' s opinio ntha t evaluation s o f th e smalles t o r larges t mine s inanare a woul dno t represen t an accurat e characterizatio no f minin g impacts . Give nrealisti c budge t constraints , i t wa s no t feasibl e t o evaluat e a rang e o f min e sizes . Therefore , prototypica l mine s wer e selecte dbase do nth e averag e annua l productio nfo r a give narea . By usin g th e averag e min e fo r a narea , th e cos t figure s fo r th e contro l option s ma y

b e understate dfo r th e larges t mine s andoverstate dfo r th e smalles t mines . Inth e absenc e o f result s fo r bot hth e smalles t andlarges t mines , i t i s impossibl e t o determin e th e degre e o f accurac y fo r th e cos t estimate s a t th e extreme s o f th e rang e o f production . I t i s fel t tha t th e averag e min e siz e use dinth e RI A represent s a reasonabl e estimat e fo r th e populatio no f mine s i na give narea . A s i s tru e fo r any averag e valu e 3- 2P.1 6

analysis , result s ma yno t b e totall yappropriat e a t th e end s o f th e range . I However , th e analysi s performe d i n th e RI Arepresent s a reasonabl e estimate 1 fo r th e minin g region s a s a whole
. 1 3.1. 2 Meteorologica l Assumption s

COMMENTS : Severa l comment s state d tha t th e ai r qualit yanalyse s i n th e 

# O RI Adi d no t conside r absolut e worst-cas e 24-hou r meteorologica l conditions
. Th e RI Ainclude d onl yC and D stabilit yclasses , whil e analyse s performe d b ya p , consultan t o n behal f o f th e coa l interest s use d C , D , E , an d F stabilitie s | (TR C 1985)
. 

# G

fe RESPONSE : Th e analyse s performe d b yth e coa l interests ' consultant encompasse d a broade r rang e o f meteorologica l condition s tha n th e RI Adid
. I t i s tru e tha t th e dat a use d i n th e RI Ad o no t includ e th e absolut e worst-cas e

_meteorologica l conditions
. Tha t is , thos e condition s whic hhav e littl e

likelihoo d o f occurrin g i n minin g areas . Th e RI Adat a ar e representativ e o f £.- • persisten t worst-cas e meteorolog ytha t ma yoccu r i n thes e areas .

Th e choic e o f meteorologica l condition s directl yaffect s th e resultin g j predicte d concentrations
. However , i t i s th e combinatio n o f short-ter m

meteorolog yand emission s tha t dictate s th e actua l off-sit e concentrations
. A s par t o f th e RIA , thre e combination s o f meteorolog yand emission s wer e considered : worst-cas e meteorolog yand averag e short-ter memissions , averag e meteorolog yand worst-cas e shor t ter memissions , and worst-cas e meteorolog y and emissions
. Tw o o f thes e option s wer e rejecte d fo r severa l vali d reasons . I n th e cas e o f th e firs t option , worst-cas e meteorologica l condition s occu r o n onl ya ^ery

fe woccasion s ove r th e cours e o f a year . O n thos e fe w occasion s i t i s unlikel ytha t th e mos t stabl e condition s (stabilit yclasse s D,E , and F ) woul d persis t fo r 24-hours
. Thes e worst-cas e meteorologica l condition s ma yals o b e associate d wit hlowe r emissions
. Fo r example , rainfall , snow , o r ai r stagnation s ma yb e associate d wit hth e worst-cas e meteorologica l condition s and woul d tend t o reduc e emission s a t th e sam e time
. I n addition , usin g averag e emissio n condition s doe s no t accuratel yportra y worst-cas e emission s tha t ma yfrequentl yoccur . I n th e cas e o f th e thir d option , th e probabilit ytha t worst-cas e meteorologica l condition s and worst-cas e emissio n condition s woul d occu r i n th e sam e 24-hou r perio d i s practicall yzero . Give n th e lo wrelativ e frequenc y 3- 3 

# GP.1 7



# I

1 o f occurrenc e o f worst-cas e meteorologica l condition s and th e probabl e effec t

o f short-ter m

emission s bein g lowe r o n thes e days , i t wa s no t appropriat e t o selec t thi s option
. Th e secon d optio n wa s th e logica l choice
. Pea k short-ter memission s ar e expecte d t o occu r o n multipl e occasions
. Th e persisten t meteorologica l condition s assume d fo r th e analysi s woul d als o occu r frequently
. Thi s combinatio n represente d th e bes t estimat e fo r predictin g th e maximum off-sit e impac t fro mth e prototypica l mines
.
3.1. 3 Emissio n Factor s COMMENT : Som e comment s argue d tha t sinc e a s man ya s 5 0 percen t o f th e RI Aemissio n facto r dat a point s wer e assumed , th e factor s ar e unreliabl e (Montan a Coa l Counci l 1986)
. I n addition , sinc e th e emissio n factor s wer e develope d fo r wester n SCM s the ywer e inappropriat e fo r us e a t midwester n an d easter n locations
. RESPONSE : I n th e origina l referenc e fo r th e emissio n factor s (EPA1981) , problem s wer e note d wit hth e fin e particulat e (FP < 2. 5 micrometers ) concentrations
. Fo r case s wher e ne t downwin d concentration s wer e negligibl e (i.e
. zero) , a minimumdetectabl e mas s wa s substitute d fo r th e actua l mas s value
. Th e resultin g F P concentration s wer e ver yclos e t o zero . Thi s substitutio n wa s neede d fo r th e logarithmi c extrapolation s use d i n th e emissio n facto r development , sinc e th e logarithmo f zer o i s undefined
. Thi s substitutio n ha d th e effec t o f artificiall yraisin g th e £ £ concentration s abou t 1 0 percent . Th e substitutio n ha d n o effec t o n TS P concentration s o r emissio n factors
. Sinc e th e F P emissio n factor s wer e no t use d i n th e RIA , thi s substitutio n ha d n o effec t o n th e results
. Althoug hn o emissio n factor s hav e bee n develope d fo r area s othe r tha n th e west , n o othe r dat a ar e available
. Th e emissio n factor s hav e bee n applie d t o midwester n an d easter n mine s i n th e absenc e o f othe r appropriat e data
. Th e actua l emission s fro mthes e mine s ma yb e lowe r tha n thos e predicte d wit hth e emissio n factor s du e t o differen t climatologica l condition s (i.e
. mor e rain , highe r relativ e humdities)
. Ther e i s ampl e precedenc e fo r thi s approac hbase d o n th e us e o f AP-4 2 emissio n factors
. Emissio n factor s i n thi s documen t ar e base d o n limite d fiel d dat a an d ar e routinel yuse d fo r othe r sources . 

### 3-4P.1 8



## m

i 3.1. 4 Industria l Sourc e Comple x(ISC ) Mode l

COMMENT : Anumbe r o f comment s note d deficiencie s i n th e IS C mode l a s applie d t o SCM s (Montan a Coa l Counci l 1986)
. RESPONSE : Ther e ar e som e wel l documente d analyse s tha t hav e bee n performe d o n th e IS C mode l (TR C 1985a,b)
. Thes e analyse s hav e shown tha t ther e ar e bot hsystemati c and rando merror s associate d wit hth e us e o f th e model
. However , thi s mode l i s currentl yth e preferre d metho d fo r coa l min e analyses
. I n th e RIA , th e mode l wa s applie d consistently
. Althoug hth e result s ma yno t b e correc t i n a n absolut e sense , th e result s ar e vali d fo r relativ e comparisons
.
3.1. 5 Affec t o n Existin g Mine s COMMENT : Severa l comment s state d tha t th e RI Aerroneousl yassume d tha t
n o existin g mine s woul d b e affecte d b ylistin g SCM s nea r Clas s I and mandator y Clas s I I areas . Then , severa l example s wer e give n o f mine s nea r India n reservation s (Clas s I I areas ) t o demonstrat e th e poin t (EP A1986)
. 1 RESPONSE : Th e analysi s o f Alternativ e I V wa s restricte d t o nationa l parks
. N o consideratio n wa s give n t o India n reservations
. Consequently , th e I . cost s and quantit yo f los t reserve s fo r Alternativ e I V wer e underestimated
. Thi s omissio n woul d hav e a substantia l impac t o n th e estimate s o f los t p reserve s i f coa l mine s ar e listed
. However , i f estimate d o n a nationa l basis ,

benefit s woul d likewis e b e increase d b yincludin g mine s o n India n I. , reservations
. But , withou t actuall yperformin g a nationa l benefit-cos t

analysis , i t i s no t possibl e t o sa ywhethe r ne t benefit s woul d increase , F j decreas e o r sta yth e same .
U3.1. 6 Industr yStudie s

Severa l industr ytrad e association s (NCA1986 ) contracte d wit ha fp consultan t t o examin e th e ai r qualit yimpact s o f a hypothetica l min e i n eac h

" ' o f si xcoa l basin s (TR C 1985b , 1985c , 1985d)
. Th e consultant effectivel y i followe d th e basi c analysi s proces s use d i n th e RIA ; however , ther e wer e som e

substantiv e difference s i n methodolog yan d results
. Fo r th e purpose s o f thi s comparison , th e consultant' s repor t fo r fou r hypothetica l mine s and th e fou r simila r mine s evaluate d i n th e RI Aar e used
. 3- 5P.1 9



### Tabl e 1 contain s a summar yo f dat a fo r mine s analyze db yTR C andfo r thos e include di nth e RIA . Th e firs t basi c differenc e i s i nth e productio n leve l assume dfo r eac hhypothetica l mine
. Th e RI Ause daverag e siz e mine s fo r r eac harea , whil e th e TR C analyse s use dlarge r mine s fo r thre e o f th e fou r B B basins
. Ther e wer e a fe wmino r difference s i nemissio ncalculatio nprocedure s

„ ~ i nth e tw o studies
. However , thes e difference s wer e inconsequentia l compare d I f t o th e difference s i ncontro l efficiencie s used
. Fo r example , th e RI Aassume d

9 9 percen t contro l fo r pave dacces s roads , whereas , TR C use d5 0 percen t | J contro l fo r chemica l dus t suppression
.

Thi s differenc e i nbasi c assumption s resulte di nsubstantia l difference s K J i ncalculate demissions
. Fo r example , i nth e Sa nJua nBasi nmin e th e light

andmedium-dut yvehicl e emission s tha t TR C calculate dwer e almos t 7,00 0 P tons/yea r greate r tha ni nth e RIA . " Anothe r basi c differenc e wa s th e contro l efficienc yfo r temporar yroads
. 

# P TR C assume dn o contro l an dth e RI Ause d5 0 percen t contro l fo r watering
. Thes e

differen t assumption s couple dwit hth e differen t productio nlevel s accoun t fo r ( 

### mos t o f th e difference s i ncalculate demissions
. Th e remainin g difference s ca n j b e trace dt o differen t minin g parameter s use di nth e tw o analyses
.

Th e difference s note dabov e reflec t th e variabilit yi ntechnica l approac h | | permitte db

yexistin g methodologies
. Unti l man yo f th e parameter s ar e standardized , n o consisten t se t o f result s ca nb e obtained
. Also , i ngeneri c H studie s o f thi s type , th e definitio no f th e prototypica l mine s i s subjec t t o

th e judgemen t o f th e analys t performin g th e evaluations
. I nthi s case , eve n i f bot hanalyse s ha duse dth e identica l mines , substantia l difference s i n

- * result s woul dstil l hav e resulte ddu e t o selectio no f th e contro l 

# 0 efficiencies
.

Th e nex t differenc e betwee nth e studie s center s aroun dth e production/pollutio nalgorithm
. Bot hstudie s mad e th e basi c assumptio ntha t I f TS P emission s ar e directl yrelate dt o production
. Th e RI Acarrie dth e

equivalenc yfurther , base do nth e mathematica l formulatio no f th e basi c m dispersio nequatio ncontaine di nth e IS C model
.

3- 6P.2 0



# fl

K l P TABL E 1 . COMPARISON O F MIN E DATA

Coa l Basi n

Powde r Rive r

Sa n Jua n

Illinoi s
Appalachia n Annua l Productio n

IO 6 Ton s


### RI A

10



### 5

1. 5

0. 5 TR C

15

1 0



### 3

0. 5 TRC/RI A



### 1. 5

2. 0

2. 0

1. 0 Annua l TS P Emission s

Tons/Yea r


### RI A

141 8

411 7

185 4



### 644 TR C

2,39 9

15,45 4

7,44 4

1,40 4 TRC/RI A



### 1. 7

3. 8

4. 0

2. 2 

# I

3- 7P.2 1

I Ila a u yz (Equatio n 1 )

Wher e x = concentratio n

Q = emissio n rat e o a = standar d deviation s o f plum e concentratio n

u = win d spee d Th e RI Aassume d tha t al l variable s i n Equatio n 1 remaine d constan t excep t fo r emissio n rat e (Q)
. I f emission s decrease d b y5 0 percent , the n th e concentratio n mus t decreas e b y5 0 percent . Consequently , ther e wa s n o nee d t o remode l th e smalle r mine s calculate d fro mth e production/pollutio n algorithm
. Al l leas e boundaries , sourc e locations , recepto r locations , and meteorologica l condition s wer e constants . Th e consultant , o n th e othe r hand , interjecte d additiona l assumption s int o thei r analyses
. First , the ydi d no t us e a define d leas e boundary
. Recepto r location s wer e selecte d o n th e basi s o f goo d modelin g practice s fo r a particula r source/recepto r combination
. Second , the yassume d tha t a s productio n decrease s s o di d th e sourc e sizes
. Consequently , the yals o change d th e source/recepto r geometry . Thi s situatio n i s presente d graphicall yi n Figur e 1
. Th e figur e i s a simplification ; however , i t doe s sho wth e difference s i n approach
. Th e consultant ha s no t demonstrate d tha t th e RI A methodolog yi s inappropriat e o r incorrect
. Rather , the yhav e use d a differen t se t o f assumption s t o arriv e a t a differen t answer . I f th e receptor s ha d bee n place d c n th e leas e boundar yfo r thei r firs t mode l run , the n o n th e secon d mode l run , the ywer e effectivel ymove d insid e th e boundaries
. Ther e i s nothin g necessaril ywron g wit hthei r assumptions
. I f productio n decreases , i t

^ ma yb e tru e tha t bot hth e sourc e are a and th e leas e are a woul d shrink
.

Consequently , th e consultant' s methodolog yand emissio n calculation s showe d tha t mines , substantiall ysmalle r tha n thos e determine d i n th e RIA , woul d mee t th e PS D increments
.
3. 2 OVERESTIMATIO NO F COST S COMMENT : I n contras t t o th e industr ycomments , on e se t o f comment s claime d tha t th e RI Aha d overestimate d th e cost s o f listin g SCM s (Sierr a Clu b 3- 8BAS E CAS E



### RI A 1 1 1 1 

# • i i i Sourc e - - Siz e = 1 Emissio n Rat e = Q Recepto r Distanc e = 1



### TR C Sourc e - - Siz e = 1 Emissio n Rat e = Q Recepto r Distanc e = 1

REDUCE D PRODUCTIO NCAS E 

# I RI

A " 1 i i i Sourc e - - Siz e = 1 Emissio n Rat e = i

Q Recepto r Distanc e = 1



### TR C Sourc e - - Siz e = 0. 7 Emissio n Rat e = i Q Recepto r Distanc e = 0
.

Figur e 1
. Compariso n o f Source/Recepto r Geometrie s



### 3-9P.2 3

1986) . Th e basi c thrus t o f thei r comment s wa s tha t additiona l emissio n control s woul deliminat e th e problem s discusse di nth e RI A an di nth e industr y comments . Th e control s tha t the y propose dinclude :
1 . Pavin g al l hau l roads . 2 . Spee drestriction s onunpave droads . 3 . Traffi c restrictions . 4 . Stabiliz e al l expose dareas . 5 . Cove r hau l trucks . 6 . Us e conveyo r system s rathe r tha nhau l trucks . 7 . Reduc e time soi l i s exposed . 8 . Reduc e pi t size . RESPONSE : Pavin g th e hau l road s i s a contro l measur e tha t woul dresul t inreduce demission s bu t caus e no reductio ninproduction . However , th e cos t o f pavin g androa dmaintenanc e fo r a roa dcapabl e o f handlin g larg e hau l truck s i s likel y

t o b e very

high . Th e roa dwoul dnee dt o be equivalen t t o a n interstat e highwa y

o r anairpor t runway . I naddition , some continuou s constructio nan

ddemolitio no f road s woul dbe require da s th e pi t change d location . Simila r argument s woul dbe use dfo r conveyo r systems , whic hi f cost-effectiv e woul dbe inbroade r use . Spee drestriction s andtraffi c restriction s woul dreduc e production . Fo r example , i f vehicl e spee dwa s reduce d5 0 percent , th e productio nwoul dbe reduce d5 0 percen t o r twic e a s man y hau l truck s anddriver s woul dbe required . Coverin g th e hau l truck s ha s some potentia l benefits . Emission s fro m coa l dus t blowin g fro m th e truck s woul db e reduced . I naddition , coa l spillag e fro

m th e truck s woul dbe reduce do r eliminated , possibl y reducin g emission s fro

m th e unpave dhau l roads . O nth e othe r hand , additiona l personne l and/o r time woul dbe neede dt o cove r anduncove r th e trucks . Again , i f thi s metho dwer e cost-effective , i t woul db e employe dinthe industry . Othe r technique s fo r unvegetate darea s ar e include di nvariou s reclamatio nregulation s unde r th e Surfac e Minin g andReclamatio nAc t (SMCRA ) administere db

y th e Departmen t o f th e Interio r (DOI) . COMMENT : Th e Sierr a Clu bals o state dtha t th e RI A an dindustr y

studie s assume dtha t hau l roa demissio nremaine dconstan t a s productio ndecreased , resultin g i ncos t estimate s fo r contro l tha t wer e to o high .
3-1 0P.2 4



# G

1 RESPONSE : A s discusse d i n th e previou s sub-section , bot hth e RI Aand th e

industr ystudie s assume d a linea r relationshi p betwee n hau l roa d emission s an d production
. I f productio n decrease d b y5 0 percent , the n th e emission s wer e assume d t o decreas e b y5 0 percent . COMMENT : Th e Sierr a Clu bals o state d tha t sinc e th e RI Ause d th e larges t mine s i n eac hregio n fo r predictin g cost , th e cos t estimate s wer e to o high
. RESPONSE : A s discusse d previously , th e RI Ause d averag e min e size s i n eac ho f th e fiv e coa l basins
.
3. 3 OVERESTIMATIO NO F BENEFIT S COMMENTS : Man ycomment s state d tha t th e RI Aoverestimate d benefit s fro m controllin g SCM s i n th e vicinit yo f th e Clas s I area s a t Bryc e Canyo n becaus e i t ignore d th e fac t tha t a significan t portio n o f th e benefi t wa s realize d b y th e DOI' s unsuitabl ydeterminatio n (NCA1986)
. RESPONSE : Th e Clas s I and mandator yClas s I I analyse s i n th e RI Awer e mean t t o b e generi c i n natur e a s wer e th e analyse s fo r th e othe r alternatives
. Th e unsuitabilit ydeterminatio n wa s no t considere d i n th e analysi s s o tha t th e result s coul d b e extrapolate d t o othe r areas . Fo r th e purpose s o f th e RIA , al l benefit s tha t wer e realize d wer e assume d t o b e fo r a generi c min e fo r whic hn o previou s analyse s ha d bee n performed
. COMMENT : Severa l comment s state d tha t EP Afaile d t o conside r th e advers e effect s tha t a listin g decisio n woul d creat e becaus e o f it s incentiv e t o develo p more , smalle r SCMs . RESPONSE : Smalle r coa l mine s produc e mor e particulat e and distur ba large r surfac e are a pe r to n o f coa l mine d tha n large r mines
. I n thi s respect , th e actua l benefit s o f listin g SCM s ma yhav e bee n overestimated
. Som e economie s o f scal e ar e realize d wit hlarge r mines , resultin g i n lowe r emission s pe r to n o f coa l produced
. COMMENT : Severa l commenter s argue d tha t ther e woul d b e n o benefit s fro m PS D revie wo f SCM s becaus e suc hrevie wi s require d i n area s i n whic hai r qualit yi s alread ybette r tha n NAAQS , an d th e NAAQ S ar e suppose d t o b e se t a t level s belo wwhic hther e ar e n o know n advers e healt ho r welfar e effects
. 3-1 1P.2 5



# fl [

E RESPONSE : A previou s EPA

study , (1982 ) foundtha t SCM s ma y hav e difficult y

complyin g wit hth e PM. nNAAQS . Thus , th e assertio ntha t SCM ai r qualit y i s bette r tha nth e NAAQ S i s ope nt o question . Furthermore , i t i s no t necessaril y

th e cas e tha t ther e woul dbe n o benefit s fro m improvin g ai r qualit y beyon dNAAQS . A

quot e from

th e 198 7 Federa l Registe r notic e fo r th e PM, 0 NAAQ S illustrate s thi s point : "Th e inten t o f th e margi no f safet y requiremen t wa s t o direc t th e Administrato r t o se t ai r qualit y standard s a t pollutio nlevel s below thos e a t whic hadvers e healt h[an dwelfare ] effect s hav e bee nfoun do r migh t be expecte dt o occu r i nsensitiv e groups . Experienc e wit hth e requiremen t ha s show ntha t th e scientifi c dat a ar e ofte ns o inconclusiv e tha t i t i s difficul t t o identif y wit hconfidenc e th e lowes t pollutio nleve l a t whic hanadvers e effec t wil l occur . Moreover , incase s suc ha s th e presen t one , th e evidenc e suggest s tha t ther e i s a continuum o f effects , wit hth e risks , incidence , o r severit y o f harm

decreasing , bu t no t necessaril y

vanishing , a s th e leve l o f pollutio ni s decreased. " Th e latte r poin t inthi s quot e wa s a t leas t partl y illustrate db

y th e relativel y

smal l benefi t measure s obtaine dfro m th e analyse s o f Alternative s I I andII I i nth e RIA . COMMENT : A

serie s o f comment s argue dtha t SCM fugitiv e dus t consist s primaril y

o f large , inert , non-toxi c particle s whic hdiffe r fro m th e particle s presen t inurba narea s tha t ar e th e basi s fo r mos t o f the healt handwelfar e effect s studie s available . Consequently , applicatio no f thes e studie s t o calculat e healt handwelfar e effect s nea r SCM s woul dleadt o larg e overestimate s o f effects , andthu s overestimate s o f the benefit s o f PS D regulation . RESPONSE : Th e PM, „ standard s focu s onparticulat e matte r capabl e o f penetratin g t o th e sensitiv e thoraci c regio no f th e respirator y tract . Whil e toxicit y o f variou s particle s ma y differ , th e exhaustiv e review o f th e availabl e healt heffect s informatio nsupportin g th e PM. Qstandard s suggest s tha t al l particle s withi nthi s siz e rang e ar e o f concern . Moreover , i t i s no t clea r tha t coa l dust , (whic hmus t b e a constituen t o f surfac e coa l min e emissions, ) pe r s e i s nontoxic . Indeed , coa l dus t ma y contai ntoxi c impurities , suc ha s metals . Inany event , "inert " particle s ma y b e responsibl e fo r a variet y o f healt heffects , from depositio nthroughou t th e respirator y

trac t andb

y severa l possibl e mechanism s (review o f NAAQ S fo r 3-1 2P.2 6



### B


# I Particulat e Matter , Staf f Paper , EPA-4501 , 5-82-001 , January , 1982 , pp . 29-39 ,

and Tabl e 5-2)
. Fo r example , nonspecifi c irritatio n i n th e tracheo-bronchia l regio n ma yalte r respirator yfunctio n o r clearanc e mechanisms , clearl yo f healt hconcern , particularl yfo r sensitiv e subgroup s o f th e populatio n (j.g. , asthmatics , elderly , person s wit hchroni c respirator ydisease)
. COMMENT : Th e visibilit ybenefit s ar e flawe d becaus e the yar e base d o n result s o f willingnes s t o pa ystudies , whic har e inherentl ybiase d becaus e respondent s exaggerat e thei r response s whe n the yd o no t actuall yhav e t o pay . RESPONSE : Thi s assertio n i s ofte n mad e o r assume d wit hregar d t o willingnes s t o pa ystudies , bu t empirica l proo f i s lacking
. In fact , ther e i s som e evidenc e t o th e contrar y(Cumming s e t al
. 198 6 and Mitchel l and Carso n 1988)
. Comparison s betwee n contingen t valuatio n result s and marke t studie s involvin g actua l payment s d o no t suppor t th e hypothesi s tha t contingen t valuatio n studie s ar e consistentl yupwar d biased
. Ther e i s evidenc e tha t contingen t valuatio n result s ar e subjec t t o variou s potentia l biase s and influence s tha t ca n caus e considerabl e erro r and uncertaint yi n th e results , bu t th e directio n o f bia s ca n b e eithe r upwar d o r downwar d dependin g o n th e specific s o f th e studydesign
. COMMENT : Usin g th e $2.8 4 valu e fro mth e Ra e (1983 ) studyfo r a clea r versu s moderatel yhaz yvie wa t Mes a Verd e Nationa l Par k i s no t vali d becaus e i t i s bein g applie d t o a differen t par k (Bryc e Canyo n Nationa l Park ) and becaus e th e estimate d chang e i n visua l rang e fo r Alternativ e I V i s ver ysmal l
and coul d no t b e characterize d a s th e differenc e betwee n clea r and moderatel y hazy
. RESPONSE : I t i s tru e tha t ther e i s considerabl e uncertaint yi n applyin g estimate s obtaine d fo r on e par k t o anothe r park , bu t i n th e absenc e o f estimate s obtaine d specificall yfo r Bryc e Canyon , i t i s reasonabl e t o appl y estimate s obtaine d a t Mes a Verde
. Firs t o f all , bot ho f thes e nationa l park s ar e i n th e southwes t wit hsimila r visibilit ycondition s wit hregar d t o backgroun d level s o f visua l range . Second , ther e ar e severa l suc hstudie s tha t hav e bee n conducte d a t southwester n park s (Row e e l al
. 1980 ; Schulz e e t al
. 1981 ; an d MacFarlan d e t al
. 1983 ) an d al l hav e foun d roughl ysimila r estimate s fo r thi s typ e o f chang e i n haz e condition s (rangin g fro mabou t $ 1 t o $4)
. Th e evidenc e tha t comparabl e estimate s hav e bee n obtaine d fo r severa l 3-1 3P.2 7



# G


# n

t

§ park s inth e southwes t support s th e assumptio ntha t simila r value s coul db e

expecte dfo r Bryc e Canyo na s well . Th e secon dpar t o f thi s commen t tha t th e chang e invisua l rang e predicte dfo r Alternativ e I V i s muc hsmalle r tha nth e moderat e haz e t o clea r chang e depicte dinth e Ra e study i s valid , bu t th e commen t fail s t o acknowledg e tha t thi s wa s use da s anuppe r boun destimat e inth e RIA . A lowe r estimat e wa s als o obtaine dbase dona pe r mil e chang e invisua l range . Thi s uppe r boun destimat e i s als o supporte db y th e result s obtaine dwit h regar dt o visibl e plume s i nsevera l o f thes e studie s a t southwester nparks . Pe r day value s o f abou t $ 2 t c $ 5 wer e give na t Mes a Verd e anda t th e Gran d Canyo nfo r th e preventio no f anemissio nplume visibl e fro m th e park . Th e RI A doe s no t conside r whethe r th e emission s fro m a surfac e coa l min e woul db e comparabl e t o th e plume s considere dinthes e studies , bu t i t i s possibl e tha t thes e value s woul db e applicable . COMMENT : Th e Randal l Study (1978 ) concernin g th e visua l aesthetic s o f easter nsurfac e coa l mine s wa s use dwithou t qualificatio nan doverstate s th e benefit s o f preventin g surfac e coa l mine s bein g visibl e fro m a nationa l par k inth e wes t becaus e (1 ) th e aestheti c damag e fo r a residen t i s no t relate dt o tha t fo r a par kvisitor , (2 ) value s obtaine db y Randal l fo r household s wer e applie dpe r individua l visitor , and(3 ) ther e ar e difference s betwee nmine s in Appalachi a andwester nClas s I areas . RESPONSE : I t i s no t accurat e t o say tha t th e Randal l study wa s use d withou t qualification . Reasonabl e qualification s abou t uncertaintie s i n applyin g th e result s o f thi s study t o thi s RI A

ar e include dinth e text . Th e point s o f concer ngive ni nth e comment s ar e valid , bu t onl y on e (#2 ) necessaril y

implie s tha t th e estimate s overstat e th e benefit s o f Alternativ e IV . Thi s assertio nwa s investigate dan dwa s foun dt o b e correct . However , re-estimatio no f th e ne t benefit s (b y reducin g thi s benefi t categor y b y two thirds ) o f Alternativ e I V reveal s tha t ther e woul db e no chang e i nth e conclusion s presentl y mad e i nth e RIA . Conversely , benefi t estimate s i nth e RI A ma y b e understated . Th e RI A argue s tha t th e estimate s base do nth e Randal l study ar e likel y

t o b e understate drathe r tha noverstate dbecaus e pe r da y value s ar e likel y

t o b e highe r fo r par kvisitor s wh o ar e visitin g th e sit e onl y fo r a fe w

day s tha n fo r loca l resident s wh o ar e givin g monthl y estimates . Thi s argumen t i s 3-1 4P.2 8



# fl 

# G

I supporte d b yth e result s o f Row e e t al
. (1980)
. Visitor s a t Lak e Powel l gav e estimate s o f $2.5 0 t o $4.0 0 pe r da yt o preven t differen t level s o f visibilit y degradatio n whil e loca l resident s gav e $3.5 0 t o $6.5 0 pe r mont ht o preven t th e sam e degradations
. Th e thir d poin t tha t th e circumstance s o f a residen t nea r a surfac e coa l min e i n Appalachi a ar e differen t fro ma wester n Clas s I are a visito r seein g a surfac e coa l min e fro mth e par k i s correct . Ther e ar e man y uncertaintie s i n applyin g result s fro mth e forme r t o th e latter , bu t i t i s no t clea r whethe r upwar d o r downwar d bia s i s involved
. COMMENT : Th e extrapolatio n o f existenc e value s fro mth e Gran d Canyo n studyi s invali d becaus e Bryc e Canyo n i s no t th e sam e clas s o f "natura l wonder " a s th e Gran d Canyo n and becaus e ther e i s n o basi s fo r th e adjustmen t accordin g t o par k visitatio n rates . RESPONSE : Th e RI Aacknowledge s tha t th e existenc e valu e estimat e base d o n th e Southwes t Parkland s study(Schulz e e t al
. 1981 ) i s highl yuncertai n an d tha t thi s estimat e wa s no t use d i n th e calculatio n o f ne t benefit s fo r Alternativ e IV . Th e Southwes t Parkland s studywa s no t onl yabou t th e Gran d Canyon , bu t abou t al l th e park s i n th e Southwester n region
. Substantia l preservatio n value s wer e give n fo r protectin g visibilit ya t park s i n additio n t o th e value s fo r th e Gran d Canyon . Whil e th e result s d o no t provid e pe r par k value s fo r othe r park s i n th e region , i t i s clea r tha t preservatio n value s fo r thes e park s ar e substantial
. I t i s tru e tha t th e adjustmen t c f th e Gran d Canyo n value s b

yth e rati o o f par k visitatio n a t Bryc e versu s Gran d Canyo n i s arbitrary , bu t i t wa s mad e a s a n effor t t o acknowledg e tha t Bryc e i s les s wel l known an d mayb e les s o f a "natura l wonder " tha n th e Gran d Canyon . Visitatio n i s on e reflectio n o f thes e differences
. COMMENT : Th e existenc e valu e estimate s fai l t o conside r th e temporar y natur e o f a surfac e coa l min e and anyassociate d visibilit ydegradation
. RESPONSE : Th e existenc e valu e estimate s wer e base d o n response s t o question s abou t willingnes s t o pa yo n a pe r yea r basi s t o preven t a specifie d degradatio n i n visibilit yconditions
. Th e tim e horizo n wa s no t specifie d bu t th e caus e wa s describe d a s manmad e ai r pollutio n suc ha s fro mpowe r plants
. N o suc hai r qualit ychange s ar e necessaril ypermanent . Whethe r annua l willingnes s t o pa yestimate s woul d b e differen t i f a n impac t wer e t o b e 3-1 5P.2 9 

# 1 I I I expecte d fo r a fe wyear s a s oppose d t o a fe wdecade s i s a n empirica l questio n

tha t ha s no t bee n addressed
. Give n availabl e information , th e result s o f previou s studie s wer e no t inappropriatel yapplie d i n th e RIA . 3. 4 UNDERESTIMATIO NO F BENEFIT S COMMENT : Th e Sierr a Clu bstate d tha t th e benefit s o f listin g SCM s wer e underestimated , sinc e healt hand welfar e shoul d b e protecte d a t al l cost . However , n o documentatio n o f thi s assertio nwa s provided . RESPONSE : I t i s no t possibl e t o provid e a technica l respons e t o suc ha broa d assertion
. I t i s fel t tha t al l quantifiabl e benefit s hav e bee n considered
. However , i t i s recognize d tha t al l benefit s o f th e regulatio n ar e presentl yunquantifiabl e (e.g
. existenc e valu e benefits)
. COMMENT : Som e comment s claime d tha t th e difficultie s i n quantifyin g som e benefi t type s mean t tha t som e benefit s wer e omitte d an d tha t overal l benefit s ma yb e underestimated
. RESPONSE : I t i s tru e tha t som e benefi t categorie s ha d t o b e omitte d du e t o difficultie s i n measuremen t o r quantification
. On e exampl e i s soilin g o f non-residentia l buildings
. COMMENT : Som e commenter s argue d tha t th e RI Abase d it s benefi t estimate s o n willingness-to-pa ymethodolog ywhic himplicitl ysacrifice s th e live s o f th e generall ypoo r inhabitant s aroun d SCM s i n orde r t o sav e mone yo n th e electri c bill s o f distan t consumers . RESPONSE : Th e benefit s o f reduce d mortalit yris k and morbidit yris k fo r SC Mpopulation s ar e include d i n th e RIA . Th e RI Ause d a valu e fo r mortalit y ris k tha t i s applicabl e nationwide
. Ther e wa s n o adjustmen t fo r th e lowe r income s o f SC Mpopulations
. O n th e othe r hand , morbidit yris k tha t take s th e for mo f los t wor k day s o r reduce d activit yday s wa s value d takin g int o accoun t loca l wag e rates .

3-1 6P.3 0 

# I

fl

i • 

# L '



# fl SECTION 4. 0 COMMENT S AN DRESPONSE S O N INTERPRETATION S ANDPROCEDURE S FO RDETERMININGAI RQUALIT YIMPAC T

4. 1 DEFINITIO N

O F SIGNIFICAN T IMPAC T COMMENT : A

numbe r o f commenter s wishe dt o know th e basi s fo r definin g a 3 significan t ai r qualit y impac t t o be 1 ug/ m

(MARC 1986) . RESPONSE : Tabl e A- 3 o f "Ambien t Monitorin g Guideline s fo r Preventio no f Significan t Deterioration " (EPA 1981a ) define s a significan t ai r qualit y 3 3 impac t fo r TS P t o be 1 ug/ m onanannua l basi s and 5 ug/ m o na 24-hou r 3 basis . Fo r Clas s 1 area s the 24-hou r valu e i s define dt o b e 1 ug/ m . 3 Althoug hthi s referenc e wa s the onl y on e foundfo r the 1 ug/ m value , Congres s ha s use dth e valu e a s par t o f the PS Drules .
4. 2 SPACINGO F RECEPTOR S COMMENT : On e commen t note dapparen t problem s wit hth e spacin g o f receptor s fo r the dispersio nanalyse s inthe RIA . Th e interpretatio no f a Marc h198 5 repor t (PE I 1985 ) wa s tha t receptor s wer e onl y place do

na regula r gri dpatter nandtha t no receptor s wer e place daroundthe min e property . Therefore , th e maximu m off-sit e impac t wa s no t adequatel y define d(TRC 1986) . RESPONSE : Th e commen t show s tha t the reade r ma y no t hav e understoo dth e paragrap hwhic hwa s referenced . I nfact , receptor s wer e place daroun dthe min e propert y

a s state dinth e report . "Mode l gri dreceptor s use dinthe IS C simulation s wer e place dina Cartesia ncoordinat e system , space da t interval s o f 2. 0 t o 4. 0 kilometer s ove r a rang e o f 28-4 8 kilometer s inbot hth e N- S and E- W directions . Th e recepto r densit y wa s highes t nea r th e coa l leas e and lowes t a t th e edge s o f th e modele darea . Additiona l receptor s wer e locate d off-sit e aroun dth e perimete r o f th e lease s t o assis t indefinin g th e off-sit e impac t o f th e mines. " (PE I 1985 ) (Emphasi s Added) .



### 4- 1P.3 1



# I S

m



# fl 4. 3 AI RQUALIT YIMPAC T O F COAL MINE S

COMMENT : Severa l commenter s referre dt o a study whic hsuggeste dtha t i n area s wher e SCM' s hav e displace dagricultura l activities , overal l particulat e concentration s wer e reduced . Th e basi s fo r thi s statemen t wa s th e dat a presente di nTabl e 2 . RESPONSE : I t i s difficul t t o evaluat e th e dat a containe di nTabl e 2 sinc e muc hadditiona l informatio ni s needed . Specifically , th e require ddat a include : monito r location , sourc e locations , meteorologica l patterns , localize dactivities , numbe r o f samples , precipitatio ndistributio nove r eac h yea r (i.e . al l a t onc e o r sprea dou t ove r year) , surroundin g terrain , historica l dat a variability , etc . I t i s tru e tha t change s insurroundin g land us e ca naffec t measure dconcentrations , bu t i t i s unlikel y tha t an intermitten t sourc e suc ha s agricultur e ca nproduc e highe r particulat e concentration s onanannua l basi s tha n2 4 hour/da y minin g activities , a t leas t whe nsmalle r geographi c area s ar e considered . Fo r ever y

valu e inTabl e 2 tha t potentiall y show s anai r qualit y benefi t t o surfac e minin g ove r agriculture , othe r example s show th e opposite . Fo r exampl e a t Corder o sit e 2 th e measure dai r qualit y increase dfro

m 3 9 t o 6 9 ug/ m fro m 198 2 t o 198 3 whe nmin e productio nwen t fro m 7, 7 t o 1 0 MMTPY . A t thi s time , ther e i s no reaso nt o suppos e any ai r qualit y

benefit s fo r coa l mine s whe nthe y

replac e agricultura l activities .



### 4- 2P.3 2

3x 3 TABL E 2
. Particulat e Concentration s Annua l Geometri c Mean s (ug/ m)

ii i i



# D Monitoring Site s

Bell e Ayr # 2



### # 5 # 4 # 6 Caball o C- 5 

### C- 6 Corder o 1 

### 2 3 Texa s Energ

y1 

### 3 Mobil e Caball o Roj o 1



### 2 3 4 Coa l Cree k N



### S Precipitatio n (in ) Bell e Fourche Drainag e Gillett e 2 E Departur e Nor

m= D N

Coa l Productio n (MMTPY ) Bell e Ayr Caball o Corder o Texa s Energ

y Caball o Roj o Coa l Cree k

TOTA L 198 0



### 3 8 4 6 4 5 2 7 2 6 2 2 3 3 5 2 2 8 1 5 1 9

— d

- _

- -

- - 

### 1 5 1 7 198 0

15.1 9 14.7 7

198 0

16. 0 

### 2. 0 6. 5

—

- -

24. 5 198 1



### 3 6 4 7 5 3 3 2 2 7 2 3 3 5 4 4 3 0 1 7 

### 21 b 3 4 2 7 2 8 2 7 1 9 1 9
D N198 1

-1.1 0 1 5 -1.0 1 1 3

198 1

15. 0 

### 3. 8 8. 3

—
—

27. 1 

### .32 4 5 198 2 

### 2 1 2 5 3 9 2 3 1 7 1 9 3 7 3 9 2 9 1 5 

### 23 b 2 1 1 8 2 0 1 9 1 1 1 7 D N

-0.9 7 -2.3 3

198 2

15. 2 

### 5. 5 7. 7

- -
— 

### 1. 0 29. 4 198 3



### 2 7 2 6 2 6 2 1 1 9 2 1 2 7 6 9 2 3 

### 20c 30 c 2 1 2 0 2 5 2 1 1 5 1 4 198 2

25.4 1 26.3 7

198 2


### 13
. 6
. 

### 10
.

- - 

### 1 1 3 3 D N

+ 9
. +10
.



### 8 7 0 4 9 8 %



### 1 2 5 9 Chang e 

### -2 9 -4 3 -4 2 -2 2 -2 7

- 5 

### -1 8 +3 2 -1 8 +3 3 +5 8 -3 8 -4 8 -1 1 -2 2 

### 0 -1 8 198 3 D

N

14.2 5 -2.0 8 12.7 5 -3.1 0

%Chang e


### -1 4 +23 5 

### +5 4

.- -
— 

### +9 0 +3 8

a = Dat a obtaine d fro m Wyomin g Ai r Qualit yDivisio n records , b= Nearbyland us e chang e byranche r fro mnativ e rangelan d t o ro wcrop , c = 2,80 0 additiona l acre s o f nativ e rangelan d converte d t o ro wcrops , d = N o data
. e = Climatologica l Dat a Annua l Summar y(1980,1981,1982,1983 ) Nationa l Oceani c and Atmospheri c Administration
. 

### 4-3P.3 3



# fl

I SECTION 5. 0 RESPONS E SUMMARYAN DINTERPRETATIO N

5. 1 SUMMARY Nearl y al l comment s receive dfro m th e coa l industry , andStat e and Federa l agencie s favore dAlternativ e I whic hwoul dno t lis t SCM s fo r PS D purposes . Thes e organization s agree dwit hth e RIA' s conclusion s concernin g Alternative s I I andIII ; however , the y fel t tha t th e RI A

underestimate dcost s andoverestimate dbenefits . Thes e comment s state dtha t base donth e availabl e informatio nther e i s no justificatio nfo r listin g SCMs . Further , the y state d tha t i f coa l mine s wer e liste di t woul dcaus e economi c disruptio nt o th e industry . O nth e othe r hand , a few group s argue dtha t SCM s mus t be listed , sinc e healt handwelfar e shoul dbe protecte da t al l cost s andbenefit s ar e mor e difficul t t o quantif y tha ncosts . Also , the y believe dtha t additiona l control s ar e possibl e t o reduc e emission s fro m th e mine s andallow

th e mine s t o mee t th e PS Dincrements .
5. 2 INTERPRETATIO N Surfac e coa l mine s b

y thei r natur e ar e difficul t source s t o quantify . Clear , definitiv e answer s ar e no t readil y availabl e fo r thi s typ e o f analysis . Th e predictiv e proces s fo r estimatin g particulat e concentration s aroundSCM s ha s no t bee nvalidate dagains t measure dconcentration s fo r specifi c mines . Further , th e methodolog y fo r evaluatin g ambien t ai r qualit y impact s o f SCM s ha s no t bee nstandardized . Differen t emissio nfactor s an d dispersio nmodel s hav e bee nuse db y variou s organizations . Unti l a standardize dapproac hi s developed , separat e analyst s evaluatin g a nidentica l SC M wil l obtai nanswer s tha t ma y diffe r substantially . Bot hindustr y and environmenta l group s hav e thei r ow npoint s o f vie w

andagendas . Th e RI A o n th e othe r hand , endeavore dt o structur e reasonabl e andunbiase danalyse s tha t reflec t mos t likel y

impact s (an

drange s o f impacts ) give nlimite dinformatio n 5- 1P.3 4

an dresourc e constraints . Becaus e o f th e uncertaintie s involve dinthes e type s o f analyses , i t i s understandabl e how result s woul ddiffe r acros s suc hgroup s give nth e divergenc e inpoint s o f view . I nadditio nt o tl, 2 alternat e methodologie s presentl y employed , ther e ar e severa l type s o f inheren t error s i nth e analyses . Source s o f thes e error s includ e emissio nfactors , activit y parameters , sourc e location , meteorologica l data , andth e dispersio nmodels . Overall , th e comment s indicat e tha t Alternative s I I andII I ar e generall y no t considere dt o b e cos t effective . Alternativ e I V ma y mak e i t difficul t fo r mine s t o mee t th e PS Dincrement s nea r Clas s I andmandator y Clas s I I areas . Finally , th e RI A

di dno t conside r India nReservation s init s analyses . Thes e Clas s I I area s ca nb e reclassifie da s Clas s I areas . I f thes e area s woul dbe include dinth e propose dlisting , the nth e estimate s fo r affecte d coa l reserve s i nth e RI A ar e significantl y

low .



### 5- 2P.3 5



# fl

>» !



# G REFERENCE S

America nConferenc e o f Governmenta l Industria l Hygienist s (ACGIH) , 1988 . Threshol dLimi t Value s andBiologica l Exposur e Indicie s fo r 1988-1989 , Cincinnati , Ohio . Cummings , R.G. , D.S . Brookshire , an dW.D . Shulze , ed. , 1986 , Valuin g Environmenta l Goods : A Stat e o f th e Art s Assessmen t o f th e Contingen t Valuatio nMethod . Rowa nandAllanheld , Totawa , NJ . Dine hServic e Company , 1986 . Comment s t o Docke t No . A-84-33 . Evan s an dCooper , 1980 . A

nInventor y

o f Particulat e Emission s fro m Ope n Sources . JAPCA , Vol . 30 , No . 12 . MacFarland , K. , W . Malm , andJ . Molenar , 1983 . AnExaminatio no f Methodologie s an

dSocia l Indicator s fo r Assessin g th e Valu e o f Visibility , i n Rowe an dChestnu t (eds.) , Managin g Ai r Qualit y an dNatura l Resource s a t Nationa l Park s andWildernes s Areas , Westvie w Press , Boulder , CO . MARC , 1984 . Comment s from Minin g an

dReclamatio nCounci l (MARC ) t o Docke t No . A-82-43 . MARC , 1986 . Testimon y o f Rober t B . Flag g an dKe nWilliam s onBehal f o f th e Minin g andReclamatio nCounci l o f Americ a a t th e Environmenta l Protectio n Agency . Mitchell , R.C. , andR.T . Carson , 1988 . Draf t Manuscript . Usin g Survey s t o Valu e Publi c Goods : Th e Contingen t Valuatio nMethod . Resource s fo r th e Future , Washington , D.C . Montan a Coa l Council , 1986 . Comment s t o Docke t No . A-84-33 . NCA , 1986 . Comment s o f Nationa l Coa l Associatio nonEPA' s Regulator y Impac t Analysi s o f it s Propose dListin g o f Surfac e Coa l Mine s a s a Sourc e Categor y fo r Whic hFugitiv e Emission s Mus t be Include di nPS DThreshol dApplicabilit y Determinations . Docke t No . A-84-33 . PE I Associates , Inc . 1985 . Characterizatio no f TS P Ai r Qualit y Aroun dSurfac e Coa l Mine s Nea r PS DClas s I andMandator y Clas s I I Areas . Prepare dfo r th e U.S . Environmenta l Protectio nAgenc y andTh e Nationa l Par kService . Contrac t No . 68-02-3890 . Rae , D. , 1983 . Th e Valu e t o Visitor s o f Improvin g Visibilit y a t Mes a Verd e and Grea t Smok y

Nationa l Parks , i nRow e andChestnu t (eds.) , Managin g Ai r Qualit y andNatura l Resource s a t Nationa l Park s andWildernes s Areas , Westvie w Press , Boulder , CO . R- lP.3 6



# fl

n



# E
G Randall , A. , Grunewald , 0. , Pagoulatos , A. , Ausness , R. , an dJohnso nS . (1978) . Estimatin g Environmenta l Damage s fo r Surfac e Minin g o f Coa l in Appalachia : A

Cas e Study , U.S . Environmenta l Protectio nAgency , Industria l Environmenta l Researc hLaboratory . Revie w o f NAAQ S fo r Particulat e Matter : Assessmen t o f Scientifi c andTechnica l Information , Offic e o f A-Q-P-S , Staf f Paper , EPA-450 1 5-82-001 , Januar y 1982 . Rowe , R.D. , R . d'Arge , D . Brookshire , 1980 . A nExperimen t inth e Economi c Valu e o f Visibility , Journa l o f Environmenta l Economic s andManagemen t 7 : 1-19 . Schulze , W.D. , D . Brookshire , E . Walther , K . Kelley , 1981 . Method s Developmen t fo r Environmenta l Contro l Benefit s Assessment , Vol . VIII , Th e Benefit s o f Preservin g Visibilit y inNationa l Parkland s o f th e Southwest , prepare dfo r th e U.S . Environmenta l Protectio nAgency , Washington , D.C . Sierr a Club , 1986 . Sierr a Club' s Secon dSupplementa l Comment s onEPA Proposa l t o Lis t Surfac e Coa l Mine s a s a Majo r Sourc e o f Fugitiv e Emissions . TR C Environmenta l Consultants , Inc. , 1985 . Quantificatio no f Uncertaintie s in EPA' s Fugitiv e Emission s andModelin g Methodolog y a t Surfac e Coa l Mines . TR C Environmenta l Consultants , Inc. , 1985a . A Performanc e Evaluatio no f th e EPA' s IS C Model . TR C Environmenta l Consultants , Inc. , 1985b . Modele dAi r Qualit y Impact s o f Fou r Hypothetica l Surfac e Coa l Mines . TR C Environmenta l Consultants , Inc. , 1985c . Modele dAi r Qualit y Impact s o f a Hypothetica l Nort hDakot a Lignit e Min e Surfac e Coa l Mine . TR C Environmenta l Consultants , Inc. , 1985d . Modele dAi r Qualit y Impact s o f a Hypothetica l Texa s Lignit e Mine . TR C Environmenta l Consultants , Inc. , Lette r fro m Mr . Kir kWinge s t o Mr . Denni s Hunte r o f UtahInternational , Inc . U.S . Environmenta l Protectio nAgency , 1978 . Surve y o f Fugitiv e Dus t fro m Coa l Mines . EPA-908/1-78-003 . Offic e o f Energ y Activities , Denver , Colorado . U.S . Environmenta l Protectio nAgency , 1981 . Improve dEmissio nFactor s fo r Fugitiv e Dus t fro

m Wester nSurfac e Coa l Minin g Sources . Prepare db y PEDC o Environmenta l Inc . andMidwes t Researc hInstitute . U.S . Environmenta l Protectio nAgency , 1981a . Ambien t Monitorin g Guideline s fo r Preventio no f Significan t Deterioratio n(PSD) . EPA-450/4-80-012 . U.S . Environmenta l Protectio nAgency , 1982 . Characterizatio no f PM1 0 andTS P Ai r Qualit y

Aroun dWester nSurfac e Coa l Mines . EPA-450/4-83-004 . Offic e o f Ai r Qualit y

Plannin g andStandard s Researc hTriangl e Park , N.C . R- 2P.3 7



# D U.S . Environmenta l Protectio nAgency , 1985 . Regulator y Impac t Analysis , Listin g o f Surfac e Coa l mine s fo r New Sourc e Review . U.S . Environmenta l Protectio nAgency , 1986 . Transcrip t o f Proceedings . I nthe Matte r o f Propose dRegulation s t o Subjec t Surfac e Coa l Mine s t o Preventio no f Significan t Deterioratio nReview . Federa l Offic e Building , Denver , Colorado , Apri l 9 , 1986 .

- 1



# I R- 3 

# i