P. 1


# OAR Box 

# 1859 Prepped byCharmelle Mathews



### Document

Number: 

# 42 ) 

# V-C- 1 Docket Number: 

# A-84-3 3

Printed 11/24/20089:13:58AM Sheet 42 of 75

# I !

COMPILATIO NO F PUBLI C COMMENT S ONPROPOSE D STRI P MIN E REGULATION S P. 2



### y

r 

# te Prepare d b y

PE I ASSOCIATES , INC . 1149 9 Cheste r Roa d Cincinnati , Ohi o 4524 6 

# M igli l NO V

### U 198 9 EP AAI R DOCKE T

Contrac t No . 68-02-439 4 Wor k Assignmen t No . 1 3 PN3759-1 3 Prepare d fo r

U.S . Environmenta l Protectio n Agenc y Noncriteri a Pollutan t Program s Branc h Ai r Qualit yManagemen t Divisio n Researc hTriangl e Park , N C 2771 1

Willia m H . Lamason , Wor k Assignmen t Manage r Septembe r 198 8P. 3



### CONTENT S Pag e P 1 . Introductio n1- 1

1. 1 Backgroun dinformatio n1- 1 B1. 2 Compilatio napproac h1- 4

2 . Additiona l Comment s Relatin gt o 2- 1 nPropose dAlternative s I-I V

2. 1 Industr y

comment s 2- 1 2. 2 Environmenta l grou pcomment s 2- 1 n 2. 3 Governmen t comment s 2- 1 £ > 2.3. 1 Federa l Governmen t comment s 2- 2

2.3. 2 Stat e Governmen t comment s 2- 3 0 3 . Industr y

Comment s o nPropose d3- 1 Alternative s I V

an dIV " m 

### n 4 . Environmenta l Grou pComment s o nPropose d4- 1

Alternative s I V

an dIV " j 5 . Governmen t Comment s o nPropose d5- 1 1 Alternative s I V an dIV " T 5. 1 Federa l Governmen t comment s 5- 1 if 5. 2 Stat e Governmen t comment s 5- 2 K I 6 . Conclusion s 6- 1 

## i H Appendi xA

- Summar y

o f Comment s o nRI A

fo r EP A Proposa l fo r A- 1 Fugitiv e Emission s Fro m

Surfac e Coa l Mine s - PS DProgra m ^ Appendi xB- Lis t o f Docke t Commen t Numbers , Nam e o f Commenter s an dB- l Parenthetica l Referenc e n 

# I

nP. 4



# 0

ff' . 

# D FIGURE S

Numbe r Titl e Pag e B 1- 1 Addressee s fo r May 4 , 198 7 Mem

o o n ProposedAlternative s I V an dIV " 1-2 , 1- 3

mP. 5



# i



# I SECTION 1 INTRODUCTION

• 1. 1 BACKGROUNDINFORMATION

n1.1. 1 Regulator y Impac t Analysi s HOnOctobe r 26 , 1984 , th e Environmenta l Protectio nAgenc y (EPA ) propose d t o addsurfac e coa l mine s (SCMs ) t o th e lis t o f sourc e categorie s fo r whic h £ fugitiv e emission s ar e t o be include dinth e threshol dapplicabilit y

determinatio nunde r EPA' s preventio no f significan t deterioratio n(PSD ) rules . • Th e EPA

announce dth e availabilit y o f th e Regulator y

Impac t Analysi s (RIA ) and reopenin g o f the commen t periodonFebruary 28 , 198 6 (5 1 Fed . Reg . 7090) . Th e commen t perio dclose donJun e 30 , 198 6 an dth e comment s t o th e RI A (Alternative s I-IV ) wer e compile dinAugus t 198 6 (Summary o f Comment s o

nRI A £J ; fo r EPA

Proposa l fo r Fugitiv e Emission s fro m Surfac e Coa l Mine s - PS DProgram , ^ ES I International , Inc. , Augus t 1986 ; Appendi xA t o thi s report. ) A

respons e « t o th e technica l comment s t o th e RI A wa s prepare da s wel l (PE I Septembe r H1986) . Th e RI A compare dth e projecte dcost s andbenefit s o f fou r alternativ e approache s t o regulatin g SCM s unde r PSD . Alternativ e I assume dtha t the Jpropose drul e woul dno t be promulgated . Alternativ e I I woul daffec t ne w and modifie dSCM s o f a significan t siz e afte r th e promulgatio no f th e regulation . HAlternativ e II I woul dimpos e PS Drequirement s onmine s qualifyin g a s majo r

source s tha t commence dconstructio no r modificatio nafte r Januar y 6 , 1975 . HAlternativ e I V woul daffec t onl y

new andmodifie dmine s tha t hav e ambien t impact s o narea s designate dunde r the Clea nAi r Ac t (CAA ) a s Clas s I o r mandator y

Clas s I I areas . 1.1. 2 PROPOSA L O F ALTERNATIVE S I V an dIV " OnMa y 4 , 1987 , th e EPA

distribute da memo proposin g anAlternativ e I V (prime ) andIV " (doubl e prime ) t o a lis t o f addressee s (Figur e 1-1 ) and requeste dcomment s onth e proposals . Th e modification s t o th e origina l 

### 1- 1P. 6

Figur e 1- 1 Addressee s fo r Ma y4 , o n Propose d Alternative s 198 7 Mem o I V and IV " 

# I

__ i



# FI Josep hJ . Breche r

Attorne ya t La w 50 6 - 15t hStree t Suit e 50 0 Oakland , C A9461 2 Howar d I . Fo x Sierr a Clu bLega l Defens e Fund , Inc . 151 6 P Street , N.W . Washington , D.C . 2000 5 (Sierr a Club ) Michae l B . Bar r Hunto n & William s P.O . Bo x1923 0 Washington , D.C . 2003 6 (Nationa l Coa l Association ) Robert a L . Hallada y Hollan d & Har t 187 5 I Street , N.W . Washington , D.C . 2000 6 (America n Minin g Congress ) Rober t T . Conner y Hollan d & Har t 55 5 - 17t hStree t Suit e 290 0 Denver , Colorad o 8020 1 (America n Minin g Congress ) Davi d G . Unger , Directo r Watershe d and Ai r Managemen t U.S . Departmen t o f Agricultur e Fores t Servic e 12t h& Independenc e Avenue , S W P.O . Bo x241 7 Washington , D.C . 2001 3 Michae l Polin g Deput yAssistan t Secretar yfo r Lan d and Mineral s Managemen t Departmen t o f th e Interio r Washington , D.C . 2024 0 Te d Williams , Directo r Offic e o f Environmenta l Analysis , Policy , Safety , an d Environmen t U.S . Departmen t o f Energ y Washington , D.C . Jo e Mul l a n Senio r Vic e Presiden t fo r Environmenta l Affair s Nationa l Coa l Associatio n 113 0 - 17t hStree t N.W . Washington , D.C . 2003 6 Larr yBogg s Senio r Counse l America n Minin g Congres s 192 0 NStree t N.W . Suit e 30 0 Washington , D.C . 2003 6



### 1- 2

# l i 1 P E l 

# 1 

# 1

„ p t" 

### I 

# 1 P 

# 1 R 

# 1 

# e

1

i 

# i Figur e 1- 1 (continued )

LloydF . Novick , M.D . Director , Offic e o f Ai r Qualit y 200 5 Nort hCentra l Avenu e Phoenix , A Z 8500 4 Bradle y J . Beckham , Directo r Ai r Pollutio nContro l Divisio n 421 0 Eas t 11t hAvenu e Denver , C O2822 0 Michae l J . Haye s Divisio nManage r Ai r Pollutio nContro l Divisio n Illinoi s EP A 220 0 Churchil l Roa d Springfield , I L 6270 6 Roge r B . McCann , Directo r Divisio no f Ai r Pollutio nContro l For t Boon e Plaz a 1 8 Reill y

Roa d Frankfort , K

Y4060 1 Harol dRobbin s Chief , Ai r Qualit y

Burea u Cogswel l Buildin g Helena , Montan a 5962 0 Randolp hWoo d Director , Departmen t o f Environmenta l Qualti y 12 2 Wes t 25t hStree t Cheyenne , W

Y8200 2

] Michae l J . Burkhar t Chief , Ai r Qualit y

Burea u 119 0 St . Franci s Driv e P.O . Bo x96 8 Sant e Fe , N

M 87504-069 8 Dan a K . Moun t Director , Divisio no f Environmenta l Engineerin g Nort hDakot a Stat e Departmen t o f Healt h 120 0 Missour i Avenu e Bismark , ND58502-552 0 Alle nEl i Bel l Executiv e Directo r Texa s Ai r Pollutio nBoar d 633 0 Highwa y

29 0 Eas t Austin , T X7872 3 F . Burnel l Cordne r Director , Burea uo f Ai r Qualit y Uta hDepartmen t o f Healt h P.O . Box1669 0 SLC , U T 84116-069 0



### L- 3 P. 7P. 8



# B

1 Alternativ e I V proposa l wer e fashione db y the EPA inrespons e t o comment s an d wer e fel t t o be a logica l outgrowt ho f th e origina l proposal . Alternativ e I V

propose dthe PS Dreview o f a min e be triggered , no t b y a fixe daroien t concentration , bu t b y the predictio no f advers e impact . I t

3 propose dtha t a projecte dconcentratio no f 1 ug/ m woul dtrigge r a

nambien t impac t assessment , no t a PS Dreview , an da min e woul dbe subjec t t o PS Donl y i f th e ambien t impac t assessmen t reveale da potentia l advers e impac t (determine db

y the Federa l Lan

dManage r (FLM)) . Regulator y coverag e woul dbe extende dt o onl y

mandator y

Clas s I an

dClas s I I areas . Alternativ e IV " incorporate dthe same advers e impac t tes t a s IV , bu t differe dfrom

I V intha t i t woul donl y protec t mandator y

Clas s I area s an

d 3 woul ddelet e th e 1 ug/ m ambien t impac t trigge r fo r analysis . Th e advers e impac t analysi s woul dbe applie dt o al l mine s withi n5 0 kilometer s o f a mandator y

Clas s I area . Thi s alternativ e woul dremov e uncertantie s a s t o the applicatio no f the advers e impac t analysi s test . I t woul dals o limi t th e numbe r o f source s subjec t t o modelin g exercises . Th e memo als o summarize dportion s o f the comment s b y industr y

an d environmenta l group s t o the origina l Alternative s I-IV . 1. 2 COMPILATIO N

APPROAC H Thi s repor t present s a summary o f industry , environmenta l grou pan d governmen t comment s subsequen t t o th e commen t clos e dat e o f Jun e 30 , 1986 . Th e comment s ar e identifie db y Docke t Number s A-84-33 , IV-L-6 3 throug hIV-L-8 8 an d cove r additiona l comment s t o Alternative s I throug hI V plu s ne w comment s t o propose dAlternative s I V an dIV" . Th e approac ho f thi s compilatio nwa s t o summariz e th e additiona l comment s t o th e origina l Alternative s I-I V inon e sectio n(Sectio n2 ) andt o summariz e Industry , Environmenta l Grou pand Governmen t comment s t o Alternative s I V an dIV " inthei r ow

nseparat e section s (Section s 3 , 4 an

d5 respectively) . Parenthetica l reference s ar e mad e t o the organizatio nwhic hha s se t fort ho r supporte da particula r vie w o r comment . A lis t o f th e Commen t Numbers , Name o f th e Commente r an dParenthetica l Referenc e i s show ni nAppendi xB o f thi s report . A s a summary , th e goa l o f thi s repor t wa s t o distil l th e twenty-si x(26 ) comment s dow nt o clea r andconcis e points . I t i s recommende dtha t th e reade r refe r t o a nindividua l commen t whe nmor e detaile dknowledg e i s desired . 1- 4P. 9



### B SECTION 2 

# B ADDITIONA L COMMENT S RELATING T OPROPOSE DALTERNATIVE S I-IV | 2. 1 INDUSTRYCOMMENT S P Th e onl y

additiona l commen t receive dfro m Industry onth e origina l propose dAlternative s I-IV wa s fro m the Nationa l Coa l Associatio n(NCA) . Th e M commen t wa s a respons e t o th e Nationa l Wildlif e Federation , e t al . (NWF ) " comment s o f Jun e 30 , 1986 . Th e NCA contende dtha t th e languag e and f. legislativ e histor y o f Sectio n302(j ) o f the Clea nAi r Act , a s wel l a s th e fa f: D.C . Circui t Cour t s interpretatio no f tha t provisio ninAlabama Powe r Co . v . Costle , 63 6 F.2 d32 3 (D.C . Cir . 1979) , require s rejectio no f NWF' s contentio n tha t the EPA' s undertakin go f a cost-benefi t analysi s i s improper . NC A als o contende dtha t bot hth e RI A an dNW F faile dt o estimat e significan t cost s £'• associate dwit hth e propose dregulation . I naddition , th e NC

A argue dtha t NWF' s comment s o

nEPA' s conclusio ntha t impositio no f PS Drequirement s on Hsurfac e coa l mine s woul dresul t insignifican t reductio ni nmin e siz e wer e

unsubstantiated . The y

state dtha t th e NW

F i s fre e t o see kreview o f th e nDepartmen t o f Interior' s action s b y th e appropriat e judicia l o r administrativ e l- i authoritie s i f i t believe s th e DO I i s no t carryin gou t it s congressiona l mandate . NCA

agai nurge dth e EPA

no t t o promulgat e it s propose drules . 

# 0 I 2. 2 ENVIRONMENTAL GROU P COMMENT S

No additiona l comment s wer e receive dfro m Environmenta l Group s onth e origina l Alternative s I-IV . 2. 3 GOVERNMEN T COMMENT S

2- 1P.1 0



# 1

n • i 2.3. 1 FEDERA L GOVERNMEN T COMMENT S

Tw o Federa l Governmen t organization s (DO I and COA ) submitte d additiona l comment s t o th e propose d Alternative s I-IV , bot hi n respons e t o th e Nationa l Wildlif e Federation , e t al . (NWF ) comment s o f Jun e 30 , 1986 . Th e DO I claime d tha t man yo f th e NW F statement s wer e mad e withou t anysupportin g dat a o r othe r substantiation . Th e DO I als o state d tha t Sectio n 522(e ) o f th e Surfac e Minin g Contro l and Reclamatio n Ac t o f 197 7 (SMCRA) , 3 0 U.S.C . 1272(e ) provide s substantia l protectio n t o Nationa l Par k Servic e (NPS ) units . Th e DO I als o intend s t o propos e regulation s o f it s own t o requir e tha t road s b e constructe d and maintaine d t o stabiliz e expose d surface s and contro l ai r pollutio n attendan t t o erosion , (emphasi s adde d fo r thi s document) . DO I als o aske d t o b e notifie d whe n th e fina l rul e move d throug hth e Offic e o f Managemen t and Budge t prio r t o publication . Th e lega l brie f prepare d b yth e U.S . Cour t o f Appeal s state d tha t Sectio n 515(b)(4) , 3 0 U.S.C . 1265(b)(4 ) doe s no t confe r authorit yupo n th e Secretar y o f th e Interio r t o regulat e ai r pollution , bu t tha t whe n th e operativ e word s o f Sectio n 515(b)(4 ) ar e take n together , th e Secretary' s regulator yauthorit y i s clearl ylimite d t o ai r pollutio n cause d b yerosion , (emphasi s adde d fo r thi s document) . Th e Cour t o f Appeal s als o conclude d tha t th e legislativ e histor yo f Sectio n 515(b)(4 ) confirm s th e requiremen t fo r th e Secretar yo f th e Interio r t o protec t agains t erosio n and ai r and wate r pollutio n cause d b y erosion . Othe r Federa l Governmen t comment s (DO C and DOA ) oppose d Alternative s I I throug hIV . DO C contende d tha t th e RI Aoverstate d benefit s and understate d cost s fo r thes e alternatives , whil e DOAstate d tha t minin g operation s o n Federa l land s adjacen t t o wildernes s area s ar e controllabl e b yagenc y[DOA ] administrativ e policy . Th e DOAals o suggeste d tha t a simple r criterio n b e use d a s a screenin g trigger , suc ha s acreag e disturbe d a t on e time , i f th e EP A decide s t o procee d wit hth e rulemaking . Th e DOAals o state d tha t its ' ai r actio n team

woul d b e revitalize d and woul d mee t wit hEP At o desig n a clearin g hous e approac ht o ne wsourc e problem s concernin g revie wo f PS D application , modelin g an d operationa l research . Th e EP Adocumente d a meetin g wit hth e America n Minin g Congres s (AMC ) o n Apri l 7 , 1986 . A t tha t meeting , th e AM C "urge d EP At o rejec t Alternativ e IV 2- 2P.1 1



### unde r th e Stri pMine s rulemakingproposal" . Thei r reason s wer e a s follows : l 

### ° EPA

i s no t legall y

boundt o lis t surfac e coa l mines . 

# b ° Surfac e coa l mine s ar e already subjec t t o the equivalen t o f bes t availabl e contro l technolog y unde r stat e permi t andcontro l

_requirements , Q ° Th e proposa l woul dno t hav e any significan t environmenta l benefi t in term s o f visibilit y

o r an y othe r environmenta l factor . | j ° Th e proposa l woul dput , a t a minimum , 8. 6 billio nton s o f coa l in1 2

state s off-limit s t o development . [ 1 ° Th e proposa l woul dincreas e consume r fue l bill s approximatel y $0. 9 t o $1. 4 billio n(presen t value) . n °

Th e proposa l i s unnecessar y becaus e th e Departmen t o f th e Interio r • s already ha s ampl e authorit y

t o declar e an

y potentia l surfac e coa l « - minin gtha t adversel y affect s a Clas s I are a unsuitabl e fo r mining . !? • ° Th e proposa l woul dunnecessaril y prohibi t surfac e coa l minin gi nhug e "buffe r zones " surroundin gClas s I areas , whic hhave no advers e effec t onvisito r experienc e inClas s I areas . Th e AMC urge dadoptio no f Alternativ e I (no listing) . L : Additiona l Federa l Governmen t comment s (AR M an dBUR ) expresse dconcer no f EPA' s promulgatio no f the rulemaking . On e o f th e concern s o f AR M wa s base don I ] th e "remova l o f approximatel y 7 9 millio nton s o f bituminou s coa l onthe Ut e Mountai nUt e Reservatio nfro m futur e production" , whil e th e other' s (BUR ) F ? concern s wer e base donth e fac t tha t th e EP A "ha s no t demonstrate da needfo r suc hregulatio ni norde r t o protec t publi c health" . I t shoul db e note dtha t UM T estimate dth e amoun t o f bituminou s coa l a s 3 9 millio nton s onth e Ut e Mountai nUt e Reservatio ni nthei r origina l commen t o f Apri l 29 , 1986 . 2.3. 2 STAT E GOVERNMEN T COMMENT S Tw o Stat e Government s (WYOandMON ) submitte dadditiona l comment s opposin gpromulgatio no f th e EPA' s rulemaking ; i.e . the y suppor t Alternativ e I . WY Ocontende dtha t suc hanactio nwoul dceas e th e minin gandproductio no f ove r 10 0 millio nton s o f lo w sulfu r coal , whil e MON

state dtha t EPA' s promulgatio no f th e rul e woul dno t compl y wit hth e requirement s o f Sectio n30 2 2- 3 nP.1 2



# I (j ) o f th e Federa l Clea nAi r Ac t andwoul dmodif y th e metho db

y whic hth e stat e mus t issu e permit s t o mines ; i.e . inclusio no f emission s fo r determinatio no f incremen t consumption . MON als o note dth e EPA' s proposa l t o chang e th e nationa l ai r qualit y standar dfo r particulates . MON recommende d tha t th e EP A

reconside r listin g o f SCM s v f th e fina l secondar y particulat e standar dmethodolog y

i s i nany

form othe r tha ntota l suspende dparticulat e (TSP) . (emphasi s inoriginal) . MON als o contende dtha t it s curren t permi t program fo r SCM s i s sufficien t withou t a new regulation .



### m 

# l i 

# I

2- 4P.1 3



### S i SECTION 3 M INDUSTRYCOMMENT S ON | PROPOSE DALTERNATIVE S I V ANDIV " | j Industr y

response s t o propose dAlternative s I V andIV " wer e essentiall y agains t bot hmodification s an dreiterate dthei r recommendation s tha t i Alternativ e I (no listing ) b e followe d(SMC , UMT , PCC , NCA , AMC andUARG) . SM C

ha dnumerou s comment s wit hrespec t t o propose dAlternative s I V andIV " whic h 

# B eanbe summarize das : 1 ) Alternative s I V andIV " diffe r substantiall y fro m the origina l propose dAlternativ e IV ; 2 ) Protectio no f "natural " value s ^ o f Clas s I an

dMandator y

Clas s I I area s i s inappropriat e withi nth e scop e o f l i th e Clea nAi r Ac t (CAA) , excep t fo r thos e Clas s I area s designate db y th e CAA ; 3 ) Comment s pertainin gt o th e land s protecte dan dth e triggerin gcriteri a : (us e o f anactua l valu e rathe r tha nthe theoretica l valu e o f 1 ug/ m t o trigge r anambien t impac t assessment) ; an d4 ) Give nEPA' s curren t proposals , SMC fel t tha t Alternativ e IV " a s applie dt o Clas s I area s designate db y th e CA A wa s the onl y

alternativ e whic hma y

hav e positiv e benefits . SM C als o I I recommende dtha t EPA subjec t th e propose dAlternative s I V andIV " t o the forma l publi c review

process . UMT furthe r objecte dt o Alternative s I V and nIV " base donth e belie f tha t ther e i s no justificatio nfo r thes e regulations . L i Althoug hUMT continue dt o suppor t Alternativ e I (no listing) , the y believ e

n

### tha t the EPA

shoul dprovid e financia l andtechnica l assistanc e t o conduc t a 

# N [Jmor e detaile danalysi s o f th e technica l effect s o f th e propose drulemaking .

UMT als o believe s tha t potentia l environmenta l concern s ca nb e addresse db y 1 th e Departmen t o f Interio r unde r th e provision s o f th e Surfac e Minin gContro l

an dReclamatio nAct . PC C continue dt o suppor t Alternativ e I (no listing) , bu t Rsuggeste dtha t modification s t o Alternativ e I V shoul db e directe dtowar d visibilit y

impairmen t usin ga screenin gtechniqu e fo r visibilit y suc ha s tha t develope dinEPA' s "Workboo kfo r Estimatin gVisibilit y Impairment" . PC C als o contende dtha t Alternativ e I V shoul db e modifie dt o includ e impact s on 3- 1P.1 4



# D

P* ) mandator yClas s I area s only , an d tha t a distanc e o f betwee n 1 0 and 1 5 k m fro m Clas s I area s shoul d serv e a s th e trigge r mechanis mfo r reviewin g a SCM' s potentia l fo r advers e visibilit yimpairment . I n addition , EP Ashoul d no t involv e th e Federa l Lun d Manage r (FLM ) i n it s program . PCC' s comment s were , i n essenc e th e sam e a s NCA's , AMC' s an d UARG' s comments . Al l fou r agree d tha t onl ya findin g o f actua l advers e impac t shoul d subjec t a sourc e t o PS D review , tha t a distanc e o f betwee n 1 0 an d 1 5 k mshoul d b e use d an d tha t th e FL Mshoul d no t b e involved . However , AM C state d tha t Alternativ e IV " "mor e faithfull yadhere s t o th e Agency' s objectiv e o f protectin g specia l resources ; therefore , AM C coul d accep t thi s limitation. "



### 3-2P.1 5



# I

• i SECTION 4 ENVIRONMENTA L GROU P COMMENT S O N PROPOSE DALTERNATIVE S I V ANDIV "

Tw o comment s onpropose dAlternative s I V andIV " wer e receive dfro m Environmenta l Group s (S C andEPI) . Bot hS C andEP I viewe dth e propose d Alternative s I V

an dIV " a s bein g les s acceptabl e tha nth e origina l propose d Alternativ e I

V (emphasi s adde dfo r thi s document) . Thei r objection s t o I V wer e base donth e fac t tha t th e decisio nwhethe r t o regulat e a new SCM woul d b e remove dfrom

th e EPA , th e state s andth e India nTribe s andplace dwit hth e Federa l LandManager . This , inessence , woul dsubordinat e th e view s o f th e state , EPA , andIndia ntribe s t o an"unelecte dbureaucrat" . Alternativ e IV" , i nthei r opinion , woul daffor dno protectionfo r mandator y Clas s I I area s and woul dallow

SCM' s furthe r tha n5 0 k m fro m a mandator y

Clas s I are a t o escap e regulation , withou t regar dt o th e magnitud e o f impac t upo nthos e areas . S C als o hold s th e opinio ntha t costs , rathe r tha nenvironmenta l benefits , i s wha t reall y concern s EPA . EP I als o contende dtha t th e proposa l faile dt o addres s th e statutor y

question : "Wha t i s th e definitio no f fugitiv e dus t onsurfac e mines?" . Th e EP I als o pointe dou t tha t i t endorse s th e comment s file db y S C infull , a s wel l a s highlightin g it s understandin g tha t th e environmenta l communit y

i s unanimou s init s suppor t t o regulat e ai r qualit y fo r al l mines .



### 4- 1P.1 6



# fl

P SECTIO N 5 GOVERNMEN T COMMENT S O N PROPOSE DALTERNATIVE S I V ANDIV "
5. 1 FEDERAL GOVERNMEN T COMMENT S
Comment s t o propose dAlternative s I V an dIV " wer e receive dfro m two Federa l Governmen t agencie s (DOI , DOE , DPH ) andfou r Stat e Senator s (USS) . Bot hDO I andDO E continu e t o suppor t Alternativ e I (no listing) . DO I believe d

3 th e 1 ug/ m

trigge r applie dt o tota l suspende dparticulat e (TSP ) i n Alternativ e I V

wa s problemati c du e t o th e poo r correlatio no f TS P wit hth e ai r qualit y

relate dvalu e (AQRV ) andwit hvisibilit y i nth e desire dprotectio n areas , andbecaus e of it s lac kof relatio nt o publi c health . DO I suggeste d tha t fin e particulat e matte r les s tha n2. 5 micrometer s inaerodynami c diamete r (FPM ) wa s mor e directl y relate dt o visibilit y impairment . DO I als o contende d tha t modelin g ambien t impact s of TS P fro m SCM s i s ful l of unsolve dproblems ; primaril y

becaus e EPA' s IS C mode l overestimate s concentration s o f particula r matte r becaus e i t ignore s pi t retentio nand , possibly , becaus e o f it s treatmen t of sourc e depletion . DO I rejecte dAlternativ e IV " becaus e of it s contentio ntha t the 5 0 k m trigge r i s "legall y

questionable , arbitrar y and lack s any

empirica l basis. " DO E continue s t o believ e tha t th e analyse s suppor t Alternativ e I , a decisio nno t t o lis t SCMs . However , DO E considere d Alternativ e IV " applie donl y t o mandator y

Clas s I area s mos t consisten t wit h th e analytica l result s andbelieve dtha t th e geographi c applicabilit y trigge r offer s severa l substantia l administrativ e advantages . Thes e advantage s woul d primaril y

b e i nth e area s of certaint y of th e advers e impac t tes t applicatio n andth e eliminatio nof some ai r qualit y modelin g exercises . Th e comment s of US S als o suppor t th e origina l Alternativ e I (no listing ) since , i nthei r opinion , th e document s develope db y th e EPA show th e potentia l benefit s o f listin g SCM s woul dbe ambiguou s a t bes t andals o du e t o th e fac t tha t Congres s 

### 5- 1P.1 7



# F



# 1 ha s charge dth e Secretar y o f th e Interio r wit hth e primar y responsibilit y

t o protec t nationa l park s andwildernes s areas . US S als o continu e t o suppor t Alternativ e I (no listing ) andurge dth e EPA t o resolv e th e matte r wit hth e Secretar y

o f th e Interior . 5. 2 STAT E GOVERNMEN T COMMENT S
Comment s onproposedAlternative s I V andIV " wer e receive dfro m two Stat e Government s (DEQ W andDEPK) . Bot hcontinue dt o suppor t th e origina l Alternativ e I (no listing) . DEQ W hadseriou s reservation s concernin g th e 3 applicatio no f th e 1 ug/ m impac t becaus e o f th e stretchin g o f th e limitation s o f th e dispersio nmodel s a t long range . The y als o objectedt o a PS Dreview base dsolel y

o nth e FL M predictio no f anadvers e impact . Inthei r opinion , Alternativ e IV " woul d"seem t o provid e th e protectio ntha t th e Clea nAi r Ac t require s inClas s I area s b y requirin g a nadvers e impac t analysi s fo r al l mine s proposedwithi n5 0 kilometer s o f a mandator y Clas s I area. " However , DEQ W fel t tha t the decisio no nwhethe r anadvers e impac t wil l resul t and , hence , requir e a PS Dreview , shoul dres t wit hth e State . DEPKmaintaine dtha t th e natur e o f SCM

operation s andth e enforcemen t burde nmak e regulatio no f the m impractical . However , they perceive dAlternativ e IV " t o be th e mos t nearly acceptabl e contro l alternativ e du e t o it s clea r applicabilit y criterio n (5 0 k m limitation ) an

ddu e t o th e fac t tha t i t addresse s onl y Clas s I areas .



### 5- 2P.1 8



# I

L j SECTION 6 CONCLUSION S

Insummary , Industry , Federa l Governmen t andStat e Governmen t response s continue dt o suppor t Alternativ e I (no listing) . I f Alternativ e I wer e no t selected , Alternativ e IV " appeare dt o b e th e mos t acceptabl e t o th e majorit y o f organization s providin g comments ; howeve r some disagree dwit hth e 5 0 k m limitatio nzon e an

dwit hth e involvemen t o f th e Federa l LandManager . Th e Environmenta l Group s comment s suppor t thei r positio ntha t Alternative s I throug hIV , a s wel l a s proposedAlternative s I V an dIV" , ar e no t stron g enoug handtha t th e EPA "mus t regulat e a_H

_stri pmine s whic hwoul d caus e potentia l violation s o f an y o f th e ambien t ai r qualit y standard s o r PS D increments" .



### 6- 1P.1 9

APPENDI XA SUMMARYO F COMMENT S ON

RI A FOR EPA PROPOSA L FO

RFUGITIV E EMISSION S FROM

SURFAC E COA L MINE S PS DPROGRA

M

,, 

# I

A- 1P.2 0



# I SUMMAR YO F COMMENT S O N RIA FO REP A PROPOSA L FO RFUGITIV

E EMISSION S FRO M SURFAC E COA

L MINES- - PS D PROGRA

M 

# I

Docke t No . A-84- 3 3

Prepare d fo r Contro l Program s Developmen t Divisio n U.S . Environmenta l Protectio n Agenc y Researc h Triangl e Park ivort h Carolina 2771 1 Prepare d b

y ES I International , Inc . 17U 7 L Street , N.W . Suit e 57 0 Washington , D.C . 2003 6

Augus t 198 6



### A- 2P.2 1



# G CONTENT S

I . INTRODUCTION1 A . Thi s Documen t 1 B . Thi s Proceeding 2 II . SUMMAR

Y 3 A . Threshol d an

d Procedura l Issue s 3 1 . Healt han

d Welfar e Effect s fro mSCM s ... . 3 a . Absenc e o f advers e effect s 3 b . Existenc e o f advers e effect s 6 2 . Definitio n o f "StationarySource " 6 a . Classificatio n o f SCM s a s a "stationarysource " 6 b . Inclusio n o f secondaryemission s ... . 8 c . Inclusio n o f adjacen t source s 9 3 . Grandfatherin g 1 0 4 . Procedura l Matter s 1 1 B . Th e RegulatoryImpac t Analysi s 1 2 1 . Overvie w1 2 2 . Underestimatio n o f Cost s 1 3 a . Methodology1 3 b . Relianc e o n EPR I min e costing mode l . . 1 3 [ c . Us e o f smal l mine s a s prototypica l mine s 1 4 * d . Heterologica l assumption s 1 4 e . Emissio n factor s 1 5 f . Industria l Sourc e Comple x mode l ... . 1 5 g . Affec t on existing mine s 1 6 h . SC M movemen t outsid e o f impac t are a . . 1 7 i . Redesignatio n fro mClas s I I t o Clas s II I 1 7 j . Stat e an

d loca l regulatoryburde n .. . 1 7 k . Examinatio n o f high-cos t year s 1 8 1 . Nationa l securit y1 8 m . Taxe s 1 8 n . Re-sitin g affecte d mine s .1 8 o . Eac h basi n a s an independen t coa l marke t 1 9 p . Coa l suppl yelasticit y1 9 q . Industrystudie s 2 0 (1 ) TR C Environmenta l Consultants , Inc . 2 0 (2 ) IC F Inc 2 2 (3 ) Hagler , Bailly , & Compan y2 6 3 . Overestimatio n o f Cost s . . / 2 6 

# P

A- 3

### 4 . Area-Specifi c Cost s 2 9 a . Appalachi a 2 9 b . AMA X mines , Wyomin g 3 0 c . Peabod ymines , Wyomin g 3 0 d . Wyomin g mine s generall y3 0 e . Texa s lignit e minin g 3 1 f . Montan a mine s 3 2 g . Ne wMexic o mines , India n reservation s . 3 3 h . Centrali a mine , Washingto n 3 4 i . Colorad o mine s 3 4 j . Nort hDakot a mine s 3 5 k . Illinoi s mine s 3 6 1 . Uta hInternationa l mine s 3 6 5
. Overestimatio no f Benefit s 3 6 a . Existin g control s 3 6 b
. Us e o f

urba nlocalitie s 3 8 c . Willingness-to-pa y 3 9 d
. Visua l rang e improvemen t 4 0 i 

### e . Existenc e value s 4 1 f . Proliferatio n o f smalle r mine s 4 2 6 . Underestimatio n o f Benefit s 4 3 j vC . Conclusio n . 4 4 ;-'• 1 . Industr yan d Governmen t 4 4 l . 2 . Environmenta l Group s 4 5 f Appendi xAA- 1

Appendi xB . . . . B- l

. ! 

### J

A- 4P.2 3



# 0 F l



# 0 1 I . INTRODUCTION

A . Thi s Documen t Thi s documen t summarize s al l significan t writte n publi c comment s submitte d i n respons e t o the February28 , 1986 , (5 1 Fed . Reg . 7090 ; announcemen t b ythe EPAo f the availabilit yo f the RegulatoryImpac t Analysi s (RIA ) fo r it s Octobe r 26 , 1984 , proposa l t o requir e fugitiv e emission s fro m surfac e coa l mine s t o be include d i n threshol d applicabilit ydetermination s regarding whethe r a newprojec t i s "major " unde r EPA' s preventio n o f significan t deterioratio n (PSD ) program . The commen t perio d close d Jun e 30 , 1986 . The purpose s o f thi s summar yar e t o assis t th e EPA(1 ) i n it s ongoing , independen t revie wof , an d respons e to , th

e publi c comments ; an d (2 ) i n evaluating th e regulatoryoption s regarding thi s matter . For the reader' s convenience , parenthetica l reference s ar e mad e t o representativ e (out no t all ) commenter s wh o supporte d a particula r vie wor suggestion . T o -sav e spac e an

d avoi d undu e interruptio n o f syntax , w e abbreviate d the name s o f th e reference d commenters . Appendi x Alist s th e ful l name s an d docke t numoer s o f th e commenter s whos e submission s w e have reviewed . Appendi x 3 list s th e aDbreviate d name s w e have used , I n preparing th

e summaries , we have reconcile d the competin g goal s o f achieving enoughdetai l s o tha t the summarie s ar e helpful , an d enough brevit ys o tha t theyd o no t approac hth

e unwieldines s o f th e mas s o f individua l comments . Judgment s wer e necessaril ymad e a s t o whic hcomment s wer e "significant, " an

d howtheyshoul d be organized . For thes e reasons—an d a s wit han ysummary—referenc e t o th e individua l commen t i s recommende d wher e a detaile d an d specifi c •examinatio n o f a commenter' s viewi s desired .



### A- 5P.2 4

KU _

5 M B . Thi s Proceeding

O n Octobe r 26 , 1984 , EP Apropose d t o ad

d surfac e coa l mine s (SCMs ) t o th e lis t o f sourc e categorie s i n whic h fugitiv e emission s ar e t o be include d i n th e threshol d applicabilit ydeterminatio n unde r EPA' s PS D rules . On February28 , 1986 , EPAannounce d the availabilit yo f the RI A an d tne reopening o f th e commen t perio d (5 1 Fed . Reg . 7090) . EPA' s RI Acompare s the projecte d cost s an d benefit s o f four alternativ e approache s t o regulating SCM s unde r PS D constraints . Alternativ e I assume s tha t th e propose d rul e ! | woul d no t be promulgated . Alternativ e I I woul d limi t th e

applicabilit yo f the rul e t o majo r newan d modifie d SCM s commencing constructio n afte r promulgatio n o f th e regulations . Alternativ e II I woul d impos e PS D regulatoryrequirement s on . al l mine s qualifying a s majo r source s tha t commenc e constructio n or modificatio n afte r Januar y6 , 1975 . Alternativ e IV

woul d affec t onl ymajo r newan d modifie d SCM s tha t have ambien t impact s o n area s designate d unde r the Clea n Ai r Ac t a s Clas s I o r mandatoryClas s II . Th e RI Aseek s t o compar e th

e incrementa l cost s an d benefit s o f eac n o f the las t thre e alternative s t o Alternativ e I (tn e statu s quo) . Industrycommenter s favore d Alternativ e I largel yfo r reason s se t ou t i n severa l consultn t report s commissione d b y industrytrade association s (se e Par t II.B.2.q.) . Environ

menta l groups , however , supporte d the listing o f SCM s unde r the PS D rules . 

# 1

A- 6P.2 5



# 1 II . SUMMAR Y A . Threshol d an

d Procedura l Issue s 1 . Healt han

d Welfar e Effect s fromSCM s a . Absenc e o f advers e effect s
Man yindustria l commenter s state d tha t EPA' s proposa l exceede d the scop e o f it s authorit yunde r the Clean Ai r Ac t becaus e fugitiv e emission s fromsurfac e coa l mine s (SCMs ) d o no t have an

ysignifican t advers e effec t o n publi c healt h or | welfar e (MD , PCMA , NCA , WV , AMAX , PCMA , ND-Health , SF , ND ,

Peabody , WR , AMC , ICA , MCC , Taft , I L Mines , IL , NDLC , NACC , B ND-G , WVMRA) . _:. ! Severa l o f thes e commenter s (NCA ) noted , preliminarily ,

tha t EP Aha s neve r define d "significan t degradatio n o f ai r p quality " t o justif yit s proposa l t o lis t surfac e mines , a s i t

~.ust unde r § 302(j ) o f the Clea n Ai r Ac t (Act) . Sectio n 16 0 J o f the Ac t state s explicitl ytha t thi s finding o f "significan t 1 degradation " mus t b e demonstrate d t o caus e advers e healt h or p - welfar e effects—despit e complianc e wit h ambien t standards-

- t§ * oefor e EP

Acan justif ya listing o f SCMs , NC Anoted . 

# 8 Man

yo f thes e commenter s pointe d out , however , tha t the relativel ysmal l contributio n o f fugitiv e emission s fro m SCK s t o tota l particulat e concentrations , an d th e locatio n o f suc h mine s i n sparsel ypopulate d areas , show s tha t thei r overal l impac t o n ai r qualit yi s minimal . Citing Evans , T . S . an d D . VJ . Cooper , "A

n Inventoryo f Particulat e Emission s Fro mOpe n Sources, " JAPCAVol . 30 , No . 12 , 1298-130 3 (1980) , man yo f thes e commenter s note d tha t fugitiv e emission s fro mSCM s con tribut e les s tha n on e percen t o f al l particulat e emission s from ope n source s nationwide . I n contrast , rura l unpave d road s an d agricultura l operation s wer e foun d t o contribut e 4 8 percen t an d 4 6 percen t respectivel yo f open-sourc e particulat e emissions .



### A- 7P.2 6



# t

i On e commente r (ND-Health ) note d tha t wit hregar d t o Nort h

Dakot a specifically , 82. 3 percen t o f tota l suspende d particu

lat e (TSP ) emission s fo r a four-count yare a wer e cause d by unpave d roads , 14. 3 percen t byagricultura l activities , an d onl y1. 9 percen t b

yminin g operations . Moreover , th e vas t majorit yo f particle s emitte d fro m l > SCM s fal l t o th e groun d rapidly , an d thu s hav e onl ya temporar y Ueffec t o n ai r qualit yi n th e min e area , accordin g t o man y

commenter s (NCA , AMC , ND-G , Peabody , I L Mines , AMC , AMAX , yND-Health) . Th e particles ' larg e siz e contribute s t o thi s

rapi d fallou t i n deposition , an d ensure s tha t anyimpac t i n ? ! ; th e immediat e are a o f th e min e wil l b e relativel yshort-term .

Also , du e t o th e remot e locatio n o f nearl yal l SCMs , thei r j p fugitiv e emission s d o no t affec t populate d urba n areas , severa l

commenter s ODserved . On e commente r (SF ) cite d a distanc e o f f-. abou t "1 0 mile s fromth e min e disturbanc e are a (no t th e propert y

fenc e line ) a s th e poin t wher e negligibl e impact s occur . I i i

### Commenter s als o state d tha t th e availabl e scientifi c « . evidenc e establishe s tha t ther e ar e n o know n advers e healt ho r y ' welfar e effect s fromexposur e t o SC M fugitiv e dust . EP A

itsel f ha s long-recognize d tha t fin e particle s o f tw o micron s § 5 o r les s wer e principall yresponsibl e fo r th e advers e healt h

an d welfar e effect s oelieve d t o b e cause d b yairborn e particu

lates . Citin g comment s o n th e propose d revision s t o th e P M NAAQS , commenter s note d als o tha t recen t scientifi c evidenc e support s EPA' s prio r recognitio n o f th e innocuou s natur e o f fugitiv e emission s fro m SCM s du e t o thei r relativel ylarg e siz e an d non-toxi c nature . Citin g PEDC o and TRC , "Characterizatio n o f PK^ Q an d TS P Ai r Qualit yAroun d Wester n Surfac e Coa l Mines " (1982) , NC A state d tha t onl ya smal l fractio n o f th e fugitiv e emission s .fro mSCM s ar e fin e particle s o f th e siz e whic himpai r visibility . Othe r commenter s (Peabody , AMC ) note d specificall y

A- 8

# 1 1
1 tha t visibilit yimpairmen t i s cause d b yfine particle s (thos e les s tha n 2. 5 um ) an d a s EP Aan d CASAC have recognized , surfac e coa l mine s emit " ver yfe wsuc hparticle s (les s tha n 2 percen t o f the tota l SCM particulat e emissions) . Moreover , Peabod yan d AM C stated , soiling effect s ar e cause d b ydar k particle s o f 5 u

m o r les s wit hsignifican t carbo n content , an d agai n th e grea t majorit yo f SCM particle s ar e greate r tha n 5 u m an d d o no t have significan t carbo n content . AMC note d further , citing the technica l comment s o f Gal e F . Hoffnagle , date d May29 , 1986 , tha t th e visibilit yreductio n projecte d [ 1 unde r EPA' s Alternativ e IV on th e wors t cas e da

ywil l almos t certainl yno t be detrimenta l t o anyon e i n the cas e analyze d R sinc e i t wil l occu r a t nigh t during winte r or spring whe n the

Clas s I are a involved—Bryc e Canyon—i s close d t o visitors . Othe r commenter s (ND-G , ND-Health ) note d tha t n o advers e || ] healt hor welfar e effect s resul t fro m SC M particulat e ^ emission s becaus e thos e source s ar e alread yusin g BAC T unde r t stat e lav. ' for dust-suppression . On e commente r (WVMRA ) note d I tha t Wes t Virgini a control s respirabl e particle s fro m SCM s fo r

, on-sit e protectio n o f workers , whic h mean s tha t thes e i i-. . particle s shoul d have eve n les s o f an effec t off-site .

[For mor e on thi s point , se e Par t II.B.5.a. , below. ] Mor e generally , commenter s (AMC , WV , WVMRA ) stated , ther e I woul d be n o healt hor welfar e benefit s fro mPS D revie wo f SCM s becaus e tha t revie wapplie s onl yi n area s wher e ai r qualit yi s | | bette r tha n the NAAQ S particulat e matter , an d thu s th

e P M level s ar e b

ystatutorymandat e belo wthos e a t whic hther e ar e J H an

yknow n or anticipate d advers e healt hor welfar e effect s o f an ykind . Thi s i s true , AMC noted , no t onl yfo r the coarse , P non-respirabl e particle s mine s generate , bu t als o fo r the smal l

" fractio n o f PM^ Q £n dsmalle r particle s generate d b ymining . Finally , on e commente r (SF ) note d specificall ytha t ther e

. woul d be n o advers e visibilit yeffect s i n the Chac o Cultur e



### A- 9P.2 8

Nationa l Histori c Park becaus e tha t park wa s se t u p t o preserv e the activitie s o f earlie r man—no t a s a wildernes s preserve--s o tha t evidenc e o f moder n ma n (SCMs ) woul d no t b e visibl y repugnant .

b . Existenc e o f advers e effect s On the othe r hand , a consortiu mo f environmenta l group s (NWF ) commente d that , citing "Fina l Environmenta l Impac t Statemen t OS M EIS-1, " Offic e o f Surfac e Mining , U.S . Departmen t o f the Interio r (Januar y1979 ) man

yactive SCM operation s regularl yexcee d EPA' s 24-hour an d annua l averag e NAAQ S for particuates . Moreover , fro m2 7 t o 4 2 percen t o f the tota l emission s fro m a min e sit e ar e i n th e smal l siz e rang e tha t can lea

d t o respiratoryan d othe r healt hproblems . In addition , NWF stated , fugitiv e emission s fro mSCM s ca n substantiall yimpai r visibilit yi n Clas s I an d mandatoryClas s I I areas , whic hhave see n s o designate d b yCongres s t o preserv e unimpaire d thei r uniqu e natura l qualities . 2 . Definitio n o f "StationarySource " a . Classificatio n o f SCM s a s a "stationar ysource " Sinc e EP

Aha s acknowledge d tha t th e PS D progra

mapplie s t o stationarysource s onl y(4 3 Fed . Reg . 26395) , an d sinc e SCM s ar e no t stationarysources , theycanno t regardles s o f the RI A b e suojec t t o PS D restrictions , according t o severa l commenter s (NCA , Peabody , DOI , I L Mines) . NC Aexplaine d tha t althoughth e ter m"stationar

ysource " i s no t define d withi n the PS D provisions , i t ha d a t the time o f th e 1 9 7 7 amendment s a well-establishe d meaning foun d i n § 111(a)(3 ) o f the Act , a s recognize d b ythe Cour t i n Alabama .Powe r v . Costl e 63 6 F.2 d 323 , 39 5 (D.C . Cir . 1979) . The plai n languag e o f th

e statut e full yexpresse s Congress ' inten t t o

A-1 0P.2 9



# e

_ _

_ _ regulat e onl yemission s tha t have fixe d location s an d permanen t structures . The legislativ e historyo f th e Clean Ai r Ac t confirm s this . EPA' s firs t se t o f PS D rule s explicitl y recognize d tha t PS D revie wan d regulatio n wer e no t appropriat e fo r surfac e coa l mines , an d als o thereafte r recognize d tha t fugitiv e emission s fromSCM s shoul d no t be regulate d unde r PSD . Sinc e the Alabama Powe r decisio n doe s no t depar t fro m it s ow n clea r insistenc e (63 6 F.2 d a t 395 ) tha t a "source " mus t be a stationary"building, " "structure, " "facility, " or "installation, " i t i s clea r tha t listing b yrul e a SC

M a s a sourc e i s withou t authorit ybecaus e a min e fit s none o f thes e terms . Rather , commenter s (Peabody , I L Mines ) pointe d out , SCM s ar e unlik e stationarysource s o f ai r pollutio n becaus e coa l mining i s a dynami c operation . A s coa l i s generall yfoun d i n relativel ythi n seams , coa l mine s ar e starte d a t one locatio n and , a s the coa l a t tha t locatio n i s removed , th e operatio n mus t mov e t o recove r mor e coal . ASC M pi t ma

ymove severa l mile s i n the cours e o f norma l operations . A s th e pi t moves , the hau l road s use d t o transpor t the coa l fro mthe pi t t o processin g or transportatio n facilitie s mus t b e lengthened . Thus , th

e locatio n an

d configuratio n o f th e operatio n ar e continuall ychanging . SCM s ar e als o unlik e stationarysource s i n tha t th e primarysource s o f ai r pollutio n ar e the emission s o f fugitiv e dus t from

the primaryexcavatin g equipmen t such a s dragline s o r shovels , vehicl e traffi c on hau l road s o r acces s roads , blastin g o f consolidate d overburde n befor e excavation , an d th e operatio n o f reclamatio n equipmen t afte r mining . Man yo f thes e source s als o mov e withi n th e operatio n an

d al l o f them mov e a s the operatio n moves . I n addition , SCM s ar e onl y temporaryemissio n sources .

A-1 1_ 

# B One commente r (Peabody ) state d tha t befor e i t coul d lis t

SCM s unde r an

yo f the alternative s EPAmus t resolve whe n change s t o existin g mine s constitut e "modifications " fo r PS D purposes . Peabod

yrecommende d tha t EPAprovid e tha t an y activit ya t a min e tha t represent s a logica l mining sequenc e o f the mine' s productio n fro mthe time o f th

e mine' s initia l developmen t shoul d no t be considere d a "modification, " sinc e thi s woul d tak e int o accoun t the uniquenes s an d inevitabl e movemen t ove r time o f SCMs . Thus , onl ychange s a t existin g SCM s tha t increas e the mine' s maximu mplanne d annua l produc

tio n capacit yan

d resul t i n a significan t ne t increas e i n emission s shoul d be considere d a "modification; " a routin e chang e t o a

n SCM suc ha s adding mor e hau l road s shoul d n o mor e be a modificatio n t o the min e than woul d be a n increas e i n operating hour s a t a factory .

* . _L
O

n th e othe r hand , environmenta l group s (NWF ) state d tha t EP Ai s legall ycompelle d t o lis t al l SCM s a s se t fort hi n Alternativ e I I becaus e th e rulemaking requiremen t o f § 302( j ) wa s full ysatisfie d b yEPA' s determinatio n tha t th e fugitiv e emission s o f SCM s significantl ydegrad e ai r quality . Nothing i n 302(j ) authorize s EPA' s interpretatio n tha t i t mayexclud e a categoryo f source s fro mthe PS D lis t i f the agency conclude s tha t the allege d cos t o f controlling fugitiv e emission s outweightn e healt h an

d environmenta l benefit s o f suc hcontrol . 

# I 

# e b . Inclusio n o f secondaryemission s

Severa l commenter s (DSC , MRCA , NCA ) state d tha t eve n i f EPAlist s SCMs , i t mus t exclud e secondaryemission s (e.g. , fugitiv e dus t generate d b yhau l roa

d traffi c servic e th e SCM ) froman yPS D threshol d determination . Secondaryemission s ar e exclude d fro

ma source' s potentia l t o emi t unde r § 51.24(b)(4 ) .o f the PS D rules , an d sinc e dus t generate d b ytraffi c aroun

d

A-1 2P.3 1

th e sit e doe s no t constitut e a n emissio n o f the min e itself , i t i s an excludabl e secondaryemission .

c . Inclusio n o f adjacen t source s Severa l commenter s (Peabody , NCA , MRCA , AMC , NACC , Trapper , Western , I L Mines , SanAnt ) state d tha t EPAshoul d no t includ e fugitiv e emission s fro m an unregulate d SC

M adjacen t t o a coa l preparatio n plan t o r powe r plan t i n the threshol d determinatio n fo r the liste d cleaning plan t or powe r plant .

w . Commenter s reasoned , first , tha t EPA' s reques t fo r

additiona l commen t o n procedure s t o relieve SCM s fro m regulatio n becaus e theyma yshar e the sam

e two digi t SI C cod e a s a n adjacen t sourc e i s an imprope r shifting t o industryo f tne evidentiaryburden ; rather , i t i s EPA' s responsibilit yt o devis e consisten t regulations . I f th e existing applicatio n an d definitio n o f "stationarysource " woul d nullif ya n EP A decisio n t o no t regulat e SCMs , the ymus t be changed . An y decisio n t o subjec t SCM s t o PS D rule s mus t be base d on th e record o f a § 302(j ) proceeding , an d ma yno t legall ybe don e indirectl ythroughEPA' s sourc e definition . A n exemptio n fromthe adjacent , related , an d commonl y controlle d link s fo r an ysourc e categorywhic h ha s bee n suojecte d t o a § 302( j ) rulemaking-an d for whic h the agenc y decline d t o includ e fugitiv e emission s woul d be simpl e t o appl yan

d woul d no t impai r EPA' s abilit yt o regulat e othe r suc hsources . 

# I Commenter s als o pointe d ou t tha t applicatio n o f the

curren t sourc e definition s t o contiguou s SCM-liste d sourc e unit s woul d b e unfai r sinc e a min e whic h happen s t o have an adjacen t coa l cleanin g plan t ha s th e sam e kin d an d quantit yo f fugitiv e emission s frommining a s a simila r min e withou t a .coa l cleaning plant . Mining operation s shoul d no t be penalize d

A-1 3P.3 2



# D whe

nthe y see k

t o locat e nex t

t o processin g facilitie s sinc e ther e ar e als o eviden t energ y an denvironmenta l Benefit s t o suc hcode-location
. 3 . Grandfatherin g
Anumbe r o f commenter s (MRCA , Ben , NCA ) state d tha t i f EPAlist s SCMs , existin g mine s shoul d nevertheles s be exemp t fromretroactiv e consumptio n o f PS D incremen t an d al l PS D r n permitting requirements .

Thes e commenter s noted , first , tha t EP Aitsel f ha s yacknowledge d tha t Congres s di d no t inten d th e disruptio n associate d wit n retroactiv e PS D regulatio n t o occur , 4 9 Fed . I M2.

- ^321 2 (Octobe r 26 , 1984) . [ : Next , commenter s state d tha t EPA' s actua l propose d rule ,

however , narrow s the r.roa d exemptio n describe d i n th e preamble . I n state s such a s Wyomin g whic h se t a statewid e baselin e a s o f Augus t 7 , 1977 , thes e commenter s (MRCA , NCA ) stated , al l ne w or expande d SC

M operation s tha t commence d constructio n a s lon g
' * a s eigh t year s ag o woul d consume incremen t eve n thoughthei r

._ . emission s ha d bee n exempte d fro m incremen t consumptio n unde r L th

e tr.-n-applicaol e rules . J Suc hretroactiv e incremen t consumptio n coul d resul t i n

mine s havina t o cu t bac k t o infeasibl e level s o f productio n or yshutting dow n entirely , eve n though th e operation s wer e validl y permitte d an

d authorize d b

yth e state , an

d afte r th

e source s I f had investe d hundred s o f million s o f dollar s i n relianc e o n

thos e governmenta l authorizations . Unde r thes e circumstances , B revoking thos e authorization s coul d be a n unconstitutiona l taking , th

e commenter s stated , citing Pen n Centra l Transpor
tatio n Coro . v . NewYor k City , 43 8 U.S . 104,'124 , 12 7 (1978) . Suc h retroactiv e applicatio n woul d als o b e fundamentall y unfair . Where , a s here , ther e ha s Dee n substantia l relianc e

A-1 4P.3 3



# I

0 on prio r agenc ypolicy , EPAshoul d no t retroactivel yappl ya

change d polic yt o the detrimen t o f thos e wh o relie d i n good fait ho n the ol d rules. "
MRCAsuggested , i n addition , tha t th e definitio n o f "commence d construction " i n the grandfathering proposa l shoul d includ e ne wmine s an d planne d minin g extension s wher e commit

ment s have bee n mad e suc ha s alterin g min e plans , entering int o contract s fo r coal , o r conducting environmenta l baselin e studies .

• NC Aals o state d tha t i n fashioning a grandfathering provision , EP

Ashoul d no t requir e a surfac e min e t o obtai n al l require d permit s an d star t actua l construction ; rather , th e grandfatherin g threshol d fo r SCM s shoul d b e satisfie d b

yth e puttin g togethe r o f a logica l mining uni t or th e purchas e or

leas e o f a reserve area . Thes e actions , NC Astated , represen t the commitmen t o f substantia l financia l an d technica l resource s t o th

e project . Specifically , NC Apropose d tha t a min e sit e t o whic h significan t financia l commitment s ar e mad e befor e the dat e on whic hSCM s ar e liste d shoul d be exempte d fro mal l PS D constraints . Also , an ymajo r modification s a t a n operatin g min e afte r the listing dat e shoul d b e exempte d fro

m PS D constraint s s o lon g a s thos e modification s d o no t resul t i n increase s i n th e design productio n rat e o f th e mine . Finally , NC

Apropose d tha t EP Ashoul d delet e th e referenc e i n it s proposa l t o "actual " emission s o f SCM s sinc e suc ha restrictio n penalize s operation s tha t have no t ye t operate d a t ful l permitte d capacity . 4 . Procedura l Matter s I n comment s submitte d i n Apri l 1986 , Sunbel t requeste d EPAt o extend the commen t perio d fo r 3 0 days,* ' Trapper , Montco , an d CM Arequeste d EPAt o extend the commen t perio d 9 0 days .

A-1 5Commenter s als o state d tha t EPA' s propose d listing o f I SCM s i s premature , an d shoul d awai t revisio n o f th e particulat e matte r NAAQS , an

d the developmen t o f reliabl e surveillanc e I technique s an d referenc e method s (WR , Taft , MT , MCC , AMAX , DSC , MRCA) . In particular , the commenter s noted , revisio n o f r th

e primar yan

d secondaryTS P standard s i s necessaryt o asses s

• " accuratel yth e cost s an

d benefit s o f a propose d listing o f 

# 8 SCMs . A s i t stands , the commenter s stated , i n thi s proposa l

EPAi s assertin g tha t larg e particle s ar e a healt h an d welfar e concern , bu t i n the NAAQ S revisio n proces s EP Ai s assertin g H jus t the opposite . qFinally , severa l commenter s (ICA , MRCA ) state d tha t EPA' s

proposa l t o lis t SCM s unde r the PS D provision s violate s § fe 307(d)(3)' s requiremen t fo r a statemen t o f basi s an d purpos e becaus e EP

Aha s no t indicate d or define d th e type s o f p activitie s though t t o be a "majo r modification. " Sinc e unde r

the curren t definitio n a majo r modificatio n o f a particulat e

. matte r sourc e i s an yactivit ywit hth e potentia l t o emi t 2 5 tons/year , th

e simpl e additio n o f onl y3 7 fee t o f hau l road a t r ^ a 6 millio n ton/yea r min e o r a sligh t chang e in.stripping H i ratios , or mining equipmen t change s coul d effec t a "majo r

modification " a t an SCM . 

# I ] 3 . Tne RegulatoryImpac t Analysi s

1 . Overvie w
A s summarize d below , industrycommenter s generall yfel t tha t EPA' s RegulatoryImpac t Analysi s (RIA ) overestimate d the cost s o f listing SCM s an d overestimate d th e benefits . A s a result , theyconclude d generall ytha t Alternativ e I—no t listing SCMs—wa s the preferre d alternative . Industrycomment s wer e base d i n larg e par t o n length y analyse s don e b

yconsultant s TR C an d IC F a t th

e reques t o f industrytrad e association s (AMC , UARG , NCA , MRCA) . In

A-1 6P.3 5



# D addition , industr ycommenter s pointe d t o area - and company specifi c instance s wher e EPA' s RI Aunderestimate d th e potentia l cos t o f listin g SCMs . On th e othe r hand , environmenta l group s submitte d tha t EP Aoverestimate d th e cost s an d underestimate d th e benefit s o f a listin g decision . 2 . Underestimatio n o f Cost s a . Methodolg y NC Astate d tha t a s a genera l matte r EPA' s RI A underestimate s cost s becaus e it s analyse s o f th e alternative s presente d ar e inconsistent , examin e qualitativel ydifferen t D data , and evaluat e tha t dat a differently . Fo r Alternativ e

II,th e RI Apredicte d productio n rate s and resultin g cost s an d P benefit s a t "prototypical " mine s i n fiv e Dasins . Alternativ e

II I consider s th e effect s o f th e "n o grandfather " cas e onl yi n th e Powde r Rive r Basin . Bot hset s o f dat a ar e compute d fo r 1995 . Fo r Alternativ e IV , however , th e RI Apredicte d effect s r ; 

### fo r hypothetica l mine s locatin g nea r Bryc e Canyo n Nationa l Par k M (Clas s I ) and Chac o Cultur e Nationa l Histori c Par k (mandator y

Clas s II ) only . Comparison s o f result s amon g th e thre e | | alternative s i s virtuall yimpossible . Al l thre e analyse s con side r differen t mine s i n different

- basin s a t differen t times . ! Tn e RI Aeve n preclude s interna l compariso n o f Alternativ e I V

result s becaus e th e regulator yeffect s a t Bryc e ar e calculate d 0 fo r 1996 , and Chac o Cultur e fo r 1969 , NCAstated . 

# 1 b
. Relianc e o nEPR I min e costin g mode l NC Aals o commente dtha t EPA' s cos t

impact s analysi s i s inadecuat e becaus e th e RI Arelie do na noutdate dan dincomplet e min e costin g mode l develope db y th e Electric'Powe r Researc h Institut e (EPRI ) i n1981
. Thi s mode l wa s revise di n198 4 an d agai ni n198 6 t o correc t earlie r

flaw s tha t

cause darang e o f

A-1 7P.3 6

th e EPR I mode l overstate d worke r productivit yan d consequentl y understate d labo r costs) . Thir d part yuser s o f th e 198 1 mode l like EP Aar e likel yt o obtai n significan t rando merror s whe n theytr yt o adap t the model' s defaul t value s t o reflec t thei r uniqu e data . 

# I

r •

_ : c . Us e o f smal l mine s a s prototypica l mine s

NC Aals o state d tha t EPA' s analysi s understate d cost s becaus e the RI Abegin s wit hcost s o f productio n a t "prototypical " mine s tha t ar e significantl ysmaller , and , thus , potentiall yhighe r cos t producers , than actua l mine s tha t woul d De affecte d b yregulation . For example , NC A stated , EP

Adi d no t conside r min e cos t impact s a t an ymin e exceedin g 1 0 millio n TP Y production , althoughsevera l existin g mine s excee d 1 5 millio n TP Y production . Relianc e on thes e artificiall yundersize d mine s result s i n overstatemen t o f actua l initia l productio n cost s due . t o los t economie s o f scale . Thi s i n turn lead s t o the understatemen t o f th e impac t o f PS D regulatio n on productio n cost s b yartificiall y narrowing th

e gap betwee n regulate d an d unregulate d cost s o f production , NC

Astated .

c . , Meterologica l assumption s 

# I Commenter s (Peabody , NCA ) state d tha t EPAals o

understate d it s cos t estimate s b ymodeling th

e ai r qualit y impac t o f les s than worst-cas e meterologica l conditions . Citing a lette r fro mTR C t o Utah Internationa l (dated Ma y8 , 1986) , NC

Astate d tha t EPAuse d onl yC an d D stabilit yclasse s rathe r tha n E and/o r F conditions , an d als o faile d t o reflec t the low-wind spee d stabl e condition s generall yassociate d wit h peak impac t fo r ground-level , non-buoyan t sources . Thu s EPA artificiall yincrease d the siz e o f "regulated " mines , an d narrowe d the gap betwee n pre - an d post-regulatio n mine-siz eP.3 7



# I

I erroneously , thereb yunderstating the productio n cost s o f regulation . Peabod yunderscore d thi s point , stating tha t eve n th e Nationa l Weathe r Servic e i s unabl e t o reliabl ypredic t the weathe r o n a regiona l scale , le t alon e the micr o scale .

e . Emissio n factor s Peabody , MCC , an

d ND-Healt hstate d tha t cost s o f regulatio n wer e als o unreliabl e becaus e th e fiel d stud

y(PEDC o 1984 ) tha t EPArelie d o n t o deriv e the curren t particulat e emissio n factor s assume d a s man ya s 5 0 percen t o f the dat a points . I n orde r t o compensat e fo r thi s lack o f data , the stud yarbitraril yassume d a positiv e concentratio n toward the n o concentratio n dat a points . A s a result , Peabody , HCC , an d ND-Healt hstated , the emissio n factor s ar e inappropriate . I n addition , Peabod

yan d other s (WV , Rock , WVMRA ) state d generall ytha t EPA' s assume d factor s wer e fo r wester n SCM s only , an

d theyar e inappropriat e for us e wit hregar d t o midwester n an

d easter n SCMs . f . Industria l Sourc e Comple x mode l Peabod ystate d tha t the Industria l Sourc e Comple x (ISC ) mode l EPAuse d i n it s RI Aanalysi s make s numerou s simplifyin g assumption s tha t cause d the mode l result s t o b e questionabl e whe n applie d t o SCM emissions . For example , the mode l assume s nonreactiv e gaseou s pollutants , i.e. , n o loss , ar e emitte d int o a n homogenou s atmospher e fro man elevate d non-moving poin t source . I n fact , Peabod ypointe d out , non e o f thes e assumption s ar e correc t an d th e mode l ha s bee n adjuste d t o attemp t corrections . I n addition , the modelin g assumption s fo r the size s o f particulate s (whichaffec t th e settling velocities ) ar e ver yquestionable . DO I als o argue d tha t EPA' s IS C mode l coul d systematicall y overestimat e ambien t concentrations , i n particula r du e t o a

A-1 9P.3 8



# 1

c

$ failur e t o conside r pi t retentio n and , possibly , it s treatmen t

o f sourc e depletion . Thes e overestimate s o f ambien t concentrations-coul d rang e fro ma facto r o f two t o fou r (o r higher) , an

d i n man

ycase s coul d substantiall yoverestimat e benefit s suc ha s showing visua l rang e improvement s above the leve l o f perceptibilit ywhen , i n fact , suc h improvement s woul d be imperceptible . The RIA' s assertio n tha t i f dispersio n modeling overestimate s ambien t impact s the n i t overestimate s bot hcost s an

d benefit s i s true onl yi f EP Amodifie s the dispersio n mode l t o eliminat e systemati c error s befor e implementing th e SCM listing , DO I stated . Otherwise , SCM s wil l have t o bea r rea l "extra " costs , bu t none o f th e "extra " benefit s generate d woul d be real , DO I concluded . Man yothe r commenter s (MCC , Brazos , WR , Ben , DOE ) expresse d genera l skepticis mo f the model' s validity .

g . Affec t o n existing mine s Severa l commenter s (MRCA , Peabody , DOI , CSWS ) state d tha t EPA' s RI Aerroneousl yassume s tha t n o existing mine s woul d b e affecte d b

ylisting SCMs . In fact , the commenter s noted , Peaood ypresentl yoperate s it s Bi g Sk

ymin e i n Montan a wit h a permitte d productio n rat e o f ove r 4 millio n tons/year . I n addition , Peabod yplan s t o develop th

e Nort hAshland reserv e are a wnic h contain s abou t 40 0 t o 50 0 millio n ton s o f coa l an d i s adjacen t t o th e Cheyenn e Indian reservation . Give n EPA' s assumptio n tha t existin g mine s woul d mov e an

d newmine s coul d no t operat e withi n th e impac t are a o f a Clas s I or I I area , Peaabody' s an d severa l othe r mine s woul d be force d t o ceas e operation s an d no t develo p othe r coa l reserves . EPA , however , ha s faile d t o accoun t for the cost s o f thes e closure s i n term s o f los t jobs , ta x revenue s an d royaltie s t o the counties , stat e an d federa l government .

A-2 0I !



## 1 R 

# 0 |

:_ » 

# 1

(_c i

If . : 1 

# 1 1 

## i [ 1 

# Q 

# 1 1

P

i i ! • Othe r site-specifi c impact s ar e se t ou t i n par t II.B.4. ,

below .

SF , tha t h . SC M movemen t outsid e o f impac t are a
Man ycommenter s (Peabody , NCA , MRCA , ICA , MCC , DOE , CSWS , AMAX , ND-Health , UARG ) state d tha t EP Aerroneousl yassume d mine s proposin g t o operat e withi n th e ambien t impac t rang e o f Clas s I an d I I area s woul d mov e t o avoi d becomin g sub j hav e ec t t o PS D rules . Bu t thi s assumptio n implie s tha t SCM s th e flexibilit yt o simpl ymov e ou t o f sigh t and recommenc e minin g coal , whic hthe yd o not . Coa l i s no t foun d everywhere , an d whe n i t i s foun d i t ma yno t b e o f acceptabl e sul f dep t Thu s cho o

RIA ' can fac t an y aga i pol l EPA ' tne

hav e reg u u r content , Bt u content , etc. , an d ma ywel l b e a t suc h h s a s t o mak e i t uncoverabl e b ysurfac e minin g methods .

, SCM s d o no t hav e th e flexibilit yt o locat e wher e the y. se , a s woul d th e classi c "stationar ysource. " i . Redesignatio n fro mClas s I I t o Clas s II I
Severa l commenter s (AMAX , CSWS , UARG ) state d tha t th e s sensitivit yanalysi s erroneousl yassume d tha t al l state s redesignat e thei r Clas s I I area s t o Clas s II I areas . I n

, thes e commenter s noted , n o stat e ha s ye t redesignate d are a t o Clas s III ; and , becaus e politica l factor s militat e ns t regulator ychange s tha t appea r t o encourag e increase d utan t levels , n o designation s ar e likel yt o occur . Thus , s assumptio n create s a n overly-optimisti c predictio n o f potentia l cost s o f it s proposal . j . Stat e an d loca l regulator yburde n
Severa l commenter s (SF , NM , ND-G ) state d tha t EP Ashoul d include d th e cos t t o th e taxpaye r o f th e increase d lator yburde n fo r stat e an d loca l authorities , whic hwoul d b e substantial .

A-2 1 P.3 9P.4 0
k . Examinatio n o f high-cos t year s
UAR G complaine d tha t EPA' s RI Agenerall ylook s a t the impac t it s proposa l woul d have i n 199 5 an d beyond . Bu t i n fac t i f EPA' s proposa l became effectiv e soo n i t woul d caus e immediate , sever e disruption s fo r th e coa l companie s an d customer s dependen t o n th e surface-mine d coa l supplie s covere d b yth e ne wrule . Thes e peopl e coul d eventuall y(b y19 9 5 ) b e abl e t o fin

d alternativ e source s o f fue l a t a cost , bu t the y migh t no t s o easil ybe abl e t o locat e alternat e fue l source s i n th e interim . Thu s the potentia l annua l impac t o f th e rul e ove r th e year s befor e 199 5 coul d wel l be highe r than th e rule' s impac t i n 199 5 an d beyond . 1 . Nationa l securit y Severa l commenter s (DOE , AMC ) state d tha t the RI Afaile d t o evaluat e th

e impac t o f the proposa l o n nationa l security . Japan , AMC pointe d out , i s a majo r purchase r an d potentia l purchase r o f expor t coal . It s inabilit yt o purchas e coa l wil l no t onl yworse n trad e deficits , bu t woul d requir e Japan t o look elsewher e fo r basi c energ ysupplies . 

# D I Taxe s

AM C an d MRCAstate d EPAfaile d t o evaluat e severa l significan t categorie s o f potentia l los t revenues , including income taxe s (cause d b ylos t job s i n the SCM secto r whic hwil l reduc e local , stat e an d federa l ta

x revenues) , severanc e taxes , federa l productio n royalties , an d reduce d contribution s t o th e Abandone d Min e Reclamatio n Fund .

n . Re-sitin g affecte d mine s MRCAstate d tha t EP Afaile d t o conside r the cost s associate d wit hre-siting affecte d mine s an d mining communitie s

A-2 2P.4 1



# n

y



# i an

d th e cost s o f los t capital . For example , MRCAstated , hundred s o f million s o f dollar s wort ho f equipmen t whic h wa s purchase d on the basi s o f presentl yacceptaDl e min e size s may n o longe r b e appropriat e fo r the restricte d min e sizes . A t a minimum , sinc e the RI Arecognize s tha t a s muc h a s 13. 5 millio n ton s o f surfac e coa l productio n ma ybe displace d b

yunderground mining , i t shoul d equall yrealiz e tha t the displace d equipmen t i s no t interchangeable . Further , sinc e us e o f thi s equipmen t require s larg e mines , mine s th e size s whic hma

ybe mad e illegal , n o secondarymarke t woul d exis t for thi s machinery an d othe r larg e pieces . Whe n one consider s for exampl e tha t dragline s o f thi s siz e cos t nearl y$4 0 million , i t i s no t difficul t t o envisio n howfinancia l impact s o f los t capita l expenditure s ad

d u p rapidly , MRC

Aconcluded .

o . Eac h basi n a s a n independen t coa l marke t
Anumbe r o f commenter s (NACC , NCA ) state d tha t th e RI A underestimate d th

e impac t o f a productio n cos t increas e o n a region' s deman

d an d suppl ycurve s becaus e i t assume s tha t coa l fro mothe r basin s wil l no t compet e withi n a give n basin . Commenter s state d thi s assumptio n wa s erroneou s becaus e fo r exampl e For t Unio n Coa l compete s wit hPowde r Rive r Coa l i n the Nortnern Grea t Plains ; the San Juan basi n face s competitio n fro mtne Rato n basi n i n NewMexico" ; coa l field s i n Arizona , Utah , an

d Colorado , an

d cogenerate d electricity . The increase d cost s o f coa l productio n unde r PS D rule s woul d clearl yimpac t a basin' s competitiveness , a s wel l a s fue l cost s an

d employmen t i n tha t regio n an d thes e cost s shoul d be addresse d i n the RIA , the commenter s stated .

p . Coa l suppl yelasticit y Severa l commenter s (NCA ) als o state d tha t th e studie s EPA "use d t o generat e nationa l marke t suppl yan d deman d elasticit y factor s ar e no t reliable . The 197 8 U.S . Departmen t o f Energ y

A-2 3P.4 2

documentatio n tha t EPArelie d o n ha s bee n show n t o b e flawed

especiall ywit hregar d t o the us e o f th e so-calle d "demonstrate d reserv e base"—an d substantia l work ha s bee n don e b yfederal , state , an d privat e organization s t o improv e the knowledg e o f regiona l coa l supply . I n addition , th e structur e an

d cos t o f the coa l industryhave change d drasticall ysinc e 1978 . EPAimplicitl yassume d a constan t nationa l coa l suppl yelasticit yacros s al l productio n range s when , i n fact , th e shap e o f coa l suppl ycurve s ar e ver y irregular . q . Industrystudie s

(1 ) TR C Environmenta l Consultants , Inc . 

# 1

I S Severa l industrytrad e association s (NCA , AMC , MRCA , UARG )

contracte d wit hTRC , a consultin g group , to.examin e the ai r qualit yimpact s o f a hypothetica l min e i n eac ho f si x coa l producing regions : "Modele d Ai r Qualit yImpact s o f Fou r Hypothetica l SCMs , TR^ , Ma y1985 ; "Modele d Ai r Qualit yImpact s o f Hypothetica l Nort hDakot a Lignit e Mine , TRC , Jun e 1985 ; an d "Modele d Ai r Qualit yImpact s o f Texa s Lignit e Mine, " TRC , Jul y 1985 .

F l 

# I TR C develope d specificatio n for thes e mine s base d on

previou s studie s p yPEDC o ("Assessmen t o f Impact s on th e Surfac e Coa l Min e IndustryResulting fro mPossibl e Change s t o PS D an d Ambien t Ai r Qualit yStandards , for U.S . DOE , 1984 ) an d anothe r stud

ypyTR C "Quantificatio n o f Uncertaintie s i n EPA' s fugitiv e Emission s an d Modeling Methodolog ya t Surfac e Coa l Mines , TRC , February1985 . TR C the n establishe d activit yparameter s fo r eac h o f the hypothetica l mine s an d calculate d thei r emission s using AP-4 2 emissio n factor s an d assumin g 5 0 percen t efficien t chemica l dus t suppressan t contro l o f hau l an d acces s roads , a s wel l a s

A-2 4

# I

F H 99. 5 percen t efficien t baghous e contro l on emission s fro mcoa l crushing , screening , conveying , an d sil o storag e facilities . TR C the n calculate d emissio n rate s a t eac h min e fo r TSP , PM^Q / an

d PMg . I t the n conducte d shor t ter mmodeling analyse s fo r eac hhypothetica l mine , incorporating a hypothetica l 24-hou r meterologica l 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 site . Tabl e 1 demonstrate s tha t modele d TS P concentrations , accordin g t o TR C an d thes e commenters , a t al l si x site s exceede d th

e allowabl e 24-hou r PS D incremen t b yan orde r o f magnitud e o r more .

Tabl e 1 . Modele d Ai r Qualit yImpact s o f Hypothetica l Surfac e Coa l Mine s

REGIO N Appalachi a Illinoi s Powde r Rive r Se nJua n N
. Dakot a Texa s PRODUCTIO N

MILLIONTPY 0. 5 3. 0 15. 0 10. 0 5. 2 5. 4 2

4 HR
. PS D CLAS S I I INCREMENT UG/MG 3 3 7 3 7 3 7 3 7 3 7 3 7 NCA/AM C

MA X MODELED 2 4 H RTS P CON C LG/M 3 34 7 59 2 34 3 62 9 160 54 7 EP

AMA X MODELE D 24 H RTS P CON C UG/ M 3 27(0.5) * 35(1.5 ) E0(10.0 ) 46(2.5 ) 54(3.0 ) • •

* EP Amodele dmin e siz e

•• ATexas lignite min

e wa s no t modele db y EP A TR C the nteste dth e validit y o f EPA' s production / pollutio nalgorith mwhic hi s base do nalinea r relatio n betwee nth e siz e o f amin e an demissions
. TR C reduce dth e predicte demissio nrate s fo r eac hunreglulate dminin g activit y b y th e rati o o f

th e 24-hou r

Clas s I IPS

D incremen t

t o eac h mine' s pea k

modele dimpac t

an dthe nrecompute dth e TS Pimpact s

A-2 5P.4 4

base do nth e linearl y reduce demissio nrates . A s displaye di n Tabl e 2 , th e result s o f thes e computation s sho w tha t wit hth e exceptio no f

th e Appalachia nMountai nTo p mine , th e maximu

m predicte d24-hou r

TS Pconcentration s stil l excee dth e 24-hou r permitte demissio nrate . I nothe r word s th e linea r

relatio n o nwhic hEP

Arelie di s incorrect
.

_ j Tabl e 2 . Surfac e Coa l Mine Siz e

Abl e t o Achiev e Complianc e wit hth e PS D Increment s

REGIO N Appalachi a Illinoi s Powde rRive r SanJuan N . Dckot a Texa s MODELE D MIN E SIZ E MILLIO N TP Y 0. 5 3. 0 15. 0 10. 0 5. 2 5. 4 LINEAR

REDUCED MIN E SIZ E MILLIO N TP Y 0.0 5 0. 2 1. 6 0. 6 1. 2 0. 4 REDUCE D MIN E MA X MODELE D 2 4 H RTS PCONC UG/M3 3 5 11 3 62 152 4 3 16 1 NCA/AM C

CLAS S n PSD MIN E SIZ E MILLIO N TP Y 0.0 5 0.0 3 0. 8 0.0 4 1. 0 0.01 4 EP

A CLAS S H PS D MIN

E SIZE MILLION TPY 0. 5 1. 6 4. 6 1. 7 1. 7 •

• ATex_ s lignit e min e wa s no t modeledb

y EPA
.



# 0 Next , TRC calculate d th e annua l productio n rate s a t whic h the hypothetica l mine s woul d satisf yth e Clas s I I 24-hou r PS D increment . TR C conclude d tha t annua l productio n rate s a t mine s subjec t t o PS D incremen t constraint s woul d be muc hles s than estimate d b

yth e RIA . I n Appalachia , fo r example , th e TR C mine-siz e estimat e wa s 1/1 0 the siz e o f EPA' s hypothetica l regulate d mine ; i n th e Sa n Jua n basin , TRC' s min e wa s 1/4 2 th e siz e o f the EPAestimate .

(2 ) IC F Inc . Industryassociation s (NCA , AMC ) nex t retaine d IC F Inc . • (Memorandum , "Coa l Reserv e Bas e Impact s o f Listing Surfac e Coa l

A-2 6P.4 5 ^ 1 Mine fo r Ne

wSourc e Revie wUnde r Alternativ e IV, " fro mKlei n t o NCA/AMC , Apri l 10 , 1986) .


# 0

P 5 Using th e min e size s develope d b yTRC , IC F applie d a productio n cos t mode l t o the specification s fo r th e reduce d siz e mines . Mining companie s provide d actua l figure s fo r equipment , labor , power , suppl yan d othe r cost s fo r bot hth e bas e cas e hypothetica l mine s develope d b yTRC an

d th e reduce d siz e mine s whic hTR C calculate d woul d be necessaryt o satisf y th e PS D increments . Thes e incrementa l costs , displaye d i n Tabl e 3 , ar e accordin g t o thes e industrycommenter s the bes t approximatio n o f the engineerin g cost s o f regulatio n available , an

d ar e fa r superio r t o the RIA' s estimate s whic h d o no t rel yo n actua l engineerin g cost s data .

Tabl e 3 . Effec t o f PS D Revie w o f NewSurfac e Coa l Mine s (198 5 $/Ton ) EP A 

# 1 I

r l 

### m

_ _ 1

_ . REGION

Appalachi a Illinoi s Powde r Rive r Sa nJua n N
. Dakot a Texa s BAS E

SIZ E MIN E MILLION TPY 0. 5 3. 0 15. 0 10. 0 5. 2 5. 4 BAS EMIN E COS T S/TO N 30.2 4 29.7 8 7.9 2 21.1 3 15.6 6 13.5 6 NCA/AM C

PS D MIN E SIZE MILLION TP Y 0.0 5 0.0 3 0.8 0 0.0 4 1.00 0.01 4 NCA/AM C

PS D MIN E COS T S/TO N 36.4 6 106.2 1 26.8 0 69.9 8 20.5 1 47.2 6 MINIMU

M MIN ESIZ E ESTIMATE

D MILLIO N TP Y 0.2 5 0.7 5 5.0 0 1.25 1.5 0 * EP APS D

MINECOS T 198 3 5/TO N 40.6 0 51.4 0 7.5 0 25.2 0 14.2 0 • 

# 1 • Min e cost s fo r aTexa s lignite min

e wer e no t estimate db

y EP A ICF' s analysi s fo r NC Aan d AM C als o estimate d th e economi c impact s o f regulation s using coa l suppl ycurve s whic h reflecte d differen t coa l reserve s having differen t suppl y function s base d o n thei r varyin g cost s o f extraction . Afte r developing the applicabl e suppl ycurves , IC F the n used it s coa l an d electri c utilitie s mode l t o analyz e the economi c impac t o f th

e proposals .

A-2 7P.4 6



# I

11 3

i __> J



# Q IC F predicte d tha t

• substantia l absolut e dolla r increase s i n th e cost s o f mining i n the San Juan an d Illinoi s basin s an d i n Texa s woul d occur ;

• whe n existing mine s ar e grandfathered , supply/cos t impact s ar e greates t i n region s lik e centra l Appalaci a an d the Gul f becaus e deman

d exceed s existin g capacity , requiring th e developmen t o f newregulate d reserves , an d becaus e surfac e reserve s constitut e a substantia l portio n o f ne wproductio n ther e ;

• i n th e no-grandfathe r case , the impact s ar e mos t sever e i n thos e area s wher e surfac e mine s ar e a substantia l par t o f existing capacity , suc h a s the Powde r River

- basi n i n Texas , wher e existin g lignit e capacit yi s predicte d t o decreas e t o les s tha n 200,00 0 tons/year ; ©shift s i n regiona l coa l productio n woul d occur , wit h productio n decreasing i n region s lik e the Texa s Gul f an d Norther n Grea t Plain s an d shifting t o th

e Midwes t an

d the Rockies ;

• i n 1995 , consume r cost s wil l increas e $1. 3 billio n unde r Alternativ e II , an

d $8. 2 billio n i n th e no-grandfathe r (Alternative III ) case , wit h the presen t valu e o f consume r cos t fo r Alternativ e I I being $1 4 billio n for th e 10-yea r perio d 1995-200 5 an d $4 5 billio n fo r th e no-grandfathe r (Alternativ e III ) cas e ove r thi s same period . Finally , i n a poin t note d b yman ycommenter s (NCA , AMC , AMAX , WR , Peabody , SF , NEIC , DOI , ICA ) IC F conclude d tha t EPA' s assertio n tha t les s than on e percen t (1.4 1 billio n tons ) o f al l U.S . surfac e minabl e reserve s woul d b e affecte d b

ythe propose d rul e wa s erroneous . Th e IC F analysi s for NC Aan d AM C

A-2 8P.4 7

conclude d tha t a t leas t 2 3 coa l field s i n 1 2 states , wit h reserve s exceedin g 8. 6 billio n tons , coul d b e affecte d b

yEPA' s proposal , wit habou t 4. 5 billio n ton s o f thi s amoun t bein g foun d i n Southeaster n Montan a alone . Tabl e 4 , below , set s ou t the figures .



# G Tabl e 4 . Surfac e Mineabl e Reserve s Impacte d b yAlternativ e I V

(million tons )

PS D CLAS S CATEGOR Y
Clas s I Mandator y Clas s n Tota l EP A ESTIMATE

D RESERVES IMPACTING CLAS S I/I

I AREA S 15 8 125 2 NCA/AM C

ESTIMATE

D RESERVES IMPACTIN

G CLAS S 1/ H AREA S 697 0 167 2 EP

A PERCEN T RESERVE

S AFFECTED * 0. 1 0. 8 NCA/AM C

PERCEN T RESERVE S AFFECTED * 4. 4 1. 1 141 0 8642 0. 9 5. 5 * EP AEstimate dTotal U

S Reserve s at

157,39 3 millio ntons .

(DO I estimate d the impac t o f optio n I V on existing an

d r potentia l SCMs , wit h th e resul t tha t Alternativ e IV applie d a t curren t Clas s I an d manadatoryClas s I I area s woul d affec t 4 2 percen t o f coa l reserve s a t potentia l SCM s i n th e Powde r River , Uinta , Denver , Raton , San Juan , Gree n River , an d Ham s Fork s areas . Inclusio n o f wildernes s stud yarea s withi n th

e scop e o f Alternativ e IV

woul d rais e thi s figur e t o 7 3 percent. )
NC Aan d Peabod

yals o stated , however , tha t eve n th e IC F analysi s doe s no t reflec t the actua l magnitud e an d effec t o f a listing decisio n becaus e i t assume s tha t reduce d siz e mine s satisfyin g the PS D increment s woul d open , whic hmayno t b e likely , particularl ywit hregar d t o Texa s lignit e mines . I n addition , the IC F stud ydoe s no t addres s th e economi c cost s o f losing the valu e o f existin g leases , no r doe s i t analyz e the

A-2 9P.4 8



# I

fl

[. 

# 1 possibl e effect s o f increase d domesti c coa l price s o n the balanc e o f trad e o r the cost s associate d wit h permitting of . majo r modification s a t existin g mines , NC Aan d Peabod

y ! concluded , (3 ) Hagler , Bailly , & Compan y
I n a stud

ydon e fo r DOI , Hagler , Bailly , & Compan yan d it s contractor , Marsto n & Marston , Inc. , conclude d tha t EPA seriousl yunderestimate d the incrementa l effec t o n cos t pe r to n o f downsizing from1 5 millio n ton s t o 4. 6 millio n ton s annua l production . Analyzing an undevelope d trac t i n the Wyoda k sea

mi n the Powde r Rive r basi n o f Wyoming , an d a n undevelope d trac t i n the Diet z sea m i n the Powde r Rive r basi n o f Montana , Hagler , Baill yestimate d the cos t pe r ton a t 5 , 10 , an d 1 5 millio n to n min e size s i n 198 3 dollar s a t $12.28 , $9.73 / an

d $9.2 5 pe r to n i n Wyoming an d $13.62 , $11.45 , an d $10.6 4 i n Montana , i n 198 5 dollars . PEI' s estimate s wer e $7.50 , $7.40 , an

d $6.70 . Hagler , Baill yals o conclude d tha t EPA' s $4 2 millio n estimat e o f th

e annua l cos t impac t o f min e siz e restriction s i n th e Powde r Rive r basi n i n 199 5 wit h grandfathering o f PS D requirement s wa s muc hto o low . Hagler , Baill ypu t th e annua l cos t impac t i n th

e neighborhoo d o f $15 0 millio n i n 198 5 dollars . 3 . Overestimatio n o f Cost s Environmenta l group s (Sierra , NWF) , o n the othe r hand , claime d tha t the RI A(an d the industrytrad e associatio n consultants ) overestimate d the cost s o f listing SCMs . Thes e commenter s noted , first , tha t the*RI Afail s t o "conside r an

ycontro l alternative s othe r than thos e applie d i n mining operation s i n the Powde r Rive r basin , bu t whe n suc h

A-3 0P.4 9



### alternative s ar e considere d i t i s clea r tha t dus t emission s j ca n b e drasticall yreduced . A s a result , fa r large r and mor e

numerou s mine s ca n fi t "withi n th e Clas s I an d I I increment s I tha n th e RI Acurrentl ypredicts . H Fo r example , thes e commenter s stated , th e TR C analysi s

assert s tha t th e majo r emissio n sourc e a t SCM s i s hau l roads , R an d tha t thes e emissio n source s canno t b e controlle d beyon d

th e 5 0 percen t reductio n achieve d b yapplicatio n o f chemica l H dus t suppressants . I n fact , however , othe r control s suc ha s TM*pavin g wil l reduc e emission s more , a s ha s bee n adequatel y p documente d b yth e U.S . Offic e o f Surfac e Minin g an d th e 197 6 t i PEDC o report . I n addition , restrictiv e measure s fo r

~ , controlling fugitiv e dus t o n hau l road s includ e regulatin g th e H spee d o f vehicles , an d limitin g th e us e o f th e road s t o thos e

vehicle s necessar yt o perfor mdutie s fo r th e min e operation ; I n addition , area s adjoinin g road s coul d b e stabilize d i n orde r t o reduc e surfac e win d speed s acros s roa d surfaces , therebyreducin g fugitiv e emissions . Further , ope n top s o f th e hau l truck s coul d b e covered . I n addition , us e o f conveyo r system s i n lie u o f hau l trucks , a s foun d b ytn e U.S . Offic e o f Surfac e Mining , ca n greatl yreduc e majo r source s o f H j fugitiv e dus t emission s a t th e mine . Othe r strategie s includ e

revecetation , strategi c locatio n o f coa l wast e an d spoi l piles , p an d reductio n i n th e tim e betwee n disturbanc e o f th e soi l an d

revecetation . Thes e environmenta l commenter s state d tha t th e avail

abilit yo f a wid e variet yo f dus t contro l measure s fo r reducin g emission s fro mhau l road s undercut s th e ver yhear t o f th e RIA' s an d th e industry' s analyse s an d conclusions . Becaus e the yfai l t o conside r thes e techniques , th e RI Aan d industr y rel yinstea d o n th e fundamenta l premis e tha t a reductio n i n pi t siz e an d therefor e a reductio n i n productio n ar e necessar y t o mee t emissio n standards . This , th e environmenta l group s argue , i s erroneou s fo r th e followin g reasons :

A-3 1 

# U

L lP.5 0

^



### f .



# Q 

# I • minimizin g the tim e betwee n initia l disturbanc e an d reclamatio n wil l i n som e case s reduc e fugitive dus t a s effectivel ya s restricting th e siz e o f the mining operation ;

« i n man

ycase s the pi t siz e ca n be reduce d withou t affecting productio n seriously ;

o variou s technique s can be use d i n the pi t t o reduc e fugitiv e dus t emission s withou t reducing pi t size ;

o dus t emission s from hau l road s wil l not—a s EP Aan d industryassume—remai n constan t a s productio n decrease s becaus e vehicula r traffic , mainl yi n the for mo f hau l trucks , wil l decreas e accordingly ;

• th e RI Amode l use s a s it s basi s the large r mine s i n eac h basi n i n orde r t o predic t th e larges t possibl e cost s when , i n fact , smalle r mine s ar e i n dail yoperatio n toda yan d ar e turning a profit ;

• EP Aerroneousl yassume s tha t an yswitc h t o smalle r mine s s wil l automaticall ytranslat e int o highe r cost s fo r th e energy consumer s when , i n fact , deman d fo r electricit yan d reduction s i n the cos t o f oi l an d ga s reduc e the probabilit ytha t man y ne wmine s wil l be opening soo n (but th e RI Aassume s tha t new mine s wil l continu e t o ope n a t thei r histori c pace) ;

• listing stri p mine s wil l no t a s th e RI Aassume s automaticall ylead t o curtaile d productio n becaus e th e necessit yo f obtainin g a federa l permi t doe s no t automaticall y lead t o the conclusio n tha t an yparticula r ne wmin e wil l b e subjecte d t o additiona l substantiv e requirement s whic hwoul d requir e a lowe r productio n rat e sinc e eac h min e operato r ha s the opportunit yt o sho wtha t tne increment s wil l no t b e violate d a t the min e ooundary .

A-3 2P.5 1



# n

I i 

# I Sierr a als o note d tha t th e majo r back-u

p stud yfor EPA' s RIA , "Stud

yo f Potentia l Effec t o f Regulating Stri p Mine s Unde r NewSourc e Review, " PEI , di d no t estimat e th e cos t o f paving hau l roads . Bu t figure s ar e supplie d fo r the cos t o f paving acces s road s ($25,160/mile ) an d o f watering hau l road s ($36,000/mile ) and , therefore , assuming a 10-mil e hau l road a cos t o f $281,600/yea r fo r paving hau l road s can be calculated . Sinc e hau l road pavin g woul d permi t al l curren t mine s t o operat e withi n th e Clas s I I increment , ther e woul d b e n o mandatorydown-sizin g o f surfac e mines , Sierr a noted . 4 . Area-Specifi c Cost s a . Appalachi a
I n a stud

yprepare d fo r MRCA , "Modele d Ai r Qualit y Impact s o f Appalachia n Surfac e Coa l Mines, " TRC , Ma y1985 , a modeling investigatio n demonstrate d tha t newAppalachia n SCMs , i f operate d a t an

yleve l o f activit yapproaching tha t o f the hypothetica l min e assume d (0. 5 millio n TPY) , coul d no t be permitte d i f subjecte d t o ful l PS D review . Th e hypothetica l min e assume d wa s show n t o excee d th

e 24-hour PS D Clas s I I incremen t b

yalmos t ahorde r o f magnitude . A s a result , drasti c reduction s i n annua l productio n rat e (fro m500,00 0 t o 50,00 0 TPY ) woul d be needed . I f PM^ Q wer e use d a s an indicato r o f PS D increments , the TR C repor t stated , complianc e wit hPS D increment s woul d stil l remai n a problem ; the hypothetica l min e woul d stil l excee d the 24-hour Clas s I I incremen t nea r the min e boundaryan d coul d achiev e complianc e onl yb yreducing productio n t o 0.3 4 millio n TPY . I n reaching it s conclusions , th e TR C repor t assume d tha t non e o f the availabl e PS D incremen t i n th e vicinit yo f th

e hypothetica l min e na d oee n consumed .

A-3 3P.5 2

m b . AMA X mines , Wyomin g
AMA X commente d tha t a stud yconducte d b

yTR C fo r Wester n Energ yindicate s tha t larg e mine s withi n 11 0 mile s o f Norther n Cheyenn e an

d Win d Cav e woul d be affecte d unde r Alternativ e IV . AMAX' s Bell e Ay

r an d Eagl e Butt e mines , whic hproduce d abou t 2 5 millio n ton s i n 1985 , woul d be affecte d sinc e AMA X coul d no t operat e economicall ya t th e level s projecte d t o be necessaryt o compl ywit hthe Clas s I or Clas s I I increments .

c . Peabod

ymines , Wyoming Peabod ystate d tha t the effec t o f Alternativ e II I on it s Wyoming mine s woul d be disastrous . EPA' s RIA , Peabod y explained , estimate s tha t th e larges t min e tha t coul d be operate d a t th

e locatio n o f it s existing mine s woul d b e abou t 3 millio n TPY . Asimila r analysi s performe d b yTR C for NC

A an d AMC showe d the larges t min e woul d b e onl y800,00 0 TPY . I n i Wyoming , tni s woul d mea n tha t the adjacen t Nort hAntelop e an d Rochell e mine s woul d hav e t o reduc e thei r permitte d productio n j . fro

m1 6 millio n TP Y t o something les s than 800,PO O TPY . Give n tha t th e equipmen t i s alread yi n place , operating cost s pe r H ton o f coa l woul d have t o ris e s o dramaticall ytha t th e mine s coul d no t b

e economicall yviable . Th e mine s woul d b

e closed , wit n th e consequentia l los s o f revenu e t o Peabody , los s o f job s t o employees , an d los s o f ta

x an d royaltyrevenue s t o the county , state , an

d federa l government . Peabody' s Bi g Sk ymin e woul d have t o clos e unde r an yo f Alternative s II , III , or IV sinc e i t i s i n clos e proximit yt o th e Clas s I Norther n Cheyenn e Indian Reservation .

d . Wyomin g mine s generall y AMC , citing previou s testimon yfro mthe'stat e o f Wyoming , state d tha t the actua l impac t o f the no-grandfathe r cas e i n 

## • G

A-3 4P.5 3



# 1 Wyoming alon e woul d be t o clos e 1 3 mines . Whil e th e RI A predict s a rang e o f negativ e ne t benefit s o f 12. 4 millio n t o 5. 7 millio n fo r it s no-grandfathe r case , i t i s eviden t tha t i n Wyoming alon e the closing o f 1 3 majo r SCM s woul d have impact s i n th e multi-billio n dolla r rang e an d woul d foreclos e the developmen t o f on e o f the country' s majo r coa l resources .

e . Texa s lignit e mining Numerou s commenter s (UARG , NRC , NACC , TX , Alcoa ) state d tha t listing SCM s woul d have a particularl ydrasti c advers e effec t o n lignit e minin g i n Texas . 

# fl 0

E UAR

Gnote dtha t

Texa s lignit e i s use dprimaril y i n mine-mout hpower

plant s t o generat e electricity ; i nTexa s abou t 2 5 percen t

o f th e electricit y need s ar e me t throug hth e us e of lignite
. Th

e IC Fstud y conclude dtha t becaus e o f

min e siz e limitation s whic hwoul db e necessar y t o mee t incremen t constraints , th e cos t o f minin g an dtransportin g lignit e woul d increas e fro m$13.56/to nt o $47.26/ton— amor e tha n30 0 percen t increase
. Moreover , switchin g fro mlignit e t o othe r type s o f coa l i s no t

a neconomicall y attractiv e alternativ e fo r lignite

- dependen t

utilitie s and , UAR Gstated , i t

ma y b e impossiol e t o bur nanalternativ e fuel
. A s aresult , th e RIA' s failur e t o conside r thi s potentia l advers e effec t onTexa s lignit e minin g an delectri c power

companies'there , i t seriousl y underestimate s th e cost s o f

th e proposal
. NR C note di nparticula r tha t it s Jewet t

min e i nTexa s wil l b e require dt o reduc e capacit y fro m7,400,00 0 tons/yea r t o 14,00 0 tons/yea r

Texa s lignite— a52,85 7 percen t reduction
. Withthi s typ e o f

reduction , NR

C woul dno t

b e abl e t o mee t curren t contrac t

requirements , muc

hequipmen t

suc ha s larg e electri c dra g line s woul dbecome economicall y unjustified , an d th e wor k forc e wouldhav e t o b e reduce dfro m25 0 t o possibl y 2

A-3 5P.5 4



# D

u _


# I t o 3 persons . I n short , a listing decisio n woul d caus e min e

closur e resulting i n a direc t financia l reductio n i n exces s o f $10 0 millio n t o the loca l econom yb yNRC . Tne governo r o f Texa s (TX ) estimate d tha t listing SCM s coul d cos t Texa s consumer s a s muc ha s $2. 4 billio n a yea r i n increase d electrica l costs . Th e governo r note d tha t currentl y 2 0 percen t o f Texas ' electricit yi s generate d usin g Texa s coal , whic h i s traditionall yconsiderabl yles s costl ytha n wester n coal .

* ~ Anothe r importan t differenc e betwee n lignit e minin g an d s the wester n coa l mine s use d a s a basi s fo r the RIA , Alco a ! ~ noted , i s tha t a lignit e min e typicall ybegin s wit hpit s near , g g an

d paralle l to , the outcro p line . Minin g the n advance s downdi p an

d along the strik e wit h additiona l pits . Ove r th e lif e o f a mine , the actua l are a mine d ma yb e 1 1/ 2 mile s wid e an d 1 0 t o 2 0 mile s long . Tha t o f cours e require s tha t the ! hau l roa

d b e extende d periodically . Analyse s showtha t t listing SCM s woul d requir e a hau l roa d t o b e extende d n o les s

- ^ than one mil e an d tha t woul d forc e th e shutdown , o f mos t i f no t al l o f th

e lignit e mine s i n Texas . f . Montan a mine s MC C state d tha t the RI Afaile d t o includ e i n it s impac t analysi s the operating SCM s an d coa l reserve s aroun d the Norther n Cheyenn e India n Reservatio n an d For t Pec k India n Reservatio n i n Montana . Estimate d reserve s tha t woul d b e impacte d i n thes e tw o area s alon e ar e approximatel y4. 5 billio n tons , or 16 0 time s the Clas s I coa l impac t EPA estimate d for Montana , MC C stated . Montc o state d tha t it s proposa l t o develop a 1 2 millio n TP Y i n southeas t Montan a woul d no t be feasibl e unde r

A-3 6P.5 5



# R

p



# I Alternative s II , III , o r IV , eve n thoughMontc o ha s s o far

expende d ten s o f million s o f dollar s o n tha t project . Researc h developmen t consultant s o f Fargo , Nort hDakota , showtha t thi s min e woul d lea

d t o persona l income i n Montana fro mMontc o o f $971. 8 million , Montc o expenditure s woul d be $907. 8 million , ne wbusines s (othe r tha n Montco ) woul d b e $988. 2 million , an d stat e an

d loca l ta

x revenue s woul d b e $848. 8 million—al l o f whic hwoul d b

e los t unde r Alternative s II , III , or I V sinc e the coa l o n th

e propertie s woul d b e unrecoverabl e du e t o the proximit yo f the propose d sit e t o bot hth e Northern Cheyenn e Indian Reservatio n an d th e Custe r Nationa l Forest . g . NewMexic o mines , Indian reservation s DS C commente d tha t i t ha s investe d million s o f dollar s i n assessing the plan t site s an d th e coa l quality'o f potential

project s i n th

e Sa n Jua n coa l basi n tha t coul d b e affecte d b

y a listin

g decisio n becaus e o f the proximit yo f Chac o Cultur e Nationa l Histori c Park . The RIA , DS C noted , failed t o addres s convincingl yth

e impac t o f movin g coa l developmen t elsewhere . DS C an d othe r commenter s (NM , GV ) note d tha t th e Navah o natio n i s acquiring surfac e an d subsurfac e right s t o 35,00 0 acre s o f federa l lan d i n th e vicinit yauthorize d b ythe Navaho

Hop i Resettlemen t Ac t o f 1 9 74 . The Navano s hav e selecte d th

e DS C plan t sit e an

d relate d coa l lands , an d ar e equit ypartner s i n th e project . The impac t o f moving thi s min e ma yundermin e the aoilit yo f the Navaho s t o provid e fo r th e welfar e o f relocatee s fro

m forme r join t us e lands . Contrar yt o a majo r bu t seriousl yove r generalize d assumptio n o f the RIA , G V stated , the Navah o trib e doe s no t have a wid e arra yo f alterna

tive min e site s fro mwhic h i t mayselec t an d t o whic hi t ma

y mov e a t a minimu

m cost . The specifi c consequence s resulting fro mthi s proposa l coul d hav e devastatin g effect s on al l majo r communitie s i n Northwes t NewMexico , i n additio n t o th e Navah o tribe , G

V stated .

A-3 7P.5 6



# 0

_ • !

E ? 

### Th e Ut e Mountai n Ut e trib e (Ute ) an d a Congressma n (MS )

als o state d tha t i t strongl yoppose d th e proposa l an d needed additiona l tim e an d financia l assistanc e t o analyz e it s effect s whic hwoul d remov e som e 3 9 millio n ton s o f bituminou s coa l o n th e Ne wMexic o sid e o f it s reservatio n fro mfutur e production .

h . Centrali a mine , Washingto n WIDC O commente d tha t it s Centrali a min e i n Washingto n stat e coul d suffe r advers e economi c effect s tha t th e RI Adi d no t analyze , a s documente d b ya TR C repor t entitle d "Modele d k i Ai r Qualit yImpact s o f th e Centrali a Coa l Mine, " Ma y5 , 1986 . M Becaus e o f it s proximit yt o Moun t Ranie r Nationa l Par k

and othe r Clas s I and mandator yClas s I I areas , TR C conclude d m [ ' tha t th e mine , i f operate d a t anyleve l o f activit y

approachin g tha t assume d fo r th e study(5. 0 millio n TPY) , i coul d no t o e permitte d i f subjecte d t o ful l Alternativ e I I o r

II I review . Th e min e wa s show n t o excee d th e 24-hou r PS D Clas s I I incrementbyabou t a n orde r o f magnitude . Drasti c reduction s i n annua l productio n rat e (fro m5. 0 millio n TP Y t o 265,45 0 clea n TPY ) woul d b e neede d t o allo wth e min e t o achiev e th e allowe d incremen t unde r Alternativ e I I o r III . I f Alternativ e I V

wer e adopted , th e min e woul d "significantl y impact " al l Clas s I and mandator yClas s I I area s withi n a t leas t 15 0 miles . Th e min e coul d jus t escap e th e significanc e tes t o f Alternativ e I V a t th e closes t Clas s I are a i f productio n wer e reduce d t o 607,50 0 clea n TPY .

i . Colorad o mine s CM Astate d tha t Colorad o woul d b e severel yimpacte d b ya listin g decisio n sinc e a grea t man yo f th e coa l minin g area s coincid e wit hprotecte d area s there . Also , CM Astated , sinc e

A-3 8

# I mos t o f th e protecte d area s i n Colorad o ar e o n hig hterrai n

(usuall yo n th e mountainside s an d tops) , th e minin g area s woul d b e visibl e fro mth e protecte d areas . Anothe r commente r (Trapper ) state d tha t i t ra n a fugitiv e dus t impac t mode l (VALLEY ) t o determin e possibl e PS D implication s fo r a typica l SC Mi n northwes t Colorado , whic h showe d that—accordin g t o it s consultan t W . Gal e Bigg s Associates , Ma y6 , 1986—tha t wit ha n initia l mode l ru n wit ha 6 0 kilomete r radiu s o f th e min e th e concentration s di d no t dro p belo w5 u mpe r cubi c mete r withi n thi s distance . Furthe r run s showe d tha t th e 5 um/m ^ contou r extende d t o betwee n 7 0 t o 7 5 k m (abou t 4 5 miles ) fro mth e mine . j . Nort hDakot a mine s p Citin g "Modele d Ai r Qualit yImpact s o f a Hypothetica l

Nort hDakot a Lignit e Mine, " TRC , Jul y18 , 1985 , a commente r j (K.-.CC ) state d tha t adoptio n o f Alternativ e I V woul d hinde r th e developmen t o f 88 9 millio n ton s o f lignit e i n Nort hDakota , :.v j an d EP Ashoul d expan d th e scop e o f it s RI At o reflec t thi s i_ j 

### befor e adoptin g an yo f th e propose d alternative s excep t H Alternativ e I . F ] Accordin g t o WACC , th e TR C stud yshowe d tha t a 1. 0 ^millio n TP Y min e wa s determine d t o b e th e larges t min e tha t n coul d operat e an d sta ywitni n th e allowabl e incremen t i n Nort h L i Dakota . Bu t base d o n economi c efficiencie s associate d wit h.

. - larg e scal e operations , th e natur e o f coa l reserve s i n Nort h H Dakota , an d th e fue l requiremen t o f mine-mout hpowe r

generatin g facilities , a serie s o f 1. 0 millio n TP Y mine s woul d p * no t o e economicall yviable . Th e commente r als o note d tha t

aoou t 400 0 job s ar e directl yrelate d t o th e lignite/powe r generatin g industrie s i n Nort hDakota .

A-3 9k . Illinoi s mine s

I L Mine s state d tha t i n 198 4 ther e wer e 2 1 SCM s producing t 2 5 millio n TP Y o f coa l i n Illinois , an d impositio n o f PS D 

# i

1 rule s wil l effectivel ycurtai l ne wmin e developmen t ther e wit h

associate d long-termseriou s negativ e impacts . I L state d tha t the proposa l woul d reduc e the amoun t o f coa l mine d i n Illinoi s o r increas e the numbe r o f smalle r mine s there . Anothe r commente r (Peabody ) state d tha t unde r th e TR C analysis , th

e 1 9 SCM s i t operate s nea r the Illinoi s basi n woul d eac hhave t o reduc e thei r productio n t o abou t 30,00 0 TP Y i n orde r t o mee t the PS D Clas s I I increments . Tota l productio n fro

mthes e mine s woul d have t o be reduce d o y9 7 percent , eve n assumin g tha t eac h o f th e mine s ha s ful l us e o f th e availabl e Clas s I I increment s an d ther e ar e no Clas s I area s i n th

e vicinity . Suc h a drasti c force d reductio n i n production , Peabod ystated , woul d mak e th e mine s uneconomica l t o operate .

1 . UtahInternationa l mine s AMC , citing earlie r testimon yfro mUtah International , state d tha t UtahInternationa l alon e ha s spen t ove r $400,00 0 jus t t o stud

ypotentia l ai r qualit yan d visibilit yeffect s nea r 3ryc e Canyon , no t including the cos t o f othe r environmenta l assessment s or fugitiv e dus t controls . (Thus , AM C noted , EPA' s estimat e o f Alternativ e IV s socia l cost s o f $200,00 0 t o $400,000—th e amoun t o f estimate d sun k cost s a t Chac o Cultur e an

d Bryc e Canyon—i s underestimated. ) 5 . Overestimatio n o f Benefit s a . Existing control s
Numerou s commenter s (NCA , MCC , AMC , TX , GV , Trapper ) state d tha t EPAoverestimate s the benefit s o f a listing

A-4 0P.5 9 

## I k 

### decisio n Decaus e unde r stat e la wBAC T i s alread yrequire d o f l SCMs . I n particular , AM C submitte d a compilation showin g tha t

virtuall yever ystat e ha s federall yenforceabl e fugitiv e dus t contro l an d permittin g law s requirin g BAC T o r it s equivalen t fo r new , expande d an d existin g SC Moperations . AM C note d P furthe r tha t thi s rulemakin g record , whic hextend s bac k t o

1977 , doe s no t contai n on e allegatio n o f a n instanc e i n whic h | | BAC T ha s no t bee n applie d t o a n SC Moperation . Thu s t o

subjec t SCM s t o additiona l rule s unde r th e PS D progra mwoul d P b e redundan t an d duplicativ e o f already-applicabl e contro l
^ requirements , an d s o bydefinitio n woul d no t increas e th e r n benefit s t o b e derive d fro msuc hregulation .

•--• ' 1 , i

_._ j



### _Numerou s othe r commenter s (NCA , AMC , NEIC , DC , Sunbelt , yDOI , Peabody ) pointe d t o existin g federa l regulator yprogram s

whic hprovid e authorit yt o avoi d advers e environmenta l effect s fro mSCMs . Thus , thes e commenter s concluded , PS D regulatio n woul d b e duplicativ e o f thi s othe r federa l authority . Specifically , thes e commenter s pointe d t o th e following :

• Sectio n 11 0 o f th e Clea n Ai r Ac t whic hprovide s authorit y fo r a stat e t o regulat e fugitiv e emission s fro mSCMs ;

• Sectio n 52 2 o f th e Surfac e Minin g Contro l and Reclamatio n Ac t unde r whic hth e Secretar yo r stat e authorit yma ydesignat e lan d unsuitabl e fo r SC Mi f th e minin g operatio n wil l b e incom

patibl e wit hexistin g lan d us e plan s o r program s o r wil l affec t fragil e o r histori c lands , a s recognize d b yth e cour t i n Uta h International , Inc . v . DOI , 55 3 F.Sup p 87 2 (D . Uta h1962) ;

• th e Nationa l Environmenta l Protectio n Ac t unde r whic hmos t larg e SCM s mus t prepar e a n environmenta l impac t statement ; an d

• Section s 1 an d 3 o f th e Nationa l Par k Servic e Organi c Ac t an d Sectio n 18 1 o f th e Minera l Leasin g Ac t o f 192 0 unde r whic h

A-4 1 

# fl EP.6 0



### th e Secretar yo f th e Interio r ha s authorit yt o no t leas e land s j outsid e o f th e nationa l par k syste mand othe r specia l land s

whic hadversel yaffec t thos e lands . DOI , i n assertin g tha t existin g federa l regulatio n o f m SCM s i s sufficien t t o protec t nationa l areas , include d

memorand a fro mth e Undersecretar yand Associat e Solicitor , H Divisio n o f Energ yan d Resources , documentin g thi s authority .

^Finally , man ycommenter s (DOI , NCA , MRCA , Peabody , NEIC ) L



### J 

### state d tha t th e RI Aoverestimate s th e benefit s fro m p controllin g SCM s i n th e vicinit yo f th e exampl e Clas s I are a

(Bryc e Canyon ) becaus e i t ignore s th e fac t tha t a significan t par t o f thi s oenefi t ha s alread ybee n capture d byDOI' s determinatio n tha t muc ho f th e coa l reserve s nea r tha t are a ar e "unsuitable " fo r development . I n 1981 , tnes e commenters
explained , th e DO I conclude d tha t minin g operation s i n th e Alto n coa l fiel d visibl e fro mBryc e Canyo n wer e unsuitabl e fo r minin g sinc e i t woul d adversel yaffec t th e par k becaus e o f unsightlines s and noise . Thi s decisio n wa s upnel d i n th e Uta h Internationa l case , thu s indicatin g tha t DO I ha s th e authorit y and th e abilit yt o protec t nationa l parks . t ,



# 1 D b . Us e o f urba n localitie s

Anumbe r o f commenter s (NCA ) state d tha t i n calculatin g th e benefit s o f regulatio n unde r Alternative s I I an d III , th e RI Aimproperl yrelie d o n studie s o f mortality , morbidity , soiling , an d visua l rang e conducte d i n urba n localitie s experi

encin g significantl ydifferen t type s o f emissions . Thes e studie s provid e n o dat a relevan t t o a decisio n t o regulat e a rura l sourc e o f iner t dust , th e commenter s stated . Th e Londo n Smok e Stud yrelie d o n evaluate d th e effec t o f urba n pollutio n compose d o f chemicall ydistinc t emissions ,

A-4 2P.6 1



# 1

G including SO2 , on a n urba n populatio n an d di d no t conside r an y fugitiv e or chemicall ysimila r emission s whatsoever . EPA' s explanatio n tha t the us e o f the urba n stud yi s compensate d fo r b yth e failur e t o estimat e the valu e o f certai n othe r benefi t categorie s i s irrationa l becaus e tw o scientifi c wrong s do no t mak e a right . Thes e same area s ar e repeated , the commenter s noted , i n the RIA' s extrapolation s fro mstudie s relating t o urba n morbidit yan

d househol d soiling , whic h ha s n o relevanc e t o the ofte n nearl yunpopulate d area s surrounding SCM s in the Wester n Unite d States .

c . Willingness-to-pay 

### Commenter s (NCA

) als o state dtha t

EPA' s benefi t

valu e estimate s fo r

Altenativ e I

V ar e suspec t

becaus e the y ar e base d o n"willingness-to-pay " studie s derive dfro mbiddin g games . As agro"up , industr y commenter s (NSIC , NCA , Peabody ) stated , thes e studie s suffe r

fro minheren t

bia s becaus e participant s ofte n exaggerat e thei r

response s becaus e the y kno w the y wil l ne t actuall y b e force dt o pa y th e amoun t tha t the y "oid. " T.ni s inheren t pia s comoine dwit hth e imprecis e extrapolatio nof result s fro mothe r

site s render s th e RI Abenefi t

figure s almos t useles s a t

th e threshold
. Th e RIA' s attemp t

t o estimat e th e valu e o f th e benefit s base do nth e willingness-to-pa y estimate s generate di nth e 198 1 stud y o f recreationa l user s a t Mes aVerd e Nationa l Park i s equall y flawed
. Tha t stud y showe da$2.8 4 pe r visito r valuatio nfo r

aguarante e o f

aclea r

vie w instea do f

a moderat e haze
. Bu t

i nadoptin g th e $2.8 4 figure , th e RI A fail s t o establis htha t th e visua l rang e chang e t o wnic hi t relate s i s remotel y comparabl e t o th e averag e 3 t o 5 percen t improvemen t

predicte da t

Bryc e Canyon
. I nfact , th e tw o situation s ar e no t

comparabl e becaus e the y relat e t o tw o differen t

park s an dbecaus e th e predicte dimprovemen t a t 3ryc e

A-4 3P.6 2



# I



# r

E Canyo n i s onl ymarginall yperceptibl e [see following

subsectio n II.B.5.d.] , whil e the Mes a Verd e stud yhypothesize d a dramati c chang e fro ma moderatel yhaz yt o a clea r view . Moreover , the RI Arelie s withou t qualificatio n o n anothe r uninstructiv e stud ywhic hestimate d the valu e pe r mont h t o a househol d residing i n the vicinit yo f an Appalachia n surfac e min e o f having the lan d reclaimed . Bu t the RIA' s relianc e o n the pe r mont hfigur e t o obtai n a pe r da yvaluation , whic hi t the n applie s t o the annua l numbe r o f visito r day s fo r bot h Chac o Cultur e an

d Bryc e Canyon , overstate s the benefi t becaus e the•population s involve d ar e no t comparabl e fo r thre e reasons : (1 ) tne valu e place d on reclamatio n b ya residen t o f th e vicin

it yo f a surfac e min e i s no t remotel yrelate d t o th e valu e t o a park visito r o f having the ai r clea r on the da yo f visitatio n t o th e park ; (2 ) the residentia l valuatio n relie d o n wa s per . household , presumabl yaccumulatin g benefit s t o mor e tha n on e individual , bu t EP

Aapplie d it s derive d dail yvaluatio n pe r visito r t o th

e two parks ; an

d (3 ) th

e stud ywa s conducte d i n Appalachia , bu t RI Aapplie s the bid s t o wester n Clas s I areas . Commenter s (SF ) state d tha t EPAshoul d conside r th e numbe r o f peopl e presen t i n Clas s I areas , the percentag e o f tim e tha t theyar e there , an d the percentag e o f tim e ther e tha t the y spen d looking i n th

e directio n o f th

e surfac e coa l mine . d . Visua l rang e improvemen t
Man ycommenter s (NDLC , MRCA , Peabody , DOI , NACC , NCA , NEIC ) pointe d ou t tha t EPA' s ow n RI Aconcede d tha t the improve

men t associate d wit hAlternativ e IV i s a t the margi n o f huma n perception . Commenter s note d tha t EPApredict s tha t the visua l rang e improvement s wil l be impreceptiDl e t o the huma n eye 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- ,

A-4 4P.6 3



# 0

_


### \n an

d tha t visua l improvemen t continue s t o b e imperceptibl e a t Chac o Cultur e whe n th e min e i s move d ou t o f sit e o f th e park . Th e RI Apredict s significan t reduction s a t Bryc e Canyo n durin g certai n advers e meterologica l conditions , bu t fail s t o specif y thei r natur e or frequency . The RI Aestimate s tha t the averag e visua l rang e improvemen t i s t o be a mer e 3 t o 5 percent , an d tha t the perceptio n threshol d fo r visua l rang e improvemen t i s generall yconcede d t o be from2 t o 5 percent . Sinc e n o min e i s currentl yallowe d t o locat e i n the are a visibl e fro m Bryc e Canyo n Nationa l Park , commenter s noted , i n fac t ther e can be n o visua l rang e improvement

—imperceptibl e o r otherwise—associate d wit h Alternativ e IV .

e . Existenc e value s Commenter s (Peaoody , MRCA , SF , NACC , NEIC , DOI ) als o state d tha t th

e RIA' s measuremen t o f th e "existenc e value " o f visua l rang e improvement s a t Bryc e Canyo n lead s t o a flawe d oenefit s estimat e since , lacking an ydat a relate d t o tne existenc e valu e o f Bryc e Canyon , the RI Aattempt s t o extrapo
lat e fro

ma stud

ydon e abou t the Gran d Canyon . s According t o DOI , however , Bryc e Canyo n i s no t i n the sam e clas s o f "natura l wonder " a s the Gran d Canyon . The RIA' s attemp t a t compensatin g fo r the overstatemen t i s b yreducing the Gran d Canyo n existenc e valu e b yth e rati o o f Bryc e Canyo n t o Gran d Canyo n visito r day s i s inadequate , however , becaus e the 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 the parks . Th e adjustmen t mixe s apple s an

d oranges , the commenter s stated . DO I als o note s tha t the "existenc e value " approac hi s flawe d becaus e (1 ) i t ignore s the fac t tha t a n SCM soone r o r late r cease s operations , thu s restoring visua l rang e s o tha t suosequen t generation s wil l no t be deprived, 1 an d (2 ) tha t th e RI Aoverestimate d th e relativ e numbe r o f visitor s a t Bryc e

A-4 5P.6 4

Canyo n compare d t o Gran d Canyon , according t o Nationa l Park Servic e statistics . 

# f Finally , NEI C state d i n estimatin g the benefit s o f

regulation , the RI Aevaluate s eac h min e sit e i n one yea r only , th e predicte d yea r o f pea k minin g activity , whic hresult s i n the overstatemen t o f benefits .

f . Proliferatio n o f smalle r mine s 

# E Man

ycommenter s (Peabody , NCA , ND-G , MCC , DOI ) state d tha t EP Afaile d t o conside r the advers e effect s tha t a listing decisio n woul d creat e Decaus e o f it s incentiv e t o develop mor e an d smalle r SCMs ; tnus , thi s omissio n led t o a n overestimatio n o f benefits .



# E Commenter s explaine d tha t the resul t o f mor e an d smalle r SCM s woul d creat e mor e tota l emission s pe r ton o f coa l produce d than ther e otherwis e woul d be . Fo r example , th

e hau l truck s necessaryt o serve thre e smal l mines , eac h o f whic h ha s a 300,00 0 TPY capacity , woul d kic k u p significantl ymor e dus t than th e hau l truck s neede d t o serve one larg e 1 0 millio n TP Y inine . Similarly , man ynecessaril ylogistica l an d suppor t activitie s ar e no t dependen t o n min e size . Thus , listing o f SCM s coul d easil yincreas e tota l emission s o f fugitive dus t fro mSCK s nationwide . I n addition , becaus e mor e smal l SCM s woul d be needed , theywoul d likel yhave t o be develope d ove r a wide r geographi c are a tnan woul d otherwis e be the case . Thi s woul d mea n mor e environmenta l disruptio n o f the eartn' s surfac e than woul d otherwis e occur .

A-4 6P.6 5



# 0 

# I



# D 6 . Underestimatio n o f Benefit s

Environmenta l grou p commenter s (Sierra , NWF) , o n the othe r hand , state d tha t the RI Aunderestimate d benefit s becaus e o f the relativ e difficult y(compare d t o quantifying costs ) o f assessin g the benefit s o f a health yenvironmen t i n monetary terms . Thi s i s s o becaus e environmenta l benefit s ar e i n th e real mo f philosophica l an d aestheti c values , an d becaus e i t i s ofte n impossibl e t o measur e thos e benefits . Th e RIA' s cost
benefi t approach , i n it s willingness-to-paymethodolog yi n particular , i s bogus , an d mean s tha t the live s o f the generall y poo r inhabitant s aroun d stri p mine s wh o have a lo wwillingness

to-payar e t o be sol d cheapl ys o tha t the numerou s distan t beneficiarie s o f the cheape r coa l produce d a t thei r expens e maysave a fewdollar s a yea r on thei r electricit ybills . I n addition , Sierr a too k issu e wit h th e industrypositio n [summarize d abov e i n par t II.B.5.a. ] tha t ther e i s currentl y adequat e governmen t authorit yeffectivel yregulating fugitiv e emission s fromSCMs . Eve n assuming arguend o tha t suc h authorit ydoe s exist , Sierr a stated , DO I ha s certainl yno t exercise d tha t authorit yi n an ymeaningfu l fashion . Specifically , Sierr a stated , § 52 2 o f th e Surfac e Mining Contro l an

d Reclamatio n Ac t merel yrequire s th e regulatory authorit yt o conside r the viewo f the Nationa l Par k Servic e a s t o wha t minin g activit ywil l adversel yaffec t a park , bu t the Park Servic e ha s n o authorit yt o enforc e it s recommendations . Unde r § 522(b) , wher e DO I doe s have authorit yt o designat e land s a s unsuitabl e fo r mining o n federa l lands , Sierr a commente d tha t the Secretaryha s nevertheles s no t designate d an ylan d unsuitabl e fo r minin g unde r thi s provisio n o n the basi s o f advers e effect s o f potentia l mining on ai r quality . Moreover , i n a recen t Secretaria l issu e documen t on coa l leasing ("Secretaria l Issu e Document—Federa l Coa l Management
A-4 7P.6 6

Program , Januar y1986 ) the Secretaryfaile d t o includ e eithe r impact s o n the park s o r o n par k ai r qualit yrelate d value s a s criteri a fo r a finding o f unsuitability . 

# I Moreover , § 515(b)(4 ) whic hauthorize s th e Secretaryt o effectivel ycontro l erosio n an d attendan t ai r an d wate r pollutio n ha s bee n interprete d i n regulation s t o regulat e onl y the erosiona l aspect s o f the impact s o f mining o n ai r quality . An

d unde r § 515(b)(17) , concerning authorit yt o regulat e th e impac t o f minin g roads , ther e ha s bee n no substantiv e performanc e standard s promulgate d t o preven t fugitiv e emission s a s a resul t o f traffi c accessing coa l mines . Sierr a als o note d tha t the Nationa l Park Servic e Organi c Ac t i s ambiguou s a t bes t wit hregard t o the authorit y for regulating impact s externa l t o th e park , and , moreover , n o suc hauthorit yha s oee n exercise d t o date . Conclusio n Industryan

d Governmen t Al l industrycommenters , a s wel l a s stat e (ND-G , TX , ND , MT , ND-Health ) an

d federa l (DOI , DOE ) commenter s favore d Alternativ e I , whic hwoul d no t lis t SCM s fo r PS D purposes . Thes e commenter s state d tha t EP Aha s provide d n o lega l or scientifi c justificatio n t o lis t SCMs , an d th e availabl e dat a clearl ydemonstrate s tha t listing SCM s i s neithe r necessaryno r warranted . Fugitiv e emission s fromSCM s ar e a t mos t a localize d nuisanc e whic h d o no t contribut e significantl yt o ai r qualit ydegradatio n o n a nationwid e basi s an d d o no t pos e an ysignifican t threa t t o the publi c healt ho r welfare , eve n i n the vicinit yo f suc h SCMs . Listing SCM s woul d limi t severel ythe siz e o f ne wan d expande d SCM s an d woul d resul t i n significan t advers e economic , social , environmental , an d

A-4 8P.6 7

administrativ e costs . Thos e advers e impact s woul d outweigh * greatl yan

ypotentia l benefit s o f the listing .

r | The RI Acorrectl yconclude d tha t the economi c effect s o f

suc hlisting (Alternative s I I an d III ) woul d have significan t I negativ e benefits ; however , eve n thes e conclusion s wer e base d

on a gros s underestimatio n o f the cost s o f listin g an d a gros s H overestimatio n o f the benefit s t o be derived . Eve n i f EPA

" select s Alternativ e IV o f the RIA , suc ha decisio n woul d have p an enormousl ynegativ e benefi t o n the Unite d State s an d th e

_ f coa l industry . EP Aha s faile d t o conside r adequatel yth e natur e or exten t o f the variou s negativ e impact s whic h Alternativ e IV

woul d have o n the country , an d o n impacte d state s an

d th e coa l minin g industry . 

# E fi

I 1 E I f EP Adecide s correctl yno t t o lis t an ySCMs , EP

Ashoul d clarif ytha t suc hdecision s shoul d exemp t othe r SCM s fro mne w sourc e revie wregardles s o f suc hSCM s relatio n t o othe r source s whic har e o

r mayb e listed . EP

Ashoul d no t regulat e indirectl y SCM s o ytying them

improperl yt o regulate d facilitie s i f EP A ha s conclude d i t directl yshoul d no t regulat e SCMs . Finally , on e stat e (IL ) commented , tha t the inclusio n o f a subclas s o f SCMs , suc ha s thos e tha t impac t populate d areas , ma ype justifiabl e becaus e suc h sources—an d othe r fugitive dus t source s suc h a s grai n elevator s an d ston e quaries—likel y impos e greate r burden s o n the communit yi n populate d area s than i n rura l ones . Bu t the separat e consideratio n o f SCM s propose d her e fo r bot h rura l an d urban area s i s inappropriat e becaus e th

e cost s outweig hthe benefits , I L concluded . 2 . Environmenta l Group s Th e environmenta l grou p commenter s (Sierra , NWF ) state d tha t a s a threshol d lega l matte r EPAmus t lis t SCM s

A-4 9P.6 8

(Alternative I ) a s argue d i n the pending litigatio n entitle d Nationa l Coa l Associatio n v . EPA , No . 84-160 9 (D.C . Cir.) .


# 0 Sierr a state d tha t the RIA' s assertion s tha t th e cost s wil l b e significan t du e t o majo r cut s i n coa l productio n ar e base d on a failur e t o conside r relevan t contro l technique s and , thus , EP

Aha s n o basi s i n the record o r i n the modeling undertake n t o dat e t o suppor t a conclusio n tha t evaluatio n o f SCK s a s newpoin t source s woul d significantl yreduc e coa l productio n i n the U.S . I n addition , EP Acanno t conclud e tha t DO I eithe r ha s o r wil l exercis e regulatoryauthorit yt o protec t Clas s I or mandatoryClas s I I area s i n the foreseeabl e future .



# E NW

F commented , additionally , tha t th e cost s predicte d i n th e RI Aar e no t "unreasonable, " an d unde r EPA' s lega l standar d ther e i s n o nee d t o sho wtha t th e cost s excee d benefits . EPA' s ow n figure s showtha t i n th e lowe r rang e o f estimate d cost s th e annualize d cos t o f Alternativ e I I woul d b e $5. 4 million , Alternativ e II I woul d b e $5. 9 millio n pe r annum , wit huppe r boundarie s for suc hcost s o f $68. 2 an d $15. 5 millio n respectively . NW F pointe d out , however , tha t thes e predicte d cost s ar e muc h smalle r than cost s associate d wit h othe r EP A decision s i n the energyfiel d suc ha s it s 197 9 NSP S for powe r plants , whic hEPAthe n estimate d woul d cos t oetwee n $3. 3 an d $3. 6 pillio n pe r yea r i n 197 9 dollars . 

# 0 For thes e reasons , the environmenta l group s conclude d

tha t th e proposa l i s reasonabl e an d shoul d b

e adopted .

A-5 0P.6 9



## I 

# 1

_ 

# 1 1

"7 3

' i 

# i

3_ !

1 1 1 

# 1

— 1 

# 1

- Commen t

Numbe r IV
- -L- l 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 0 1 1
1 2 1 3 1 4 1 5 1 6 1 7 1 8 1 9 2 0 2 1 Appendi x A Lis t o f Commenter s (Docke t Numbe r A-84-33 )

Commente r Nam e Centra l an d Sout hWes t Service s Inc . S F Coa l Corporatio n Cit yPubli c Servic e o f Sa n Antonio , Texa s Sunbel t Minin g Compan y Brazo s Electri c Powe r Cooperative , Inc . Trappe r Mining , Inc . Montc o Pennsylvani a Coa l Minin g Associatio n Nationa l Coa l Associatio n Colorad o Minin g Associatio n Kentuck yNatura l Resource s an d Environmenta l Protectio n Cabine t Publi c Servic e Commissio n o f Nort hDakot a Northwester n Resourc e Company Westmorelan d Resources , Inc . Nort h America n Coa l Corporatio n Governo r o f Texa s Mountai n Ut e Trib e o f Colorad o Nort h Dakot a Offic e o f th e Governo r Minin g Industr yCounci l o f Missour i Wes t Virgini a Minin g and Reclamatio n Associatio n Montan a Departmen t o f Healt han d Environmenta l Science s 2 2 Alco a

A-5 1P.7 0 

# I I
b



# 1

fl Commen t

Numbe r Commente r Nam e IV-L-2 3 Sierr a Clu b 2 4 Taf t Coa l Compan y 2 5 Wyomin g Departmen t o f Environmenta l Qualit y 2 6 Illinoi s Environmenta l Protectio n Agenc y 2 7 America n Minin g Congres s 2 8 Nort hDakot a Lignit e Counci l 2 9 Illinoi s Coa l Associatio n 3 0 Montc o 3 1 Wester n Energ yCompan y 3 2 Wester n State s Coa l Consortiu m 3 3 WIDC O 3 4 Ol d Be n Coa l Compan y 3 5 Montan a Coa l Counci l 3 6 PeabodyHoldin g Compan y 3 7 U.S . Departmen t o f Energ y 3 o Ama x 3 9 Illinoi s Departmen t o f Mine s and Mineral s '-.. ; 4 0 Minin g an d Reclamatio n Counci l o f Americ a

4 1 Gordo n Venabl e 

# F £-• 4 2 Nerco , Inc .

4 3 Dine hServic e Compan y 4 4 Nort hDakot a Departmen t o f Healt h 4 5 Trappe r Minin g Inc . 4 6 Joh n D . Rockefeller , I V 4 7 America n Minin g Congres s 4 8 [no entry ]

A-5 2P.7 1



# 1

0 Commen t

Numbe r Commente r Nam e . IV-L-4 9 U.S . Departmen t o f the Interio r 5 0 Nationa l Coa l Associatio n 5 1 America n Minin g Congres s 5 2 Utilit yAi r Regulatio n Grou p 5 3 NewMexic o Environmenta l Improvemen t Divisio n 5 4 Nort hAmerica n Coa l Corporatio n 5 5 Sunbel t Mining Compan y 5 6 Colorad o Mining Associatio n 5 7 Wes t Virgini a Departmen t o f Energ y 5 8 Nevada Electri c Investmen t Compan y 5 9 Utilit yAi r Regulator yGrou p 6 0 Nationa l Wildlif e Federation , Environmenta l Polic y Institute , -Nationa l Park s an d Conservatio n Association , an

d Natura l Resource s Defens e Counci l 6 1 Michae l L . Strang , M.C . 6 2 Dic k Cheney , M.C .

E,- i

_ _ 

# I !

A-5 3P.7 2



# fi

B Abbreviatio n Appendi x B Lis t o f Abbreviation s Commente r Nam

e an d Docke t Numbe r Alco a Alco a (IV-L-22 ) AMA X Amax (IV-L-38 ) AM C America n Mining Congres s (IV-L-27 , IV-L-47 , IV-L-51 ) Be n Ol d Be n Coa l Compan y(IV-L-34 ) Brazo s Brazo s Electri c Powe r Cooperative , Inc . (IV-L-5 ) CM AColorad o Mining Associatio n (IV-L-10 , IV-L-56 ) CSW S Centra l an d Sout h Wes t Service s Inc . (IV-L-1 ) D C Dic k Cheney , M.C . (IV-L-62 ) DO E U.S . Departmen t o f Energ y(IV-L-37 ) DO I U.S . Departmen t o f the Interio r (IV-L-49 ) DS C Dine hServic e Compan y(IV-L-43 ) G V Gordo n Venabl e (IV-L-41 ) IC AIllinoi s Coa l Associatio n (IV-L-29 ) I L Illinoi s Environmenta l Protectio n Agenc y(IV-L-26 ) I L Mine s Illinoi s Departmen t o f Mine s an d Mineral s (IV-L-39 ) K Y Kentuck

yNatura l Resource s an d Environmenta l Protectio n Cabine t (IV-L-11 ) MC C Montan a Coa l Counci l (IV-L-35 ) MIC M Mining Industr yCounci l o f Missour i (IV-L-19 ) Montc o Montc o (IV-L-7 , IV-L-30 ) MRCAMining an d Reclamatio n Counci l o f Americ a (IV-L-40 ) M S Michae l L . Strang , M.C . (IV-L-61 ) M T Montan a Departmen t o f Healt han d Environmenta l Science s (IV-L-21 ) .NAC C Nort h America n Coa l Corporatio n (IV-L-15 , IV-L-54 ) -

A-5 4P.7 3

Abbreviatio n Commente r Nam e an d Docke t Numbe r



## r U 

# 0 § 

# fi 1 1

_ #

„ J 

## n 

# fi R 

# 1 

# 1 NEI C

Nerc o N M NR C NW F

PCM A Peaood y Roc k SanAn t S F Sierr a Sunbel t Taf t Trappe r T X UAR G Ut e Wester n WIDCO NC ANationa l Coa l Associatio n (IV-L-9 , IV-L-50 ) N D Publi c Servic e Commissio n o f Nort hDakot a (IV-L-12 ) ND- G Nort hDakot a Offic e o f the Governo r (IV-L-18 ) N D Healt hNort h Dakot a Departmen t o f Healt h(IV-L-44 ) NDL C Nort hDakot a Lignit e Counci l (IV-L-28) .

Nevad a Electri c Investmen t Compan y(IV-L-58 ) Nerco , Inc . (IV-L-42 ) NewMexic o Environmenta l Improvemen t Divisio n (IV-L-53 ) Northwester n Resourc e Compan y(IV-L-13 ) Nationa l Wildlif e Federation , Environmenta l Polic y Institute , Nationa l Park s an d Conservatio n Association , an

d Natura l Resource s Defens e Counci l (IV-L-60 ) Pennsylvani a Coa l Mining Associatio n (IV-L-8 ) Peabod yHolding Compan

y(IV-L-36 ) Joh n D . Rockefeller , IV (IL-L-46 ) Cit yPubli c Servic e o f San Antonio , Texa s (IV-L-3 ) S F Coa l Corporatio n (IV-L-2 ) Sierr a Clu o (IV-L-23 ) Sunbel t Mining Compan y(IV-L-4 , IV-L-55 ) Taf t Coa l Compan

y(IV-L-24 ) Trappe r Mining Inc . (IV-L-6 , IV-L-45 ) Governo r o f Texa s (IV-L-16 ) Utilit yAi r Regulatio n Grou p (IV-L-52 , IV-L-59 ) Mountai n Ut e Trib e o f Colorad o (IV-L-17 ) Wester n Energ

yCompan

y(IV-L-31 ) WIDC O (IV-L-33 )

A-5 5P.7 4



# 1 ADbreviatio n

W R Commente r Nam e an d Docke t Numbe r Westmoreland Resources , Inc . (IV-L-14 ) WSC C Wester n State s Coa l Consortiu m(IV-L-32 )
w vWes t Virgini a Departmen t o f Energ y(IV-L-57 ) WVMR AWes t Virgini a Mining an d Reclamatio n Associatio n (IV-L-20 ) W Y Wyomin g Departmen t o f Environmenta l Qualit y(IV-L-25 )



# 0

A-5 6P.7 5



# D

p^> 

### APPENDI XB Lis t o f Commen t Number , Nam e o f Commente r an dParenthetica l Referenc e Docke t Numbe r A-84-3 3 Commen t Numbe r Commente r Nam e Parenthetica l Referenc e « ? IV-L-6 3 U.S . Departmen t o f th e Interio r (DOI )

IV-L-6 4 U.S . Departmen t o f Commerc e (DOC ) IV-L-6 5 Nationa l Coa l Associatio n(NCA ) M IV-L-6 6 U.S . Environmenta l Protectio n H Agenc y(EPA ) IV-L-6 7 Stat e o f Wyomin g (WYO ) « IV-L-6 8 Stat e o f Montan a (MON ) [/" IV-L-6 9 Willia mL . Armstron g - U.S . L 

### Senator , Colorad o (ARM )

IV-L-7 0 Quenti nN . Burdic k - U.S . f Senator , N . Dakot a (BUR ) I IV-L-7 1 U.S . Cour t o f Appeals , Brie f fo r th e Secretar yo f th e [ j Interio r a s Appelle e • (COA ) L J IV-L-7 2 U.S . Departmen t o f th e Interio r (DOI )

IV-L-7 3 U.S . Departmen t o f Agricultur e (DOA ) 

# 0 IV-L-7 4 U.S . Departmen t o f Agricultur e (DOA )

IV-L-7 5 Sierr a Club(SC ) IV-L-7 6 Sunbel t Minin g Co. , Inc . (SMC ) IV-L-7 7 U.S . Departmen t o f th e Interio r (DOI ) mIV-L-7 8 Departmen t o f Environmenta l Quality , • 3 Stat e o f Wyomin g (DEQW )

IV-L-7 9 Environmenta l Polic yInstitut e (EPI ) j£ | IV-L-8 0 Departmen t fo r Environmenta l Protection , t i Stat e o f Kentuck y(DEPK )

IV-L-8 1 Ut e Mountai nTrib e (UMT ) mIV-L-8 2 Peabod yCoa l Co . (PCC ) I IV-L-8 3 Nationa l Coa l Associatio n(NCA )

IV-L-8 4 America nMinin g Congres s (AMC ) IV-L-8 5 Utilit yAi r Regulator yGrou p (UARG ) P IV-L-8 6 U.S . Departmen t o f Energ y(DOE ) " IV-L-8 7 Donal dPau l Hode l (DPH )

IV-L-8 8 U.S . Senator s Jak e Garn ,

Jame s V . Hansen , Orri nG . Hatch , an dHowar dC . Nielso n(USS )

B-l