P.1 

OAR Box 1859 

Prepped by Charmelle Mathews 

Document Number: 

42) V-C-1 

Docket Number: 

A-84-33 

Printed 11/24/2008 9:13:58 AM Sheet 42 of 75 
I! 

COMPILATION OF PUBLIC COMMENTS 

ON PROPOSED STRIP MINE REGULATIONS 

P.2 

y 

rte 

Prepared by 

PEI ASSOCIATES, INC. 

11499 Chester Road 

Cincinnati, Ohio 45246 

M 

iglil 

NOV U 1989 

EPA AIR DOCKET 

Contract No. 68-02-4394 

Work Assignment No. 13 

PN 3759-13 

Prepared for 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Noncriteria Pollutant Programs Branch 

Air Quality Management Division 

Research Triangle Park, NC 27711 

William H. Lamason, Work Assignment Manager 

September 1988 
P.3 

CONTENTS 

Page 

P 1. Introduction 1-1 

1.1 Background information 1-1 

B 1.2 Compilation approach 1-4 

2. Additional Comments Relating to 2-1 

n Proposed Alternatives I-IV 

2.1 Industry comments 2-1 

2.2 Environmental group comments 2-1 

n 2.3 Government comments 2-1 

£> 2.3.1 Federal Government comments 2-2 

2.3.2 State Government comments 2-3 

0 3. Industry Comments on Proposed 3-1 

Alternatives I V and IV" 

m 

n 4. Environmental Group Comments on Proposed 4-1 

Alternatives I V and IV" 

j 5. Government Comments on Proposed 5-1 

1 Alternatives I V and IV" 

T 5.1 Federal Government comments 5-1 

if 5.2 State Government comments 5-2 

KI 6. Conclusions 6-1 

iH 

Appendix A - Summary of Comments on RIA for EPA Proposal for A-1 

Fugitive Emissions From Surface Coal Mines -

PSD Program 

^ Appendix B - List of Docket Comment Numbers, Name of Commenters and B-l 

Parenthetical Reference 

n 

I 

n 
P.4 

0 

ff'. 

D 

FIGURES 

Number Title Page 

B 1-1 Addressees for May 4, 1987 Memo on 

Proposed Alternatives IV and IV" 1-2, 1-3 

m 
P.5 

i 

I 

SECTION 1 

INTRODUCTION 

• 1.1 BACKGROUND INFORMATION 

n 1.1.1 Regulatory Impact Analysis 

H On October 26, 1984, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) proposed 

to add surface coal mines (SCMs) to the list of source categories for which 

£ fugitive emissions are to be included in the threshold applicability 

determination under EPA's prevention of significant deterioration (PSD) rules. 

• The EPA announced the availability of the Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA) and 

reopening of the comment period on February 28, 1986 (51 Fed. Reg. 7090). The 

comment period closed on June 30, 1986 and the comments to the RIA 

(Alternatives I-IV) were compiled in August 1986 (Summary of Comments on RIA 

£J; for EPA Proposal for Fugitive Emissions from Surface Coal Mines - PSD Program, 

^ ESI International, Inc., August 1986; Appendix A to this report.) A response 

« to the technical comments to the RIA was prepared as well (PEI September 

H 1986). The RIA compared the projected costs and benefits of four alternative 

approaches to regulating SCMs under PSD. Alternative I assumed that the 

J proposed rule would not be promulgated. Alternative II would affect new and 

modified SCMs of a significant size after the promulgation of the regulation. 

H Alternative III would impose PSD requirements on mines qualifying as major 

sources that commenced construction or modification after January 6, 1975. 

H Alternative IV would affect only new and modified mines that have ambient 

impacts on areas designated under the Clean Air Act (CAA) as Class I or 

mandatory Class II areas. 

1.1.2 PROPOSAL OF ALTERNATIVES IV and IV" 

On May 4, 1987, the EPA distributed a memo proposing an Alternative IV 

(prime) and IV" (double prime) to a list of addressees (Figure 1-1) and 

requested comments on the proposals. The modifications to the original 

1-1 
P.6 

Figure 1-1 

Addressees for May 4, 

on Proposed Alternatives 

1987 Memo 

IV and IV" 

I 

__i 

FI 

Joseph J. Brecher 

Attorney at Law 

506 - 15th Street 

Suite 500 

Oakland, CA 94612 

Howard I. Fox 

Sierra Club Legal 

Defense Fund, Inc. 

1516 P Street, N.W. 

Washington, D.C. 20005 

(Sierra Club) 

Michael B. Barr 

Hunton & Williams 

P.O. Box 19230 

Washington, D.C. 20036 

(National Coal Association) 

Roberta L. Halladay 

Holland & Hart 

1875 I Street, N.W. 

Washington, D.C. 20006 

(American Mining Congress) 

Robert T. Connery 

Holland & Hart 

555 - 17th Street 

Suite 2900 

Denver, Colorado 80201 

(American Mining Congress) 

David G. Unger, Director 

Watershed and Air Management 

U.S. Department of Agriculture 

Forest Service 

12th & Independence Avenue, SW 

P.O. Box 2417 

Washington, D.C. 20013 

Michael Poling 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for 

Land and Minerals Management 

Department of the Interior 

Washington, D.C. 20240 

Ted Williams, Director 

Office of Environmental 

Analysis, Policy, Safety, 

and Environment 

U.S. Department of Energy 

Washington, D.C. 

Joe Mull an 

Senior Vice President 

for Environmental Affairs 

National Coal Association 

1130 - 17th Street N.W. 

Washington, D.C. 20036 

Larry Boggs 

Senior Counsel 

American Mining Congress 

1920 N Street N.W. 

Suite 300 

Washington, D.C. 20036 

1-2 
li 

1 

P 

El 

1 

1 

„ 

p 

t" 

I 

1 

P 

1 

R 

1 

e 

1 

i i 

Figure 1-1 (continued) 

Lloyd F. Novick, M.D. 

Director, Office of Air Quality 

2005 North Central Avenue 

Phoenix, AZ 85004 

Bradley J. Beckham, Director 

Air Pollution Control Division 

4210 East 11th Avenue 

Denver, CO 28220 

Michael J. Hayes 

Division Manager 

Air Pollution Control Division 

Illinois EPA 

2200 Churchill Road 

Springfield, IL 62706 

Roger B. McCann, Director 

Division of Air Pollution Control 

Fort Boone Plaza 

18 Reilly Road 

Frankfort, KY 40601 

Harold Robbins 

Chief, Air Quality Bureau 

Cogswell Building 

Helena, Montana 59620 

Randolph Wood 

Director, Department of 

Environmental Qualtiy 

122 West 25th Street 

Cheyenne, WY 82002 

] 

Michael J. Burkhart 

Chief, Air Quality Bureau 

1190 St. Francis Drive 

P.O. Box 968 

Sante Fe, NM 87504-0698 

Dana K. Mount 

Director, Division of 

Environmental Engineering 

North Dakota State Department 

of Health 

1200 Missouri Avenue 

Bismark, ND 58502-5520 

Allen Eli Bell 

Executive Director 

Texas Air Pollution Board 

6330 Highway 290 East 

Austin, TX 78723 

F. Burnell Cordner 

Director, Bureau of Air Quality 

Utah Department of Health 

P.O. Box 16690 

SLC, UT 84116-0690 

L-3 

P.7 
P.8 

B 

1 

Alternative IV proposal were fashioned by the EPA in response to comments and 

were felt to be a logical outgrowth of the original proposal. 

Alternative IV proposed the PSD review of a mine be triggered, not by a 

fixed aroient concentration, but by the prediction of adverse impact. It 

3 

proposed that a projected concentration of 1 ug/m would trigger an ambient 

impact assessment, not a PSD review, and a mine would be subject to PSD only 

if the ambient impact assessment revealed a potential adverse impact 

(determined by the Federal Land Manager (FLM)). Regulatory coverage would be 

extended to only mandatory Class I and Class II areas. 

Alternative IV" incorporated the same adverse impact test as IV , but 

differed from IV in that it would only protect mandatory Class I areas and 

3 

would delete the 1 ug/m ambient impact trigger for analysis. The adverse 

impact analysis would be applied to all mines within 50 kilometers of a 

mandatory Class I area. This alternative would remove uncertanties as to the 

application of the adverse impact analysis test. It would also limit the 

number of sources subject to modeling exercises. 

The memo also summarized portions of the comments by industry and 

environmental groups to the original Alternatives I-IV. 

1.2 COMPILATION APPROACH 

This report presents a summary of industry, environmental group and 

government comments subsequent to the comment close date of June 30, 1986. The 

comments are identified by Docket Numbers A-84-33, IV-L-63 through IV-L-88 and 

cover additional comments to Alternatives I through IV plus new comments to 

proposed Alternatives IV and IV". The approach of this compilation was to 

summarize the additional comments to the original Alternatives I-IV in one 

section (Section 2) and to summarize Industry, Environmental Group and 

Government comments to Alternatives IV and IV" in their own separate sections 

(Sections 3, 4 and 5 respectively). Parenthetical references are made to the 

organization which has set forth or supported a particular view or comment. A 

list of the Comment Numbers, Name of the Commenter and Parenthetical Reference 

is shown in Appendix B of this report. As a summary, the goal of this report 

was to distill the twenty-six (26) comments down to clear and concise points. 

It is recommended that the reader refer to an individual comment when more 

detailed knowledge is desired. 

1-4 
P.9 

B SECTION 2 

B

ADDITIONAL COMMENTS RELATING 

TO PROPOSED ALTERNATIVES I-IV 

| 2.1 INDUSTRY COMMENTS 

P The only additional comment received from Industry on the original 

proposed Alternatives I-IV was from the National Coal Association (NCA). The 

M comment was a response to the National Wildlife Federation, et al. (NWF) 

" comments of June 30, 1986. The NCA contended that the language and 

f. legislative history of Section 302(j) of the Clean Air Act, as well as the 

fa 

f: D.C. Circuit Court s interpretation of that provision in Alabama Power Co. v. 

Costle, 636 F.2d 323 (D.C. Cir. 1979), requires rejection of NWF's contention 

that the EPA's undertaking of a cost-benefit analysis is improper. NCA also 

contended that both the RIA and NWF failed to estimate significant costs 

£'• associated with the proposed regulation. In addition, the NCA argued that 

NWF's comments on EPA's conclusion that imposition of PSD requirements on 

H surface coal mines would result in significant reduction in mine size were 

unsubstantiated. They stated that the NWF is free to seek review of the 

n Department of Interior's actions by the appropriate judicial or administrative 

l-i authorities if it believes the DOI is not carrying out its congressional 

0 mandate. NCA again urged the EPA not to promulgate its proposed rules. 

I 

2.2 ENVIRONMENTAL GROUP COMMENTS 

No additional comments were received from Environmental Groups on the 

original Alternatives I-IV. 

2.3 GOVERNMENT COMMENTS 

2-1 
P.10 

1 

n 

• i 

2.3.1 FEDERAL GOVERNMENT COMMENTS 

Two Federal Government organizations (DOI and COA) submitted additional 

comments to the proposed Alternatives I-IV, both in response to the National 

Wildlife Federation, et al. (NWF) comments of June 30, 1986. The DOI 

claimed that many of the NWF statements were made without any supporting data 

or other substantiation. The DOI also stated that Section 522(e) of the 

Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 (SMCRA), 30 U.S.C. 1272(e) 

provides substantial protection to National Park Service (NPS) units. The DOI 

also intends to propose regulations of its own to require that roads be 

constructed and maintained to stabilize exposed surfaces and control air 

pollution attendant to erosion, (emphasis added for this document). DOI also 

asked to be notified when the final rule moved through the Office of Management 

and Budget prior to publication. 

The legal brief prepared by the U.S. Court of Appeals stated that Section 

515(b)(4), 30 U.S.C. 1265(b)(4) does not confer authority upon the Secretary 

of the Interior to regulate air pollution, but that when the operative words 

of Section 515(b)(4) are taken together, the Secretary's regulatory authority 

is clearly limited to air pollution caused by erosion, (emphasis added for 

this document). The Court of Appeals also concluded that the legislative 

history of Section 515(b)(4) confirms the requirement for the Secretary of the 

Interior to protect against erosion and air and water pollution caused by 

erosion. 

Other Federal Government comments (DOC and DOA) opposed Alternatives II 

through IV. DOC contended that the RIA overstated benefits and understated 

costs for these alternatives, while DOA stated that mining operations on 

Federal lands adjacent to wilderness areas are controllable by agency [DOA] 

administrative policy. The DOA also suggested that a simpler criterion be 

used as a screening trigger, such as acreage disturbed at one time, if the EPA 

decides to proceed with the rulemaking. The DOA also stated that its' air 

action team would be revitalized and would meet with EPA to design a clearing 

house approach to new source problems concerning review of PSD application, 

modeling and operational research. 

The EPA documented a meeting with the American Mining Congress (AMC) on 

April 7, 1986. At that meeting, the AMC "urged EPA to reject Alternative IV 

2-2 
P.11 

under the Strip Mines rulemaking proposal". Their reasons were as follows: 

l 

° EPA is not legally bound to list surface coal mines. 

b

° Surface coal mines are already subject to the equivalent of best 

available control technology under state permit and control 

_ requirements, 

Q ° The proposal would not have any significant environmental benefit in 

terms of visibility or any other environmental factor. 

|j ° The proposal would put, at a minimum, 8.6 billion tons of coal in 12 

states off-limits to development. 

[1 ° The proposal would increase consumer fuel bills approximately $0.9 to 

$1.4 billion (present value). 

n ° The proposal is unnecessary because the Department of the Interior 

•s already has ample authority to declare any potential surface coal 

«- mining that adversely affects a Class I area unsuitable for mining. 

!?• ° The proposal would unnecessarily prohibit surface coal mining in huge 

"buffer zones" surrounding Class I areas, which have no adverse effect 

on visitor experience in Class I areas. 

The AMC urged adoption of Alternative I (no listing). 

L: Additional Federal Government comments (ARM and BUR) expressed concern of 

EPA's promulgation of the rulemaking. One of the concerns of ARM was based on 

I] the "removal of approximately 79 million tons of bituminous coal on the Ute 

Mountain Ute Reservation from future production", while the other's (BUR) 

F? concerns were based on the fact that the EPA "has not demonstrated a need for 

such regulation in order to protect public health". It should be noted that 

UMT estimated the amount of bituminous coal as 39 million tons on the Ute 

Mountain Ute Reservation in their original comment of April 29, 1986. 

2.3.2 STATE GOVERNMENT COMMENTS 

Two State Governments (WYO and MON) submitted additional comments 

opposing promulgation of the EPA's rulemaking; i.e. they support Alternative 

I. WYO contended that such an action would cease the mining and production of 

over 100 million tons of low sulfur coal, while MON stated that EPA's 

promulgation of the rule would not comply with the requirements of Section 302 

2-3 

n 
P.12 

I 

(j) of the Federal Clean Air Act and would modify the method by which the 

state must issue permits to mines; i.e. inclusion of emissions for 

determination of increment consumption. MON also noted the EPA's proposal to 

change the national air quality standard for particulates. MON recommended 

that the EPA reconsider listing of SCMs vf the final secondary particulate 

standard methodology is in any form other than total suspended particulate 

(TSP). (emphasis in original). MON also contended that its current permit 

program for SCMs is sufficient without a new regulation. 

m 

li 

I 

2-4 
P.13 

Si SECTION 3 

M INDUSTRY COMMENTS ON 

| PROPOSED ALTERNATIVES IV AND IV" 

|j Industry responses to proposed Alternatives IV and IV" were essentially 

against both modifications and reiterated their recommendations that 

i Alternative I (no listing) be followed (SMC, UMT, PCC, NCA, AMC and UARG). SMC 

had numerous comments with respect to proposed Alternatives IV and IV" which 

B

ean be summarized as: 1) Alternatives IV and IV" differ substantially 

from the original proposed Alternative IV; 2) Protection of "natural" values 

^ of Class I and Mandatory Class II areas is inappropriate within the scope of 

li the Clean Air Act (CAA), except for those Class I areas designated by the CAA; 

3) Comments pertaining to the lands protected and the triggering criteria 

: (use of an actual value rather than the theoretical value of 1 ug/m to 

trigger an ambient impact assessment); and 4) Given EPA's current proposals, 

SMC felt that Alternative IV" as applied to Class I areas designated by the 

CAA was the only alternative which may have positive benefits. SMC also 

II recommended that EPA subject the proposed Alternatives IV and IV" to the 

formal public review process. UMT further objected to Alternatives IV and 

n IV" based on the belief that there is no justification for these regulations. 

Li Although UMT continued to support Alternative I (no listing), they believe 

n that the EPA should provide financial and technical assistance to conduct a 

N 

[J more detailed analysis of the technical effects of the proposed rulemaking. 

UMT also believes that potential environmental concerns can be addressed by 

1 the Department of Interior under the provisions of the Surface Mining Control 

and Reclamation Act. PCC continued to support Alternative I (no listing), but 

R suggested that modifications to Alternative IV should be directed toward 

visibility impairment using a screening technique for visibility such as that 

developed in EPA's "Workbook for Estimating Visibility Impairment". PCC also 

contended that Alternative IV should be modified to include impacts on 

3-1 
P.14 

D 

P*) 

mandatory Class I areas only, and that a distance of between 10 and 15 km from 

Class I areas should serve as the trigger mechanism for reviewing a SCM's 

potential for adverse visibility impairment. In addition, EPA should not 

involve the Federal Lund Manager (FLM) in its program. PCC's comments were, 

in essence the same as NCA's, AMC's and UARG's comments. All four agreed that 

only a finding of actual adverse impact should subject a source to PSD 

review, that a distance of between 10 and 15 km should be used and that the 

FLM should not be involved. However, AMC stated that Alternative IV" "more 

faithfully adheres to the Agency's objective of protecting special resources; 

therefore, AMC could accept this limitation." 

3-2 
P.15 

I 

•i 

SECTION 4 

ENVIRONMENTAL GROUP COMMENTS 

ON PROPOSED ALTERNATIVES IV AND IV" 

Two comments on proposed Alternatives IV and IV" were received from 

Environmental Groups (SC and EPI). Both SC and EPI viewed the proposed 

Alternatives IV and IV" as being less acceptable than the original proposed 

Alternative IV (emphasis added for this document). Their objections to IV 

were based on the fact that the decision whether to regulate a new SCM would 

be removed from the EPA, the states and the Indian Tribes and placed with the 

Federal Land Manager. This, in essence, would subordinate the views of the 

state, EPA, and Indian tribes to an "unelected bureaucrat". Alternative IV", 

in their opinion, would afford no protection for mandatory Class II areas and 

would allow SCM's further than 50 km from a mandatory Class I area to escape 

regulation, without regard to the magnitude of impact upon those areas. SC 

also holds the opinion that costs, rather than environmental benefits, is what 

really concerns EPA. EPI also contended that the proposal failed to address 

the statutory question: "What is the definition of fugitive dust on surface 

mines?". The EPI also pointed out that it endorses the comments filed by SC 

in full, as well as highlighting its understanding that the environmental 

community is unanimous in its support to regulate air quality for all mines. 

4-1 
P.16 

fl 

P 

SECTION 5 

GOVERNMENT COMMENTS ON 

PROPOSED ALTERNATIVES IV AND IV" 

5.1 FEDERAL GOVERNMENT COMMENTS 

Comments to proposed Alternatives IV and IV" were received from two 

Federal Government agencies (DOI, DOE, DPH) and four State Senators (USS). 

Both DOI and DOE continue to support Alternative I (no listing). DOI believed 

3 

the 1 ug/m trigger applied to total suspended particulate (TSP) in 

Alternative I V was problematic due to the poor correlation of TSP with the 

air quality related value (AQRV) and with visibility in the desired protection 

areas, and because of its lack of relation to public health. DOI suggested 

that fine particulate matter less than 2.5 micrometers in aerodynamic diameter 

(FPM) was more directly related to visibility impairment. DOI also contended 

that modeling ambient impacts of TSP from SCMs is full of unsolved problems; 

primarily because EPA's ISC model overestimates concentrations of particular 

matter because it ignores pit retention and, possibly, because of its 

treatment of source depletion. DOI rejected Alternative IV" because of its 

contention that the 50 km trigger is "legally questionable, arbitrary and 

lacks any empirical basis." DOE continues to believe that the analyses 

support Alternative I, a decision not to list SCMs. However, DOE considered 

Alternative IV" applied only to mandatory Class I areas most consistent with 

the analytical results and believed that the geographic applicability trigger 

offers several substantial administrative advantages. These advantages would 

primarily be in the areas of certainty of the adverse impact test application 

and the elimination of some air quality modeling exercises. The comments of 

USS also support the original Alternative I (no listing) since, in their 

opinion, the documents developed by the EPA show the potential benefits of 

listing SCMs would be ambiguous at best and also due to the fact that Congress 

5-1 
P.17 

F 

1 

has charged the Secretary of the Interior with the primary responsibility to 

protect national parks and wilderness areas. USS also continue to support 

Alternative I (no listing) and urged the EPA to resolve the matter with the 

Secretary of the Interior. 

5.2 STATE GOVERNMENT COMMENTS 

Comments on proposed Alternatives IV and IV" were received from two 

State Governments (DEQW and DEPK). Both continued to support the original 

Alternative I (no listing). DEQW had serious reservations concerning the 

3 

application of the 1 ug/m impact because of the stretching of the limitations 

of the dispersion models at long range. They also objected to a PSD review 

based solely on the FLM prediction of an adverse impact. In their opinion, 

Alternative IV" would "seem to provide the protection that the Clean Air Act 

requires in Class I areas by requiring an adverse impact analysis for all 

mines proposed within 50 kilometers of a mandatory Class I area." However, 

DEQW felt that the decision on whether an adverse impact will result and, 

hence, require a PSD review, should rest with the State. DEPK maintained that 

the nature of SCM operations and the enforcement burden make regulation of 

them impractical. However, they perceived Alternative IV" to be the most 

nearly acceptable control alternative due to its clear applicability criterion 

(50 km limitation) and due to the fact that it addresses only Class I areas. 

5-2 
P.18 

I 

Lj 

SECTION 6 

CONCLUSIONS 

In summary, Industry, Federal Government and State Government responses 

continued to support Alternative I (no listing). If Alternative I were not 

selected, Alternative IV" appeared to be the most acceptable to the majority 

of organizations providing comments; however some disagreed with the 50 km 

limitation zone and with the involvement of the Federal Land Manager. 

The Environmental Groups comments support their position that 

Alternatives I through IV, as well as proposed Alternatives IV and IV", are 

not strong enough and that the EPA "must regulate a_H_ strip mines which would 

cause potential violations of any of the ambient air quality standards or PSD 

increments". 

6-1 
P.19 

APPENDIX A 

SUMMARY OF COMMENTS ON RIA FOR 

EPA PROPOSAL FOR FUGITIVE 

EMISSIONS FROM SURFACE COAL MINES 

PSD PROGRAM 

,, 

I 

A-1 
P.20 

I 

SUMMARY OF COMMENTS 

ON RIA FOR EPA 

PROPOSAL FOR FUGITIVE EMISSIONS 

FROM SURFACE COAL MINES--

PSD PROGRAM 

I 

Docket No. A-84-3 3 

Prepared for 

Control Programs Development Division 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Research Triangle Park 

ivorth Carolina 27711 

Prepared by 

ESI International, Inc. 

17U7 L Street, N.W. 

Suite 570 

Washington, D.C. 20036 

August 1986 

A-2 
P.21 

G 

CONTENTS 

I. INTRODUCTION 1 

A. This Document 1 

B. This Proceeding 2 

II. SUMMARY 3 

A. Threshold and Procedural Issues 3 

1. Health and Welfare Effects from SCMs ... . 3 

a. Absence of adverse effects 3 

b. Existence of adverse effects 6 

2. Definition of "Stationary Source" 6 

a. Classification of SCMs as a 

"stationary source" 6 

b. Inclusion of secondary emissions ... . 8 

c. Inclusion of adjacent sources 9 

3. Grandfathering 10 

4. Procedural Matters 11 

B. The Regulatory Impact Analysis 12 

1. Overview 12 

2. Underestimation of Costs 13 

a. Methodology 13 

b. Reliance on EPRI mine costing model . . 13 

[ c. Use of small mines as prototypical mines 14 

* d. Heterological assumptions 14 

e. Emission factors 15 

f. Industrial Source Complex model ... . 15 

g. Affect on existing mines 16 

h. SCM movement outside of impact area . . 17 

i. Redesignation from Class II to Class III 17 

j. State and local regulatory burden .. . 17 

k. Examination of high-cost years 18 

1. National security 18 

m. Taxes 18 

n. Re-siting affected mines .18 

o. Each basin as an independent coal market 19 

p. Coal supply elasticity 19 

q. Industry studies 20 

(1) TRC Environmental Consultants, Inc. 20 

(2) ICF Inc 22 

(3) Hagler, Bailly, & Company 26 

3. Overestimation of Costs . . / 26 

P 

A-3 
4. Area-Specific Costs 29 

a. Appalachia 29 

b. AMAX mines, Wyoming 30 

c. Peabody mines, Wyoming 30 

d. Wyoming mines generally 30 

e. Texas lignite mining 31 

f. Montana mines 32 

g. New Mexico mines, Indian reservations . 33 

h. Centralia mine, Washington 34 

i. Colorado mines 34 

j. North Dakota mines 35 

k. Illinois mines 36 

1. Utah International mines 36 

5. Overestimation of Benefits 36 

a. Existin g controls 36 

b . Use of urban localitie s 38 

c . Willingness-to-pa y 39 

d. Visua l range improvement 40 i 

e. Existence values 41 

f. Proliferation of smaller mines 42 

6. Underestimation of Benefits 43 

jv C. Conclusion . 44 

;-'• 1. Industry and Government 4 4 

l . 2. Environmental Groups 45 

f Appendix A A-1 

Appendix B . . . . B-l 

. ! 

J 

A-4 
P.23 

0 

Fl 

0 

1 

I. INTRODUCTION 

A. This Document 

This document summarizes all significant written public 

comments submitted in response to the February 28, 1986, (51 

Fed. Reg. 7090; announcement by the EPA of the availability of 

the Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA) for its October 26, 1984, 

proposal to require fugitive emissions from surface coal mines 

to be included in threshold applicability determinations 

regarding whether a new project is "major" under EPA's 

prevention of significant deterioration (PSD) program. The 

comment period closed June 30, 1986. 

The purposes of this summary are to assist the EPA (1) in 

its ongoing, independent review of, and response to, the 

public comments; and (2) in evaluating the regulatory options 

regarding this matter. 

For the reader's convenience, parenthetical references 

are made to representative (out not all) commenters who 

supported a particular view or suggestion. To -save space and 

avoid undue interruption of syntax, we abbreviated the names 

of the referenced commenters. Appendix A lists the full names 

and docket numoers of the commenters whose submissions we have 

reviewed. Appendix 3 lists the aDbreviated names we have used, 

In preparing the summaries, we have reconciled the 

competing goals of achieving enough detail so that the 

summaries are helpful, and enough brevity so that they do not 

approach the unwieldiness of the mass of individual comments. 

Judgments were necessarily made as to which comments were 

"significant," and how they should be organized. For these 

reasons—and as with any summary—reference to the individual 

comment is recommended where a detailed and specific 

•examination of a commenter's view is desired. 

A-5 
P.24 

KU_ 

5M 

B. This Proceeding 

On October 26, 1984, EPA proposed to add surface coal 

mines (SCMs) to the list of source categories in which 

fugitive emissions are to be included in the threshold 

applicability determination under EPA's PSD rules. On 

February 28, 1986, EPA announced the availability of the RIA 

and tne reopening of the comment period (51 Fed. Reg. 7090). 

EPA's RIA compares the projected costs and benefits of 

four alternative approaches to regulating SCMs under PSD 

constraints. Alternative I assumes that the proposed rule 

!| would not be promulgated. Alternative II would limit the 

applicability of the rule to major new and modified SCMs 

commencing construction after promulgation of the regulations. 

Alternative III would impose PSD regulatory requirements on . 

all mines qualifying as major sources that commence 

construction or modification after January 6, 1975. 

Alternative IV would affect only major new and modified SCMs 

that have ambient impacts on areas designated under the Clean 

Air Act as Class I or mandatory Class II. The RIA seeks to 

compare the incremental costs and benefits of eacn of the last 

three alternatives to Alternative I (tne status quo). 

Industry commenters favored Alternative I largely for 

reasons set out in several consultnt reports commissioned by 

industry trade associations (see Part II.B.2.q.). Environmental groups, however, supported the listing of SCMs under 

the PSD rules. 

1 

A-6 
P.25 

1 

II. SUMMARY 

A. Threshold and Procedural Issues 

1. Health and Welfare Effects from SCMs 

a. Absence of adverse effects 

Many industrial commenters stated that EPA's proposal 

exceeded the scope of its authority under the Clean Air Act 

because fugitive emissions from surface coal mines (SCMs) do 

not have any significant adverse effect on public health or 

| welfare (MD, PCMA, NCA, WV, AMAX, PCMA, ND-Health, SF, ND, 

Peabody, WR, AMC, ICA, MCC, Taft, IL Mines, IL, NDLC, NACC, 

B ND-G, WVMRA). 

_:.! Several of these commenters (NCA) noted, preliminarily, 

that EPA has never defined "significant degradation of air 

p quality" to justify its proposal to list surface mines, as it 

~.ust under § 302(j) of the Clean Air Act (Act). Section 160 

J of the Act states explicitly that this finding of "significant 

1 degradation" must be demonstrated to cause adverse health or 

p- welfare effects—despite compliance with ambient standards--

t§* oefore EPA can justify a listing of SCMs, NCA noted. 

8 Many of these commenters pointed out, however, that the 

relatively small contribution of fugitive emissions from SCKs 

to total particulate concentrations, and the location of such 

mines in sparsely populated areas, shows that their overall 

impact on air quality is minimal. Citing Evans, T. S. and 

D. VJ. Cooper, "An Inventory of Particulate Emissions From Open 

Sources," JAPCA Vol. 30, No. 12, 1298-1303 (1980), many of 

these commenters noted that fugitive emissions from SCMs contribute less than one percent of all particulate emissions from 

open sources nationwide. In contrast, rural unpaved roads and 

agricultural operations were found to contribute 48 percent and 

46 percent respectively of open-source particulate emissions. 

A-7 
P.26 

t 

i 

One commenter (ND-Health) noted that with regard to North 

Dakota specifically, 82.3 percent of total suspended particulate (TSP) emissions for a four-county area were caused by 

unpaved roads, 14.3 percent by agricultural activities, and 

only 1.9 percent by mining operations. 

Moreover, the vast majority of particles emitted from 

l> SCMs fall to the ground rapidly, and thus have only a temporary 

U effect on air quality in the mine area, according to many 

commenters (NCA, AMC, ND-G, Peabody, IL Mines, AMC, AMAX, 

y ND-Health). The particles' large size contributes to this 

rapid fallout in deposition, and ensures that any impact in 

?! ; the immediate area of the mine will be relatively short-term. 

Also, due to the remote location of nearly all SCMs, their 

jp fugitive emissions do not affect populated urban areas, several 

commenters ODserved. One commenter (SF) cited a distance of 

f-. about "10 miles from the mine disturbance area (not the property 

fence line) as the point where negligible impacts occur. 

I 

i 

i

 Commenters also stated that the available scientific 

«. evidence establishes that there are no known adverse health or 

y' welfare effects from exposure to SCM fugitive dust. EPA 

itself has long-recognized that fine particles of two microns 

§5 or less were principally responsible for the adverse health 

and welfare effects oelieved to be caused by airborne particulates. Citing comments on the proposed revisions to the PM 

NAAQS, commenters noted also that recent scientific evidence 

supports EPA's prior recognition of the innocuous nature of 

fugitive emissions from SCMs due to their relatively large 

size and non-toxic nature. 

Citing PEDCo and TRC, "Characterization of PK^Q and TSP 

Air Quality Around Western Surface Coal Mines" (1982), NCA 

stated that only a small fraction of the fugitive emissions 

.from SCMs are fine particles of the size which impair 

visibility. Other commenters (Peabody, AMC) noted specifically 

A-8 
1 

1 

1 

that visibility impairment is caused by fine particles (those 

less than 2.5 um) and as EPA and CASAC have recognized, 

surface coal mines emit" very few such particles (less than 2 

percent of the total SCM particulate emissions). Moreover, 

Peabody and AMC stated, soiling effects are caused by dark 

particles of 5 um or less with significant carbon content, and 

again the great majority of SCM particles are greater than 5 

um and do not have significant carbon content. AMC noted 

further, citing the technical comments of Gale F. Hoffnagle, 

dated May 29, 1986, that the visibility reduction projected 

[1 under EPA's Alternative IV on the worst case day will almost 

certainly not be detrimental to anyone in the case analyzed 

R since it will occur at night during winter or spring when the 

Class I area involved—Bryce Canyon—is closed to visitors. 

Other commenters (ND-G, ND-Health) noted that no adverse 

||] health or welfare effects result from SCM particulate 

^ emissions because those sources are already using BACT under 

t state lav.' for dust-suppression. One commenter (WVMRA) noted 

I that West Virginia controls respirable particles from SCMs for 

, on-site protection of workers, which means that these 

i 

i-.. particles should have even less of an effect off-site. 

[For more on this point, see Part II.B.5.a., below.] 

More generally, commenters (AMC, WV, WVMRA) stated, there 

I would be no health or welfare benefits from PSD review of SCMs 

because that review applies only in areas where air quality is 

|| better than the NAAQS particulate matter, and thus the PM 

levels are by statutory mandate below those at which there are 

JH any known or anticipated adverse health or welfare effects of 

any kind. This is true, AMC noted, not only for the coarse, 

P non-respirable particles mines generate, but also for the small 

" fraction of PM^Q

 £n d smaller particles generated by mining. 

Finally, one commenter (SF) noted specifically that there 

. would be no adverse visibility effects in the Chaco Culture 

A-9 
P.28 

National Historic Park because that park was set up to preserve 

the activities of earlier man—not as a wilderness preserve--so 

that evidence of modern man (SCMs) would not be visibly 

repugnant. 

b. Existence of adverse effects 

On the other hand, a consortium of environmental groups 

(NWF) commented that, citing "Final Environmental Impact 

Statement OSM EIS-1," Office of Surface Mining, U.S. 

Department of the Interior (January 1979) many active SCM 

operations regularly exceed EPA's 24-hour and annual average 

NAAQS for particuates. Moreover, from 27 to 42 percent of the 

total emissions from a mine site are in the small size range 

that can lead to respiratory and other health problems. 

In addition, NWF stated, fugitive emissions from SCMs can 

substantially impair visibility in Class I and mandatory Class 

II areas, which have seen so designated by Congress to preserve 

unimpaired their unique natural qualities. 

2. Definition of "Stationary Source" 

a. Classification of SCMs as a "stationary source" 

Since EPA has acknowledged that the PSD program applies 

to stationary sources only (43 Fed. Reg. 26395), and since SCMs 

are not stationary sources, they cannot regardless of the RIA 

be suoject to PSD restrictions, according to several 

commenters (NCA, Peabody, DOI, IL Mines). 

NCA explained that although the term "stationary source" 

is not defined within the PSD provisions, it had at the time 

of the 19 77 amendments a well-established meaning found in § 

111(a)(3) of the Act, as recognized by the Court in Alabama 

.Power v. Costle 636 F.2d 323, 395 (D.C. Cir. 1979). The plain 

language of the statute fully expresses Congress' intent to 

A-10 
P.29 

e 

__ 

__ 

regulate only emissions that have fixed locations and permanent 

structures. The legislative history of the Clean Air Act 

confirms this. EPA's first set of PSD rules explicitly 

recognized that PSD review and regulation were not appropriate 

for surface coal mines, and also thereafter recognized that 

fugitive emissions from SCMs should not be regulated under 

PSD. Since the Alabama Power decision does not depart from 

its own clear insistence (636 F.2d at 395) that a "source" 

must be a stationary "building," "structure," "facility," or 

"installation," it is clear that listing by rule a SCM as a 

source is without authority because a mine fits none of these 

terms. 

Rather, commenters (Peabody, IL Mines) pointed out, SCMs 

are unlike stationary sources of air pollution because coal 

mining is a dynamic operation. As coal is generally found in 

relatively thin seams, coal mines are started at one location 

and, as the coal at that location is removed, the operation 

must move to recover more coal. A SCM pit may move several 

miles in the course of normal operations. As the pit moves, 

the haul roads used to transport the coal from the pit to 

processing or transportation facilities must be lengthened. 

Thus, the location and configuration of the operation are 

continually changing. 

SCMs are also unlike stationary sources in that the 

primary sources of air pollution are the emissions of fugitive 

dust from the primary excavating equipment such as draglines 

or shovels, vehicle traffic on haul roads or access roads, 

blasting of consolidated overburden before excavation, and the 

operation of reclamation equipment after mining. Many of 

these sources also move within the operation and all of them 

move as the operation moves. In addition, SCMs are only 

temporary emission sources. 

A-11 
_ 

B 

One commenter (Peabody) stated that before it could list 

SCMs under any of the alternatives EPA must resolve when 

changes to existing mines constitute "modifications" for PSD 

purposes. Peabody recommended that EPA provide that any 

activity at a mine that represents a logical mining sequence 

of the mine's production from the time of the mine's initial 

development should not be considered a "modification," since 

this would take into account the uniqueness and inevitable 

movement over time of SCMs. Thus, only changes at existing 

SCMs that increase the mine's maximum planned annual production capacity and result in a significant net increase in 

emissions should be considered a "modification;" a routine 

change to an SCM such as adding more haul roads should no more 

be a modification to the mine than would be an increase in 

operating hours at a factory. 

* . _LOn the other hand, environmental groups (NWF) stated that 

EPA is legally compelled to list all SCMs as set forth in 

Alternative II because the rulemaking requirement of § 302(j ) 

was fully satisfied by EPA's determination that the fugitive 

emissions of SCMs significantly degrade air quality. Nothing 

in 302(j) authorizes EPA's interpretation that it may exclude 

a category of sources from the PSD list if the agency 

concludes that the alleged cost of controlling fugitive 

emissions outweigh tne health and environmental benefits of 

such control. 

I 

e 

b. Inclusion of secondary emissions 

Several commenters (DSC, MRCA, NCA) stated that even if 

EPA lists SCMs, it must exclude secondary emissions (e.g., 

fugitive dust generated by haul road traffic service the SCM) 

from any PSD threshold determination. Secondary emissions are 

excluded from a source's potential to emit under § 51.24(b)(4) 

.of the PSD rules, and since dust generated by traffic around 

A-12 
P.31 

the site does not constitute an emission of the mine itself, 

it is an excludable secondary emission. 

c. Inclusion of adjacent sources 

Several commenters (Peabody, NCA, MRCA, AMC, NACC, 

Trapper, Western, IL Mines, SanAnt) stated that EPA should not 

include fugitive emissions from an unregulated SCM adjacent to 

a coal preparation plant or power plant in the threshold 

determination for the listed cleaning plant or power plant. 

w. 

Commenters reasoned, first, that EPA's request for 

additional comment on procedures to relieve SCMs from 

regulation because they may share the same two digit SIC code 

as an adjacent source is an improper shifting to industry of 

tne evidentiary burden; rather, it is EPA's responsibility to 

devise consistent regulations. If the existing application 

and definition of "stationary source" would nullify an EPA 

decision to not regulate SCMs, they must be changed. Any 

decision to subject SCMs to PSD rules must be based on the 

record of a § 302(j) proceeding, and may not legally be done 

indirectly through EPA's source definition. 

An exemption from the adjacent, related, and commonly 

controlled links for any source category which has been 

suojected to a § 302(j ) rulemaking-and for which the agency 

declined to include fugitive emissions would be simple to 

apply and would not impair EPA's ability to regulate other 

such sources. 

I Commenters also pointed out that application of the 

current source definitions to contiguous SCM-listed source 

units would be unfair since a mine which happens to have an 

adjacent coal cleaning plant has the same kind and quantity of 

fugitive emissions from mining as a similar mine without a 

.coal cleaning plant. Mining operations should not be penalized 

A-13 
P.32 

D 

when they seek to locate next to processing facilitie s since 

there are also evident energy and environmental Benefits to 

such code-location. 

3. Grandfathering 

A number of commenters (MRCA, Ben, NCA) stated that if 

EPA lists SCMs, existing mines should nevertheless be exempt 

from retroactive consumption of PSD increment and all PSD 

rn permitting requirements. 

These commenters noted, first, that EPA itself has 

y acknowledged that Congress did not intend the disruption 

associated witn retroactive PSD regulation to occur, 49 Fed. 

I M2.- ^3212 (October 26, 1984). 

[: Next, commenters stated that EPA's actual proposed rule, 

however, narrows the r.road exemption described in the preamble. 

In states such as Wyoming which set a statewide baseline as of 

August 7, 1977, these commenters (MRCA, NCA) stated, all new 

or expanded SCM operations that commenced construction as long 

'* as eight years ago would consume increment even though their 

._. emissions had been exempted from increment consumption under 

L the tr.-n-applicaole rules. 

J Such retroactive increment consumption could result in 

mines havina to cut back to infeasible levels of production or 

y shutting down entirely, even though the operations were validly 

permitted and authorized by the state, and after the sources 

If had invested hundreds of millions of dollars in reliance on 

those governmental authorizations. Under these circumstances, 

B revoking those authorizations could be an unconstitutional 

taking, the commenters stated, citing Penn Central Transportation Coro. v. New York City, 438 U.S. 104,'124, 127 (1978). 

Such retroactive application would also be fundamentally 

unfair. Where, as here, there has Deen substantial reliance 

A-14 
P.33 

I 

0 

on prior agency policy, EPA should not retroactively apply a 

changed policy to the detriment of those who relied in good 

faith on the old rules." 

MRCA suggested, in addition, that the definition of 

"commenced construction" in the grandfathering proposal should 

include new mines and planned mining extensions where commitments have been made such as altering mine plans, entering 

into contracts for coal, or conducting environmental baseline 

studies. 

• NCA also stated that in fashioning a grandfathering 

provision, EPA should not require a surface mine to obtain all 

required permits and start actual construction; rather, the 

grandfathering threshold for SCMs should be satisfied by the 

putting together of a logical mining unit or the purchase orlease of a reserve area. These actions, NCA stated, represent 

the commitment of substantial financial and technical 

resources to the project. Specifically, NCA proposed that a 

mine site to which significant financial commitments are made 

before the date on which SCMs are listed should be exempted 

from all PSD constraints. Also, any major modifications at an 

operating mine after the listing date should be exempted from 

PSD constraints so long as those modifications do not result 

in increases in the design production rate of the mine. 

Finally, NCA proposed that EPA should delete the reference in 

its proposal to "actual" emissions of SCMs since such a 

restriction penalizes operations that have not yet operated at 

full permitted capacity. 

4. Procedural Matters 

In comments submitted in April 1986, Sunbelt requested 

EPA to extend the comment period for 30 days,*' Trapper, Montco, 

and CMA requested EPA to extend the comment period 90 days. 

A-15 
Commenters also stated that EPA's proposed listing of 

I SCMs is premature, and should await revision of the particulate 

matter NAAQS, and the development of reliable surveillance 

I techniques and reference methods (WR, Taft, MT, MCC, AMAX, 

DSC, MRCA). In particular, the commenters noted, revision of 

r the primary and secondary TSP standards is necessary to assess 

•" accurately the costs and benefits of a proposed listing of 

8

SCMs. As it stands, the commenters stated, in this proposal 

EPA is asserting that large particles are a health and welfare 

concern, but in the NAAQS revision process EPA is asserting 

H just the opposite. 

q Finally, several commenters (ICA, MRCA) stated that EPA's 

proposal to list SCMs under the PSD provisions violates § 

fe 307(d)(3)'s requirement for a statement of basis and purpose 

because EPA has not indicated or defined the types of 

p activities thought to be a "major modification." Since under 

the current definition a major modification of a particulate 

. matter source is any activity with the potential to emit 25 

tons/year, the simple addition of only 37 feet of haul road at 

r^ a 6 million ton/year mine or a slight change in.stripping 

Hi ratios, or mining equipment changes could effect a "major 

modification" at an SCM. 

I] 

3. Tne Regulatory Impact Analysis 

1. Overview 

As summarized below, industry commenters generally felt 

that EPA's Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA) overestimated the 

costs of listing SCMs and overestimated the benefits. As a 

result, they concluded generally that Alternative I—not 

listing SCMs—was the preferred alternative. 

Industry comments were based in large part on lengthy 

analyses done by consultants TRC and ICF at the request of 

industry trade associations (AMC, UARG, NCA, MRCA). In 

A-16 
P.35 

D 

addition, industry commenters pointed to area- and companyspecific instances where EPA's RIA underestimated the 

potential cost of listing SCMs. 

On the other hand, environmental groups submitted that 

EPA overestimated the costs and underestimated the benefits of 

a listing decision. 

2. Underestimation of Costs 

a. Methodolgy 

NCA stated that as a general matter EPA's RIA 

underestimates costs because its analyses of the alternatives 

presented are inconsistent, examine qualitatively different 

D data, and evaluate that data differently. For Alternative 

II,the RIA predicted production rates and resulting costs and 

P benefits at "prototypical" mines in five Dasins. Alternative 

III considers the effects of the "no grandfather" case only in 

the Powder River Basin. Both sets of data are computed for 

1995. For Alternative IV, however, the RIA predicted effects 

r; for hypothetical mines locating near Bryce Canyon National Park 

M (Class I) and Chaco Culture National Historic Park (mandatory 

Class II) only. Comparisons of results among the three 

|| alternatives is virtually impossible. All three analyses consider different mines in different- basins at different times. 

! Tne RIA even precludes internal comparison of Alternative IV 

results because the regulatory effects at Bryce are calculated 

0 for 1996, and Chaco Culture for 1969, NCA stated. 

1 b. Reliance on EPRI mine costing model 

NCA also commented tha t EPA's cost impacts analysis is 

inadecuate because the RIA relied on an outdated and incomplete 

mine costing model developed by the Electric'Power Research 

Institut e (EPRI) in 1981. This model was revised in 1984 and 

again in 1986 to correc t earlie r flaws that caused a range of 

A-1 7 
P.36 

the EPRI model overstated worker productivity and consequently 

understated labor costs). Third party users of the 1981 model 

like EPA are likely to obtain significant random errors when 

they try to adapt the model's default values to reflect their 

unique data. 

I 

r • 

_: 

c. Use of small mines as prototypical mines 

NCA also stated that EPA's analysis understated costs 

because the RIA begins with costs of production at 

"prototypical" mines that are significantly smaller, and, 

thus, potentially higher cost producers, than actual mines 

that would De affected by regulation. For example, NCA 

stated, EPA did not consider mine cost impacts at any mine 

exceeding 10 million TPY production, although several existing 

mines exceed 15 million TPY production. Reliance on these 

artificially undersized mines results in overstatement of 

actual initial production costs due. to lost economies of 

scale. This in turn leads to the understatement of the impact 

of PSD regulation on production costs by artificially 

narrowing the gap between regulated and unregulated costs of 

production, NCA stated. 

c. , Meterological assumptions 

I 

Commenters (Peabody, NCA) stated that EPA also 

understated its cost estimates by modeling the air quality 

impact of less than worst-case meterological conditions. 

Citing a letter from TRC to Utah International (dated May 8, 

1986), NCA stated that EPA used only C and D stability classes 

rather than E and/or F conditions, and also failed to reflect 

the low-wind speed stable conditions generally associated with 

peak impact for ground-level, non-buoyant sources. Thus EPA 

artificially increased the size of "regulated" mines, and 

narrowed the gap between pre- and post-regulation mine-size 
P.37 

I 

I 

erroneously, thereby understating the production costs of 

regulation. Peabody underscored this point, stating that even 

the National Weather Service is unable to reliably predict the 

weather on a regional scale, let alone the micro scale. 

e. Emission factors 

Peabody, MCC, and ND-Health stated that costs of 

regulation were also unreliable because the field study (PEDCo 

1984) that EPA relied on to derive the current particulate 

emission factors assumed as many as 50 percent of the data 

points. In order to compensate for this lack of data, the 

study arbitrarily assumed a positive concentration toward the 

no concentration data points. As a result, Peabody, HCC, and 

ND-Health stated, the emission factors are inappropriate. In 

addition, Peabody and others (WV, Rock, WVMRA) stated 

generally that EPA's assumed factors were for western SCMs 

only, and they are inappropriate for use with regard to 

midwestern and eastern SCMs. 

f. Industrial Source Complex model 

Peabody stated that the Industrial Source Complex (ISC) 

model EPA used in its RIA analysis makes numerous simplifying 

assumptions that caused the model results to be questionable 

when applied to SCM emissions. For example, the model assumes 

nonreactive gaseous pollutants, i.e., no loss, are emitted 

into an homogenous atmosphere from an elevated non-moving 

point source. In fact, Peabody pointed out, none of these 

assumptions are correct and the model has been adjusted to 

attempt corrections. In addition, the modeling assumptions 

for the sizes of particulates (which affect the settling 

velocities) are very questionable. 

DOI also argued that EPA's ISC model could systematically 

overestimate ambient concentrations, in particular due to a 

A-19 
P.38 

1 

c 

$ 

failure to consider pit retention and, possibly, its treatment 

of source depletion. These overestimates of ambient 

concentrations-could range from a factor of two to four (or 

higher), and in many cases could substantially overestimate 

benefits such as showing visual range improvements above the 

level of perceptibility when, in fact, such improvements would 

be imperceptible. The RIA's assertion that if dispersion 

modeling overestimates ambient impacts then it overestimates 

both costs and benefits is true only if EPA modifies the 

dispersion model to eliminate systematic errors before 

implementing the SCM listing, DOI stated. Otherwise, SCMs 

will have to bear real "extra" costs, but none of the "extra" 

benefits generated would be real, DOI concluded. 

Many other commenters (MCC, Brazos, WR, Ben, DOE) 

expressed general skepticism of the model's validity. 

g. Affect on existing mines 

Several commenters (MRCA, Peabody, DOI, CSWS) stated that 

EPA's RIA erroneously assumes that no existing mines would be 

affected by listing SCMs. 

In fact, the commenters noted, Peaoody presently operates 

its Big Sky mine in Montana with a permitted production rate 

of over 4 million tons/year. In addition, Peabody plans to 

develop the North Ashland reserve area wnich contains about 400 

to 500 million tons of coal and is adjacent to the Cheyenne 

Indian reservation. Given EPA's assumption that existing mines 

would move and new mines could not operate within the impact 

area of a Class I or II area, Peaabody's and several other 

mines would be forced to cease operations and not develop other 

coal reserves. EPA, however, has failed to account for the 

costs of these closures in terms of lost jobs, tax revenues 

and royalties to the counties, state and federal government. 

A-20 
I 

! 

1 

R 0 

| 

:_» 

1 

(_ci 

If. : 

1 

1 1 

i 

[1 

Q 

1 

1 

P 

i 

i 

! 

• 

Other site-specific impacts are set out in part II.B.4., 

below. 

SF, 

that 

h. SCM movement outside of impact area 

Many commenters (Peabody, NCA, MRCA, ICA, MCC, DOE, CSWS, 

AMAX, ND-Health, UARG) stated that EPA erroneously assumed 

mines proposing to operate within the ambient impact 

range of Class I and II areas would move to avoid becoming 

subj 

have 

ect to PSD rules. But this assumption implies that SCMs 

the flexibility to simply move out of sight and 

recommence mining coal, which they do not. Coal is not found 

everywhere, and when it is found it may not be of acceptable 

sulf 

dept 

Thus 

choo 

RIA' 

can 

fact 

any 

agai 

poll 

EPA' 

tne 

have 

regu 

ur content, Btu content, etc., and may well be at such 

hs as to make it uncoverable by surface mining methods. 

, SCMs do not have the flexibility to locate where they . 

se, as would the classic "stationary source." 

i. Redesignation from Class II to Class III 

Several commenters (AMAX, CSWS, UARG) stated that the 

s sensitivity analysis erroneously assumed that all states 

redesignate their Class II areas to Class III areas. In 

, these commenters noted, no state has yet redesignated 

area to Class III; and, because political factors militate 

nst regulatory changes that appear to encourage increased 

utant levels, no designations are likely to occur. Thus, 

s assumption creates an overly-optimistic prediction of 

potential costs of its proposal. 

j. State and local regulatory burden 

Several commenters (SF, NM, ND-G) stated that EPA should 

included the cost to the taxpayer of the increased 

latory burden for state and local authorities, which would 

be substantial. 

A-21 

P.39 
P.40 

k. Examination of high-cost years 

UARG complained that EPA's RIA generally looks at the 

impact its proposal would have in 1995 and beyond. But in 

fact if EPA's proposal became effective soon it would cause 

immediate, severe disruptions for the coal companies and 

customers dependent on the surface-mined coal supplies covered 

by the new rule. These people could eventually (by 199 5) be 

able to find alternative sources of fuel at a cost, but they 

might not so easily be able to locate alternate fuel sources 

in the interim. Thus the potential annual impact of the rule 

over the years before 1995 could well be higher than the 

rule's impact in 1995 and beyond. 

1. National security 

Several commenters (DOE, AMC) stated that the RIA failed 

to evaluate the impact of the proposal on national security. 

Japan, AMC pointed out, is a major purchaser and potential 

purchaser of export coal. Its inability to purchase coal will 

not only worsen trade deficits, but would require Japan to 

look elsewhere for basic energy supplies. 

D 

I 

Taxes 

AMC and MRCA stated EPA failed to evaluate several 

significant categories of potential lost revenues, including 

income taxes (caused by lost jobs in the SCM sector which will 

reduce local, state and federal tax revenues), severance 

taxes, federal production royalties, and reduced contributions 

to the Abandoned Mine Reclamation Fund. 

n. Re-siting affected mines 

MRCA stated that EPA failed to consider the costs 

associated with re-siting affected mines and mining communities 

A-22 
P.41 

n 

y 

i 

and the costs of lost capital. For example, MRCA stated, 

hundreds of millions of dollars worth of equipment which was 

purchased on the basis of presently acceptaDle mine sizes may 

no longer be appropriate for the restricted mine sizes. At a 

minimum, since the RIA recognizes that as much as 13.5 million 

tons of surface coal production may be displaced by underground 

mining, it should equally realize that the displaced equipment 

is not interchangeable. Further, since use of this equipment 

requires large mines, mines the sizes which may be made 

illegal, no secondary market would exist for this machinery 

and other large pieces. When one considers for example that 

draglines of this size cost nearly $40 million, it is not 

difficult to envision how financial impacts of lost capital 

expenditures add up rapidly, MRCA concluded. 

o. Each basin as an independent coal market 

A number of commenters (NACC, NCA) stated that the RIA 

underestimated the impact of a production cost increase on a 

region's demand and supply curves because it assumes that coal 

from other basins will not compete within a given basin. 

Commenters stated this assumption was erroneous because for 

example Fort Union Coal competes with Powder River Coal in the 

Nortnern Great Plains; the San Juan basin faces competition 

from tne Raton basin in New Mexico"; coal fields in Arizona, 

Utah, and Colorado, and cogenerated electricity. The 

increased costs of coal production under PSD rules would 

clearly impact a basin's competitiveness, as well as fuel 

costs and employment in that region and these costs should be 

addressed in the RIA, the commenters stated. 

p. Coal supply elasticity 

Several commenters (NCA) also stated that the studies EPA 

"used to generate national market supply and demand elasticity 

factors are not reliable. The 1978 U.S. Department of Energy 

A-23 
P.42 

documentation that EPA relied on has been shown to be flawedespecially with regard to the use of the so-called 

"demonstrated reserve base"—and substantial work has been 

done by federal, state, and private organizations to improve 

the knowledge of regional coal supply. In addition, the 

structure and cost of the coal industry have changed 

drastically since 1978. EPA implicitly assumed a constant 

national coal supply elasticity across all production ranges 

when, in fact, the shape of coal supply curves are very 

irregular. 

q. Industry studies 

(1) TRC Environmental Consultants, Inc. 

1 

IS 

Several industry trade associations (NCA, AMC, MRCA, UARG) 

contracted with TRC, a consulting group, to.examine the air 

quality impacts of a hypothetical mine in each of six coal 

producing regions: "Modeled Air Quality Impacts of Four 

Hypothetical SCMs, TR^, May 1985; "Modeled Air Quality Impacts 

of Hypothetical North Dakota Lignite Mine, TRC, June 1985; and 

"Modeled Air Quality Impacts of Texas Lignite Mine," TRC, July 

1985. 

Fl 

I 

TRC developed specification for these mines based on 

previous studies py PEDCo ("Assessment of Impacts on the 

Surface Coal Mine Industry Resulting from Possible Changes to 

PSD and Ambient Air Quality Standards, for U.S. DOE, 1984) and 

another study py TRC "Quantification of Uncertainties in EPA's 

fugitive Emissions and Modeling Methodology at Surface Coal 

Mines, TRC, February 1985. 

TRC then established activity parameters for each of the 

hypothetical mines and calculated their emissions using AP-42 

emission factors and assuming 50 percent efficient chemical 

dust suppressant control of haul and access roads, as well as 

A-24 
I 

FH 

99.5 percent efficient baghouse control on emissions from coal 

crushing, screening, conveying, and silo storage facilities. 

TRC then calculated emission rates at each mine for TSP, 

PM^Q/ and PMg. It then conducted short term modeling analyses 

for each hypothetical mine, incorporating a hypothetical 

24-hour meterological base that could be expected to occur two 

or more times per year at each site. 

Table 1 demonstrates that modeled TSP concentrations, 

according to TRC and these commenters, at all six sites 

exceeded the allowable 24-hour PSD increment by an order of 

magnitude or more. 

Table 1. Modeled Air Quality Impacts 

of Hypothetical Surface Coal Mines 

REGION 

Appalachia 

Illinois 

Powder River 

Sen Juan 

N. Dakota 

Texas 

PRODUCTION 

MILLION TPY 

0.5 

3.0 

15.0 

10.0 

5.2 

5.4 

24 HR. PSD 

CLASS II 

INCREMENT 

UG/MG3 

37 

37 

37 

37 

37 

37 

NCA/AMC 

MAX 

MODELED 

24 HR TSP 

CONC 

LG/M3 

347 

592 

343 

629 

160 

547 

EPA MAX 

MODELED 

24 HR TSP 

CONC 

UG/M 3 

27(0.5)* 

35(1.5) 

E0(10.0) 

46(2.5) 

54(3.0) 

• • 

* EPA modeled mine size 

••A Texas lignite mine was not modeled by EPA 

TRC then teste d the validit y of EPA's production / 

pollutio n algorithm which is based on a linea r relatio n 

between the siz e of a mine and emissions. TRC reduced the 

predicte d emission rate s for each unreglulated mining activit y 

by the rati o of the 24-hour Class II PSD increment t o each 

mine's peak modeled impact and then recomputed the TSP impacts 

A-25 
P.44 

based on the linearl y reduced emission rates. As displayed in 

Table 2, the results of these computations show tha t with the 

exception of the Appalachian Mountain Top mine, the maximum 

predicted 24-hour TSP concentrations stil l exceed the 24-hour 

permitted emission rate . In other words the linear relatio n 

on which EPA relie d is incorrect. 

_j 

Table 2. Surface Coal Mine Size 

Able to Achieve Compliance with the PSD Increments 

REGION 

Appalachia 

Illinois 

Powder River 

San Juan 

N. Dckota 

Texas 

MODELED 

MINE SIZE 

MILLION TPY 

0.5 

3.0 

15.0 

10.0 

5.2 

5.4 

LINEAR 

REDUCED 

MINE SIZE 

MILLION TPY 

0.05 

0.2 

1.6 

0.6 

1.2 

0.4 

REDUCED 

MINE 

MAX 

MODELED 24 

HR TSP CONC 

UG/M3 

35 

113 

62 

152 

43 

161 

NCA/AMC 

CLASS n 

PSD MINE 

SIZE 

MILLION TPY 

0.05 

0.03 

0.8 

0.04 

1.0 

0.014 

EPA CLASS H 

PSD MINE 

SIZE 

MILLION TPY 

0.5 

1.6 

4.6 

1.7 

1.7 

• 

• A Tex_s lignite mine was not modeled by EPA. 

0 

Next, TRC calculated the annual production rates at which 

the hypothetical mines would satisfy the Class II 24-hour PSD 

increment. TRC concluded that annual production rates at 

mines subject to PSD increment constraints would be much less 

than estimated by the RIA. In Appalachia, for example, the 

TRC mine-size estimate was 1/10 the size of EPA's hypothetical 

regulated mine; in the San Juan basin, TRC's mine was 1/42 the 

size of the EPA estimate. 

(2) ICF Inc. 

Industry associations (NCA, AMC) next retained ICF Inc. • 

(Memorandum, "Coal Reserve Base Impacts of Listing Surface Coal 

A-26 
P.45 

^ 1 

Mine for New Source Review Under Alternative IV," from Klein 

to NCA/AMC, April 10, 1986). 

0 

P5 

Using the mine sizes developed by TRC, ICF applied a 

production cost model to the specifications for the reduced 

size mines. Mining companies provided actual figures for 

equipment, labor, power, supply and other costs for both the 

base case hypothetical mines developed by TRC and the reduced 

size mines which TRC calculated would be necessary to satisfy 

the PSD increments. These incremental costs, displayed in 

Table 3, are according to these industry commenters the best 

approximation of the engineering costs of regulation 

available, and are far superior to the RIA's estimates which 

do not rely on actual engineering costs data. 

Table 3. Effect of PSD Review 

of New Surface Coal Mines (1985 $/Ton) 

EPA 

1 

I 

rl 

m 

__ 

1 

_. 

REGION 

Appalachia 

Illinois 

Powder River 

San Juan 

N. Dakota 

Texas 

BASE 

SIZE 

MINE 

MILLION 

TPY 

0.5 

3.0 

15.0 

10.0 

5.2 

5.4 

BASE MINE 

COST 

S/TON 

30.24 

29.78 

7.92 

21.13 

15.66 

13.56 

NCA/AMC 

PSD MINE 

SIZE 

MILLION 

TPY 

0.05 

0.03 

0.80 

0.04 

1.00 

0.014 

NCA/AMC 

PSD MINE 

COST 

S/TON 

36.46 

106.21 

26.80 

69.98 

20.51 

47.26 

MINIMUM 

MINE SIZE 

ESTIMATED 

MILLION 

TPY 

0.25 

0.75 

5.00 

1.25 

1.50 

* 

EPA PSD 

MINE COST 

1983 5/TON 

40.60 

51.40 

7.50 

25.20 

14.20 

• 

1 

• Mine costs for a Texas lignite mine were not estimated by EPA 

ICF's analysis for NCA and AMC also estimated the 

economic impacts of regulations using coal supply curves which 

reflected different coal reserves having different supply 

functions based on their varying costs of extraction. After 

developing the applicable supply curves, ICF then used its 

coal and electric utilities model to analyze the economic 

impact of the proposals. 

A-27 
P.46 

I 

113 

i 

__>J 

Q 

ICF predicted that 

• substantial absolute dollar increases in the costs of 

mining in the San Juan and Illinois basins and in Texas would 

occur; 

• when existing mines are grandfathered, supply/cost 

impacts are greatest in regions like central Appalacia and the 

Gulf because demand exceeds existing capacity, requiring the 

development of new regulated reserves, and because surface 

reserves constitute a substantial portion of new production 

there ; 

• in the no-grandfather case, the impacts are most severe 

in those areas where surface mines are a substantial part of 

existing capacity, such as the Powder River- basin in Texas, 

where existing lignite capacity is predicted to decrease to 

less than 200,000 tons/year; 

© shifts in regional coal production would occur, with 

production decreasing in regions like the Texas Gulf and 

Northern Great Plains and shifting to the Midwest and the 

Rockies; 

• in 1995, consumer costs will increase $1.3 billion under 

Alternative II, and $8.2 billion in the no-grandfather 

(Alternative III) case, with the present value of consumer 

cost for Alternative II being $14 billion for the 10-year 

period 1995-2005 and $45 billion for the no-grandfather 

(Alternative III) case over this same period. 

Finally, in a point noted by many commenters (NCA, AMC, 

AMAX, WR, Peabody, SF, NEIC, DOI, ICA) ICF concluded that 

EPA's assertion that less than one percent (1.41 billion tons) 

of all U.S. surface minable reserves would be affected by the 

proposed rule was erroneous. The ICF analysis for NCA and AMC 

A-28 
P.47 

concluded that at least 23 coal fields in 12 states, with 

reserves exceeding 8.6 billion tons, could be affected by EPA's 

proposal, with about 4.5 billion tons of this amount being 

found in Southeastern Montana alone. Table 4, below, sets out 

the figures. 

G 

Table 4. Surface Mineable Reserves Impacted 

by Alternative IV (million tons) 

PSD CLASS 

CATEGORY 

Class I 

Mandatory 

Class n 

Total 

EPA 

ESTIMATED 

RESERVES 

IMPACTING 

CLASS I/II 

AREAS 

158 

1252 

NCA/AMC 

ESTIMATED 

RESERVES 

IMPACTING 

CLASS 1/H 

AREAS 

6970 

1672 

EPA 

PERCENT 

RESERVES 

AFFECTED* 

0.1 

0.8 

NCA/AMC 

PERCENT 

RESERVES 

AFFECTED* 

4.4 

1.1 

1410 8642 0.9 5.5 

* EPA Estimated Total US Reserves at 157,393 million tons. 

(DOI estimated the impact of option IV on existing and 

r 

potential SCMs, with the result that Alternative IV applied at 

current Class I and manadatory Class II areas would affect 42 

percent of coal reserves at potential SCMs in the Powder River, 

Uinta, Denver, Raton, San Juan, Green River, and Hams Forks 

areas. Inclusion of wilderness study areas within the scope 

of Alternative IV would raise this figure to 73 percent.) 

NCA and Peabody also stated, however, that even the ICF 

analysis does not reflect the actual magnitude and effect of a 

listing decision because it assumes that reduced size mines 

satisfying the PSD increments would open, which may not be 

likely, particularly with regard to Texas lignite mines. In 

addition, the ICF study does not address the economic costs of 

losing the value of existing leases, nor does it analyze the 

A-29 
P.48 

I 

fl 

[. 

1 

possible effects of increased domestic coal prices on the 

balance of trade or the costs associated with permitting of. 

major modifications at existing mines, NCA and Peabody 

! concluded, 

(3) Hagler, Bailly, & Company 

In a study done for DOI, Hagler, Bailly, & Company and 

its contractor, Marston & Marston, Inc., concluded that EPA 

seriously underestimated the incremental effect on cost per 

ton of downsizing from 15 million tons to 4.6 million tons 

annual production. Analyzing an undeveloped tract in the 

Wyodak seam in the Powder River basin of Wyoming, and an 

undeveloped tract in the Dietz seam in the Powder River basin 

of Montana, Hagler, Bailly estimated the cost per ton at 5, 

10, and 15 million ton mine sizes in 1983 dollars at $12.28, 

$9.73/ and $9.25 per ton in Wyoming and $13.62, $11.45, and 

$10.64 in Montana, in 1985 dollars. PEI's estimates were 

$7.50, $7.40, and $6.70. 

Hagler, Bailly also concluded that EPA's $42 million 

estimate of the annual cost impact of mine size restrictions 

in the Powder River basin in 1995 with grandfathering of PSD 

requirements was much too low. Hagler, Bailly put the annual 

cost impact in the neighborhood of $150 million in 1985 

dollars. 

3. Overestimation of Costs 

Environmental groups (Sierra, NWF), on the other hand, 

claimed that the RIA (and the industry trade association 

consultants) overestimated the costs of listing SCMs. 

These commenters noted, first, that the*RIA fails to 

"consider any control alternatives other than those applied in 

mining operations in the Powder River basin, but when such 

A-30 
P.49 

alternatives are considered it is clear that dust emissions 

j can be drastically reduced. As a result, far larger and more 

numerous mines can fit "within the Class I and II increments 

I than the RIA currently predicts. 

H For example, these commenters stated, the TRC analysis 

asserts that the major emission source at SCMs is haul roads, 

R and that these emission sources cannot be controlled beyond 

the 50 percent reduction achieved by application of chemical 

H dust suppressants. In fact, however, other controls such as 

TM* paving will reduce emissions more, as has been adequately 

p documented by the U.S. Office of Surface Mining and the 1976 

ti PEDCo report. In addition, restrictive measures for 

~, controlling fugitive dust on haul roads include regulating the 

H speed of vehicles, and limiting the use of the roads to those 

vehicles necessary to perform duties for the mine operation; 

In addition, areas adjoining roads could be stabilized in 

order to reduce surface wind speeds across road surfaces, 

thereby reducing fugitive emissions. Further, open tops of 

the haul trucks could be covered. In addition, use of 

conveyor systems in lieu of haul trucks, as found by tne U.S. 

Office of Surface Mining, can greatly reduce major sources of 

Hj fugitive dust emissions at the mine. Other strategies include 

revecetation, strategic location of coal waste and spoil piles, 

p and reduction in the time between disturbance of the soil and 

revecetation. 

These environmental commenters stated that the availability of a wide variety of dust control measures for reducing 

emissions from haul roads undercuts the very heart of the 

RIA's and the industry's analyses and conclusions. Because 

they fail to consider these techniques, the RIA and industry 

rely instead on the fundamental premise that a reduction in 

pit size and therefore a reduction in production are necessary 

to meet emission standards. This, the environmental groups 

argue, is erroneous for the following reasons: 

A-31 

U 

Ll 
P.50 

^ 

f. 

Q 

I 

• minimizing the time between initial disturbance and 

reclamation will in some cases reduce fugitive dust as 

effectively as restricting the size of the mining operation; 

« in many cases the pit size can be reduced without 

affecting production seriously; 

o various techniques can be used in the pit to reduce 

fugitive dust emissions without reducing pit size; 

o dust emissions from haul roads will not—as EPA and 

industry assume—remain constant as production decreases 

because vehicular traffic, mainly in the form of haul trucks, 

will decrease accordingly; 

• the RIA model uses as its basis the larger mines in each 

basin in order to predict the largest possible costs when, in 

fact, smaller mines are in daily operation today and are 

turning a profit; 

• EPA erroneously assumes that any switch to smaller mines 

s 

will automatically translate into higher costs for the energy 

consumers when, in fact, demand for electricity and reductions 

in the cost of oil and gas reduce the probability that many 

new mines will be opening soon (but the RIA assumes that new 

mines will continue to open at their historic pace); 

• listing strip mines will not as the RIA assumes 

automatically lead to curtailed production because the 

necessity of obtaining a federal permit does not automatically 

lead to the conclusion that any particular new mine will be 

subjected to additional substantive requirements which would 

require a lower production rate since each mine operator has 

the opportunity to show that tne increments will not be 

violated at the mine ooundary. 

A-32 
P.51 

n 

I i 

I 

Sierra also noted that the major back-up study for EPA's 

RIA, "Study of Potential Effect of Regulating Strip Mines 

Under New Source Review," PEI, did not estimate the cost of 

paving haul roads. But figures are supplied for the cost of 

paving access roads ($25,160/mile) and of watering haul roads 

($36,000/mile) and, therefore, assuming a 10-mile haul road a 

cost of $281,600/year for paving haul roads can be calculated. 

Since haul road paving would permit all current mines to 

operate within the Class II increment, there would be no 

mandatory down-sizing of surface mines, Sierra noted. 

4. Area-Specific Costs 

a. Appalachia 

In a study prepared for MRCA, "Modeled Air Quality 

Impacts of Appalachian Surface Coal Mines," TRC, May 1985, a 

modeling investigation demonstrated that new Appalachian SCMs, 

if operated at any level of activity approaching that of the 

hypothetical mine assumed (0.5 million TPY), could not be 

permitted if subjected to full PSD review. The hypothetical 

mine assumed was shown to exceed the 24-hour PSD Class II 

increment by almost ah order of magnitude. As a result, 

drastic reductions in annual production rate (from 500,000 to 

50,000 TPY) would be needed. If PM^Q were used as an 

indicator of PSD increments, the TRC report stated, compliance 

with PSD increments would still remain a problem; the 

hypothetical mine would still exceed the 24-hour Class II 

increment near the mine boundary and could achieve compliance 

only by reducing production to 0.34 million TPY. In reaching 

its conclusions, the TRC report assumed that none of the 

available PSD increment in the vicinity of the hypothetical 

mine nad oeen consumed. 

A-33 
P.52 

m 

b. AMAX mines, Wyoming 

AMAX commented that a study conducted by TRC for Western 

Energy indicates that large mines within 110 miles of Northern 

Cheyenne and Wind Cave would be affected under Alternative IV. 

AMAX's Belle Ayr and Eagle Butte mines, which produced about 

25 million tons in 1985, would be affected since AMAX could 

not operate economically at the levels projected to be 

necessary to comply with the Class I or Class II increments. 

c. Peabody mines, Wyoming 

Peabody stated that the effect of Alternative III on its 

Wyoming mines would be disastrous. EPA's RIA, Peabody 

explained, estimates that the largest mine that could be 

operated at the location of its existing mines would be about 

3 million TPY. A similar analysis performed by TRC for NCA 

and AMC showed the largest mine would be only 800,000 TPY. In 

i Wyoming, tnis would mean that the adjacent North Antelope and 

Rochelle mines would have to reduce their permitted production 

j. from 16 million TPY to something less than 800,POO TPY. Given 

that the equipment is already in place, operating costs per 

H ton of coal would have to rise so dramatically that the mines 

could not be economically viable. The mines would be closed, 

witn the consequential loss of revenue to Peabody, loss of 

jobs to employees, and loss of tax and royalty revenues to the 

county, state, and federal government. Peabody's Big Sky mine 

would have to close under any of Alternatives II, III, or IV 

since it is in close proximity to the Class I Northern 

Cheyenne Indian Reservation. 

d. Wyoming mines generally 

AMC, citing previous testimony from the'state of Wyoming, 

stated that the actual impact of the no-grandfather case in 

•G 

A-34 
P.53 

1 

Wyoming alone would be to close 13 mines. While the RIA 

predicts a range of negative net benefits of 12.4 million to 

5.7 million for its no-grandfather case, it is evident that in 

Wyoming alone the closing of 13 major SCMs would have impacts 

in the multi-billion dollar range and would foreclose the 

development of one of the country's major coal resources. 

e. Texas lignite mining 

Numerous commenters (UARG, NRC, NACC, TX, Alcoa) stated 

that listing SCMs would have a particularly drastic adverse 

effect on lignite mining in Texas. 

fl 

0 

E 

UARG noted that Texas lignit e is used primarily in 

mine-mouth power plants to generate electricity ; in Texas 

about 25 percent of the electricit y needs are met through the 

use of lignite . The ICF study concluded that because of mine 

size limitations which would be necessary to meet increment 

constraints, the cost of mining and transporting lignit e would 

increase from $13.56/ton to $47.26/ton—a more than 300 percent 

increase . Moreover, switching from lignit e to other types of 

coal is not an economically attractiv e alternative for lignite -

dependent utilitie s and, UARG stated, i t may be impossiole to 

burn an alternativ e fuel. As a result, the RIA's failur e to 

consider this potentia l adverse effect on Texas lignit e mining 

and electri c power companies'there, i t seriously underestimates 

the costs of the proposal. 

NRC noted in particula r tha t its Jewett mine in Texas 

will be required to reduce capacity from 7,400,000 tons/year 

to 14,000 tons/year Texas lignite—a 52,857 percent reduction. 

With this type of reduction, NRC would not be able to meet 

current contract requirements, much equipment such as large 

electri c drag line s would become economically unjustified, and 

the work force would have to be reduced from 250 to possibly 2 

A-35 
P.54 

D 

u_ 

I 

to 3 persons. In short, a listing decision would cause mine 

closure resulting in a direct financial reduction in excess of 

$100 million to the local economy by NRC. 

Tne governor of Texas (TX) estimated that listing SCMs 

could cost Texas consumers as much as $2.4 billion a year in 

increased electrical costs. The governor noted that currently 

20 percent of Texas' electricity is generated using Texas 

coal, which is traditionally considerably less costly than 

western coal. 

*~ Another important difference between lignite mining and 

s the western coal mines used as a basis for the RIA, Alcoa 

!~ noted, is that a lignite mine typically begins with pits near, 

gg and parallel to, the outcrop line. Mining then advances 

downdip and along the strike with additional pits. Over the 

life of a mine, the actual area mined may be 1 1/2 miles wide 

and 10 to 20 miles long. That of course requires that the 

! haul road be extended periodically. Analyses show that 

t 

listing SCMs would require a haul road to be extended no less 

-^ than one mile and that would force the shutdown, of most if not 

all of the lignite mines in Texas. 

f. Montana mines 

MCC stated that the RIA failed to include in its impact 

analysis the operating SCMs and coal reserves around the 

Northern Cheyenne Indian Reservation and Fort Peck Indian 

Reservation in Montana. Estimated reserves that would be 

impacted in these two areas alone are approximately 4.5 

billion tons, or 160 times the Class I coal impact EPA 

estimated for Montana, MCC stated. 

Montco stated that its proposal to develop a 12 million 

TPY in southeast Montana would not be feasible under 

A-36 
P.55 

R 

p 

I 

Alternatives II, III, or IV, even though Montco has so far 

expended tens of millions of dollars on that project. Research 

development consultants of Fargo, North Dakota, show that this 

mine would lead to personal income in Montana from Montco of 

$971.8 million, Montco expenditures would be $907.8 million, 

new business (other than Montco) would be $988.2 million, and 

state and local tax revenues would be $848.8 million—all of 

which would be lost under Alternatives II, III, or IV since 

the coal on the properties would be unrecoverable due to the 

proximity of the proposed site to both the Northern Cheyenne 

Indian Reservation and the Custer National Forest. 

g. New Mexico mines, Indian reservations 

DSC commented that it has invested millions of dollars in 

assessing the plant sites and the coal quality'of potentialprojects in the San Juan coal basin that could be affected by 

a listing decision because of the proximity of Chaco Culture 

National Historic Park. The RIA, DSC noted, failed to address 

convincingly the impact of moving coal development elsewhere. 

DSC and other commenters (NM, GV) noted that the Navaho 

nation is acquiring surface and subsurface rights to 35,000 

acres of federal land in the vicinity authorized by the NavahoHopi Resettlement Act of 19 74. The Navanos have selected the 

DSC plant site and related coal lands, and are equity partners 

in the project. The impact of moving this mine may undermine 

the aoility of the Navahos to provide for the welfare of 

relocatees from former joint use lands. Contrary to a major 

but seriously over generalized assumption of the RIA, GV 

stated, the Navaho tribe does not have a wide array of alternative mine sites from which it may select and to which it may 

move at a minimum cost. The specific consequences resulting 

from this proposal could have devastating effects on all major 

communities in Northwest New Mexico, in addition to the Navaho 

tribe, GV stated. 

A-37 
P.56 

0 

_ • ! 

E? 

The Ute Mountain Ute tribe (Ute) and a Congressman (MS) 

also stated that it strongly opposed the proposal and needed 

additional time and financial assistance to analyze its 

effects which would remove some 39 million tons of bituminous 

coal on the New Mexico side of its reservation from future 

production. 

h. Centralia mine, Washington 

WIDCO commented that its Centralia mine in Washington 

state could suffer adverse economic effects that the RIA did 

not analyze, as documented by a TRC report entitled "Modeled 

ki Air Quality Impacts of the Centralia Coal Mine," May 5, 1986. 

M Because of its proximity to Mount Ranier National Park 

and other Class I and mandatory Class II areas, TRC concluded 

m 

[' that the mine, if operated at any level of activity 

approaching that assumed for the study (5.0 million TPY), 

i could not oe permitted if subjected to full Alternative II or 

III review. The mine was shown to exceed the 24-hour PSD 

Class II incrementby about an order of magnitude. Drastic 

reductions in annual production rate (from 5.0 million TPY to 

265,450 clean TPY) would be needed to allow the mine to 

achieve the allowed increment under Alternative II or III. If 

Alternative IV were adopted, the mine would "significantly 

impact" all Class I and mandatory Class II areas within at 

least 150 miles. The mine could just escape the significance 

test of Alternative IV at the closest Class I area if 

production were reduced to 607,500 clean TPY. 

i. Colorado mines 

CMA stated that Colorado would be severely impacted by a 

listing decision since a great many of the coal mining areas 

coincide with protected areas there. Also, CMA stated, since 

A-38 
I 

most of the protected areas in Colorado are on high terrain 

(usually on the mountainsides and tops), the mining areas 

would be visible from the protected areas. 

Another commenter (Trapper) stated that it ran a fugitive 

dust impact model (VALLEY) to determine possible PSD 

implications for a typical SCM in northwest Colorado, which 

showed that—according to its consultant W. Gale Biggs 

Associates, May 6, 1986—tha t with an initial model run with a 

60 kilometer radius of the mine the concentrations did not 

drop below 5 um per cubic meter within this distance. Further 

runs showed that the 5 um/m^ contour extended to between 70 to 

75 km (about 45 miles) from the mine. 

j . North Dakota mines 

p Citing "Modeled Air Quality Impacts of a Hypothetical 

North Dakota Lignite Mine," TRC, July 18, 1985, a commenter 

j (K.-.CC) stated that adoption of Alternative IV would hinder the 

development of 889 million tons of lignite in North Dakota, 

:.vj and EPA should expand the scope of its RIA to reflect this 

i_j 

before adopting any of the proposed alternatives except 

H Alternative I. 

F] According to WACC, the TRC study showed that a 1.0 

^ million TPY mine was determined to be the largest mine that 

n could operate and stay witnin the allowable increment in North 

Li Dakota. But based on economic efficiencies associated with . 

.- large scale operations, the nature of coal reserves in North 

H Dakota, and the fuel requirement of mine-mouth power 

generating facilities, a series of 1.0 million TPY mines would 

p* not oe economically viable. The commenter also noted that 

aoout 4000 jobs are directly related to the lignite/power 

generating industries in North Dakota. 

A-39 
k. Illinois mines 

IL Mines stated that in 1984 there were 21 SCMs producing 

t 25 million TPY of coal in Illinois, and imposition of PSD 

i 

1 

rules will effectively curtail new mine development there with 

associated long-term serious negative impacts. IL stated that 

the proposal would reduce the amount of coal mined in Illinois 

or increase the number of smaller mines there. 

Another commenter (Peabody) stated that under the TRC 

analysis, the 19 SCMs it operates near the Illinois basin 

would each have to reduce their production to about 30,000 TPY 

in order to meet the PSD Class II increments. Total 

production from these mines would have to be reduced oy 97 

percent, even assuming that each of the mines has full use of 

the available Class II increments and there are no Class I 

areas in the vicinity. Such a drastic forced reduction in 

production, Peabody stated, would make the mines uneconomical 

to operate. 

1. Utah International mines 

AMC, citing earlier testimony from Utah International, 

stated that Utah International alone has spent over $400,000 

just to study potential air quality and visibility effects 

near 3ryce Canyon, not including the cost of other 

environmental assessments or fugitive dust controls. (Thus, 

AMC noted, EPA's estimate of Alternative IVs social costs of 

$200,000 to $400,000—the amount of estimated sunk costs at 

Chaco Culture and Bryce Canyon—is underestimated.) 

5. Overestimation of Benefits 

a. Existing controls 

Numerous commenters (NCA, MCC, AMC, TX, GV, Trapper) 

stated that EPA overestimates the benefits of a listing 

A-40 
P.59 

I 

k 

decision Decause under state law BACT is already required of 

l SCMs. In particular, AMC submitted a compilation showing that 

virtually every state has federally enforceable fugitive dust 

control and permitting laws requiring BACT or its equivalent 

for new, expanded and existing SCM operations. AMC noted 

P further that this rulemaking record, which extends back to 

1977, does not contain one allegation of an instance in which 

|| BACT has not been applied to an SCM operation. Thus to 

subject SCMs to additional rules under the PSD program would 

P be redundant and duplicative of already-applicable control 

^ requirements, and so by definition would not increase the 

rn benefits to be derived from such regulation. 

•--•' 1 

, i 

_._j 

_ Numerous other commenters (NCA, AMC, NEIC, DC, Sunbelt, 

y DOI, Peabody) pointed to existing federal regulatory programs 

which provide authority to avoid adverse environmental effects 

from SCMs. Thus, these commenters concluded, PSD regulation 

would be duplicative of this other federal authority. 

Specifically, these commenters pointed to the following: 

• Section 110 of the Clean Air Act which provides authority 

for a state to regulate fugitive emissions from SCMs; 

• Section 522 of the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation 

Act under which the Secretary or state authority may designate 

land unsuitable for SCM if the mining operation will be incompatible with existing land use plans or programs or will affect 

fragile or historic lands, as recognized by the court in Utah 

International, Inc. v. DOI, 553 F.Supp 872 (D. Utah 1962); 

• the National Environmental Protection Act under which most 

large SCMs must prepare an environmental impact statement; and 

• Sections 1 and 3 of the National Park Service Organic Act 

and Section 181 of the Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 under which 

A-41 

fl 

E 
P.60 

the Secretary of the Interior has authority to not lease lands 

j outside of the national park system and other special lands 

which adversely affect those lands. 

DOI, in asserting that existing federal regulation of 

m SCMs is sufficient to protect national areas, included 

memoranda from the Undersecretary and Associate Solicitor, 

H Division of Energy and Resources, documenting this authority. 

^ Finally, many commenters (DOI, NCA, MRCA, Peabody, NEIC) 

LJ stated that the RIA overestimates the benefits from 

p controlling SCMs in the vicinity of the example Class I area 

(Bryce Canyon) because it ignores the fact that a significant 

part of this oenefit has already been captured by DOI's 

determination that much of the coal reserves near that area 

are "unsuitable" for development. In 1981, tnese commentersexplained, the DOI concluded that mining operations in the 

Alton coal field visible from Bryce Canyon were unsuitable for 

mining since it would adversely affect the park because of 

unsightliness and noise. This decision was upneld in the Utah 

International case, thus indicating that DOI has the authority 

and the ability to protect national parks. 

t, 

1 

D 

b. Use of urban localities 

A number of commenters (NCA) stated that in calculating 

the benefits of regulation under Alternatives II and III, the 

RIA improperly relied on studies of mortality, morbidity, 

soiling, and visual range conducted in urban localities experiencing significantly different types of emissions. These 

studies provide no data relevant to a decision to regulate a 

rural source of inert dust, the commenters stated. 

The London Smoke Study relied on evaluated the effect of 

urban pollution composed of chemically distinct emissions, 

A-42 
P.61 

1 

G 

including SO2, on an urban population and did not consider any 

fugitive or chemically similar emissions whatsoever. EPA's 

explanation that the use of the urban study is compensated for 

by the failure to estimate the value of certain other benefit 

categories is irrational because two scientific wrongs do not 

make a right. These same areas are repeated, the commenters 

noted, in the RIA's extrapolations from studies relating to 

urban morbidity and household soiling, which has no relevance 

to the often nearly unpopulated areas surrounding SCMs in the 

Western United States. 

c. Willingness-to-pay 

Commenters (NCA) also stated tha t EPA's benefit value 

estimates for Altenative IV are suspect because they are based 

on "willingness-to-pay" studie s derived from bidding games. As 

a gro"up, industry commenters (NSIC, NCA, Peabody) stated, these 

studies suffer from inherent bias because participants often 

exaggerate their responses because they know they will net 

actually be forced to pay the amount that they "oid." T.nis 

inherent pias comoined with the imprecise extrapolation of 

results from other site s renders the RIA benefit figures 

almost useless at the threshold. 

The RIA's attempt to estimate the value of the benefits 

based on the willingness-to-pay estimates generated in the 1981 

study of recreationa l users at Mesa Verde National Park is 

equally flawed. That study showed a $2.84 per visito r 

valuation for a guarantee of a clear view instead of a 

moderate haze. But in adopting the $2.84 figure, the RIA 

fails to establis h tha t the visua l range change to wnich i t 

relate s is remotely comparable to the average 3 to 5 percent 

improvement predicted at Bryce Canyon. In fact, the two 

situation s are not comparable because they relat e to two 

different parks and because the predicted improvement at 3ryce 

A-43 
P.62 

I 

r 

E 

Canyon is only marginally perceptible [see following 

subsection II.B.5.d.], while the Mesa Verde study hypothesized 

a dramatic change from a moderately hazy to a clear view. 

Moreover, the RIA relies without qualification on another 

uninstructive study which estimated the value per month to a 

household residing in the vicinity of an Appalachian surface 

mine of having the land reclaimed. But the RIA's reliance on 

the per month figure to obtain a per day valuation, which it 

then applies to the annual number of visitor days for both 

Chaco Culture and Bryce Canyon, overstates the benefit because 

the•populations involved are not comparable for three reasons: 

(1) tne value placed on reclamation by a resident of the vicinity of a surface mine is not remotely related to the value to 

a park visitor of having the air clear on the day of visitation 

to the park; (2) the residential valuation relied on was per. 

household, presumably accumulating benefits to more than one 

individual, but EPA applied its derived daily valuation per 

visitor to the two parks; and (3) the study was conducted in 

Appalachia, but RIA applies the bids to western Class I areas. 

Commenters (SF) stated that EPA should consider the number of 

people present in Class I areas, the percentage of time that 

they are there, and the percentage of time there that they 

spend looking in the direction of the surface coal mine. 

d. Visual range improvement 

Many commenters (NDLC, MRCA, Peabody, DOI, NACC, NCA, 

NEIC) pointed out that EPA's own RIA conceded that the improvement associated with Alternative IV is at the margin of human 

perception. 

Commenters noted that EPA predicts that the visual range 

improvements will be impreceptiDle to the human eye at both 

Chaco Culture and Bryce Canyon when the mine is still visible-, 

A-44 
P.63 

0 

_ 

\n 

and that visual improvement continues to be imperceptible at 

Chaco Culture when the mine is moved out of site of the park. 

The RIA predicts significant reductions at Bryce Canyon during 

certain adverse meterological conditions, but fails to specify 

their nature or frequency. The RIA estimates that the average 

visual range improvement is to be a mere 3 to 5 percent, and 

that the perception threshold for visual range improvement is 

generally conceded to be from 2 to 5 percent. Since no mine 

is currently allowed to locate in the area visible from Bryce 

Canyon National Park, commenters noted, in fact there can be 

no visual range improvement— imperceptible or 

otherwise—associated with Alternative IV. 

e. Existence values 

Commenters (Peaoody, MRCA, SF, NACC, NEIC, DOI) also 

stated that the RIA's measurement of the "existence value" of 

visual range improvements at Bryce Canyon leads to a flawed 

oenefits estimate since, lacking any data related to tne 

existence value of Bryce Canyon, the RIA attempts to extrapolate from a study done about the Grand Canyon. s According to 

DOI, however, Bryce Canyon is not in the same class of "natural 

wonder" as the Grand Canyon. The RIA's attempt at compensating 

for the overstatement is by reducing the Grand Canyon existence 

value by the ratio of Bryce Canyon to Grand Canyon visitor days 

is inadequate, however, because the number of visitor days has 

no established relation to the value of a site's existence to 

persons who will never visit the parks. The adjustment mixes 

apples and oranges, the commenters stated. 

DOI also notes that the "existence value" approach is 

flawed because (1) it ignores the fact that an SCM sooner or 

later ceases operations, thus restoring visual range so that 

suosequent generations will not be deprived,1 and (2) that the 

RIA overestimated the relative number of visitors at Bryce 

A-45 
P.64 

Canyon compared to Grand Canyon, according to National Park 

Service statistics. 

f 

Finally, NEIC stated in estimating the benefits of 

regulation, the RIA evaluates each mine site in one year only, 

the predicted year of peak mining activity, which results in 

the overstatement of benefits. 

f. Proliferation of smaller mines 

E 

Many commenters (Peabody, NCA, ND-G, MCC, DOI) stated 

that EPA failed to consider the adverse effects that a listing 

decision would create Decause of its incentive to develop more 

and smaller SCMs; tnus, this omission led to an overestimation 

of benefits. 

E 

Commenters explained that the result of more and smaller 

SCMs would create more total emissions per ton of coal 

produced than there otherwise would be. For example, the haul 

trucks necessary to serve three small mines, each of which has 

a 300,000 TPY capacity, would kick up significantly more dust 

than the haul trucks needed to serve one large 10 million TPY 

inine. Similarly, many necessarily logistical and support 

activities are not dependent on mine size. Thus, listing of 

SCMs could easily increase total emissions of fugitive dust 

from SCKs nationwide. 

In addition, because more small SCMs would be needed, 

they would likely have to be developed over a wider geographic 

area tnan would otherwise be the case. This would mean more 

environmental disruption of the eartn's surface than would 

otherwise occur. 

A-46 
P.65 

0 

I 

D 

6. Underestimation of Benefits 

Environmental group commenters (Sierra, NWF), on the other 

hand, stated that the RIA underestimated benefits because of 

the relative difficulty (compared to quantifying costs) of 

assessing the benefits of a healthy environment in monetary 

terms. This is so because environmental benefits are in the 

realm of philosophical and aesthetic values, and because it is 

often impossible to measure those benefits. The RIA's costbenefit approach, in its willingness-to-pay methodology in 

particular, is bogus, and means that the lives of the generally 

poor inhabitants around strip mines who have a low willingnessto-pay are to be sold cheaply so that the numerous distant 

beneficiaries of the cheaper coal produced at their expense 

may save a few dollars a year on their electricity bills. 

In addition, Sierra took issue with the industry position 

[summarized above in part II.B.5.a.] that there is currently 

adequate government authority effectively regulating fugitive 

emissions from SCMs. Even assuming arguendo that such 

authority does exist, Sierra stated, DOI has certainly not 

exercised that authority in any meaningful fashion. 

Specifically, Sierra stated, § 522 of the Surface Mining 

Control and Reclamation Act merely requires the regulatory 

authority to consider the view of the National Park Service as 

to what mining activity will adversely affect a park, but the 

Park Service has no authority to enforce its recommendations. 

Under § 522(b), where DOI does have authority to designate 

lands as unsuitable for mining on federal lands, Sierra 

commented that the Secretary has nevertheless not designated 

any land unsuitable for mining under this provision on the 

basis of adverse effects of potential mining on air quality. 

Moreover, in a recent Secretarial issue document on coal 

leasing ("Secretarial Issue Document—Federal Coal ManagementA-47 
P.66 

Program, January 1986) the Secretary failed to include either 

impacts on the parks or on park air quality related values as 

criteria for a finding of unsuitability. 

I 

Moreover, § 515(b)(4) which authorizes the Secretary to 

effectively control erosion and attendant air and water 

pollution has been interpreted in regulations to regulate only 

the erosional aspects of the impacts of mining on air 

quality. And under § 515(b)(17), concerning authority to 

regulate the impact of mining roads, there has been no 

substantive performance standards promulgated to prevent 

fugitive emissions as a result of traffic accessing coal 

mines. Sierra also noted that the National Park Service 

Organic Act is ambiguous at best with regard to the authority 

for regulating impacts external to the park, and, moreover, no 

such authority has oeen exercised to date. 

Conclusion 

Industry and Government 

All industry commenters, as well as state (ND-G, TX, ND, 

MT, ND-Health) and federal (DOI, DOE) commenters favored 

Alternative I, which would not list SCMs for PSD purposes. 

These commenters stated that EPA has provided no legal or 

scientific justification to list SCMs, and the available data 

clearly demonstrates that listing SCMs is neither necessary nor 

warranted. Fugitive emissions from SCMs are at most a 

localized nuisance which do not contribute significantly to 

air quality degradation on a nationwide basis and do not pose 

any significant threat to the public health or welfare, even 

in the vicinity of such SCMs. Listing SCMs would limit 

severely the size of new and expanded SCMs and would result in 

significant adverse economic, social, environmental, and 

A-48 
P.67 

administrative costs. Those adverse impacts would outweigh 

* greatly any potential benefits of the listing. 

r 

| The RIA correctly concluded that the economic effects of 

such listing (Alternatives II and III) would have significant 

I negative benefits; however, even these conclusions were based 

on a gross underestimation of the costs of listing and a gross 

H overestimation of the benefits to be derived. Even if EPA 

" selects Alternative IV of the RIA, such a decision would have 

p an enormously negative benefit on the United States and the 

_f coal industry. EPA has failed to consider adequately the 

nature or extent of the various negative impacts which 

Alternative IV would have on the country, and on impacted 

states and the coal mining industry. 

E 

fi 

I 

1 

E 

If EPA decides correctly not to list any SCMs, EPA should 

clarify that such decisions should exempt other SCMs from new 

source review regardless of such SCMs relation to other sources 

which are or may be listed. EPA should not regulate indirectly 

SCMs oy tying them improperly to regulated facilities if EPA 

has concluded it directly should not regulate SCMs. 

Finally, one state (IL) commented, that the inclusion of a 

subclass of SCMs, such as those that impact populated areas, 

may pe justifiable because such sources—and other fugitive 

dust sources such as grain elevators and stone quaries—likely 

impose greater burdens on the community in populated areas 

than in rural ones. But the separate consideration of SCMs 

proposed here for both rural and urban areas is inappropriate 

because the costs outweigh the benefits, IL concluded. 

2. Environmental Groups 

The environmental group commenters (Sierra, NWF) stated 

that as a threshold legal matter EPA must list SCMs 

A-49 
P.68 

(Alternative I) as argued in the pending litigation entitled 

National Coal Association v. EPA, No. 84-1609 (D.C. Cir.). 

0 

Sierra stated that the RIA's assertions that the costs 

will be significant due to major cuts in coal production are 

based on a failure to consider relevant control techniques 

and, thus, EPA has no basis in the record or in the modeling 

undertaken to date to support a conclusion that evaluation of 

SCKs as new point sources would significantly reduce coal 

production in the U.S. In addition, EPA cannot conclude that 

DOI either has or will exercise regulatory authority to 

protect Class I or mandatory Class II areas in the foreseeable 

future. 

E 

NWF commented, additionally, that the costs predicted in 

the RIA are not "unreasonable," and under EPA's legal standard 

there is no need to show that the costs exceed benefits. EPA's 

own figures show that in the lower range of estimated costs 

the annualized cost of Alternative II would be $5.4 million, 

Alternative III would be $5.9 million per annum, with upper 

boundaries for such costs of $68.2 and $15.5 million 

respectively. NWF pointed out, however, that these predicted 

costs are much smaller than costs associated with other EPA 

decisions in the energy field such as its 1979 NSPS for power 

plants, which EPA then estimated would cost oetween $3.3 and 

$3.6 pillion per year in 1979 dollars. 

0 

For these reasons, the environmental groups concluded 

that the proposal is reasonable and should be adopted. 

A-50 
P.69 

I 

1 

_ 

1 

1 

"73 

'i 

i 

3_! 

1 

1 

1 

1 

—1 

1 

-

Comment 

Number 

IV--L-l 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

Appendix A 

List of Commenters 

(Docket Number A-84-33) 

Commenter Name 

Central and South West Services Inc. 

S F Coal Corporation 

City Public Service of San Antonio, Texas 

Sunbelt Mining Company 

Brazos Electric Power Cooperative, Inc. 

Trapper Mining, Inc. 

Montco 

Pennsylvania Coal Mining Association 

National Coal Association 

Colorado Mining Association 

Kentucky Natural Resources and Environmental 

Protection Cabinet 

Public Service Commission of North Dakota 

Northwestern Resource Company 

Westmoreland Resources, Inc. 

North American Coal Corporation 

Governor of Texas 

Mountain Ute Tribe of Colorado 

North Dakota Office of the Governor 

Mining Industry Council of Missouri 

West Virginia Mining and Reclamation Association 

Montana Department of Health and Environmental 

Sciences 

22 Alcoa 

A-51 
P.70 

I 

I 

b 

1 

fl 

Comment 

Number Commenter Name 

IV-L-23 Sierra Club 

24 Taft Coal Company 

25 Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality 

26 Illinois Environmental Protection Agency 

27 American Mining Congress 

28 North Dakota Lignite Council 

29 Illinois Coal Association 

30 Montco 

31 Western Energy Company 

32 Western States Coal Consortium 

3 3 WIDCO 

34 Old Ben Coal Company 

35 Montana Coal Council 

36 Peabody Holding Company 

37 U.S. Department of Energy 

3o Amax 

39 Illinois Department of Mines and Minerals 

'-..; 40 Mining and Reclamation Council of America 

41 Gordon Venable 

F 

£-• 42 Nerco, Inc. 

4 3 Dineh Service Company 

44 North Dakota Department of Health 

45 Trapper Mining Inc. 

46 John D. Rockefeller, IV 

47 American Mining Congress 

48 [no entry] 

A-52 
P.71 

1 

0 

Comment 

Number Commenter Name . 

IV-L-49 U.S. Department of the Interior 

50 National Coal Association 

51 American Mining Congress 

52 Utility Air Regulation Group 

53 New Mexico Environmental Improvement Division 

54 North American Coal Corporation 

55 Sunbelt Mining Company 

56 Colorado Mining Association 

57 West Virginia Department of Energy 

58 Nevada Electric Investment Company 

59 Utility Air Regulatory Group 

60 National Wildlife Federation, Environmental Policy 

Institute, -National Parks and Conservation 

Association, and Natural Resources Defense Council 

61 Michael L. Strang, M.C. 

62 Dick Cheney, M.C. 

E,-i __ 

I! 

A-53 
P.72 

fi 

B 

Abbreviation 

Appendix B 

List of Abbreviations 

Commenter Name and Docket Number 

Alcoa Alcoa (IV-L-22) 

AMAX Amax (IV-L-38) 

AMC American Mining Congress (IV-L-27, IV-L-47, IV-L-51) 

Ben Old Ben Coal Company (IV-L-34) 

Brazos Brazos Electric Power Cooperative, Inc. (IV-L-5) 

CMA Colorado Mining Association (IV-L-10, IV-L-56) 

CSWS Central and South West Services Inc. (IV-L-1) 

DC Dick Cheney, M.C. (IV-L-62) 

DOE U.S. Department of Energy (IV-L-37) 

DOI U.S. Department of the Interior (IV-L-49) 

DSC Dineh Service Company (IV-L-43) 

GV Gordon Venable (IV-L-41) 

ICA Illinois Coal Association (IV-L-29) 

IL Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (IV-L-26) 

IL Mines Illinois Department of Mines and Minerals (IV-L-39) 

KY Kentucky Natural Resources and Environmental 

Protection Cabinet (IV-L-11) 

MCC Montana Coal Council (IV-L-35) 

MICM Mining Industry Council of Missouri (IV-L-19) 

Montco Montco (IV-L-7, IV-L-30) 

MRCA Mining and Reclamation Council of America (IV-L-40) 

MS Michael L. Strang, M.C. (IV-L-61) 

MT Montana Department of Health and Environmental 

Sciences (IV-L-21) 

.NACC North American Coal Corporation (IV-L-15, IV-L-54) -

A-54 
P.73 

Abbreviation Commenter Name and Docket Number 

r 

U 

0 

§ 

fi 

1 

1 

_# 

„ J 

n 

fi 

R 1 

1 

NEIC 

Nerco 

NM 

NRC 

NWF 

PCMA 

Peaoody 

Rock 

SanAnt 

SF 

Sierr a 

Sunbel t 

Taft 

Trappe r 

TX 

UARG 

Ute 

Wester n 

WIDCO 

NCA National Coal Association (IV-L-9, IV-L-50) 

ND Public Service Commission of North Dakota (IV-L-12) 

ND-G North Dakota Office of the Governor (IV-L-18) 

ND Health North Dakota Department of Health (IV-L-44) 

NDLC North Dakota Lignite Council (IV-L-28). 

Nevada Electric Investment Company (IV-L-58) 

Nerco, Inc. (IV-L-42) 

New Mexico Environmental Improvement Division 

(IV-L-53) 

Northwestern Resource Company (IV-L-13) 

National Wildlife Federation, Environmental Policy 

Institute, National Parks and Conservation 

Association, and Natural Resources Defense Council 

(IV-L-60) 

Pennsylvania Coal Mining Association (IV-L-8) 

Peabody Holding Company (IV-L-36) 

John D. Rockefeller, IV (IL-L-46) 

City Public Service of San Antonio, Texas (IV-L-3) 

S F Coal Corporation (IV-L-2) 

Sierra Cluo (IV-L-23) 

Sunbelt Mining Company (IV-L-4, IV-L-55) 

Taft Coal Company (IV-L-24) 

Trapper Mining Inc. (IV-L-6, IV-L-45) 

Governor of Texas (IV-L-16) 

Utility Air Regulation Group (IV-L-52, IV-L-59) 

Mountain Ute Tribe of Colorado (IV-L-17) 

Western Energy Company (IV-L-31) 

WIDCO (IV-L-33) 

A-55 
P.74 

1 

ADbreviation 

WR 

Commenter Name and Docket Number 

Westmoreland Resources, Inc. (IV-L-14) 

WSCC Western States Coal Consortium (IV-L-32) 

wv West Virginia Department of Energy (IV-L-57) 

WVMRA West Virginia Mining and Reclamation Association 

(IV-L-20) 

WY Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality (IV-L-25) 

0 

A-56 
P.75 

D 

p^> 

APPENDIX B 

List of Comment Number, Name of Commenter 

and Parenthetical Reference 

Docket Number A-84-33 

Comment Number Commenter Name Parenthetical Reference 

«? IV-L-63 U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI) 

IV-L-64 U.S. Department of Commerce (DOC) 

IV-L-65 National Coal Association (NCA) 

M IV-L-66 U.S. Environmental Protection 

H Agency (EPA) 

IV-L-67 State of Wyoming (WYO) 

« IV-L-68 State of Montana (MON) 

[/" IV-L-69 William L. Armstrong - U.S. 

L Senator, Colorado (ARM) 

IV-L-70 Quentin N. Burdick - U.S. 

f Senator, N. Dakota (BUR) 

I IV-L-71 U.S. Court of Appeals, 

Brief for the Secretary of the 

[ j Interior as Appellee • (COA) 

LJ IV-L-72 U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI) 

IV-L-73 U.S. Department of Agriculture (DOA) 

0

IV-L-74 U.S. Department of Agriculture (DOA) 

IV-L-75 Sierra Club (SC) 

IV-L-76 Sunbelt Mining Co., Inc. (SMC) 

IV-L-77 U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI) 

m IV-L-78 Department of Environmental Quality, 

•3 State of Wyoming (DEQW) 

IV-L-79 Environmental Policy Institute (EPI) 

j£| IV-L-80 Department for Environmental Protection, 

ti State of Kentucky (DEPK) 

IV-L-81 Ute Mountain Tribe (UMT) 

m IV-L-82 Peabody Coal Co. (PCC) 

I IV-L-83 National Coal Association (NCA) 

IV-L-84 American Mining Congress (AMC) 

IV-L-85 Utility Air Regulatory Group (UARG) 

P IV-L-86 U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) 

" IV-L-87 Donald Paul Hodel (DPH) 

IV-L-88 U.S. Senators Jake Garn, 

James V. Hansen, Orrin G. Hatch, 

and Howard C. Nielson (USS) 

B-l