June 29, 2012

Janet McCabe USEPA Headquarters Ariel Rios Building 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, N. W.

Mail Code: 6101A Washington, DC 20460 McCabe.janet@Epa.gov

Dear Ms. McCabe,

We are writing on behalf of National Parks Conservation Association and Sierra Club to express serious concern that the Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) is failing to meet its obligation under the Clean Air Act to curb regional haze by making consistently principled determinations of Best Available Retrofit Technology (“BART”).

We recognize that EPA is currently making an extraordinary investment of time and resources to carry out the Regional Haze progra m, and the Agency has already proposed or finalized several well

- considered and appropriate BART determinations

— notably for sources in Oklahoma, Arkansas, and for the San Juan Generating Station and Four Corners Power Plant in New Mexico. In a growing n umber of states, however, EPA is proposing to approve, or is itself proposing, BART limits that do not reflect the application of the “best system of continuous emission reduction” for each haze

- causing pollutant at issue , even when those technologies hav e been found by the Agency to improve visibility and to be both feasible and cost

- effective. Instead of designating best available controls as BART, EPA Regions are making a variety of inconsistent and unsubstantiated arguments for approving lesser contro ls and correspondingly weak BART limits. In many cases, EPA has summarily concluded that the incremental costs of concededly superior controls are not warranted by the visibility benefits they yield. But the Agency has failed to offer any clear or consis tent rationale for these cost

- benefit determinations, which are routinely at odds with the Agency’s own analysis demonstrating that installing the most effective controls will yield needed visibility improvements. These arbitrary BART proposals stand in s tark contrast to the Agency’s

other well

- founded BART determinations.

While EPA is making progress in implementing the Regional Haze program, that progress will be severely undercut if the Agency fails to impose BART limits that deliver2

the full extent o f emissions reductions that are both achievable and necessary to realize the Clean Air Act’s goal of restoring clean, clear air to our National Parks, Wilderness Areas, and other treasured public lands.

Below are examples of the many instances in which EPA has approved or is on course to approve weak BART limits for reasons that are plainly at odds with the Agency’s own findings and best practices. We are concerned that these and other flawed BART analys es may reflect a diminishing commitment on EPA’s part to implementing the Regional Haze program as Congress intended and the Clean Air Act requires. We are likewise concerned that examples such as those identified below could jeopardize earlier BART decisi ons. In bringing these examples to your attention, we hope to encourage the Agency to revisit pending BART determinations and otherwise adopt a more consistent and principled approach that will reliably result in both

installation of the best controls and required progress toward achieving natural visibility goals. At the very least, EPA needs to take affirmative action to ensure transparency and to provide the public with a rational basis for its decision making.

Montana

— Colstrip Units 1 and 2

PPL Montana’s Colstrip Power Plant has two BART

- subject units with a capacity of 333 megawatts (“MW”) each. 1 Together, they contribute to significant visibility impairment in several class I areas including Yellowstone National Park, Theodore

Roosevelt Nation al Park and the U.L. Bend Wilderness Area. 2

While EPA concedes that selective catalytic reduction (“SCR”) is cost

- effective and otherwise feasible to install and operate at Colstrip, it is proposing to impose BART limits based on operation of less effect ive controls, selective non

- catalytic reduction (“SNCR”) plus separated overfire air (“SOFA”). So far, the Agency has failed to present any reasoned explanation why the costs of SCR are not warranted based on the increased visibility benefits that SCR wou ld provide. Specifically, EPA estimates that SCR plus SOFA at Unit 1 would achieve a 0.404 deciview (“dv”) improvement over baseline conditions at Theodore Roosevelt and a 0.378 dv improvement at UL Bend at a cost of $3,195/ton. 3 Similarly, SCR plus SOF A at Unit 2 would achieve a 0.423 dv improvement at Theodore Roosevelt and a 0.406 dv improvement at UL Bend at a cost of
$3,235/ton. 4 In rejecting SCR as BART for Unit 2, EPA provided the following explanation, which is essentially identical to the rationale presented for rejecting SCR as

BART for Unit 1:

1 Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans, State of Montana, Regional Haze Implementation Plan, Proposed Rule, 77 Fed. Reg. 23,988

, 24,022 (Apr. 20, 2012) (“MT Haze Proposed Rule”).

2 See id. at 24,026.

3 Id.

4 Id. at 24,034

- 24,035.3 Any of the control options would have a positive impact on visibility;
however, the cost of SOFA+SCR ($3,322) 5 is not justified by the visibility improvement of 0.423 deciviews at TRNP and 0.404 deciviews at UL Bend. The lower cost of SOFA+SNCR ($1,571/ton) is justified when the visibility improvement is considered. SOFA+SNCR would ha ve a visibility improvement of 0.269 deciviews at Theodore Roosevelt NP and 0.269 deciviews at UL Bend WA and it would result in 29 fewer days above 0.5 deciviews at Theodore Roosevelt NP and 25 fewer days above 0.5 deciviews at UL Bend WA. In addition, ap plication of SOFA+SNCR at both Colstrip Units 1 and 2 would have a combined modeled visibility improvement of 0.501 deciviews at Theodore Roosevelt NP and 0.451 deciviews at UL Bend WA. We consider these improvements to be substantial, especially in light of the fact that Theodore Roosevelt NP and UL Bend WA are not projected to meet the URP. 6

What EPA fails to explain is why the moderately higher cost of SCR is not justified given the even more “substantial” visibility improvements it would achieve, inclu ding 39 and 35 fewer days with 0.5 dv impacts in UL Bend and Theodore Roosevelt respectively. 7 While EPA combines the visibility improvements of SNCR at both units identifying a combined visibility improvement of 0.501 dv, it does not state why the greate r combined visibility improvement of 0.827 dv from SCR is not determinative, especially given the Agency’s own observation that Theodore Roosevelt and UL Bend are not projected to meet the Uniform Rate of Progress (“URP”) to achieve natural visibility goal s due in part to “limited opportunities for reasonable controls for point sources.” 8 This projected failure to meet URP should put a premium on making the most out of every BART opportunity to achieve visibility gains using the best cost

- effective control s. Currently, UL Bend is on a path to reach natural visibility conditions in 385 years. 9 Given this unacceptably slow progress, EPA should be requiring the very best, cost

- effective control option, which in this case is SCR.

In rejecting SCR as BART, E PA made no effort to compare the cumulative visibility benefits of SCR versus SNCR at the five affected class I areas that it modeled

— a significant omission in light of the Agency’s projections that SCR would yield a

5 EPA reports the average cost effectiveness of SOFA plus SCR as $3,235 repeatedly throughout the rest of

the document. See, e.g., id. at 24,033, 24,035.

6 Id. at 24,035.

7 Id. at 24,027.

8 Id. at 24,091; see also id. at 23,995 (1.63 dv improvement needed at UL Bend to meet URP), 24,027 (observing that UL Bend and Theodore Roosevelt will not meet the URP notwithstanding installation of SNCR); 24,090 (reporting that reasonable progress goals will achieve only 18% of URP at UL. Bend).

9 Id. at 24,090.4

cumulative 2.41 dv benefit as compare d to a 1.52 dv cumulative benefit from SNCR. 10 Similarly, EPA has not presented the combined effect of operating the best available

NOx and SO2 emission controls.

The cumulative impact of a source’s emissions on visibility as well as the

cumulative bene fit of emission reductions is a necessary consideration as part of the fifth step in the BART analysis. In this regard, we urge you to consider the National Park Service’s (“NPS”) reasoning as articulated in the Agency’s comments on Salt River Project’s p roposed BART determination for Navajo Generating Station:

...*I+t is appropriate to consider both the degree of visibility improvement in a given Class I area as well as the cumulative effects of improving visibility across all of the Class I areas affected . It simply does not make sense to use the same metric to evaluate the effects of reducing emissions from a BART source that impacts only the one Class I area as for a BART source that impacts multiple Class I areas. And, it does not make sense to

evaluate impacts at one Class I area, while ignoring others that are similarly significantly impaired. If we look at only the most

- impacted Class I area, we ignore that the other Class I areas are all suffering from impairment to visibility “caused” by the BART so urce. It follows that, if emissions from the BART source are reduced, the benefits will be spread well beyond only the most impacted Class I area, and this must be

accounted for. 11

Including analysis of cumulative benefits is in line with EPA practice. Re gion 6 has stated with respect to its BART determination for the San Juan Generating Station:

We agree with the NPS and the USDA Forest Service on the utility of a cumulative visibility metric in addition to the other visibility metrics we

utilized...Clearl y, the visibility benefits from NOx BART emission

10 Id. at 24,026, 24,034 (reporting dv improvement at five class I areas with various control options). Notably by focusing on only the closest five impacted areas, the modeling analysis likely fails to account for Colstrip’s contribution to visibility impairment at Class I areas further away. For instance, modeling has revealed that emissions from the Big Stone coal plant in South Dakota contribute to visibility impacts of greater than 0.5 dv at Class I areas much further than 300km away, specifically Badlands N ational Park (470 km) in South Dakota, Theodore Roosevelt National Park (555 km) in North Dakota, Boundary Waters Wilderness (431 km) and Voyageurs National Park (438 km) in Minnesota, and even Isle Royale in Michigan (1,049 km). See Approval and Promulga tion of Implementation Plans; South Dakota; Regional Haze State Implementation Plan, Proposed Rule , 76 Fed. Reg. 76,646 , 76654

- 55 (Dec. 8, 2011).

11 Nat’l Park Serv. (NPS), U.S. Dep’t of the Interior, Comments on S al t River Project’s Proposed Best Available Retrofit Technology Requirements (BART) for Navajo Generating Station (NGS) 15 (July 24, 2009), available at http://nature.nps.gov/air/Regs/sipLetters/pdf/NGS_07

- 24

- 2009.pdf).5 reductions will be spread among all affected Class I areas not only the
most affected area, and should be considered in evaluation of benefits from proposed reductions. 12

Likewise EPA Region 2, in discussin g New York’s regional haze plan, recently noted the importance of considering cumulative visibility impacts:

In making BART determinations, EPA also recommends the consideration of cumulative impacts and improvements that could occur

at all of the Class I areas a particular facility might impact. EPA’s analysis of the cumulative visibility improvements at all...Class I areas justifies a more stringent BART emission limit. 13

Consideration of cumulative visibility benefits has been a mainstay in a number of other BART analyses as well. For example, EPA Region 6 employed a cumulative visibility benefits analysis when determining BART in the Federal Implementation Plan (“FIP”) fo r the San Juan Generating Station and in its BART FIP for Oklahoma. Region 9 did so by inference in its proposed BART determinations for the Four Corners Power Plant and its Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking for Navajo Generating Station.

While we di sagree with EPA’s ultimate determination to exempt the Gerald Gentleman

Station from source

- specific BART requirements as opposed to compliance with the

Cross

- State Air Pollution Rule (“CSPAR”), EPA Region 7 properly considered cumulative visibility benefi ts in analyzing BART for Gerald Gentleman, as did Region 1 in its proposal to approve New Hampshire’s haze plan. Further, Wyoming has proposed a SIP and Oregon has finalized a SIP employing cumulative benefits analyses. Simply put, failure to consider cu mulative impacts discounts the very real effect of

source

- specific pollution on regional haze and likewise the cumulative benefits of potential retrofits.

EPA’s proposed conclusions in the proposed BART analysis for Colstrip are not based on any reasoned , much less articulated, standard for determining when incremental costs are reasonable in light of projected visibility benefits. 14 Moreover, EPA

12 Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans, New Mexico, Federal Implementation Plan for Interstate Transport of Pollution Affecting Visibility and Best Available Retrofit Determination, Final Rule, 76 Fed. Reg. 52,388, 52,429

- 52,430 (Aug . 22, 2011) (“SJGS BART Determination”).

13 Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans, State of New York, Regional Haze Implementation Plan, Proposed Rule, 77 Fed. Reg. 24,794

, 24,814 (Apr. 25, 2012) (“NY Haze Proposed Rule”).

14 The inconsistency of the Agency’s position is only highlighted by its proposal to select the most expensive controls considered for sulfur dioxide (“SO2”) on grounds that their incremental cost “is justified by the visibility improvement of 0.350 deciviews at Theodore Rooseve lt NP and 0.261 deciviews at UL Bend WA....” MT Haze Proposed Rule at 24,031.6

has information readily available to analyze the cumulative visibility benefits that could

be achieved with SC R, but it has declined even to consider it. We question why EPA is apparently intent on selecting cheaper and less effective controls, even as it acknowledges that SCR is “well within the range of values we have considered

reasonable for BART.” 15

Neva da

 Reid Gardner Units 1, 2, and 3

EPA is similarly proposing to reject SCR as BART in Nevada. Reid Gardner is a

557 MW coal

- fired power plant with four units of which three are subject to BART. 16 The plant is 85 kilometers (“km”) away from the Grand C anyon and within 300 km of Bryce Canyon National Park, Zion National Park and Sycamore Canyon Wilderness. 17

EPA has stated expressly in its proposed BART determination for Reid Gardner, “...*W+e do not consider these average and incremental cost effectiveness values for SCR with LNB and OFA as cost prohibitive.” 18 However, the Agency is proposing to conclude that “SCR controls at RGGS would not result in enough incremental visibility improvement at a single Class I area to justify the incremental c ost of the technology.” 19

EPA’s modeling analysis indicates that SCR (at a 0.06 lb/MMBtu level of performance) would result in an incremental visibility improvement of 0.10 dv at the Grand Canyon as compared to the less effective technology that the Agency is proposing

to select as BART

 rotating overfire air (“ROFA”) with Rotamix. 20 EPA does not explain why this incremental visibility improvement is insufficient to warrant the incremental cost of SCR, and in any case, its estimate of dv improvement is too l ow. EPA modeled inaccurate emission rates and, as pointed out by NPS, the Agency’s modeling scenarios

fail to account for accurate 24

- hour emissions. 21 When these two issues are corrected, incremental visibility improvement increases. NPS’s recently subm itted modeling

15 Id. at 24,027.

16 Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans ; State of Nevada ; Regional Haze Implementation Plan s , BART Determination for Reid Gardner Generating Station

, Proposed

Rule

, 77 Fed. Reg. 21,896, 21,900 (Apr. 12, 2012)



### .

17 Id. at 21,899 (further explaining that “ Joshua Tree National Monument is just on the border of the 300 km radius of RGGS”).

18 Id. at 21,901. EPA’s cost estimates, which are themselves within a reasonable range of cost

effectiveness according to the Agency, are nevertheless too high, as NPS and other commenters

have made clear. See, e.g., Letter from Susan Johnson, NPS, to Thomas Webb, EPA Region 9 (June 4, 2012) (with enclosed NPS comments) (“N PS Reid Gardner Comments”).

19 Id. at 21,898

- 21,899.

20 Id. at 21,904.

21 NPS Reid Gardner Comments at 13

- 14.7

shows that EPA significantly underestimated the visibility benefit from SCR, which would yield a 0.7 dv improvement at the Grand Canyon and a nearly 2 dv cumulative improvement at all five of the nearby class I areas. 22

EPA makes no attempt to quantify this cumulative visibility improvement achievable with SCR. When the visibility improvement at those Class I areas is measured, as NPS has done, the true merits of selecting SCR as BART become clear.

Without any articulated, much less princ ipled, standard for weighing incremental costs against incremental visibility benefits, EPA’s proposed BART determinations for Reid Gardner and many other plants are at odds with the purposes Clean Air Act’s Regional Haze program, the reasoned decision

- mak ing requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act, and EPA’s own best practices. Fundamentally , EPA is considering incremental costs and benefits in a manner that may forever preclude the achievement of natural visibility in impacted class I areas.

New York

— Danskammer Unit 4

EPA’s proposed BART determination for Dynegy’s Danskammer Generating Station, Unit 4 provides another stark example of the arbitrary cost

- benefit analysis that has become a typical basis for rejecting best controls as BART. 23 Based on modeling for various control alternatives, Dynegy projected very significant visibility improvements at seven affected class I areas, including Acadia National Park. For instance, a hybrid SCR/SNCR option is projected to yield a cumulative visi bility improvement of 2.244

dv. 24 SCR and flue gas recirculation (“FGR”) would yield a cumulative visibility improvement of 2.477 dv. 25 Notwithstanding these significant visibility benefits, and despite the fact that each of these options was deemed cost

- e ffective, they were all summarily “ruled out” due to “minimal visibility improvement.” 26 EPA has offered no explanation why a dramatic visibility improvement of over 2 dv does not warrant

installation of cost

- effective controls. 27 Instead, it is proposing to approve New York’s proposed limit, which was arbitrarily put forward without reference to selection of any

22 Id. at 16 (reporting a cumulative benefit of 1.92 dv).

23 NY Haze Proposed Rule at 24,812

- 15.

24 Id. at 24,813.

25 Id.

26 Id.

27 EPA is apparently proposing to accept Dynegy’s argument that these controls are not feasible in light of “ammonia handling issues.” Id. at 24,813. As there is no evidence that operating SCR or an SCR/SNCR hybrid system would result in any logistical probl ems or non air

- quality impacts that are not routinely addressed at the many plants that operate these controls successfully, this argument does not provide any legitimate basis for rejecting best controls as BART.8

control technology as BART and without projections of the visibility improvements, if any, this arbitrary limit would a chieve. 28

EPA’s willingness to accept New York’s proposed BART determination for NOx is confounding given the Agency’s determinations elsewhere that lesser visibility benefits warrant the cost of SCR. For instance, EPA Region 6 has finalized a BART

deter mination requiring dry scrubbing for SO 2 emissions from the Sooner coal plant in Oklahoma based on a 2.07 dv cumulative visibility improvement that the Agency deemed “significant.” 29

Moreover, Region 2’s own proposed rejection of New York’s BART

determin ation for SO 2 raises the question why the agency is not similarly disapproving the state’s BART determination for NOx. As EPA explained, “ [o]ur proposed disapproval is based in large part on Dynegy's own BART analysis, showing that FGD
controls and/or com busting natural gas are cost effective and would result in enough incremental visibility improvement at a single Class I area to justify the incremental cost of the control strategies.” 30 EPA offers no reasoning why it arrives at a different
cost/benefit c alculus for SO 2 than for NOx. In the absence of any explanation how the Agency is weighing control costs against visibility benefits, its proposed approval of New York’s NOx BART determination appears to be arbitrary, reinforcing our concerns

that EPA is misapplying the statutory requirement to consider visibility impacts and summarily rejecting effective control technologies that should be selected as BART.

Colorado

— Craig Units 1 and 2

While we generally support the Colorado haze SIP and the great progress achieved by the Clean Air Clean Jobs legislation, EPA’s BART analysis for Tri

- State & Transmission Association’s Craig Units 1 and 2 is problematic. Craig Station is a coal

fired powe r plant with two BART

- subject units, each of which has a net capacity of 428 MW. Collectively, these two units have a cumulative visibility impact of 9.585 dv (3

- year average, 8th high) on surrounding Class I areas, which include Rocky Mountain

National P ark and the Mt. Zirkel, Rawah, Eagles Nest, Flat Tops, and Maroon Bells

-

28 Id. at 24,813, 24,814.

29 Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Oklahoma; Regional Haze State Implementation Plan; Federal Implementation Plan for Interstate Transport of Pollution Affecting Visibility and Best Available Retrofit Technology Determinations

, Proposed Rule , 76 Fed.Reg

. 16,168, 16,186 (Mar. 22, 2011).

30 Id. at 24,814; see also id. at 24,812 ( reporting that FGD is projected to achieve “maximum predicted visibility improvement of 4.749 deciviews and eighth highest improvement of 2.174

deciviews.”9

Snowmass Wilderness Areas. At Mt. Zirkel alone, these units contribute to visibility impairment on average on 165 days per year. 31

Requiring Craig Units 1 and 2 to install SCR as BART for NOx would yield combined visibility benefits of 2.02 dv just at the most impacted area

. 32 Nevertheless, EPA is proposing to approve Colorado’s selection of SNCR as BART, which would

achieve a combine d visibility improvement of only 0.62 dv. According to the state’s calculations, the cost of SCR would be $6,432/ton for Unit 1, as opposed to $4,877/ton for SNCR, and $6,299/ton for Unit 2 as opposed to $4,712/ton for SNCR. 33 EPA has offered no explanati on why the incremental costs of installing SCR are not warranted by the substantially increased visibility benefits (1.4 dv) that it would provide.

Further, as EPA made clear to the state in 2010, Colorado’s cost estimates for SCR are “highly inflated, ” and it has significantly underestimated the removal efficiency of

SCR. 34 In short, EPA itself has previously concluded that the state’s basis for rejecting SCR is fatally flawed, but in its proposed rule the Agency merely states, “ We agree with

the Stat e's BART determination that an emission limit of 0.27 lb/MMBtu is NO X BART for Craig Unit 1 and Unit 2. The state arrived at this limit based on a reasonable

consideration of the five factors.” 35 Here, again, EPA has failed to offer any transparent

ration ale for rejecting as BART what the agency’s own analysis has identified as the best,

cost

- effective controls. While we appreciate that Craig Unit 2 will ultimately be subject to appropriate reasonable progress limits, that outcome should not distort the a gency’s analysis of what constitutes BART for both units.

Alaska

— Healy Unit 1

Finally, the Golden Valley Electric Association’s Healy Power Plant in Alaska is located only 5 miles away from Denali National Park, where it has “visibility impacts of

gr eater than 3.4 dv....” 36 EPA is proposing to reject the most effective selective catalytic reduction technology as BART for nitrogen oxides (“NOx”) on grounds that SCR would
cost $10,170/ton over a 15

- year amortization period. 37 However, Healy is not subject to

31 See Colorado Dep’t of P ublic Health & Envt., BART CALPUFF, Class I Federal Area, Individual Source Attribution, Visibility Impairment Modeling Analysis for Tri

- State Generation & Transmission Association Craig Station Units 1 and 2 (Revised) 48 (Mar. 3, 2006).

32 Approval and Pro mulgation of Implementation Plans ; State of Colorado ; Regional Haze Implementation Plan, Proposed Rule

, 77 Fed. Reg. 18,052, 18,067 (Mar. 26, 2012)

33 Id . at 18,068.

34 Letter from EPA Region 8 to Colorado Dep’t of Public Health and the Envt. 11

- 12 (Oct. 26

, 2010).

35 77 Fed. Reg. at 18,068.

36 Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans ; State of Alaska ; Regional Haze State Implementation Plan, Proposed Rule

, 77 Fed. Reg. 11,022, 11,033 (Feb. 24, 2012).

37 Id. at 11,034.10

any enforceable shutdown requirement in 15 years, and assuming a 15

- year lifetime is wholly inconsistent with vendor guarantees and SCR’s actual lifetime, which is typically 30 years or more. As EPA itself explained in its BART determination for the S an Juan Generating Station:

The lifetime of an SCR, which is a metal frame packed with catalyst modules, is equal to the lifetime of the boiler, which might easily be over 60 years. The lifetime of a retrofit SCR is generally set equal to the remaining us eful life of the facility. The record is silent on the remaining useful life of the SJGS units. Further, USGS studies of the coal reserves upon which the SJGS relies indicate that the local coal supply is adequate to support a remaining useful life of 30 y ears. Many utilities routinely specify 30+ year lifetimes in requests for proposal and to evaluate proposals. In fact, an analysis prepared by B&V for another facility assumed a 40 year SCR lifetime. And finally, Sargent & Lundy assumed a design life of 30 years for the nearby Navajo Generating Station which burns a similar coal. We conclude there is nothing in the record to support a 20 year lifetime for the SCR and believe a 30 year lifetime is justified. 38

For the Healy plant as well, there is apparently nothing in the record that justifies a 15

- year as opposed to 30

- year lifetime. Further, while EPA purports to rely on its Control Costs Manual to justify its selection of the 15

- year period, the manual assumes an economic lifetime of 20 years. 39 Thus, E PA’s purported reliance on the manual is misplaced.

If EPA fairly estimated costs, as the NPS has done, SCR would present itself as a

cost

- effective alternative that would achieve a 0.786 dv visibility improvement in Denali, assuming a relatively lax li mit of 0.07 lbs/MMbtu, and even greater benefits with a readily achievable limit of 0.05 lbs/mmbtu. 40 However, as with the other BART determinations discussed above, EPA is proposing to approve cheaper, less effective

controls that are not well

- suited to achieving the over

- arching natural visibility goals of the Regional Haze program.

CONCLUSION

While EPA’s source

- specific BART determinations necessarily differ from one another depending on how the relevant statutory factors apply at a given facility, a

38 SJGS BART Determination. at 52,402.

39 EPA Air Pollution Control Cost Manual, Sixth Edition (EPA 452/B

- 02

- 001), 4

- 48 (available at http://www.epa.gov/ttncatc1/products.html#cccinfo).

40 Letter from Susan Johnson, NPS to Keith Rose, EPA Region 10, at 6 (Mar. 26, 2012) (revising

cost est imates for SCR to $6,665/ton).11

disturbing pattern is nevertheless emerging as EPA issues a growing number of proposed and final decisions on haze SIPs and FIPs. Often EPA is declining to select the
best, cost

- effective controls as BART. There is no acceptable or consistent rationale to support these determinations and the cost/benefit assessments that are driving them.

We remain hopeful that EPA will revisit pending BART proposals to ensure that haze plans reliably achieve mandated emissions reductions and corresponding visibilit y improvements, and we look forward to meeting with you and your staff to discuss the

concerns raised in this letter.

Sincerely,

Abigail Dillen Coal Program Director Earthjustice (212) 791

- 1881, Ext. 8221 adillen@earthjustice.org

Stephanie Kodish

Clean Air Counsel

National Parks Conservation Association (865) 329

- 2424 skodish@npca.org

Gloria D. Smith Senior Managing Attorney Sierra Club Environmental Law Program (415) 977

- 5532 gloria.smith@sierraclub.org12

cc: Curt Spalding

Administrator

USEPA REGION 1

- New England 5 Post Office Square

Mail Code: ORA
Boston, MA 02109

- 3912 Spalding.curt@Epa.gov

Judith A. Enck

Administrator

USEPA REGION 2 290 Broadway

Mail Code: 26TH FL New York, NY 10007

- 1866 Enck.judith@Epa.gov

Shawn M. Garvin

Administrator

USEPA REGION 3

1650 Arch Street

Mail Code: 3RA00 Philadelphia, PA 19103

- 2029 Garvin.shawn@Epa.gov

Gwendolyn Keyes Fleming

Administrator

USEPA REGION 4 61 Forsyth Street, S.W.

Mail Code: 9T25 Atlanta, GA 30303

- 8960 Keyesfleming.gwendoly n@Epa.gov

Susan Hedman

Administrator

USEPA REGION 5 77 West Jackson Boulevard

Mail Code: R

- 19J Chicago, IL 60604

- 3507 Hedman.susan@Epa.gov13

Sam Coleman

Administrator

USEPA REGION 6

1445 Ross Avenue

Sui te 1200

Mail Code: 6RA
Dallas, TX 75202

- 2733 Coleman.sam@Epa.gov

Karl Brooks

Administrator USEPA Region 7

901 North 5th Street Kansas City, KS 66101 Brooks.karl@epa.gov r7actionline@epa.gov

James B. Martin

Administrator

USEPA REGION 8 1595 Wynkoop St.

Mail Code: 8RA
Denver, CO 80202

- 1129 Martin.jim@Epa.gov

Jared Blumenfeld

Administrator

USEPA REGION 9

75 Hawthorne Street

Mail Code: ORA

- 1 San Francisco, CA 94105 Blumenfeld.jared@Epa.gov

Dennis McLerran

Administrator

USEPA REGION 10

1200 Sixth Avenue

Mail Code: RA

- 140 Seattle, WA 98101 McLerran.dennis@Epamail.epa.gov