P. 1



# OAR Box 1837

Prepped by Keeia Richards



### Document

Number: 

# 168 ) IV-C-8

Docket Number: 

# A-84-3 3

Printed 11/14/2008 3:48:11 PM Sheet 168 of 238P. 2



### • y •?

. 

### w



## y__y IjSJg ? I UNITE D STATE S ENVIRONMENTA L PROTECTIO N AGENC Y \ / Zd? WASHINGTON
. D.C . 2046 0 *ia*e«- 

### JU N 

### I 8 198 7

TH E ADMINISTRATO R

Honorabl e Edwi n (Jake ) Ga m Unite d State s Senat e Washington , D.C . 2051 0
Dear Senator Garn : Thi s i n i n respons e t

o you r Ma y 8 , 198 7 lette r o

n th e Environmenta l Protectio n Agency' s (EPA's ) consideratio n o f th e surfac e coa l min e rulemakin g proposal . W

e ar e givin

g seriou s attentio

n to th

e concern s yo

u expressed . I n 198 3 EP

A wa s directe

d b y th e Cour t o f Appeal s fo r th e D.C . Circui t to begi n a rulemakin g proces s to determin e whethe r o

r no t to regulat e fugitiv e dus t fro

m surfac e coa l mine s (Sierr

a Clu bv . Gorsuch , 71 5 F.2 d 65 3 (D.C . Cir.)) . Th e cour t rule

d tha t I

n interpretin

g Sectio

n 302(j ) o f th

e Clea n Ai r Act , unde r whichth e Agency

regulated man

y othe r categorie s o f fugitiv e emissions , EP

A ha d no t adequatel y explaine

d it s failur e t

o als o regulat e surfac e coa l mines . W e are nearin

g th e en d o f ou r deliberation s an

d hav e advise

d th e cour t tha t w

e currentl y

expec t t

o tak e fina l actio

n b y th e en d of thi s year . We fully

recogniz e an

d agre e wit hyo

u tha t th

e Secretar

y o f th e Interio

r ha s wide an

d divers e statutor y authority

t o protec t nationa l park s an d wildernes s area s unde r hi s jurisdiction . Similarly , th e Clea n Ai r Ac t give s EP

A a stron

g rol e i n protectin

g ai r quality . I

n particular , tha t statut e single s ou

t certai n parkland s an d wildernes s area s (so-calle d "Clas s I " areas ) for specia l protection , includin g procedure s fo r th e Federa l Lan

d Manager s (th

e Secretarie s o f Agricultur e an d Interior ) t o revie w majo r ne

w source s o f ai r emission s fo r thei r potentia l impact s o n th e ai r quality

relate d value s (includin

g visibility ) o f suc hareas . W

e appreciat e th

e nee d to work closel y

wit hDO I an

d withth

e Department o f Agricultur e i n exercisin

g ou r mutua l responsibilities . I n a n effor t to addres s concern s expresse d b y DOI , Crai g Potter , Assistan t Administrato r fo r Ai r an

d Radiation , recentl y me t wit hInterior officials , includin g Assistan t Secretarie s Hor n an d Griles . EP

A staf f ar e reviewin g material s submitte dP. 3

- 2 -

t o u s a ttha tmeetin g an d othe rinformation , an d we wil l continu e t o discus s wit h ou rcounterpart s a ttha tDepartmen t how ou rrespectiv e authoritie s shoul d bes tb e exercise d t o assur e tha tai rqualit y an d visibilit y i n nationa l park s an d wildernes s area s ar e adequatel y protecte d fro m surfac e min e emissions . I n closing , le tm

e assur e yo u tha twe ar e givin g ful l consideratio n t o al l comment s an d ar e makin g ever y effor tt o wor k cooperativel y wit h ou rsiste ragencies . Than k yo u fo r sharin g you rview s wit h m e o n thi s importan ttopic . fNSincer l

Le e M . Thomas

Enclosure :
cc : Rulemakin g Docke t

cc : Rulemakin

g Docke t bcc : B

. Brow

n G

. Foot e Docket No

. A-84-3 3 A L (A-101 ) A X (A-101 )

Jjc/OAOP S - retype d 5/27/8 7 PHWyckoff:bjf/LE-132A/501-WT/382-7610/6-16-87/Dis c f 1 1DENT.CA I LETTER S T O <* „ G . „ ATCH > JAME S v . HANSEN

_^ ^ ^ ^'t ,

MEMORANDU

M SUBJECT : Discussio no f Potentia l Fina l Actio nfo r

Stri pMine s Rulemakin g FROM: ^Kfr t cox, " Projec t Office r 

## h TO : Centra l Docke t Sectio n(LE-131 )

Docke t No . A-84-3 3 Addressee s (Se e Below ) Th e surfac e coa l min e (SCM ) rulemakin g proposal , -4 8 Fed . Reg . 4321 1 (Octobe r 26 , 1984 ) an

d5 0 Fed . Reg . 709 0 (Februar y 28 , 1986) , se t fort hfou r regulator y

alternatives t

- Alternativ e I : Statu s qu o (n o regulation )

- Alternativ e II : Regulat e ne w SGM' s

- Alternativ e III : Regulat e ne w andcertai n existin g SCM' s

• Alternativ e IV : Regulat e onl y ne w SCM' s affectin g certai npark a andothe r publi c land s (Clas s I andmandator y Clas s I I areas ) Althoug hindustr y

cos t estimate s ar e highe r tha nour s andbenefit s na y b e underestimated , base do n th e Regulator y Impac t Analysi s an

dth e comment s thereon , i t appear s tha t th e advers e socioeconomi c impact s o f Alternative s I I an d II I greatl y

excee dbenefits . A s th e rulemakin g proces s near s com pletion , however , considerabl e disagreemen t remain s regardin g th e Inpaet a o f alternativ e IV . Th e cownent s reflec t tha t par t o f th e disput e center s o n th e exten t t o whic halternativ e I V a s originall y

propose dwoul dachiev e It s state dpurpos e o f targetin g regulatio no n nationa l park a an dothe r natura l area s o f specie ! concern . P. 4

I X*mj ) UNITE D STATE S ENVIRONMENTA L PROTECTIO N AGENC Y ^//^ \*mfc*

WASHINGTON

. D.C

. 2046 0 /£«> t



## MA Y 4«W T ^

I'd bd 3 BE:S T ZB , T T Ab WP. 5

-2 -
(Se e 4 8 Fed . Reg . 43212. ) Accordingly , a s I t move s toward s fina l actio nEP A I s no w considerin g certai nmodifie dversion s o f Alternativ e IV (se e discussio n below ) whic hmigh t b e mor e effectiv e i nachievin g th e purpos e o f tha t regulator y alternative . B y

seekin g t o answe r unresolve dquestion s regardin g Alternativ e IV , EP A doe s no t impl y

tha t othe r outcome s hav e bee nprecluded . Al l o f th e alternative s wil l b e considere di nreachin g a fina l decision .

. Th e modification s t o Alternativ e I V hav e bee nfashione db y EP A i nrespons e t o comment s i nth e docket , an dar e a logica l outgrowt ho f th e origina l proposal . Thus , EP A

doe s no t believ e i t i s necessar y unde r applicabl e rulemakin g procedure s t o undertak e anothe r ful l roun do f notic e an

dcommen t befor e fina l action . Tha t cours e woul dals o b e undesirabl e i nvie w o f EPA' s desir e t o tak e fina l actio na s soo naa possible . However , EP A doe s fee l tha t i t i s appropriat e t o offe r intereste dpartie s a brie f opportunit y t o examine , an dpresen t thei r view s on , prospectiv e modification s t o Alternativ e IV * Whil e thi s opportunit y

i s afforde dt o al l intereste dpartie s generall y throug hthi s docke t notice , individua l notic e i s als o bein g give nt o th e partie s liste d below , wh o hav e demonstrate da kee n.interes t I nthes e proceedings . T o avoi d delayin g thi s rulemaking , an y writte nresponse s shoul db e submitte db y Ma y 18 , b e a s concis e a s possible , andshoul davoi ddetaile dtechnica l analyses . Response s shoul db e submitte dt o Ms . Barbar a Brown , Offic e o f Ai r an dRadiatio n (ANR-443) , EPA , 40 1 M

Street , S.W. , Washington , D.C . 20460 . Subjec t t o th e othe r tim

e commitment s o f Agenc v staff , EP A

als o offer s t o mee t wit hrepre sentative s o f any

intereste dpart y

durin g thi s perio dt o discus s thi s matter . Arrangement s ma y

b e mad e by

contactin g Barbar a Brow na t (202 ) 382-7403 , FT S 382-7403 . Any

writte nsubmission s wil l b e place dI nth e docket . Additionally , EP A wil l prepar e a brie f memorandu m concernin g th e subjec t matte r o f any ora l discussions , whic hwil l als o b e place di nth e docket . Th e balanc e o f thi s memoraridu m summarize s th e portion s o f industr y and envlroT-TOTira l groups , an ddiscusse s I nsom e detai l prospective modification s t o alternativ e IV . I ) Industry

Cament s Thi l rulemakin g ha s ha dtw o eoroaen t partod s (U ufirs t opene do n Octobe r 28 , 1984 , andth e secon do nFebruar y

28 . 1986) , eac hwit hcorres pondin g publi c hearings i lh e minin g industry ha a activel y

participate di n al l o f thes e proceedings . Thei r broad-rangin g comment s oppos e al l aspect s o f th e proposal . KCfE M noi l generally , the y

allege : -Th e SCM' s ar e no t a significan t sourc e o f particulat e matte r whe nconsidere dnationall y (addressin g th e basi c tea t fo r proposin g regulation) . -Th e propose dregulatio nwoul dprohibi t al l bu t th e smalles t ne w o r expande dSCM's . -Th e regulatio nwoul dprovid e n o significan t environmenta l benefit .

B' d «d3.6E:S T ZB , T T Ab WP. 6

-3 -

-Albernatlve IV

woul daffec t mor e coa l reserve s tha nEP A indicated . Industry

submitte d« nIC F stud y predictin g tha t 8. 6 billio nton s o f reserve s woul db e effected . [Not e however , tha t ove r hal f o f thi s (4. 6 B 5 tons ) wa s premise dupo nthe effect s o f Montan a India nreservation s onth e Powde r Rive r Basin . Thos e non-mandator y Clas s I area a woul db e exclude d fro m coverag e unde r alternative s TV ' an dIV" . Othe r Industry comment s Indicat e a neve nhighe r impact . [Not e tha t thes e ar e base do nver y

conservativ e modelin g assumption s showin g Impact s o f 1 ug/m 3 a t distance s o f ove r 10 0 mile s fo r acn e regions. } -Othe r authorities , notabl y th e Surfac e Minin g Contro l and Reclamatio nAct , coul daddres s any environmenta l problems . II ) Environmenta l Grou pComment s

-Th e EPA' s Interpretatio no f th e standar do f rulemakin g require d b y sectio n302(j ) i s muc hto o broad . -Mine s ca nb e a significan t environmenta l concern , violatin g bot hnationa l ambien t ai r Qualit y standard s a s wel l a a th e preventio no f significan t deterioratio n(PSD ) increment . -Industr y

overstate s th e impac t o f th e regulatio nb y no t factorin g I ncontro l technique s tha t ar e availabl e an db y no t considerin g redesignatio nt o Clas s III . -Sierr a Clubsough t regulatio no f al l mine s and , therefore , wa s no t supportiv e o f protectin g onl y Clas s I andmandator y Clas s I I areas . -Environmenta l group s di dconclud e tha t Clas s I an dmandator y Clas s I I area s nee dprotectio nbecaus e othe r Federa l regulator y authoritie s ar e no t adequat e an dth e Departmen t o f th e Interio r l s no t usin g th e authorit y tha t i t doe s have . -Benefit ! o f the regulatio nar e understate dbecaus e o f difficult y I nquantifyin g them . III ) Altematlve e IV , IV \ andTV' ' Alternativ e I V

i nth e SC M

proposa l woul dprovid e fo r PS D revie w o f al l mine s whic hwoul dhav e a 1 ug/m 3 impac t o nan y Clas s I o r mandator y

Claa s I I area . W e hav e considerabl e flexibility , however , i nmodifyin g thi a approac ht o respondt o need s presente db y th e commenters , a o lon g a a th e fina l rul e i s a "logica l outgrowth " o f th e proposal . I t ma y b e mos t convenien t t o thin k o f modification s t o ou r approac h i nterm s o f two varlsbles : th e land s protecte db y th e regulatio nan dth e Criteri a use dt o trigge r thl * protection . Industr y commenter s brough t u p concern s wort hseriou s consideratio nwit hreepec t t o bot hcategories .

6' d bd 3 0fr:£ T Z8 , TT AU

UP. 7

-4 - Regardin g land s protected , the y note dtha t redesignatio no f a trac t t o Clas s I migh t significantl y

limi t minin g i na region , eve nthoughthe redesignate d area , i nthei r view , i s o f n o partlculs r natura l significance . Thre e India n reservation s i nMontan a nea r th e Powde r Rive r Basi nwer e note da s examples . Regardin g th e criteri a fo r triggerin g review , industry observe dtha t som

e mines , eve na t a considerabl e distance , andhavin g an ' insignifican t effec t o nthe protecte darea , migh t nonetheles s mee t th e 1 ug/m 3 threshol d andb e subjec t t o PS D permitting . Unde r on e possibl e modification , (referre dt o a a "Alternativ e IV' " o r " 4 prime") , PS D revie w o f a min e woul db e triggere dno t b y a fixe dambien t concentratio nbut , rather , b y a predictio no f advers e impact * A projecte d concentratio no f 1 ug/m 3 woul dtrigge r a nambien t Impac t aasessment , rathe r tha nautomati c PS D review . Th e min e woul db e subjec t t o PS D only i f th e ambien t impac t aasessmen t reveale da potentia l advers e Impact , a s determine d b y th e Federa l landManage r (FLM) . I naddition , regulator y coverag e woul db e extende dt o onl y

mandator y

Clas s I an

dClas s I I areas , Thi s approac hpresent s significan t potentia l advantages : -I naddresssin g mandatory'Clas s I areas , i t focuse s o nthos e area s o f specia l natura l significanc e fo r whic hth e Clea nAi r Ac t (Act ) demonstrate s particula r concern , -I t focuse s onl y

o nmine s tha t woul dhav e a nadvers e impac t throug hthe us e o f a case-by-cas e approach . -I t maintain s th e rol e o f th e publi c i nth e process . Thes e determination s woul db e subjec t t o publi c notic e en dopportunit y fo r comment . Thi s procedura l ste pi s a vita l par t o f th e PS D process , pursuan t to.whic ha decisio nt o permi t l s mad e "onl y afte r a carefu l evaluatio no f al l th e consequence s o f suc ha decisio nandafte r adequat e procedura l opportunitie s fo r informe d 

# ? ubll c participatio ni nth e decision-makin g process " sectio n160(a)(5)] . -I t provide s o nopportunit y fo r participatio nb y

th e Federa l lan dmanager s (FLM) . -I t i s base do nestablishe dprocedures . A nadvers e Impac t tea t l a already

use db y th e FLM , Ther e ar e o f cours e a variet y o f way s I nwhic hregulator y coverag e ca nb e structured . Coverag e coul db e limite dt o onl y mandator y

Clas s I area s o r t o mandator y

Clas s 1 an

dexistin g mandator y

Clas s I I areas . Othe r threshold s fo r triggerin g revie w coul dals o b e selected . A slightl y

modifie dapproac h("Alternativ e IV " o r " 4 doubl e prime" ) i s als o wort hexploring . Thi s woul dincorporat e th e same advers e impac t tea t a s I V bu t diffe r i ntwo respect s fro m th e wa y tha t X V i s configure dabove .

BT' d b d 3 Tfr:£ T ZB , T T AHU 1P. 8

-5 -
First , i t woul donl y

protec t mandator y

Clas s I areas . Second , i t woul ddelet e th e 1 ug/ro3 ambien t impac t trigge r fo r analysis . Instead , th e advers e impac t analysi s woul db e applie dt o al l mine s propose dwithi n5 0 kilometer s o f a mandator y

Clas s I area . Thi s woul dremov e uncertaintie s a s t o applicatio no f th e advers e impac t analysi s test . I t woul dals o limi t th e numbe r o f source s subjec t t o modelin g exercises . Becaus e thi s l s a napplicabilit y tes t rathe r tha na prohibitio no f an y particula r activity , th e 5 0 kilomete r criterio n woul dno t constitut e a prohibite d"automati c o r uniform buffe r tone " withi n th e meanin g o f sectio n165(e)(3)(A ) o f th e Act *
I t l s likel y

tha t som

e partie s wil l b e concerne dabu t th e lac k o f protectio nfo r mandator y Clas s I I area s unde r Alternativ e IV" . Whil e i t i s tru e tha t the mandator y Clas s I area s occupy

a specia l plac e a s "nationa l jewels " andreceiv e enhance dprotectio nunde r th e Act , ther e ar e numerou s mandator y

Clas s I I area s o f exceptiona l sceni c an decologica l value . T o b e responsiv e t o thes e concerns , w e sugges t a proces s fo r notificatio no f th e FL M wit hrespec t t o SCM' s propose dfo r locatio nwithi n5 0 kilometer s o f a mandator y

Clas s I I area . Th e FLM coul dthe nconside r potentia l environmenta l impact s a a appropriat e an dconsul t wit hth e Stat e regardin g thes e findings . Thi s proces s woul dno t trigge r PS D revie w

o r creat e a nobligatio no nthe par t o f the State . W e believe , however , tha t suc ha procedur e cannevertheles s offe r rea l benefits . Th e revie w

an dpubli c consideratio no f the potentia l environmenta l impact s o f propose dsource s l s a fundamenta l theme o f the Act , Th e fac t tha t suc ha revie w i s mad e i s likel y

c o influenc e the genera l regulator y effor t wit h respec t t o SCM' s an

db e factore dint o permittin g decisions . Sectio n12 1 o f th e Ac t provide s fo r consultatio nbetwee nState s an dth e FL M

o nmatter s Involvin g ne w

sourc e review . W e sugges t tha t thi a mechanis m b e use dt o imple men t the consultatio nprocedur e describe dabove . W e shoul dals o conside r th e rol e o f th e FLM . Unde r th e origina l alternativ e IV , w e anticipate dtha t th e FL M woul db e give nthe opportunit y t o comment . Thi s participatio nwoul db e optional , sinc e w e do no t hav e th e authorit y

t o Impos e an

y mandator y

participatio nupo nthe FLM . Th e Stat e woul dgenerall y

b e th e PS D permittin g authorit y andwoul dwor k wit hth e FLM . Wha t happen s i ncase s i nwhic hth e .FL M find s a nadvers e impac t bu t th e Stat e PS D permittin g authorit y doe s not ? W e sugges t tha t th e FLM' s rol e migh t b e mor e meaningfu l i f PS D revie w wer e triggere do nth e basi s o f th e FLM' s findin g o f advers e Impact . Th e Stat e coul dalway s trigge r PS D revie w

i nthi s way , regardles s o f th e FLM' s recommendatio no r participation , throug hit s genera l regulator y authorit y

embodie di nsectio n 11 6 o f th e Act . Th e regulator y

Impac t analysi s (RIA ) examine s th e potentia l impact s o f Alternativ e I V

throug hth e us e o f tw o cas e studies . I t di dno t addres s th e two variation s discusse dabove . W e feel , however , tha t the RI A ca nb e extrapolate dt o thes e modifie dapproaches . Becaus e o f us e o f th e advers e Impac t test , bot hAlternative s I V an dIV " woul db e expecte dt o presen t muc hlowe r costs . Benefit s however , woul dno t chang e muc hfo r an y give n are a o f coverage . Wit hAlternativ e IV , coat s woul db e lowe r becaus e fewe r

TT" d bd 3 2fr:£ T ZB / T T A« WP. 9

-6 -
mine s woul db e sublec t t o review , bu t benefit s shoul dno t appreciabl y change . Th e reaso nfo r thi s i s tha t w e woul db e maintainin g PS D coverag e o f mine s fo r whic hther e woul dhav e bee na n advers e impact . Th e sam e resul t obtain s fo r Alternativ e IV" , bu t on e shoul dnot e that , sinc e I t doe s no t addres s mandator y

Clas s I I areas , i n th e configuratio ndiscusse dsbove , ther e woul d b e a rea l dro pi n benefits . Fo r th e area s covered , benefit s ar e stil l expecte dt o b e greate r tha ncosts , however .

Addressees : Josep hJ . Breche r Attorne y a t La v 50 6 - 15t hStree t Suit e 50 0 Oakland , C A

9461 2
Howar dI . Fo x Sierr a Clu

bLega l Defens e Fund , Inc . 151 6 P Street , N.W . Washington , D.C . 2000 5 (Sierr a Club ) Michae l B . Bar r Hunto n& William s P.O . Bo x1923 0 Washington , D.C . 2003 6 (Nationa l Coa l Association ) Robert a L . Kallada y Holland& Har t 187 5 I Street , N.W . Washington , D.C . 2000 6 (America nMinin g Congress ) Rober t T . Conner y .Hollan d& Har t 55 5 - 17t hStree t Suit e 290 0 Denver , Colorad o 8020 1 (America nMinin g Congress ) Davi dG . Unger , Directo r Watershe dan

dAi r Managemen t U.S . Departmen t o f Agricultur e Fores t Servic e 12t h& Independenc e Avenue , S.W . P.O

. Bo x 241 7 Washington , D.C

. 2001 3 Michael Polin g Deput y Assistan tSecretar y fo rLan d an dMineral s Managemen t Departmen t o f th e Interio r Washington , D.C . 2024 0 Te dWilliams , Directo r Offic e o f Environmenta l Analysis , Policy , Safety , an

dEnvironmen t U.S . Departmen t o f Energ y Washington , D.C . Jo e Mulla n Senio r Vic e Presiden t fo r Environmenta l Affair e •Nationa l Coa l Associatio n 113 0 - 17t hStreet , N.W . Washington , D.C . 2003 6 Larr y Bogg a Senio r Counse l America nMinin g Congres s 192 0 N Street , N.W. ' Suit e 30 0 Washington , D.C , 2003 6

2T' d bd 3 t>t>:£ T ZB , T

T Ab UP.1 0



### -7 -

Ai r Divisio nDirectors i Lloy dF . Novick , M.D . Director , Offic e o f Ai r Qualit y 200 5 Nort hCentra l Avenu e Phoenix , A Z 8500 4 Bradle y J , Beckham , Directo r Ai r Pollutio nContro l Divisio n 421 0 Eas t 11t hAvenu e Denver , C O 2622 0 Michae l J . Kaye e Divisio nManage r Ai r Pollutio nContro l Divisio n Illinoi s EP A 220 0 Churchil l Roa d Springfield , Illinoi s 6270 6

Roge r B . McCann , Directo r Divisio no f Ai r Pollutio nContro l For t Boon e Plaz a 1 6 Reill y

Roa d Frankfort , Kentucky

4060 1
Harol dftobbin

e Chief , Ai r Qualit y

Burea u Cogswel l Buildin g Helena , Montan a 59C2 0 Randolp hWoo d Director , Departmen t o f Environmenta l Qualit y 12 2 Wes t 25t hStree t Cheyenne , W ¥8200 2 Michae l J . Burkhar t Chief , Ai r Qualit y

Burea u 119 0 St . Franci s Driv e P.O . Bo x96 6 Sant a Fe , Ne w

Mexic o 67504-096 8
Dan a K . Moun t Director , Divisio no f Environmenta l Engineerin g Nort hDakot a Stat e Departmen t o f Healt h 120 0 Missour i Avenu e Biamark , Nort hDakot a 58502-552 0 Alle nEl i Bel l Executiv e Directo r Texa s Ai r Pollutio nBoar d 633 0 Highwa y

29 0 Eas t Austin , Texa s 7672 3

F . Burnel l Corone r Director , Burea uo f Ai r Qualit y Uta hDepartmen t o f Healt h 

### 2e e Nort h146 0 wes t P.O . Bo x1669 0 Sal t Lak e City , Uta h84116-069 0

ET' d

- befi"'£':£ * '3 , T T AbiT" '

_