DREF Comment letter FINAL with corrected tables

Informations

• Publié par: Endroi
• Nombre de lectures: 84
• Langue: English

Extrait

DINE’ CITIZENS AGAINST RUINING OUR ENVIRONMENT*
SAN JUAN CITIZENS ALLIANCE*
ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENSE*WESTERN RESOURCE ADVOCATES*
NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL*
SIERRA CLUB*FOREST GUARDIANS*
ENVIRONMENT COLORADO*CLEAN AIR TASK FORCE*
GRAND CANYON TRUST

November 13, 2006

By email ([e-mail] and [e-mail]) and Fed. Ex.
Robert Baker (AIR-3)
Air Permitting
EPA Region IX
75 Hawthorne Street
San Francisco, CA 94105

RE: Comments on EPA’s Proposed Construction Permit for Sithe Global Power to
Construct the Desert Rock Energy Facility

Dear Mr. Baker:

Dine Citizens Against Ruining Our Environment, San Juan Citizens Alliance, Environmental
Defense, Western Resource Advocates, Natural Resources Defense Council, Sierra Club, Forest
Guardians, Environment Colorado, Clean Air Task Force, and Grand Canyon Trust (collectively
referred to as “conservation organizations”) respectfully submit the following comments on the
EPA’s proposed construction permit to be issued to Sithe Global Power (Sithe) to construct the
Desert Rock Energy Facility (DREF) on Navajo Nation lands. Your point of contact for the
conservation organizations will be Mark Pearson or Mike Eisenfeld at San Juan Citizens
Alliance [phone].

Included with this comment letter are the following five expert affidavits or reports that address
certain deficiencies in the proposed DREF permit in greater detail:

1. Declaration of John Thompson, Clean Air Task Force, November 10, 2006.

2. “Comments on the Air Quality and Visibility Impact Analyses of the PSD Permit
Application for the Desert Rock Energy Facility,” prepared by Khanh Tran, AMI
Environmental, October 5, 2006.

3. “Ozone Air Quality Analyses in the PSD Permit Application for the Desert Rock Energy
Facility,” prepared by Dr. Jana Milford, Environmental Defense, October 25, 2006.

1 4. “Review of the Class I SO2 PSD Increment Consumption Analyses Performed for the
Desert Rock Prevention of Significant Deterioration Permit,” prepared by Vicki Stamper,
November 9, 2006.

5. “Cumulative SO Modeling Analyses of Desert Rock Energy Facility and Other Sources 2
at PSD Class I Areas,” prepared by Khanh Tran of AMI Environmental, November 9,
2006.

Copies of the aforementioned affidavits and reports are attached hereto and are incorporated by
1reference in their entirety into this comment letter.

As discussed in our comments provided below and in the attached reports, EPA’s proposed
issuance of this prevention of significant deterioration (PSD) permit is contrary to law on
numerous grounds. Thus, EPA must not issue the permit for DREF as currently proposed and
must instead provide adequate public notice and opportunity for public comment.

1. EPA FAILED TO MEET PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIREMENTS

Section 165(a)(2) requires that, in order for a PSD permit to be issued, “the proposed
permit has been subject to a review in accordance with [section 165 of the Clean Air
Act]. . .and a public hearing has been held with opportunity for interested
persons. . .including representatives of the Administrator to appear and submit written
or oral presentations on the air quality impact of such source, alternatives thereto,
control technology requirements, and other appropriate considerations.” In EPA’s
implementing regulations for PSD SIPs, it is stated that the public notice for a proposed
permit must provide “the degree of increment consumption that is expected from the
source.” 40 C.F.R. §51.166(q)(2)(iii). The EPA’s Environmental Appeals Board has
interpreted these provisions as meaning that the public notice for a PSD permit must
include the degree of increment consumption that is expected in all of the locations
impacted by the proposed source. IN THE MATTER OF HADSON POWER 14-
BUENA VISTA, PSD Appeal Nos. 92-3, 92-4, 92-5, 4 E.A.D. 258, 272-3 (EAB 1992). In
particular the EAB noted “Different potential commentors may have an interest in
different areas to be impacted and would want, and would reasonably be entitled to,
available data on increment consumption at the area of their particular concern.” Id. at
273.

EPA’s public notice for the DREF as published in the Navajo Times on July 27, 2006
only listed one value for each pollutant for the “Modeled Class I Impacts.” The notice
did not make clear which Class I area the modeled impacts were modeled in, and it did
not identify the predicted amount of increment consumption expected in all Class I
areas to be impacted by DREF. Thus, the public did not know what Class I areas would
be impacted by DREF, much less that at least six Class I areas in four states could be

1 All documents cited or specifically relied upon in these comments are hereby incorporated by reference into the
administrative record for the DREF PSD permit.
2 2impacted by DREF. Therefore, EPA failed to meet public notice requirements for the
DREF proposed permit.

The imperative to provide public notice of increment consumption at specific class I
areas flows directly from the core statutory purposes of the PSD program. Section
160(2) of the Clean Air Act plainly provides that a central statutory purpose of the PSD
program is “to preserve, protect, and enhance the air quality in national parks, national
wilderness areas, national monuments, national seashores, and other areas of special
national, scenic, or historic value.” Congress also instructed that the PSD program is
intended “to assure that any decision to permit increased air pollution in any area to
which this section applies is made only after careful evaluation of all the consequences
of such a decision and after adequate procedural opportunities for informed public
participation in the decisionmaking process.” CAA Sec. 160(5). Adequate notice is a
necessary predicate to informed public participation in the PSD permit process.

In addition to EPA’s PSD public notice requirements, the federal public participation
requirements at 40 C.F.R. §124.8 also require a discussion of the degree of increment
consumption to be included in any fact sheet prepared by EPA for a PSD permit. See 40
C.F.R. §124.8(b)(3). It appears that EPA did prepare a fact sheet for the proposed DREF
permit (“Desert Rock Energy Facility Proposed Clean Air Permit – Air Pollution
Reduction Technology”), but this document did not provide the degree of increment
consumption expected by the DREF in any area.

Thus, EPA failed to adequately inform the public of the degree of increment
consumption expected by DREF in all areas to be impacted by the proposed facility and,
accordingly, EPA must re-issue its public notice to comply with its public participation
3requirements.

2. THE DRAFT AIR QUALITY PERMIT DOES NOT ADDRESS CARBON
DIOXIDE AND OTHER GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS

The proposed permit for the DREF does not address carbon dioxide (CO ) or other greenhouse 2
gases to be emitted from the proposed power plant. However, such
emissions can be quite significant from coal-fire boilers. Due to its sheer size, the Desert Rock
plant will be a significant contributor to global warming pollution in the West, with an estimated

2 Sithe’s modeling analysis of DREF indicated the facility would significantly impact SO2 increment at six Class I
areas: Mesa Verde National Park, Weminuche Wilderness Area, San Pedro Parks Wilderness Area, Bandelier
National Monument, Petrified Forest National Park, and Canyonlands National Park. January 2006 DREF Class I
Area Modeling Update at 4-9.
3 As discussed later in these comments, EPA also failed to develop an adequate analysis of impacts on soils and
vegetation prior to issuing the draft permit and did not make a meaningful soils and vegetation analysis available
prior to convening public hearings as required by the Act. EPA must also remedy this procedural flaw in the DREF
permit.
3 413.7 million tons of carbon dioxide emitted to the air each year. Its annual carbon dioxide
5emissions would be akin to the annual carbon dioxide emissions from 2.4 million cars. As
shown in the Table 1, the Desert Rock facility would increase heat-trapping carbon dioxide
emissions from the existing coal-fired power plants in the West by over 5%, and it would rank
6among the top ten carbon dioxide emitters of all western coal-fired power plants.


4 Carbon dioxide emissions were calculated based on the maximum coal throughput of the two planned boilers of
382 tons per hour (as provided in the May 2004 Application for Prevention of Significant Deterioration Permit for
the Desert Rock Energy Facility, at 2-9) and the U.S. EPA’s AP-42 Emission Factors for subbituminous coal
combustion at 1.1-42 (available at www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ap42/index.html).
5 Assumed an average annual carbon dioxide emission rate from cars of 11,450 pounds per year, as provided in the
U.S. EPA’s report “Average Annual Emissions and Fuel Consumption for Passenger Cars and Light Trucks,” EPA-
420-F-00-013 (April 2000).