Page 1 of 5 

### Memorandum

To: Docket Number EPA

‐ R09

‐ OAR

‐ 2013

‐ 0009

From: Anita Lee, EPA Region 9

Re: Tribal Consultation Meeting on Navajo Generating Station

Date: December 9, 2013

Location: Gila River Indian Community, Chandler, Arizona

Attendees: Stephen Lewis, Lt. Governor of the Gila River Indian Community

Council Member Jennifer Allison

Council Member Barney Enos

Council Member Anthony Villareal

Council Member Terrence Evans

Council Member Robert Stone

Linus Everling, Gila River Indian Community

Jason Hauter, Akin

‐ Gump

Jared Blumenfeld, Colleen McKaughan, and Anita Lee (EPA Region 9)

David Palumbo and Sandra Eto (Bureau of Reclamation)

Purpose: Consultation on Navajo Generating Station BART proposal and Supplemental Proposal

Materials: NonePage 2 of 5 

### Memorandum

To: Docket Number EPA

‐ R09

‐ OAR

‐ 2013

‐ 0009

From: Anita Lee, EPA Region 9

Re: Tribal Consultation Meeting on Navajo Generating Station

Date: December 9, 2013

Location: Inter Tribal Council of Arizona, Phoenix, Arizona

Attendees: Hopi Tribal Chairman Herman Honanie

Council Member George Mase

Council Member Art Batala

Council Member Leroy Keasanimptewa

Robert Lyttle

Jared Blumenfeld, Colleen McKaughan, and Anita Lee (EPA Region 9)

Purpose: Consultation on Navajo Generating Station BART proposal and Supplemental Proposal

Materials: NonePage 3 of 5 

### Memorandum

To: Docket Number EPA

‐ R09

‐ OAR

‐ 2013

‐ 0009

From: Anita Lee, EPA Region 9

Re: Tribal Consultation Meeting on Navajo Generating Station

Date: December 10, 2013

Location: Inter Tribal Council of Arizona, Phoenix, Arizona

Attendees: See Attached Sign

‐ in Sheet, including representatives from:

Tohono O’odham, Hopi, Gila River, Navajo Nation EPA, White Mountain Apache, Hualapai, Salt

River Pima Maricopa, Pascua Yaqui, Ak

‐ Chin, Inter Tribal Council of Arizona, US EPA, Bureau of

Reclamation, and Department of the Interior

Purpose: Consultation on Navajo Generating Station BART proposal and Supplemental Proposal

Materials: Presentation, and 2 Handouts from Public HearingsPage 4 of 5 

### Memorandum

To: Docket Number EPA

‐ R09

‐ OAR

‐ 2013

‐ 0009

From: Anita Lee, EPA Region 9

Re: Tribal Consultation Meeting on Navajo Generating Station

Date: December 10, 2013

Location: Inter Tribal Council of Arizona, Phoenix, Arizona

Attendees: Vice Chairman William Antone, Ak

‐ Chin Indian Community

Robert Palmquist, Counsel for Ak

‐ Chin Indian Community

Jared Blumenfeld, Colleen McKaughan, and Anita Lee (EPA Region 9)

Randy Chandler and Sandra Eto (Bureau of Reclamation)

Purpose: Consultation on Navajo Generating Station BART proposal and Supplemental Proposal

Materials: NonePage 5 of 5 

### Memorandum

To: Docket Number EPA

‐ R09

‐ OAR

‐ 2013

‐ 0009

From: Anita Lee, EPA Region 9

Re: Tribal Consultation Meeting on Navajo Generating Station

Date: December 10, 2013

Location: Inter Tribal Council of Arizona, Phoenix, Arizona

Attendees: Amy Mignella, White Mountain Apache Tribe

Jared Blumenfeld, Colleen McKaughan, and Anita Lee (EPA Region 9)

Randy Chandler and Sandra Eto (Bureau of Reclamation)

Purpose: Consultation on Navajo Generating Station BART proposal and Supplemental Proposal

Materials: None

## US Environmental Protection Agency, Region 9

Consultation on Proposed Navajo Generating Station BART

Determination

Hosted by Inter Tribal Council of Arizona

Inter Tribal Council of Arizona, Inc.

Conference Room 1

2214 N. Central Avenue

Phoenix, Arizona 85004



## Tuesday, December 10 , 2013

8 :00 A M

– 10 :00 A M

The USEPA recently proposed its Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART)

determination for the Navajo Generating Station (NGS) , and two alternatives to

BART . The notice s of proposed rulemaking w ere published on February 5, 2013, and

October 22, 2013, in the Federal Register . The public comment period extends until

January 6, 2014.

Mr. Jared Blumenfeld, USEPA Regional Administrator, would like to meet with

available Tribal Leaders on the morning of December 10 th 

### to go over the NGS

proposal s and answer questions. The purpose of this meeting is to provide

information in anticipation that Tribes in Arizona may submit formal comments on

the NGS proposal s

.

It is anticipated that the USEPA meeting will be with elected leaders, tribal council

members, and their designated representatives. In addition to the joint

consultation , USEPA personnel will be available from 11:00 AM to 1:00 PM for

private individual tribal consultation. To schedule a private consultation, please call

Ms. Colleen McKaughan at (520) 498

- 0118 by Friday, December 6, 2013.

If you have questions, additional agenda items, or need further information, please

contact Elaine Wilson, Director of Environmental Programs, or Gre g Little, Air

Quality Program Coordinator at (602) 258

- 4822.

## US Environmental Protection Agency, Region 9

Consultation on Proposed Navajo Generating Station BART

Determination

Hosted by Inter Tribal Council of Arizona

Inter Tribal Council of Arizona, I nc.

Conference Room 1

2214 N. Central Avenue

Phoenix, Arizona 85004



## T uesday, December 10 , 2013

8 :00 A M

– 10 :00 A M

TENTATIVE AGENDA

I. Introductions

II. Description of Proposed NGS BART Determination and

Alternatives

III. Proposal Process and Tribal Participation

IV. Questions and Answers

V. Adjourn

Individual Tribal Consultation Available

11:00 AM to 1:00 PM

Please call Ms. Colleen McKaughan at (520) 498

- 0118 to schedule an

individual Tribal consultation meeting.Region 9, Air Permits OfficeOverview of EPA Proposals forNavajo Generating StationPlans to Reduce Emissions of NitrogenOxides to Improve Visibility at FederallyProtected National Parks Affected by NGSTribal Consultation on NGSDecember 10, 20131Inter Tribal Council of ArizonaRegion 9, Air Permits OfficeOutline• EPA is requesting your input on two proposalsrequiring NGS to reduce emissions of nitrogenoxides (NOx) and the visibility impairment itcauses at National Parks and Wilderness Areas• The purpose of this presentation is to brieflydescribe– What we proposed–Why we proposed itWhyweproposedit2Region 9, Air Permits OfficeI t f Fl t hInsertmapfromFletcherRegion 9, Air Permits OfficeWhy are we evaluating NGS?C•ongress required EPA to improve visibility atNational Parks and Wilderness Areas (Class I areas)–Regional Haze ProgramRegionalHazeProgram• Large, old sources of air pollution that affect visibilityin Class I areas must be evaluated to determine ifinClassIareasmustbeevaluatedtodetermineifnew air pollution controls should be required (BestAvailable Retrofit Technology – BART)• NGS affects visibility at 11 Class I areas, includingGrand Canyon and Canyonlands National Parks andi bj t t th BART i t f th R i lis subjecttotheBARTrequirementoftheRegionalHaze Program4Region 9, Air Permits OfficeHow do we improve visibility?• Air pollutants (for example, particles and gases like NOxthatform particles) cause regional haze•By reducing emissions of air pollutants that cause haze, we canByreducingemissionsofairpollutantsthatcausehaze,wecanimprove visibility• The same pollutants that impair visibility are a concern forhuman health therefore reducing haze also improves air qualityhumanhealth,thereforereducinghazealsoimprovesairquality• In general, states evaluate whether new controls should berequired for all facilities that are subject to BART requirementthrough State Implementation Plans• The Navajo Nation EPA has not sought to develop a TribalImplementation Plan for NGS,therefore EPA is developinga, pgFederal Implementation Plan to implement BART5Region 9, Air Permits OfficeHow is BART determined?• BART is determined based on a 5-Factor analysis• Factor 1 – How much would controls cost?• Factor 2 – Are there energy, economic, or otherenvironmental impacts of the controls?• Factor 3 – What are the existing controls at the facility?• Factor 4–What is the remaininguseful life of thefacility?• Factor 5–What are the anticipated visibilityyimprovements from adding controls?6Region 9, Air Permits OfficeEPA’s Proposals• Based on our BART analysis, EPA has proposed thatnew controls at NGS to reduce NOxemissions:tff ti–are cos-eecve,– and would reduce the visibility impairment caused byNGS at 11 Class I areas.NGSat11ClassIareas.• We also proposed two Alternatives (Alternative 1 andan Alternative from the Technical Work GrouponNGS), that provide additional flexibility in thecompliance time, as “Better than BART”7Region 9, Air Permits Office( )Why can EPA Propose an Alternative?• The Regional Haze Rule(RHR)requires eitherBART oran alternative measure that will achievegreater reasonable progress than BARTgreaterreasonableprogressthanBART(Alternatives must be better than BART)•EPA is proposing to determine that Alternative 1 andEPAisproposingtodeterminethatAlternative1andthe TWG Alternative will achieve greater emissionsreductions than our BART proposal (both are betterth BART)thanBART)• EPA is using our authority and discretion under theCAA d EPA l ti t t d th liCAAandEPAregulationsto extendthe compliancetimeframe for Alternatives to BART8Region 9, Air Permits Office1stProposal (February 5, 2013)• Proposed to require NGS to comply with an emission limitfor nitrogen oxides (NOx) of 0.055 lb/MMBtu within 5 years offinal rlue• This limit can be met with selective catalytic reduction (SCR)in combination with low NOxburners with separated over fireair (LNB/SOFA) installed and operated on all 3 unitsair(LNB/SOFA)installedandoperatedonall3units• We also proposed an Alternative to BART (Alternative 1) thatcredits NGS for earlyinstallation of LNB/SOFA(in 2009-(2011) and proposes flexibility in the compliance date (to 2021– 2023)•Total emissions reductions under Alternative 1 are greaterTotalemissionsreductionsunderAlternative1aregreaterthan under our BART proposal (Better than BART)9Region 9, Air Permits Office2ndProposal (October 22, 2013)B d Alt ti t BART t f th b th T h i l•BasedonAlternativetoBARTputforthbytheTechnicalWork Group on NGS (TWG Alternative)•TWG Alternative sets a cap in totalNOemissions overTWGAlternativesetsacapintotalxemissionsover2009-2044 and calls for closure of 1 unit by end of 2019 (orcurtailment of electricity generation), and installation of SCRby end of 2030 on two units to meet limit of 0 07 lb/MMBtubyendof2030ontwounitstomeetlimitof0.07lb/MMBtu• Two current owners (Los Angeles Department of Water andPower and NV Energy) intend to divest from NGS by 2019PowerandNVEnergy)intendtodivestfromNGSby2019due to state law in CA and NV• The 2009-2044 NOxcap ensures total emissions from TWGAlternative are less than under BART (TWG Alternative isbetter than BART)10Region 9, Air Permits OfficeHow can I provide comments?• Send written comments to:US EPA(Attn: Anita Lee))75 Hawthorne Street (Air-2)San Francisco, CA 94105SanFrancisco,CA94105• Email comments to:@r9ngsbartepa.gov• The Comment Period Ends January 6, 201411Region 9, Air Permits OfficeWhat happens after January 6, 2014?• EPA will review and consider all comments beforemaking a final decision• We will respond to all substantive comments inwriting and incorporate any changes to the proposalas a result of comments in our final decisionasaresultofcommentsinourfinaldecision• We will send a letter to all tribal leaders whoprovided written comments outlining how weprovidedwrittencommentsoutlininghowweaddressed your comments and concerns12

### What’s being done about haze? What can you do?

Many Clean Air Act programs are already in place

to reduce haze-forming pollutants over the coming

decades. These include several U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency (EPA) rules: the 2005 Clean Air

Interstate Rule, the 1999 regulations to reduce haze

and protect visibility, and the 1992 Acid Rain Rule.

State and local air quality agencies are putting

together plans to reduce regional haze in national

parks and wilderness areas. These are the first

steps in meeting the national goal of eliminating the

manmade pollution that impairs visibility.

U.S. EPA and the U.S. Departments of Interior and

Agriculture are working with state, local and tribal

authorities to promote steady improvements in

visibility and provide other protections to people

and their surroundings for decades to come. As the U.S. population and the number of vehicles

continue to increase, we are all challenged to do our

part to reduce air pollution.

Conserve energy; participate in local energy

conservation programs

Carpool or use public transportation

Keep car, boat and other engines

properly tuned

Minimize open burning

Recycle u

u

u

u

u



# For more information, visit

www.epa.gov/visibility The same pollution that causes

haze also poses health risks.

Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards

Research Triangle Park, NC 27711

EPA-456/F-06-001, April 2006 

# EPA **United States**

**Environmental Protection**

**Agency**

# How far can you see?

Every year over 280 million people visit our

nation’s treasured parks and wilderness areas.

Unfortunately, many visitors aren’t able to see

the spectacular vistas they expect. During much

of the year, a veil of white or brown haze hangs

in the air, blurring the view. Most of this haze is

caused by air pollution carried by the wind, often

hundreds of miles from where it originated.

Haze conditions vary across the country. Eastern U.S. areas

have more haze due to higher pollutant and humidity levels. 

# What is Haze?

Haze is caused when sunlight encounters tiny

pollution particles in the air. Some light is absorbed

by particles. More pollutants mean more absorption

and scattering of light, which reduce the clarity and

color of what we see. Some types of particles, such

as sulfates, scatter more light, especially during

humid conditions.

Typical visual range in most of the

Western U.S. is 60 to 90 miles, or

about one-half what it would be

without haze-causing air pollution.

In most of the U.S., the typical visual

range is 15 to 30 miles, or about

one-third of the visual range under

natural conditions. u

u



### Where do pollutants come from?

Air pollution that causes haze comes from a variety

of sources. These include power plants, factories,

and cars and trucks. Natural sources can include

windblown dust and soot from wildfires.

Some haze-causing particles are directly emitted

into the air. The vast majority are formed when

gases emitted into the air react to form particles as

they are carried great distances from the source of

the pollution. 

### How do these pollutants affect

you and your surroundings?

Some of the pollutants which form haze have

also been linked to serious health problems and

environmental damage. Exposure to very small

particles in the air has been linked to increased

respiratory illness, decreased lung function and

even death.

Some particles contribute to acid rain formation,

which can make lakes, rivers and streams

unsuitable for fish. Acid rain can also damage

buildings, historical monuments and the paint on

cars. Pollutants that cause haze may also form

ground-level ozone, another harmful pollutant. Regional haze obscures the view in our nation’s

parks. Light scattered and absorbed by pollution

particles makes the background appear hazy.

More Haze Less Haze = particles in sight

**Visual Range** Pollution particles in the air absorb or scatter the light

so the view is not as clear or as far as it should be. u

### Slides from EPA Presentation during Public

Hearings on NGS (November 12 – 15, 2013)

1 Region 9, Air Permits Office



### Overview of EPA Proposals for

Navajo Generating Station

Plans to Reduce Emissions of Nitrogen Oxides to

Improve Visibility at Federally Protected National Improve Visibility at Federally Protected National

Parks Affected by NGS

1 Location Place Date

LeChee, Navajo Nation LeChee Chapter House November 12, 2013 (AM)

Page, Arizona Page High School November 12, 2013 (PM)

Kykotsmovi, Hopi Tribe Hopi Day School November 13, 2013 (PM)

Phoenix, Arizona Phoenix Convention Center November 14, 2013 (PM)

Tucson, Arizona Pima Community College –

West Campus November 15, 2013 (PM) Region 9, Air Permits Office



### Why are we here today?

• To hear your comments on two EPA proposals

requiring NGS to reduce emissions of nitrogen

oxides (NO

x ) and the visibility im pairment it causes

at National Parks and Wilderness Areas at National Parks and Wilderness Areas

• The purpose of this presentation is to briefly

describe

– What we proposed

– Why we proposed it

– How you can submit comments on these proposals

2

Region 9, Air Permits Office

Insert map from Fletcher Region 9, Air Permits Office



### Why are we evaluating NGS?

• Congress required EPA to improve visibility at

National Parks and Wilderness Areas (Class I areas)

– Regional Haze Program

• Large old sources of air pollution that affect visibility

Large

, old sources of air pollution that affect visibility

in Class I areas must be evaluated to determine if

new air pollution controls should be required (Best

Available Retrofit Technology – BART)

• NGS affects visibility at 11 Class I areas, including

Grand Canyon and Canyonlands National Parks and

is subject to the BART requirement of the Regional

Haze Program 4

Region 9, Air Permits Office

• Air pollutants (for exampl e, particles and gases like NO

x that

form particles) cause regional haze

• By reducing emissions of air pollu tants that caus e haze, we can

improve visibility 

### How do we improve visibility?

• The same pollutants that impai r visibility are a concern for

human health, therefore reducing haz e also improves air quality

• In general, states evaluate w hether new controls should be

required for all facilities that are subject to BART requirement

through State Implementation Plans

• The Navajo Nation EPA has not sought to develop a Tribal

Implementation Plan for NGS, therefore EPA is developing a

Federal Implementation Plan to implement BART

5 Region 9, Air Permits Office

• BART is determined based on a 5-Factor analysis

• Factor 1 – How much would controls cost?

• Factor 2

– Are there ener gy , economic, or other 

### How is BART determined?

environmental impacts of the controls?

• Factor 3 – What are the existing controls at the facility?

• Factor 4 – What is the remaining useful life of the

facility?

• Factor 5 – What are the anticipated visibility

improvements from adding controls?

6

### Slides from EPA Presentation during Public

Hearings on NGS (November 12 – 15, 2013)

2 Region 9, Air Permits Office

• Based on our BART analysis, EPA has proposed that

new controls at NGS to reduce NO

x emissions:

– are cost-effective,

– and would reduce the visibility impairment caused by NGS at 

### EPA’s Proposals

and would reduce the visibility impairment caused by NGS at

11 Class I areas.

– Please see poster for a more detailed discussion of our 5-

factor analysis

• We also proposed two Alternatives that provide

additional flexibility (Alter native 1 and an Alternative

from the Technical Work Group on NGS) as “Better

than BART”

7 Region 9, Air Permits Office

• The Regional Haze Rule (RHR) requires either

BART or an alternative measure that will achieve

greater reasonable progress than BART

( Alternatives must be better than BART ) 

### Why can EPA Propose an Alternative?

( )

• EPA is proposing to determi ne that Alternative 1 and

the TWG Alternative will achieve greater emissions

reductions than our BART proposal (both are better

than BART)

• EPA is using our authority and discretion under the

CAA and EPA regulations to extend the compliance

timeframe for Alternatives to BART 8

Region 9, Air Permits Office



### 1 st 

### Proposal (February 5, 2013)

• Proposed to require NGS to comply with an emission limit

for nitrogen oxides (NO

x ) of 0.055 lb/MMBtu within 5 years of

final rule

• This limit can be met with selective catalytic reduction (SCR)

in combination with low NO

x burners with separated over fire

air (LNB/SOFA) installed and operated on all 3 units

• We also proposed an Alternative to BART (Alternative 1) that

credits NGS for early installation of LNB/SOFA (in 2009-

2011) and proposes flexibility in the compliance date (to 2021

– 2023)

• Total emissions reductions under Alternative 1 are greater

than under our BART proposal (Better than BART)

9 Region 9, Air Permits Office



### 2 nd 

### Proposal (October 22, 2013)

• Based on Alternative to BART put forth by the Technical

Work Group on NGS (TWG Alternative)

• TWG Alternative sets a cap in total NO

x emissions over

2009-2044 and calls for closure of 1 unit by end of 2019 (or

curtailment of electricity generation), and installation of SCR

by end of 2030 on two units to meet limit of 0.07 lb/MMBtu

• Two current owners (Los Angeles Department of Water and

Power and NV Energy) intend to divest from NGS by 2019

due to state law in CA and NV

• The 2009-2044 NO

x cap ensures total emissions from TWG

Alternative are less than under BART (TWG Alternative is

better than BART) 10

Region 9, Air Permits Office

• To make Oral Comments : Fill out a Speaker Request

Form and put it in the Speaker Box at the Registration

Table

• To make Written Comments : 

### How can I comment?

To make Written Comments :

– Fill out a comment form and put it in the Comment Box at

the Registration Table

– Mail or e-mail comments to Anita Lee:

• 75 Hawthorne Street; US EPA (A ir-2); San Francisco, CA 94105

• Email: r9ngsbart@epa.gov

• The Comment Period Ends January 6, 2014

11 Region 9, Air Permits Office

• EPA will review and consider all comments before

making a final decision

• We will respond to all s ubstantive comments in 

### What happens after January 6, 2014?

12 writing and incorporate any changes to the proposal

as a result of comments in our final decision

• When we make a final decis ion, we will notify by

email those individuals w ho registered on the Signin Sheets and provided an email address

• Documents will also be posted on the EPA Region 9

website and in our docket for this rulemaking