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: None

   
Page 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: None

   
Page 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 Hearings

   
Page 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: None

   
Page 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 AM – 10:00 AM

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

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

BART. The notices of proposed rulemaking were 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 10th to go over the NGS 

proposals 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 proposals.

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 Greg 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, Inc.

Conference Room 1

2214 N. Central Avenue

Phoenix, Arizona 85004

Tuesday, December 10, 2013 

 8:00 AM – 10:00 AM

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

Overview of EPA Proposal

Navajo Generating Stati

Plans to Reduce Emissions of Nitrog

Oxides to Improve Visibility at Feder

Protected National Parks Affected by 

Tribal Consultation on NGS

December 10, 2013

Inter Tribal Council of Arizona
Region 9

Outline

• EPA is requesting your input on two prop

requiring NGS to reduce emissions of ni

oxides (NOx) and the visibility impairmen

causes at National Parks and Wildernes

• The purpose of this presentation is to br

describe

– What we proposed– Why we proposed it Why we proposed it
Region 9

I t f Fl t h Insert map from Fletcher
Region 9

Why are we evaluating NGS

• Congress required EPA to improve visibility a

National Parks and Wilderness Areas (Class 

– Regional Haze Program Regional Haze Program

• Large, old sources of air pollution that affect 

in Class I areas must be evaluated to determin Class I areas must be evaluated to determ

new air pollution controls should be required Available Retrofit Technology – BART)

• NGS affects visibility at 11 Class I areas, incl

Grand Canyon and Canyonlands National Pa

i bj t t th BART i t f th R is subject to the BART requirement of the Re

Haze Program 
Region 9

How do we improve visibili

• Air pollutants (for example, particles and gases like N

form particles) cause regional haze

• By reducing emissions of air pollutants that cause ha

By reducing emissions of air pollutants that cause ha

improve visibility 

• The same pollutants that impair visibility are a conce

human health therefore reducing haze also improves human health, therefore reducing haze also improves 

• In general, states evaluate whether new controls sho

required for all facilities that are subject to BART requ

through State Implementation Plans

• The Navajo Nation EPA has not sought to develop a 

Imp , 

lementation Plan for NGS, therefore EPA is deve

Federal Implementation Plan to implement BART
Region 9

How is BART determined

• BART is determined based on a 5-Factor ana• Factor 1 – How much would controls cost?• Factor 2 – Are there energy, economic, or oth

environmental impacts of the controls?

• Factor 3 – What are the existing controls at th• Factor 4 – What is the remaining useful life of 

facility?

• Factor 5 – What are the anticip y ated visibility

improvements from adding controls?
Region 9

EPA’s Proposals

• Based on our BART analysis, EPA has propo

new controls at NGS to reduce NOx emission

– are cost-eff ti ec ve, 

– and would reduce the visibility impairment cau

NGS at 11 Class I areas. NGS at 11 Class I areas.

• We also proposed two Alternatives (Alternati

an Alternative from the Technical Work Grou

NGS), that provide additional flexibility in the compliance time, as “Better than BART”
Region 9

( )

Why can EPA Propose an Altern

• The Regional Haze Rule (RHR) requires eith

BART or an alternative measure that will ach

greater reasonable progress than BART greater reasonable progress than BART

(Alternatives must be better than BART)

• EPA is proposing to determine that Alternativ

EPA is proposing to determine that Alternativ

the TWG Alternative will achieve greater emreductions than our BART proposal (both are 

th BART) than BART)

• EPA is using our authority and discretion un

CAA d EPA l ti t t d th CAA and EPA regulations to extend the com

timeframe for Alternatives to BART 
Region 9

1st Proposal (February 5, 20

• Proposed to require NGS to comply with an emissi

for nitrogen oxides (NOx) of 0.055 lb/MMBtu within 

fina ue l r l

• This limit can be met with selective catalytic reduct

in combination with low NOx burners with separate

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

• We also proposed an Alternative to BART (Alterna

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

2011) and proposes flexibility in the compliance da– 2023)

• Total emissions reductions under Alternative 1 are 

Total emissions reductions under Alternative 1 are 

than under our BART proposal (Better than BART) 
Region 9

2nd Proposal (October 22, 2

• B d Alt ti t BART t f th b th T h 

Based on Alternative to BART put forth by the Tech

Work Group on NGS (TWG Alternative)

• TWG Alternative sets a cap in total TWG Alternative sets a cap in total NO emissions 

x emissions 

2009-2044 and calls for closure of 1 unit by end of curtailment of electricity generation), and installatio

by end of 2030 on two units to meet limit of 0 07 lb/by end of 2030 on two units to meet limit of 0.07 lb/

• Two current owners (Los Angeles Department of W

Power and NV Energy) intend to divest from NGS bPower and NV Energy) intend to divest from NGS b

due to state law in CA and NV

• The 2009-2044 NOx cap ensures total emissions fr

Alternative are less than under BART (TWG Altern

better than BART) 
Region 9

How can I provide commen

• Send written comments to: 

US EPA ( ) Attn: Anita Lee)

75 Hawthorne Street (Air-2)San Francisco, CA 94105 San Francisco, CA 94105

• Email comments to: 

r9ngsbart@epa.gov

• The Comment Period Ends January 
Region 9

What happens after January 6, 

• EPA will review and consider all comments 

making a final decision

• We will respond to all substantive comment

writing and incorporate any changes to the as a result of comments in our final decision as a result of comments in our final decision

• We will send a letter to all tribal leaders who 

provided written comments outlining how wprovided written comments outlining how w

addressed your comments and concerns
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 Improve Visibility at Federally Protected National 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 (NOx) and the visibility impairment 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 example, particles and gases like NOx that 

form particles) cause regional haze

• By reducing emissions of air pollutants that cause haze, we can 

improve visibility 

How do we improve visibility?

• The same pollutants that impair visibility are a concern for 

human health, therefore reducing haze also improves air quality

• In general, states evaluate whether 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 energy, 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 NOx 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 (Alternative 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 determine 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

1st Proposal (February 5, 2013)

• Proposed to require NGS to comply with an emission limit 

for nitrogen oxides (NOx) 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 NOx 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

2nd 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 NOx 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 NOx 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 (Air-2); San Francisco, CA 94105

• Email: r9ngsbart@epa.gov

• The Comment Period Ends January 6, 201411

Region 9, Air Permits Office

• EPA will review and consider all comments before 

making a final decision

• We will respond to all substantive 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 decision, we will notify by 

email those individuals who 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