D.2.1 ORAL COMMENTS AT THE PUBLI C HEARING

Public Testimony given at the Nevada Re gional Haz e Stat e Imp l ementation Plan Public Hea r ing

May 20, 2009 Western Nevada Community College

Attendees :

NDEP-BAQP Staff Adele Malo ne Brenda Harpring Frank Forsgren Paul W illia m s Public Robert Boyd, BLM Sandy Gregory, BLM Tansey Sm ith, Inter-Tribal Council of Nevada

10:23 AM - Public Comm ents:

Tansey Sm ith, Inter-Tribal Council of Nevada, asked how m a ny air m onitors there are in the state. Frank Forsgren, N D EP, stated that for the purposes of visibili ty the r e is on ly on e m onitor, which is located at the Jarbidge W ilderness ar ea about a m ile north of the community of Jarbidge. That m onitor is part of the IMPROVE monitoring network.

Robert Boyd, Soil W a ter Air Program Lead for the Nevada State Office of BLM, asked if there

was a m onitor at the Great Basin National Park. Mr. Forsgren replied that the National Park Service do es m a intain a monitor at G r eat Bas i n, b u t becaus e it does not qu alify as a Class I area, it was not ap propria te to use tha t m o nitor in eva l u a ting reasonable progress in term s of visibility im pair m e nt. Adele Malone, Supervisor, BAQP-NDEP, stated that the stat e does have a network of m onitors throughout the state to evaluate NAAQS co m p li ance.

Ms. Sm ith asked why the State of Nevada was not a full m e mber of the WRAP ( W e s tern Regional Air Partnership). Mr. Forsgren noted th at Nevada has been a f u ll participant in the WRAP, participating in all of the working groups and attending forum s , and has provided financial support as well. He thought that the de cision to not join the WRAP was made back when it was the Grand Canyon Visibility Transp ortation Commission (GCVTC ), the precursor to the W R AP. He thought that the decision was m a de on the advice of som e of the Nevada stakeholders who were a uncomfortable with so m e of the conclusions reached by the GCVTC, because they had the po tential to im pede econo m i c developm ent. Therefore, they as ked the s t ate to decline becom i ng a for m al m e mber of the W R AP and the state com p lied. He noted that the state had a stakeholders m eeting about three years ago and asked them if they wanted the state to

D-13be a m e m b er of the W R AP and ther e was not a positiv e re sp onse. However, he r e iter ated th at NDEP is f u lly active in all a s pects o f the W R AP.

Ms. Sm ith wondered what the benefits of bei ng a full m e m b er of the WRAP would be. Ms. Malone indicated that it would probably give the state a vote on certain issues and it would requir e the s t ate to f o llo w their d i rec tives, which we are not required to do as just a p a rticipan t. Ms. Sm ith said she had a bunch of other questions and would like to set up a m eeting after the hearing to discuss further issues that she had. Ms. Malone agreed to m eet with her.

Robert Boyd, BLM, expressed general support fo r the approach that was used in the SIP regarding existing regu lations, tools, and rules as being suffi cient to add r es s the need to im prove visibility for Jarbidge and othe r areas. He indicated that BLM ha s been an activ e par tic ipant in this process and would conti nue. He gave BLM’s participation in the sm oke m a nage ment process a s a n exam ple. He then went into som e detail on ho w BLM is and will be a ddressing fugitive dus t throughout Nevada that he felt hopefully would m a ke the assum p tions in the State’s Regional Haze Plan not get worst. H e went on to review th e research that BLM has funded regard ing ad dressing of f highway vehicle s , whic h will be be nef i cial f o r f u ture m odeling of dust

em issions. They are also looking at biological soil crusts to m a nage soil stability. He concluded by saying that once the Regional Haze SIP was a pproved, they would be incorporating it into their land use planning efforts.

Sandy Gregory, Hazard ous Fields P r ogram Lead for the Nevada State Office of BLM, had a question regarding the state’s Sm oke Managem e nt Plan (SMP) and how it was going to relate to the Regiona l Haze Plan, specifica lly with respe c t to sm oke sensitiv e areas . She felt tha t it h a d a fairly broad definition and wondered how it was going to be interpreted in the Regional Haze Plan. Ms. Malone responded the EPA requires that the states look at Sm oke Managem e nt Plans that are in p l ace and in th is case we h a ve inco rporated Nevada ’s SMP in th e SIP as it e x ists without any changes. Ms. Gregor y stated that they are really happy with the way the Sm oke Managem e nt Plan is designed. Mr. F o rsgren added that across the west, fire is a big driver of

em issions. The sm oke managem e nt program has a llowed th e state to be tte r quantif y the rea l im pacts. Ms. Gregory in dicated that often, becau se of the fuel type, con t rol burns are only at 60 percent of the estim a ted em issions. She thought th at they should be allowed to subm it actual

em issions, which would prove that they are doing a lot better.

Mr. Forsgren thanked everyone who m a de comm ents and closed the hearing at 10:40 AM.

D-14D. 2.2 WRI TTEN CO MMENTS AND NEVADA’S RESPONSES

D. 2.2.1 Summary

NDEP received three sets of written comments during its 30-day public comm ent period ending May 20, 2009. These comments were from the U.S. Environm ental Protection Agency (USEPA), the U.S. Departm e nt of Interior Na tional Park Service (NPS), and a consortium of conservation or non-governm e ntal organizations (NGOs). USEPA’ s only expressed concerns or questions at this tim e are with regard to NDEP’s Best Available Re trofit Technology (BART) determ ination for the Reid Gardner Generating St ation and sp ecifically th e BART sulfur dioxide (SO 2 ) em ission lim itatio ns.

NDEP received “follow-up” comm e n ts from the N PS during the public review period, includ ing comments on NDEP’s BART determination reviews of NV Energy BART analyses. Prior to the public com m e nt period, Federal Land Managers (FLMs) were provided the opportunity to comment on the FLM co nsultation d r aft of Nevada’s RH SIP. NDEP received comm ents from the NPS, the Fish and Wildlife Service (FW S ) an d the U.S. Forest Service (USFS) during the FLM review period. NDEP prepared responses to these com m e nts as docum ented in Appendix C. Any revisions resulting from the FLM comment s were in corporated into the d r aft SIP before it was released for the 30 -day public comment period.

The NPS “follow-up” comm ents on the public revi ew draft of Nevada’s RH SIP focus on the BART proc ess including:

• the degree o f em phasis placed on v i sibility im provem e nt,

• the use of dollars per deciview as a cost-effectiv eness m e tric,

• inflation of control cost s by the facilities, and

• specific BART e m ission lim its. NPS also made ancillary comments on other topics.

Finally, NDEP received a letter of co mments from a group of conservation or non-g overnm e ntal organizations. The signatories are: National Parks Conservation Associ ation, W e stern Resource Advocates, Nevada National W ildlif e Federa tion

, Bristlecone Allianc e, Center f o r Bio l ogica l Diversity, Nevada Conservation League and Education Fund, Wasatch Clear Air Coalition, Citizens for Dixie’s Future, Public Resource As s o ciates, Sevier Citizens f o r Clean Air and Water, Post Carbon Salt Lake, Si erra Club, Grand Canyon Trust, and Utah Mom s for Clean Air. The comme nts from this group are referred to as “NGO co mm ents” in the rem a inder of this docum ent.

Attached to the NGO letter and included in the co mm ents by reference is a report by D. Howard Gebhart of Air Resources Specialists, Inc. pr epared for the Western Resource Advocates and National Parks Conservation Association titled Technical Review of Draft Nevada State Implementation Plan for Regional Ha ze (April 2009) Expert Report (this docum e nt is referred to as the “Tech Review” for the rem a inder of NDEP’ s responses). The Tech Review is a support docum ent fo r issues summ arized in the NGO co mments.

The NGO c o mm ents fo cus on five m a in areas:

D-15• the FLM consultation process,

• the projected 2018 em is sion inventory,

• the BART determ ination f

o r Reid Gardner Gener a ting Station

,

• reasonab l e p r ogress for Class I areas in adjacent states, and

• inclus ion of specific sou r ces in th e 2018 projected em ission inventory.

NDEP addresses these comments in the following sections. Com p lete copies of the comment letters precede NDEP’s response.

D-16

### SECTION D.2.2.2

U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTI ON AGENCY

D-17D-18D. 2.2.2 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

D. 2.2.2.1 Comment Letter

D-19D-20

### SECTION D.2.2.2.2

NEVADA’S RESPONSE

(to U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Comment Letter)

D-21D-222.2.2.2 Nevada’s Response

USEPA’s only expressed concerns or questions a t this tim e ar e with reg a r d to NDEP’s BART determ ination for the Reid Gardner Genera ting Station and speci f i ca lly th e BART SO 2 em ission lim itations. NDEP responses to specific comment s are provided below, with USEPA’s comm ent in italics and NDEP’s response following in plain text.

EPA Comment 1: Your proposed Regional Haze SIP revision appears to be in good order and we have only a few questions at this time. Our questions are regarding the proposed BART determination for the Reid Gardner power plant. We agree with th e control technology de terminations, but are concerned about how the c ontrols are going to be made enforceable.

• Are they going to be explic itly required by regulation?

• Will there be a permit change requiring the installation and operation of the equipment at defined control efficiencies?

NDEP Response: Appendix A of Nevada’s Regional H aze SIP presen ts Nevada’s BART regulation as adopted by the State Environm ental Comm i ssion and effective April 23, 2 009. The regulation specifies

em ission lim it and control typ e for each subject-to- BART unit of the four subject facilities in Nevada. In response to public com m e nts, Neva da is revising the SO 2 BART em ission lim its at NV Energy’s three subject-to-BART units at Reid Gardner. T h e proposed regulation appears in Appendix A. The re-evaluation a nd revision of the Reid Gardner SO 2 em i ssion lim its is described in our response to USEPA comment 2 below.

Title V perm its for the subject facilities wi ll be updated to include th e n e w applicab le requirem e nts in acco rdance with Part 70 procedu r es (s ee SIP section 5.5). Perm its will be updated to reflect Nevad a regulation as writte n an d approved. However, the perm it will not require the operation of equipm ent at defined cont rol efficiencies, but rath er at d e fined em ission lim its.

EPA Comment 2: We are also concerned a bout the 0.25 lb/MMBtu SO 2 limit proposed as the BART determination for Reid Gardner. It appears to be substan tially higher than the emi ssion rate the plant is currently achieving. The National P a rk Serv ice and Fish and Wildlife Service (NPS-FWS) determined that, based on the acid rain database, the plant is currently achieving 0.05 lb/MMBtu on an annual average basis. Setting the 24-hour limit five tim es higher than the achieved annual emission ra te seems to exceed what is required to account fo r normal operational variability. As a result, it m a y allow for changes that would result in higher actual emissions.

• Do you concur with the NPS-FWS analysis of the annual emission ra te? If, not, the EPA would like to see an exp lanation o f

your posit ion in sufficient quan tita tive detail for an outside party to replicate you analysis.

• How will Nevada ensure that th e pro posed 24-ho ur SO 2 limit will not resu lt in a c tual emission increases from this plant on a 24-hour basis and/or on an annual basis?

NDEP Response:

D-23Nevada believes th is co mment refers to NPS comments subm itted March 6, 2009 on the FLM review draft of Nevada’s RH SIP. The N PS comm ented on Nevada’s Reid Gardner BART determ inatio n f o r SO 2 and the USEPA Clear Air Markets (C AM) database (aka acid rain database). NDEP has identified annual average SO 2 e m ission rates of approxim a tely 0.05 lb/MMBtu (0.035 to 0.056 lb/MMBtu) for units 1, 2, and 3 for 2004 through 2007 based on the acid rain database, as did the NPS.

However, NDEP initia lly reached d i fferent conc lusions from NPS-FW S regarding the use of these da ta in the BART determ inatio n, as pres ented in Nevada’s RH SIP and appendices. NV Energy and NDEP had s i gnificant concerns regardi ng achievable em issions lim its resulting from the operation of the wet soda ash FGD in conjunc tion with fabric filters required by the consent decree described in section 6.5.2.2 of the SIP. In consideration of this uncertainty, the BART SO 2 lim it was estab l ishe d at the 98 th percen tile of historical annua l em issions value resulting in a lim it of 0.25 lb/MMBtu. This lim it allowed for futu re operation within 98 percent of historical

em issions (after discard of the invalid data) and provided som e fl exibility during transition to a different post-BART operating scen ario including operation under a balanced draft versus force draf t scena r io due to the insta lla tion of the f a br ic f ilter and a potential ch ange in coa l type. NDEP notes the SO 2 BART lim its are 24-hour averages and therefore less stri ngent than lim its based on longer duration averaging periods.

Baghouses (fabric filters) were installed upstrea m of the existing FGD system in late 2008 and early 2009 as required by the consent decree. So, a lim ited em issions dataset now exists representing the perform a nce of the FGD syste m coupled with baghouses. In light of this comment by USEPA and concerns expressed by the FLMs and NGOs, NDEP conducted further evaluations of NV Energy’s BART analyses and the em issions da ta. NDEP recognizes that the acid rain data is not a complia nce dataset, however em issions data collected under 40 CFR Part 60 is utilized to dem ons trate com p liance. Eval uation of the Part 60 data collected since the installation of the baghouses provi des a level of confidence that Reid Gardner can achieve a BART SO 2 em ission lim it of 0.15 l b /MMBtu, 24-hour av erage, for all three BART units without jeopard izing com p liance.

In response to this comment, Nevada is revi sing the BART re quirem e nts at NV Energy’s Reid Gardner Generating Station. A regulatory am endm ent lowering the SO 2 e m ission lim its f o r units 1, 2 and 3 from 0.25 to 0.15 lb/MMB tu, 24-hour av erage, h a s been subm itted to the State Environm ental Comm iss i on for presentation at th eir Decem ber 9, 2009 Hearing. See Appendix A for additional details. NDEP has also revised text, figures and tabl es in this SIP as well as text in NDEP’s BART determ ination review of Reid Ga rdner to r e f l ect th is ch ange in em ission lim its and its ram i fications to annual em issions reduc tio n s and visib i lity im provem e nt resulting from BART. Specifically changes were made to th e Executive Summary, Cha p ter 5 (sections 5.5 and 5.6), Chapter 6 (sections 6.5.2.2 and 6.7), Chapte r 7 (sections 7.2 and 7.9.1.1), Appendix A and Appendix B.

Although there is no specific regu latory requirem e nt for the in stallation of BART to reduce

em issions, NDEP is confident actual em issions from Reid Gardner will not increase as a result of the SO 2 BART e m ission lim it. Reid Gardner has been operating at its current SO 2 em i ssion levels for som e ti m e . The subject-to-BART un its at Reid Gardner are already very well

D-24controlled f o r SO 2 by the existing w e t soda ash f l ue gas desulfurization (FGD) system. Units 1, 2 and 3 are 30 to 40 years old, but are am ong the best perform i ng SO 2 controlled units in the nation. NDEP does not want to penalize NV Energy fo r the historic highly-efficient operation of Reid Gardner by im posing em ission lim its that m a y lead to periods of noncom pliance.

NDEP is conf ident tha t these units will continu e to be opera te d in the i r highly-ef f i cie n t histo r ic

m a nner and does not see the need to im pose an addition a l lim it outside of regulato r y guidance until op erational his t ory is established under the new scenario. The operational characteris tics of the existing FGD controls will be m a inta ined in a highly ef f i c i ent m a nner f o llowing th e im ple m entation of BART. In fact, filter fa bric installation, as part of BART, will red u ce particulate loading and lessen plugging of the sc rubber trays and nozzles, which should result in im proved liquid distribution and SO 2 rem oval as well as r e sult in in crea se d reliability. Note that the BART S O 2 em ission lim it is a 24-hr average and ther efore less restrictive than lim its that

m i ght be based on longer averaging tim e s. NDEP is confident that the BART SO 2 e m i ssion lim it is not only legally enforceable, bu t also practical ly enforceab le and actual annual em issions will not increase.

Em issions from Reid Gardner, as well as other so urces will be reviewed under the auspices of reasonable progress for the 2018 SIP update. NDE P has added explanatory text to NDEP’s BART Review docum ents and Chapter 5 of Nevada ’s reg i onal haze SIP as a resu lt of this and related com m e nts from t h e FLM community.

This comm e n t is sim ilar to NPS comm ents 9 a nd 10, presented in the next section. See NDEP’s responses in section 2.2.3.2 belo w for additional discussion.

D-25D-26D-27 

### SECTION D.2.2.3

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF INTERIO R, NATIONAL PARK SERVICED-28