D.2.1 ORAL COMMENTS AT THE PUBLIC HEARING 

Public Testimony given at the 

 Nevada Regional Haze State Implementation Plan 

Public Hearing 

May 20, 2009 

Western Nevada Community College 

Attendees: 

NDEP-BAQP Staff

Adele Malone 

Brenda Harpring 

Frank Forsgren 

Paul Williams

Public

Robert Boyd, BLM 

Sandy Gregory, BLM 

Tansey Smith, Inter-Tribal Council of Nevada 

10:23 AM - Public Comments: 

Tansey Smith, Inter-Tribal Council of Nevada, asked how many air monitors there are in the 

state. Frank Forsgren, NDEP, stated that for the purposes of visibility there is only one monitor, 

which is located at the Jarbidge Wilderness area about a mile north of the community of 

Jarbidge. That monitor is part of the IMPROVE monitoring network. 

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

was a monitor at the Great Basin National Park. Mr. Forsgren replied that the National Park 

Service does maintain a monitor at Great Basin, but because it does not qualify as a Class I area, 

it was not appropriate to use that monitor in evaluating reasonable progress in terms of visibility 

impairment. Adele Malone, Supervisor, BAQP-NDEP, stated that the state does have a network 

of monitors throughout the state to evaluate NAAQS compliance. 

Ms. Smith asked why the State of Nevada was not a full member of the WRAP (Western 

Regional Air Partnership). Mr. Forsgren noted that Nevada has been a full participant in the 

WRAP, participating in all of the working groups and attending forums, and has provided 

financial support as well. He thought that the decision to not join the WRAP was made back 

when it was the Grand Canyon Visibility Transportation Commission (GCVTC), the precursor to 

the WRAP. He thought that the decision was made on the advice of some of the Nevada 

stakeholders who were a uncomfortable with some of the conclusions reached by the GCVTC, 

because they had the potential to impede economic development. Therefore, they asked the state 

to decline becoming a formal member of the WRAP and the state complied. He noted that the 

state had a stakeholders meeting about three years ago and asked them if they wanted the state to 

D-13 
be a member of the WRAP and there was not a positive response. However, he reiterated that 

NDEP is fully active in all aspects of the WRAP. 

Ms. Smith wondered what the benefits of being a full member of the WRAP would be. Ms. 

Malone indicated that it would probably give the state a vote on certain issues and it would 

require the state to follow their directives, which we are not required to do as just a participant. 

Ms. Smith said she had a bunch of other questions and would like to set up a meeting after the 

hearing to discuss further issues that she had. Ms. Malone agreed to meet with her. 

Robert Boyd, BLM, expressed general support for the approach that was used in the SIP 

regarding existing regulations, tools, and rules as being sufficient to address the need to improve 

visibility for Jarbidge and other areas. He indicated that BLM has been an active participant in 

this process and would continue. He gave BLM’s participation in the smoke management 

process as an example. He then went into some detail on how BLM is and will be addressing 

fugitive dust throughout Nevada that he felt hopefully would make the assumptions in the State’s 

Regional Haze Plan not get worst. He went on to review the research that BLM has funded 

regarding addressing off highway vehicles, which will be beneficial for future modeling of dust 

emissions. They are also looking at biological soil crusts to manage soil stability. He concluded 

by saying that once the Regional Haze SIP was approved, they would be incorporating it into 

their land use planning efforts. 

Sandy Gregory, Hazardous Fields Program Lead for the Nevada State Office of BLM, had a 

question regarding the state’s Smoke Management Plan (SMP) and how it was going to relate to 

the Regional Haze Plan, specifically with respect to smoke sensitive areas. She felt that it had 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 Smoke Management Plans 

that are in place and in this case we have incorporated Nevada’s SMP in the SIP as it exists 

without any changes. Ms. Gregory stated that they are really happy with the way the Smoke 

Management Plan is designed. Mr. Forsgren added that across the west, fire is a big driver of 

emissions. The smoke management program has allowed the state to better quantify the real

impacts. Ms. Gregory indicated that often, because of the fuel type, control burns are only at 60 

percent of the estimated emissions. She thought that they should be allowed to submit actual 

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

Mr. Forsgren thanked everyone who made comments and closed the hearing at 10:40 AM. 

D-14 
D.2.2 WRITTEN COMMENTS AND NEVADA’S RESPONSES 

D.2.2.1 Summary 

NDEP received three sets of written comments during its 30-day public comment period ending 

May 20, 2009. These comments were from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

(USEPA), the U.S. Department of Interior National Park Service (NPS), and a consortium of 

conservation or non-governmental organizations (NGOs). USEPA’s only expressed concerns or 

questions at this time are with regard to NDEP’s Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART) 

determination for the Reid Gardner Generating Station and specifically the BART sulfur dioxide 

(SO2) emission limitations. 

NDEP received “follow-up” comments from the NPS during the public review period, including 

comments on NDEP’s BART determination reviews of NV Energy BART analyses. Prior to the 

public comment period, Federal Land Managers (FLMs) were provided the opportunity to 

comment on the FLM consultation draft of Nevada’s RH SIP. NDEP received comments from

the NPS, the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and the U.S. Forest Service (USFS) during the 

FLM review period. NDEP prepared responses to these comments as documented in Appendix 

C. Any revisions resulting from the FLM comments were incorporated into the draft SIP before 

it was released for the 30-day public comment period. 

The NPS “follow-up” comments on the public review draft of Nevada’s RH SIP focus on the 

BART process including: 

• the degree of emphasis placed on visibility improvement, 

• the use of dollars per deciview as a cost-effectiveness metric, 

• inflation of control costs by the facilities, and 

• specific BART emission limits. 

NPS also made ancillary comments on other topics. 

Finally, NDEP received a letter of comments from a group of conservation or non-governmental 

organizations. The signatories are: National Parks Conservation Association, Western Resource 

Advocates, Nevada National Wildlife Federation, Bristlecone Alliance, Center for Biological 

Diversity, Nevada Conservation League and Education Fund, Wasatch Clear Air Coalition, 

Citizens for Dixie’s Future, Public Resource Associates, Sevier Citizens for Clean Air and 

Water, Post Carbon Salt Lake, Sierra Club, Grand Canyon Trust, and Utah Moms for Clean Air. 

The comments from this group are referred to as “NGO comments” in the remainder of this 

document. 

Attached to the NGO letter and included in the comments by reference is a report by D. Howard 

Gebhart of Air Resources Specialists, Inc. prepared for the Western Resource Advocates and 

National Parks Conservation Association titled Technical Review of Draft Nevada State 

Implementation Plan for Regional Haze (April 2009) Expert Report (this document is referred to 

as the “Tech Review” for the remainder of NDEP’s responses). The Tech Review is a support 

document for issues summarized in the NGO comments. 

The NGO comments focus on five main areas: 

D-15 
• the FLM consultation process, 

• the projected 2018 emission inventory, 

• the BART determination for Reid Gardner Generating Station,

• reasonable progress for Class I areas in adjacent states, and 

• inclusion of specific sources in the 2018 projected emission inventory. 

NDEP addresses these comments in the following sections. Complete copies of the comment 

letters precede NDEP’s response. 

D-16 
SECTION D.2.2.2 

U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

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

D.2.2.2.1 Comment Letter 

D-19 
D-20 
SECTION D.2.2.2.2 

NEVADA’S RESPONSE 

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

D-21 
D-22 
2.2.2.2 Nevada’s Response 

USEPA’s only expressed concerns or questions at this time are with regard to NDEP’s BART 

determination for the Reid Gardner Generating Station and specifically the BART SO2 emission 

limitations. NDEP responses to specific comments are provided below, with USEPA’s comment 

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 the control technology determinations, but are 

concerned about how the controls are going to be made enforceable. 

• Are they going to be explicitly 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 Haze SIP presents Nevada’s BART regulation as adopted by 

the State Environmental Commission and effective April 23, 2009. The regulation specifies 

emission limit and control type for each subject-to-BART unit of the four subject facilities in 

Nevada. In response to public comments, Nevada is revising the SO2 BART emission limits at 

NV Energy’s three subject-to-BART units at Reid Gardner. The proposed regulation appears in 

Appendix A. The re-evaluation and revision of the Reid Gardner SO2 emission limits is 

described in our response to USEPA comment 2 below. 

Title V permits for the subject facilities will be updated to include the new applicable 

requirements in accordance with Part 70 procedures (see SIP section 5.5). Permits will be 

updated to reflect Nevada regulation as written and approved. However, the permit will not 

require the operation of equipment at defined control efficiencies, but rather at defined emission 

limits. 

EPA Comment 2: 

We are also concerned about the 0.25 lb/MMBtu SO2 limit proposed as the BART determination 

for Reid Gardner. It appears to be substantially higher than the emission rate the plant is 

currently achieving. The National Park Service 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 times higher than the achieved annual 

emission rate seems to exceed what is required to account for normal operational variability. As 

a result, it may allow for changes that would result in higher actual emissions. 

• Do you concur with the NPS-FWS analysis of the annual emission rate? If, not, the EPA 

would like to see an explanation of your position in sufficient quantitative detail for an

outside party to replicate you analysis. 

• How will Nevada ensure that the proposed 24-hour SO2 limit will not result in actual 

emission increases from this plant on a 24-hour basis and/or on an annual basis? 

NDEP Response: 

D-23 
Nevada believes this comment refers to NPS comments submitted March 6, 2009 on the FLM 

review draft of Nevada’s RH SIP. The NPS commented on Nevada’s Reid Gardner BART 

determination for SO2 and the USEPA Clear Air Markets (CAM) database (aka acid rain 

database). NDEP has identified annual average SO2 emission rates of approximately 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 initially reached different conclusions from NPS-FWS regarding the use of 

these data in the BART determination, as presented in Nevada’s RH SIP and appendices. NV 

Energy and NDEP had significant concerns regarding achievable emissions limits resulting from

the operation of the wet soda ash FGD in conjunction 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 

SO2 limit was established at the 98th percentile of historical annual emissions value resulting in a 

limit of 0.25 lb/MMBtu. This limit allowed for future operation within 98 percent of historical 

emissions (after discard of the invalid data) and provided some flexibility during transition to a 

different post-BART operating scenario including operation under a balanced draft versus force 

draft scenario due to the installation of the fabric filter and a potential change in coal type. 

NDEP notes the SO2 BART limits are 24-hour averages and therefore less stringent than limits 

based on longer duration averaging periods. 

Baghouses (fabric filters) were installed upstream of the existing FGD system in late 2008 and 

early 2009 as required by the consent decree. So, a limited emissions dataset now exists 

representing the performance of the FGD system 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 emissions data. NDEP recognizes that the 

acid rain data is not a compliance dataset, however emissions data collected under 40 CFR Part 

60 is utilized to demonstrate compliance. Evaluation of the Part 60 data collected since the 

installation of the baghouses provides a level of confidence that Reid Gardner can achieve a 

BART SO2 emission limit of 0.15 lb/MMBtu, 24-hour average, for all three BART units without 

jeopardizing compliance. 

In response to this comment, Nevada is revising the BART requirements at NV Energy’s Reid 

Gardner Generating Station. A regulatory amendment lowering the SO2 emission limits for units 

1, 2 and 3 from 0.25 to 0.15 lb/MMBtu, 24-hour average, has been submitted to the State 

Environmental Commission for presentation at their December 9, 2009 Hearing. See Appendix 

A for additional details. NDEP has also revised text, figures and tables in this SIP as well as text 

in NDEP’s BART determination review of Reid Gardner to reflect this change in emission limits 

and its ramifications to annual emissions reductions and visibility improvement resulting from

BART. Specifically changes were made to the Executive Summary, Chapter 5 (sections 5.5 and 

5.6), Chapter 6 (sections 6.5.2.2 and 6.7), Chapter 7 (sections 7.2 and 7.9.1.1), Appendix A and 

Appendix B. 

Although there is no specific regulatory requirement for the installation of BART to reduce 

emissions, NDEP is confident actual emissions from Reid Gardner will not increase as a result of

the SO2 BART emission limit. Reid Gardner has been operating at its current SO2 emission 

levels for some time. The subject-to-BART units at Reid Gardner are already very well 

D-24 
controlled for SO2 by the existing wet soda ash flue gas desulfurization (FGD) system. Units 1, 

2 and 3 are 30 to 40 years old, but are among the best performing SO2 controlled units in the 

nation. NDEP does not want to penalize NV Energy for the historic highly-efficient operation of 

Reid Gardner by imposing emission limits that may lead to periods of noncompliance. 

NDEP is confident that these units will continue to be operated in their highly-efficient historic 

manner and does not see the need to impose an additional limit outside of regulatory guidance 

until operational history is established under the new scenario. The operational characteristics of

the existing FGD controls will be maintained in a highly efficient manner following the 

implementation of BART. In fact, filter fabric installation, as part of BART, will reduce 

particulate loading and lessen plugging of the scrubber trays and nozzles, which should result in 

improved liquid distribution and SO2 removal as well as result in increased reliability. Note that 

the BART SO2 emission limit is a 24-hr average and therefore less restrictive than limits that 

might be based on longer averaging times. NDEP is confident that the BART SO2 emission limit 

is not only legally enforceable, but also practically enforceable and actual annual emissions will 

not increase. 

Emissions from Reid Gardner, as well as other sources will be reviewed under the auspices of 

reasonable progress for the 2018 SIP update. NDEP has added explanatory text to NDEP’s 

BART Review documents and Chapter 5 of Nevada’s regional haze SIP as a result of this and 

related comments from the FLM community. 

This comment is similar to NPS comments 9 and 10, presented in the next section. See NDEP’s 

responses in section 2.2.3.2 below for additional discussion. 

D-25 
D-26 
D-27 

SECTION D.2.2.3 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR, NATIONAL PARK SERVICE 
D-28