January 21, 2011

Shelley Schneider

Air Quality Division Administrator 

Nebraska Department of Environmental Quality 

1200 N Street, Suite 400 

Lincoln, NE 68509-8922 

shelley.schneider@nebraska.gov

Via email and hard copy

Re: Comments on Nebraska’s Draft Regional Haze Rule

Dear Ms. Schneider:

On behalf of the National Parks Conservation Association and Plains Justice, we respectfully 

submit the following comments on the Draft Nebraska Regional Haze (RH) State 

Implementation Plan (SIP). Our organizations represent hundreds of Nebraskans and thousands 

of people throughout the nation that care deeply about protecting the air quality in our national 

parks and wilderness areas in the Plains states and Midwest. We strongly encourage the 

Nebraska Department of Environmental Quality (NDEQ) to revise its SIP by requiring further 

reductions in haze-causing pollutants and otherwise advancing measures that will improve 

regional visibility as required by the Clean Air Act’s regional haze program

For the reason stated herein, Nebraska’s regional haze plan is both legally and technically 

deficient. The regional haze plan fails to require sufficient reductions in visibility impairing 

pollutants from its major polluting sources and fails to provide a long-term strategy that would 

meet reasonable progress goals. Both components are centerpieces of the regional haze program 

and necessary to achieve visibility improvements in the impacted Class I areas. As addressed 

below, the State can and must achieve much greater emission reductions in haze-causing 

pollution with available control technologies and/or by imposing more stringent emission limits 

reflective of the best level of continuous emission reduction in its Best Available Retrofit 

Technology (BART) determinations. In addition, the long-term strategy must ensure appropriate 

BART requirements and other measures, including consideration of source retirement and 

replacement, to improve visibility in downwind states’ Class I areas to ensure that the SIP will 

meet its share of the emission reductions needed to meet the reasonable progress goals for the 

area. 
Page 2 of 13

Regional haze results from small particles in the atmosphere that impair a viewer’s ability to see 

long distances, color and geologic formation. While some haze causing particles result from 

natural processes, most result from anthropogenic sources of pollution. Haze forming pollutants 

including sulfur dioxide (SO2), nitrogen oxides (NOx), particulate matter (PM), volatile organic 

compounds (VOCs), and ammonia (NH3) contribute directly to haze or form haze after breaking 

down in the atmosphere. These air pollutants contribute to the deterioration of air quality and 

reduced visibility in our nation’s national parks and wildlife refuges. Visibility impairment is 

measured in deciviews, which is understood as the perceptible change in visibility. The higher 

the deciview value is, the worse the impairment. 

Through the Clean Air Act (CAA), Congress established “as a national goal the prevention of 

any future, and remedying of any existing, impairment of visibility in the mandatory class I 

Federal areas which impairment results from manmade air pollution.” 42 U.S.C. §7491(a)(1). In 

order to meet this goal, a State is required to design an implementation plan to reduce and 

ultimately eliminate haze from air pollution sources within its borders that may reasonably be 

anticipated to cause or contribute to visibility impairment for any protected area located within 

or beyond that State’s boundaries. In creating and implementing the plan, the State has an 

unparalleled opportunity to protect and restore regional air quality by curbing visibility 

impairing emissions from some of its oldest and most polluting facilities.

Each SIP must provide “emission limits, schedules of compliance and other measures as may be 

necessary to make reasonable progress towards meeting the national goal.” 42 U.S.C. § 

7491(b)(2). Two of the most critical features of a SIP are requirements for (1) the installation of

BART for delineated major stationary sources of pollution and (2) a long-term strategy for 

making reasonable progress towards the national visibility goal. 42 U.S.C. § 7491(b)(2)(A) & 

(B).

Emissions from Nebraska impact at least 6 Class I areas, including Badlands National Park and 

Wind Cave National Park in South Dakota, Rocky Mountain National Park in Colorado, 

Hercules Glades Wilderness and Mingo Wilderness in Missouri, and Wichita Mountains 

Wilderness in Oklahoma. These Class I areas preserve the region’s inspiring landscapes, rare

geologic formations, breathtaking water country, and diverse wildlife and vegetation. They also 

serve as living museums of our nation’s history. Visitors from across the nation and globe are 

drawn to these lands and their tourist dollars benefit state and local economies. 

National parks and wilderness areas are of great natural and cultural value and also engines for 

sustainable local capital. For example, in 2008, National Park Service units received over 274 

million visits accounting for over $2.5 billion in revenue.1 National parks support $13.3 billion 

of local private-sector economic activity and 267,000 private-sector jobs.2They also attract 

businesses and individuals to the local area, resulting in economic growth in areas near parks 

that is an average of 1 percent per year greater than statewide rates over the past three decades.3

 

1

See http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2010/tables/10s1215.pdf.

2 Hardner and Gullison, “The U.S. National Park System, An Economic Asset at Risk” (November 2006) [prepared 

for the National Parks Conservation Association]. 

http://www.npca.org/park_assets/NPCA_Economic_Significance_Report.pdf

3

Id. 
Page 3 of 13

National parks also generate more than four dollars in value to the public for every tax dollar 

invested.4 Of the number of annual park visitors in 2008, 845,734 people visited Badlands 

National Park; 573,433 visited Wind Cave National Park; and 2,757,390 visited Rocky 

Mountain National Park.

5

Excessive emissions from Nebraska not only obscure the region’s scenic vistas Congress sought 

to protect, but also contribute to a host of public health problems as well as adverse impacts to 

wildlife and vegetation. For example, NOx and VOCs are precursors to ground level ozone, or 

smog. Ground level ozone is associated with respiratory diseases, asthma attacks, and decreased 

lung function.6SO2 pollution contributes to respiratory problems, particularly for children and 

the elderly, and aggravates existing heart and lung diseases. Exposure to particulate matter, 

made up of sulfates and nitrates, has been associated with reduced lung function, increased 

susceptibility to respiratory infections, chronic bronchitis, and premature death.

7

The U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has found that in 2015, the Regional Haze Rule also 

will provide substantial health benefits valued at $8.4 - $9.8 billion annually – preventing 1,600 

premature deaths, 2,200 non-fatal heart attacks, 960 hospital admissions, and over 1 million lost 

school and work days. The total annual cost will range from 1.4 – 1.5 billion dollars.8These 

benefits are estimated under the assumption that the Regional Haze Rule will be implemented as 

intended – therefore these numbers may be lower if Nebraska does not revise its plan.

The regional haze program imposes a legal obligation on the State to abate the adverse visibility 

effects to which its haze causing facilities contribute in order to restore visibility levels to their 

natural conditions as mandated by the Clean Air Act. To prevent and remedy visibility 

impairment to the implicated Class I areas, Nebraska can and must revise and substantially 

improve the draft RH SIP. A strong regional haze program will not only help protect and restore 

treasured landscapes and the economies that rely on them but also benefit public health. With 

this in mind, we offer the comments below for consideration by the NDEQ and strongly 

encourage the Department to strengthen its regional haze plan. 

We note that the State of Nebraska is far behind the mandated schedule for having a regional 

haze plan in place. Nebraska missed the initial December 2007 regulatory deadline entirely. This 

missed deadline was followed by EPA’s formal finding on January 15, 2009, that Nebraska, 

amongst other states, failed to submit any of the required regional haze SIP elements set forth at 

40 C.F.R. §51.308. 74 Fed.Reg. 2392, 2393 (January 15, 2009). EPA’s finding started a two 

year clock establishing January 15, 2011 as the new deadline for haze plan finalization. Again, 

Nebraska failed to meet the regulatory deadline. Delay of action proposing and finalizing plans 

to reducing haze has deprived Nebraskans and residents in the region of the enjoyment of 

precious resources, and exposes visitors, employees, and wildlife to harmful particulates and 

ground level ozone. We hope that the state will promptly resolve the shortcomings of this 

 

4

Id. 

5

See http://www.nature.nps.gov/stats/index.cfm. 

6

70 Fed. Reg. 25162, 25169 (May 12, 2005).

7 U.S. EPA. Air Quality Criteria for Particulate Matter (Final Report, April 1996). U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, Washington, D.C., EPA 600/P-95/001.

8 EPA, Fact Sheet, Final Regional Haze Regulations for Protection of Visibility in National Parks and Wilderness 

Areas (June 2, 1999) at http://www.epa.gov/visibility/fs_2005_6_15.html.
Page 4 of 13

proposal and establish a haze plan that adequately meets the requirements the regional haze 

program.

I. The Clean Air Act and Federal Regulation Require NDEQ to Abate Visibility 

Impairment

In 1977, the Clean Air Act declared “as a national goal the prevention of any future, and the 

remedying of any existing, impairment of visibility in mandatory class I Federal areas which 

impairment results from manmade air pollution[]” where visibility has been determined to be an 

important value. 42 U.S.C. § 7491(a)(1) &(2). “Manmade air pollution” is defined as “air 

pollution which results directly or indirectly from human activities[.]” 42 U.S.C. §7491(g)(3). 

Congress adopted the visibility protection program to protect the “intrinsic beauty and historical 

and archeological treasures” of specific public lands.9To protect these treasures, the regional 

haze program establishes a regulatory floor and requires states to design and implement 

programs at least as stringent as the national floor to curb haze causing emissions located within 

their jurisdictions. States are required to submit State Implementation Plans (SIPs) if they host 

federally protected areas or the emissions of a facility located within a State “may be reasonably 

be anticipated to cause or contribute to any impairment of visibility” for a protected area located 

beyond their borders. 42 U.S.C. §7491 (b)(2).

The SIP must contain “emission limits, schedules of compliance and other measures as may be 

necessary to make reasonable progress towards meeting the national goal...” including BART 

requirements for all eligible sources and a long-term strategy for making reasonable progress 

towards meeting the national goal. 42 U.S.C. §7491(b)(2)(A) &(B). 

BART is defined as an emission limitation

. . .based on the degree of reduction achievable through the application of the best 

system of continuous emission reduction for each pollutant which is emitted by an 

existing stationary facility. The emission limitation must be established, on a case-bycase basis, taking into consideration the technology available, the costs of compliance, 

the energy and non-air quality environmental impacts of compliance, any pollution 

control equipment in use or in existence at the source, the remaining useful life of the 

source, and the degree of improvement in visibility which may reasonably be anticipated 

to result from the use of such technology.

40 C.F.R. §51.301, emphasis added. BART limits are required for major stationary sources that 

were in existence on August 7, 1977 and began operating after August 7, 1962 and emit air 

pollutants that may reasonable be anticipated to cause or contribute to any impairment of 

visibility is a Class I area. 42 U.S.C. § 7491(b)(2)(A). The term “major stationary source” is 

defined as sources that have the potential to emit 250 tons or more of any pollutant and fall 

within one of 26 categories of industrial sources defined by the Act. 42 U.S.C. § 7491(g)(7). A 

BART-eligible source is one that meets the above criteria and is responsible for an impact on 

visibility in a Class I area of 0.5 deciview or more. 40 C.F.R. Part 51, Appendix Y. BART 

 

9

See H.R. REP. NO. 95-294, at 203–04 (1977). 
Page 5 of 13

must be installed and operated no later than five years after the SIP approval. 40 

C.F.R.§51.302(c)(4)(iv).

The SIP must also provide a long-term strategy for achieving reasonable progress toward 

meeting natural visibility conditions at mandatory Class I areas by 2064. 40 C.F.R. 

§51.308(d)(1)(i)(B). If a state’s reasonable progress goals do not anticipate restoring visibility 

to natural conditions by 2064 the state must demonstrate why the goal of attaining natural 

conditions by the established date is unreasonable. 40 C.F.R. §51.308(d)(1)(ii). The SIP must

provide for improved visibility on the most impaired days and ensure no degradation in 

visibility for the least impaired days. 40 C.F.R. §51.308(d)(1)(i)(B). The long-term strategy is 

typically a 10-15 year plan containing enforceable measures designed to meet regional progress 

goals. In developing its plan, the State must document the technical basis for the SIP, including 

monitoring data, modeling, and emission information, including the baseline emission inventory 

upon which its strategies are based. 40 C.F.R. §51.308(d)(3)(iii).

In developing its long-term strategy, the State must consider all anthropogenic sources of 

visibility impairment and evaluate different emission reduction strategies beyond those 

prescribed by the BART provisions. 40 C.F.R §51.308(d). The state should consider “major and 

minor stationary sources, mobile sources and area sources.” Id. At a minimum, the state must 

consider the following elements:

(A)Emission reductions due to ongoing air pollution control programs, including measures 

to address reasonably attributable visibility impairment;

(B) Measures to mitigate the impacts of construction activities;

(C) Emissions limitations and schedules for compliance to achieve the reasonable progress 

goal;

(D)Source retirement and replacement schedules;

(E) Smoke management techniques for agriculture and forestry management purposes 

including plans as currently exist within the State for these purposes;

(F) Enforceability of emission limitation s and control measures; and

(G)The anticipated net effect on visibility due to projected changes in point, area, and 

mobile emissions over the period addressed by the long-term strategy. 

40 C.F.R. 51.208(d)(3)(v)(A)-(G).

Our review of Nebraska’s proposed BART emission limits and controls shows that the state has 

clearly not required emissions controls and limits that reflect BART for the state’s BARTeligible sources. This is discussed in detail below. Further, the state has not required any source 

emission reductions or source retirements other than its proposed BART requirements to meet 

reasonable progress requirements. 

Through 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3), Nebraska is required to establish a long term strategy designed 

to do its part to achieve reasonable progress goals in Class I areas in other states. This draft 

Regional Haze plan does not appear to follow through on that responsibility. Other states may 

or may not have directly asked for additional reductions, but regional planning organizations 

have relied on assumed reductions from Nebraska at least equivalent to presumptive BART. It 
Page 6 of 13

is therefore reasonable to assume that, in order to support the reasonable progress goals of 

neighboring states, Nebraska should, at a minimum, meet presumptive BART emission levels. 

Here, it fails to do so with regard to SO2 emissions, requiring no controls whatsoever. 

Nebraska could achieve additional reductions in visibility impairing pollutants from its own 

sources, but this draft regional haze SIP and BART limits do not require such reductions. As 

we will show below, the State could achieve much greater emission reductions in haze causing 

pollution with available control technologies and/or by imposing more stringent emission limits 

reflective of the best level of continuous emission reduction in its BART determinations.

II. NDEQ’s Draft BART Determinations are Flawed

NDEQ’s draft Regional Haze plan includes BART determinations for a total of three units at 

two facilities: Unit 110 at the Nebraska City Station (NCS), and Units 1 and 2 at the Gerald 

Gentleman Station (GGS). These BART determinations are for three pollutants – nitrogen 

oxides (NOx), sulfur dioxide (SO2), and particulate matter (PM). For each of these facilities, 

NDEQ has simply proposed EPA’s presumptive BART limits – or worse – as BART. While 

NDEQ purported to do a case-by-case evaluation of BART for each EGU, it appears that the 

case-by-case analyses were simply written to support the imposition of EPA’s presumptive 

BART limits rather than to truly reflect the best level of continuous emission reduction at each 

EGU. 

EPA’s BART Guidelines include “presumptive BART” emission limits for EGUs which were 

based on EPA’s broad review of the control technologies and emission limits that could be met 

cost effectively at a wide range of coal-fired power plants. See Sections IV.E.4 and 5 of the 

BART Guidelines in 40 C.F.R. Part 51, Appendix Y. However, it must be stated that EPA’s 

presumptive BART limits do not negate the need for the state to determine BART for each 

BART-eligible source on a case-by-case basis through a five factor analysis (regardless of the 

applicability of presumptive BART). The regulations and the Clean Air Act require the 

determination of BART to be source-specific. See 40 C.F.R. § 51.308(e)(1)(ii)(A); § 169A(g) 

of the Clean Air Act. 

The five steps of determining BART are

STEP 1 -- Identify All [fn 12] Available Retrofit Control Technologies,

STEP 2-- Eliminate Technically Infeasible Options,

STEP 3-- Evaluate Control Effectiveness of Remaining Control Technologies,

STEP 4-- Evaluate Impacts and Document the Results, and

STEP 5 – Evaluate Visibility Impacts.

Fn 12: In identifying "all" options, you must identify the most stringent option 

and a reasonable set of options for analysis that reflects a comprehensive list of 

available technologies. It is not necessary to list all permutations of available 

 

10 We note that in several instances, Nebraska City Station Unit 1 is mistakenly referred to as Unit 2. See, e.g., p. 39, 

41 of NDEQ’s draft Regional Haze plan.
Page 7 of 13

control levels that exist for a given technology – the list is complete if it includes 

the maximum level of control each technology is capable of achieving.

Section IV.D. of BART Guidelines at 40 C.F.R. Part 51, Appendix Y.

As discussed in detail below, the BART determinations for NCS and GGS fall short on several 

of the steps outlined above, mainly by underestimating the benefits and overestimating the costs 

of a given control technology. We first discuss issues that are common to all of the BART 

determinations, and then focus on issues specific to each facility. 

a. Issues Common to All BART Determinations

1) Achievable Control Efficiencies Are Not Reflected

The five-step BART process outlined in EPA’s BART Guidelines makes clear that BART

requires an evaluation of the top level of pollution reduction achievable with each control 

system evaluated in a BART analysis. EPA’s BART Guidelines provide that, if a control 

system can be operated at a wide range of control efficiencies, “the most stringent emissions 

control level that the technology is capable of achieving” must be evaluated. Section IV.D.3. of 

the BART Guidelines at 40 C.F.R. Part 51, Appendix Y. The BART Guidelines further require 

that “[y]ou should consider recent regulatory decisions and performance data (e.g., 

manufacturer's data, engineering estimates and the experience of other sources) when 

identifying an emissions performance level or levels to evaluate.” Id.

The BART Guidelines also provide:

In assessing the capability of the control alternative, latitude exists to consider special 

circumstances pertinent to the specific source under review, or regarding the prior 

application of the control alternative. However, you should explain the basis for 

choosing the alternate level (or range) of control in the BART analysis. Without a 

showing of differences between the source and other sources that have achieved more 

stringent emissions limits, you should conclude that the level being achieved by those 

other sources is representative of the achievable level for the source being analyzed. Id.

Further, while one can consider varying levels of pollution control in evaluation of a particular 

control device, one “must consider the most stringent level as one of the control options.” Id.

NDEQ did not follow these guidelines or otherwise meet the intent of the BART requirements 

because it did not evaluate the most stringent option available for reducing emissions from the 

state’s EGUs from technologies such as Selective Catalytic Reduction and wet and dry 

scrubbers.

NDEQ’s evaluations assumed that SCR is capable of achieving 0.08 lbs/mmbtu NOx. In reality, 

SCRs are being permitted at and can achieve levels of 0.05 lbs/mmbtu or less on an annual basis 

and 0.06 lbs/mmbtu on a 30 day rolling average. 0.08 lbs/mmbtu reflects no more than 83% 
Page 8 of 13

reduction from current emissions; SCR is well known to be capable of control efficiency greater 

than 90%. 

A review of recent SCR retrofits at other power plants definitively proves that very high levels of 

NOx removal are being achieved by recent SCR retrofit installations. NOx emission rates less 

than 0.05 lb/MMBtu are routinely achieved,11 and NOx removal efficiencies are typically at least

90%.12 Permitting agencies have required lower NOx limits in recent BACT determinations, 

with many proposed and required BACT limits of 0.05-0.06 lb/MMBtu. For example, the Plant 

Washington PSD permit, issued in April 2010, requires that unit to meet a 0.03 lb/MMBtu 

annual average NOx limit as BACT. The Desert Rock PSD permit includes a NOx BACT limit 

as low as 0.035 lb/MMBtu.13

Likewise, the NDEQ BART determinations underestimate the emissions levels achieved with 

SO2 controls, assuming control efficiencies no more than 87% and corresponding emission 

levels between 0.1 – 0.15 lbs/mmbtu. However, modern SO2 controls are capable of reducing 

emissions by more than 99% to less than 0.04 – 0.06 lbs/mmbtu, depending on the technology. 

In addition, the state provided no evidence that the emission levels set in association with the 

use of Low NOx Burners/Overfire Air (LNB/OFA) or each facility’s existing particulate matter 

controls actually reflect the most efficient use of the technology, rather than simply presumptive 

BART (0.23 lbs/mmbtu) in the case of NOx and LNB/OFA, or the existing permit limits (0.10 

lbs/mmbtu) in the case of PM and existing baghouses or electrostatic precipitators. At a 

minimum, these limits should be set with knowledge of what current emission levels are being 

achieved as well as what emission levels have been achieved elsewhere. 

2) Available Technologies or Upgrades Are Not Evaluated

Step 1 of any BART determination requires identification of all retrofit control technologies, 

including upgrades to existing equipment. In this instance, several control options were not 

evaluated. In the instance of SO2, dry sorbent injection (DSI) was not evaluated for either 

facility. DSI does not require water, and can provide 50-80% emission reductions depending on 

the configuration of the facility and the system.

14 It was recently required by the Oregon 

Department of Environmental Quality as BART for the Boardman power plant. 

In addition, NDEQ’s BART determinations did not consider upgrades to the existing PM 

control equipment at NCS (electrostatic precipitator (ESP)) or GGS (fabric filters). Each of 

these technologies could likely improve performance with upgrades, and this option should be 

evaluated as part of the BART determinations. 

 

11 As seen in data produced to the EPA’s Clean Air Markets Database. 

12 See Erickson, Clayton A. et al., Selective Catalytic Reduction System Performance and Reliability Review, The 

2006 MEGA Symposium, Paper # 121.

13 The Desert Rock Energy Facility permit requires the facility to achieve, after a NOx optimization period, a NOx 

emission rate of 0.035 lb/MMBtu on a 365 day rolling average and an emission rate of 0.05 lb/MMBtu on a 30-day 

rolling average. See also the National Park Service spreadsheet on BACT limits for New PC Power Plants.

14 http://www.nalcomobotec.com/technology/dry-sorbent-injection.html
Page 9 of 13

3) Incremental Costs Are Overemphasized

Cost effectiveness is the economic criterion used to determine whether a given control option 

has adverse economic impacts compared to controls at similar facilities. Cost, estimated using 

the total annual cost method, is measured in terms of annualized control costs, and cost 

effectiveness is measured in annual dollars per ton of pollutant removed. Two cost metrics can 

be considered: (1) total cost effectiveness and (2) incremental cost effectiveness.

Total cost effectiveness, the metric most commonly used, is calculated by dividing annualized 

cost by the reduction in emissions. Incremental cost effectiveness compares the costs and 

emission performance with those of the next most stringent option. Incremental cost 

effectiveness should not be used to eliminate a top control option as BART if the total cost 

effectiveness is acceptable. As described in the NSR Manual, 

“undue focus on incremental cost effectiveness can give an impression that the cost of a 

control alternative is unreasonably high, when, in fact, the total cost effectiveness, in 

terms of dollars per total ton removed, is well within the normal range of 

acceptable...costs.”15

In this case, NDEQ highlights the incremental cost many times as a primary means of 

comparing one control technology to another. For instance, the incremental costs of adding SCR 

in addition to OFA/LNB is considered in all of the BART determinations. The significant 

emphasis on incremental costs versus total costs for the technology is inappropriate. 

Incremental costs should be a secondary, not primary, consideration.

 

15 EPA New Source Review Manual, 1990, B.45 – 46. 
Page 10 of 13

4) Cost Per Ton Metric Is Downplayed

Cost per ton of pollutant removed is a longstanding metric used to evaluate the costeffectiveness of control technologies; in the regional haze context, cost per deciview can also be 

used to inform cost-effectiveness evaluations, as a supplement to the cost per ton calculation. In 

this case, even without consideration of inflated cost estimates (see below) or discounted control 

efficiencies (see above), the cost per ton, both total and incremental, of all evaluated – and 

rejected – technologies is well within the range of cost-effectiveness of other BART 

determinations (see Table 1 below). Much higher measures of cost-effectiveness than those 

rejected by the state have been used in both BART analyses and rule-making instances, over 

$10,000/ton in some instances.16 NDEQ itself notes that $2,500 – 2,700/ton is “reasonable”; all 

of the total costs are at or below this level.17

Table 1: Cost Effectiveness as Documented by NDEQ

Facility Technology Cost/ton

GGS SCR (total) $2,27918

GGS SCR (incremental) $5,44519

GGS Wet or dry FGD (total) $2,724 – 2,72620

NCS SCR (total) $2,63321

NCS SCR (incremental) $8,58322

NCS Wet or dry FGD at 0.15 lbs/mmbtu (total) $1,75923

NCS Wet or dry FGD at 0.10 lbs/mmbtu (total) $1,63624

Based on the above demonstration, the costs for all of these technologies are reasonable and 

should be considered as BART with regard to costs. 

 

16 See National Park Service Spreadsheets “EGUs with Proposed BART NOx Controls” and “EGUs with Proposed 

BART SO2 Controls” dated August 11, 2010, demonstrating BART determinations at cost effectiveness up to 

$7,309/ton (SO2) and $7,398/ton (NOx) (http://www.wrapair.org/forums/ssjf/bart.html); $10,000/ton was 

determined to be cost effective for BACT in 2001, equivalent to over $13,000/ton today. See expert report of Matt 

Haber - EPA, Best Available Control Technologies for the Baldwin Generating Station, Baldwin, Illinois, prepared 

for the United States in connection with United States v. Illinois Power Company and Dynegy Midwest Generation, 

Inc., Civil Action 99-883-MJR, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois, April 2002, p. 17; 

Memorandum of John S. Seitz to Air Division Directors, BACT and LAER for emissions of nitrogen oxides and 

volatile organic compounds at Tier 2/Gasoline Sulfur Refinery Projects (Jan. 19, 2001), at 3.

17 Draft Regional Haze Plan, p. 47. 

18 Revised BART Analysis for GGS Units 1 and 2, March 2008, p. 35.

19 Id.

20 Revised BART Analysis for GGS Units 1 and 2, March 2008, p. 20.

21 BART Analysis for NCS Unit 1, August 2007, p. 20.

22 Draft Regional Haze Plan, p. 44.

23 Draft Regional Haze Plan, p. 43.

24 Id.
Page 11 of 13

5) Cost Per Deciview Metric Is Misapplied

Cost per deciview is a metric of cost-effectiveness used in evaluating the cost associated with an 

improvement in visibility resulting application of a given control technology. There are several 

flaws in the use of this metric in NDEQ’s BART determinations. First, incremental cost per 

deciview is almost exclusively emphasized as a metric of cost effectiveness. The total cost per 

deciview, instead, should be used as a supplement to cost per ton as a means of evaluating costeffectiveness. Second, the fact that the potential control efficiency of the technologies evaluated 

is routinely underestimated (see above) will also lead to underestimated benefits as far as 

deciview reduction (visibility improvement). Third, as described below, costs are overestimated. 

The combination of overestimated costs and underestimated visibility improvement means that 

the cost per deciview metric is routinely (and significantly) inflated in NDEQ’s calculation. All 

of the cost per deciview values cited by the draft BART determinations should be reevaluated

and appropriately revised. 

Fourth, the cost per deciview metric is more appropriately evaluated in the context of the total 

improvement that the control measure is responsible for. Thus, it should take into account the 

cumulative benefit over all relevant Class I areas, not simply the most heavily impacted one. 

Additionally, the total improvement as far as frequency, magnitude, and duration of visibility 

changes should be taken into account when comparing cost per deciview metrics. 

Finally, once an accurate cost per deciview value is established, it can be compared to cost per 

deciview measures from other BART determinations. Around the country, proposed BART 

determinations have exceeded $50 million, with averages in the $14-18 million range.25

Based on the issues listed above, we ask that NDEQ reevaluate the benefits associated with the 

control technologies proposed in its BART determinations, rerun modeling to reflect the higher 

levels of control that are achievable, and recalculate total cost effectiveness measures based on 

accurate cost estimates. 

b. BART for Gerald Gentleman Station Units 1 & 2

In addition to the issues mentioned above, the BART determination for GGS Units 1 and 2 errs 

in several important additional ways. SCR costs are overestimated, and controls for SO2 are 

incorrectly rejected due to a false dichotomy between controls and water. 

1) SCR Costs Are Overestimated

The cost estimates are missing significant amounts of information that is necessary for the 

public or other agencies to be able to thoroughly review and comment on them. For instance, 

unsubstantiated vendor quotes underlie a large portion of the cost estimates. Nonetheless, it is 

clear that some of the relied on costs are overestimated. The capital costs for a retrofit of SCR at 

 

25 See National Park Service Spreadsheets “EGUs with Proposed BART NOx Controls” and “EGUs with Proposed 

BART SO2 Controls” dated August 11, 2010, demonstrating BART determinations at cost per deciview up to $51 

million (SO2 and NOx), and averaging $18 million (SO2) and $14 million (NOx).

http://www.wrapair.org/forums/ssjf/bart.html
Page 12 of 13

GGS Units 1 and 2, as reported on a $/kW basis, are significantly higher than those found by 

several industry studies of SCR installations. Those reports found a range of installed costs 

between $83 – 300/kW, the highest of which were highly complex retrofits with severe space 

constraints.26 Of particular note is Wisconsin Electric’s estimated cost to retrofit a cold-side 

SCR on Oak Creek Units 5-8. The estimated cost of $168/kW27 was certified in July 2008 for 

construction by the Wisconsin Public Services Commission.28 These are all significantly lower 

than the estimated cost of $350/kW for SCR installation at GGS. We note that neither space 

constraints nor complexity of retrofit is an appropriate cause for this escalated cost estimate, as 

the studies referenced above include complex and space constrained installations.

It is thus clear that costs have been overestimated, likely the result of numerous factors. Several 

obvious ones include the use of escalation, which is inappropriate and adds millions of dollars 

to the overall estimate. Second, the BART determination is several years out of date, and 

estimates for equipment, etc. have decreased, as reflected in decreases in the Chemical 

Engineering Plant Cost Index (CEPCI). Third, millions of dollars in Allowance for Funds 

During Construction (AFUDC) are inappropriately included. Fourth, although some 

contingency costs should be included, the estimated contingency costs were higher than 

expected as a percentage of the total cost. 

These are only a few observations; we were unable to perform an exhaustive review of the cost 

estimates, due in part to the lack of information provided. There are likely other significant 

issues that should be resolved. These issues pervade the cost estimates for other controls (e.g. 

scrubbers) for GGS as well as NCS. We also note that the cost estimates appear to frequently

stray from the procedures outlined in the OAQPS control manual; because this manual aids in 

ensuring fair comparisons between cost estimates, it should be adhered to more closely. We 

request that NDEQ revise the cost estimates for all controls evaluated in all BART 

determinations, and provide these for public review along with all underlying documentation 

(including vendor quotes). 

2) SO2 Controls Are Incorrectly Dismissed

Scrubbers for GGS Units 1 and 2, either wet or dry, are incorrectly dismissed due to their water 

use and the water needs dictated by Nebraska’s participation in the Platt River Recovery 

Implementation Plan. As described in comments from the Department of the Interior, 

specifically the Fish and Wildlife Service, water offsets may not be as challenging to obtain as 

described by NDEQ. As mentioned above, NDEQ’s analysis appears not to have considered dry 

 

26 See discussion on p. 16 – 18 of Comments on EPA’s Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking regarding Best 

Available Retrofit Technology (BART) for the Navajo Generating Station and the Four Corners Power Plant [EPAR09-OAR-2009-0598] submitted by the Center for Biological Diversity et. al. October 28, 2009. 

27 Wisconsin Electric Power Company's Application to Install Wet Flue Gas Desulfurization and Selective Catalytic 

Reduction Facilities and Associated Equipment on Oak Creek Power Plant Units 5, 6, 7 & 8 for Control of Sulfur 

Dioxide and Nitrogen Oxide Emissions, Appendix C, Emission Reduction Study, Volume 1, Addendum August 20, 

2007. Unit cost = ($190,500,000/1,135,000 kW) = $168 kW, in 2006$.

28 70 Certificate and Order, Application to Install Wet Flue Gas Desulfurization and Selective Catalytic Reduction 

Facilities and Associated Equipment on Oak Creek Power Plant Units 5, 6, 7 & 8 for Control of Sulfur Dioxide and 

Nitrogen Oxide Emissions, Case 6630-CE-299, July 10, 2008. 
Page 13 of 13

sorbent injection (DSI), which requires no water use. Additionally, the burden of being in a 

water-poor region is not at all unique to this portion of Nebraska, but is shared by many western 

states. As such, the water requirements of scrubbing technologies are not sufficient to override 

presumptive BART and excuse GGS Units 1 and 2 of any SO2 controls whatsoever. 

III. Conclusion

For the reasons noted above, we believe that the draft Regional Haze plan put forth by NDEQ is 

inadequate. We ask that NDEQ revise its plan to reflect more realistic, updated costs and 

benefits of air pollution controls, to require more stringent controls and emissions limits as a 

part of its BART determinations, to demonstrably fulfill its obligations to the reasonable 

progress goals established by other states, to fully consider all of the recommendations received

herein as well as those submitted by the EPA and DOI agencies, and to recirculate its revised

draft for public review. 

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Nebraska draft Regional Haze plan. 

Sincerely,

Stephanie Kodish

National Parks Conservation Association

706 Walnut Street, Suite 200

Knoxville, TN 37902

865-329-2424

Carrie La Seur

Plains Justice

2606 Montana Avenue

Billings, Montana 59101