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 tho usands 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 h aze 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 pro gress goals . Both compo ne n ts are centerpieces of the regional haze program and necessary to achieve visibility improvement s 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 ad dition, 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 at mosphere 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

. H aze forming pollutants including sulfur dio xide ( SO 2 ), nitrogen oxides (NO

x ), particulate matter (PM), volatile organic compounds (VOCs), and ammonia (NH 3 ) contribute directly to haze or form haze after breaking down in the atmosphere. These air pollutants contribute to the deterioration of air qu ality 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.

Th rough 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 wh ich impairment results from man made 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 red uce 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). T wo of the m ost 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 C ave 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 li ving museum s of our nation’s hist ory

. Visitors from across the nation and globe are

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

N ational parks and wilderness areas are of great natural and cultural value and also eng ines for

sus tainable 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. 2 They 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/20 10/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 g enerate 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 2,757,39 0 v isited Rocky

Mountain National Park

. 5

E xcessive emissions from Nebraska not only obscure the region’s sceni c vis tas 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, NO

x and VOCs are precursors to ground level ozone , or

smog . Ground level ozone is associated wi th respiratory diseases, asthma attacks, and decreased lung function. 6 SO 2 pollution contributes to respiratory problems, particularly for children and the elderly, and aggravates existing heart and lung diseases. Exposure to p articulate matter

,

m ade up of sulfates and nitrates, has been a ssociated with r educed lung function, increased susceptibility to respiratory infection s, chronic bronchitis

, and premature death

. 7 The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has found that in 2015, the Regional Haze R ule 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. 8 These benefits are estimated under the assumption that the Regional Haze Rule will be implemented as

i ntended

– therefore these numbers may be lower if Nebraska do es not revise its plan.

The regional haze program i mposes 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 visibil ity 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 Decemb er 2007 regulatory deadline entirely. This missed deadline was followed by EPA’s formal finding o n 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 Fe d.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 hop e that the state will prompt ly resol ve 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 adequate ly 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, impairme nt 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 whi ch 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. 9 To 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 jurisdiction s . States are required to s ubmit 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 bey ond 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 s ources 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 b est 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

- by

case basis, taking into consideration the technology available, the costs of compl iance, 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 an ticipated 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 m ay 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 a nd 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 y ears 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 visibilit y 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

condi tions 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 lon g

- term strategy is typically a 10

- 15 year plan containing enforceable measures designed to meet regional progress goals. In developing its plan, t he State must document the technical basis for the SIP, including monitoring data, modeling, and emission info rmation, 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, th e State must consider all anthropogenic sources of visibility impairment and evaluate different e mission 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 eleme nts:

(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 compl iance 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 BART

eligible sources . This is discussed in detail below. Further, the state has not required any source

emission reductions or sou rce retirements other than its proposed BART requirements to meet reasonable progress requirements

.

T h rough 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, bu t regional planning organizations have relied on assumed reductions from Nebraska at least equivalent to presumptive BART. ItPage 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 1 10 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 li mits rather than to truly reflect the best level of continuous emission reduction at each

EGU.

EPA’s BART Guidelines include “presumptive BART” emission lim its 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)

. T he 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); § 1 69A(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 com prehensive 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 a s 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 C o mmon to All BART Determinations

1) Achie vable Control Efficiencies Are Not Reflected

The five

- step BART process outlined in EPA’s BART Guidelines makes clear that BART require s an evaluation of the top level of pollution reduction achievable with each control system evaluated in a BART analysis. EPA’s BART Guidelines pr ovide 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 5 1, 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 performanc e 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 applica tion 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 emis sions 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 pa rticular control device, one “must consider the most stringent level as one of the control options.” Id.

ND EQ did not follow these guidelines or otherwise meet the intent of the BART requirements because it did not evaluate the most stringent option ava ilable 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/mm btu or less on an annual basis

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

reduction from current emi ssions; 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 ach ieved, 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, is sued 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 determi nations underestimate the emissions lev els achieved with SO2 controls, assuming control efficiencies no more than 87% and corresponding emission

levels between 0.1

– 0. 15 lb s/mmbtu. However, modern SO2 controls are capable of reducing

emiss ions by more than 99% to less than 0.04

– 0. 06 lbs/mmbtu, depending on the technology.

In ad dition, the state provided no evidence that the emission levels set in association w ith 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 elec trostatic precipitators. At a minimum, these limits shoul d be set wit h know ledge of what current emission level s 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,

inclu ding upgrades to existing equipment. In this instance, several control options were not evaluated. In the instance of SO2, dry sorbent in j ection (DSI) was not ev aluated for either

facil ity. DSI does not require water, and can provide 50

- 8 0% 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 e quipment 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 A s 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 Sy mposium, Paper # 12 1

.
13 The Desert Rock Energy Facility permit requires the facilit y 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

- d ay 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.htmlPage 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 annuali zed 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 comm only 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 elimi nate a top control option as BAR T if the total co st 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

accept able

... costs.” 15

In this case, NDEQ high lights 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 co sts 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 cost

effecti v eness 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 abov e)

, the cost per ton

, both total and incremental, of all evaluated

– and rejected

– technologies is well within the range of cost

- effectivenes s of other B ART

determinations (see Table 1 below)

. Much h igher 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) $2,279 18

GGS SCR (incremental) $5,445 19

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

– 2,726 20

NCS SCR (total) $2,633 21

NCS SCR (incremental) $8, 583 22

NCS Wet or dry FGD at 0.15 lbs/mmbtu (total ) $1,759 23

NCS Wet or dry FGD at 0.10 lbs/mmbtu (total) $1,636 24

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 Spreadsheet s “EGUs with Proposed BART NOx Co ntrols” 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 organ ic 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 D raft Regional Haze Plan, p. 43.

24 Id.Page 11 of 13

5) Cost Per Deciv iew Metric Is Mis applied

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 determin ations. 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 cost

effectiveness. Second, the f act 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 overestima ted. 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 deter minations 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 relevan t 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 met rics.

Finally, o nce 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 propose d 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 fo r Gerald Gentleman Station Units 1 & 2

In addition to the issues menti oned above, the BART determination for GGS Un its 1 an d 2 errs

in severa l 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 t he 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 ca pital costs for a retrofit of SCR at

25 See National Park Service Spreadsheet s “EGUs with Proposed BART NOx Co ntrols” and “EGUs with Proposed

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

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

. http://www.wrapair.org/forums/ssjf/bart.htmlPage 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 highes t 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/kW 27 was certified in July 2008 for

constructio n 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 c ost estimate , as the studies referenced above include complex and space constrained installations

.

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

obvious one s 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, a nd estimates for equipment, etc. have decr ease d, as reflected in decreases in the Chemical Engineering Plant Cost Index (CE PCI). Third, millions of dollars in Allowance for Funds During Construction (AFUDC) are i nappropriately included. Fourth

, although some contingency costs should be included, the estimated con tingency cost s were higher than expected as a percentage of the total cost.

These are only a few observatio ns; we were unable to perform an exhaustive review of th e cost
estima tes, 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 th ese for public review along wi th all underlying documentation (including vendor quotes).

2) SO2 Controls Are Incorrectly Dismissed

Scrubbers for GGS Units 1 and 2, either wet or dry, are incorrectl y di smissed 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 Wildl ife Service, water offsets may not be as challenging to obtain as

described b y NDEQ. As mentioned above, NDEQ ’ s analysis app ear s not to have considered dry

26 See discussion on p. 16

– 18 of Comments on EPA’s Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking regarding Best

Availa ble Retrofit Technology (BART) for the Navajo Generating Station and the Four Corners Power Plant [EPA

R09

- OAR

- 2009

- 0598] submitted by the Center for Biological Diversity et. al. October 28, 2009.

27 Wisconsin Electric Power Company's Application to Insta ll 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, Add endum 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 Pla nt 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 real i stic , updated costs and

benefit s 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 comme nt 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