NPPD Gerald Gentleman Station-34385r02.doc 

Response Summary-Page 1

RE: RESPONSE SUMMARY 

 Nebraska Public Power District 

 PO Box 499 

 Columbus, Nebraska 68602-0499 

 (Gerald Gentleman Station-NDEQ Facility #34385) 

To Whom It May Concern: 

The Nebraska Department of Environmental Quality (NDEQ) has considered all comments received in 

response to the May 28, 2009, proposal to issue the Prevention of Significant Deterioration for Unit 2 and 

Best Available Retrofit Technology Construction Permit to Nebraska Public Power District for Units 1 

and 2 at the Gerald Gentleman Station. The NDEQ has made a final decision to issue this Permit and this 

decision reflects our review of the comments as described below. This Permit is approved in accordance 

with regulations contained in Title 129 - Air Quality Regulations. 

The decision regarding issuance of this Construction Permit may be appealed under Neb. Rev. Stat. 81-

1509. This appeal shall be done in accordance with the Administrative Procedure Act, Neb. Rev. Stat. 

Section 84-901 to 84-920 and Title 115 - Rules of Practice and Procedure. 

In preparing this summary, the NDEQ reviewed comments made during the public comment period from 

May 28, 2009, to June 26, 2009, and listed significant comments in the attached Responsiveness 

Summary. The Responsiveness Summary consists of four sections: 

Comment #: The comment is summarized. 

Response and Rationale: NDEQ’s response to the comment raised and the rationale. 

Changes: Any changes to the Permit and/or Fact Sheet are addressed. 

Applicable Regulations/Statutes: 

This is a listing of regulations/statutes pertinent to the comment. 

The NDEQ appreciates the time and the conscientious efforts of all that have commented. If you have 

any questions, please contact Shelley Schneider, Air Quality Division Administrator, or me at (402) 471-

2186. 

Sincerely, 

{Original Signed} 5/11/10 

_____________________________________________ ____________________________ 

Jay D. Ringenberg Date 

Deputy Director for Programs 

Enclosure 
RESPONSE TO PUBLIC COMMENTS SUMMARY 

On the Issuance of a PSD Construction and Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART) Permit for 

(NPPD Gerald Gentleman Station-Facility #34385) 

NPPD Gerald Gentleman Station-34385r02.doc 

Response Summary-Page 2

Background Information:

Nebraska Public Power District (NPPD) submitted a Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) and 

Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART) Construction Permit application in August 2007 for Unit 1 

and 2 at their Gerald Gentleman Station (GGS). This permit application included a BART analysis of 

available control technologies and their impacts. A new, revised analysis was submitted in March 2008. 

This permit approves the installation of emission controls in accordance with Title 129 to comply with 

BART requirements and to permit the increase of other pollutants that may increase as a result of the 

installation of BART controls. The draft permit and materials were made available on the NDEQ 

website. Nearby states with Class I areas, federal land managers, and other interested parties were 

notified of the availability of the draft permit. 

 

The following individuals submitted written comments: 

• Paul Tourangeau, Director of the Air Pollution Control Division for the Colorado Department of 

Public Health and Environment (CDPHE) submitted comments on June 23, 2009. 

• John Bunyak Chief of the Policy, Planning and Permit Review Branch for the National Park 

Service in Denver, CO submitted comments in his capacity as a Federal Land Manager (FLM) on 

June 24, 2009. 

• Becky Weber, Division Director of the Air & Waste Management Division of the U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency Region VII (EPA R7) Office in Kansas City, KS submitted 

comments on June 26, 2009. 

No other comments were received. A summary of the comments as well as the NDEQ responses are 

provided in this document. Where appropriate, similar comments from different persons were 

consolidated and summarized. The responses to the comments serve to complete the public record on the 

decision to issue the permit. 

COMMENT #1: 

The Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (CDPHE) suggested that NDEQ closely 

evaluate the costs for dry flue gas desulfurization (FGD) to determine whether economies of scale were taken 

into account and whether EPA may have any recent information on the actual versus projected costs of 

retrofitting units like those at GGS with dry FGD. CDPHE still recognized that the costs identified in the 

public notice materials were considered to be sensible. 

RESPONSE AND RATIONALE: 

NDEQ has closely evaluated the cost estimates provided by NPPD and discussed the on-site 

modifications that would be necessary in order to physically accommodate the retrofits described. Much 

of the information used to develop the cost estimates was based upon vendor information. NPPD does not 

benefit from economies of scale that some companies across the country can, because NPPD has just the 

two units in western NE subject to BART evaluation. Wherever appropriate, costs and benefits for 

controlling both units were considered. NDEQ could not locate any actual cost information on retrofitting 

a system similar to GGS. 

CHANGES: 

None 

APPLICABLE REGULATIONS: 

Title 129 NAQR Chapter 17; Chapter 43 
RESPONSE TO PUBLIC COMMENTS SUMMARY 

On the Issuance of a PSD Construction and Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART) Permit for 

(NPPD Gerald Gentleman Station-Facility #34385) 

NPPD Gerald Gentleman Station-34385r02.doc 

Response Summary-Page 3

COMMENT #2: 

The CDPHE expressed concern over their ability to meet visibility improvement goals for Rocky 

Mountain National Park. They pointed NDEQ to a website where baseline, modeling projections and 

source apportionment information could be found. The CDPHE noted that the modeling conducted 

shows the Central Regional Air Partnership (CENRAP) states predicted to be contributing 7.2% of 

sulfates in 2018 on the 20% worst days. They conclude because of proximity to Colorado, that since 

Nebraska is one of nine CENRAP states, and that GGS is among the largest sources of sulfur dioxide 

(SO2) in the CENRAP region, it is reasonable to attribute some portion of the CENRAP contribution to 

GGS. Therefore, CDPHE requests that NDEQ reconsider SO2 controls at GGS under the Regional Haze 

rule. 

RESPONSE AND RATIONALE: 

NDEQ reviewed the website information provided by CDPHE. There, NDEQ found a “Causes of Haze 

Assessment” (COHA) that maybe found at http://www.coha.dri.edu/ as well as information on 

contribution for Rocky Mountain National Park, CO. The COHA included information regarding 

meteorological conditions. Below is an annualized wind rose for the Rocky Mountain National Park using 

the data collected from the station at the Class I area. As NDEQ expected, the patterns indicate the wind 

rarely comes from the east or northeast, directions that would have indicated a potential for impacts from 

sources in the state of Nebraska. 

The contribution assessment did not distinguish Nebraska from the other eight CENRAP states. 

CENRAP includes Minnesota, Iowa, Kansas, Missouri, Oklahoma, Arkansas, Louisiana, and Texas. 

Overall, CENRAP’s contribution was significantly smaller than that of Colorado as shown in the graphs 

below. Taking into consideration the wind patterns it is most likely that contributions from the CENRAP 

region are not from Nebraska, but are from sources in states located southeast of Rocky Mountain 

National Park. 
RESPONSE TO PUBLIC COMMENTS SUMMARY 

On the Issuance of a PSD Construction and Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART) Permit for 

(NPPD Gerald Gentleman Station-Facility #34385) 

NPPD Gerald Gentleman Station-34385r02.doc 

Response Summary-Page 4

Because other Class I areas could be impacted by emissions from Nebraska, NDEQ reviewed the COHA 

for other nearby Class I areas, specifically the Badlands Wilderness Area. The wind patterns (wind roses) 

for the Badlands indicate a high frequency of flow from the north-northwest year round, with an 

additional high frequency component of southeasterly flow during the warm months (June – August). 

August 2002 Wind Rose for Rapid City (station #24090- Rapid City, SD Regional Airport) 
RESPONSE TO PUBLIC COMMENTS SUMMARY 

On the Issuance of a PSD Construction and Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART) Permit for 

(NPPD Gerald Gentleman Station-Facility #34385) 

NPPD Gerald Gentleman Station-34385r02.doc 

Response Summary-Page 5

The contribution analysis for the Badlands Wilderness Area did indicate a relatively high contribution 

from CENRAP. Given the wind pattern, location of GGS, it is possible that a portion of this contribution 

is attributable to GGS. However, the information did not distinguish Nebraska and its sources from the 

other CENRAP states. NDEQ provided a draft of the BART permit to the State of South Dakota 

Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) to seek their input and feedback on the 

proposed BART package. Although in section 10.2 of the South Dakota Regional Haze State 

Implementation Plan, the South Dakota DENR states “...emissions from Nebraska are reasonably 

anticipated to contribute to visibility impairment in South Dakota’s two Class I areas. South Dakota and 

Nebraska consulted each other outside of WRAP as Nebraska developed BART requirements for sources 

in Nebraska that are impacting our Class I areas,” however, no comments were received from the State of 

South Dakota. 

CHANGES: 

None 

APPLICABLE REGULATIONS: 

Title 129 NAQR Chapter 17; Chapter 43 
RESPONSE TO PUBLIC COMMENTS SUMMARY 

On the Issuance of a PSD Construction and Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART) Permit for 

(NPPD Gerald Gentleman Station-Facility #34385) 

NPPD Gerald Gentleman Station-34385r02.doc 

Response Summary-Page 6

COMMENT #3: 

Like many parts of Nebraska, parts of Colorado are experiencing shortages of water. The CDPHE stated 

despite this obstacle, they have required dry or wet FGD on all electric generation units (EGUs) greater 

than 250 MW in capacity. The majority of the units have installed dry FGDs, commonly referred to as 

lime spray dryers. The CDPHE claimed that dry FGD units have lower water demands, better waste 

stream characteristics and similar control efficiencies to wet FGD systems. 

EPA Region 7 also expressed concerns regarding the discussion on water shortages. EPA believes the 

crop revenue and property tax losses may be overstated. They further question whether the cost of lost 

crops plays any role in the BART analysis. EPA states that unless water is unobtainable as a result of a 

moratorium, water is not a significant factor in the BART analysis. 

EPA also believes the portion of the water discussion related to endangered species evaluation is 

inconclusive. EPA suggests that the reduction of SO2 and mercury could have a positive effect on 

endangered species. EPA suggests that US Fish & Wildlife and other Federal agencies with oversight 

responsibility for endangered species be consulted. 

RESPONSE AND RATIONALE: 

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 a 

BART eligible source. The emission limitation must be established, on a case-by-case 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 be 

reasonably be anticipated to result from the use of such technology. 

Appendix Y to Part 51 – Guidelines for BART Determinations under the Regional Haze Rule provides 

guidance on evaluation of the “costs of compliance” and “non-air quality environmental impacts.” One of 

the factors is taking into consideration the extent of the short term environmental gains at the expense of 

long term environmental losses and the extent to which there may be an irreversible or irretrievable 

commitment of resources. The water demands of scrubber systems (wet or dry) relate to a commitment of 

scarce water resources, costs of compliance, and non-air quality environmental impacts. NDEQ 

conducted further analysis into the available water resources in Nebraska and discussed the impact with 

the agencies and persons responsible for the management of water quantity in the state. The results of 

that analysis are summarized in the paragraphs below. 

NDEQ searched for information on the water demands of dry FGDs to determine whether the estimates 

provided by NPPD were reasonable. Actual water usage information for comparable operating existing 

facilities that had been retrofitted was difficult to locate, but information on proposed units was found, 

and is summarized in the table below: 
RESPONSE TO PUBLIC COMMENTS SUMMARY 

On the Issuance of a PSD Construction and Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART) Permit for 

(NPPD Gerald Gentleman Station-Facility #34385) 

NPPD Gerald Gentleman Station-34385r02.doc 

Response Summary-Page 7

Facility Name State MW GPM/MW 

(dry) 

GPM/MW 

(wet) 

Round Up Montana 780 0.743 1.03

Dave Johnston (existing) Wyoming 360 0.689 0.917

Noborne Missouri 680 0.912 1.22

Dry Fork Montana 590 0.578 0.723

Dry Fork Texas 920 0.707 0.891

Paradise (existing) Kentucky 1150 1.47 1.92

NPPD Nebraska 1365 1.47 1.76

Average 0.938 1.21

NPPD projected water usage at 1.47 GPM/MW of generation for dry FGD and 1.76 GPM/MW for wet 

FGD. While, it would appear that the water usage estimates submitted by NPPD are higher than the 

average, NPPD stated during a meeting that their estimates were for total water consumption for the 

project, not just for the scrubbers. Information relating to water quality, additives, pH, and other 

parameters, was not available to the NDEQ for analysis. Quality of water available to a source could 

have an impact on the efficiency of the device, how it is designed and ultimately how much water must be 

used to achieve the desired level of control. The water values provided by NPPD are within the range of 

other facilities currently in operation, particularly the one of a similar size in Kentucky as noted in the 

table above. Based on the information available, NDEQ concluded that NPPD’s water consumption 

estimates for wet and dry scrubbers were not unreasonable. To be conservative, NDEQ used both the 

average and NPPD’s values for analyzing NPPD’s water demands against water availability in Nebraska. 

Potential Scrubber water requirements for NPPD - GGS 

 GPM/MW 

(dry) 

GPM/MW 

(wet) 

MW GPM 

(dry) 

GPM 

(wet) 

Acre-Feet per 

Year (dry) 

Acre-Feet per 

Year (wet) 

NPPD 1.47 1.76 1365 2007 2402 3238 3877 

Average 0.938 1.21 1365 1280 1652 2065 2666 

1 million gallons = 3.07 acre-feet 

525,600 minutes per year 

Given that relatively large amounts of water needed for either a wet or dry scrubbing system, NDEQ 

consulted with the Nebraska Department of Natural Resources (NDNR) about the availability of water for 

future uses in the Sutherland, Nebraska area and to determine the feasibility of requiring a control 

technology based on what may be an unreliable water supply. If a reliable water supply cannot be 

ensured, scrubbing may not be a practical technology for GGS. 

GGS is located in an over-appropriated river basin

GGS is located in a semi-arid region of Nebraska in a portion of the Twin Platte NRD that has been 

designated by the Department of Natural Resources Director as over-appropriated. Nearby river basins 

from which water might be transferred have also been designated as either over-appropriated or fullyappropriated. The significance of these river basin designations is explained below. 

In 2004, the Nebraska Legislature enacted a law that mandated the NDNR make a determination of which 

river basins, sub-basins or reaches are considered to be fully-appropriated or over-appropriated . The 

decision that a basin was fully-appropriated or over-appropriated would trigger a moratorium on new 

surface water and ground water uses and initiates a process with the affected natural resources districts 
RESPONSE TO PUBLIC COMMENTS SUMMARY 

On the Issuance of a PSD Construction and Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART) Permit for 

(NPPD Gerald Gentleman Station-Facility #34385) 

NPPD Gerald Gentleman Station-34385r02.doc 

Response Summary-Page 8

(NRDs) to develop an integrated management plan (IMP) to govern the apportionment of water resources 

in these basins. On September 15, 2004, the Director of NDNR issued an order designating portions of 

the North Platte NRD, South Platte NRD, Twin Platte NRD, Central Platte NRD and Tri-Basin NRD as 

over-appropriated. The GGS facility is located in the Twin Platte NRD within the area designated as 

over-appropriated. Most of these areas had already been determined to be fully-appropriated for surface 

water under the Nebraska system of prior appropriation of surface water rights and not available for new 

surface water appropriations. The new law mandated moratoriums on new water uses to remain in effect 

unless removed as a result of implementation of an approved integrated management plan. 

A basin is considered fully-appropriated if the current uses of hydrologically connected surface water and 

groundwater in a basin cause, or will cause in the reasonably foreseeable future, (a) the surface water to 

be insufficient to sustain over the long term the beneficial purposes for which the existing surface water 

appropriations were granted, (b) the stream flow to be insufficient to sustain over the long term the 

beneficial uses from wells constructed in aquifers dependent on recharge from the basin’s river or stream, 

or (c) reduction in stream flow sufficient to cause Nebraska to be in noncompliance with an interstate 

compact or decree, formal state contract, or state or federal laws. Therefore, in fully-appropriated and 

over-appropriated basins, a plan for future water use must be put in place. The statutory definition of an 

over-appropriated basin is very precise and related to conditions at a single point in time, July 16, 2004. 

Areas that were designated as over-appropriated were required to develop a plan to reduce water use to 

the 1997 level of use within the next 10 years. In over-appropriated areas, the water demand already 

exceeds the current availability of water and the law requires steps be taken to mitigate the situation. 

The NDNR and the local NRDs involved are required to jointly develop and implement an integrated 

management plan within three to five years of a fully or over-appropriated designation. An Integrated 

Management Plan (IMP) for the Twin Platte NRD has been approved and took effect September 15, 2009. 

The purpose of the IMP is to manage all hydrologically connected groundwater and surface water for the 

purpose of sustaining a balance between demand and availability so that the economic viability, social 

and environmental health, safety, and welfare of the basin can be achieved and maintained for both the 

near and long-term. 

The IMP contains specific depletion rates that must be offset in the area in order to begin to return the 

basin to a fully-appropriated status. The current information indicates that 7,700 acre-feet on average per 

year must be offset. The plan contains both non-regulatory and regulatory actions. Some of the nonregulatory programs include incentive programs and education programs. Regulatory actions are those 

measures the NDNR and the Twin Platte NRD would put into place should the non-regulatory programs 

and retirement of irrigated acres not meet the specific annual reduction in depletion targets. Such actions 

could include: requiring alternative crop mixes for certified irrigated land, reducing a set percentage of 

irrigated farmland and allocating water to irrigators uniformly and likely in declining quantities. 

While the total reduction in consumptive use that will be required to reach a fully-appropriated status is 

not currently known, initial estimates indicate it may be several hundred thousand acre-feet per year. 

When a basin is determined to be fully-appropriated or over-appropriated, moratoriums on new or 

expanded consumptive uses of groundwater and surface water are automatically imposed. A moratorium 

on new water use exists in the basins surrounding GGS. The basin in which GGS is located remains in 

an over-appropriated status and the prospects for any less restrictive designation, even to fullyappropriated status, are extremely unlikely in the foreseeable future. Since there is no “new” water 

available, GGS would have to find and retire existing water uses to meet scrubber needs and accomplish 

this at a time when the NDNR and local NRDs must seek to reduce water uses overall. 
RESPONSE TO PUBLIC COMMENTS SUMMARY 

On the Issuance of a PSD Construction and Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART) Permit for 

(NPPD Gerald Gentleman Station-Facility #34385) 

NPPD Gerald Gentleman Station-34385r02.doc 

Response Summary-Page 9

The following moratoriums and restrictions on new water uses exist in Nebraska: 

Platte River Recovery and Implementation Program

As is evident with the over-appropriated status designation, the demand for beneficial uses of water in the 

area where GGS is located is considerable. In 1997, the Governors of Nebraska, Colorado, and 

Wyoming, and the U.S. Secretary of the Interior signed a cooperative agreement outlining a proposed 

basin-wide recovery implementation program for endangered species in the Central and Lower Platte 

river basins. In 2007, the Department of Interior, Colorado, Wyoming and Nebraska entered into an 

agreement called the Platte River Recovery and Implementation Program (PRRIP) to restore shortages to 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) target flows in the Platte River, thereby protecting endangered 

and/or threatened species whose habitat is the Platte River. The species identified for protection include 

the threatened piping plover and the endangered pallid sturgeon, least tern, and whooping crane. 

Substantial offsets to current water use are required in order to meet the PRRIP needs as well as the 

required IMP reductions. While the total potential water needs for both the PRRIP and IMP may not 

necessarily be mutually exclusive, they are substantial over the near and long term. 

 

PRRIP is also set up to restore the shortages to USFWS target flows in an incremental fashion. During 

the first increment, the goal is to restore between 130,000 and 150,000 acre-feet per year. Of this, 80,000 

acre-feet per year has already been obtained through project commitments from the three states, for a 

remaining requirement of 50,000 to 70,000 acre-feet per year. While additional increments have not yet 
RESPONSE TO PUBLIC COMMENTS SUMMARY 

On the Issuance of a PSD Construction and Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART) Permit for 

(NPPD Gerald Gentleman Station-Facility #34385) 

NPPD Gerald Gentleman Station-34385r02.doc 

Response Summary-Page 10

been agreed to by the PRRIP states, the ultimate requirements of PRRIP may be as much as 417,000 acrefeet per year. For more information about the PRRIP see http://platteriverprogram.org/default.aspx. 

The outstanding existing commitments and obligations will total up approximately 100,000 acre-feet per 

year and the ultimate requirements may be several times greater than that. The expected demands of 

scrubbing at the NPPD GGS facility is 2,000 to 3,900 acre-feet per year, or 2 to 4 percent of the initial 

increment required for the basin. The NDNR has informed the NDEQ that this additional demand 

represents a significant amount of the overall initial increment required for the basin, and that placing this 

additional demand on the basin jeopardizes Nebraska’s ability to meet commitments made to other states 

and the federal government, as well as the requirements of State Law relating to over-appropriated basins 

described above. 

 

Acquisition of Allocations and Offsets (Costs of Water)

In order for NPPD to obtain sufficient water for the scrubbers, they would need to acquire water from 

somewhere or someone else. There are two options for this: 1) transport the water from a location that 

has a suitable water supply, or 2) purchase existing water rights owned by someone else, retire the wells 

to ensure the offset is permanent. 

Costs of Transporting Water

In a study conducted by the State of Nebraska Water Management Board, the Report on Water Rights 

Transfer Study (1988), the writers found that since water rights were not traded routinely in a market 

situation, there was no demand curve for determining a cost schedule. Instead, economics rely on 

willingness or ability to pay and the least cost alternatives. For industries, water is relatively hard to 

transfer compared to other inputs, so typically a site is chosen where there is an adequate supply of water. 

Over the years, many transfers have been under consideration in Nebraska. Several factors go into the 

costs of transferring water: well construction, pipeline construction, pumping plants, land, energy, 

operation and maintenance. Pipeline costs are the most significant fixed cost. Energy is the largest part 

of operations. 

In a study conducted by the High Plains Study Council, “A Summary of Results of the Ogallala Aquifer 

Regional Study, With Recommendations to the Secretary of Commerce and Congress” (1982), an 

evaluation of transferring water within the High Plains area was conducted. Four routes were evaluated, 

including one that started at Fort Randall, South Dakota, moved southwesterly across Nebraska (nearing 

the Sutherland, Nebraska area) to storage near Bonny Reservoir in Eastern Colorado. In 1977 dollars the 

average costs for this project were: 

Water 

Studied for 

Transfer 

Route 

Length 

Elevation 

Change 

# 

Pumping 

Stations 

Total Energy 

Requirements 

(Million 

KWHr/yr) 

Total 

Construction 

Costs (1977 $) 

Average 

Annual 

Cost 

($/acre-ft) 

1.91 – 3.4 

million 

acre-ft 

813 

miles 

0 ft 18 6,600 – 14,300 5.4 – 8.9 

billion 

291 

Colorado is planning to build a pipeline to comply with the Republican River Basin Compact. The costs 

associated with that are: $5,263 an acre for the water rights ($50 million); $1,400 per acre-foot to build 

pipeline ($21 million). 
RESPONSE TO PUBLIC COMMENTS SUMMARY 

On the Issuance of a PSD Construction and Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART) Permit for 

(NPPD Gerald Gentleman Station-Facility #34385) 

NPPD Gerald Gentleman Station-34385r02.doc 

Response Summary-Page 11

Costs of Obtaining Water Rights and Retiring Wells

According to the 1988 Water Management Board report, the cost of obtaining water will be different for 

every situation. It would be most likely that NPPD would need to seek out water rights from irrigators 

and retire irrigation wells. For agricultural uses of water, the decision to sell a water right would be made 

only when/if the irrigator felt it would be advantageous to sell than continue to operate. If the irrigator 

were willing to forego the use of this resource, the price for that water right must sufficiently compensate 

for decreased net returns over a period of years. The irrigator relies on that well for livelihood in times 

when sufficient rain is unavailable. The long-term value of irrigation water to a farmer is based on the 

expected return over a number of years discounted into present values, i.e. the opportunity cost. If one 

thought that it would be to their advantage, the irrigator may be willing to trade water for potential farm 

income and related risks for less water, a smaller yield or operation, and secure dollars in the bank. 

In 2008, 30 square miles of a Lincoln County irrigated farm near North Platte sold for about $3,000 per 

acre. In 2009, Lincoln County irrigated farmland sold for about $3,200 - $3,500 per acre. NPPD 

assumed that approximately 3,000 acres of land would be needed to be purchased. Costs for obtaining 

water rights could be between $9,600,000 and $10,500,000 or more, depending upon the willingness of 

potential sellers. 

Any offsets would be subject to approval from the local NRD through issuance of a variance. 

In conclusion, as indicated in the discussion above, the water resources in the river basin in which GGS is 

located and in surrounding river basins are scarce. A moratorium has been placed on new consumptive 

uses. Offsets of existing uses are difficult to find and economically prohibitive given the distances and 

infrastructure needed to transport water from a reliable supply location. The unusual circumstances 

related to the scarce water resources in this region of the state and the State of Nebraska’s commitments 

to other states and the federal government under the PRRIP when compared to the very limited visibility 

improvement that might result from the additional control justifies not requiring GGS to install scrubbing 

technology at this time. 

 

Agricultural Taxes and Crop Income

Agriculture is the main economy of Nebraska. Whenever cropland is taken out of service, it is appropriate 

to evaluate that impact to the state. Lincoln County was ranked in the top five counties for agriculture 

sales in 2007. Nebraska’s leading commodities accounting for 98% of the state’s total cash receipts are: 

cattle, corn, soybeans, hogs, wheat, chicken eggs, dairy products, hay, dry beans, and sorghum. Nebraska 

has been 1st in red meat production, cattle slaughter, great northern beans production, irrigated land and 

popcorn production. When cropland is permanently taken out of service, wealth is being removed from 

the state. The effect of this is direct on the farmer, the employees, and their families, but there is also an 

indirect effect that trickles out from reductions in crop income. Reduced crops in an agricultural state 

result in fewer grains for livestock and for export out of the state. This reduction impacts more people 

and their jobs, including grain elevators and slaughter houses. According to the USDA, for every $1 in 

agricultural exports another $1.40 is generated in transportation, financing, warehousing and production. 

It follows that for every $1 reduced in agricultural exports, another $1.40 is reduced in those areas as 

well. When the foundational industries to our economic structure begin to weaken, the service sectors 

start to suffer as well. 

CHANGES: 

None 
RESPONSE TO PUBLIC COMMENTS SUMMARY 

On the Issuance of a PSD Construction and Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART) Permit for 

(NPPD Gerald Gentleman Station-Facility #34385) 

NPPD Gerald Gentleman Station-34385r02.doc 

Response Summary-Page 12

APPLICABLE REGULATIONS: 

Title 129 NAQR Chapter 17; Chapter 43 

COMMENT #4:

The FLM resubmitted comments previously provided on August 29, 2008. The letter, at the time, dealt 

with both OPPD and NPPD facilities, however, only the comments regarding the NPPD action are 

germane to this action and are summarized below. 

The FLM states that the draft permit requires the presumptive NOx limit for Unit 1 and slightly above 

presumptive for Unit 2. In the attachment to the August 29, 2008 letter, the FLM outlines several other 

concerns regarding the BART analysis for NOx. The FLM contends that selective non-catalytic reduction 

(SNCR) was eliminated from consideration without sufficient technical justification. They question 

whether, based upon the NOx emissions from the two boilers at GGS, make the boilers similar enough to 

be evaluated in combination instead of individually. They also question the logic of whether temperature 

is a factor for the boilers, making SNCR technically infeasible. 

The FLM believes that the ability of SCR systems to control NOx has been underestimated in the BART 

analysis. To support their presumption, the FLM provided information from EGUs with SCR systems 

that are used during the ozone season. 

Lastly, the FLM believes that NPPD has overestimated the costs associated with SCRs. They conclude 

and recommend that the SCR analysis be redone and that the modeled effects should be conducted at all 

Class I areas at a level no greater than 0.07 lb/MMBtu. 1 

RESPONSE AND RATIONALE: 

The draft permit package that was public noticed did not contain limits above the presumptive levels as 

indicated in the comment. The presumptive level is 0.23 lb/MMBtu. The limits in Condition 

XIV.(A)(1)(a) states: “Emissions from both units shall be averaged together and shall meet a NOx 

emissions limitation of 0.23 lb/MMBtu (30-day rolling average).” 

The temperature issue was discussed with NPPD. The two units are different and could not be evaluated 

in combination. 

SCR controls were evaluated down to a level of 0.08 lb/MMBtu, a level deemed appropriate by NDEQ 

and supported by the record. This analysis was contained the application materials and in the proposed 

permit package that was public noticed on May 28, 2009. 

CHANGES: 

None 

APPLICABLE REGULATIONS: 

Title 129 NAQR Chapter 17; Chapter 43 

COMMENT #5:

The FLM made several comments concerning the SO2 BART analysis. First, they believe that SO2 

controls can do better than the presumptive level established in the rule. The FLM stated that SO2 

 

Please refer to NDEQ’s response and rationale to comments #6 and #8. 
RESPONSE TO PUBLIC COMMENTS SUMMARY 

On the Issuance of a PSD Construction and Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART) Permit for 

(NPPD Gerald Gentleman Station-Facility #34385) 

NPPD Gerald Gentleman Station-34385r02.doc 

Response Summary-Page 13

controls could be added and would act as if they were at a newly constructed facility. The FLM 

supported their claim that SO2 controls could achieve better than the 0.15 lb/MMBtu level by providing a 

table summarizing systems that are either achieving or proposed to achieve levels between 0.04 and – 

0.09 lb/MMBtu. They propose that GGS should be able to achieve 0.04 lb/MMBtu (wet) or 0.06 

lb/MMBtu (semi-dry) on a 30-day rolling average. 

The FLM expressed concern that the cost figures were overestimated compared to other similar retrofits. 

They also expressed a lack of sufficient detail in the operating costs figures developed by NPPD to 

understand the annualized costs and the cost-per-ton figures.2 

EPA also made comments about Flue Gas Desulfurization (FGD) control technology being able to 

operate at emission levels lower than the presumptive levels (0.15 lb of SO2/MMBtu) in the Regional 

Haze Rule. EPA suggested levels as low as 0.02 lb of SO2/MMBtu could be achieved. They suggest that 

it is important to consider the maximum efficiency a technology could achieve in order to avoid overinflating cost effectiveness figures. EPA did concur with the NDEQ that, at the presumptive level, $2,700 

per ton of SO2 removed is a reasonable cost. 

RESPONSE AND RATIONALE: 

It is difficult to ascertain the maximum efficiency the technology could achieve at the source until it is 

installed and optimized. However, the point is to have the State consider other possible efficiencies the 

technology could achieve when determining whether something is cost effective. NDEQ did consider a 

lower lb/MMBtu than the presumptive level. 

NDEQ did a data pull of EPA’s database to determine how existing FGD systems performed at existing 

subbituminous coal fired EGUs. While units were found that performed below 0.1 lb/MMBtu, NDEQ did 

not find where levels as low as 0.02 lb/MMBtu, and several did not meet the 0.15 lb/MMBtu presumptive 

level. This is a summary of the results: 

State Plant Name MMBtu/Yr SO2 Tons/Yr lb/MMbtu Controls 

MN Sherburne 54,081,049 7,863.09 0.290 DL FGD 

WY Wyodak 32,852,075 7,732.07 0.470 DL FGD 

AZ Springerville 32,800,868 5,331.17 0.325 DL FGD 

AZ Springerville 27,474,762 4,548.64 0.331 DL FGD 

OK GRDA 41,980,796 4,113.71 0.196 DL FGD 

MO Hawthorn 41,523,208 2,140.86 0.103 DL FGD 

CO Craig 31,899,039 2,010.18 0.126 DL FGD 

KS Holcomb 27,332,412 1,772.24 0.130 DL FGD 

CO Rawhide 22,783,530 875.5 0.077 DL FGD 

WY Wygen 1 10,142,973 538.38 0.106 DL FGD 

WY Neil Simpson II 8,119,461 498.4 0.123 DL FGD 

MI Shiras 3,500,784 225.9 0.129 DL FGD 

ND Stanton 5,344,399 139.15 0.052 DL FGD 

NE NPPD GGS 110,115,509 28,171.44 0.512 

 

2 Please refer to NDEQ’s response and rationale to comment #8. 
RESPONSE TO PUBLIC COMMENTS SUMMARY 

On the Issuance of a PSD Construction and Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART) Permit for 

(NPPD Gerald Gentleman Station-Facility #34385) 

NPPD Gerald Gentleman Station-34385r02.doc 

Response Summary-Page 14

Note: The lbs/MMBTU was figured by dividing the annual SO2 tons values by the annual MMBTU values. NDEQ recognizes 

that short term periods (30 day) may show lower or high values. 

CHANGES: 

None 

APPLICABLE REGULATIONS: 

Title 129 NAQR Chapter 17; Chapter 43 

COMMENT #6:

The FLM believes that it is appropriate to consider cumulative, not average effects of improving visibility 

across all of the Class I areas affected. They believe that if emissions from GGS are reduced, the benefits 

will be wide-spread, well beyond one Class I area. The FLM referenced work that the Oregon 

Department of Environmental Quality conducted on the Boardman power plant where the cumulative 

impact across 14 Class I areas was 29.7 dV with a total of 2,367 impaired visibility days across the 14 

Class I areas. It is the FLM opinion that the other Class I areas where GGS caused or contributed to 

visibility impairment were ignored. 

RESPONSE AND RATIONALE: 

Other areas where NPPD GGS affected visibility were not ignored. NDEQ summarized the greatest 

impacts because that is where the most benefit from control would be seen. The law of diminishing 

returns is experienced when one looks at all the potential Class I areas. NPPD GGS is located 

approximately 300 km from it’s nearest Class I area (Badlands). Models that are used as tools to help 

make decisions on control strategies and determine the perceived benefits become less reliable when the 

receptor (Class I area) is more than 200 km away from the BART source. 

Appendix Y to Part 51 – Guidelines for BART Determinations under the Regional Haze Rule provides 

under STEP 5: Determining Visibility Impacts: “If the highest modeled effects are observed at the nearest 

Class I area, you may choose not to analyze the other Class I areas any further...” Given the guidance in 

Appendix Y and the uncertainties of the model beyond 200km, the analysis conducted is appropriate. 

However, there is another Class I area close to Badlands Wilderness Area, Wind Cave National Park. 

The next highest impacts were seen there. 

The total baseline impact from NPPD GGS is shown in Table 2 of the Fact Sheet. The number of days 

above 0.5 dV for the 7 Class I areas analyzed ranged from 10 – 60 days. The area with the greatest 

impact was Badlands in all 3 years analyzed. There were 54 days above 0.5 dV in 2001, 55 in 2002 and 

60 in 2003. Since Wind Cave is close to the Badlands, we will assume that improvements seen at the 

Badlands will be seen at Wind Cave as well. 

The following table shows what the cumulative improvements in visibility from SO2 and NOx controls 

would be, roughly, assuming that SO2 controls could be implemented, and the corresponding cost 

effectiveness: 
RESPONSE TO PUBLIC COMMENTS SUMMARY 

On the Issuance of a PSD Construction and Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART) Permit for 

(NPPD Gerald Gentleman Station-Facility #34385) 

NPPD Gerald Gentleman Station-34385r02.doc 

Response Summary-Page 15

Badlands – 

2001 

Badlands – 

2002 

Badlands - 

2003 

Average 

Baseline – dV 2.845 2.828 3.121 2.931 

LNB/OFA- ∆dV 0.621 0.666 0.702 0.663 

Cost/ ∆dV $4,766,506 $4,444,444 $4,216,524 $4,464,555 

Cost/ ∆dV/days 

improvement 

$953,301 $1,481,481 $702,754 $1,045,845 

LNB/OFA + SCR -

∆dV 

0.492 0.434 0.540 0.489 

Cost/ ∆dV $110,347,561 $125,094,470 $100,538,889 $111,993,640 

Cost/ ∆dV/days 

improvement 

$10,858,200 $4,935,545 $9,048,500 $8,280,748 

FGD (0.1 

lb/MMbtu) - ∆dV 

1.055 0.802 0.678 0.845 

Cost/ ∆dV $102,796,208 $135,224,439 $160,428,994 $132,816,547 

Cost/ ∆dV/days 

improvement 

$5,164,286 $4,929,545 $4,518,750 $4,870,860 

LNB + FGD- ∆dV 1.676 1.468 1.380 1.508 

Cost/ ∆dV $107,562,714 $139,668,883 $164,645,518 $137,281,102 

Cost/ ∆dV/days 

improvement 

$6,117,587 $6,411,026 $5,221,504 $4,870,860 

Costs do not include costs of obtaining water 

Even assuming that Wind Cave would have the same level of benefit, the incremental cost effectiveness 

would be half of what is shown above: LNB + FGD = $137,281,102/ ∆dV / 2 = $68,640,551/ ∆dV. This 

is still significantly higher than the incremental cost effectiveness value under consideration in Wyoming 

at the Wyodak facility ($16.3 million/dV). In Wyoming, an additional metric was used to put the 

visibility improvement into perspective. The incremental reduction in days above 0.5 dV in each Class I 

area was evaluated. Using that metric for NPPD, assuming Wind Cave has the same level of benefit as 

Badlands, and using an average of days over 0.5 dV during 2001 – 2003 annually: 

NOx BART Controls Alone: $522,922/day 

Incremental Cost of adding SO2 Controls with NOx Controls: $2,435,430/day 

Cumulative Cost of NOx and SO2 Controls: $2,958,352/day 

The rule does not provide a level to which individual sources must reduce their visibility impact, leaving 

it up to the state’s judgment. All things considered, the moratorium on new consumptive uses of water, 

wind patterns, costs of compliance, visibility improvement that is expected from the additional NOx 

controls versus NOx and SO2 controls, the irreversible or irretrievable commitment of water resources 

requiring scrubbers would cause on an already water-stressed area and the excessive costs for the amount 

of visibility improvement due to additional SO2 controls even if water were available, NDEQ has 

concluded it is most appropriate to implement only additional NOx controls as BART for NPPD GGS. 

CHANGES: 

None 

APPLICABLE REGULATIONS: 

Title 129 NAQR Chapter 17; Chapter 43 
RESPONSE TO PUBLIC COMMENTS SUMMARY 

On the Issuance of a PSD Construction and Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART) Permit for 

(NPPD Gerald Gentleman Station-Facility #34385) 

NPPD Gerald Gentleman Station-34385r02.doc 

Response Summary-Page 16

COMMENT #7:

EPA raised concerns regarding whether Nebraska was fulfilling its obligations under the Regional Haze 

Rule. EPA noted that 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3) requires all states to submit a long-term strategy for 

addressing visibility impairment for each Class I area located outside the state that may be affected by 

emissions from within the state. EPA also referenced the regional planning process that NDEQ 

participated in which was facilitated by the Central Regional Air Planning Association (CENRAP). EPA 

held that work done by the CENRAP formed the basis for regional haze SIPs submitted by states such as 

Missouri, Oklahoma and Louisiana. EPA believes that the modeling was based on emissions reduction 

information for installations that were ‘on the books’ and ‘on the way’ and that presumptive BART was 

an ‘on the way’ assumption for GGS in the modeling analysis. EPA notes that under 40 CFR 

51.308(d)(3)(ii), the State must ensure that it has included all measures needed to achieve its 

apportionment of emissions reduction obligations agreed upon through the regional planning process. 

Furthermore, EPA believes Missouri, Oklahoma, and Colorado relied upon IPM modeling conducted by 

EPA, which included presumptive levels for BART on GGS.

RESPONSE AND RATIONALE: 

The regional haze process has been a difficult one. It is problematic to set a presumptive level, assume 

that all facilities will be able to comply with it regardless of the situation, but also allow for a case-bycase analysis in the rule. 

Areas of influence and apportionment of Nebraska’s SO2 emissions were evaluated in the August 31, 

2005, Causes of Haze Study conducted by Sonoma Technology, Inc. This study may be found on 

CENRAP’s website (www.cenrap.org). Sonoma concluded that because the emission impact potentials 

(EIPs) of potentially BART-eligible sources are relatively small, the enforcement of BART requirements 

will produce limited improvement in visibility conditions and require the need for additional emission 

reduction strategies. Emission impact potentials relate the probability of transport of SO2 and NOx 

pollution from an area such as a state to a Class I area and the scale of emissions in that given area (State). 

In Figures 4-8 and 4-9 of the study, Nebraska BART sources have an insignificant EIP, specifically for 

the Hercules Glades Class I area. 

In a paper written by Sonoma Technology and Brett Anderson (EPA) (see Appendix D of the paper), the 

composition of particles were studied in an effort to better understand how to improve the visibility for 

the Hercules Glades Class I area. The results showed that sulfate accounted for 65% of the mass at 

Hercules Glades and most of the sulfate was in the form of ammonium sulfate. The paper reported that it 

“was highest on days with transport from the Ohio River area, where many coal-fired power plants are 

located and which has been identified as a significant area for the origin of sulfate transport.” Nebraska 

does not lie within the Ohio River Area. Sonoma and Anderson went on to say that the EIP analysis 

corroborated this, showing that more than half of the SO2 came from that particular area, and that when 

looking at the county-level, it was clear that a handful of sources in a few counties were responsible for 

most of the SO2 emissions impacting Hercules Glades. However, the study revealed that ammonium 

nitrate showed strong seasonal tendencies. It was highest during the winter, and was highest under 

conditions of slow moving cool air masses from northwest Missouri, Iowa, Nebraska, and Kansas. 

Nebraska participated in the CENRAP regional planning process. However, it is important to note that 

CENRAP recognizes the authority and jurisdiction of each state and tribal member. Nebraska also was 

invited to participate in a limited capacity in a consultation process with Missouri and Oklahoma, which 

is a part of the regional planning process. Please refer to the response to Comment #3 for information 

about Class I areas in Colorado and South Dakota. We did not receive any comments from any states. 
RESPONSE TO PUBLIC COMMENTS SUMMARY 

On the Issuance of a PSD Construction and Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART) Permit for 

(NPPD Gerald Gentleman Station-Facility #34385) 

NPPD Gerald Gentleman Station-34385r02.doc 

Response Summary-Page 17

We have concluded that by controlling NOx emissions, Nebraska is ensuring that it is including all 

measures needed to achieve its apportionment of emissions reduction obligations identified through the 

regional planning process. Additionally, we have concluded that controlling SO2 is not reasonable given, 

among the other reasons stated in this response, the unique circumstances regarding water availability in 

that area of the state. 

CHANGES: 

None 

APPLICABLE REGULATIONS: 

Title 129 NAQR Chapter 17; Chapter 43; 40 CFR 50.308 

COMMENT #8: 

EPA expressed concern that NDEQ is using solely dollars per deciview ($/dV) as a decision-making 

metric for BART. They list four concerns: 1) they believe that although the EPA BART guidelines allow 

for its use, there are significant difficulties in developing a meaningful method for calculating $/dV; 2) 

they believe it should only be used as a supplement to $/ton, in evaluating cost effectiveness; 3) they 

believe cost estimates must be reasonable, and recommends that cost estimates be based upon the OAQPS 

Cost Manual; and 4) they believe that even when used as a supplement to $/ton, the $/dV analysis would 

be meaningless if it does not take into account visibility impacts at multiple Class I areas or ignores the 

total improvement (frequency, magnitude, and duration of the modeled changes in visibility). 

RESPONSE AND RATIONALE: 

NDEQ would like to clearly state that it did not rely solely on one factor in making its SO2 BART 

determination for GGS, but rather, considered all factors. Furthermore, the EPA’s citation of the $/dV 

metric as only one factor is mistaken, since by definition, this calculated ratio includes both the cost and 

the benefit (degree of visibility improvement). The other three factors (the energy and non-air quality 

environmental impacts of compliance, any existing pollution control technology in use at the source, the 

remaining useful life of the source) were also considered in the five-factor analysis. Therefore, Nebraska 

has indeed considered all five factors and has not relied on a single factor in its SO2 BART determination. 

The Clean Air Act, Section 169A (g) (2) states: 

“in determining best available retrofit technology the State (or the Administrator in determining 

emission limitations which reflect such technology) shall take into consideration the costs of 

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

pollution control technology in use 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” 

EPA’s initial Regional Haze rules had directed states to set BART emissions limits based on only the first 

four factors listed in the above statutory language, after determining that a given source was “subject” to 

BART. Thus, EPA had initially left the visibility improvement factor out the BART determination step. 

In the case of American Corn Growers Assn v. EPA (291 F.3d 1; D.C. Cir., 2002), the court sided with 

the American Corn Growers Association, and ruled that all five factors, including the “degree of visibility 

improvement” needed to be considered in the BART determination. EPA subsequently revised the 

Regional Haze rules accordingly, on July 6, 2005. 
RESPONSE TO PUBLIC COMMENTS SUMMARY 

On the Issuance of a PSD Construction and Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART) Permit for 

(NPPD Gerald Gentleman Station-Facility #34385) 

NPPD Gerald Gentleman Station-34385r02.doc 

Response Summary-Page 18

The cost analysis for the GGS BART analysis was prepared by Sargent and Lundy, LLC (S&L)3 under 

contract with NPPD in 2008 (referred to as the “2008 S&L NPPD Study”). When S&L prepared the 2008 

cost analysis, the January 2002 OAQPS Control Cost Manual was generally followed. In addition, S&L 

also provided certain cost information supplied to S&L by vendors. NDEQ met with NPPD, S&L and 

EPA Region 7 and discussed the cost analysis, and supporting vendor information, used by S&L in the 

2008 S&L NPPD Study. 

Costs to retrofit are unique to the specific unit, its current design, and site layout, making retrofit costs 

exceed those of building a new unit. There may be significant mechanical, structural, and electrical 

changes and upgrades needed to accommodate a retrofit. S&L also evaluated FGD technology and costs 

on electric generating units as part of a study for the National Lime Association in March 2007. The 

study is titled “Flue Gas Desulfurization Technology Evaluation: Dry Lime vs. Wet Limestone FGD” 

(and is referred to as the “2007 S&L Industry Study”). In the 2007 S&L Industry Study, S&L evaluated 

36 cases, including retrofits. While the authors caution against using the information for planning the cost 

of an FGD project, NDEQ used this information for comparison purposes. Overall, the capital costs 

provided in the 2008 S&L NPPD Study for GGS were higher than those in the industry-generic 2007 

S&L Industry Study. There appear to be several reasonable explanations for why this is the case: 1) the 

2008 S&L NPPD Study provided costs for control of a 2 units (1365 MW) whereas the 2007 S&L 

Industry Study only provided retrofit information on 400MW and 500MW units; 2) the 2008 S&L NPPD 

Study added 10% for “turnkey services” for purposes of engineering, procurement, and construction 

management services; and 3) as stated in both S&L studies, FGD equipment, material and installation 

labor prices have been subject to significant inflation since 2006. Some recent contracts have been signed 

at prices over 300% higher than the market of 5 years ago. Therefore, the statements made by EPA that 

the costs of FGD have gone down are not supported by recent market trends. Also, while the 2008 S&L 

Study costs for GGS are higher than those contained in the industry-generic 2007 S&L Industry Study, 

the $/ton SO2 removed was about the same as in both studies. 

All of the above considered, the NDEQ determined that the costs presented by NPPD were reasonable. 

The Appendix Y BART Guidelines provide for in the “Costs of Compliance” provide for several cost 

effectiveness measures including incremental cost effectiveness in $/ton and other measures like $/dV. In 

the BART program, Appendix Y is putting the cost of the control into perspective by allowing for 

consideration of the goal of the program, which is visibility improvement. Sources with a significant 

baseline impact to a Class I area will likely have much lower cost per deciview of visibility improvement 

when controls are employed provided significant improvements are realized. Using a $/dV metric also 

indirectly takes into consideration the distance a source is from the Class I area. Assuming a source is 

upwind from a Class I area, similar size emission sources located different distances away from a given 

Class I area would be expected to have different impacts on that Class I area. 

CHANGES: 

None 

APPLICABLE REGULATIONS: 

Title 129 NAQR Chapter 17; Chapter 43 

 

3

 S&L are well recognized and experienced consulting and design engineering firm in the power industry. 
RESPONSE TO PUBLIC COMMENTS SUMMARY 

On the Issuance of a PSD Construction and Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART) Permit for 

(NPPD Gerald Gentleman Station-Facility #34385) 

NPPD Gerald Gentleman Station-34385r02.doc 

Response Summary-Page 19

COMMENT #9: 

EPA commented that GGS was not compared to other facilities within the same power pool, but instead 

facilities that were not similar to GGS. 

RESPONSE AND RATIONALE: 

Prior to public notice and again before issuance of the permit, NDEQ conducted a review of the 

BACT/LAER Clearinghouse for retrofit projects to compare to NPPD GGS, and to determine whether 

NPPD had adequately supplied all information about such projects in its submittal. Mid-Continent Area 

Power Pool (MAPP) includes the states of Nebraska, Iowa, North and South Dakota, Minnesota, and 

portions of Wisconsin and Montana. Information from the states of Minnesota and North Dakota were 

reflected in the Fact Sheet. Information was listed on the WRAP’s website in the MAPP; however, the 

facilities listed utilize lignite and not subbituminous coal similar to NPPD. 

EPA pointed to two facilities in Kansas. They said the visibility impacts from GGS were greater than 

Kansas City Power and Light (KCP&L) La Cygne and Westar Jeffery facilities. NDEQ does not agree 

with this statement. Looking at Table 9.2 of the Kansas draft SIP reveals these facilities have many more 

days of impact on many more Class I areas than NPPD GGS does. 

CHANGES: 

None 

APPLICABLE REGULATIONS: 

Title 129 NAQR Chapter 17; Chapter 19; Chapter 43 

COMMENT #10: 

EPA commented that while the use of a construction permit may provide for adequate enforceability of 

the BART emission limits, it is recognized that minor changes to permits often occur during construction 

and operation of the units. EPA stated that if changes were made to the construction permit which effects, 

in any manner, the permit requirements related to the BART emission limits, the source could not rely on 

such changes until NDEQ requested and EPA approved them into the SIP. They also state that this 
RESPONSE TO PUBLIC COMMENTS SUMMARY 

On the Issuance of a PSD Construction and Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART) Permit for 

(NPPD Gerald Gentleman Station-Facility #34385) 

NPPD Gerald Gentleman Station-34385r02.doc 

Response Summary-Page 20

restriction applies even if the primary purpose of the permit revision is not to change BART obligations. 

Since there is no discretion to change the limits without a corresponding SIP change, EPA suggests that 

NDEQ may wish to consider utilizing a rulemaking or state enforceable agreement, incorporated into and 

approved as part of the SIP, to ensure the BART emission limits are enforceable. 

RESPONSE AND RATIONALE: 

NDEQ appreciates the suggestion made by EPA; however, as EPA Region 7 is aware, the NDEQ has 

already adopted into Title 129 NAQR Chapter 43 the construction permit program as the mechanism for 

making the BART requirements enforceable. At the time this was done, R7 had an opportunity to 

participate in the rule-making. As with the current construction permit program, the provisions of Chapter 

43 will be submitted as a part of the State Implementation Plan. The current construction permit program 

(Chapter 17) is a part of the State Implementation Plan; therefore any permits that are issued in 

accordance with it should be enforceable. Nebraska will include in its SIP submittal, information about 

the BART permits issued. 

CHANGES: 

None 

APPLICABLE REGULATIONS: 

Title 129 NAQR Chapter 17; Chapter 19; Chapter 43 

COMMENT #11: 

EPA expressed concern about the differences in the timing between the BART rule provisions and the 

PSD permit requirements for purposes of commencing construction. EPA is concerned that NPPD may 

choose to delay construction and suggests that NDEQ require commencing construction within 18 months 

of the issuance of the PSD construction permit. 

RESPONSE AND RATIONALE: 

NDEQ understands EPA’s concern. There is the unique situation where the control technology 

determined to be BART requires a PSD permit due to the projected increase in carbon monoxide 

emissions. The BART provisions promulgated by EPA allow sources up to 5 years after SIP approval to 

make BART controls operational and in compliance. While NPPD assures NDEQ their intent is to 

commence construction as soon as practicable after the Nebraska Regional Haze SIP has been approved 

by the EPA, however, unforeseen circumstances could change those plans. The PSD rules (52.21(r)(3)) 

and Title 129 NAQR Chapter 17, Section 012, allow the NDEQ to grant extensions of the 18 months 

timeframe under certain circumstances. 

CHANGES: 

None 

APPLICABLE REGULATIONS: 

Title 129 Chapter 19; 40 CFR 51 

COMMENT #12: 

EPA noted that Condition XIV.(B)(1)(a)(i) on page 6 has sampling and recordkeeping conditions for Unit 

1 that need to be duplicated for Unit 2. 

 

RESPONSE AND RATIONALE: 

NDEQ agrees with the comment. 
RESPONSE TO PUBLIC COMMENTS SUMMARY 

On the Issuance of a PSD Construction and Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART) Permit for 

(NPPD Gerald Gentleman Station-Facility #34385) 

NPPD Gerald Gentleman Station-34385r02.doc 

Response Summary-Page 21

CHANGES: 

The language was revised to read: 

“The average CO emissions for each GGS unit, for each hour, shall be recorded by sampling the 

lb/MMBtu value by completing a minimum of one cycle of operation (sampling, analyzing, and data 

recording) for each successive 15-minute period Unit 1is for Unit 1 anytime it is combusting fuel and its 

monitor is in service and is not malfunctioning or being calibrated, and for Unit 2 anytime it is 

combusting fuel and its monitor is in service and is not malfunctioning or being calibrated. Data for 

startup and shutdown shall not be used to calculate the average CO emissions. All data shall be reduced 

as specified in 40 CFR 60.13(h).” 

APPLICABLE REGULATIONS: 

Title 129 Chapter 19; 40 CFR 51 

Questions regarding this summary may be directed to:

 Air Quality Division-Permitting Section 

 Nebraska Department of Environmental Quality 

 PO Box 98922 

 Lincoln, NE 68509-8922