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

EnclosureRESPONSE 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 43RESPONSE 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 43RESPONSE 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 basinsfrom 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 districtsRESPONSE 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 peryear 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 inan 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 yetRESPONSE 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 10been 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 1 st

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:

NoneRESPONSE 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 thatit 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 SO 2 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 43RESPONSE 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, assumethat 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 SO 2 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 SO 2 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 thisRESPONSE 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