Meeting Between U.S. EPA and Environmental Advocacy Organizations regarding Best Available 

Retrofit Technology (BART) Determinations 

July 18, 2012

Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. EPA

Research Triangle Park, North Carolina

At the request of the National Parks Conservation Association, Sierra Club, and Earthjustice, a meeting 

was held on July 18, 2012, with representatives of the U.S. EPA to discuss recent BART determinations. 

This meeting was held in response to a letter (attached), dated June 29, 2012, from the environmental 

groups to Janet McCabe, Deputy Assistant Director, Office of Air and Radiation, requesting a meeting.

In attendance at EPA’s Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards

Stephanie Kodish, National Parks Conservation Association

Martha Keating, EPA/OAQPS

Mike Koerber, EPA/OAQPS

Phil Lorang, EPA/OAQPS

By Teleconference

Gloria Smith, Sierra Club

Abigail Dillen, Earthjustice

Lea Anderson, EPA Office of General Counsel

EPA Region 2

Anthony Gardella

Bob Kelly

Richard Ruvo

Mary McHale

Paul Truchan

EPA Region 8

Scott Jackson

Vanessa Hinkle

Laurel Dygowski

EPA Region 9

Tom Webb

Colleen McKaughan

Ann Lyons

Eugene Chen

Steve Frey

Francisco Donez

EPA Region 10

Debra Suzuki

Todd Hawes
June 29, 2012

Janet McCabe

USEPA Headquarters 

Ariel Rios Building 

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, N. W. 

Mail Code: 6101A 

Washington, DC 20460

McCabe.janet@Epa.gov

Dear Ms. McCabe,

We are writing on behalf of National Parks Conservation Association and Sierra 

Club to express serious concern that the Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) is 

failing to meet its obligation under the Clean Air Act to curb regional haze by making 

consistently principled determinations of Best Available Retrofit Technology (“BART”). 

We recognize that EPA is currently making an extraordinary investment of time 

and resources to carry out the Regional Haze program, and the Agency has already 

proposed or finalized several well-considered and appropriate BART determinations —

notably for sources in Oklahoma, Arkansas, and for the San Juan Generating Station and 

Four Corners Power Plant in New Mexico. In a growing number of states, however, 

EPA is proposing to approve, or is itself proposing, BART limits that do not reflect the 

application of the “best system of continuous emission reduction” for each haze-causing 

pollutant at issue , even when those technologies have been found by the Agency to 

improve visibility and to be both feasible and cost-effective. Instead of designating best 

available controls as BART, EPA Regions are making a variety of inconsistent and 

unsubstantiated arguments for approving lesser controls and correspondingly weak 

BART limits. In many cases, EPA has summarily concluded that the incremental costs of 

concededly superior controls are not warranted by the visibility benefits they yield. But 

the Agency has failed to offer any clear or consistent rationale for these cost-benefit 

determinations, which are routinely at odds with the Agency’s own analysis 

demonstrating that installing the most effective controls will yield needed visibility 

improvements. These arbitrary BART proposals stand in stark contrast to the Agency’s 

other well-founded BART determinations.

While EPA is making progress in implementing the Regional Haze program, that 

progress will be severely undercut if the Agency fails to impose BART limits that deliver 
2

the full extent of emissions reductions that are both achievable and necessary to realize 

the Clean Air Act’s goal of restoring clean, clear air to our National Parks, Wilderness 

Areas, and other treasured public lands.

Below are examples of the many instances in which EPA has approved or is on 

course to approve weak BART limits for reasons that are plainly at odds with the 

Agency’s own findings and best practices. We are concerned that these and other 

flawed BART analyses may reflect a diminishing commitment on EPA’s part to 

implementing the Regional Haze program as Congress intended and the Clean Air Act 

requires. We are likewise concerned that examples such as those identified below could 

jeopardize earlier BART decisions. In bringing these examples to your attention, we 

hope to encourage the Agency to revisit pending BART determinations and otherwise 

adopt a more consistent and principled approach that will reliably result in both 

installation of the best controls and required progress toward achieving natural visibility 

goals. At the very least, EPA needs to take affirmative action to ensure transparency and 

to provide the public with a rational basis for its decision making. 

Montana — Colstrip Units 1 and 2

PPL Montana’s Colstrip Power Plant has two BART-subject units with a capacity 

of 333 megawatts (“MW”) each.1 Together, they contribute to significant visibility 

impairment in several class I areas including Yellowstone National Park, Theodore 

Roosevelt National Park and the U.L. Bend Wilderness Area.2

While EPA concedes that selective catalytic reduction (“SCR”) is cost-effective 

and otherwise feasible to install and operate at Colstrip, it is proposing to impose BART 

limits based on operation of less effective controls, selective non-catalytic reduction 

(“SNCR”) plus separated overfire air (“SOFA”). So far, the Agency has failed to present 

any reasoned explanation why the costs of SCR are not warranted based on the 

increased visibility benefits that SCR would provide. Specifically, EPA estimates that 

SCR plus SOFA at Unit 1 would achieve a 0.404 deciview (“dv”) improvement over 

baseline conditions at Theodore Roosevelt and a 0.378 dv improvement at UL Bend at a 

cost of $3,195/ton. 3 Similarly, SCR plus SOFA at Unit 2 would achieve a 0.423 dv 

improvement at Theodore Roosevelt and a 0.406 dv improvement at UL Bend at a cost of 

$3,235/ton.4 In rejecting SCR as BART for Unit 2, EPA provided the following 

explanation, which is essentially identical to the rationale presented for rejecting SCR as 

BART for Unit 1:

 

1 Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans, State of Montana, Regional Haze 

Implementation Plan, Proposed Rule, 77 Fed. Reg. 23,988, 24,022 (Apr. 20, 2012) (“MT Haze 

Proposed Rule”).

2 See id. at 24,026.

3

Id.

4

Id. at 24,034-24,035.
3

Any of the control options would have a positive impact on visibility; 

however, the cost of SOFA+SCR ($3,322)5is not justified by the visibility 

improvement of 0.423 deciviews at TRNP and 0.404 deciviews at UL 

Bend. The lower cost of SOFA+SNCR ($1,571/ton) is justified when the 

visibility improvement is considered. SOFA+SNCR would have a 

visibility improvement of 0.269 deciviews at Theodore Roosevelt NP and 

0.269 deciviews at UL Bend WA and it would result in 29 fewer days 

above 0.5 deciviews at Theodore Roosevelt NP and 25 fewer days above 

0.5 deciviews at UL Bend WA. In addition, application of SOFA+SNCR at 

both Colstrip Units 1 and 2 would have a combined modeled visibility 

improvement of 0.501 deciviews at Theodore Roosevelt NP and 0.451 

deciviews at UL Bend WA. We consider these improvements to be 

substantial, especially in light of the fact that Theodore Roosevelt NP and 

UL Bend WA are not projected to meet the URP.6

What EPA fails to explain is why the moderately higher cost of SCR is not justified given 

the even more “substantial” visibility improvements it would achieve, including 39 and 

35 fewer days with 0.5 dv impacts in UL Bend and Theodore Roosevelt respectively.7 

While EPA combines the visibility improvements of SNCR at both units identifying a 

combined visibility improvement of 0.501 dv, it does not state why the greater combined 

visibility improvement of 0.827 dv from SCR is not determinative, especially given the 

Agency’s own observation that Theodore Roosevelt and UL Bend are not projected to 

meet the Uniform Rate of Progress (“URP”) to achieve natural visibility goals due in part 

to “limited opportunities for reasonable controls for point sources.”8 This projected 

failure to meet URP should put a premium on making the most out of every BART 

opportunity to achieve visibility gains using the best cost-effective controls. Currently, 

UL Bend is on a path to reach natural visibility conditions in 385 years.9 Given this 

unacceptably slow progress, EPA should be requiring the very best, cost-effective 

control option, which in this case is SCR.

In rejecting SCR as BART, EPA made no effort to compare the cumulative 

visibility benefits of SCR versus SNCR at the five affected class I areas that it modeled —

a significant omission in light of the Agency’s projections that SCR would yield a 

 

5

EPA reports the average cost effectiveness of SOFA plus SCR as $3,235 repeatedly throughout the rest of 

the document. See, e.g., id. at 24,033, 24,035.

6

Id. at 24,035.

7

Id. at 24,027.

8

Id. at 24,091; see also id. at 23,995 (1.63 dv improvement needed at UL Bend to meet URP), 24,027 

(observing that UL Bend and Theodore Roosevelt will not meet the URP notwithstanding 

installation of SNCR); 24,090 (reporting that reasonable progress goals will achieve only 18% of 

URP at UL. Bend).

9

Id. at 24,090.
4

cumulative 2.41 dv benefit as compared to a 1.52 dv cumulative benefit from SNCR.10 

Similarly, EPA has not presented the combined effect of operating the best available 

NOx and SO2 emission controls. 

The cumulative impact of a source’s emissions on visibility as well as the 

cumulative benefit of emission reductions is a necessary consideration as part of the fifth 

step in the BART analysis. In this regard, we urge you to consider the National Park 

Service’s (“NPS”) reasoning as articulated in the Agency’s comments on Salt River 

Project’s proposed BART determination for Navajo Generating Station:

...*I+t is appropriate to consider both the degree of visibility improvement 

in a given Class I area as well as the cumulative effects of improving 

visibility across all of the Class I areas affected. It simply does not make 

sense to use the same metric to evaluate the effects of reducing emissions 

from a BART source that impacts only the one Class I area as for a BART 

source that impacts multiple Class I areas. And, it does not make sense to 

evaluate impacts at one Class I area, while ignoring others that are 

similarly significantly impaired. If we look at only the most-impacted 

Class I area, we ignore that the other Class I areas are all suffering from 

impairment to visibility “caused” by the BART source. It follows that, if 

emissions from the BART source are reduced, the benefits will be spread 

well beyond only the most impacted Class I area, and this must be 

accounted for.11

Including analysis of cumulative benefits is in line with EPA practice. Region 6 has 

stated with respect to its BART determination for the San Juan Generating Station:

We agree with the NPS and the USDA Forest Service on the utility of a 

cumulative visibility metric in addition to the other visibility metrics we 

utilized...Clearly, the visibility benefits from NOx BART emission 

 

10 Id. at 24,026, 24,034 (reporting dv improvement at five class I areas with various control 

options). Notably by focusing on only the closest five impacted areas, the modeling analysis 

likely fails to account for Colstrip’s contribution to visibility impairment at Class I areas further 

away. For instance, modeling has revealed that emissions from the Big Stone coal plant in South 

Dakota contribute to visibility impacts of greater than 0.5 dv at Class I areas much further than 

300km away, specifically Badlands National Park (470 km) in South Dakota, Theodore Roosevelt 

National Park (555 km) in North Dakota, Boundary Waters Wilderness (431 km) and Voyageurs 

National Park (438 km) in Minnesota, and even Isle Royale in Michigan (1,049 km). See Approval 

and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; South Dakota; Regional Haze State Implementation Plan, 

Proposed Rule, 76 Fed. Reg. 76,646, 76654-55 (Dec. 8, 2011).

11 Nat’l Park Serv. (NPS), U.S. Dep’t of the Interior, Comments on Salt River Project’s Proposed 

Best Available Retrofit Technology Requirements (BART) for Navajo Generating Station (NGS) 15 

(July 24, 2009), available at http://nature.nps.gov/air/Regs/sipLetters/pdf/NGS_07-24-2009.pdf).
5

reductions will be spread among all affected Class I areas not only the 

most affected area, and should be considered in evaluation of benefits 

from proposed reductions.12

Likewise EPA Region 2, in discussing New York’s regional haze plan, recently noted the 

importance of considering cumulative visibility impacts: 

In making BART determinations, EPA also recommends the 

consideration of cumulative impacts and improvements that could occur 

at all of the Class I areas a particular facility might impact. EPA’s analysis 

of the cumulative visibility improvements at all...Class I areas justifies a 

more stringent BART emission limit.13

Consideration of cumulative visibility benefits has been a mainstay in a number 

of other BART analyses as well. For example, EPA Region 6 employed a cumulative 

visibility benefits analysis when determining BART in the Federal Implementation Plan 

(“FIP”) for the San Juan Generating Station and in its BART FIP for Oklahoma. Region 9 

did so by inference in its proposed BART determinations for the Four Corners Power 

Plant and its Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking for Navajo Generating Station. 

While we disagree with EPA’s ultimate determination to exempt the Gerald Gentleman 

Station from source-specific BART requirements as opposed to compliance with the 

Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (“CSPAR”), EPA Region 7 properly considered 

cumulative visibility benefits in analyzing BART for Gerald Gentleman, as did Region 1 

in its proposal to approve New Hampshire’s haze plan. Further, Wyoming has 

proposed a SIP and Oregon has finalized a SIP employing cumulative benefits analyses. 

Simply put, failure to consider cumulative impacts discounts the very real effect of 

source-specific pollution on regional haze and likewise the cumulative benefits of 

potential retrofits. 

EPA’s proposed conclusions in the proposed BART analysis for Colstrip are not 

based on any reasoned, much less articulated, standard for determining when 

incremental costs are reasonable in light of projected visibility benefits.14 Moreover, EPA 

 

12 Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans, New Mexico, Federal 

Implementation Plan for Interstate Transport of Pollution Affecting Visibility and Best Available 

Retrofit Determination, Final Rule, 76 Fed. Reg. 52,388, 52,429-52,430 (Aug. 22, 2011) (“SJGS 

BART Determination”).

13 Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans, State of New York, Regional Haze 

Implementation Plan, Proposed Rule, 77 Fed. Reg. 24,794, 24,814 (Apr. 25, 2012) (“NY Haze 

Proposed Rule”).

14 The inconsistency of the Agency’s position is only highlighted by its proposal to select the most 

expensive controls considered for sulfur dioxide (“SO2”) on grounds that their incremental cost 

“is justified by the visibility improvement of 0.350 deciviews at Theodore Roosevelt NP and 0.261 

deciviews at UL Bend WA....” MT Haze Proposed Rule at 24,031.
6

has information readily available to analyze the cumulative visibility benefits that could 

be achieved with SCR, but it has declined even to consider it. We question why EPA is 

apparently intent on selecting cheaper and less effective controls, even as it 

acknowledges that SCR is “well within the range of values we have considered 

reasonable for BART.”15

 

Nevada  Reid Gardner Units 1, 2, and 3

EPA is similarly proposing to reject SCR as BART in Nevada. Reid Gardner is a 

557 MW coal-fired power plant with four units of which three are subject to BART.16 

The plant is 85 kilometers (“km”) away from the Grand Canyon and within 300 km of 

Bryce Canyon National Park, Zion National Park and Sycamore Canyon Wilderness.17

EPA has stated expressly in its proposed BART determination for Reid Gardner, 

“...*W+e do not consider these average and incremental cost effectiveness values for SCR 

with LNB and OFA as cost prohibitive.”18 However, the Agency is proposing to 

conclude that “SCR controls at RGGS would not result in enough incremental visibility 

improvement at a single Class I area to justify the incremental cost of the technology.”19

EPA’s modeling analysis indicates that SCR (at a 0.06 lb/MMBtu level of 

performance) would result in an incremental visibility improvement of 0.10 dv at the 

Grand Canyon as compared to the less effective technology that the Agency is proposing 

to select as BARTrotating overfire air (“ROFA”) with Rotamix.20 EPA does not explain 

why this incremental visibility improvement is insufficient to warrant the incremental 

cost of SCR, and in any case, its estimate of dv improvement is too low. EPA modeled 

inaccurate emission rates and, as pointed out by NPS, the Agency’s modeling scenarios 

fail to account for accurate 24-hour emissions.21 When these two issues are corrected, 

incremental visibility improvement increases. NPS’s recently submitted modeling 

 

15 Id. at 24,027.

16Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; State of Nevada; Regional Haze 

Implementation Plans, BART Determination for Reid Gardner Generating Station, Proposed 

Rule, 77 Fed. Reg. 21,896, 21,900 (Apr. 12, 2012).

17 Id. at 21,899 (further explaining that “Joshua Tree National Monument is just on the border of 

the 300 km radius of RGGS”).

18 Id. at 21,901. EPA’s cost estimates, which are themselves within a reasonable range of costeffectiveness according to the Agency, are nevertheless too high, as NPS and other commenters 

have made clear. See, e.g., Letter from Susan Johnson, NPS, to Thomas Webb, EPA Region 9 (June 

4, 2012) (with enclosed NPS comments) (“NPS Reid Gardner Comments”).

19 Id. at 21,898-21,899.

20 Id. at 21,904.

21 NPS Reid Gardner Comments at 13-14.
7

shows that EPA significantly underestimated the visibility benefit from SCR, which 

would yield a 0.7 dv improvement at the Grand Canyon and a nearly 2 dv cumulative 

improvement at all five of the nearby class I areas.22

EPA makes no attempt to quantify this cumulative visibility improvement 

achievable with SCR. When the visibility improvement at those Class I areas is 

measured, as NPS has done, the true merits of selecting SCR as BART become clear. 

Without any articulated, much less principled, standard for weighing 

incremental costs against incremental visibility benefits, EPA’s proposed BART 

determinations for Reid Gardner and many other plants are at odds with the purposes 

Clean Air Act’s Regional Haze program, the reasoned decision-making requirements of 

the Administrative Procedure Act, and EPA’s own best practices. Fundamentally, EPA 

is considering incremental costs and benefits in a manner that may forever preclude the 

achievement of natural visibility in impacted class I areas. 

New York — Danskammer Unit 4

EPA’s proposed BART determination for Dynegy’s Danskammer Generating 

Station, Unit 4 provides another stark example of the arbitrary cost-benefit analysis that 

has become a typical basis for rejecting best controls as BART.23 Based on modeling for 

various control alternatives, Dynegy projected very significant visibility improvements 

at seven affected class I areas, including Acadia National Park. For instance, a hybrid 

SCR/SNCR option is projected to yield a cumulative visibility improvement of 2.244 

dv.24 SCR and flue gas recirculation (“FGR”) would yield a cumulative visibility 

improvement of 2.477 dv.25 Notwithstanding these significant visibility benefits, and 

despite the fact that each of these options was deemed cost-effective, they were all 

summarily “ruled out” due to “minimal visibility improvement.”26 EPA has offered no 

explanation why a dramatic visibility improvement of over 2 dv does not warrant 

installation of cost-effective controls.27 Instead, it is proposing to approve New York’s 

proposed limit, which was arbitrarily put forward without reference to selection of any 

 

22 Id. at 16 (reporting a cumulative benefit of 1.92 dv).

23 NY Haze Proposed Rule at 24,812-15.

24 Id. at 24,813.

25 Id.

26 Id.

27 EPA is apparently proposing to accept Dynegy’s argument that these controls are not feasible 

in light of “ammonia handling issues.” Id. at 24,813. As there is no evidence that operating SCR or 

an SCR/SNCR hybrid system would result in any logistical problems or non air-quality impacts 

that are not routinely addressed at the many plants that operate these controls successfully, this 

argument does not provide any legitimate basis for rejecting best controls as BART.
8

control technology as BART and without projections of the visibility improvements, if 

any, this arbitrary limit would achieve.28

EPA’s willingness to accept New York’s proposed BART determination for NOx 

is confounding given the Agency’s determinations elsewhere that lesser visibility 

benefits warrant the cost of SCR. For instance, EPA Region 6 has finalized a BART 

determination requiring dry scrubbing for SO2 emissions from the Sooner coal plant in 

Oklahoma based on a 2.07 dv cumulative visibility improvement that the Agency 

deemed “significant.”29 

Moreover, Region 2’s own proposed rejection of New York’s BART 

determination for SO2 raises the question why the agency is not similarly disapproving 

the state’s BART determination for NOx. As EPA explained, “[o]ur proposed 

disapproval is based in large part on Dynegy's own BART analysis, showing that FGD 

controls and/or combusting natural gas are cost effective and would result in enough 

incremental visibility improvement at a single Class I area to justify the incremental cost 

of the control strategies.”30 EPA offers no reasoning why it arrives at a different 

cost/benefit calculus for SO2 than for NOx. In the absence of any explanation how the 

Agency is weighing control costs against visibility benefits, its proposed approval of 

New York’s NOx BART determination appears to be arbitrary, reinforcing our concerns 

that EPA is misapplying the statutory requirement to consider visibility impacts and 

summarily rejecting effective control technologies that should be selected as BART. 

Colorado — Craig Units 1 and 2

While we generally support the Colorado haze SIP and the great progress 

achieved by the Clean Air Clean Jobs legislation, EPA’s BART analysis for Tri-State & 

Transmission Association’s Craig Units 1 and 2 is problematic. Craig Station is a coalfired power plant with two BART-subject units, each of which has a net capacity of 428 

MW. Collectively, these two units have a cumulative visibility impact of 9.585 dv (3-

year average, 8th high) on surrounding Class I areas, which include Rocky Mountain 

National Park and the Mt. Zirkel, Rawah, Eagles Nest, Flat Tops, and Maroon Bells-

 

28Id. at 24,813, 24,814.

29 Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Oklahoma; Regional Haze State 

Implementation Plan; Federal Implementation Plan for Interstate Transport of Pollution Affecting 

Visibility and Best Available Retrofit Technology Determinations, Proposed Rule, 76 Fed.Reg. 

16,168, 16,186 (Mar. 22, 2011).

30 Id. at 24,814; see also id. at 24,812 (reporting that FGD is projected to achieve “maximum 

predicted visibility improvement of 4.749 deciviews and eighth highest improvement of 2.174 

deciviews.”
9

Snowmass Wilderness Areas. At Mt. Zirkel alone, these units contribute to visibility 

impairment on average on 165 days per year.31

Requiring Craig Units 1 and 2 to install SCR as BART for NOx would yield 

combined visibility benefits of 2.02 dv just at the most impacted area.

32

 Nevertheless, 

EPA is proposing to approve Colorado’s selection of SNCR as BART, which would 

achieve a combined visibility improvement of only 0.62 dv. According to the state’s 

calculations, the cost of SCR would be $6,432/ton for Unit 1, as opposed to $4,877/ton for 

SNCR, and $6,299/ton for Unit 2 as opposed to $4,712/ton for SNCR.33 EPA has offered 

no explanation why the incremental costs of installing SCR are not warranted by the 

substantially increased visibility benefits (1.4 dv) that it would provide. 

Further, as EPA made clear to the state in 2010, Colorado’s cost estimates for SCR 

are “highly inflated,” and it has significantly underestimated the removal efficiency of 

SCR. 34 In short, EPA itself has previously concluded that the state’s basis for rejecting 

SCR is fatally flawed, but in its proposed rule the Agency merely states, “We agree with 

the State's BART determination that an emission limit of 0.27 lb/MMBtu is NO X BART 

for Craig Unit 1 and Unit 2. The state arrived at this limit based on a reasonable 

consideration of the five factors.”35 Here, again, EPA has failed to offer any transparent 

rationale for rejecting as BART what the agency’s own analysis has identified as the best, 

cost-effective controls. While we appreciate that Craig Unit 2 will ultimately be subject 

to appropriate reasonable progress limits, that outcome should not distort the agency’s 

analysis of what constitutes BART for both units.

Alaska — Healy Unit 1 

Finally, the Golden Valley Electric Association’s Healy Power Plant in Alaska is 

located only 5 miles away from Denali National Park, where it has “visibility impacts of 

greater than 3.4 dv....”36 EPA is proposing to reject the most effective selective catalytic 

reduction technology as BART for nitrogen oxides (“NOx”) on grounds that SCR would 

cost $10,170/ton over a 15-year amortization period.37 However, Healy is not subject to 

 

31 See Colorado Dep’t of Public Health & Envt., BART CALPUFF, Class I Federal Area, Individual 

Source Attribution, Visibility Impairment Modeling Analysis for Tri-State Generation & 

Transmission Association Craig Station Units 1 and 2 (Revised) 48 (Mar. 3, 2006).

32 Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; State of Colorado; Regional Haze 

Implementation Plan, Proposed Rule, 77 Fed. Reg. 18,052, 18,067 (Mar. 26, 2012)

33 Id. at 18,068.

34 Letter from EPA Region 8 to Colorado Dep’t of Public Health and the Envt. 11-12 (Oct. 26, 

2010).

35 77 Fed. Reg. at 18,068.

36 Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; State of Alaska; Regional Haze State 

Implementation Plan, Proposed Rule, 77 Fed. Reg. 11,022, 11,033 (Feb. 24, 2012).

37 Id. at 11,034.
10

any enforceable shutdown requirement in 15 years, and assuming a 15-year lifetime is 

wholly inconsistent with vendor guarantees and SCR’s actual lifetime, which is typically 

30 years or more. As EPA itself explained in its BART determination for the San Juan 

Generating Station:

The lifetime of an SCR, which is a metal frame packed with catalyst 

modules, is equal to the lifetime of the boiler, which might easily be over 

60 years. The lifetime of a retrofit SCR is generally set equal to the 

remaining useful life of the facility. The record is silent on the remaining 

useful life of the SJGS units. Further, USGS studies of the coal reserves 

upon which the SJGS relies indicate that the local coal supply is adequate 

to support a remaining useful life of 30 years. Many utilities routinely 

specify 30+ year lifetimes in requests for proposal and to evaluate 

proposals. In fact, an analysis prepared by B&V for another facility 

assumed a 40 year SCR lifetime. And finally, Sargent & Lundy assumed a 

design life of 30 years for the nearby Navajo Generating Station which 

burns a similar coal. We conclude there is nothing in the record to 

support a 20 year lifetime for the SCR and believe a 30 year lifetime is 

justified.38

For the Healy plant as well, there is apparently nothing in the record that justifies a 15-

year as opposed to 30-year lifetime. Further, while EPA purports to rely on its Control 

Costs Manual to justify its selection of the 15-year period, the manual assumes an 

economic lifetime of 20 years.39 Thus, EPA’s purported reliance on the manual is 

misplaced. 

If EPA fairly estimated costs, as the NPS has done, SCR would present itself as a 

cost-effective alternative that would achieve a 0.786 dv visibility improvement in Denali, 

assuming a relatively lax limit of 0.07 lbs/MMbtu, and even greater benefits with a 

readily achievable limit of 0.05 lbs/mmbtu.40 However, as with the other BART 

determinations discussed above, EPA is proposing to approve cheaper, less effective 

controls that are not well-suited to achieving the over-arching natural visibility goals of 

the Regional Haze program.

CONCLUSION

While EPA’s source-specific BART determinations necessarily differ from one 

another depending on how the relevant statutory factors apply at a given facility, a

 

38 SJGS BART Determination. at 52,402.

39 EPA Air Pollution Control Cost Manual, Sixth Edition (EPA 452/B-02-001), 4-48 (available at 

http://www.epa.gov/ttncatc1/products.html#cccinfo).

40 Letter from Susan Johnson, NPS to Keith Rose, EPA Region 10, at 6 (Mar. 26, 2012) (revising 

cost estimates for SCR to $6,665/ton). 
11

disturbing pattern is nevertheless emerging as EPA issues a growing number of 

proposed and final decisions on haze SIPs and FIPs. Often EPA is declining to select the 

best, cost-effective controls as BART. There is no acceptable or consistent rationale to 

support these determinations and the cost/benefit assessments that are driving them. 

We remain hopeful that EPA will revisit pending BART proposals to ensure that 

haze plans reliably achieve mandated emissions reductions and corresponding visibility 

improvements, and we look forward to meeting with you and your staff to discuss the 

concerns raised in this letter.

Sincerely,

Abigail Dillen

Coal Program Director

Earthjustice

(212) 791-1881, Ext. 8221

adillen@earthjustice.org

Stephanie Kodish

Clean Air Counsel

National Parks Conservation Association

(865) 329-2424

skodish@npca.org

Gloria D. Smith

Senior Managing Attorney

Sierra Club Environmental Law Program

(415) 977-5532

gloria.smith@sierraclub.org
12

cc:

Curt Spalding

Administrator 

USEPA REGION 1 - New England 

5 Post Office Square 

Mail Code: ORA 

Boston, MA 02109-3912

Spalding.curt@Epa.gov

Judith A. Enck

Administrator

USEPA REGION 2 

290 Broadway 

Mail Code: 26TH FL 

New York, NY 10007-1866

Enck.judith@Epa.gov

Shawn M. Garvin

Administrator

USEPA REGION 3 

1650 Arch Street 

Mail Code: 3RA00 

Philadelphia, PA 19103-2029 

Garvin.shawn@Epa.gov

Gwendolyn Keyes Fleming

Administrator

USEPA REGION 4 

61 Forsyth Street, S.W. 

Mail Code: 9T25 

Atlanta, GA 30303-8960 

Keyesfleming.gwendolyn@Epa.gov

Susan Hedman

Administrator

USEPA REGION 5 

77 West Jackson Boulevard 

Mail Code: R-19J 

Chicago, IL 60604-3507 

Hedman.susan@Epa.gov
13

Sam Coleman

Administrator

USEPA REGION 6 

1445 Ross Avenue 

Suite 1200 

Mail Code: 6RA 

Dallas, TX 75202-2733 

Coleman.sam@Epa.gov

Karl Brooks

Administrator

USEPA Region 7

901 North 5th Street

Kansas City, KS 66101

Brooks.karl@epa.gov

r7actionline@epa.gov

James B. Martin

Administrator

USEPA REGION 8 

1595 Wynkoop St. 

Mail Code: 8RA 

Denver, CO 80202-1129 

Martin.jim@Epa.gov

Jared Blumenfeld

Administrator

USEPA REGION 9 

75 Hawthorne Street 

Mail Code: ORA-1 

San Francisco, CA 94105 

Blumenfeld.jared@Epa.gov

Dennis McLerran

Administrator

USEPA REGION 10 

1200 Sixth Avenue 

Mail Code: RA-140 

Seattle, WA 98101 

McLerran.dennis@Epamail.epa.gov