Appendix 4.1 

Summary of Federal Land Manager Comments and 

Responses 
Appendix 4.1 - Summary of FLM Comments and Responses Page 1 of 9 

Appendix 4.1 - Summary of Federal Land Manager Comments and Responses 

Comments and Responses from First Comment Period (11/1/2007 – 8/20/2008)

The State of Kansas provided a draft of the Kansas Regional Haze State Implementation 

Plan (KS RHSIP) to federal land managers representing the US Park Service, US Fish 

and Wildlife Service, and the US Forest Service on November 1, 2007. In addition, draft 

copies were sent to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Region 7 and to the Iowa Tribe, 

the Kickapoo Tribe, the Prairie Band Potawatomi Nation, and the Sac and Fox Nation for their 

comments. Comments were received from the federal land managers and EPA Region 7. No 

comments were received from the tribes. 

United States Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service

Comments were received from the Fish and Wildlife Service of the US Department of the 

Interior (DOI) on December 26, 2007. Comments are in italics and the Kansas Department of 

Health and Environment’s responses follow each comment. The letter from the DOI can be 

found in Appendix 4.2. 

Comment 1: 

Our general observations are as follows: 

1. The BART determinations are generally well done, though they often lacked 

detailed cost information. 

2. The Regional Haze Agreements focus on emission limits that reflect the 

"presumptive" BART limits outlined in the Guidelines for Best Available Retrofit 

Technology Determinations, rather than the definitive technology chosen by the 

companies in their BART determinations that yield better than presumptive levels. 

There are two issues relating to the second bullet above. First, KDHE states on page 45 of the 

Regional Haze State Implementation Plan (SIP) that, “In establishing BART, Kansas determined 

that technological and/or economic considerations may change sufficiently by the time controls 

are built and the imposition of an emission standard based on a specific technology is 

infeasible.” Given that a source that is subject to BART has only five years after the EPA 

approves the Regional Haze SIP to have BART controls operational, it portends that specific 

controls be defined in the Regional Haze SIP and not at a later date. If there are extenuating 

circumstances such as having to concurrently comply with another SIP requirement (e.g., the 

Kansas City Ozone SIP), these contingencies should be discussed in detail. Reasonable Progress 

milestones in the Regional Haze SIP will likely be dependent on technologies that are actually 

deployed. 

Second, use of “presumptive” emission limits in the Regional Haze Agreements does not 

bind the companies to deliver BART technology determined by a full statutory five-factor 

BART analysis. If the cost of control options that achieve adequate and responsible 

visibility improvement remains reasonable after presumptive BART is achieved, adequate 

and responsible visibility improvement should remain an active consideration before the 

BART analysis is concluded. 
Appendix 4.1 - Summary of FLM Comments and Responses Page 2 of 9 

Response 1: 

KDHE carefully considered the presumptive limits provided in the BART guidance. 

Specifically, the guidance states that we must require an EGU facility greater than 200 MW 

located at greater than 750 MW to meet specific emissions limits depending on boiler types and 

current controls. KDHE followed this guidance and required these presumptive limits where 

applicable. From our interpretation of this guidance, we provided guidance to our sources that 

stated, “If your facility falls in the EGU category described above and you propose controls at or 

beyond these presumptive levels, you need not take into account the remaining statutory factors, 

as BART will be met.” EPA’s BART guidance clearly states an emissions limit is required and 

not a specific technology. Therefore, we will not be revisiting the BART analysis for the 

individual sources. 

Additionally, the Agreement reached with Westar included several additional measures that went 

beyond BART including fuel switching at Gordon Evans Unit 1, Hutchinson Unit 4, Murray Gill 

Units 1, 2, 3, and 4; rebuild of scrubber, low-NOx burners, and combustion controls at Jeffrey 

Unit 3; and limits for SO2 at Lawrence Units 3, 4, and 5, and Tecumseh Units 9 and 10. These 

additional measures will achieve reductions that go above and beyond those that would be 

achieved with the identification of a specific BART technology for Jeffrey Units 1 and 2, and 

Gordon Evans Unit 2. This is a holistic approach that ultimately achieves more reasonable 

further progress. 

Comment 2: 

Westar Energy, Jeffrey Energy Center Units 1 and 2 (720 MW Coal, 720 MW Coal) 

Westar’s BART determination commits to specific control technology that will meet the 

“presumptive” requirements of the BART guidelines; namely, low NOx burner systems to control 

NOx, rebuild of existing wet scrubbers to control SO2 and an upgrade of the electrostatic 

precipitator to control PM10. The KDHE “Regional Haze Agreement” with Westar references 

the presumptive limits established by 40 CFR 51 Appendix Y, but does not commit the company 

to follow through on deployment of the committed technologies. The Regional Haze Agreement 

references its own Appendix A, including specific “Proposed Controls”, but the Agreement still 

references only presumptive limits. 

Westar assumed that the rebuild of the existing wet scrubbers for SO2 control would generate a 

control efficiency of almost 83%, leading to a 0.15 lb/MMBtu emission rate, even though wet 

scrubbers have been shown to be up to 95% efficient. More definitive, authoritative information 

on control efficiency should be documented in the BART demonstration to show why higher 

control efficiencies cannot be realized. Demonstration of a higher efficiency could allow KDHE 

to use a lower emission limit to attain further reasonable progress in the Regional Haze SIP. 

It would be desirable to have Westar’s BART determination include detailed cost information for 

the chosen control technologies, but it may not be necessary if the controls are the best available 

technologies as claimed. However, low NO, burners alone are likely not the best available 

technology, so a cost analysis for the company's NOx BART determination is warranted. 
Appendix 4.1 - Summary of FLM Comments and Responses Page 3 of 9 

Response 2: 

Jeffrey Energy Center is a source that meets the criteria for presumptive control requirements. 

The limits established in the Westar BART agreement are those specified as presumptive for the 

unit type at Jeffrey. Again, KDHE’s interpretation of the presumptive requirements guidance 

requires a specific emissions limit and not a specific control technology be identified. Westar has 

agreed to the presumptive limit for this source. 

Westar provided NOx control cost information in their BART Analysis submittal in Table 5-4 

(see Appendix 9.7). KDHE determined that the BART submittal is complete and the signed 

agreement meets the requirements of the regional haze SIP requirements. 

Comment 3: 

Westar Energy Gordon Evans Energy Center Unit 2 (383 MW #6 Fuel Oil) 

The initial choice of low NOx burners (LNB) and 1% fuel oil as BART for NOx control was 

abandoned when the fuel switching alternative of natural gas was selected. A cost analysis 

should be presented to show why LNB should not continue to be deployed along with the natural 

gas alternative. 

Response 3: 

KDHE evaluated Westar’s initial proposal of low NOx burners and 1% sulfur fuel oil and agreed 

this proposal met the requirements for BART for this unit. Because Westar then agreed to an 

alternative to BART and demonstrated that the alternative achieved greater visibility 

improvements than the initial BART determination, no additional cost analysis was required by 

KDHE. The current fuel switching requirement is better than BART, thus no further cost 

analysis will be required. Should the Wichita Mountains (or other surrounding Class I areas) not 

show reasonable progress in the next SIP period, KDHE will re-visit this source and evaluate it 

further as a reasonable progress demonstration. This evaluation would include the costs of low 

NOx burners and the visibility benefits such controls would achieve. 

Comment 4: 

Kansas City Power & Light, La Cygne Generating Station Units 1 and 2 

(840 MW Cyclone Coal, 710 MW Opposed-Fired Coal) 

The BART determination does not select a specific technology for BART. It reserves for a later 

date selection of wet scrubbers or spray dryer absorbers (SDA) for SO2 control; and SCR or 

combustion controls (to possibly accommodate the Kansas City Ozone SIP) for NOx control. The 

KDHE Regional Haze Agreement with KCP&L references for SO2 a 0.10 lb/MMBtu weighted 

average emission limit for Units 1 and 2 and for NOx a 0.13 lb/MMBtu weighted average 

emission limit for Units 1 and 2. The FWS would prefer that specific controls be documented as 

BART as discussed above, but KDHE’s use of better-than-presumptive emission limits is to be 

commended. 
Appendix 4.1 - Summary of FLM Comments and Responses Page 4 of 9 

Response 4: 

The emissions limits established for these two units represent what can be achieved with BART 

controls. The source requested the additional flexibility in choosing how they meet these limits 

at the time the agreement was signed due to the uncertainties associated with the costs of various 

control technologies and the engineering analysis needed to employ them. This request is 

reasonable and the emissions limits that result are what are important for visibility 

improvements. 

Comment 5: 

Kansas City Board of Public Utilities (BPU), Nearman Unit 1 (256 MW Coal) 

As mentioned above, the BPU BART determination for the Unit 1 (Appendix 9.5) could not be 

located in the Kansas Regional Haze SIP submittal. The FWS would like the opportunity to 

review this document. Even though Unit 1 is not subject to presumptive BART control levels due 

to its 256 MW size, the KDHE Regional Haze Agreement with BPU sets emission limitations for 

SO2 at 0.09 lb/MMBtu and for NOx at 0.23 lb/MMBtu. This is an excellent commitment, but a 

specific technology commitment is still appropriate. The 0.09 lb/MMBtu limit in the KDHE 

Regional Haze Agreement is based on the achievability of a semi-dry flue gas desulfurization 

technology, but Table 9.4 of the SIP allows a 0.15 lb/MMBtu SO2 limit just because it is the 

“presumptive” level. These two numbers should be made consistent and both should be shown 

as 0.09 lb/MMBtu. 

Response 5: 

Negotiations with BPU remain ongoing and will be incorporated into the SIP once a Consent 

Agreement is reached or when a Regional Haze Regulation is adopted by 

Kansas to regulate BART sources. 

United States Department of Agriculture

The State of Kansas received a letter from the United States Department of Agriculture 

(USDA) on April 4, 2008. The letter stated that the federal land managers representing 

USDA were satisfied with the Kansas Regional Haze SIP document as provided and 

offered no suggestions for change. 
Appendix 4.1 - Summary of FLM Comments and Responses Page 5 of 9 

Comments and Responses from Second Comment Period (7/16/2009 – 8/27/2009)

In response to comments received and changes made to the KS RHSIP after the first public 

hearing, KDHE held a second comment period. The State of Kansas provided a revised draft of 

the KS RHSIP to federal land managers representing the US Park Service, US Fish and Wildlife 

Service, and the US Forest Service on July 16, 2009. In addition, revised draft copies were sent 

for comments to EPA Region 7, the Iowa Tribe, the Kickapoo Tribe, the Prairie Band 

Potawatomi Nation, and the Sac and Fox Nation. Comments were received from the US Fish 

and Wildlife Service and EPA Region 7. No comments were received from the tribes. 

United States Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service

Comments were received from the Fish and Wildlife Service of the US Department of the 

Interior on August 27, 2009. A summary of the comments and KDHE’s responses are below. A 

copy of the letter can be found in Appendix 4.2. 

Westar Energy, Jeffrey Energy Center Units 1 and 2 

Comment 1: 

Westar’s BART determination commits to specific control technology that will meet the 

“presumptive” BART limits outlined in the EPA Guidelines for Best Available Retrofit 

Technology Determinations; namely, low NOx burner systems to control NOx, rebuild of existing 

wet scrubbers to control SO2 and an upgrade of the electrostatic precipitator to control PM10. 

The KDHE note in Section 9.3 of the July 2, 2009, Regional Haze Plan Revision states: “If your 

facility falls in the EGU category described above and you propose control at or beyond these 

presumptive levels, you need not take into account the remaining statutory factors, as BART will 

be met.” This is not correct. If the cost of control options that achieve adequate and responsible 

visibility improvement remains reasonable after presumptive BART is achieved, adequate and 

responsible visibility improvement should remain an active consideration before the BART 

analysis is concluded. The Federal Land Managers (FLMs) believe that cost effective control 

options that result in emission control greater than presumptive BART should be given equal 

consideration to lower-cost options that achieve presumptive BART. 

Response 1: 

KDHE believes that cost-effective control options that result in emission control greater than 

presumptive BART should not receive equal consideration to lower-cost options that achieve 

presumptive BART. The guidance in Section 9.3 of the SIP is based on an examination of how 

EPA set these presumptive limits coupled with the EGUs in the state to which this guidance 

would apply. One of the major driving factors that shaped this guidance was the consideration of 

the State’s authority to implement the regional haze rule. In 2006, the Kansas Legislature 

amended the State of Kansas Air Quality Statutes to include a new clause at K.S.A. 65-3005, 

which authorizes the Secretary to “prepare and adopt a regional haze plan as may be necessary to 

prevent, abate and control air pollution originating in Kansas that affects air quality in Kansas or 
Appendix 4.1 - Summary of FLM Comments and Responses Page 6 of 9 

in other states or both. Any regional haze plan prepared by the secretary shall be no more 

stringent than is required by 42 U.S.C. 7491.” No modifications to the SIP were made as a result 

of this comment. 

Comment 2: 

Westar’s NOx BART determination contrasted only the cost-effectiveness of low NOx burners 

(LNB) and Selective Catalytic Reduction (SCR), with SCR being shown as not cost-effective. 

SCR is capable of a much higher control efficiency than the assumed 0.10 lb/MMBtu when 

compared to other proposals reviewed by the FLMs (in some cases 0.07 lb/MMBtu). The State 

has not challenged the company’s conclusion that SCR (alone) is not cost-effective, because the 

cost per deciview metric would likely remain too expensive. However, other combinations of 

technically feasible NOx controls should have been considered. Over-fire air (OFA) is often 

considered along with LNB to be more cost-effective (cost per ton) than LNB alone. SCR 

combined with LNB and OFA is considered by most sources, rather than SCR alone, since the 

combination is a far more cost-effective NOx control option. 

Response 2: 

KDHE believes Westar has performed the BART determination as EPA recommended in the 

comment. In Tables 5-4 and 5-5 of Westar’s BART determination (Appendix 9.7 to the SIP), it 

is our understanding that the “LNB System” includes LNB with separated OFA (although not 

labeled as such for Unit 1). KDHE understands that this is the system (LNB + OFA) that Westar 

has already installed on Unit 1 and will be installing on Unit 2 with a neural network installation 

planned for the near future. The SCR costs were estimated and the system sized assuming the 

LNB system was a prerequisite control before the SCR; thus the cost and size were part of this 

assumption. The incremental cost is then based on the additional emissions reductions over the 

LNB system coupled with the additional costs of the SCR. KDHE believes the Westar analysis 

is representative of the costs and technology for these units. No modifications to the SIP were 

made as a result of this comment. 

Comment 3: 

Westar assumed that the rebuild of the existing wet scrubbers for SO2 control would generate a 

control efficiency of almost 83%, thereby meeting the 0.15 lb/MMBtu presumptive SO2 emission 

rate, even though wet scrubbers have been shown to achieve control efficiencies up to 95%. An 

emission limit of 0.09 lb/MMBtu can commonly be met in such permit limitations. More 

definitive, authoritative information on control efficiency should be documented in the BART 

demonstration to show what higher control efficiencies could be realized for the Jeffrey Energy 

Center units. Demonstration of a higher efficiency (e.g., 0.09 lb/MMBtu) would allow KDHE to 

insert a more realistic emission limit into Appendix A of the Westar Regional Haze Agreement, 

so as to more accurately represent the capability of the installed technology, rather than merely 

using the presumptive emission limit of 0.15 lb/MMBtu. 

In the KDHE’s response to our original comments regarding its SIP (found in Appendix 4.1 to 

the July 2, 2009, proposed SIP package), the State explains that its agreement with Westar went 
Appendix 4.1 - Summary of FLM Comments and Responses Page 7 of 9 

beyond the company’s BART-eligible units, to include additional measures at several other 

Westar facilities. The KDHE states: “These additional measures will achieve reductions that go 

above and beyond those that would be achieved with the identification of a specific BART 

technology for Jeffrey Units 1 and 2, and Gordon Evans Unit 2. This is a holistic approach that 

ultimately achieves more reasonable further progress.” While we recognize the State’s position, 

in order to satisfy the BART demonstration, this alternative to BART should be analyzed to show 

that greater benefit to visibility will result. 

Response 3: 

The 95% control efficiency quoted above is a typical efficiency for new wet scrubbers. The wet 

scrubbers in use at Jeffrey Energy Center were originally installed more than 30 years ago. Two 

of the three wet scrubbers have been rebuilt, with the third wet scrubber currently being rebuilt. 

It was determined to be more cost effective to rebuild the scrubbers and still achieve significant 

emissions reductions than to install entirely new scrubbers. Therefore, KDHE believes the 

control efficiency of nearly 83% quoted by Westar Energy is realistic given the age of the 

scrubbers. No modifications to the SIP were made as a result of this comment. 

Comment 4: 

On page 8-2 of the Westar BART Five Factor Analysis, it was determined that Electrostatic 

Precipitator (ESP) upgrades were considered to be BART for particulate matter control. 

However, in Section 9.3 KDHE stated, “In all cases here, added PM2.5 controls would help 

visibility only marginally, and would not be cost effective.” This statement was made without 

any cost analysis being done by KDHE. Unless cost data is presented by KDHE, ESP upgrades 

proposed by the company should be accepted by KDHE and should be included in Appendix A of 

the Westar Regional Haze Agreement. 

Response 4: 

ESP rebuilds for Jeffrey Energy Center are included in Appendix A of the Westar Regional Haze 

Agreement (see Appendix 9.7 of the SIP). Westar will be required to perform these ESP 

rebuilds; however, no additional PM limits have been established. KDHE evaluated PM impacts 

from Jeffrey Energy Center by examining the visibility modeling. From the modeling it was 

determined additional PM controls would help visibility only marginally due to their low overall 

visibility impact (generally less than 1% of the overall facility impact) with current control 

equipment. Because PM only represented a small fraction of the total modeled visibility impact, 

and Westar had agreed to rebuild the ESP’s, an additional detailed cost analysis was not 

required. No modifications to the SIP were made as a result of this comment. 

Westar Energy, Gordon Evans Energy Center Unit 2 

Comment 5: 

Our December 14, 2007, comment regarding further analysis of potential NOx control 

alternatives for this facility as it is converted to natural gas is still pertinent. KDHE responded 
Appendix 4.1 - Summary of FLM Comments and Responses Page 8 of 9 

to that comment saying that, since the fuel switching alternative achieves greater visibility 

improvements than would have resulted from employing controls it had agreed would be BART 

for the unit when fired on fuel oil, “no further cost analysis will be required.” The KDHE 

continues, stating: “Should the Wichita Mountains (or other surrounding Class I areas) not 

show reasonable progress in the next SIP period, KDHE will re-visit this source and evaluate it 

further as a reasonable progress demonstration. This evaluation would include the costs of low 

NOx burners and the visibility benefits such controls would achieve.” 

We believe that it is prudent to address this analysis now at the time of implementing the fuel 

switching requirement, as the marginal cost of employing low NOx burners instead of new 

traditional natural gas burners should be significantly less than changing out the new natural 

gas burners at some future time. The documentation indicates that, after the fuel switch to 

natural gas is accomplished, there will still be 2,136 lb/hr NOx emissions for this unit. The low 

NOx burner alternative should be required to go through an additional cost-effectiveness 

analysis to determine if the remaining (2,136 lb/hr) NOx could be cost-effectively reduced. 

Response 5: 

KDHE does not believe it to be prudent at this time to address potential NOx emission controls at 

Gordon Evans Energy Center. As part of the five-year SIP review, the need for NOx emission 

controls will be re-evaluated. The NOx emission rate of 2,136 lb/hr has proven to be a high 

estimate based on operating data since the fuel switch. During the period from 2006 through 

2008, the maximum 24-hour NOx emission rate with a full 24 hours of operation was 1,909 lb/hr. 

No modifications to the SIP were made as a result of this comment. 

Kansas City Power & Light, La Cygne Generating Station Units 1 and 2 

Comment 6: 

Our December 14, 2007, comments discussed that the BART determination for KCPL’s La 

Cygne Units 1 and 2 did not select a specific technology for SO2 BART, but rather referenced a 

0.10 lb/MMBtu weighted average SO2 emission limit for the two units, and reserved for a later 

date selection of the particular control technology for SO2 control (either wet scrubbers or spray 

dryer absorbers (SDA)). The KDHE’s response stated that: “The emissions limits established 

for these two units represent what can be achieved with BART controls. The source requested 

the additional flexibility in choosing how they meet these limits at the time the agreement was 

signed due to the uncertainties associated with the costs of various control technologies and the 

engineering analysis needed to employ them. This request is reasonable and the emissions limits 

that result are what are important for visibility improvements.” 

We do agree that ultimately, the BART requirement is the resulting emissions limit. However, 

the limit that has been identified for these units is not the most stringent possible with the range 

of retrofit technologies available. Wet scrubbers are capable of achieving 0.09 lb/MMBtu, 

which represents 10% less SO2 emissions compared to the level that the KDHE is requiring of 

this facility. We also point out that other facilities across the country have completed their 

necessary engineering cost analyses and committed to specific control technologies and BART 
Appendix 4.1 - Summary of FLM Comments and Responses Page 9 of 9 

limits; plus, nearly two years have elapsed since the initial BART decisions were presented with 

KCPL’s request for flexibility. Thus, we stand by our original comment that, to satisfy the 

required BART demonstration, a detailed cost analysis should be performed on each control 

alternative to determine the most cost-effective control, together with the actual control 

efficiency for the most cost-effective alternative. That said, we do commend KDHE’s use of 

better-than-presumptive emission limits for these units. 

Response 6: 

KDHE acknowledges the better-than-presumptive BART emission limits for KCP&L. KDHE 

also acknowledges the emission rates are not necessarily the most stringent possible. During the 

consultation process with surrounding states, KDHE received no requests from states with Class 

I areas to further reduce emissions beyond those that would be achieved with the rates contained 

in the Agreement with KCP&L. Additionally, KDHE’s authority concerning a regional haze 

plan is limited by a new state statute. The Kansas Legislature amended the State of Kansas Air 

Quality Statutes in 2006 to include a new clause at K.S.A. 65-3005, which authorizes the 

Secretary of KDHE to “prepare and adopt a regional haze plan as may be necessary to prevent, 

abate and control air pollution originating in Kansas that affects air quality in Kansas or in other 

states or both. Any regional haze plan prepared by the secretary shall be no more stringent than is 

required by 42 U.S.C. 7491.” In summary, KDHE does not intend to perform a detailed cost 

analysis on control alternatives at this time. No changes were made to the SIP as a result of this 

comment.