Page 1 of 40 

### Proposed Rule: Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; State of Nevada; Regional Haze State and Federal Implementation Plans

Technical Support Document (TSD)

Docket Number: EPA

- R09

- OAR

- 2011

- 0130

Prepared and Reviewed by:

Scott Bohning, Eugene Chen, Steve Frey, Ann Lyons, Colleen McKaughan, Thomas Webb

April 2, 2012

1. Relationship of this TSD to our Proposal

In a letter dated November 18, 2009, Nevada Division of Environmental Protection (NDEP) submitted the “Nevada Regional Haz e State Implementation Plan” (Nevada RH SIP) to U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Region 9. This SIP addressed regional haze program requirements for the first planning period through July 31, 2018. On June 22, 2011 (76 FR 36450) , we proposed a pproval of the Nevada RH SIP. On December 13, 2011 we finalized approval of all elements of the Nevada RH SIP with the exception of the NOx BART determination for the Reid Gardner Generating Station. 1 

### As a result of certain comments received during the p ublic comment period for the proposed approval, we took no action on this element of the RH SIP in order to perform additional analysis and supplement the administrative record. The results of our analysis support NDEP ’s selection of control technology ( ROFA with Rotamix). As a result, we are proposing to approve certain remaining elements of the RH SIP as

listed in Table 1 below. In addition, there are certain SIP elements that we are not approving. For those elements, we are also proposing a Federal Implementation Plan (FIP).

Table 1

. Approved Elements of RH SIP

Unit Plan Element SIP Approved? FIP

1 Emission Limit (lb/MMBtu ) 1 

### 0.2 0 Y

Averaging Period 12

- month rolling N 30

- day rolling

2 Emission Limit (lb/MMBtu) 1 

### 0.2 0 Y

Averaging Period 12

- month rolling N 30

- day rolling

3 Emission Limit (lb/MMBtu) 1 

### 0.28 N 0.2 0

Averaging Period 12

- month rolling N 30

- day rolling

1 Although the emission limits are listed separately for each unit, compliance with the emission limits is

determined based on a unit

- wide average (heat input weighted)



### This document provides technical information to support the proposed approval, and

discuss the basis for our proposed disapproval and FIP. It provides additional information regarding the technical aspects of our proposed disapproval which we regard as too detailed for inclusion in the Federal Register notice. Specifically, this document contains our ana lysis of the two factors of the BART analysis that we consider most crucial to this approval, costs of

1 77 FR 17334Page 2 of 40 

### compliance and degree of visibility improvement. It also contains our rationale for disapproving

the elements listed in Table 1 , and the corresponding FIP element. The remaining sections of this

TSD are numbered as follows:

Section 2

– Background on Regional Haze and BART Requirements

Section 3

– Reid Gardner NOx BAR T Determination

Section 4

– Costs of Compliance

Section 5

– Degree of Visibility Improvement

Section 6

– FIP elements

Please note that in this document, we often use language such as “we find” or other similar phrases that on the surface suggest a final determination has been made. However, the information presented in this TSD should be considered part of our proposal and subject to change based on comments and other additional information we may receive during the public comment period for this proposa l.

2. Background on Regional Haze and BART Requirements

Our June 22, 2011 proposed approval of the Nevada RH SIP contains a general discussion of regional haze and EPA’s Regional Haze Rule (RHR), including BART requirements ( 76 FR at 36451

- 36455). The RHR p rovides the following six factors that a BART determination must take into account (40 CFR 51.308(e)(1)(ii)(A)):

• the available technology to control emissions and the technical feasibility of each technology;

• the cost of compliance for the technically fea sible control technologies;

• the energy and non

- air quality impacts of the control technologies;

• any existing air pollution control technologies at the source;

• the remaining useful life of the source; and

• the degree of visibility improvement which may reaso nably be anticipated to result from the various control technologies.

All but the first of these factors are also expressly required to be taken into account under Section 169A(g)(2) of the Clean Air Act (CAA), 42 U.S.C. § 7491(g)(2). Although we list six factors, the first factor is not always explicitly stated and the remaining factors are frequently

referred to as the “five

- factor analysis” for the RHR BART determination.

3. Reid Gardner NOx BART Determination

A. NDEP’s Analysis

RGGS consists of four coal

- fired boilers, three of which are BART

- eligible units with generating capacity of 100 megawatts (MW) each. A fourth unit (250 MW) is not BART

eligible. The units are wall

- fired pulverized coal boilers that consume primarily bituminous coal, but currently also burn some Wyoming sub

- bituminous coal. Nevada Energy, the owner of RGGS, performed a BART analysis for the three BART

- eligible RGGS units and submitted the results of its analysis to NDEP and recommended new LoNOx burners and 0.39 lb/MMbtu asPage 3 of 40 

### BART . 2 

### NDEP reviewed but disagreed with Nevada Energy’s analysis and NDEP determined that, for each unit, rotating overfire air (ROFA) with Rotamix ( a technology that combines a

conventional selective non

- catalytic reduction [SNCR] system with a proprietary inje ction system for air and reagent ) was BART for NOx. 3 

### NDEP eliminated the next most effective control technologies, which consist of selective catalytic reduction (SCR)

- based opt ions, on the grounds that “the $/ton of NO

x 

### removed increased significantly . . . without correspondingly significant improvements in visibility.” 4



### B. EPA’s Analysis Based upon comments received during the public comment period for our June 22, 2011 proposal , we conducted additional review of the five

- factor analysis performed by NDEP

. During the course of this review, we identified several aspects of NDEP’s analysis that we considered either inconsistent with our regulations under 51.308(e) or unsupported by the record. As a result, we performed our own analysis in order to revise these inconsistencies and supplement the record with additional visibility modeling. Costs of compliance and degree of visibility improvement were the two statutory factors most crucial to our analysis, and are discussed at length in the remainder of this document. In our analysis of costs of compliance, we find that control options more stringent than ROFA with Rotamix, such as SCR with LNB and OFA, are cost effective on an average and incremental basis. Our analysis of visibility improvement indicat es small incremental visibility improvement between ROFA with Rotamix and more stringent control options, such as SCR control options. As a result, we agree that NDEP reasonably determined that the costs of further

control are not warranted based on the l ow incremental visibility improvement.

4. Costs of Compliance

The BART guidelines state that “[i]n order to improve consistency, cost estimates should

be based on the OAQPS Control Cost Manual [now called the EPA Air Pollution Control Cost

Manual ] , where possible.” The EPA Air Pollution Control Cost Manual (Sixth Edition, January 2002) 5 

### provides guidance and methodologies for estimating the cost and economic feasibility of a project, with a nominal accuracy of ± 30%. The costs that are incorporated into e stimates of capital and annual costs by the Control Cost Manual (CCM) are outlined in Section 1, Chapter

2 6 

### , which states that total capital costs may include equipment costs, freight, sales tax, and installation costs. For existing facilities, retrofit co sts should also be considered, and may include auxiliary equipment, handling and erection, piping, insulation, painting, site preparation, off

- site facilities, engineering, and lost production revenue. Finally, annual costs are estimated from

costs of raw materials, maintenance labor and materials, utilities, waste treatment and disposal, replacement materials, overhead, property taxes, insurance, and administrative charges.

A. NDEP’s Analysis

2 Nevada Energy BART Analysis Reports, completed October 3, 2008. Available in Docket Item No. EPA

- R09

- OAR

- 2011

- 0130

- 0007

. 3 Revised NDEP Reid Gardner BART Determination Review, available as Docket Item No. EPA

- R09

- OAR

- 2011

- 0130

- 0005.

4 Id. at page 6.

5 http://epa.gov/ttn/catc/products.html#cccinfo

6 Section 1: Introduction, Chapter 2: Cost Estimation: Concepts and Methodolo gy, EPA/452/B

- 02

- 001, (01/ 2002)Page 4 of 40 

### In evaluating this factor, NDEP developed cost effectiveness valu es for each NOx control technology on an average and incremental basis. A summary of these values for Reid Gardner Units 1 through 3, as included in the RH SIP, are summarized in Table 2 below.

Table 2

. NDEP Control Cost Effectiveness Summary

Control Option Control Efficiency 1 Emission

Rate 1 Emission

Reduction 1 Annualized

Costs 1 Average Cost

Effectiveness 1 Incremental Cost

Effectiveness 1

(%) (lb/ MMBtu) (ton/yr) ($MM) ($/ton) ($/ton)

Reid Gardner Unit 1

LNB + OFA 21.3% 0.36 483 $0.55 $1,143 $1,143

LNB + OFA +

SNCR 40.9% 0.27 927 $1.13 $1,222 $1,308

ROFA + Rotamix 57.7% 0.2 1308 $1.45 $1,109 $833

SCR + LNB +

OFA 81.6% 0.085 1850 $4.75 $2,566 $6,085

SCR + ROFA 3 81.6% 0.085 1850 $5.39 $2,916 $7,280

Reid Gardner Unit 2

LNB + OFA 23.7% 0.355 580 $0.55 $952 $952

LNB + OFA +

SNCR 42.7% 0.267 1044 $1.16 $1,106 $1,299

ROFA + Rotamix 59.0% 0.19 1443 $1.50 $1,038 $860

SCR + LNB +

OFA 82.2% 0.083 2010 $4.80 $2,386 $5,813

SCR + ROFA 3 82.2% 0.083 2010 $5.47 $2,721 $7,001

Reid Gardner Unit 3

LNB + OFA 6.5% 0.42 147 $0.55 $3,742 $3,742

LNB + OFA +

SNCR 29.9% 0.316 678 $1.08 $1,596 $1,000

ROFA + Rotamix 38.0% 0.278 869 $1.38 $1,588 $1,560

SCR + LNB +

OFA 78.2% 0.098 1774 $4.72 $2,660 $3,688

SCR + ROFA 2 78.2% 0.098 1774 $5.40 $3,045 $4,444

1 As summarized in Table 1, NDEP Reid Gardner BART Determination, October 22, 2009. Available as Docket Item No.

EPA

- R09

- OAR

- 2011

- 0130

- 0005.

2 Incremental cost effectiveness based on ROFA + Rotamix as previous control technology



### The annualized costs listed in Table 2 are based on total capital installation costs and certain annual operating costs provided to NDEP by Nevada Energy on October 2 2, 2008, and were included in the SIP without modification. These cost calculations provided line item summaries of capital costs and annual operating costs, but did not provide further supporting information such as detailed equipment lists, vendor quotes , or the design basis for line item

costs.

In its RH SIP, NDEP indicated that it based its NOx BART determination of ROFA with Rotamix primarily on the costs of compliance. NDEP judged the costs of ROFA with RotamixPage 5 of 40 

### as affordable based on an average cost effectiveness of approximately $1100

- 1600/ton. NDEP eliminated more stringent control options, such as the SCR

- based options, on the grounds that “the $/ton of NOx removed increased significantly . . . without corres pondingly significant improvements in visibility.” Per NDEP estimates, the incremental cost effectiveness of SCR with LNB and OFA is approximately $3600

- 6100/ton. NDEP determined that this additional cost per year for SCR technologies did not appear cos t effective compared to the additional NO

x 

### reduction for each unit

B. EPA’s Analysis

In reviewing the Nevada RH SIP, and as a result of several public comments we received, we identified several aspects of NDEP’s approach to this factor with which we disagr ee, and for which we have performed additional analysis.

We received several public comments alleging that NDEP/Nevada Energy’s cost calculations were unsupported by the record or lacked sufficient detail for critical review. We agree with

these commen ts, and on December 22 , 2011 sent a letter to NDEP in which we requested clarification on several items, among which was information that would provide additional detail and justification for control cost estimates. 7 

### In response, NDEP provided certain doc uments, including a set of cost estimates updated in 2011. These updated cost estimates consist of updates to specific line items in order to reflect higher material costs, but did not include any supporting information such as detailed equipment lists, v endor quotes, or the design basis for

line item costs. 8



### We also received several public comments alleging that NDEP/Nevada Energy’s cost calculations were overestimated and based on methodology inconsistent with EPA’s Control

Cost Manual. In our analysis, we have excluded those costs that are not included in the CCM and adjusted the value of specific variables (e.g., interest rate) to conform to values allowed by

the CCM. In particular, the NDEP/Nevada Energy cost estimates included “owner ’s costs”, “surcharge”, and “authorization for funds used during construction (AFUDC).” These cost items are not allowed by the CCM, and in certain cases are redundant with “project contingency” cost s, which are already included. While the CCM does provid e flexibility in including some contingencies (such as degree of retrofit difficulty), neither Nevada Energy nor NDEP has provided documentation to justify the need to include contingency costs beyond standard

all owances provided by the CCM. AFUDC is speci fically set to zero in the CCM for SCR installations. In addition, we have also revised the interest rate used in calculating the capital recovery factor for annual izing these capital costs. Nevada Energy’s debt service calculations

used an interest rate of 8.5% ove r the lifetime of the project. In our analysis, we have used a 7% interest rate as provided in CCM example calculations.

The public comments we received on the issue of cost calculations also identified other aspects of NDEP/Nevad a Energy’s cost estimates that were alleged to be unjustified or overestimated. Examples include a failure to account for multiple unit discount and overestimated reagent costs. Although we agree that the record does not support the positions

7 Email dated December 22, 2011from Colleen McKaughan (EPA) to Mike Elges (NDEP).

8 As provided via email dated February 14, 2012 from Rob Bamford (NDEP) to Eugene Chen (EPA)Page 6 of 40 

### that NDEP h as taken on these cost items, at this time we decline to exclude or refine these items

in our revised cost calculations.

Exclusion of costs not included in the CCM results in a decrease of 25

- 33% in the average and incremental cost effectivene ss of t he control technology options. Detailed cost calculations, in which we revise the original (as included in the RH SIP) and updated (as provided by NDEP February 14, 2012) cost calculations for each NOx control technology, is included in Appendix A. Summarized in Table 3 below is a comparison of the updated NDEP/Nevada Energy cost calculations (as provided on February 14 , 2012) and our revised cost calculations for the SCR with LNB and OFA control technology option.

Table 3 . Cost Effectiveness Comparison

– SCR with LNB and OFA

Unit No. Average Cost Effectiveness ($/ton) Incremental Cost Effectiveness ($/ton)

NDEP EPA Revised NDEP EPA Revised

Unit 1 $2,827 $2,110 $6,370 $4,534

Unit 2 $2,627 $1,967 $6,080 $4,330

Unit 3 $2,932 $2,183 $3,856 $2,756



### Based on our revised cost estimates for the higher, updated cost estimates provided February 14, 2012, we consider these average and incremental cost effectiveness values for SCR with LNB

and OFA to be cost effective.

5. Degree of Visibility Improvement Wh ich May Reasonably be Anticipated to Result from the Use of Such Technology

The BART Guidelines describe 1 deciview (dv) 9 

### as the threshold for an impact that “causes” visibility impairment, and 0.5 dv as a threshold for an impact that “contributes” to

vis ibility impairment (70 FR 39118, 39120

- 39121). The “cause and contribute” threshold is used for the purposes of determining if a BART

- eligible source is exempt from BART requirements, or must proceed with a five

- factor BART determination. In the context of performing a BART determination and evaluating the degree of visibility improvement, the BART Guidelines indicate that use of a comparison threshold is also an appropriate way of evaluating visibility improvement (70 FR 39129

- 30), but do not provide a s ingle “bright line” threshold. Consistent with EPA’s BART Guidelines (40 CFR Part 51, Appendix Y, Section III.A.1), we note that Nevada uses the 0.5 dv threshold when considering if a BART

- eligible source contributes to visibility impairment. 10 

### Although u se of this 0.5 dv threshold is required only in the context of determining whether a source is subject to BART, it can also function as a useful benchmark for comparing the incremental visibility improvement from the use of the control technologies conside red as part of the five

- factor analysis.

9 The deciview scale represents a standardized index that expresses changes in visibility, similar in manner to how the decibel scale is an index that expresses relative changes in sound levels. For a more full description, please

refer to 62 FR 41145.

10 Per the Nevada RH SIP, page 5

- 5. Available i n Docket Item EPA

- R09

- OAR

- 2011

- 0130

- 0003Page 7 of 40 

### A. NDEP’s Analysis

As part of their BART analysis, Nevada Energy performed visibility modeling in order to evaluate the visibility improvement attributable to each of the NOx control technologies that it considered. Results of the visibility modeling performed by Nevada Energy in their submittal to NDEP are summarized in Table 4 below.

Table 4 . Summary of Nevada Energy Estimates of Visibility Benefit 11



### Control Option Visibility Improvement (from WRAP baseline) 12 

### Visibility Improvement (Incr emental, from Control)

RGGS1 RGGS2 RGGS3 Total Total

(dv) (dv) (dv)

LNB + OFA 0.440 0.479 0.407 1.33

-- LNB + OFA + SNCR 0.521 0.560 0.485 1.57 0.24

ROFA + Rotamix 0.592 0.630 0.514 1.74 0.17

SCR + LNB + OFA 0.698 0.735 0.652 2.09 0.35

SCR + ROFA 13 

### 0.698 0.735 0.652 2.09 0.35



### Based upon these results, the installation of SCR with LNB and OFA would result in an incremental visibility improvement at Grand Canyon National Park of 0.35 deciviews (dv ). This visibility improvement is based upon the NOx emission rates estimated by Nevada Energy in their BART analysis for each control technology option, and is relative to visibility impacts based on emissions used by the Western Regional Air Partnership (WRAP). In preparing the RH SIP, however, NDEP developed its own set of NOx emission estimates for the various control technology options. The differences between Nevada Energy’s estimates and the emission

estimates that form the basis of the Nevada RH S IP are summarized in Table 5 below.

11 Visibility improvement listed here are for the Class I area with the highest impact , Grand Canyon National Park

. They represent the change in the 98th percentile impact s from three modeled years

. The “total” is the simple total of the impacts from the three individual units, which Nevada Energy modeled separately.

. 12 From Table 5

- 4 of NVE BART Analysis Reports , Reid_Gardner_1_10

- 03

- 08.pdf, Reid_Gardner_ 2 _10

- 03

- 08.pdf,
Reid_Gardner_ 3_10

- 03

- 08.pdf. Available in Docket Item No. EPA

- R09

- OAR

- 2011

- 0130

- 0007

. The improvement s here are relative to the “WRAP baseline”, impacts from emission levels used by the Western Regional Air Partnership and modeled by Nevada Energy. This is a different “baseline” than used for the cost estimates below.

13 Incremental visibility benefit of SCR + ROFA is based upon ROFA + Rotamix as previous control technology

.Page 8 of 40 

### Table 5

. Comparison of Nevada Energy and NDEP Control Technology Emission

Estimates

Control Option Nevada Energy NDEP

Emission

Factor 1 Control Efficiency 2 Emission

Factor 3 Control Efficiency 3

(lb/MMBtu) (%) (lb/MMBtu) (%)

Reid Gardner Unit 1

Baseline (LNB + OFA) 0.38

-- 0.462

-- LNB + OFA (enhanced) 0.30 21.3% 0.36 0 21.3%

LNB + OFA + SNCR 0.23 40.9% 0.27 0 40.9%

ROFA + Rotamix 0.16 57.7% 0.20 0 57.7%

SCR + LNB + OFA 0.07 81.6% 0.085 81.6%

SCR + ROFA 0.07 81.6% 0.085 81.6%

Reid Gardner Unit 2

Baseline (LNB + OFA) 0.39

-- 0.466

-- LNB + OFA (enhanced) 0.30 23.7% 0.355 23.7%

LNB + OFA + SNCR 0.23 42.7% 0.267 42.7%

ROFA + Rotamix 0.16 59.0% 0.19 0 59.0%

SCR + LNB + OFA 0.07 82.2% 0.083 82.2%

SCR + ROFA 0.07 82.2% 0.083 82.2%

Reid Gardner Unit 3

Baseline (LNB + OFA) 0.32

-- 0.451

-- LNB + OFA (enhanced) 0.30 6.5% 0.42 0 6.5%

LNB + OFA + SNCR 0.23 29.9% 0.316 29.9%

ROFA + Rotamix 0.20 38.0% 0.278 38.0%

SCR + LNB + OFA 0.07 78.2% 0.098 78.2%

SCR + ROFA 0.07 78.2% 0.098 78.2%

1 From each respective unit's NVE BART Analysis, Table 3

- 1. Available in Docket

Item No. EPA

- R09

- OAR

- 2011

- 0130

- 0007

2 From each respective unit's NVE BART Analysis, Table 3

- 2. Available in Docket

Item No. EPA

- R09

- OAR

- 2011

- 0130

- 0007

3 As summarized in Table 1, NDEP Reid Gardner BART Determination, October 22,

2009. Available as Docket Item No. EPA

- R09

- OAR

- 2011

- 0130

- 0005. Baseline emission factor is not explicitly calculated by NDEP. The factor here represents the

listed annual emissi ons divided by 'Base Heat Input'



### As seen in these tables, NDEP’s estimates of controlled emission rates differ from Nevada Energy’s estimates. These differences are a result of NDEP’s use of a

different emission baseline in its calculations than Nevada Energy, which is discussed below in our discussion of existing pollution control technology. Since NDEP elected to calculate controlled emission rates by retaining the respective percent reduction values for each control technology, rather than eac h control technology’s emission rate (lb/MMBtu), the use of a higher baseline emission rate results in higherPage 9 of 40 

### emission estimates for each control technology option. As a result, NDEP’s estimated performance for each control technology is less stringent th an Nevada Energy’s estimates. NDEP, however, did not perform additional modeling to determine the visibility improvement attributable to its emission estimates, and continued to rely on the visibility modeling performed by Nevada Energy.

As noted in the discussion of cost of compliance, part of NDEP’s basis for not determining a control technology more stringent that ROFA with Rotamix as NOx

BART was that the incremental costs of more stringent control options were not justified relative to their corresp onding in creases in visibility benefit. However, without updated visibility modeling that indicates the visibility improvement attributable to NDEP’s emission estimates, we do not consider NDEP to have properly considered the appropriate magnitude of incr emental visibility improvement in reaching its determination. As discussed in our analysis below, we have performed our own visibility modeling in order to determine these visibility impacts.

B. EPA’s Analysis

Under the BART Guidelines, the degree of vi sibility improvement from controls is one of the five factors to consider in making a BART determination for a facility. Of particular interest was the visibility benefit from the installation of Selective Catalytic Reduction (SCR), as compared to benefits from other, less expensive control technologies. As described in the following sections, we performed our own CALPUFF air quality modeling of the Reid Gardner Generating Station (RGGS) to assess the effect of NOx controls on visibility at nearby Class I areas as an aid in the

review of NDEP’s BART determination for RGGS.

1. Modeling Synopsis 2. Background on CALPUFF and visibility calculations

3. The old and the revised IMPROVE equations

4. Modeling Methodology

5. Stack Parameters and Source Emissions

6. Modeling Results 7. Comparison to other modeling

The modeling was performed using the current regulatory version of the CALPUFF modeling system, and generally followed procedures in the modeling protocol developed by the Western Regional Air Partnership (“WRAP protocol”), with some important changes for improved performance and regulatory requirements. Most of the modeled control scenarios used input emission rates from the NDEP SIP submittal, though with different chemical speciation for PM 10 

### emissions to better reflect their visibility effects. In order to focus on the impacts of alternative controls for NOx, most scenarios held SO 2 

### and PM 10 

### emissions rates constant at levels determined by NDEP to represent BART. Given that EPA has alr eady approved

NDEP’s SO 2 

### and PM 10 

### BART determinations (77 FR 17334) , we consider this procedure acceptable for making decisions about NOx controls in the present action.Page 10 of 40 

### 1. Modeling Synopsis

EPA used the current regulatory version of the CALPUFF modeling system, which comprises the following source code versions:

• CALMET Version 5.8

, Level: 070623

• CALPUFF Version 5.8, Level: 070623

• POSTUTIL Version 1.56. Level : 070627

• CALPOST Version 5.6394, Level: 070622

• CALPOST Version 6.221, Level 080724 (for visibility method 8)

The projection and coordinate system used was the same as used by the WRAP, and

is illustrated in Figure 1 below.

• Projection: Lambert Conformal Conic (LCC)

• Projection origin (lat, long): 40°,

- 97°

• Standard parallels: 33°, 45°

• False easting and northing: 0 m, 0 m

• Projection ellipsoid: “ NWS

- 84 ”, 6370 km r adius s phere

The CALMET modeling domain was identical to the WRAP Arizona do main: 288 x 225 grid cells (X & Y), each 4 km, total size 1152 x 900 km;

southwest corner at LCC coordinates

- 1944 km,

- 900 km

The CALPUFF modeling domain was centered on RGGS but within the above: 157 x 156 grid cells (X & Y), each 4 km, total size 628 x 624 km; southwest corner at meteorological domain cell (20, 70)Page 11 of 40 

### Figure 1 . Modeling DomainPage 12 of 40 

### Each Class I area located within 300 km of Reid Gardner was included in our modeling, as listed in Table 6 below. Modeling receptors for each Class I areas were

downloaded from the National Park Service “ Class I Receptors web site .” 14



### Table 6 . Class I Areas

abbr. Name min. distance from RGGS, km number

of
receptors State Agency

brca Bryce Canyon

National Park 226 213 UT NPS

grca Grand Canyon

National Park 85 791 AZ NPS

jotr Joshua Tree National

Monument 292 815 CA NPS

syca Sycamore Canyon

Wilderness Area 288 316 AZ USFS

zion Zion

National Park 148 224 UT NPS

CALMET was run using the 2001, 2002, and 2003 MM5 simulations used by the WRAP for the Arizona domain as the prognostic meteorological input. In particular, the Arizona domain, rather than the Nevada domain, was used because the Arizona

domain included th e geographic area needed to ensure a model domain that extended to at least 50 km beyond the edge of each Class I area (as seen in Figure 1, most of the relevant Class I areas are in Arizona and Utah). In addition, the Arizona domain

was available for CALMET 5.8 and with upper air data, which was not the case for the Nevada domain. CALMET was run with some radius of influence changes to smooth the wind fields, and with the incorporation of upper air data. For more details regarding specific CALMET se ttings, please consult Section 5.B.4.

CALPUFF was run with regulatory default settings. Ozone background was the same as that developed for the WRAP Arizona domain. The ammonia background was assumed constant at 1 ppb, the default in the IWAQM Phase 2 document for arid regions. 15 

### A description of stack parameters and source emission rates used in the CALPUFF modeling can be found in Section 5.B.5, as well as in the spreadsheet contained in Appendix C.

CALPOST was run with visibility method (MVISBK) 6 t o apply the original IMPROVE equation, as well as with method 8, mode 5 to apply the revised IMPROVE equation. For both visibility methods, both annual average and best 20%

14 http://www.nature.nps.gov/air/maps/Receptors/

15 Interagency Workgroup On Air Quality Modeling (IWAQM) Phase 2 Summary Report And Recommendations For Modeling Long Range Transport Impacts (EPA

- 454/R

- 98

- 019 ) , EPA OAQPS, December 1998, http://www.epa.gov/scram001/7thconf/calpuff/phase2.pdfPage 13 of 40 

### of days (“B20”) natural background concentrations were used. Our analysis primari ly relies upon method 8 results, with best 20% backgrounds, as this is most consistent with current Federal Land Manager guidance for assessing visibility impacts at Class I areas, while also remaining consistent with the BART Guidelines.

For each Class I area, we developed visibility results using four visibility postprocessing methods as listed below. A description of these methods, and of visibility calculations in general, are contained in Sections 5.B.2 and 5.B.3.

Table 7 . Vi sibility Methods Used

abbr. CALPOST

Method No. (MVISBK) natural background

concentrations

vm6a 6 annual average

vm6b 6 best 20% of days

vm8a 8 annual average

vm8b 8 best 20% of days

There are 9 control scenarios, of which only 8 were modeled, since emissions from the SCR scenarios c14 and c15 are the same. Three years of meteorology were used for each model run, for a total of 24 CALPUFF and POSTUTIL runs. Each of these

models runs required a CALPOST run for each of the 5 areas and 4 visibility methods, for a total of 480 CALPOST runs. The names used for the CALPUFF input and output files reflect these combinations. For example, the 2002 CALPUFF input

file for control scenario c11 is “ cf_c11_2002.inp ”, and the corresponding CALPOST input file for the Zion area using visibility method 8a is

“ ct_c11_vm8a_zion_2002.inp ”.

Table 8

. Summary of Model Cases

scen scenario name NDEP NOx

case NOx emissions SO 2 

### and PM 10 

### emissions

c00 WRAP WRAP baseline WRAP WRAP

c02 WRAP NOx NA WRAP NDEP BART

c04 Baseline NOx Baseline Base LNB+OFA NDEP BART

c11 Enh. LNB+OFA 1 Enhanced LNB+OFA NDEP BART

c12 SNCR 2 SNCR+LNB+OFA NDEP BART

c13 ROFA+Rotamix 3 ROFA+Rotamix NDEP BART

c14 SCR+ROFA 4 SCR+ROFA NDEP BART

c15 SCR 5 SCR+LNB+OFA NDEP BART

c16 SCR ( 0.06

lb/MMBtu ) NA SCR+LNB+OFA at 0.06

lb/MMBtu NDEP BARTPage 14 of 40 

### 2. Background on CALPUFF and visibility calculations

CALMET is a pre

- processor that creates meteorological data suitable for input to CALPUFF. It accepts terrain, land use, and meteorological data in a number of forms, including data observations from surface and upper air meteorological stations; it can also accept 3D data fields from meteorological models such as MM5. Three years of meteorological data is standard, and is recommended in the BART

Guidelines.

CALPUFF is the air quality model, and simulates ambient concentrations of pollutants by portraying source plumes as a series of puffs that can expand and be transported independently, according to the meteorological conditions each encounters. In addition to meteorology input, CALPUFF requires emission rates for the following visibility

- impairing pollutants: SO 2 , SO 4 , NO x , secondary organic aerosol (SOA) or o rganic carbon (OC), elemental carbon (EC), and other fine particulate matter (PMF), and coarse particulate matter (PMC). Since data is not typically available for every one of the particulate matter (PM) components, some

estimates must be made in order to speciate available PM data into SOA or OC, EC, PMF, and PMC. CALPUFF computes concentrations for every hour, and for every receptor location; there is a standard set of receptors for each Class I area.

POSTUTIL post

- processes the concentrations from CALP UFF by apportioning the nitrate ion between its nitric acid and particulate nitrate forms; the amount in each form depends on the humidity and on the amount of sulfate and ammonia present.

Finally, CALPOST uses the IMPROVE equation to convert the various chemical species concentrations into extinction (b ext 

### ), the fraction of light removed from a sight path. CALPOST then converts extinction into deciviews (dv), a visibility metric more in line with human perception of visibility impairment, and the main m etric used in the Regional Haze Rule. There are several variants to the visibility impact calculation, including which version of the IMPROVE equation is used, and how background concentrations and humidity are accounted for. Extinction and deciviews

are available for each day modeled, and for each receptor location.

Under the BART Guidelines, visibility impact of a source is assessed relative to natural background, that is, the impairment that would exist without any artificial pollution sources. Estima tes of natural background concentrations are provided by EPA in the natural conditions guidance 16 

### and by the Federal Land Managers in the

16 Table 2

- 1 of Guidance for Estimating Natural Visibility Conditions Under the Regional Haze Rule

, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA

- 454/B

- 03

- 005, September 2003, on web page http://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg/t1pgm.html, with direct link http://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg/t1/memoranda/rh_envcurhr_gd.pdfPage 15 of 40 

### FLAG 2010 guidance. 17 

### Visibility impairment due to a particular source is usually expressed as percent extinction chang e (% increase over background extinction that is caused by including the source), or delta deciviews (increase over natural background deciviews caused by including the source).

Finally, of the visibility impacts computed for every modeled data and locati on, for each modeled day the receptor with the highest impact is chosen; and from among the resulting daily values, the 98th percentile is used as metric of visibility impact for a given Class I area. This would be the 8th high for a 365

- day year, or the 22nd high if the 1095 days of the three years of data are considered together. Most often the average of three individual years’ 98th percentiles is reported, rather than the 98th percentile of all three years’ data merged together. Both the average and the merged value are reported here.

3. The original and the revised IMPROVE equations

The IMPROVE equation is used to convert measured or modeled concentrations into extinction for each pollutant chemical species, and then total them, accounting for the

ef

fect of relative humidity ; it also includes the Rayleigh scattering that occurs in pure air. The extinction total is then used to calculate deciviews for use in visibility

progress assessments. I n December 2005 the IMPROVE Steering Committee revised

the IMPROVE equation after a scientific assessment of its implications for regional haze planning. In particular, when compared to nephelometer direct measurements of visibility extinction, the original IMPROVE equation over

- predicts for low extinction

condit ions and under

- predicts for high extinction. These biases have direct relevance for estimates for the best 20% and worst 20% visibility days that are used to assess

progress.

Original IMPROVE equation :

b ext 

### = 3 * f(RH) * [ sulfate ] + 3 * f(RH) * [ nitrate ] + 4 * [ organic mass ] + 10 * [ elemental carbon ] + 1 * [ fine soil ] + 0.6 * [ coarse mass ]

+ 10

Each term in the equation is the extinction due to a particular measured component;

bracketed quantities are concentrations of as measured at IMPROVE monitors. The

17 Federal Land Managers’ Air Quality Related Values Work Group (FLAG) Phase I Report

—

Revised (2010) , U.S. Forest Service, National Park Service, U.S. Fish And Wildlife Service, October 2010 . See http://www.nature.nps.gov/air/Permits/flag/ Direct link: http://www.nature.nps.gov/air/P ubs/pdf/flag/FLAG_2010.pdfPage 16 of 40 

### organic mass is assumed to be 1.4 times the organic carbon mass that is measured by IMPROVE monitors. The 10 is for Rayleigh scattering which is due to the interaction of light with molecules of air itself with no pollutants, and is assumed to be the same for all locations, The f(RH) is a water growth factor for sulfate and nitrate, which are hygrosopic (their particles tend to attract water). Its value depends on relative humidity, ranging fro m 1 at low humidity to 18 at 98% humidity.

New IMPROVE equation :

b ext 

### = 2.2 * f

s 

### (RH) * [small sulfate] + 4.8 * f L 

### (RH) * [large sulfate]

+ 2.4 * f

s 

### (RH) * [small nitrate] + 5.1 * f L 

### (RH) * [large nitrate] + 2.8 * [small organic mass] + 6.1 * [large organic mass] + 10 * [ elemental carbon ] + 1 * [ fine soil ]

+ 1.7 * f

ss 

### (RH) * [sea salt] + 0.6 * [ coarse mass ] + Rayleigh scattering (site

- specific) + 0.33 * [NO 2 

### (ppb)]

Sulfate is assumed to be all “large sulfate” if total sulfate is over 20 μg/m 3



### , otherwise its fraction of the total is assumed to increase uniformly between 0 and 1 when the total is in the range between 0 and 20. I.e.

, large sulfate = (total sulfate/20)*total. A similar definition applies for nitrate and for organic mass. The org anic mass is assumed to be 1.8 times the organic carbon mass that is measured by IMPROVE monitors, an increase over the original 1.4. Sea salt is estimated as 1.8 * [chloride] (or chlorine if chloride not available) Finally, the f

s 

### , f L 

### , f

ss 

### are water growth factors for small (“S”) and large (“L”) fractions of sulfate and nitrate, and for sea salt (“SS”). Their values depend on relative humidity, ranging from 1 at low humidity to over 5 at 95% humidity.

The new equation has five changes: 1) greater completeness though the inclusion of sea salt, which can be important for coastal sites; 2) increased organic carbon mass estimate, based on more recent data for remote areas; 3) Rayleigh scattering using

site

- specific elevation and temperature, a refinement over t h e older network

- wide constant; 4) separate estimates for small and large particles of visibility impacts and humidity

- dependent particle size growth rates, which could affect estimates at the low and high ends; and 5) greater completenes s though the inclusion of NO 2 

### (Pitchford, 2006) 18



### .

The new equation shows broader scatter overall, but less bias in matching visibility measurements under high and low visibility conditions. That is, though it has a somewhat worse fit considering all the data, it has a better fit under visibility

18 Pitchford, Marc, 2006, "New IMPROVE algorithm for estimating light extinction approved for use", The

IMPROVE Newsletter , Volume 14, Number 4, Air Resource Specialists, Inc.; web page: http://vista.cira.colostate.edu/improve/Publications/news_letters.htm

direct link: http://vista.cira.colostate.edu/improve/Publications/NewsLetters/IMPNews4thQtr2005.pdfPage 17 of 40 

### conditions most relevant to regional haze planning, the best and worst 20% of days. The looser overall fit can cause a slightly different set of days to be the ones chosen

than the 20% worst, but the chemical spe cies composition for such days is little changed (IMPROVE technical subcommittee for algorithm review, 2001, pp. 11

- 12), and so this makes little difference for assessing the contribution of emission sources to current conditions, and for projecting the ef fect of emission controls. The split between small and large particles was the main factor in reducing the biases.

The organic carbon (OC) measured by the IMPROVE network does not include all organic matter (OM); based on 1970's urban data, a scaling fac tor of 1.4 is embedded

in the original equation to account for the full mass. Based on recent data more relevant to relatively remote Class I areas, the revised IMPROVE equation embeds an OM/OC factor of 1.8. In practice, for the worst days the biggest e ffect of switching to the revised IMPROVE equation is this increased organic carbon mass, since the worst days are dominated by organic carbon from fires, rather than the sulfates and

nitrates that come mo re from anthropogenic sources.

4. Modeling Methodolo gy

EPA generally used the WRAP protocol 19 

### as a starting point, with some important changes. The WRAP protocol received wide review and approval, and was the basis for BART screening and BART determination modeling by number of western states and by individ ual facilities. In performing visibility modeling for the Navajo Generating Station (NGS), located near Page, AZ, AECOM (formerly ENSR) used the WRAP protocol and MM5 meteorology as a starting point and improved the modeled wind fields by introducing cha nges to some CALMET meteorological settings. 20 

### Following review and comment by the Federal Land Managers, AECOM made additional changes in accordance with FLM recommendations, including the incorporation of upper air data. For this action, EPA used the CAL MET results from

that AECOM work.

The WRAP protocol received extensive scrutiny during 2005

- 2006 by various States, EPA Regions, and Federal Land Managers (FLMs). Some key features of the protocol are listed here. Meteorological fields were derived from the MM5 prognostic meteorological model ( Mesoscale Model version 5 , Penn State University and the National Center for Atmospheric Research), using a 36 km grid resolution,

for the years 2001, 2002, and 2003 and with the continental United States as the

mo deling domain. Subdomains were extracted for use by individual states, such as Arizona and Nevada. The MM5 fields were then processed using CALMET

19 “CALMET/CALPUFF Protocol for BART Exemption Screening Analysis for Class I Areas in the Western United States”, Western Regional Air Partnership (WRAP); Ga il Tonnesen, Zion Wang; Ralph Morris, Abby Hoats and Yiqin Jia, August 15, 2006. Available on UCR Regional Modeling Center web site, BART CALPUFF Modeling

, http://pah.cert.ucr.edu/aqm/308/bart.shtml Direct link: http://pah.cert.ucr.edu/aqm/308/bart/WRAP_ RMC_BART_Protocol_Aug15_2006.pdf

20 See “BART Analysis for the Navajo Generating Station Units 1

– 3”, ENSR Corporation, November 2007,

Document No.: 05830

- 012

- 300Page 18 of 40 

### (meteorological pre-processor, part of the CALPUFF modeling system) as preparation for use in the CA LPUFF air quality model, usin g a 4 km grid resolution. After much discussion, WRAP elected to blend surface meteorological station observations into the MM5 fields, in stead of relying on the CALMET “no observations” (“no obs”) mode. (The Fe deral Land Managers had wanted the blending in of upper air data as well, but this was not included in the WRAP modeling.)

The WRAP protocol specified CALMET version 6.211 and CALPUFF version 6.112,

the latest versions at the time. However , since the time of the WRAP protocol, problems were discovered in CALMET vers ion 6.2 that resulted in EPA affirming

that CALMET version 5.8 and CALPUFF version 5.8 of CALPUFF, are the regulatory versions to be used. 21



### The AECOM CALMET modeling used by EPA differed from the WRAP protocol in using the regulatory version of the modeling system, and in several other ways. The CALMET settings were almost all the sa me; the WRAP-defined Arizona subdomain was used; all Class I Areas within 300 km of RGGS were included. However, when blending in meteorological st ation wind observations, AECOM used a lower radius of influence for stations (R1, R2, RMAX1). Th is resulted in smoother wind fields than

those used for WRAP, which had some abrupt changes as one leaves the zone of influence of a given meteorological station. After initial input from the Federal Land Managers, EPA requested that certain ot her CALMET option settings be changed. These changes resulted in a more refined a pproach that is more consistent with approaches used in PSD permit applica tion modeling. The revised modeling has more extensive use of meteorological st ation observations (e.g. IEXTR=-4 to extrapolate surface observations up to higher layers), and is responsive to the FLM concerns regarding adequacy of the su rface-only observations used in the WRAP modeling. Various relevant CALMET op tion settings are listed in Table XX: Selected CALMET settings for RGGS. For meteorological input to CALPUFF, EPA used the AECOM CALMET results, per th e “AECOM and EPA modeling” column

of that table.

21 As indicated in June 29, 2007 letter from Tyler Fox (E PA) to Joe Scire (TRC). Also indicated in U.S. EPA’s Support Center for Regulatory Air Models (SCRAM), CALPUFF model change bulletin, June 29, 2007. http://www.epa.gov/ttn/scram/dispersion_prefrec.htm#calpuffPage 19 of 40 

### Table 9

. Selected CALMET settings for RGGS

Option Description EPA

default WRAP protocol AECOM

and EPA modeling Comments

version CALMET version 5.8, level

070623 6.211, level

060414 5.8, level

070623 5.8 is EPA regulatory

version

NOOBS No Observation Mode 0 0 or 1 implied 0 U se both surface and upper

air observations

, per FLM

recommendation

ICLOUD gridded cloud fields 0 0 0

IWFCOD diagnostic winds 1 1 1

IFRADJ Froude wind adj. 1 1 1

IKINE kinematic effects 0 0 0

IOBR O ’ Brien vertical wind adj. 0 0 0

ISLOPE slope flows 1 1 1

IEXTRP extrapolate wind to upper

air - 4 1

- 4 T o extrapolate from surface

, per FLM recommendation

ICALM extrapolate calm to upper air 0 0 0

BIAS layer biases sfc vs. UA NZ*0 NZ*0 NZ*0

IPROG gridded initial prognostic 0 14 14 Use prognostic inputs from

MM5

RMAX1 max surface radius of

influence NA 50 30 Gives smoother wind fields, per AECOM

RMAX2 max aloft radius of

influence NA 100 100

RMAX3 max over

- water radius of

influence. NA 100 100

RMIN min wind radius of

influence. 0.1 0.1 0.1

RMIN2 min dist sfc winds extrap 4 4 4

TERRAD terrain radius of in influence NA 10 10

R1 weight surface Step 1 vs.

obs NA 100 18 Gives smoother wind fields, per AECOM

R2 weight aloft Step 1 vs. obs NA 200 20 Gives smoother wind fields, per AECOM

ITPROG 3D T from obs or prognostic 0 1 or 2 implied 1 U se surface station

temperatures

, per FLM

recommendation

TRADKM radius of influ. for T interp. 500 500 500

IAVET spatial T averaging 1 0 1 Smoothing turned on

JWAT1 starting land use for T interp. over water 999 51 51 (Could set to 999 to disable

overwater feature & avoid a CALMET bug ; very little

“ water ” land use here anyway)

JWAT2 ending land use for T interp.

over water 999 55 55



### CALPOST visibility method 6 (MVISBK=6) had long been the recommended approach for assessing visibility impacts in Class I areas. It implements the original IMPROVE equation, with monthly average humidity adjustment factors from thePage 20 of 40 

### 2000 version of the FLAG document. 22 

### It is incorporated in the regulatory version of CALPOST, version 5.6394. The revised IMPROVE equation is incorporated into a

later ve rsion of CALPOST, 6.221, and is implemented as visibility method 8 (MVISBK=8), mode 5, using monthly average humidity adjustment factors from the 2010 version of the FLAG document; this has updated values for each Class I area and includes adjustment factors for small and large sulfate and nitrate, and also sea salt, to accommodate the revised IMPROVE equation.

In order to use either of these methods, natural background concentrations are needed for each species in the respective IMPROVE equation. For method 8 and the revised IMPROVE equation, these are available for each Class I area in the FLAG 2010 document, for both the annual average and for the average over the best 20% of days (“B20”). For method 6, only annual average background species concentrations are available, in Table 2

- 1 the 2003 EPA natural conditions guidance cited above.

However that document ’s Appendix B also provides extinction and deciviews for the best 20% of days; the ratio of B20 extinction to annual extinction can be used to scale the annual average concentrations, yielding an estimate of the B20 concentrations,

which were used for this action. Finally, the 2003 EPA guidance gives relative humidity adjustment factors f(RH) for both the IMPROVE monitor location nearest a Class I area, and an interpolation from multiple monitors for the centroid of the Class I area; the latter was used he re.

5. Stack Parameters and Source Emissions

Stack Parameters Stack parameters used in the modeling are summarized in Table 10 below and were

obtained f rom the Nevada Energy BART Analysis Reports 23 

### , and WRAP Regional Modeling Center files. 24 

### There were certain discrepancies in the stack coordinates from these two information sources. In our modeling, we used the data from the WRAP files, since they more c losely corresponded to the coordinates for the overall facility known to EPA’s Clean Air Markets Division.

22 Federal Land Managers’ Air Quality Related Values Workgroup (FLAG) Phase I Report (December 2000), U.S. Forest Service, National Park Service, U.S. Fish And Wild life Service. See http://www.nature.nps.gov/air/Permits/flag/ ; Direct link: http://www.nature.nps.gov/air/Pubs/pdf/flag/FlagFinal.pdf

23 “BART Analysis for Reid Gardner Station Unit 1, Prepared for NV Energy”, October 2008, CH2MHill. See http://ndep.nv.gov /baqp/planmodeling/rhaze.html, file “Reid_Gardner_1_10

- 03

- 08.pdf”. Similar names for Unit 2 and Unit 3 reports.

24 “Summary of WRAP RMC BART Modeling for Nevada, Draft#7”, April 24, 2007, WRAP Regional Modeling Center. See: “Nevada Results Summary” at http ://pah.cert.ucr.edu/aqm/308/bart.shtml. Direct Link: http://pah.cert.ucr.edu/aqm/308/bart/calpuff/summary/NV_summary_May14_2007_v8

- NoSRC02_SRC07.doc; also for stack locations see “NV_BART_emis”, http://pah.cert.ucr.edu/aqm/308/bart/calpuff/emissions/nv_em is_Mar09_2007.xlsPage 21 of 40 

### Table 10

. Reid Gardner Generating Station Stack Parameters

Stack Parameter Unit 1 Unit 2 Unit 3

SRCNAM in CALPUFF RGGS1 RGGS2 RGGS3 

### HS, Stack Height, m 60.96 75.9 82.3 

### ES, Stack Elevation, m AMSL 487.68 487.68 487.68 

### DS, Stack Diameter, m 4.05 4.05 3.93 

### VS, Exit Velocity, m/s 15.96 15.34 21.75 

### TS, Exit Temperature, K 330.37 335.93 339.26 

### Heat input, MMBtu/hr 1215 1215 1237


### Location

LCC X km

- 1555.5060

- 1555.5120

- 1555.5210


### LCC Y km

- 218.2230

- 218.2522

- 218.2911 

### longitude

- 114.63175

- 114.63175

- 114.63177


### latitude 36.6580507 36.6577814 36.6574208



### A discussion of the basis for each model case’s emission estimates is included in the following section, as well as a description of the various PM 10 

### speciation profiles and sulfuric acid emission calculation methodologies used for each model case. Detailed

emission calculations for each model case, including p articulate speciation profiles and sulfuric acid emission calculations, can be found in Appendix C

.

Model Scenario Emission Factor Basis Case 00 (WRAP) consists of WRAP baseline emission rates for each of the Reid

Gardner units. The results of this case were compared to similar model runs performed by Nevada Energy and by WRAP that also made use of WRAP baseline

emissions.

Case 02 (WRAP NOx) consists of WRAP baseline emission rates for NOx. For PM 10 

### and SO 2 

### , this case consists of the emission rates c orresponding to the BART determinations for these units in the Nevada RH SIP (0.015 lb/MMBtu and 0.15 lb/MMBtu, respectively) as approved by EPA on December 13, 2011. 25 

### The results of this case were used primarily for informational purposes in order to det ermine the visibility improvement associated with PM 10 

### and SO 2 

### BART control.

Case 04 (Baseline NOx) uses the baseline emission factor for NOx relied upon by

NDEP in the RH SIP. 26 

### For PM 10 

### and SO 2 

### , this case consists of the emission rates corresponding to the BART determinations for these units in the Nevada RH SIP. Although these BART determination emission rates do not necessarily represent historical emissions at Reid Gardner, they have been approved for inclusion into the Nevada SIP. As a result, we regard the use of these emission rates in this baseline

25 77 FR 17334

26 Per Table 1, NDEP Reid Gardner BART Determination, October 22, 2009. Available as Docket Item No. EPA

R09

- OAR

- 2011

- 0130

- 0005 . Baseline emission factors are not explicitly calculated by NDEP. As illustrated in Appendix C, the baseline emission factor represents the listed annual emissions divided by “Base Heat Input

. ”Page 22 of 40 

### case and in control option cases to be the most accurate approach to predicting visibility impairment attributable to Reid Gardner.

Cases 11 through 15 (Control Options 1 through 5) use the NOx emission factors for the various control technology options as indicated by NDEP in the RH SIP. For

PM 10 

### and SO 2 

### , these cases consist of the emission rates use in Case 04 in order to provide a clear estimate of the visibility improvement associated with each NOx control technology.

Case 16 (Control Option 6) is an additional case that does not correspond to any of Nevada Energy’s control technology options. This case uses a NOx emission factor that corresponds to an approximately 86% SCR control efficie ncy from the NOx emission rates of Case 04 (Baseline NOx).

PM 10 

### Speciation

PM 10 

### emissions are not directly entered into the CALPUFF model but are instead speciated into constituent species . These PM 10 

### emissions were classified into the following particu late species using a combination of AP

- 42 emission data and Federal Land Managers’ guidance:

• Coarse particulate matter (PMC)

• Fine particulate matter (PMF )

• Sulfates (SO4)

• Secondary organic aerosols (SOA)

• Elemental carbon (EC)

Case 00 (WRAP) PM 10 

### emissions are based upon the WRAP PM 10 

### emission rate. These emissions were speciated based upon the assumption that the WRAP PM 10 

### emission rate represents total filterable PM (i.e., the result of a Method 5 test). This

PM 10 

### emission rate was speciated i nto PMC, PMF, and EC based upon AP

- 42 emission factors, as shown in Appendix C . The condensable PM 10 

### fraction (SOA and SO4 species), which would not be represented in the WRAP PM 10 

### emission rate, was calculated separately and included in the model.

The r emaining cases’ PM 10 

### emissions are based upon the Nevada RH SIP PM 10 

### BART determination of fabric filters and a 0.015 lb/MMBtu emission rate. Particulate emissions for these cases were speciated based upon the conservative assumption that the BART emissi on rate represents total PM 10 

### (i.e., filterable plus condensable fractions). As included in Appendix C, PM 10 

### emissions were speciated based upon AP

- 42 emission factors in a manner consistent with Federal Land Manager’s guidance.

Sulfur ic Acid (H 2 

### SO 4 

### ) E missions For the cases modeled in our analysis, we accounted for two mechanisms of sulfur acid manufacture: (1) combustion from fuel and (2) production from use of SCR catalyst. These emissions were calculated using either AP

- 42 emission factor data orPage 23 of 40 

### th e Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) document “ Estimating Total Sulfuric Acid Emissions from Stationary Power Plants .” 27



### Case 00 (WRAP) relied upon a particulate speciation profile that did not include SO4 emissions. As a result, sulfuric acid emissions from fuel combustion were calculated using the EPRI emission calculation methodology.

Cases 02, 04, and 11 through 16 relied upon particulate speciation profiles that did

include SO4 emissions. Sulfuric acid emissions from fuel combustion can s afely be assumed to be represented in the SO4 particulate fraction. As a result, no additional emission calculations were performed to quantify sulfuric acid from fuel combustion.

Cases 14 through 16 model the use of SCR. As a result, in addition to the sulfuric acid emissions from fuel combustion represented in the particulate speciation, an additional amount of sulfur acid manufactured from the use of SCR catalyst was calculated. The quantity of sulfuric acid was calculated using the EPRI calculation methodology for SCR.

6. Visibility Modeling Results

Visibility impacts for the Grand Canyon National Park, the Class I area where RGGS has the highest impacts, are shown in the following table, for all visibility methods

used. The results are for all th ree units modeled together, but only unit 1 NOx emission factors are shown for reference (the other units are comparable). The full results, including all areas and modeled years, are shown in the tables later in this

document. Additional results are ava ilable in Appendix E ( spreadsheet (“RGGS_TSD_CALPUFF_tables.xls”).

The benefit of SCR relative to the base case is only 0.38 dv (for the visibility method showing the highest impacts and benefits,“vm8b”). While this is not insignificant in

the context of an overall regional haze plan, considering that visibility progress is dependent on the cumulative effect of controls for many sources, this is still not a large benefit. It does not in itself show whether SCR is warranted or not in the BART

context.

T he incremental benefit of SCR over ROFA+Rotamix

, based on the 98 th 

### percentile impact of merged years

, is only 0. 09 dv (a s seen in Table 14 below)

. Further, even the incremental benefit of SCR at a more stringent 0.06 lb/MMBtu emission rate is only 0.10 dv. This result is small enough that it tends to support NDEP’s

considerati on of incremental visibility benefit in its BART determination, and the conclusion that SCR is not required for BART.

27 "Estimating Total Sulfuric Acid Emissions from Stationary Power Plants," EPRI, Technical Update, April 2010Page 24 of 40 

### Table 11 . EPA Modeling Results

– Visibility Impacts at the Grand Canyon

average of 3 individual year 98th
percentiles 98th percentile of merged

years

visibility

method 6 visibility

method 8 visibility

method 6 visibility

method 8

Unit 1 NOx, lb/MMbtu 1 annl.
avg bg B20 bg annl.
avg bg B20 bg annl.

avg bg B20 bg annl.

avg bg B20 bg

scen Scenario vm6a vm6b vm8a vm8b vm6a vm6b vm8a vm8b

c00 WRAP for NOx, SO2, PM 0.591 0.61 0.78 0.60 0.83 0.59 0.75 0.58 0.80

c02 WRAP NOx, NDEP SO2 & PM 0.591 0.56 0.72 0.56 0.77 0.55 0.71 0.54 0.74

c04 Baseline NOx LNB+OFA 0.462 0.46 0.60 0.45 0.63 0.44 0.58 0.42 0.59

c11 Enh. LNB+OFA 0.364 0.40 0.52 0.40 0.54 0.38 0.50 0.37 0.51

c12 SNCR+LNB+OFA 0.273 0.28 0.37 0.28 0.39 0.28 0.36 0.27 0.37

c13 ROFA+Rotamix 0.195 0.24 0.31 0.24 0.33 0.22 0.29 0.22 0.31

c15 SCR+LNB+OFA 0.085 0.19 0.24 0.18 0.25 0.17 0.22 0.16 0.22

c16 SCR+LNB+OFA 0.06 lb/MMBtu 0.06 0.17 0.23 0.16 0.22 0.16 0.20 0.15 0.20

1 The results are for all three units modeled together, but only unit 1 NOx emission factors are shown for reference (the other units are comparable).



### Table 12 . EPA Modeling Results

– Visibility Improvement at the Grand Canyon (relative to baseline)

average of 3 individual year 98th
percentiles 98th percentile of merged

years

visibility method

6 visibility

method 8 visibility

method 6 visibility

method 8

Unit 1 NOx, lb/MMbtu 1 annl.
avg bg B20 bg annl.

avg bg B20 bg annl.

avg bg B20 bg annl.

avg bg B20 bg

scen Scenario vm6a vm6b vm8a vm8b vm6a vm6b vm8a vm8b

c00 WRAP for NOx, SO2, PM 0.591 0.15 0.18 0.15 0.20 0.14 0.18 0.16 0.21

c02 WRAP NOx, NDEP SO2 & PM 0.591 0.10 0.13 0.11 0.15 0.10 0.13 0.11 0.16

c04 Baseline NOx LNB+OFA 0.462

c11 Enh. LNB+OFA 0.364

- 0.06

- 0.08

- 0.06

- 0.08

- 0.06

- 0.08

- 0.06

- 0.08

c12 SNCR+LNB+OFA 0.273

- 0.18

- 0.23

- 0.17

- 0.24

- 0.17

- 0.22

- 0.16

- 0.21

c13 ROFA+Rotamix 0.195

- 0.22

- 0.29

- 0.22

- 0.30

- 0.22

- 0.29

- 0.20

- 0.28

c15 SCR+LNB+OFA 0.085

- 0.27

- 0.35

- 0.28

- 0.38

- 0.28

- 0.36

- 0.26

- 0.36

c16 SCR+LNB+OFA 0.06 lb/MMBtu 0.06

- 0.29

- 0.37

- 0.29

- 0.41

- 0.29

- 0.37

- 0.28

- 0.38

1 The results are for all three units modeled together, but only unit 1 NOx emission factors are shown for reference (the other units are comparable).Page 25 of 40 

### Table 13 . EPA Mode ling Results

– Incremental Visibility Improvement at the Grand Canyon (SCR vs. ROFA/Rotamix)

average of 3 individual year 98th
percentiles 98th percentile of merged

years

visibility

method 6 visibility

method 8 visibility

method 6 visibility

method 8

Unit 1 NOx, lb/MMbtu 1 annl.

avg bg B20 bg annl.

avg bg B20 bg annl.

avg bg B20 bg annl.

avg bg B20 bg

scen Scenario vm6a vm6b vm8a vm8b vm6a vm6b vm8a vm8b

c13 ROFA+Rotamix 0.195

c15 SCR+LNB+OFA 0.085

- 0.05

- 0.07

- 0.06

- 0.08

- 0.05

- 0.07

- 0.06

- 0.09

c16 SCR+LNB+OFA 0.06 lb/MMBtu 0.06

- 0.07

- 0.09

- 0.08

- 0.11

- 0.06

- 0.08

- 0.08

- 0.10

1 The results are for all three units modeled together, but only unit 1 NOx emission factors are shown for reference (the other units are comparable).



### Using natural background concentrations from the best 20% of days (“B20”) increases visibility impacts estimates by about 30% relative to using the annual average (going from vm6a to vm6b, or from vm8a to vm8b). This makes sense because natural visibility impairment is lower on the best days, s o any given impact will be a larger percentage of the best values than of the annual average. States are free to use annual average background concentrations in assessing visibility impacts, 28 

### and NDEP did so, but even if B20 is used, the visibility benefit of SCR is relatively small.

The effect of changing to the revised IMPROVE equation varies by area and scenario, but on average decreases 98 th 

### percentile delta deciviews by about 5%.

7. Comparison to other modeling

Overview

RGGS has been modeled several times in recent years, by the WRAP Regional Modeling Center 29 

### , by CH2MHill 30 

### for Nevada Energy, and by Gray Sky Solutions. 31


### The differences between their applications of the CALPUFF modeling system are

summarized in Table 14 below, “ CALPUFF settings differences for various model applications .” The various modeling domains are illustrated in Figure 2 , “Reid Gardner Generating Station CALPUFF and CALMET Modeling Domains .”

28 “ Regional Haze Regulations and Guidelines for Best Available Retrofit T echnology (BART) Determinations”

, Memorandum from Joseph W. Paisie, EPA OAQPS Geographic Strategies Group, to Kay Prince, EPA Region 5, July 19, 2006. Available at: http://www.epa.gov/visibility/pdfs /memo_2006_07_19.pdf

29 WRAP Regional Modeling Center, “Summary of WRAP RMC BART Modeling for Nevada, Draft#7, cited

above.

30 CH2MHill, “BART Analysis for Reid Gardner Station Unit 1, Prepared for NV Energy”, cited above

31 “ Modeling for the Reid Gardner Gen erating Station: Visibility Impacts in Class I Areas ” , H. Andrew Gray, Gray Sky Solutions, August 2011Page 26 of 40 

### Compared to other modeling efforts involving RGGS, the results of our CALPUFF modeling indicate lower visibility impacts, as well as lower visibili ty improvement attributable to the various NOx control technologies (both from baseline and incremental). As described further below, we examined the sensitivity of visibility impacts to multiple variables in order to better understand our model results. Based on the results of our sensitivity analysis, we have identified the most important differences as 1) the use of different CALMET versions, and 2) the use of certain

non

- default puff control parameters by the WRAP.

Regarding CALMET versions, EPA us ed the regulatory version of CALMET (version 5.8), while others used post

- 5.8 versions. The particular non

- default puff parameters used by WRAP were not addressed in the WRAP protocol. While t hese alternative values are not necessarily wrong for applicat ion of the model to this area, they are not further explained in the WRAP documentation , and make a substantial difference to the modeled impacts:

• MXSAM Max sampling steps for one time step: 99 (default) vs. 5 (WRAP)

• CDIV(2) divergence criteria: 0 & 0 (de fault) vs. .01 & .01 (WRAP)

• SL2PF Slug

- to

- puff transition: 10 (default) vs. 5 (WRAP)

• NSPLIT number of puffs after split 3 (default) vs. 2 (WRAP)Page 27 of 40 

### Figure 2

. Model Domains for Various CALPUFF Modeling EffortsPage 28 of 40 

### Table 14

. CALPUFF settings differences for various model applications

Processor I tem WRAP Nevada Energy Gray EPA

CALMET CALMET

version 6.211 6.211 6.211 5.8

parameters mainly default mainly default mainly default mainly default ;
smaller influence

radii

MM5 inputs 2001: Alpine
Geophysics;

2002: WRAP

RMC; 2003:

LADCO 2001 & 2002: Alpine
Geophysics;

2003: LADCO same as Nevada Energy same as WRAP

upper air obs. Not included Not included Not included Included

domain NV WRAP
domain;

includes all of

NV RGGS

- centered,

includes all of

NV and most of

California RGGS

- centered,

includes all of

NV and most of

California AZ WRAP domain; includes

half of NV and all

of AZ

domain size,

km 792 x 1224 1112 x 1008 1112 x 1008 1152 x 900

proj. (origin);

p arallels;

datum LCC (40, 97);

33; 45; NWS

- 84 LCC (40, 117);

33; 45; NAD83 LCC (40, 117);

33; 45; NAD83 LCC (40, 97);

33; 45; NWS

- 84

CALPUFF CALPUFF

version 6.112 6.112 6.262 5.8

parameters some puff non

defaults defaults defaults defaults

domain So. NV WRAP
domain; almost

all of NV square about RGGS (CH2M coords) square about RGGS (CH2M coords) square about RGGS (WRAP coords)

domain size,

km 700 x 996 624 x 684 624 x 684 628 x 624

max mix ht, m 4500 (orig. 3000) 4500 4500 4500

PM speciation Total PM as PM

fine SO4, EC, OC,

PMF, PMC SO4, EC, OC,

PMF, PMC SO4, EC, OC,

PMF, PMC

POSTUTIL POSTUTIL

version <1.5? 1.52 1.52? 1.56

CALPOST CALPOST

version 6.1? 6.131 6.221 6.221 (also 5.6394)

visibility

method 6 6 8 6 and 8

natural
background annual average annual average annual average annual average

and B20Page 29 of 40 

### Comparison of Baseline Impacts

The EPA

- modeled impacts for Grand Canyon National Park are roughly one

- third of those modeled by Nevada Energy for the base case (EPA “c04”; Nevada Energy “Base/LNB+OFA”). For visibility method 6, annual average background (“vm6a”), the EPA modeled impact for the all three units for the base case is 0.46 dv (average of the three years); Nevada Energy found an impact of 0.46 dv for Unit 1 alone. Summing the Nevada Energy impact for all three units, and discounting by 8% (to account for the difference between modeling units separately vs. together, as shown

i n Table 15 for GRCA) gives (0.46+0.45+0.36)*92% = 1.17 dv for Nevada Energy

, as compared to 0.46 dv for EPA.

A similar ratio applies to the WRAP ba se case (EPA “c00”; Nevada Energy “rm” or “WRAP baseline”), where EPA modeled 0.61 dv, roughly a third of the Nevada Energy modeled (0.81+0.80+0.76)*92% = 2.18 dv. The comparable result for the modeling by Gray was 2.17 dv (though this used visibility met hod 8 instead of 6). For comparison, the WRAP itself found 1.25 dv for all three units for the base case. The EPA results are thus roughly 50% lower than WRAP, whereas the Nevada Energy and Gray results are about 50% higher than WRAP’s for the WRAP base

case.

The modeling performed by Gray Sky Solutions matched the modeling by Nevada Energy in most particulars, however it did use a slightly later CALPUFF version. In addition, the SCR scenario modeled included a substantial SO 2 

### reduction, so the

results are not directly comparable to the NOx

- only reductions in the Nevada Energy and EPA modeling of SCR.

Sensitivity Analysis There are substantial differences between the visibility impacts modeled by the
WRAP, Nevada Energy , and EPA, even with (nearly) iden tical emission inputs. This is because of the different meteorological inputs to CALMET used, and by the

different versions of CALMET and CALPUFF.

To better understand these differences, EPA conducted a series of sensitivity

simulations for the 2001 mete orology year (the one with the highest impacts). The series started with EPA’s WRAP base case (c00) input files, and changed various inputs to make them more like the inputs used by the WRAP. (Actually, in preparing the model input files, the WRAP’s own input files were used as a starting point, except for the “c00” and “cwe” scenarios.) All runs used visibility method 6, with annual average natural background concentrations. The results are detailed in the accompanying table below, “ Comparison of EPA ’ s RGGS CALPUFF modeling and variants to WRAP BART modeling results ” (also available in accompanying spreadsheet, “ WRAP_compare_tables.xls ”), but the results are summarized here.

Starting from EPA’s c00 base case, a new “cwe” control case ( W RAP e missions) wa s run that used the same NOx emissions and PM emissions and speciation that thePage 30 of 40 

### WRAP used, that is, total particulate matter (PM) modeled as fine particulate (PMF), rather than separated into chemical components. The results of this model run

resulted in a decrease in 98th percentile delta deciview visibility impacts by only a few percent.

The next simulation was WRAP’s own CALPUFF input files, including the puff parameter changes noted above. This resulted in over a 50% increase in Grand Canyon impacts , with smaller changes at the other areas (and a 2% decrease at Sycamore Canyon). Thus, the puff parameters account for a large proportion of the

difference between the EPA and the WRAP results.

The CALPOST post

- processor version was next changed from 5.6394 to 6.131,

which was the version available around the time that the WRAP and Nevada Energy were performing modeling. Thus, the CALPOST version had no effect on the visibility impacts.

The CALPUFF model itself was then changed, from 5.8 to the 6.112 version used by the WRAP. This had essentially no effect on the visibility impacts, although they appear shifted by one day due to the convention used in later versions of stating dates

in terms of the ir ending hour, rather than their starting hour. (So, 2001

- 01

- 01 appears

as 2000

- 12

- 31 in the later CALPUFF version.) Thus, the CALPUFF version had essentially no effect on the visibility impacts.

The remaining comparison is between the WRAP modeling its elf and EPA modeling using the same emissions, PM speciation, CALPUFF settings, and CALPUFF and CALPOST versions that the WRAP used, but with different meteorology and CALMET versions. In changing from the AECOM meteorology used by EPA to the meteorology used by WRAP, visibility impacts increased by some 60%. Thus, the CALMET version, incorporation of upper air data, and possibly meteorological domain account for a large proportion of the difference between the EPA and the

WRAP results.

The substantial d ifferences between EPA and WRAP results for the WRAP base case for RGGS can therefore be attributed in part to differences in CALPUFF puff parameters, and especially to differences in the version of CALMET used. Differences in model domains may also play a role. The CALMET and CALPUFF domains cover different territory and thus will have slightly different meteorology; in addition; puffs that advect out of one domain and are lost to the simulation may remain within the other domain and affect visibility es timates.

Additional Analysis of Model Results As an additional check, EPA examined visibility, sulfate, and nitrate over the entire modeling domain, i.e. with “gridded” receptors, instead of the receptor sets within the Class I areas. It is possible that overall visibility impacts were similar between the various simulations, but they occurred at different locations; that is, a dense plume may have hit the Grand Canyon in the WRAP simulation, but missed it in the EPAPage 31 of 40 

### simulation because of wind direction d ifferences. Little was discovered from the gridded simulations, but the biggest shift was seen with the change from default to

WRAP non

- default puff parameters (gridded results from the WRAP modeling itself were not available for comparison). Extinction and concentration isopleths for these

simulations are shown in Figure 3 , “Reid Gardner, 8th High at Each Gridded Receptor” and Figure 4 “Reid Gardner, 1st High at Each Gridded Receptor.” For both figures, the main difference between the two simulations appears to be that the zone of higher visibilit y and nitrate impacts has a lobe to the northeast, suggesting stronger wind transport in that direction, and resulting in higher impact regions reaching the western end of the Grand Canyon. Because these plots are of the ranked values, e.g. the 8th high o ver the entire year, the plots are composites of results on many days; a much more detailed analysis would be needed to understand why the results differ between the simulations. However, the overall similarity of the impact patterns at least gives some a ssurance that no gross error was made in preparing the simulation inputs.

A few additional test runs showed that on average, modeling the three units separately and adding the results gave 98th percentile delta deciview impacts about 4% higher than when the units are modeled together in a single CALPUFF run. This may reflect the competition of sulfate and nitrate in the plumes for available ammonia when the units are modeled together. The results for Grand Canyon are t he basis for the “8% discount” applied above to the sum of impacts from individually modeled units.

Table 15

. Comparison of CALPUFF Results : Sum of individual unit results vs. Modeling all units together in single model run



### Class I Area Visibility Impact (dv) 1



### Unit 1 Unit 2 Unit 3 simple

sum modeled together % difference

brca 0.059 0.061 0.061 0.181 0.181 0%

grca 0.254 0.264 0.264 0.782 0.725 8% jotr 0.233 0.229 0.229 0.691 0.663 4%

syca 0.045 0.039 0.039 0.123 0.127

- 3%

zion 0.103 0.105 0.105 0.313 0.307 2%

T otal

-- -- -- 2.090 2.003 4%

1 Based on 98th percentile impact using visibility method 6 and annual average natural background- 1800

- 1600

- 1400 - 600 - 400 - 200 - 600 - 400 - 200 - 600 - 400 - 200

- 1800

- 16 00

- 1 4 00 - 6 00 - 4 00 - 2 00 - 6 00 - 4 00 - 2 00 - 600 - 400 - 200

15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 e x t i n ct i on, 1 / Mm

0 0

. 05 0 .1 0 .2 0 .3 0 .4 0 .5 0 .6 0 .7 NO 3 ,

μ g /m 3

0 0

. 02 0

. 04 0

. 06 0

. 08 0 .1 0

. 12 0

. 14 0

. 16 0

. 18 0 .2 0

. 22 0

. 24 SO 4 ,

μ g /m 3 

### W R A P C A L P U F F pa r a m e t e rs EP A C A L P U F F pa r a m e t e rs 

## R e i d G a r d n e r

, 8 t h H i g h a t E a c h G r i d d e d R e c e p t o r ( 6 2 8 x 6 2 4 k m do m a i n

, 4 k m g r i d c e ll s)- 1800

- 1600

- 1400 - 600 - 400 - 200 - 600 - 400 - 200 - 600 - 400 - 200

- 1800

- 16 00

- 1 4 00 - 6 00 - 4 00 - 2 00 - 6 00 - 4 00 - 2 00 - 600 - 400 - 200

16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 e x t i n ct i on, 1 / Mm

0 0 .2 0 .4 0 .6 0 .8 1 1 .2 1 .4 NO 3 ,

μ g /m 3

0 0

. 05 0 .1 0

. 15 0 .2 0

. 25 0 .3 0

. 35 0 .4 0

. 45 0 .5 0

. 55 0 .6 0

. 65 0 .7 0

. 75 0 .8 SO 4 ,

μ g /m 3 

### W R A P C A L P U F F pa r a m e t e rs EP A C A L P U F F pa r a m e t e rs 

## R e i d G a r d n e r

, 1 s t H i g h a t E a c h G r i d d e d R e c e p t o r ( 6 2 8 x 6 2 4 k m d o m a i n

, 4 k m g r i d c e ll s)Page 34 of 40 

### 6. Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) Elements We are p roposing to disapprove certain elements of the Nevada RH SIP and propose a corresponding FIP for these elements. The RH SIP elements we are disapproving include 1) the NOx emission limit of 0.28 lb/MMBtu for Unit 3, and 2) the rolling 12

- month averaging p eriod for monitoring NOx emissions for Units 1 through 3.

A. Unit 3 Emission Limit We are proposing to promulgate a FIP to establish a NOx emission limit of 0.20 lb/MMBtu for Unit 3. In its RH SIP, NDEP proposed a NOx emission limit of 0.28

lb/MMBtu for Unit 3. This limit for Unit 3 (0.28 lb/MMBtu) was higher than the emission limit NDEP proposed for Units 1 or 2 (0.20 lb/MMBtu each). The higher emission limit appears to be partially attributable to the fact that the application of control technology to Unit 3 results in less stringent levels of performance relative to

Units 1 and 2. As shown in Table 5 of this notice, Nevada Energy’s emission estimates indicate that application of ROFA with Rotamix achieves nearly 60 percent reduction from baseline on Units 1 and 2, but only a 38 percent re duction from baseline on Unit 3. These percent reduction values were used by NDEP in developing its own estimate of NOx emissions, which form the basis for the proposed

NOx limits.

Nevada Energy’s BART analysis for Unit 3 did not provide a unit

- specifi c explanation for this difference in control effectiveness. In responding to comments on this issue, NDEP indicated that it deferred to Nevada Energy’s operational experience in developing control efficiency data, and had no reason to question their

estim ates. 32 

### The case

- by

- case nature of the BART determination process does provide for the consideration of site

- specific and unit

- specific characteristics in the BART analysis. 33 

### While there may be unique characteristics associated with Unit 3 that justify th e lower percent reduction values used by Nevada Energy and NDEP, we

do not find the information in the record on this issue to be at a sufficient level of detail to support this determination.

In the absence of what we consider sufficient justification by Nevada Energy and NDEP, we have evaluated Unit 3 control option emissions predicated upon similar levels of performance relative to Units 1 and 2. Based upon the Unit 3 baseline

emissions relie d upon by NDEP (described in the ‘NDEP’ column in Table 5 ), if a percent reduction similar to Units 1 and 2 were applied to Unit 3 baseline emissions, it can be expect ed to attain a NOx emission rate of 0.20 lb/MMBtu using the ROFA with Rotamix control option.

B. Averaging Period In its RH SIP, NDEP proposed NOx limits with a 12

- month rolling averaging period for Unit 1 through 3, which is a longer averaging period than t he 30

- day rolling

32 Page D

- 37, Appendix D and C

- 9, Appendix C, Nevada RH SIP. Available as attachments to EPA

- R09

- OAR

2011

- 0130

- 0003

33 For example, when determining what c ontrol options are considered technically feasible at a specific unit, 70 FR

39165Page 35 of 40 

### average indicated by the BART Guidelines. Longer averaging periods allow operators the flexibility to “smooth out” short

- term emission spikes by averaging those values with periods of lower emission rates. In responding to comments on this issue in their RH SIP, NDEP indicated that Nevada Energy expected a high degree of operational variability with the ROFA with Rotamix control option based upon previous operational experience with ROFA. 34



### A summary of NOx emission rates from Units 1 through 3 as reported by the Clean Air Markets Division (CAMD) is included in Appendix D, and includes annual and monthly average emissions over a 2001

- 11 time frame. Monthly average NOx data

over a 2010

- 11 time period indicates a certain degree of fluctu ation, as well as a general downward trend in NOx emissions. NDEP has indicated that the downward trend in NOx emissions is partially due to the use of a coal fuel stream that consists of

a mixture of bituminous and sub

- bituminous coal. Specifically, the Utah/Colorado coal that has historically represented the entirety of the fuel stream to Units 1 through

3 has recently been supplemented with varying amounts of lower

- nitrogen content Wyoming sub

- bituminous coal. 35 

### Although operational flexibility can be a legitimate consideration when establishing an enforceable limit, we consider use of a rolling 12

- month averaging period instead of a rolling 30

- day average to be inconsistent with

BART Guidelines. 36 

### We believe the fluctuations of the NOx emissions from e ach of the units is better dealt with by averaging the emissions from the three units to determine compliance over the 30

- day rolling average.

34 Page D

- 60, Appendix D, Nevada RH SIP. A

35 Email dated March 18, 2012, from Mike Elges (NDEP) to Colleen McKaughan (EPA)

36 70 FR 39172Page 36 of 40 

### Appendix A:

EPA Analysis of NOx Control Cost Estimates (from original RH SIP) for Reid Gardner Generating Station

See www.regulations.gov , docket ID number EPA

- R09

- OAR

- 2011

- 0130Printed4/2/2012ComparisonofSCRControlCosts(Original,2008)ParameterNDEP RevisedEPANDEP RevisedEPANDEP RevisedEPAUnitOutput(kW)HeatInput(MMBtu/hr)BoilerTypeCtrltechnologyCtrlEmissionRate(lb/MMBtu) 0.085 0.085 0.083 0.083 0.098 0.098TotalCapitalCosts $35,048,000 $26,840,000 $35,048,000 $26,840,000 $35,048,000 $26,840,000TotalAnnualCostsFixedCosts $330,000 $330,000 $330,000 $330,000 $330,000 $330,000VariableCosts $699,801 $699,801 $748,551 $748,551 $670,893 $670,893CapitalRecovery $3,703,556 $2,533,506 $3,703,556 $2,533,506 $3,703,556 $2,533,50620yrs@8.5% 20yrs@7.0% 20yrs@8.5% 20yrs@7% 20yrs@8.5% 20yrs@7%TotalAnnualCosts $4,733,357 $3,563,307 $4,782,107 $3,612,057 $4,704,449 $3,534,399NOxRemovedfrombaseline(tpy) 1,850 1,850 2,010 2,009 1,774 1,775AverageCostperton($/ton) $2,559 $1,926 $2,379 $1,798 $2,652 $1,991IncrementalCostperton($/ton) $5,684 $4,067 $5,425 $3,885 $3,446 $2,477Previousctrltechnology ROFA+Rotamix ROFA+Rotamix ROFA+RotamixSCR+LNB+OFA SCR+LNB+OFA SCR+LNB+OFAReidGardnerUnit2 Unit3Wall‐fired Wall‐fired Wall‐fired1132 1132100,0001132100,000 100,000Unit1SCRCostComparisonsPage1of13ReidGardnerNOxControlEffectivenessSummary‐EPARevisedCostsUnitNo. AnnualHeatInput1(MMBtu/yr)Unit1 9,818,313Unit2 10,501,749Unit3 10,063,851UnitNo. Parameter UnitsBaseline2LNB+OFA LNB+OFA+SNCR ROFA+Rotamix SCR+LNB+OFA SCR+ROFAEmissionRate (tpy) 2,267 1,784 1,340 959 417 417Removed (tpy)‐‐483 927 1,308 1,850 1,850RemovalRate (%)‐‐21.3% 40.9% 57.7% 81.6% 81.6%EmissionFactor(lb/MMBtu) 0.462 0.363 0.273 0.195 0.085 0.085AnnualCost ($) $442,469 $946,040 $1,360,867 $3,563,307 $4,084,427AverageCostEffectiveness ($/ton) $916 $1,021 $1,040 $1,926 $2,208IncrementalCostEffectiveness ($/ton)‐‐$1,135 $1,088 $4,067 $5,030Previousctrltechnology‐‐LNB+OFA LNB+OFA+SNCR ROFA+Rotamix ROFA+RotamixEmissionRate (tpy) 2,445 1,866 1,401 1,003 436 436Removed (tpy)‐‐579 1,044 1,442 2,009 2,009RemovalRate (%)‐‐23.7% 42.7% 59.0% 82.2% 82.2%EmissionFactor(lb/MMBtu) 0.466 0.355 0.267 0.191 0.083 0.083AnnualCost ($) $442,469 $968,449 $1,408,676 $3,612,057 $4,159,306AverageCostEffectiveness ($/ton) $764 $928 $977 $1,798 $2,070IncrementalCostEffectiveness ($/ton)‐‐$1,131 $1,106 $3,885 $4,850Previousctrltechnology‐‐LNB+OFA LNB+OFA+SNCR ROFA+Rotamix ROFA+RotamixEmissionRate (tpy) 2,268 2,118 1,590 1,399 493 493Removed (tpy)‐‐150 678 869 1,775 1,775RemovalRate (%)‐‐7% 30% 38% 78% 78%EmissionFactor(lb/MMBtu) 0.451 0.421 0.316 0.278 0.098 0.098AnnualCost ($) $442,469 $895,762 $1,290,483 $3,534,399 $4,091,349AverageCostEffectiveness ($/ton) $2,958 $1,321 $1,485 $1,991 $2,305IncrementalCostEffectiveness ($/ton)‐‐$858 $2,064 $2,477 $3,092Previousctrltechnology‐‐LNB+OFA LNB+OFA+SNCR ROFA+Rotamix ROFA+Rotamix1) BasedonNDEPReid‐GardnerBARTDetermination,October22,2009,Table1.Heatinputvaluesappeartobebasedon1.0capacityfactorand1152MMBtu/hr2) BaselineemissionsandcontroloptionemissionsbaseduponNDEP'sOctober22,2009BARTdetermination,Table1.BasedonNDEPbaseline,whichishigherthanNVEsubmittal.Bycomparison,NVE'sUnit1baselinewas1625tpyNOxUnit1Unit2Unit3ReidGardnerNOxEmissionEstimates(BaseduponNDEPCostandControlEstimates)UnitNo. AnnualHeatInput1(MMBtu/yr)Unit1 9,818,313Unit2 10,501,749Unit3 10,063,851UnitNo. Parameter UnitsBaseline2LNB+OFA LNB+OFA+SNCR ROFA+Rotamix SCR+LNB+OFA SCR+ROFAEmissionRate (tpy) 2,267 1,784 1,340 959 417 417Removed (tpy)‐‐483 927 1,308 1,850 1,850RemovalRate (%)‐‐21.3% 40.9% 57.7% 81.6% 81.6%EmissionFactor(lb/MMBtu) 0.462 0.363 0.273 0.195 0.085 0.085AnnualCost ($) $550,024 $1,130,186 $1,652,724 $4,733,357 $5,379,929AverageCostEffectiveness3($/ton) $1,139 $1,219 $1,264 $2,559 $2,908IncrementalCostEffectiveness3($/ton)‐‐$1,307 $1,371 $5,684 $6,877EmissionRate (tpy) 2,445 1,866 1,401 1,003 435 435Removed (tpy)‐‐579 1,044 1,442 2,010 2,010RemovalRate (%)‐‐23.7% 42.7% 59.0% 82.2% 82.2%EmissionFactor(lb/MMBtu) 0.466 0.355 0.267 0.191 0.083 0.083AnnualCost ($) $550,024 $1,152,595 $1,700,533 $4,782,107 $5,454,808AverageCostEffectiveness3($/ton) $950 $1,104 $1,179 $2,379 $2,714IncrementalCostEffectiveness3($/ton)‐‐$1,296 $1,377 $5,425 $6,610EmissionRate (tpy) 2,268 2,121 1,590 1,400 494 494Removed (tpy)‐‐147 678 868 1,774 1,774RemovalRate (%)‐‐6.5% 29.9% 38.3% 78.2% 78.2%EmissionFactor(lb/MMBtu) 0.451 0.421 0.316 0.278 0.098 0.098AnnualCost ($) $550,024 $1,079,908 $1,582,340 $4,704,449 $5,386,851AverageCostEffectiveness3($/ton) $3,742 $1,593 $1,823 $2,652 $3,037IncrementalCostEffectiveness3($/ton)‐‐$998 $2,644 $3,446 $4,1991) AslistedinNDEPReid‐GardnerBARTDetermination,October22,2009,Table1,"BaseHeatInput."Basedonlistedemissionratesandemissionfactors,"baseheatinput"andnot"totalheatinput"wasused.2) BaselineemissionsandcontroloptionemissionsbaseduponNDEP'sOctober22,2009BARTdetermination,Table1.BasedonNDEPbaseline,whichishigherthanNVEsubmittal.Bycomparison,NVE'sUnit1baselinewas1625tpyNOx3) AverageandincrementalcosteffectivenessvaluesasreportedinNDEP'sOctober22,2009BARTdetermination,Table1.Unit1Unit2Unit3Printed4/2/2012Control Cost Comparison - LNB+OFANDEP costs not allowed by EPA Control Cost ManualNDEP costs allowed by EPA Control Cost Manual, but modified from NDEP estimateNDEP EPA RevisedCostNDEP EPA RevisedCostValue % Value %CommentsCapital CostsLow NOx Burners (Upgrade) + OFA/ROFAMajor Materials Design andSupply Construction$1,600,000 $1,600,000 $1,600,000 $1,600,000 $1,600,000 $1,600,000Vendor estimate. Comparable to Purchased Equipment Cost (PEC) as described in EPA CCM, althoughthis line item description suggests it includes more than just PEC. The CCM provides more detailedguidance on what constituent elements may be included in this line item, but the NDEP appendix does notprovide sufficient detail to make more specific determinations.Construction $1,120,000 70% $1,120,000 70% $1,120,000 $1,120,000 $1,120,000 $1,120,000Vendor estimate. Comparable to Indirect installation costs as described in EPA CCM. Again, more detailedguidance on what constituent elements are allowed in this line item, but the NDEP appendix does notBalance of Plant $800,000 50% $800,000 50% $800,000 $800,000 $800,000 $800,000Balance of plant is construed to refer to other capital expenditures beyond PEC. Such costs are allowed inthe CCM, and are considered part of direct capital costs (DCC).Electrical (Allowance) $80,000 5% $80,000 5% $80,000 $80,000 $80,000 $80,000Electrical equipment is included in the EPA control cost manual as part of direct capital costs (DCC), and soare retained here without revisionOwner's Costs $160,000 10% $0 0% $160,000 $0 $160,000 $0Owner's costs such as project management, advisory fees, legal, etc., are not included in the Control CostManual. Although it is possible that certain CCM-allowed costs are included in this line item, additionaldetails would be needed to make that deteSurcharge $256,000 16% $0 0% $256,000 $0 $256,000 $0There is no provision for surcharge in the EPA Control Cost ManualAFUDC $192,000 12% $0 0% $192,000 $0 $192,000 $0AFUDC is not allowed for any of the applications listed in the EPA Control Cost ManualSubtotal, LNB+OFA Capital Cost $4,208,000 $3,600,000 $4,208,000 $3,600,000 $4,208,000 $3,600,000Contingency $240,000 15% $240,000 15% $240,000 $240,000 $240,000 $240,000 EPA Control Cost Manual provides for project contingency costsof up to 15% of the total of direct capitalcosts (DCC) and indirect installation costs.Total LNB+OFA Capital Cost $4,448,000 $3,840,000 $4,448,000 $3,840,000 $4,448,000 $3,840,000Total Capital Cost $4,448,000 $3,840,000 $4,448,000 $3,840,000 $4,448,000 $3,840,000Unit 1 Unit 2 Unit 3NDEP EPA Revised CostLNB+OFAPage4of13Printed4/2/2012Control Cost Comparison - LNB+OFANDEP costs not allowed by EPA Control Cost ManualNDEP costs allowed by EPA Control Cost Manual, but modified from NDEP estimateNDEP EPA RevisedCostNDEP EPA RevisedCostValue % Value %CommentsUnit 1 Unit 2 Unit 3NDEP EPA Revised CostAnnual CostsFixed O&M CostsOperating Labor$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 No estimate of additional operating labor was provided.Maintenance Materials$32,000 $32,000 $32,000 $32,000 $32,000 $32,000Maintenance Labor$48,000 $48,000 $48,000 $48,000 $48,000 $48,000Administrative Labor $0$0$0$0$0$0 No estimate of additional administrative labor was provided.Subtotal, fixed O&M costs $80,000 $80,000 $80,000 $80,000 $80,000 $80,000Variable CostsReagent $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0EPA CCM does provide for certain raw material costs such as reagent costs.Catalyst Replacement $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0The EPA Control Cost Manual does provide for SCR catalyst replacement costs. The basis for NDEP'sestimate is not clear, however, and it is difficult to determine how catalyst costs determined using the CCMmight compare.Auxiliary Power $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0The EPA Control Cost Manual does provide for utility costs, such as those needed to operate SCRequipment.Subtotal, variable costs $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0Debt Service/Capital Recovery1$470,024 $362,469 $470,024 $362,469 $470,024 $362,469Regarding interest rates, EPA calculated capital recoveries using 3% and 7% interest rates in determiningcost effectiveness for the Regulatory Impact Analysis for the Final Clean Air Visibility rule and theGuidelines for BART Determinations under the Regional Haze regulations. The EPA Control Cost Manualuses 7% interest rate in SNCR example calculations (Section 4-2, Chap 1, p1-37). In addition, the CCMalso recommends a 20 year economic lifetime for SNCR (p1-37), although 30 year lifetimes have often beenspecified in BART and BACT analyses.Total Annual Costs$550,024 $442,469 $550,024 $442,469 $550,024 $442,4691)Debt Service/Capital RecoveryInterest rate (%) = 8.5% 7.0%Equipment lifetime (years) = 20 20The EPA Control Cost Manual provides for maintenance materials and labor. These costs are included inthe revised EPA estimate, although no basis was provided.LNB+OFAPage5of13Printed4/2/2012Control Cost Comparison - LNB+OFA+SNCRNDEP costs not allowed by EPA Control Cost ManualNDEP costs allowed by EPA Control Cost Manual, but modified from NDEP estimateNDEP EPA RevisedCostNDEP EPA RevisedCostValue % Value %CommentsCapital CostsLow NOx Burners (Upgrade) + OFAMajor Materials Design andSupply Construction$1,600,000 $1,600,000 $1,600,000 $1,600,000 $1,600,000 $1,600,000Vendor estimate. Comparable to Purchased Equipment Cost (PEC) as described in EPA CCM,although this line item description suggests it includes more than just PEC. The CCM providesmore detailed guidance on what constituent elements may be included in this line item, but theNDEP appendix does not provide sufficient detail to make more specific determinations.Construction $1,120,000 70% $1,120,000 70% $1,120,000 $1,120,000 $1,120,000 $1,120,000Vendor estimate. Comparable to Indirect installation costs as described in EPA CCM. Again,more detailed guidance on what constituent elements are allowed in this line item, but the NDEPBalance of Plant $800,000 50% $800,000 50% $800,000 $800,000 $800,000 $800,000Balance of plant is construed to refer to other capital expenditures beyond PEC. Such costs areallowed in the CCM, and are considered part of direct capital costs (DCC).Electrical (Allowance) $80,000 5% $80,000 5% $80,000 $80,000 $80,000 $80,000Electrical equipment is included in the EPA control cost manual as part of direct capital costs(DCC), and so are retained here without revisionOwner's Costs $160,000 10% $0 0% $160,000 $0 $160,000 $0Owner's costs such as project management, advisory fees, legal, etc., are not included in theControl Cost Manual. Although it is possible that certain CCM-allowed costs are included in thisline item, additional details would be needed to make that deteSurcharge $256,000 16% $0 0% $256,000 $0 $256,000 $0There is no provision for surcharge in the EPA Control Cost ManualAFUDC $192,000 12% $0 0% $192,000 $0 $192,000 $0AFUDC is not allowed for any of the applications listed in the EPA Control Cost ManualSubtotal, LNB+OFA Capital Cost $4,208,000 $3,600,000 $4,208,000 $3,600,000 $4,208,000 $3,600,000Contingency $240,000 15% $240,000 15% $240,000 $240,000 $240,000 $240,000 EPA Control Cost Manual provides for project contingency costsof up to 15% of the total ofdirect capital costs (DCC) and indirect installation costs.Total LNB+OFA Capital Cost $4,448,000 $3,840,000 $4,448,000 $3,840,000 $4,448,000 $3,840,000Selective Non-Catalytic Reduction (SNCR)Major Materials Design andSupply Construction$1,350,000 $1,350,000 $1,350,000 $1,350,000 $1,350,000 $1,350,000 Vendor estimate. Comparable to Purchased Equipment Cost (PEC) as described in EPA CCM,although this line item description suggests it includes more than just PEC. See comments inOA bConstruction $202,50015.0%$202,500 15% $202,500 $202,500 $202,500 $202,500Balance of Plant $162,00012.0%$162,000 12% $162,000 $162,000 $162,000 $162,000Electrical (Allowance) $67,5005.0%$67,500 5% $67,500 $67,500 $67,500 $67,500Owner's Costs $135,00010.0%$0 0% $135,000 $0 $135,000 $0Owner's costs such as project management, advisory fees, legal, etc., are not included in theControl Cost Manual. Although it is possible that certain CCM-allowed costs are included in thisline item, additional details would be needed to make that deteSurcharge $216,00016.0%$0 0% $216,000 $0 $216,000 $0There is no provision for surcharge in the EPA Control Cost ManualAFUDC $162,00012.0%$0 0% $162,000 $0 $162,000 $0AFUDC is not allowed for SCR in the EPA Control Cost ManualSubtotal, SCR Capital Cost $2,295,000 $1,782,000 $2,295,000 $1,782,000 $2,295,000 $1,782,000Contingency $202,500 15% $202,500 15% $202,500 $202,500 $202,500 $202,500 EPA Control Cost Manual provides for project contingency costsof up to 15% of the total ofdirect capital costs (DCC) and indirect installation costs.Total SNCR Capital Cost$2,497,500 $1,984,500 $2,497,500 $1,984,500 $2,497,500 $1,984,500Total Capital Cost$6,945,500 $5,824,500 $6,945,500 $5,824,500 $6,945,500 $5,824,500See comments in LNB+OFA section above. While these costs to not directly correspond to EPACCM line items, they are comparable to certain allowed costs. As a result, these costs areretained without revision.Unit 1 Unit 2 Unit 3NDEP EPA Revised CostSNCR+LNB+OFAPage6of13Printed4/2/2012Control Cost Comparison - LNB+OFA+SNCRNDEP costs not allowed by EPA Control Cost ManualNDEP costs allowed by EPA Control Cost Manual, but modified from NDEP estimateNDEP EPA RevisedCostNDEP EPA RevisedCostValue % Value %CommentsUnit 1 Unit 2 Unit 3NDEP EPA Revised CostAnnual CostsFixed O&M CostsOperating Labor$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 No estimate of additional operating labor was provided.Maintenance Materials$83,000 $83,000 $83,000 $83,000 $83,000 $83,000Maintenance Labor$124,500 $124,500 $124,500 $124,500 $124,500 $124,500Administrative Labor $0$0$0$0$0$0 No estimate of additional administrative labor was provided.Subtotal, fixed O&M costs $207,500 $207,500 $207,500 $207,500 $207,500 $207,500Variable CostsReagent $151,080 $151,080 $169,985 $169,985 $98,612 $98,612EPA CCM does provide for certain raw material costs such as reagent costs.Catalyst Replacement $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0The EPA Control Cost Manual does provide for SCR catalyst replacement costs. The basis forNDEP's estimate is not clear, however, and it is difficult to determine how catalyst costsdetermined using the CCM might compare.Auxiliary Power $37,668 $37,668 $41,172 $41,172 $39,858 $39,858The EPA Control Cost Manual does provide for utility costs, such as those needed to operateSCR equipment.Subtotal, variable costs $188,748 $188,748 $211,157 $211,157 $138,470 $138,470Debt Service/Capital Recovery1$733,938 $549,792 $733,938 $549,792 $733,938 $549,792Regarding interest rates, EPA calculated capital recoveries using 3% and 7% interest rates indetermining cost effectiveness for the Regulatory Impact Analysis for the Final Clean AirVisibility rule and the Guidelines for BART Determinations under the Regional Haze regulationsThe EPA Control Cost Manual uses 7% interest rate in SNCR example calculations (Section 4-2,Chap 1, p1-37). In addition, the CCM also recommends a 20 year economic lifetime for SNCR(p1-37), although 30 year lifetimes have often been specified in BART and BACT analyses.Total Annual Costs$1,130,186 $946,040 $1,152,595 $968,449 $1,079,908 $895,7621)Debt Service/Capital RecoveryInterest rate (%) = 8.5% 7.0%Equipment lifetime (years) = 20 20The EPA Control Cost Manual provides for maintenance materials and labor. These costs areincluded in the revised EPA estimate, although no basis was provided.SNCR+LNB+OFAPage7of13Printed4/2/2012Control Cost Comparison - ROFA+RotamiNDEP costs not allowed by EPA Control Cost ManualNDEP costs allowed by EPA Control Cost Manual, but modified from NDEP estimateNDEP EPA RevisedCNDEP EPA RevisedCValue % Value %CommentsCapital CostsRotating Overfire Air (ROFA)Major Materials Design andSupply Construction$2,880,000 $2,880,000 $2,880,000 $2,880,000 $2,880,000 $2,880,000Vendor estimate. Comparable to Purchased Equipment Cost (PEC) as described in EPA CCM, althoughthis line item description suggests it includes more than just PEC. The CCM provides more detailedguidance on what constituent elements may be included in this line item, but the NDEP appendix does notprovide sufficient detail to make more specific determinations.Construction $742,500 $742,500 $742,500 $742,500 $742,500 $742,500Vendor estimate. Comparable to Indirect installation costs as described in EPA CCM. Again, moredetailed guidance on what constituent elements are allowed in this line item, but the NDEP appendix doesnot provide sufficient detail to make this evaluationBalance of Plant $1,440,000 50% $1,440,000 50% $1,440,000 $1,440,000 $1,440,000 $1,440,000Balance of plant is construed to refer to other capital expenditures beyond PEC. Such costs are allowed inthe CCM, and are considered part of direct capital costs (DCC).Electrical (Allowance) $864,000 30% $864,000 30% $864,000 $864,000 $864,000 $864,000Electrical equipment is included in the EPA control cost manual as part of direct capital costs (DCC), andso are retained here without revisionOwner's Costs $288,000 10% $0 0% $288,000 $0 $288,000 $0Owner's costs such as project management, advisory fees, legal, etc., are not included in the Control CostManual. Although it is possible that certain CCM-allowed costs are included in this line item, additionaldetails would be needed to make that determination.Surcharge $460,800 16% $0 0% $460,800 $0 $460,800 $0There is no provision for surcharge in the EPA Control Cost ManualAFUDC $345,600 12% $0 0% $345,600 $0 $345,600 $0AFUDC is not allowed for any of the applications listed in the EPA Control Cost ManualSubtotal, ROFA Capital Cost $7,020,900 $5,926,500 $7,020,900 $5,926,500 $7,020,900 $5,926,500Contingency $864,000 30% $432,000 15% $864,000 $432,000 $864,000 $432,000 EPA Control Cost Manual provides for project contingency costsof up to 15% of the total of direct capitalcosts (DCC) and indirect installation costs.Total ROFA Capital Cost $7,884,900 $6,358,500 $7,884,900 $6,358,500 $7,884,900 $6,358,500RotamixMajor Materials Design andSupply Construction$1,029,000 $1,029,000 $1,029,000 $1,029,000 $1,029,000 $1,029,000 Vendor estimate. Comparable to Purchased Equipment Cost (PEC) as described in EPA CCM, althoughthis line item description suggests it includes more than just PEC. See comments in ROFA above.Construction $247,500 $247,500 $247,500 $247,500 $247,500 $247,500Vendor estimate. Comparable to Indirect installation costs as described in EPA CCM. Again, moredetailed guidance on what constituent elements are allowed in this line item, but the NDEP appendix doesnot provide sufficient detail to make this evaluationBalance of Plant $123,48012.0%$123,480 12% $123,480 $123,480 $123,480 $123,480Balance of plant is construed to refer to other capital expenditures beyond PEC. Such costs are allowed inthe CCM, and are considered part of direct capital costs (DCC).Electrical (Allowance) $00.0%$0 0% $0 $0 $0 $0 Zero estimate provided by NDEP. Based upon the documentation provided, it is unclear if these costs areaccounted for elsewhereOwner's Costs $102,90010.0%$0 0% $102,900 $0 $102,900 $0Owner's costs such as project management, advisory fees, legal, etc., are not included in the Control CostManual. Although it is possible that certain CCM-allowed costs are included in this line item, additionaldetails would be needed to make that determination.Surcharge $164,64016.0%$0 0% $164,640 $0 $164,640 $0There is no provision for surcharge in the EPA Control Cost ManualAFUDC $123,48012.0%$0 0% $123,480 $0 $123,480 $0AFUDC is not allowed for SNCR (comparable to Rotamix) in the EPA Control Cost ManualSubtotal, Rotamix Capital Cost $1,791,000 $1,399,980 $1,791,000 $1,399,980 $1,791,000 $1,399,980Contingency $154,350 15% $154,350 15% $154,350 $154,350 $154,350 $154,350 EPA Control Cost Manual provides for project contingency costsof up to 15% of the total of direct capitalcosts (DCC) and indirect installation costs.Total Rotamix Capital Cost$1,945,350 $1,554,330 $1,945,350 $1,554,330 $1,945,350 $1,554,330Total Capital Cost$9,830,250 $7,912,830 $9,830,250 $7,912,830 $9,830,250 $7,912,830Unit 1 Unit 2 Unit 3NDEP EPA Revised CostROFA+RotamixPage8of13Printed4/2/2012Control Cost Comparison - ROFA+RotamiNDEP costs not allowed by EPA Control Cost ManualNDEP costs allowed by EPA Control Cost Manual, but modified from NDEP estimateNDEP EPA RevisedCNDEP EPA RevisedCValue % Value %CommentsUnit 1 Unit 2 Unit 3NDEP EPA Revised CostAnnual CostsFixed O&M CostsOperating Labor$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 No estimate of additional operating labor was provided.Maintenance Materials$48,000 $48,000 $48,000 $48,000 $48,000 $48,000Maintenance Labor$72,000 $72,000 $72,000 $72,000 $72,000 $72,000Administrative Labor $0$0$0$0$0$0 No estimate of additional administrative labor was provided.Subtotal, fixed O&M costs $120,000 $120,000 $120,000 $120,000 $120,000 $120,000Variable CostsReagent $213,062 $213,062 $234,741 $234,741 $126,347 $126,347EPA CCM does provide for certain raw material costs such as reagent costs.Catalyst Replacement $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0Auxiliary Power $280,890 $280,890 $307,020 $307,020 $297,221 $297,221The EPA Control Cost Manual does provide for utility costs, such as those needed to operate SNCR(comparable to Rotamix) equipment.Subtotal, variable costs $493,952 $493,952 $541,761 $541,761 $423,568 $423,568Debt Service/Capital Recovery1$1,038,772 $746,915 $1,038,772 $746,915 $1,038,772 $746,915Regarding interest rates, EPA calculated capital recoveries using 3% and 7% interest rates in determiningcost effectiveness for the Regulatory Impact Analysis for the Final Clean Air Visibility rule and theGuidelines for BART Determinations under the Regional Haze regulations. The EPA Control Cost Manualuses 7% interest rate in SNCR example calculations (Section 4-2, Chap 1, p1-37). In addition, the CCMalso recommends a 20 year economic lifetime for SNCR (p1-37), although 30 year lifetimes have oftenbeen specified in BART and BACT analyses.Total Annual Costs$1,652,724 $1,360,867 $1,700,533 $1,408,676 $1,582,340 $1,290,4831)Debt Service/Capital RecoveryInterest rate (%) = 8.5% 7.0%Equipment lifetime (years) = 20 20The EPA Control Cost Manual provides for maintenance materials and labor. These costs are included inthe revised EPA estimate, although no basis was provided.ROFA+RotamixPage9of13Printed4/2/2012Control Cost Comparison - SCR+LNB+OFANDEP costs not allowed by EPA Control Cost ManualNDEP costs allowed by EPA Control Cost Manual, but modified from NDEP estimateNDEP EPA RevisedCostNDEP EPA RevisedCostValue % Value %CommentsCapital CostsLow NOx Burners (Upgrade) + OFAMajor Materials Design andSupply Construction$1,600,000 $1,600,000 $1,600,000 $1,600,000 $1,600,000 $1,600,000Vendor estimate. Comparable to Purchased Equipment Cost (PEC) as described in EPA CCM,although this line item description suggests it includes more than just PEC. The CCM provides moredetailed guidance on what constituent elements may be included in tConstruction $1,120,000 70% $1,120,000 70% $1,120,000 $1,120,000 $1,120,000 $1,120,000Vendor estimate. Comparable to Indirect installation costs as described in EPA CCM. Again, moredetailed guidance on what constituent elements are allowed in this line item, but the NDEP appendixBalance of Plant $800,000 50% $800,000 50% $800,000 $800,000 $800,000 $800,000Balance of plant is construed to refer to other capital expenditures beyond PEC. Such costs areallowed in the CCM, and are considered part of direct capital costs (DCC).Electrical (Allowance) $80,000 5% $80,000 5% $80,000 $80,000 $80,000 $80,000Electrical equipment is included in the EPA control cost manual as part of direct capital costs (DCC),and so are retained here without revisionOwner's Costs $160,000 10% $0 0% $160,000 $0 $160,000 $0Owner's costs such as project management, advisory fees, legal, etc., are not included in the ControlCost Manual. Although it is possible that certain CCM-allowed costs are included in this line item,additional details would be needed to make that deteSurcharge $256,000 16% $0 0% $256,000 $0 $256,000 $0There is no provision for surcharge in the EPA Control Cost ManualAFUDC $192,000 12% $0 0% $192,000 $0 $192,000 $0AFUDC is not allowed for SCR in the EPA Control Cost Manual, Section 4.2, Chap 2, Table 2.5Subtotal, LNB+OFA Capital Cost $4,208,000 $3,600,000 $4,208,000 $3,600,000 $4,208,000 $3,600,000Contingency $240,000 15% $240,000 15% $240,000 $240,000 $240,000 $240,000 EPA Control Cost Manual provides for project contingency costsof up to 15% of the total of directcapital costs (DCC) and indirect installation costs.Total ROFA Capital Cost $4,448,000 $3,840,000 $4,448,000 $3,840,000 $4,448,000 $3,840,000Selective Catalytic Reduction (SCR)Major Materials Design andSupply Construction$20,000,000 $20,000,000 $20,000,000 $20,000,000 $20,000,000 $20,000,000 Vendor estimate. Comparable to Purchased Equipment Cost (PEC) as described in EPA CCM,although this line item description suggests it includes more than just PEC. See comments in ROFAbConstruction $00.0%$0 0% $0 $0 $0 $0Balance of Plant $00.0%$0 0% $0 $0 $0 $0Electrical (Allowance) $00.0%$0 0% $0 $0 $0 $0Owner's Costs $2,000,00010.0%$0 0% $2,000,000 $0 $2,000,000 $0Owner's costs such as project management, advisory fees, legal, etc., are not included in the ControlCost Manual. Although it is possible that certain CCM-allowed costs are included in this line item,additional details would be needed to make that deteSurcharge $3,200,00016.0%$0 0% $3,200,000 $0 $3,200,000 $0There is no provision for surcharge in the EPA Control Cost ManualAFUDC $2,400,00012.0%$0 0% $2,400,000 $0 $2,400,000 $0AFUDC is not allowed for SCR in the EPA Control Cost ManualSubtotal, SCR Capital Cost $27,600,000 $20,000,000 $27,600,000 $20,000,000 $27,600,000 $20,000,000Contingency $3,000,000 15% $3,000,000 15% $3,000,000 $3,000,000 $3,000,000 $3,000,000 EPA Control Cost Manual provides for project contingency costs of up to 15% of the total of directcapital costs (DCC) and indirect installation costs.Total SCR Capital Cost$30,600,000 $23,000,000 $30,600,000 $23,000,000 $30,600,000 $23,000,000Total Capital Cost$35,048,000 $26,840,000 $35,048,000 $26,840,000 $35,048,000 $26,840,000Zero estimate provided by NDEP. Based upon the documentation provided, it is unclear if these costsare accounted for elsewhereUnit 1 Unit 2 Unit 3NDEP EPA Revised CostSCR+LNB+OFAPage10of13Printed4/2/2012Control Cost Comparison - SCR+LNB+OFANDEP costs not allowed by EPA Control Cost ManualNDEP costs allowed by EPA Control Cost Manual, but modified from NDEP estimateNDEP EPA RevisedCostNDEP EPA RevisedCostValue % Value %CommentsUnit 1 Unit 2 Unit 3NDEP EPA Revised CostAnnual CostsFixed O&M CostsOperating Labor$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 No estimate of additional operating labor was provided.Maintenance Materials$132,000 $132,000 $132,000 $132,000 $132,000 $132,000Maintenance Labor$198,000 $198,000 $198,000 $198,000 $198,000 $198,000Administrative Labor $0$0$0$0$0$0 No estimate of additional administrative labor was provided.Subtotal, fixed O&M costs $330,000 $330,000 $330,000 $330,000 $330,000 $330,000Variable CostsReagent $301,192 $301,192 $326,816 $326,816 $257,830 $257,830EPA CCM does provide for certain raw material costs such as reagent costs.Catalyst Replacement $150,000 $150,000 $150,000 $150,000 $150,000 $150,000The EPA Control Cost Manual does provide for SCR catalyst replacement costs. The basis forNDEP's estimate is not clear, however, and it is difficult to determine how catalyst costs determinedusing the CCM might compare.Auxiliary Power $248,609 $248,609 $271,735 $271,735 $263,063 $263,063The EPA Control Cost Manual does provide for utility costs, such as those needed to operate SCRequipment.Subtotal, variable costs $699,801 $699,801 $748,551 $748,551 $670,893 $670,893Debt Service/Capital Recovery1$3,703,556 $2,533,506 $3,703,556 $2,533,506 $3,703,556 $2,533,506Regarding interest rates, EPA calculated capital recoveries using 3% and 7% interest rates indetermining cost effectiveness for the Regulatory Impact Analysis for the Final Clean Air Visibilityrule and the Guidelines for BART Determinations under the Regional Haze regulations. The EPAControl Cost Manual uses 7% interest rate in SCR example calculations (Section 4-2, Chap 2, p2-57).In addition, the CCM also recommends a 20 year economic lifetime for SCR (p2-57), although 30 yearlifetimes have often been specified in BART and BACT analyses.Total Annual Costs$4,733,357 $3,563,307 $4,782,107 $3,612,057 $4,704,449 $3,534,3991)Debt Service/Capital RecoveryInterest rate (%) = 8.5% 7.0%Equipment lifetime (years) = 20 20The EPA Control Cost Manual provides for maintenance materials and labor. These costs areincluded in the revised EPA estimate, although no basis was provided.SCR+LNB+OFAPage11of13Printed4/2/2012Control Cost Comparison - SCR+ROFANDEP costs not allowed by EPA Control Cost ManualNDEP costs allowed by EPA Control Cost Manual, but modified from NDEP estimateNDEP EPA RevisedCostNDEP EPA RevisedCostValue % Value %CommentsCapital CostsRotating Overfire Air (ROFA)Major Materials Design andSupply Construction$2,880,000 $2,880,000 $2,880,000 $2,880,000 $2,880,000 $2,880,000Vendor estimate. Comparable to Purchased Equipment Cost (PEC) as described in EPA CCM,although this line item description suggests it includes more than just PEC. The CCM provides moredetailed guidance on what constituent elements may be included in this line item, but the NDEPappendix does not provide sufficient detail to make more specific determinations.Construction $742,500 $742,500 $742,500 $742,500 $742,500 $742,500Vendor estimate. Comparable to Indirect installation costs as described in EPA CCM. Again, moredetailed guidance on what constituent elements are allowed in this line item, but the NDEP appendixdoes not provide sufficient detail to make this evaluationBalance of Plant $1,440,000 50% $1,440,000 50% $1,440,000 $1,440,000 $1,440,000 $1,440,000Balance of plant is construed to refer to other capital expenditures beyond PEC. Such costs are allowedin the CCM, and are considered part of direct capital costs (DCC).Electrical (Allowance) $864,000 30% $864,000 30% $864,000 $864,000 $864,000 $864,000Electrical equipment is included in the EPA control cost manual as part of direct capital costs (DCC),and so are retained here without revisionOwner's Costs $288,000 10% $0 0% $288,000 $0 $288,000 $0Owner's costs such as project management, advisory fees, legal, etc., are not included in the ControlCost Manual. Although it is possible that certain CCM-allowed costs are included in this line item,additional details would be needed to make that determination.Surcharge $460,800 16% $0 0% $460,800 $0 $460,800 $0There is no provision for surcharge in the EPA Control Cost ManualAFUDC $345,600 12% $0 0% $345,600 $0 $345,600 $0AFUDC is not allowed for any of the applications listed in the EPA Control Cost ManualSubtotal, ROFA Capital Cost $7,020,900 $5,926,500 $7,020,900 $5,926,500 $7,020,900 $5,926,500Contingency $864,000 30% $432,000 15% $864,000 $432,000 $864,000 $432,000 EPA Control Cost Manual provides for project contingency costsof up to 15% of the total of directcapital costs (DCC) and indirect installation costs.Total ROFA Capital Cost $7,884,900 $6,358,500 $7,884,900 $6,358,500 $7,884,900 $6,358,500Selective Catalytic Reduction (SCR)Major Materials Design andSupply Construction$20,000,000 $20,000,000 $20,000,000 $20,000,000 $20,000,000 $20,000,000 Vendor estimate. Comparable to Purchased Equipment Cost (PEC) as described in EPA CCM,although this line item description suggests it includes more than just PEC. See comments in ROFAbConstruction $00.0%$0 0% $0 $0 $0 $0Balance of Plant $00.0%$0 0% $0 $0 $0 $0Electrical (Allowance) $00.0%$0 0% $0 $0 $0 $0Owner's Costs $2,000,00010.0%$0 0% $2,000,000 $0 $2,000,000 $0Owner's costs such as project management, advisory fees, legal, etc., are not included in the ControlCost Manual. Although it is possible that certain CCM-allowed costs are included in this line item,additional details would be needed to make that determination.Surcharge $3,200,00016.0%$0 0% $3,200,000 $0 $3,200,000 $0There is no provision for surcharge in the EPA Control Cost ManualAFUDC $2,400,00012.0%$00% $2,400,000$0$2,400,000$0AFUDC is not allowed for SCR in the EPA Control Cost Manual, Section 4.2, Chap 2, Table 2.5Subtotal, SCR Capital Cost $27,600,000 $20,000,000 $27,600,000 $20,000,000 $27,600,000 $20,000,000Contingency $3,000,000 15% $3,000,000 15% $3,000,000 $3,000,000 $3,000,000 $3,000,000 EPA Control Cost Manual provides for project contingency costs of up to 15% of the total of directcapital costs (DCC) and indirect installation costs.Total SCR Capital Cost$30,600,000 $23,000,000 $30,600,000 $23,000,000 $30,600,000 $23,000,000Total Capital Cost$38,484,900 $29,358,500 $38,484,900 $29,358,500 $38,484,900 $29,358,500Zero estimate provided by NDEP. Based upon the documentation provided, it is unclear if these costsare accounted for elsewhereUnit 1 Unit 2 Unit 3NDEP EPA Revised CostSCR+ROFAPage12of13Printed4/2/2012Control Cost Comparison - SCR+ROFANDEP costs not allowed by EPA Control Cost ManualNDEP costs allowed by EPA Control Cost Manual, but modified from NDEP estimateNDEP EPA RevisedCostNDEP EPA RevisedCostValue % Value %CommentsUnit 1 Unit 2 Unit 3NDEP EPA Revised CostAnnual CostsFixed O&M CostsOperating Labor$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 No estimate of additional operating labor was provided.Maintenance Materials$148,000 $148,000 $148,000 $148,000 $148,000 $148,000Maintenance Labor$222,000 $222,000 $222,000 $222,000 $222,000 $222,000Administrative Labor $0$0$0$0$0$0 No estimate of additional administrative labor was provided.Subtotal, fixed O&M costs $370,000 $370,000 $370,000 $370,000 $370,000 $370,000Variable CostsReagent $301,192 $301,192 $326,816 $326,816 $257,830 $257,830EPA CCM does provide for certain raw material costs such as reagent costs.Catalyst Replacement $112,500 $112,500 $112,500 $112,500 $132,000 $132,000The EPA Control Cost Manual does provide for SCR catalyst replacement costs. The basis for NDEP'sestimate is not clear, however, and it is difficult to determine how catalyst costs determined using theCCM might compare.Auxiliary Power $529,500 $529,500 $578,755 $578,755 $560,284 $560,284The EPA Control Cost Manual does provide for utility costs, such as those needed to operate SCRequipment.Subtotal, variable costs $943,192 $943,192 $1,018,071 $1,018,071 $950,114 $950,114Debt Service/Capital Recovery1$4,066,737 $2,771,235 $4,066,737 $2,771,235 $4,066,737 $2,771,235Regarding interest rates, EPA calculated capital recoveries using 3% and 7% interest rates indetermining cost effectiveness for the Regulatory Impact Analysis for the Final Clean Air Visibility ruleand the Guidelines for BART Determinations under the Regional Haze regulations. The EPA ControlCost Manual uses 7% interest rate in SCR example calculations (Section 4-2, Chap 2, p2-57). Inaddition, the CCM also recommends a 20 year economic lifetime for SCR (p2-57), although 30 yearlifetimes have often been specified in BART and BACT analyses.Total Annual Costs$5,379,929 $4,084,427 $5,454,808 $4,159,306 $5,386,851 $4,091,3491)Debt Service/Capital RecoveryInterest rate (%) = 8.5% 7.0%Equipment lifetime (years) = 20 20The EPA Control Cost Manual provides for maintenance materials and labor. These costs are includedin the revised EPA estimate, although no basis was provided.SCR+ROFAPage13of13Page 37 of 40 

### Appendix B:

EPA Analysis of NOx Control Cost Estimates (2011 update) for Reid Gardner Generating

Station

See www.regulations.gov , docket ID number EPA

- R09

- OAR

- 2011

- 0130Printed4/2/2012ComparisonofSCRControlCosts(Updated,2011)ParameterNDEP RevisedEPANDEP RevisedEPANDEP RevisedEPAUnitOutput(kW)HeatInput(MMBtu/hr)BoilerTypeCtrltechnologyCtrlEmissionRate(lb/MMBtu) 0.085 0.085 0.083 0.083 0.098 0.098TotalCapitalCosts $39,754,076 $30,443,946 $39,754,076 $30,443,946 $39,754,076 $30,443,946TotalAnnualCostsFixedCosts $330,000 $330,000 $330,000 $330,000 $330,000 $330,000VariableCosts $699,801 $699,801 $748,551 $748,551 $670,893 $670,893CapitalRecovery $4,200,852 $2,873,693 $4,200,852 $2,873,693 $4,200,852 $2,873,69320yrs@8.5% 20yrs@7.0% 20yrs@8.5% 20yrs@7% 20yrs@8.5% 20yrs@7%TotalAnnualCosts $5,230,653 $3,903,494 $5,279,403 $3,952,244 $5,201,745 $3,874,586NOxRemovedfrombaseline(tpy) 1,850 1,850 2,010 2,009 1,774 1,775AverageCostperton($/ton) $2,827 $2,110 $2,627 $1,967 $2,932 $2,183IncrementalCostperton($/ton) $6,370 $4,534 $6,080 $4,330 $3,856 $2,756Previousctrltechnology ROFA+Rotamix ROFA+Rotamix ROFA+RotamixSCR+LNB+OFA SCR+LNB+OFA SCR+LNB+OFAReidGardnerUnit2 Unit3Wall‐fired Wall‐fired Wall‐fired1132 1132100,0001132100,000 100,000Unit1SCRCostComparisonsPage1of13ReidGardnerNOxControlEffectivenessSummary‐EPARevisedCostsUnitNo. AnnualHeatInput1(MMBtu/yr)Unit1 9,818,313Unit2 10,501,749Unit3 10,063,851UnitNo. Parameter UnitsBaseline2LNB+OFA LNB+OFA+SNCR ROFA+Rotamix SCR+LNB+OFA SCR+ROFAEmissionRate (tpy) 2,267 1,784 1,340 959 417 417Removed (tpy)‐‐483 927 1,308 1,850 1,850RemovalRate (%)‐‐21.3% 40.9% 57.7% 81.6% 81.6%EmissionFactor(lb/MMBtu) 0.462 0.363 0.273 0.195 0.085 0.085AnnualCost ($) $491,140 $1,019,864 $1,448,604 $3,903,494 $4,447,126AverageCostEffectiveness ($/ton) $1,017 $1,100 $1,107 $2,110 $2,404IncrementalCostEffectiveness ($/ton)‐‐$1,191 $1,124 $4,534 $5,538Previousctrltechnology‐‐LNB+OFA LNB+OFA+SNCR ROFA+Rotamix ROFA+RotamixEmissionRate (tpy) 2,445 1,866 1,401 1,003 436 436Removed (tpy)‐‐579 1,044 1,442 2,009 2,009RemovalRate (%)‐‐23.7% 42.7% 59.0% 82.2% 82.2%EmissionFactor(lb/MMBtu) 0.466 0.355 0.267 0.191 0.083 0.083AnnualCost ($) $491,140 $1,042,273 $1,496,413 $3,952,244 $4,522,005AverageCostEffectiveness ($/ton) $848 $998 $1,038 $1,967 $2,251IncrementalCostEffectiveness ($/ton)‐‐$1,185 $1,141 $4,330 $5,334Previousctrltechnology‐‐LNB+OFA LNB+OFA+SNCR ROFA+Rotamix ROFA+RotamixEmissionRate (tpy) 2,268 2,118 1,590 1,399 493 493Removed (tpy)‐‐150 678 869 1,775 1,775RemovalRate (%)‐‐7% 30% 38% 78% 78%EmissionFactor(lb/MMBtu) 0.451 0.421 0.316 0.278 0.098 0.098AnnualCost ($) $491,140 $969,586 $1,378,220 $3,874,586 $4,454,048AverageCostEffectiveness ($/ton) $3,284 $1,430 $1,586 $2,183 $2,510IncrementalCostEffectiveness ($/ton)‐‐$906 $2,137 $2,756 $3,396Previousctrltechnology‐‐LNB+OFA LNB+OFA+SNCR ROFA+Rotamix ROFA+Rotamix1) BasedonNDEPReid‐GardnerBARTDetermination,October22,2009,Table1.Heatinputvaluesappeartobebasedon1.0capacityfactorand1152MMBtu/hr2) BaselineemissionsandcontroloptionemissionsbaseduponNDEP'sOctober22,2009BARTdetermination,Table1.BasedonNDEPbaseline,whichishigherthanNVEsubmittal.Bycomparison,NVE'sUnit1baselinewas1625tpyNOxUnit1Unit2Unit3ReidGardnerNOxEmissionEstimates(BaseduponNDEPCostandControlEstimates)UnitNo. AnnualHeatInput1(MMBtu/yr)Unit1 9,818,313Unit2 10,501,749Unit3 10,063,851UnitNo. Parameter UnitsBaseline2LNB+OFA LNB+OFA+SNCR ROFA+Rotamix SCR+LNB+OFA SCR+ROFAEmissionRate (tpy) 2,267 1,784 1,340 959 417 417Removed (tpy)‐‐483 927 1,308 1,850 1,850RemovalRate (%)‐‐21.3% 40.9% 57.7% 81.6% 81.6%EmissionFactor(lb/MMBtu) 0.462 0.363 0.273 0.195 0.085 0.085AnnualCost ($) $613,138 $1,228,736 $1,778,147 $5,230,653 $5,915,459AverageCostEffectiveness3($/ton) $1,269 $1,325 $1,359 $2,827 $3,198IncrementalCostEffectiveness3($/ton)‐‐$1,386 $1,442 $6,370 $7,633EmissionRate (tpy) 2,445 1,866 1,401 1,003 435 435Removed (tpy)‐‐579 1,044 1,442 2,010 2,010RemovalRate (%)‐‐23.7% 42.7% 59.0% 82.2% 82.2%EmissionFactor(lb/MMBtu) 0.466 0.355 0.267 0.191 0.083 0.083AnnualCost ($) $613,138 $1,251,145 $1,825,956 $5,279,403 $5,990,338AverageCostEffectiveness3($/ton) $1,059 $1,198 $1,266 $2,627 $2,980IncrementalCostEffectiveness3($/ton)‐‐$1,372 $1,444 $6,080 $7,332EmissionRate (tpy) 2,268 2,121 1,590 1,400 494 494Removed (tpy)‐‐147 678 868 1,774 1,774RemovalRate (%)‐‐6.5% 29.9% 38.3% 78.2% 78.2%EmissionFactor(lb/MMBtu) 0.451 0.421 0.316 0.278 0.098 0.098AnnualCost ($) $613,138 $1,178,458 $1,707,763 $5,201,745 $5,922,381AverageCostEffectiveness3($/ton) $4,171 $1,738 $1,967 $2,932 $3,338IncrementalCostEffectiveness3($/ton)‐‐$1,065 $2,786 $3,856 $4,6521) AslistedinNDEPReid‐GardnerBARTDetermination,October22,2009,Table1,"BaseHeatInput."Basedonlistedemissionratesandemissionfactors,"baseheatinput"andnot"totalheatinput"wasused.2) BaselineemissionsandcontroloptionemissionsbaseduponNDEP'sOctober22,2009BARTdetermination,Table1.BasedonNDEPbaseline,whichishigherthanNVEsubmittal.Bycomparison,NVE'sUnit1baselinewas1625tpyNOx3) AverageandincrementalcosteffectivenessvaluesasreportedinNDEP'sOctober22,2009BARTdetermination,Table1.Unit1Unit2Unit3Printed4/2/2012Control Cost Comparison - LNB+OFA (enhanced)NDEP costs not allowed by EPA Control Cost ManualNDEP costs allowed by EPA Control Cost Manual, but modified from NDEP estimateNDEP EPA RevisedCostNDEP EPA RevisedCostValue % Value %CommentsCapital CostsLow NOx Burners (Upgrade) + OFA/ROFAMajor Materials Design andSupply Construction$1,814,842 $1,814,842 $1,814,842 $1,814,842 $1,814,842 $1,814,842Vendor estimate. Comparable to Purchased Equipment Cost (PEC) as described in EPA CCM,although this line item description suggests it includes more than just PEC. The CCM provides moredetailed guidance on what constituent elements may be included in this line item, but the NDEPappendix does not provide sufficient detail to make more specific determinations.Construction $1,270,389 70% $1,270,389 70% $1,270,389 $1,270,389 $1,270,389 $1,270,389Vendor estimate. Comparable to Indirect installation costs as described in EPA CCM. Again, moredetailed guidance on what constituent elements are allowed in this line item, but the NDEP appendixBalance of Plant $907,421 50% $907,421 50% $907,421 $907,421 $907,421 $907,421Balance of plant is construed to refer to other capital expenditures beyond PEC. Such costs are allowedin the CCM, and are considered part of direct capital costs (DCC).Electrical (Allowance) $90,742 5% $90,742 5% $90,742 $90,742 $90,742 $90,742Electrical equipment is included in the EPA control cost manual as part of direct capital costs (DCC),and so are retained here without revisionOwner's Costs $181,484 10% $0 0% $181,484 $0 $181,484 $0Owner's costs such as project management, advisory fees, legal, etc., are not included in the ControlCost Manual. Although it is possible that certain CCM-allowed costs are included in this line item,additional details would be needed to make that deteSurcharge $290,375 16% $0 0% $290,375 $0 $290,375 $0There is no provision for surcharge in the EPA Control Cost ManualAFUDC $217,781 12% $0 0% $217,781 $0 $217,781 $0AFUDC is not allowed for any of the applications listed in the EPA Control Cost ManualSubtotal, LNB+OFA Capital Cost $4,773,034 $4,083,395 $4,773,034 $4,083,395 $4,773,034 $4,083,395Contingency $272,226 15% $272,226 15% $272,226 $272,226 $272,226 $272,226 EPA Control Cost Manual provides for project contingency costsof up to 15% of the total of directcapital costs (DCC) and indirect installation costs. For example, Section 4.2 (NOx Post-Combustion),Tables 1.4 and 2.5 allow a project contingency of 15% for SNCR and SCR applications.Total LNB+OFA Capital Cost $5,045,261 $4,355,621 $5,045,261 $4,355,621 $5,045,261 $4,355,621Total Capital Cost$5,045,261 $4,355,621 $5,045,261 $4,355,621 $5,045,261 $4,355,621Unit 1 Unit 2 Unit 3NDEP EPA Revised CostLNB+OFAPage4of13Printed4/2/2012Control Cost Comparison - LNB+OFA (enhanced)NDEP costs not allowed by EPA Control Cost ManualNDEP costs allowed by EPA Control Cost Manual, but modified from NDEP estimateNDEP EPA RevisedCostNDEP EPA RevisedCostValue % Value %CommentsUnit 1 Unit 2 Unit 3NDEP EPA Revised CostAnnual CostsFixed O&M CostsOperating Labor$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 No estimate of additional operating labor was provided.Maintenance Materials$32,000 $32,000 $32,000 $32,000 $32,000 $32,000Maintenance Labor$48,000 $48,000 $48,000 $48,000 $48,000 $48,000Administrative Labor $0$0$0$0$0$0 No estimate of additional administrative labor was provided.Subtotal, fixed O&M costs $80,000 $80,000 $80,000 $80,000 $80,000 $80,000Variable CostsReagent $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0EPA CCM does provide for certain raw material costs such as reagent costs.Catalyst Replacement $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0The EPA Control Cost Manual does provide for SCR catalyst replacement costs. The basis for NDEP'sestimate is not clear, however, and it is difficult to determine how catalyst costs determined using theCCM might compare.Auxiliary Power $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0The EPA Control Cost Manual does provide for utility costs, such as those needed to operate SCRequipment.Subtotal, variable costs $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0Debt Service/Capital Recovery1$533,138 $411,140 $533,138 $411,140 $533,138 $411,140Regarding interest rates, EPA calculated capital recoveries using 3% and 7% interest rates indetermining cost effectiveness for the Regulatory Impact Analysis for the Final Clean Air Visibility ruleand the Guidelines for BART Determinations under the Regional Haze regulations. The EPA ControlCost Manual uses 7% interest rate in SNCR example calculations (Section 4-2, Chap 1, p1-37). Inaddition, the CCM also recommends a 20 year economic lifetime for SNCR (p1-37), although 30 yearlifetimes have often been specified in BART and BACT analyses.Total Annual Costs$613,138 $491,140 $613,138 $491,140 $613,138 $491,1401)Debt Service/Capital RecoveryInterest rate (%) = 8.5% 7.0%Equipment lifetime (years) = 20 20The EPA Control Cost Manual provides for maintenance materials and labor. These costs are includedin the revised EPA estimate, although no basis was provided.LNB+OFAPage5of13Printed4/2/2012Control Cost Comparison - LNB+OFA+SNCRNDEP costs not allowed by EPA Control Cost ManualNDEP costs allowed by EPA Control Cost Manual, but modified from NDEP estimateNDEP EPA RevisedCostNDEP EPA RevisedCostValue % Value %CommentsCapital CostsLow NOx Burners (Upgrade) + OFAMajor Materials Design andSupply Construction$1,814,842 $1,814,842 $1,814,842 $1,814,842 $1,814,842 $1,814,842Vendor estimate. Comparable to Purchased Equipment Cost (PEC) as described in EPA CCM,although this line item description suggests it includes more than just PEC. The CCM providesmore detailed guidance on what constituent elements may be included in this line item, but theNDEP appendix does not provide sufficient detail to make more specific determinations.Construction $1,270,389 70% $1,270,389 70% $1,270,389 $1,270,389 $1,270,389 $1,270,389Vendor estimate. Comparable to Indirect installation costs as described in EPA CCM. Again,more detailed guidance on what constituent elements are allowed in this line item, but the NDEPBalance of Plant $907,421 50% $907,421 50% $907,421 $907,421 $907,421 $907,421Balance of plant is construed to refer to other capital expenditures beyond PEC. Such costs areallowed in the CCM, and are considered part of direct capital costs (DCC).Electrical (Allowance) $90,742 5% $90,742 5% $90,742 $90,742 $90,742 $90,742Electrical equipment is included in the EPA control cost manual as part of direct capital costs(DCC), and so are retained here without revisionOwner's Costs $181,484 10% $0 0% $181,484 $0 $181,484 $0Owner's costs such as project management, advisory fees, legal, etc., are not included in theControl Cost Manual. Although it is possible that certain CCM-allowed costs are included in thisline item, additional details would be needed to make that deteSurcharge $290,375 16% $0 0% $290,375 $0 $290,375 $0There is no provision for surcharge in the EPA Control Cost ManualAFUDC $217,781 12% $0 0% $217,781 $0 $217,781 $0AFUDC is not allowed for any of the applications listed in the EPA Control Cost ManualSubtotal, LNB+OFA Capital Cost $4,773,034 $4,083,395 $4,773,034 $4,083,395 $4,773,034 $4,083,395Contingency $272,226 15% $272,226 15% $272,226 $272,226 $272,226 $272,226 EPA Control Cost Manual provides for project contingency costsof up to 15% of the total ofdirect capital costs (DCC) and indirect installation costs. For example, Section 4.2 (NOx PostCombustion), Tables 1.4 and 2.5 allow a project contingency of 15% for SNCR and SCRTotal LNB+OFA Capital Cost $5,045,261 $4,355,621 $5,045,261 $4,355,621 $5,045,261 $4,355,621Selective Non-Catalytic Reduction (SNCR)Major Materials Design andSupply Construction$1,531,273 $1,531,273 $1,531,273 $1,531,273 $1,531,273 $1,531,273 Vendor estimate. Comparable to Purchased Equipment Cost (PEC) as described in EPA CCM,although this line item description suggests it includes more than just PEC. See comments inOA bConstruction $229,69115.0%$229,691 15% $229,691 $229,691 $229,691 $229,691Balance of Plant $183,75312.0%$183,753 12% $183,753 $183,753 $183,753 $183,753Electrical (Allowance) $76,5645.0%$76,564 5% $76,564 $76,564 $76,564 $76,564Owner's Costs $153,12710.0%$0 0% $153,127 $0 $153,127 $0Owner's costs such as project management, advisory fees, legal, etc., are not included in theControl Cost Manual. Although it is possible that certain CCM-allowed costs are included in thisline item, additional details would be needed to make that deteSurcharge $245,00416.0%$0 0% $245,004 $0 $245,004 $0There is no provision for surcharge in the EPA Control Cost ManualAFUDC $183,75312.0%$0 0% $183,753 $0 $183,753 $0AFUDC is not allowed for SCR in the EPA Control Cost ManualSubtotal, SCR Capital Cost $2,603,164 $2,021,280 $2,603,164 $2,021,280 $2,603,164 $2,021,280Contingency $229,691 15% $229,691 15% $229,691 $229,691 $229,691 $229,691 EPA Control Cost Manual provides for project contingency costsof up to 15% of the total ofdirect capital costs (DCC) and indirect installation costs. For example, Section 4.2 (NOx PostCombustion), Tables 1.4 and 2.5 allow a project contingency of 15% for SNCR and SCRapplications.Total SNCR Capital Cost$2,832,855 $2,250,971 $2,832,855 $2,250,971 $2,832,855 $2,250,971Total Capital Cost$7,878,116 $6,606,592 $7,878,116 $6,606,592 $7,878,116 $6,606,592See comments in LNB+OFA section above. While these costs to not directly correspond to EPACCM line items, they are comparable to certain allowed costs. As a result, these costs areretained without revision.Unit 1 Unit 2 Unit 3NDEP EPA Revised CostSNCR+LNB+OFAPage6of13Printed4/2/2012Control Cost Comparison - LNB+OFA+SNCRNDEP costs not allowed by EPA Control Cost ManualNDEP costs allowed by EPA Control Cost Manual, but modified from NDEP estimateNDEP EPA RevisedCostNDEP EPA RevisedCostValue % Value %CommentsUnit 1 Unit 2 Unit 3NDEP EPA Revised CostAnnual CostsFixed O&M CostsOperating Labor$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 No estimate of additional operating labor was provided.Maintenance Materials$83,000 $83,000 $83,000 $83,000 $83,000 $83,000Maintenance Labor$124,500 $124,500 $124,500 $124,500 $124,500 $124,500Administrative Labor $0$0$0$0$0$0 No estimate of additional administrative labor was provided.Subtotal, fixed O&M costs $207,500 $207,500 $207,500 $207,500 $207,500 $207,500Variable CostsReagent $151,080 $151,080 $169,985 $169,985 $98,612 $98,612EPA CCM does provide for certain raw material costs such as reagent costs.Catalyst Replacement $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0The EPA Control Cost Manual does provide for SCR catalyst replacement costs. The basis forNDEP's estimate is not clear, however, and it is difficult to determine how catalyst costsdetermined using the CCM might compare.Auxiliary Power $37,668 $37,668 $41,172 $41,172 $39,858 $39,858The EPA Control Cost Manual does provide for utility costs, such as those needed to operateSCR equipment.Subtotal, variable costs $188,748 $188,748 $211,157 $211,157 $138,470 $138,470Debt Service/Capital Recovery1$832,488 $623,616 $832,488 $623,616 $832,488 $623,616Regarding interest rates, EPA calculated capital recoveries using 3% and 7% interest rates indetermining cost effectiveness for the Regulatory Impact Analysis for the Final Clean AirVisibility rule and the Guidelines for BART Determinations under the Regional Haze regulationsThe EPA Control Cost Manual uses 7% interest rate in SNCR example calculations (Section 4-2,Chap 1, p1-37). In addition, the CCM also recommends a 20 year economic lifetime for SNCR(p1-37), although 30 year lifetimes have often been specified in BART and BACT analyses.Total Annual Costs$1,228,736 $1,019,864 $1,251,145 $1,042,273 $1,178,458 $969,5861)Debt Service/Capital RecoveryInterest rate (%) = 8.5% 7.0%Equipment lifetime (years) = 20 20The EPA Control Cost Manual provides for maintenance materials and labor. These costs areincluded in the revised EPA estimate, although no basis was provided.SNCR+LNB+OFAPage7of13Printed4/2/2012Control Cost Comparison - ROFA+RotamiNDEP costs not allowed by EPA Control Cost ManualNDEP costs allowed by EPA Control Cost Manual, but modified from NDEP estimateNDEP EPA RevisedCNDEP EPA RevisedCValue % Value %CommentsCapital CostsRotating Overfire Air (ROFA)Major Materials Design andSupply Construction$3,266,715 $3,266,715 $3,266,715 $3,266,715 $3,266,715 $3,266,715Vendor estimate. Comparable to Purchased Equipment Cost (PEC) as described in EPA CCM, althoughthis line item description suggests it includes more than just PEC. The CCM provides more detailedguidance on what constituent elements may be included in this line item, but the NDEP appendix does notprovide sufficient detail to make more specific determinations.Construction $742,500 $742,500 $742,500 $742,500 $742,500 $742,500Vendor estimate. Comparable to Indirect installation costs as described in EPA CCM. Again, moredetailed guidance on what constituent elements are allowed in this line item, but the NDEP appendix doesnot provide sufficient detail to make this evaluationBalance of Plant $1,633,358 50% $1,633,358 50% $1,633,358 $1,633,358 $1,633,358 $1,633,358Balance of plant is construed to refer to other capital expenditures beyond PEC. Such costs are allowed inthe CCM, and are considered part of direct capital costs (DCC).Electrical (Allowance) $980,015 30% $980,015 30% $980,015 $980,015 $980,015 $980,015Electrical equipment is included in the EPA control cost manual as part of direct capital costs (DCC), andso are retained here without revisionOwner's Costs $326,672 10% $0 0% $326,672 $0 $326,672 $0Owner's costs such as project management, advisory fees, legal, etc., are not included in the Control CostManual. Although it is possible that certain CCM-allowed costs are included in this line item, additionaldetails would be needed to make that determination.Surcharge $522,674 16% $0 0% $522,674 $0 $522,674 $0There is no provision for surcharge in the EPA Control Cost ManualAFUDC $392,006 12% $0 0% $392,006 $0 $392,006 $0AFUDC is not allowed for any of the applications listed in the EPA Control Cost ManualSubtotal, ROFA Capital Cost $7,863,939 $6,622,587 $7,863,939 $6,622,587 $7,863,939 $6,622,587Contingency $980,015 30% $490,007 15% $980,015 $490,007 $980,015 $490,007 EPA Control Cost Manual provides for project contingency costsof up to 15% of the total of direct capitalcosts (DCC) and indirect installation costs. For example, Section 4.2 (NOx Post-Combustion), Tables 1.4and 2.5 allow a project contingency of 15% for SNCR and SCR applications.Total ROFA Capital Cost $8,843,953 $7,112,594 $8,843,953 $7,112,594 $8,843,953 $7,112,594RotamixMajor Materials Design andSupply Construction$1,167,100 $1,167,100 $1,167,100 $1,167,100 $1,167,100 $1,167,100 Vendor estimate. Comparable to Purchased Equipment Cost (PEC) as described in EPA CCM, althoughthis line item description suggests it includes more than just PEC. See comments in ROFA above.Construction $247,500 $247,500 $247,500 $247,500 $247,500 $247,500Vendor estimate. Comparable to Indirect installation costs as described in EPA CCM. Again, moredetailed guidance on what constituent elements are allowed in this line item, but the NDEP appendix doesnot provide sufficient detail to make this evaluationBalance of Plant $140,05212.0%$140,052 12% $140,052 $140,052 $140,052 $140,052Balance of plant is construed to refer to other capital expenditures beyond PEC. Such costs are allowed inthe CCM, and are considered part of direct capital costs (DCC).Electrical (Allowance) $00.0%$0 0% $0 $0 $0 $0 Zero estimate provided by NDEP. Based upon the documentation provided, it is unclear if these costs areaccounted for elsewhereOwner's Costs $116,71010.0%$0 0% $116,710 $0 $116,710 $0Owner's costs such as project management, advisory fees, legal, etc., are not included in the Control CostManual. Although it is possible that certain CCM-allowed costs are included in this line item, additionaldetails would be needed to make that determination.Surcharge $186,73616.0%$0 0% $186,736 $0 $186,736 $0There is no provision for surcharge in the EPA Control Cost ManualAFUDC $140,05212.0%$0 0% $140,052 $0 $140,052 $0AFUDC is not allowed for SNCR (comparable to Rotamix) in the EPA Control Cost ManualSubtotal, Rotamix Capital Cost $1,998,150 $1,554,652 $1,998,150 $1,554,652 $1,998,150 $1,554,652Contingency $175,065 15% $175,065 15% $175,065 $175,065 $175,065 $175,065 EPA Control Cost Manual provides for project contingency costsof up to 15% of the total of direct capitalcosts (DCC) and indirect installation costs. For example, Section 4.2 (NOx Post-Combustion), Tables 1.4and 2.5 allow a project contingency of 15% for SNCR and SCR applications.Total Rotamix Capital Cost$2,173,215 $1,729,717 $2,173,215 $1,729,717 $2,173,215 $1,729,717Total Capital Cost$11,017,168 $8,842,311 $11,017,168 $8,842,311 $11,017,168 $8,842,311Unit 1 Unit 2 Unit 3NDEP EPA Revised CostROFA+RotamixPage8of13Printed4/2/2012Control Cost Comparison - ROFA+RotamiNDEP costs not allowed by EPA Control Cost ManualNDEP costs allowed by EPA Control Cost Manual, but modified from NDEP estimateNDEP EPA RevisedCNDEP EPA RevisedCValue % Value %CommentsUnit 1 Unit 2 Unit 3NDEP EPA Revised CostAnnual CostsFixed O&M CostsOperating Labor$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 No estimate of additional operating labor was provided.Maintenance Materials$48,000 $48,000 $48,000 $48,000 $48,000 $48,000Maintenance Labor$72,000 $72,000 $72,000 $72,000 $72,000 $72,000Administrative Labor $0$0$0$0$0$0 No estimate of additional administrative labor was provided.Subtotal, fixed O&M costs $120,000 $120,000 $120,000 $120,000 $120,000 $120,000Variable CostsReagent $213,062 $213,062 $234,741 $234,741 $126,347 $126,347EPA CCM does provide for certain raw material costs such as reagent costs.Catalyst Replacement $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0Auxiliary Power $280,890 $280,890 $307,020 $307,020 $297,221 $297,221The EPA Control Cost Manual does provide for utility costs, such as those needed to operate SNCR(comparable to Rotamix) equipment.Subtotal, variable costs $493,952 $493,952 $541,761 $541,761 $423,568 $423,568Debt Service/Capital Recovery1$1,164,195 $834,652 $1,164,195 $834,652 $1,164,195 $834,652Regarding interest rates, EPA calculated capital recoveries using 3% and 7% interest rates in determiningcost effectiveness for the Regulatory Impact Analysis for the Final Clean Air Visibility rule and theGuidelines for BART Determinations under the Regional Haze regulations. The EPA Control Cost Manualuses 7% interest rate in SNCR example calculations (Section 4-2, Chap 1, p1-37). In addition, the CCMalso recommends a 20 year economic lifetime for SNCR (p1-37), although 30 year lifetimes have oftenbeen specified in BART and BACT analyses.Total Annual Costs$1,778,147 $1,448,604 $1,825,956 $1,496,413 $1,707,763 $1,378,2201)Debt Service/Capital RecoveryInterest rate (%) = 8.5% 7.0%Equipment lifetime (years) = 20 20The EPA Control Cost Manual provides for maintenance materials and labor. These costs are included inthe revised EPA estimate, although no basis was provided.ROFA+RotamixPage9of13Printed4/2/2012Control Cost Comparison - SCR+LNB+OFANDEP costs not allowed by EPA Control Cost ManualNDEP costs allowed by EPA Control Cost Manual, but modified from NDEP estimateNDEP EPA RevisedCostNDEP EPA RevisedCostValue % Value %CommentsCapital CostsLow NOx Burners (Upgrade) + OFAMajor Materials Design andSupply Construction$1,814,842 $1,814,842 $1,814,842 $1,814,842 $1,814,842 $1,814,842Vendor estimate. Comparable to Purchased Equipment Cost (PEC) as described in EPA CCM,although this line item description suggests it includes more than just PEC. The CCM provides moredetailed guidance on what constituent elements may be included in tConstruction $1,270,389 70% $1,270,389 70% $1,270,389 $1,270,389 $1,270,389 $1,270,389Vendor estimate. Comparable to Indirect installation costs as described in EPA CCM. Again, moredetailed guidance on what constituent elements are allowed in this line item, but the NDEP appendixBalance of Plant $907,421 50% $907,421 50% $907,421 $907,421 $907,421 $907,421Balance of plant is construed to refer to other capital expenditures beyond PEC. Such costs areallowed in the CCM, and are considered part of direct capital costs (DCC).Electrical (Allowance) $90,742 5% $90,742 5% $90,742 $90,742 $90,742 $90,742Electrical equipment is included in the EPA control cost manual as part of direct capital costs (DCC),and so are retained here without revisionOwner's Costs $181,484 10% $0 0% $181,484 $0 $181,484 $0Owner's costs such as project management, advisory fees, legal, etc., are not included in the ControlCost Manual. Although it is possible that certain CCM-allowed costs are included in this line item,additional details would be needed to make that deteSurcharge $290,375 16% $0 0% $290,375 $0 $290,375 $0There is no provision for surcharge in the EPA Control Cost ManualAFUDC $217,781 12% $0 0% $217,781 $0 $217,781 $0AFUDC is not allowed for SCR in the EPA Control Cost Manual, Section 4.2, Chap 2, Table 2.5Subtotal, LNB+OFA Capital Cost $4,773,034 $4,083,395 $4,773,034 $4,083,395 $4,773,034 $4,083,395Contingency $272,226 15% $272,226 15% $272,226 $272,226 $272,226 $272,226 EPA Control Cost Manual provides for project contingency costsof up to 15% of the total of directcapital costs (DCC) and indirect installation costs. For example, Section 4.2 (NOx Post-Combustion),Tables 1.4 and 2.5 allow a project contingency of 15% for SNCR and SCR applications.Total ROFA Capital Cost $5,045,261 $4,355,621 $5,045,261 $4,355,621 $5,045,261 $4,355,621Selective Catalytic Reduction (SCR)Major Materials Design andSupply Construction$22,685,500 $22,685,500 $22,685,500 $22,685,500 $22,685,500 $22,685,500 Vendor estimate. Comparable to Purchased Equipment Cost (PEC) as described in EPA CCM,although this line item description suggests it includes more than just PEC. See comments in ROFAbConstruction $00.0%$0 0% $0 $0 $0 $0Balance of Plant $00.0%$0 0% $0 $0 $0 $0Electrical (Allowance) $00.0%$0 0% $0 $0 $0 $0Owner's Costs $2,268,55010.0%$0 0% $2,268,550 $0 $2,268,550 $0Owner's costs such as project management, advisory fees, legal, etc., are not included in the ControlCost Manual. Although it is possible that certain CCM-allowed costs are included in this line item,additional details would be needed to make that deteSurcharge $3,629,68016.0%$0 0% $3,629,680 $0 $3,629,680 $0There is no provision for surcharge in the EPA Control Cost ManualAFUDC $2,722,26012.0%$0 0% $2,722,260 $0 $2,722,260 $0AFUDC is not allowed for SCR in the EPA Control Cost ManualSubtotal, SCR Capital Cost $31,305,990 $22,685,500 $31,305,990 $22,685,500 $31,305,990 $22,685,500Contingency $3,402,825 15% $3,402,825 15% $3,402,825 $3,402,825 $3,402,825 $3,402,825 EPA Control Cost Manual provides for project contingency costs of up to 15% of the total of directcapital costs (DCC) and indirect installation costs. For example, Section 4.2 (NOx Post-Combustion),Tables 1.4 and 2.5 allow a project contingency of 15% for SNCR and SCR applications.Total SCR Capital Cost$34,708,815 $26,088,325 $34,708,815 $26,088,325 $34,708,815 $26,088,325Total Capital Cost$39,754,076 $30,443,946 $39,754,076 $30,443,946 $39,754,076 $30,443,946Zero estimate provided by NDEP. Based upon the documentation provided, it is unclear if these costsare accounted for elsewhereUnit 1 Unit 2 Unit 3NDEP EPA Revised CostSCR+LNB+OFAPage10of13Printed4/2/2012Control Cost Comparison - SCR+LNB+OFANDEP costs not allowed by EPA Control Cost ManualNDEP costs allowed by EPA Control Cost Manual, but modified from NDEP estimateNDEP EPA RevisedCostNDEP EPA RevisedCostValue % Value %CommentsUnit 1 Unit 2 Unit 3NDEP EPA Revised CostAnnual CostsFixed O&M CostsOperating Labor$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 No estimate of additional operating labor was provided.Maintenance Materials$132,000 $132,000 $132,000 $132,000 $132,000 $132,000Maintenance Labor$198,000 $198,000 $198,000 $198,000 $198,000 $198,000Administrative Labor $0$0$0$0$0$0 No estimate of additional administrative labor was provided.Subtotal, fixed O&M costs $330,000 $330,000 $330,000 $330,000 $330,000 $330,000Variable CostsReagent $301,192 $301,192 $326,816 $326,816 $257,830 $257,830EPA CCM does provide for certain raw material costs such as reagent costs.Catalyst Replacement $150,000 $150,000 $150,000 $150,000 $150,000 $150,000The EPA Control Cost Manual does provide for SCR catalyst replacement costs. The basis forNDEP's estimate is not clear, however, and it is difficult to determine how catalyst costs determinedusing the CCM might compare.Auxiliary Power $248,609 $248,609 $271,735 $271,735 $263,063 $263,063The EPA Control Cost Manual does provide for utility costs, such as those needed to operate SCRequipment.Subtotal, variable costs $699,801 $699,801 $748,551 $748,551 $670,893 $670,893Debt Service/Capital Recovery1$4,200,852 $2,873,693 $4,200,852 $2,873,693 $4,200,852 $2,873,693Regarding interest rates, EPA calculated capital recoveries using 3% and 7% interest rates indetermining cost effectiveness for the Regulatory Impact Analysis for the Final Clean Air Visibilityrule and the Guidelines for BART Determinations under the Regional Haze regulations. The EPAControl Cost Manual uses 7% interest rate in SCR example calculations (Section 4-2, Chap 2, p2-57).In addition, the CCM also recommends a 20 year economic lifetime for SCR (p2-57), although 30 yearlifetimes have often been specified in BART and BACT analyses.Total Annual Costs$5,230,653 $3,903,494 $5,279,403 $3,952,244 $5,201,745 $3,874,5861)Debt Service/Capital RecoveryInterest rate (%) = 8.5% 7.0%Equipment lifetime (years) = 20 20The EPA Control Cost Manual provides for maintenance materials and labor. These costs areincluded in the revised EPA estimate, although no basis was provided.SCR+LNB+OFAPage11of13Printed4/2/2012Control Cost Comparison - SCR+ROFANDEP costs not allowed by EPA Control Cost ManualNDEP costs allowed by EPA Control Cost Manual, but modified from NDEP estimateNDEP EPA RevisedCostNDEP EPA RevisedCostValue % Value %CommentsCapital CostsRotating Overfire Air (ROFA)Major Materials Design andSupply Construction$3,266,715 $3,266,715 $3,266,715 $3,266,715 $3,266,715 $3,266,715Vendor estimate. Comparable to Purchased Equipment Cost (PEC) as described in EPA CCM,although this line item description suggests it includes more than just PEC. The CCM provides moredetailed guidance on what constituent elements may be included in this line item, but the NDEPappendix does not provide sufficient detail to make more specific determinations.Construction $742,500 $742,500 $742,500 $742,500 $742,500 $742,500Vendor estimate. Comparable to Indirect installation costs as described in EPA CCM. Again, moredetailed guidance on what constituent elements are allowed in this line item, but the NDEP appendixdoes not provide sufficient detail to make this evaluationBalance of Plant $1,633,358 50% $1,633,358 50% $1,633,358 $1,633,358 $1,633,358 $1,633,358Balance of plant is construed to refer to other capital expenditures beyond PEC. Such costs are allowedin the CCM, and are considered part of direct capital costs (DCC).Electrical (Allowance) $980,015 30% $980,015 30% $980,015 $980,015 $980,015 $980,015Electrical equipment is included in the EPA control cost manual as part of direct capital costs (DCC),and so are retained here without revisionOwner's Costs $326,672 10% $0 0% $326,672 $0 $326,672 $0Owner's costs such as project management, advisory fees, legal, etc., are not included in the ControlCost Manual. Although it is possible that certain CCM-allowed costs are included in this line item,additional details would be needed to make that determination.Surcharge $522,674 16% $0 0% $522,674 $0 $522,674 $0There is no provision for surcharge in the EPA Control Cost ManualAFUDC $392,006 12% $0 0% $392,006 $0 $392,006 $0AFUDC is not allowed for any of the applications listed in the EPA Control Cost ManualSubtotal, ROFA Capital Cost $7,863,939 $6,622,587 $7,863,939 $6,622,587 $7,863,939 $6,622,587Contingency $980,015 30% $490,007 15% $980,015 $490,007 $980,015 $490,007 EPA Control Cost Manual provides for project contingency costsof up to 15% of the total of directcapital costs (DCC) and indirect installation costs. For example, Section 4.2 (NOx Post-Combustion),Tables 1.4 and 2.5 allow a project contingency of 15% for SNCR and SCR applications.Total ROFA Capital Cost $8,843,953 $7,112,594 $8,843,953 $7,112,594 $8,843,953 $7,112,594Selective Catalytic Reduction (SCR)Major Materials Design andSupply Construction$22,685,522 $22,685,522 $22,685,522 $22,685,522 $22,685,522 $22,685,522 Vendor estimate. Comparable to Purchased Equipment Cost (PEC) as described in EPA CCM,although this line item description suggests it includes more than just PEC. See comments in ROFAbConstruction $00.0%$0 0% $0 $0 $0 $0Balance of Plant $00.0%$0 0% $0 $0 $0 $0Electrical (Allowance) $00.0%$0 0% $0 $0 $0 $0Owner's Costs $2,268,55210.0%$0 0% $2,268,552 $0 $2,268,552 $0Owner's costs such as project management, advisory fees, legal, etc., are not included in the ControlCost Manual. Although it is possible that certain CCM-allowed costs are included in this line item,additional details would be needed to make that determination.Surcharge $3,629,68416.0%$0 0% $3,629,684 $0 $3,629,684 $0There is no provision for surcharge in the EPA Control Cost ManualAFUDC $2,722,26312.0%$00% $2,722,263$0$2,722,263$0AFUDC is not allowed for SCR in the EPA Control Cost Manual, Section 4.2, Chap 2, Table 2.5Subtotal, SCR Capital Cost $31,306,020 $22,685,522 $31,306,020 $22,685,522 $31,306,020 $22,685,522Contingency $3,402,828 15% $3,402,828 15% $3,402,828 $3,402,828 $3,402,828 $3,402,828 EPA Control Cost Manual provides for project contingency costs of up to 15% of the total of directcapital costs (DCC) and indirect installation costs. For example, Section 4.2 (NOx Post-Combustion),Tables 1.4 and 2.5 allow a project contingency of 15% for SNCR and SCR applications.Total SCR Capital Cost$34,708,849 $26,088,350 $34,708,849 $26,088,350 $34,708,849 $26,088,350Total Capital Cost$43,552,802 $33,200,945 $43,552,802 $33,200,945 $43,552,802 $33,200,945Zero estimate provided by NDEP. Based upon the documentation provided, it is unclear if these costsare accounted for elsewhereUnit 1 Unit 2 Unit 3NDEP EPA Revised CostSCR+ROFAPage12of13Printed4/2/2012Control Cost Comparison - SCR+ROFANDEP costs not allowed by EPA Control Cost ManualNDEP costs allowed by EPA Control Cost Manual, but modified from NDEP estimateNDEP EPA RevisedCostNDEP EPA RevisedCostValue % Value %CommentsUnit 1 Unit 2 Unit 3NDEP EPA Revised CostAnnual CostsFixed O&M CostsOperating Labor$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 No estimate of additional operating labor was provided.Maintenance Materials$148,000 $148,000 $148,000 $148,000 $148,000 $148,000Maintenance Labor$222,000 $222,000 $222,000 $222,000 $222,000 $222,000Administrative Labor $0$0$0$0$0$0 No estimate of additional administrative labor was provided.Subtotal, fixed O&M costs $370,000 $370,000 $370,000 $370,000 $370,000 $370,000Variable CostsReagent $301,192 $301,192 $326,816 $326,816 $257,830 $257,830EPA CCM does provide for certain raw material costs such as reagent costs.Catalyst Replacement $112,500 $112,500 $112,500 $112,500 $132,000 $132,000The EPA Control Cost Manual does provide for SCR catalyst replacement costs. The basis for NDEP'sestimate is not clear, however, and it is difficult to determine how catalyst costs determined using theCCM might compare.Auxiliary Power $529,500 $529,500 $578,755 $578,755 $560,284 $560,284The EPA Control Cost Manual does provide for utility costs, such as those needed to operate SCRequipment.Subtotal, variable costs $943,192 $943,192 $1,018,071 $1,018,071 $950,114 $950,114Debt Service/Capital Recovery1$4,602,267 $3,133,934 $4,602,267 $3,133,934 $4,602,267 $3,133,934Regarding interest rates, EPA calculated capital recoveries using 3% and 7% interest rates indetermining cost effectiveness for the Regulatory Impact Analysis for the Final Clean Air Visibility ruleand the Guidelines for BART Determinations under the Regional Haze regulations. The EPA ControlCost Manual uses 7% interest rate in SCR example calculations (Section 4-2, Chap 2, p2-57). Inaddition, the CCM also recommends a 20 year economic lifetime for SCR (p2-57), although 30 yearlifetimes have often been specified in BART and BACT analyses.Total Annual Costs$5,915,459 $4,447,126 $5,990,338 $4,522,005 $5,922,381 $4,454,0481)Debt Service/Capital RecoveryInterest rate (%) = 8.5% 7.0%Equipment lifetime (years) = 20 20The EPA Control Cost Manual provides for maintenance materials and labor. These costs are includedin the revised EPA estimate, although no basis was provided.SCR+ROFAPage13of13Page 38 of 40 

### Appendix C:

Model Emission Rate Calculations for Reid Gardner Generating Station

See www.regulations.gov , docket ID number EPA

- R09

- OAR

- 2011

- 0130

## Modeling Scenarios for EPA's RH SIP Action on Reid Gardner Generating Station

updated 2012-03-07

Code Name Description NOx SO2 PM10

00 Baseline 1 WRAP Baseline None Wet Soda Ash Scrubber Mechanical Flyash

Collector

02 Baseline 1a WRAP Baseline (NOx), NDEP BART determination (PM10, SO2) None Wet Soda Ash Scrubber (upgraded) Fabric Filter

04 Baseline 2 NDEP adjusted baseline (NOx), NDEP BART determination (PM10, SO2) LNB w/ OFA Wet Soda Ash Scrubber (upgraded) Fabric Filter

11 Control Option 1 LNB + OFA (enhanced) LNB + OFA (enhanced) Wet Soda Ash Scrubber (upgraded) Fabric Filter

12 Control Option 2 SNCR + LNB w/ OFA SNCR + LNB w/ OFA Wet Soda Ash Scrubber (upgraded) Fabric Filter

13 Control Option 3 ROFA w/ Rotamix ROFA w/ Rotamix Wet Soda Ash Scrubber (upgraded) Fabric Filter

14 Control Option 4 SCR + ROFA SCR + ROFA Wet Soda Ash Scrubber (upgraded) Fabric Filter

15 Control Option 5 SCR + LNB w/ OFA SCR + LNB w/ OFA Wet Soda Ash Scrubber (upgraded) Fabric Filter

16 Control Option 6 SCR + LNB w/ OFA @.06 SCR + LNB w/ OFA @.06 Wet Soda Ash Scrubber (upgraded) Fabric Filter

Code is the number appearing in the CALPUFF model file name, e.g. cf_c11_2002.inp for CALPUFF, code 11 for control option 1, 2002 meteorolo Control TechnologyR eid Gardner Generating Station Nevada Regiona Haze SIP Page 1 of 1 U.S. EPA, Region 9
Printed 4/2/2012 Elevation

above MSL Stack Height Stack

Diameter Stack Crossec

Area Exit Temp Exit Velocity Exit Flowrate Annual Unit Capacity

Factor Boiler Heat Input (100% load) (feet) (feet) (feet) (ft2) (deg F) (ft/s) (acfm) (percent) (MMBtu/hr) Notes

Reid Gardner Unit 1 1573 200 13.3 139 135 52.4 436702 86% 1215 1

Reid Gardner Unit 2 1572 249 13.3 139 145 50.3 419288 94% 1215 2

Reid Gardner Unit 3 1570 270 12.9 131 151 71.4 559911 91% 1237 3

436793.0311

1 Per Table 2-1, Reid Gardner 1 NVE BART Analysis submittal to NDEP, p.2-2 (p.13 in PDF)

2 Per Table 2-1, Reid Gardner 2 NVE BART Analysis submittal to NDEP, p.2-2 (p.13 in PDF)

3 Per Table 2-1, Reid Gardner 3 NVE BART Analysis submittal to NDEP, p.2-2 (p.13 in PDF)

in metric units, converted from the above m_per_ft 0.3048 kJ_per_BTU 1.05506

stack parm abbrevs ES HS DS TS VS

Elevation

above MSL Stack Height Stack

Diameter Stack Crossec

Area Exit Temp Exit Velocity Exit Flowrate Annual Unit Capacity

Factor Boiler Heat Input (100% load) (m) (m) (m) (m2) (deg K) (m/s) (acmm) (percent) (GJ/hr)

Reid Gardner Unit 1 479.5 60.96 4.05 12.9 330.37 15.97 12366 86% 1282

Reid Gardner Unit 2 479.1 75.90 4.05 12.9 335.93 15.33 11873 94% 1282

Reid Gardner Unit 3 478.5 82.30 3.93 12.1 339.26 21.76 15855 91% 1305

The stack parameters are identical to those used in BART modeling for the WRAP, except WRAP elevations were about 8 m higher. Since WRAP stack coordinates (latitude and longitude) are about 700 m away from plant location in CAMD, whereas the values used in the CH2MHill modeing were about 7000 m away, WRAP stack location and elevations will be used. (The meteorological inputs are in the WRAP coordinate system for Arizona, which we will be using.) Calculated values below are in italics (coordinate conversions done using Golden Software's MapViewer 6.2)

info source Dist. from
CAMD,

km WRAP coordinate system Geographic coordinates CH2MHill coordinate system

X km Y km longitude latitude X km Y km

Plant location CAMD 0 -1556.0167 -218.6810 -114.6364 36.6531

Reid Gardner Unit 1 WRAP 0.7 -1555.5060 -218.2230 -114.6318 36.6581

Reid Gardner Unit 2 WRAP 0.7 -1555.5120 -218.2522 -114.6318 36.6578

Reid Gardner Unit 3 WRAP 0.6 -1555.5210 -218.2911 -114.6318 36.6574

Reid Gardner Unit 1 CH2MHill 7.0 -1550.0586 -222.4074 210.827 -366.266

Reid Gardner Unit 2 CH2MHill 7.0 -1550.0649 -222.4367 210.827 -366.296

Reid Gardner Unit 3 CH2MHill 7.1 -1550.0731 -222.4757 210.82729 -366.336Reid Gardner Generating Station Nevada Regiona Haze SIP Page 1 of 2 U.S. EPA, Region 9
Printed 4/2/2012 Unit No. (1-hr, 24-hr) 1 (Annual Ave) 2

Reid Gardner Unit 1 1215 1132

Reid Gardner Unit 2 1215 1082

Reid Gardner Unit 3 1237 1135

1 Max heat input as listed in TV Permit No. AP4911-0897. These values were also used by NV Energy to develop the maximum 24-hr ave emission rates used in visibility mode

2 Annual average based on 0.86 annual capacity factor, as indicated by Nevada Energy in Appendix A of each unit's respective NVE BART Analysis (October 22, 2008).

Baseline Emission Factors

(lb/MMBtu) (lb/hr) (lb/MMBtu) (lb/hr) (lb/MMBtu) (lb/hr)

Reid Gardner Unit 1 WRAP Emission Rate 0.591 718 0.329 400 0.0474 58 2 NDEP baseline (SIP) 0.462 561

-- -- -- -- 3 CAMD 2001-03 (NVE) 0.576 700 0.332 403

-- -- 2 CAMD 2001-03 (EPA) 0.566 731 0.36 400

-- -- CAMD 2005-07 (EPA) 0.458 545 0.19 236

-- --

Reid Gardner Unit 2 WRAP Emission Rate 0.635 772 0.28 340 0.044 53 2 NDEP baseline (SIP) 0.466 566

-- -- -- -- 3 CAMD 2001-03 (NVE) 0.613 745 0.277 337

-- -- 2 CAMD 2001-03 (EPA) 0.571 804 0.276 375

-- -- CAMD 2005-07 (EPA) 0.425 655 0.39 399

-- --

Reid Gardner Unit 3 WRAP Emission Rate 0.592 732 0.32 396 0.04 49 2 NDEP baseline (SIP) 0.451 558

-- -- -- -- 3 CAMD 2001-03 (NVE) 0.579 716 0.29 359

-- -- 2 CAMD 2001-03 (EPA) 0.548 732 0.29 396

-- -- CAMD 2005-07 (EPA) 0.448 658 0.195 246

-- --

Reid Gardner Unit 1 from Title V permit limit 0.46 0.55 0.2

Reid Gardner Unit 2 NVE reports Title V permit limit 0.46 0.55 0.2

Reid Gardner Unit 3 Table 2- 1 Title V permit limit 0.46 0.55 0.1

1 lb/MMBtu value based on Table 2-1 from each unit's respective NVE BART Analysis submittal to NDEP (October 22, 2008)

2 Corresponds to the revised NOx emission rate used as the baseline in the Nevada RH SIP. NDEP did not revise SO2 or PM10 emissions. (MMBtu/hr) Heat InputNotes NOx SO2 PM10Reid Gardner Generating Station Nevada Regiona Haze SIP Page 2 of 2 U.S. EPA, Region 9
Printed 4/2/2012 NOx Control Scenario Emission Factors

Control Technology

(lb/MMBtu) (lb/hr) (lb/MMBtu) (lb/hr) (lb/MMBtu) (lb/hr) (lb/MMBtu) (lb/hr)

Reid Gardner Unit 1 LNB w/ OFA (enhancement) 0.364 442 0.30 365 0.015 18 0.15 182
SNCR w/ LNB and OFA 0.273 332 0.23 279 0.015 18 0.15 182
ROFA w/ Rotamix 0.195 237 0.16 194 0.015 18 0.15 182
SCR w/ ROFA 0.085 103 0.07 85 0.015 18 0.15 182
SCR w/ LNB and OFA 0.085 103 0.07 85 0.015 18 0.15 182 SCR w/ LNB and OFA @.06 0.06 73 0.015 18 0.15 182

Reid Gardner Unit 2 LNB w/ OFA (enhancement) 0.355 431 0.30 365 0.015 18 0.15 182
SNCR w/ LNB and OFA 0.267 324 0.23 279 0.015 18 0.15 182
ROFA w/ Rotamix 0.191 232 0.16 194 0.015 18 0.15 182
SCR w/ ROFA 0.083 101 0.07 85 0.015 18 0.15 182
SCR w/ LNB and OFA 0.083 101 0.07 85 0.015 18 0.15 182 SCR w/ LNB and OFA @.06 0.06 73 0.015 18 0.15 182

Reid Gardner Unit 3 LNB w/ OFA (enhancement) 0.421 521 0.30 371 0.015 19 0.15 186
SNCR w/ LNB and OFA 0.316 391 0.23 285 0.015 19 0.15 186
ROFA w/ Rotamix 0.278 344 0.16 198 0.015 19 0.15 186
SCR w/ ROFA 0.098 121 0.07 87 0.015 19 0.15 186
SCR w/ LNB and OFA 0.098 121 0.07 87 0.015 19 0.15 186 SCR w/ LNB and OFA @.06 0.06 74 0.015 19 0.15 186

1 Control technology performance as used by NDEP in development of the Regional Haze SIP. As summarized in Table 1, NDEP Reid Gardner BART Determination Review (Oc

2 Control technology performance as indicated by Nevada Energy in Appendix A of each unit's respective NVE BART Analysis (October 2008)

3 SO2 emissions based upon Nevada's SO2 BART determination of upgraded wet soda ash scrubber. Per the NV RH SIP, this emission rate is based on a 24-hr ave

4 PM10 emissions based upon Nevada's PM10 BART determination of fabric filters. Per the NV RH SIP, this emission rate is based on a 3-hr averaging period

5 EPA estimate for SCR of 0.06 lb/MMBtu NOx NV Energy Estimates 2 NOx PM10 3 SO2 4

NDEP Estimates 1,5Coal Properties

Average 2 Highest Property Bowie Skyline Sufco Dugout Aberdeen Crandall West Ridge Value Value

Moist. % 8.5 9.79 9.69 5.53 6.83 7.5 5.78 7.66 9.79

Ash % 9.06 7.64 7.97 8.65 8.5 8 7.48 8.19 9.06

Volatile Matter % 33.53 38.2 35.95 33.05 38 41.05 34.91 36.38 41.05

Fixed Carbon % 48.91 44.37 46.39 52.77 46.16 43 51.84 47.63 52.77

Sulfur % 0.46 0.57 0.29 0.51 0.51 0.45 1.35 0.59 1.35

HHV Btu/lb 12,012 11,712 11,463 12,469 12,276 12,400 12,856 12,170 12,856

Notes:

1 Coal properties as presented in Table 2-2 of respective NVE BART Analyses

2 Average values used in calculations below, where necessary. Note that NV Energy used Skyline coal in most of its calculations (per Appendix A of NVE BART Analyses)

PM10 Speciation

Option 1a (Total PM10, scrubber) Assuming WRAP emissions represent Total PM10 (filterable PM10 + condensable PM10). This option is basically identical to NPS' approach

Based on scrubber as emission control

Emission Factor 1,2

(lb/MMBtu) (%) (lb/MMBtu) (%) (lb/MMBtu) (%) CALPUFF Species

Inorganic CPM 0.016 10% SO4

Condensable PM10 0.020 12% Organic CPM 0.004 2% SOA

PM Coarse (10-2.5 μm) 0.040 29% PM Coarse 0.040 25% PMC

Filterable PM10 0.1413 88%

Fine Soil 0.097 60% PMF PM Fine (<2.5 μm) 0.101 71%

Fine EC 0.004 2% EC

Total 100% Total 100%

1 Condensable PM10 EF calculated using , AP-42, Table 1.1-5 (9/98), PC boiler, with FGD control

2 Filterable PM10 EF calculated based on AP-42, Table 1.1-6 (9/98) for particles < 10 μm. Based on scrubber as particulate control.

3 PM2.5 EF calculated based on AP-42, Table 1.1-6 (9/98) for particles < 2.5 μm. Based on scrubber as particulate control.

4 Organic/Inorganic CPM emission factors based upon AP-42, Table 1.1-5 (9/98), PC boiler

5 EC fraction based on black carbon % as listed in Table 6 of "Catalog of Global Emissions Inventories and Emission Inventory Tools for Black Carbon, Jan 2002 Draft"

Option 1b (Total PM10, fabric filter/baghouse) Assuming WRAP emissions represent Total PM10 (filterable PM10 + condensable PM10). This option is basically identical to NPS' approach

Based on fabric filter as emission control

Emission Factor 1,2

(lb/MMBtu) (%) (lb/MMBtu) (%) (lb/MMBtu) (%) CALPUFF Species

Inorganic CPM 0.0160 60% SO4

Condensable PM10 0.020 75% Organic CPM 0.0040 15% SOA

PM Coarse (10-2.5 μm) 0.0034 50% PM Coarse 0.0034 13% PMC

Filterable PM10 0.0067 25%

Fine Soil 0.0032 12% PMF PM Fine (<2.5 μm) 0.0034 50%

Fine EC 0.00012 0.47% EC

Total 100% Total 100%

1 Condensable PM10 EF calculated using , AP-42, Table 1.1-5 (9/98), PC boiler, with FGD control

2 Filterable PM10 EF calculated based on AP-42, Table 1.1-6 (9/98) for particles < 10 μm. Based on baghouse as particulate control.

3 PM2.5 EF calculated based on AP-42, Table 1.1-6 (9/98) for particles < 2.5 μm, based on baghouse as particulate control

4 Organic/Inorganic CPM emission factors based upon AP-42, Table 1.1-5 (9/98), PC boiler

5 EC fraction based on black carbon % as listed in Table 6 of "Catalog of Global Emissions Inventories and Emission Inventory Tools for Black Carbon, Jan 2002 Draft" Emission Rate (Total PM10) Coal Type 1

Emission Factor 3 Emission Factor 4,5

Emission Factor 3 Emission Factor 4,5

Emission Rate (Total PM10)Option 2 (Method 5 + back half, scrubber) Assuming WRAP emissions are based on Method 5 (Total filterable PM) including back-half catch (condensables). Reid Gardner's 2004 TV permit renewal requires Method 5 + back half catch testing for compliance demonstration.

Based on scrubber as emission control

Emission Factor 1,2,6

(lb/MMBtu) (%) (lb/MMBtu) (%) (lb/MMBtu) (%) CALPUFF Species

Inorganic CPM 0.016 9% SO4

Condensable PM10 0.020 11% Organic CPM 0.004 2% SOA

Total PM10 PM Coarse (10-2.5 μm) 0.040 29% PM Coarse 0.040 22% PMC

Filterable PM10 0.1413 78%

Fine Soil 0.097 54% PMF PM Fine (<2.5 μm) 0.101 71%

Fine EC 0.004 2% EC

Filterable PM10+ 0.0202 11% PM10+ 0.0202 11% Not included

Total 100% Total 100%

1 Condensable PM10 EF calculated using , AP-42, Table 1.1-5 (9/98), PC boiler

2 Filterable PM10 EF calculated based on AP-42, Table 1.1-6 (9/98) for particles < 10 μm. Based on scrubber as particulate control.

3 PM2.5 EF calculated based on AP-42, Table 1.1-6 (9/98) for particles < 2.5 μm. Based on scrubber as particulate control.

4 Organic/Inorganic CPM emission factors based upon AP-42, Table 1.1-5 (9/98), PC boiler

5 EC fraction based on black carbon % as listed in Table 6 of "Catalog of Global Emissions Inventories and Emission Inventory Tools for Black Carbon, Jan 2002 Draft"

6 Filterable PM10+ EF calculated based on AP-42, Table 1.1-6 (9/98), using the difference between PM10 and PM15 Efs. Scrubber as particulate control

Option 3 (Filterable PM, scrubber) Assuming WRAP emissions are based on Method 5 only (Total filterable PM). No back-half catch (condensables).

Based on scrubber as emission control

Emission Factor 1,2

(lb/MMBtu) (%) (lb/MMBtu) (%) (lb/MMBtu) (%) CALPUFF Species

Inorganic CPM SO4 Condensable PM10 must be calculated separately using this option Organic CPM SOA

PM Coarse (10-2.5 μm) 0.040 29% PM Coarse 0.040 25% PMC

Filterable PM10 0.1413 88%

Fine Soil 0.097 60% PMF PM Fine (<2.5 μm) 0.101 71%

Fine EC 0.004 2% EC

Filterable PM10+ 0.0202 13% PM10+ 0.0202 13% Not included

Total 100% Total 100%

1 Filterable PM10+ EF calculated based on AP-42, Table 1.1-6 (9/98), using the difference between PM10 and PM15 Efs. Scrubber as particulate control

2 Filterable PM10 EF calculated based on AP-42, Table 1.1-6 (9/98) for particles < 10 μm. Based on scrubber as particulate control.

3 PM2.5 EF calculated based on AP-42, Table 1.1-6 (9/98) for particles < 2.5 μm. Based on scrubber as particulate control.

4 Organic/Inorganic CPM emission factors based upon AP-42, Table 1.1-5 (9/98), PC boiler

5 EC fraction based on black carbon % as listed in Table 6 of "Catalog of Global Emissions Inventories and Emission Inventory Tools for Black Carbon, Jan 2002 Draft" Emission Factor 3 Emission Factor 4,5

Emission Rate (Method 5 only) Emission Factor 3 Emission Factor 4,5

Emission Rate (Method 5 + back half)Reid Gardner Generating Station Nevada Regiona Haze SIP Page 1 of 2 U.S. EPA, Region 9
Printed 4/2/2012 

### Reid Gardner Generating Station

Baseline Emission Calculations

Baseline 1: WRAP emission baseline

Unit Name Heat Input HHV Fuel Sulfur Moisture

NOx SO2 PM10 (MMBtu/hr) (Btu/lb) wt% wt%

Reid Gardner Unit 1 None Wet Soda

Ash Scrubber Mechanical Flyash

Collector 1215 12,170 0.59 7.66

Reid Gardner Unit 2 None Wet Soda

Ash Scrubber Mechanical Flyash

Collector 1215 12,170 0.59 7.66

Reid Gardner Unit 3 None Wet Soda

Ash Scrubber Mechanical Flyash

Collector 1237 12,170 0.59 7.66

00 Baseline 1 uses WRAP emission factors for NOx, SO2, and filterable PM

Unit Name H2SO4 1 SO4

SO4 SOA Coarse Fine Soil EC (lb/MMBtu) (lb/hr) (lb/MMBtu) (lb/hr) (lb/hr) (lb/hr) (lb/MMBtu) (lb/hr)

Reid Gardner Unit 1 0.591 718 0.329 400 0.572 0.560 0.0474 58 4.86 14.40 34.66 1.33

Reid Gardner Unit 2 0.635 772 0.28 340 0.572 0.560 0.044 53 4.86 13.37 32.18 1.24

Reid Gardner Unit 3 0.592 732 0.32 396 0.582 0.570 0.04 49 4.95 12.37 29.78 1.14

1 H2SO4 Emission Calculations based upon "Estimating Total Sulfuric Acid Emissions from Stationary Power Plants," EPRI, Technical Update, April 2010

ER = E2 * K * F1 * F2, based upon Equations 4-1 and 4-3 (fuel combustion only)

Where,

ER = H2SO4 emissions, (lb/hr)

E2 = SO2 emissions, (lb/hr)

K = 1.53 SO2 to H2SO4 mol wt conversion

F1 = 0.00111 Fuel impact factor, western bituminous coal, dry bottom boiler

F2 = 0.5 Table 4-3, air heater removal factor. Although fuel sulfur content is low, Reid Gardner coal ash is still assumed to be acidic (using lo

0.65 Table 4-5, wet venturi scrubber (lb/hr) Control Technology

NOx SO2 Speciated PM10 Emissions 3 Filterable PM 2Reid Gardner Generating Station Nevada Regiona Haze SIP Page 2 of 2 U.S. EPA, Region 9
Printed 4/2/2012 E2 = K1 * K2 * C1 * S1, based upon Equation 4-2b. Although SO2 CEMS data exists, it was not used in the calculation because insufficient data exists to calculate the

E2 = SO2 emissions (lb/hr)

K1 = 2.00 S to SO2 mol wt ratio

K2 = 0.95 Sulfur Conversion to SO2, bituminous coal

C1 = Dry coal burn rate (ton/hr)

S1 = Coal sulfur dry wt fraction

2 Although these emissions are represented in WRAP documenation as PM10, they were represented in NV Energy visibility modeling as filterable PM and speciated as such. They are also con

filterable PM in this baseline run in order to be consistent.

3 PM10 speciation is based upon Option 3, which assumes the WRAP PM10 emission rate represents results of Method 5 testing (filterable PM)

PM species (wt%) Inorganic CPM (SO4)

-- Inorganic CPM based upon SO4 emissions generated from H2SO4 Organic CPM (SOA)

-- Organic CPM emissions based upon AP-42 (9/98), Table 1.1-5 (20% of CPM-TOT emission factor) Coarse (PMC) 25% Fine Soil (PMF) 60% Elemental Carbon (EC) 2%Reid Gardner Generating Station Nevada Regiona Haze SIP Page 1 of 1 U.S. EPA, Region 9
Printed 4/2/2012 

### Reid Gardner Generating Station

Baseline Emission Calculations
Baseline 1a: WRAP emission baseline NOx, NDEP BART for SO2 and PM10

Unit Name Control Technology Heat Input HHV Fuel Sulfur Moisture

NOx SO2 PM10 (MMBtu/hr) (Btu/lb) wt% wt%

Reid Gardner Unit 1 None Wet Soda Ash

Scrubber (upgraded) Fabric Filter 1215 12,170 0.59 7.66

Reid Gardner Unit 2 None Wet Soda Ash

Scrubber (upgraded) Fabric Filter 1215 12,170 0.59 7.66

Reid Gardner Unit 3 None Wet Soda Ash

Scrubber (upgraded) Fabric Filter 1237 12,170 0.59 7.66

02 Baseline 1a uses WRAP emission factors for NOx, and NDEP's BART determination for SO2 and PM10

Unit Name SO4 (pre-rxn) SOA Coarse Fine Soil EC (lb/MMBtu) (lb/hr) (lb/MMBtu) (lb/hr) (lb/MMBtu) (lb/hr)

Reid Gardner Unit 1 0.591 718 0.15 182 0.015 18 10.91 2.73 2.29 2.21 0.08

Reid Gardner Unit 2 0.635 772 0.15 182 0.015 18 10.91 2.73 2.29 2.21 0.08

Reid Gardner Unit 3 0.592 732 0.15 186 0.015 19 11.11 2.78 2.33 2.25 0.09

1 SO2 emissions based upon Nevada's SO2 BART determination of upgraded wet soda ash scrubber

2 PM10 emissions based upon Nevada's PM10 BART determination of fabric filters.

3 PM10 speciation is based upon Option 1b (Total PM10, fabric filter/baghouse). Per TV Permit No. AP4911-0897, PM10 source testing must consist of Method 201A and 202, which would indicate that total PM10 test dat

PM species (wt%) Inorganic CPM (SO4) 60% Organic CPM (SOA) 15% Coarse (PMC) 13% Fine Soil (PMF) 12% Elemental Carbon (EC) 0.47% NOx SO2 1 PM10 2 Speciated PM10 Emissions 3

(lb/hr)Reid Gardner Generating Station Nevada Regiona Haze SIP Page 1 of 1 U.S. EPA, Region 9
Printed 4/2/2012 

### Reid Gardner Generating Station

Baseline Emission Calculations Baseline 2: EPA baseline (NDEP baseline NOx, NDEP BART for SO2 and PM10)

Unit Name Control Technology Heat Input HHV Fuel Sulfur Moisture

NOx SO2 PM10 (MMBtu/hr) (Btu/lb) wt% wt%

Reid Gardner Unit 1 LNB w/ OFA Wet Soda Ash

Scrubber (upgraded) Fabric Filter 1215 12,170 0.59 7.66

Reid Gardner Unit 2 LNB w/ OFA Wet Soda Ash

Scrubber (upgraded) Fabric Filter 1215 12,170 0.59 7.66

Reid Gardner Unit 3 LNB w/ OFA Wet Soda Ash

Scrubber (upgraded) Fabric Filter 1237 12,170 0.59 7.66

04 Baseline 2 uses NDEP SIP's baseline emission factors for NOx, and NDEP's BART determination for SO2 and PM10

Unit Name SO4 (pre-rxn) SOA Coarse Fine Soil EC (lb/MMBtu) (lb/hr) (lb/MMBtu) (lb/hr) (lb/MMBtu) (lb/hr)

Reid Gardner Unit 1 0.462 561 0.15 182 0.015 18 10.91 2.73 2.29 2.21 0.08

Reid Gardner Unit 2 0.466 566 0.15 182 0.015 18 10.91 2.73 2.29 2.21 0.08

Reid Gardner Unit 3 0.451 558 0.15 186 0.015 19 11.11 2.78 2.33 2.25 0.09

1 SO2 emissions based upon Nevada's SO2 BART determination of upgraded wet soda ash scrubber

2 PM10 emissions based upon Nevada's PM10 BART determination of fabric filters.

3 PM10 speciation is based upon Option 1b (Total PM10, fabric filter/baghouse). Per TV Permit No. AP4911-0897, PM10 source testing must consist of Method 201A and 202, which would indicate that

PM species (wt%) Inorganic CPM (SO4) 60% Organic CPM (SOA) 15% Coarse (PMC) 13% Fine Soil (PMF) 12% Elemental Carbon (EC) 0.47% NOx SO2 1 PM10 2 Speciated PM10 Emissions 3

(lb/hr)Reid Gardner Generating Station Nevada Regiona Haze SIP Page 1 of 1 U.S. EPA, Region 9
Printed 4/2/2012 

### Reid Gardner Generating Station

NOx Control Scenario Emission Calculations
Control Scenario 1: Upgraded LNB

Unit Name Control Technology Heat Input HHV Fuel Sulfur Moisture

NOx SO2 PM10 (MMBtu/hr) (Btu/lb) wt% wt%

Reid Gardner Unit 1 LNB + OFA (enhanced) Wet Soda Ash

Scrubber (upgraded) Fabric Filter 1215 12,170 0.59 7.66

Reid Gardner Unit 2 LNB + OFA (enhanced) Wet Soda Ash

Scrubber (upgraded) Fabric Filter 1215 12,170 0.59 7.66

Reid Gardner Unit 3 LNB + OFA (enhanced) Wet Soda Ash

Scrubber (upgraded) Fabric Filter 1237 12,170 0.59 7.66

Control 1 emissions based on NDEP estimate of NOx for LNB+OFA, NDEP's BART determination for SO2 and PM10

Unit Name SO4 (pre-rxn) SOA Coarse Fine Soil EC (lb/MMBtu) (lb/hr) (lb/MMBtu) (lb/hr) (lb/MMBtu) (lb/hr)

Reid Gardner Unit 1 0.364 442 0.15 182 0.015 18 10.91 2.73 2.29 2.21 0.08

Reid Gardner Unit 2 0.355 431 0.15 182 0.015 18 10.91 2.73 2.29 2.21 0.08

Reid Gardner Unit 3 0.421 521 0.15 186 0.015 19 11.11 2.78 2.33 2.25 0.09

1 SO2 emissions based upon Nevada's SO2 BART determination of upgraded wet soda ash scrubber

2 PM10 emissions based upon Nevada's PM10 BART determination of fabric filters.

3 PM10 speciation is based upon Option 1b (Total PM10, fabric filter/baghouse). Although the basis for the BART PM10 limit is unclear, TV Permit No. AP4911-0897 requires that PM10 source testin

PM species (wt%) Inorganic CPM (SO4) 60% Organic CPM (SOA) 15% Coarse (PMC) 13% Fine Soil (PMF) 12% Elemental Carbon (EC) 0.47% Speciated PM10 Emissions 3

(lb/hr) NOx SO2 1 PM10 2Reid Gardner Generating Station Nevada Regiona Haze SIP Page 1 of 2 U.S. EPA, Region 9
Printed 4/2/2012 

### Reid Gardner Generating Station

NOx Control Scenario Emission Calculations

Control Scenario 2: SNCR with LNB w/ OFA

Unit Name Control Technology Heat Input HHV Fuel Sulfur Moisture

NOx SO2 PM10 (MMBtu/hr) (Btu/lb) wt% wt%

Reid Gardner Unit 1 SNCR +

LNB w/

OFA Wet Soda Ash

Scrubber (upgraded) Fabric Filter 1215 12,170 0.59 7.66

Reid Gardner Unit 2 SNCR +

LNB w/

OFA Wet Soda Ash

Scrubber (upgraded) Fabric Filter 1215 12,170 0.59 7.66

Reid Gardner Unit 3 SNCR +

LNB w/

OFA Wet Soda Ash

Scrubber (upgraded) Fabric Filter 1237 12,170 0.59 7.66

Control 2 emissions based on NDEP estimate of NOx for SNCR+LNB+OFA, NDEP's BART determination for SO2 and PM10

Unit Name
SO4 (pre-rxn) SO4 (post rxn) 4 SOA Coarse Fine Soil EC (lb/MMBtu) (lb/hr) (lb/MMBtu) (lb/hr) (lb/MMBtu) (lb/hr)

Reid Gardner Unit 1 0.273 332 0.15 182 0.015 18 10.91 0.00 2.73 2.29 2.21 0.08

Reid Gardner Unit 2 0.267 324 0.15 182 0.015 18 10.91 0.00 2.73 2.29 2.21 0.08

Reid Gardner Unit 3 0.316 391 0.15 186 0.015 19 11.11 0.00 2.78 2.33 2.25 0.09

1 SO2 emissions based upon Nevada's SO2 BART determination of upgraded wet soda ash scrubber

2 PM10 emissions based upon Nevada's PM10 BART determination of fabric filters.

3 PM10 speciation is based upon Option 1b (Total PM10, fabric filter/baghouse). Although the basis for the BART PM10 limit is unclear, TV Permit No. AP4911-0897 requires that PM10 source testing must consist o

PM species (wt%) Inorganic CPM (SO4) 60% Organic CPM (SOA) 15% Coarse (PMC) 13% Fine Soil (PMF) 12% Elemental Carbon (EC) 0.47% Speciated PM10 Emissions 3

(lb/hr) NOx SO2 1 PM10 2Reid Gardner Generating Station Nevada Regiona Haze SIP Page 2 of 2 U.S. EPA, Region 9
Printed 4/2/2012 4 H2SO4 from SCR based upon "Estimating Total Sulfuric Acid Emissions from Stationary Power Plants," EPRI, Technical Update, April 2010

ER[NH3] = Ammonia Slip calculation

9780 dscf/MMBtu, from Method 19, Table 19-2 "Fuel F-factors". Fd-factor listed for bituminous coal @ 0% O2.

5 ppmv @ 6% O2 (ammonia slip). ROFA+Rotamix guarantee, as indicated in NVE BART analyses, p3-6

385.6 SCF/lbmol, molar volume @ STP.

17.0 lb/lbmol, NH3 MW

Unit No. Sample Calc (Unit 1):

SCFH lbmol/hr lb/hr

Unit 1 83.34 0.216 3.67 1215 MMBtu 9780 dscf 5 parts NH3 (20.9 - 0) O2 lbmol 17 lb NH3 = 3.67 lb

Unit 2 83.34 0.216 3.67 hr MMBtu 1,000,000 (20.9 - 6) O2 385.6 SCF lbmol hr

Unit 3 84.85 0.220 3.74

ER = ((EM SO4 - ER NH3 )*98.6) * F2, based on modified equation 4-7

Where,

ER = H2SO4 emitted (lb/hr)

EM = H2SO4 manufactured (lbmol/hr)
ER[NH3] = Ammonia slip (lbmol/hr)

F2 = 0.5 Table 4-3, air heater removal factor. Although fuel sulfur content is low, Reid Gardner coal ash is still assumed to be acidic (using low S eastern bituminous factor per EPR

0.10 Table 4-4, baghouse

0.65 Table 4-5, wet venturi scrubber

Unit No.

lb/hr lbmol/hr lbmol/hr lb/hr

Unit 1 10.91 0.111 -0.105 -0.34

Unit 2 10.91 0.111 -0.105 -0.34

Unit 3 11.11 0.113 -0.107 -0.34 Ammonia Emission Rate

H2SO4

EM (pre-reaction) ER (post-reaction)Reid Gardner Generating Station Nevada Regiona Haze SIP Page 1 of 2 U.S. EPA, Region 9
Printed 4/2/2012 

### Reid Gardner Generating Station

NOx Control Scenario Emission Calculations

Control Scenario 3: ROFA w/ Rotamix

Unit Name Control Technology Heat Input HHV Fuel Sulfur Moisture

NOx SO2 PM10 (MMBtu/hr) (Btu/lb) wt% wt%

Reid Gardner Unit 1 ROFA w/

Rotamix Wet Soda Ash

Scrubber (upgraded) Fabric Filter 1215 12,170 0.59 7.66

Reid Gardner Unit 2 ROFA w/

Rotamix Wet Soda Ash

Scrubber (upgraded) Fabric Filter 1215 12,170 0.59 7.66

Reid Gardner Unit 3 ROFA w/

Rotamix Wet Soda Ash

Scrubber (upgraded) Fabric Filter 1237 12,170 0.59 7.66

Control 3 emissions based on NDEP estimate of NOx for ROFA+Rotamix, NDEP's BART determination for SO2 and PM10

Unit Name
SO4 (pre-rxn) SO4 (post rxn) 4 SOA Coarse Fine Soil EC (lb/MMBtu) (lb/hr) (lb/MMBtu) (lb/hr) (lb/MMBtu) (lb/hr)

Reid Gardner Unit 1 0.195 237 0.15 182 0.015 18 10.91 0.00 2.73 2.29 2.21 0.08

Reid Gardner Unit 2 0.191 232 0.15 182 0.015 18 10.91 0.00 2.73 2.29 2.21 0.08

Reid Gardner Unit 3 0.278 344 0.15 186 0.015 19 11.11 0.00 2.78 2.33 2.25 0.09

1 SO2 emissions based upon Nevada's SO2 BART determination of upgraded wet soda ash scrubber

2 PM10 emissions based upon Nevada's PM10 BART determination of fabric filters.

3 PM10 speciation is based upon Option 1b (Total PM10, fabric filter/baghouse). Although the basis for the BART PM10 limit is unclear, TV Permit No. AP4911-0897 requires that PM10 source testing must consist o

PM species (wt%) Inorganic CPM (SO4) 60% Organic CPM (SOA) 15% Coarse (PMC) 13% Fine Soil (PMF) 12% Elemental Carbon (EC) 0.47% Speciated PM10 Emissions 3

(lb/hr) NOx SO2 1 PM10 2Reid Gardner Generating Station Nevada Regiona Haze SIP Page 2 of 2 U.S. EPA, Region 9
Printed 4/2/2012 4 H2SO4 from SCR based upon "Estimating Total Sulfuric Acid Emissions from Stationary Power Plants," EPRI, Technical Update, April 2010

ER[NH3] = Ammonia Slip calculation

9780 dscf/MMBtu, from Method 19, Table 19-2 "Fuel F-factors". Fd-factor listed for bituminous coal @ 0% O2.

5 ppmv @ 6% O2 (ammonia slip). ROFA+Rotamix guarantee, as indicated in NVE BART analyses, p3-6

385.6 SCF/lbmol, molar volume @ STP.

17.0 lb/lbmol, NH3 MW

Unit No. Sample Calc (Unit 1):

SCFH lbmol/hr lb/hr

Unit 1 83.34 0.216 3.67 1215 MMBtu 9780 dscf 5 parts NH3 (20.9 - 0) O2 lbmol 17 lb NH3 = 3.67 lb

Unit 2 83.34 0.216 3.67 hr MMBtu 1,000,000 (20.9 - 6) O2 385.6 SCF lbmol hr

Unit 3 84.85 0.220 3.74

ER = ((EM SO4 - ER NH3 )*98.6) * F2, based on modified equation 4-7

Where,

ER = H2SO4 emitted (lb/hr)

EM = H2SO4 manufactured (lbmol/hr)
ER[NH3] = Ammonia slip (lbmol/hr)

F2 = 0.5 Table 4-3, air heater removal factor. Although fuel sulfur content is low, Reid Gardner coal ash is still assumed to be acidic (using low S eastern bituminous factor per EPR

0.10 Table 4-4, baghouse

0.65 Table 4-5, wet venturi scrubber

Unit No.

lb/hr lbmol/hr lbmol/hr lb/hr

Unit 1 10.91 0.111 -0.105 -0.34

Unit 2 10.91 0.111 -0.105 -0.34

Unit 3 11.11 0.113 -0.107 -0.34 H2SO4

EM (pre-reaction) ER (post-reaction) Ammonia Emission RateReid Gardner Generating Station Nevada Regiona Haze SIP Page 1 of 3 U.S. EPA, Region 9
Printed 4/2/2012 

### Reid Gardner Generating Station

NOx Control Scenario Emission Calculations

Control Scenario 4: SCR with ROFA

Unit Name Control Technology Heat Input HHV Fuel Sulfur Moisture

NOx SO2 PM10 (MMBtu/hr) (Btu/lb) wt% wt%

Reid Gardner Unit 1 SCR +

ROFA Wet Soda Ash

Scrubber (upgraded) Fabric Filter 1215 12,170 0.59 7.66

Reid Gardner Unit 2 SCR +

ROFA Wet Soda Ash

Scrubber (upgraded) Fabric Filter 1215 12,170 0.59 7.66

Reid Gardner Unit 3 SCR +

ROFA Wet Soda Ash

Scrubber (upgraded) Fabric Filter 1237 12,170 0.59 7.66

Control 4 emissions based on NDEP estimate of NOx for SCR+ROFA, NDEP's BART determination for SO2 and PM10

Unit Name H2SO4 4 SO4 (from SCR) SO4 SO4 (total) SOA Coarse Fine Soil EC (lb/MMBtu) (lb/hr) (lb/MMBtu) (lb/hr) (lb/hr) (lb/hr) (lb/MMBtu) (lb/hr)

Reid Gardner Unit 1 0.085 103 0.15 182 0.15 0.145 0.015 18 10.91 11.06 2.73 2.29 2.21 0.08

Reid Gardner Unit 2 0.083 101 0.15 182 0.15 0.145 0.015 18 10.91 11.06 2.73 2.29 2.21 0.08

Reid Gardner Unit 3 0.098 121 0.15 186 0.15 0.148 0.015 19 11.11 11.26 2.78 2.33 2.25 0.09

1 SO2 emissions based upon Nevada's SO2 BART determination of upgraded wet soda ash scrubber

2 PM10 emissions based upon Nevada's PM10 BART determination of fabric filters.

3 PM10 speciation is based upon Option 1b (Total PM10, fabric filter/baghouse). Although the basis for the BART PM10 limit is unclear, TV Permit No. AP4911-0897 requires that PM10 source testing must consist of Method 201A and

PM species (wt%) Inorganic CPM (SO4) 60% Organic CPM (SOA) 15% Coarse (PMC) 13% Fine Soil (PMF) 12% Elemental Carbon (EC) 0.47% PM10 2 Speciated PM10 Emissions 3

(lb/hr) NOx SO2 1Reid Gardner Generating Station Nevada Regiona Haze SIP Page 2 of 3 U.S. EPA, Region 9
Printed 4/2/2012 4 H2SO4 from SCR based upon "Estimating Total Sulfuric Acid Emissions from Stationary Power Plants," EPRI, Technical Update, April 2010

E2 = K1 * K2 * C1 * S1, based upon Equation 4-2b. Although SO2 CEMS data exists, it was not used in the calculation because insufficient data exists to calculate the CEMS correction factor

Where,

E2 = SO2 emissions (lb/hr)

K1 = 2.00 S to SO2 mol wt ratio

K2 = 0.95 Sulfur Conversion to SO2, bituminous coal

C1 = Dry coal burn rate (lb/hr)

S1 = Coal sulfur dry wt fraction

Unit No.

C1 E2 (lb/hr) (lb/hr)

Unit 1 99838 1034.66

Unit 2 99838 1034.66

Unit 3 101646 1053.40

EM = K * S2 * f[sops] * E2 * F3[scr], based on equation 4-6

Where,

EM = H2SO4 manufactured (lb/hr)

K = 1.53 SO2 to H2SO4 molecular wt conversion

S2 = 0.0050 SCR catalyst SO2 oxidation rate, based upon 3 layers of catalyst f[sops] = 0.98 Operating factor of SCR system. Corresponds to baseload operation, per Equation 4-6
F3[scr] = 1 SCR technology impact factor, non-PRB coal, per Equation 4-6

E2 = SO2 emissions, (lb/hr)

Unit No. H2SO4

EM (ton/hr)

Unit 1 7.76

Unit 2 7.76

Unit 3 7.90

ER NH3 = Ammonia Slip calculation

9780 dscf/MMBtu, from Method 19, Table 19-2 "Fuel F-factors". Fd-factor listed for bituminous coal @ 0% O2.

0.75 ppmv @ 6% O2 (ammonia slip), per Equation 4-6.

385.6 SCF/lbmol, molar volume @ STP.

17.0 lb/lbmol, NH3 MW

Unit No. Sample Calc (Unit 1):

SCFH lbmol/hr lb/hr

Unit 1 12.50 0.032 0.55 1215 MMBtu 9780 dscf 0.75 parts NH3 (20.9 - 0) O2 lbmol 17 lb NH3 = 0.55 lb

Unit 2 12.50 0.032 0.55 hr MMBtu 1,000,000 (20.9 - 6) O2 385.6 SCF lbmol hr

Unit 3 12.73 0.033 0.56 SO2

Ammonia Emission RateReid Gardner Generating Station Nevada Regiona Haze SIP Page 3 of 3 U.S. EPA, Region 9
Printed 4/2/2012 ER = ((EM H2SO4 - ER NH3 )*MW H2SO4 ) * F2, based on modified equation 4-7

Where,

ER = H2SO4 emitted (lb/hr)

EM SO4 = H2SO4 manufactured (lbmol/hr)

ER NH3 = Ammonia slip (lbmol/hr)

MW H2SO4 = 98.6 lb/lbmol

F2 = 0.5 Table 4-3, air heater removal factor. Although fuel sulfur content is low, Reid Gardner coal ash is still assumed to be acidic (using low S eastern bituminous factor per EPRI recommendation)

0.10 Table 4-4, baghouse

0.65 Table 4-5, wet venturi scrubber

Unit No.

lb/hr lbmol/hr lbmol/hr lb/hr

Unit 1 7.76 0.079 0.046 0.15

Unit 2 7.76 0.079 0.046 0.15

Unit 3 7.90 0.080 0.047 0.15 H2SO4

EM (pre-reaction) ER (post-reaction)Reid Gardner Generating Station Nevada Regiona Haze SIP Page 1 of 3 U.S. EPA, Region 9
Printed 4/2/2012 

### Reid Gardner Generating Station

NOx Control Scenario Emission Calculations

Control Scenario 5: SCR with LNB and OFA

Unit Name Control Technology Heat Input HHV Fuel Sulfur Moisture

NOx SO2 PM10 (MMBtu/hr) (Btu/lb) wt% wt%

Reid Gardner Unit 1 SCR +

LNB w/

OFA Wet Soda Ash

Scrubber (upgraded) Fabric Filter 1215 12,170 0.59 7.66

Reid Gardner Unit 2 SCR +

LNB w/

OFA Wet Soda Ash

Scrubber (upgraded) Fabric Filter 1215 12,170 0.59 7.66

Reid Gardner Unit 3 SCR +

LNB w/

OFA Wet Soda Ash

Scrubber (upgraded) Fabric Filter 1237 12,170 0.59 7.66

Control 5 emissions based on NDEP estimate of NOx for SCR+LNB+OFA, NDEP's BART detemination for SO2 and PM10

Unit Name H2SO4 4 SO4 (from SCR) SO4 SO4 (total) SOA Coarse Fine Soil EC (lb/MMBtu) (lb/hr) (lb/MMBtu) (lb/hr) (lb/hr) (lb/hr) (lb/MMBtu) (lb/hr)

Reid Gardner Unit 1 0.085 103 0.15 182 0.15 0.145 0.015 18 10.91 11.06 2.73 2.29 2.21 0.08

Reid Gardner Unit 2 0.083 101 0.15 182 0.15 0.145 0.015 18 10.91 11.06 2.73 2.29 2.21 0.08

Reid Gardner Unit 3 0.098 121 0.15 186 0.15 0.148 0.015 19 11.11 11.26 2.78 2.33 2.25 0.09

1 SO2 emissions based upon Nevada's SO2 BART determination of upgraded wet soda ash scrubber

2 PM10 emissions based upon Nevada's PM10 BART determination of fabric filters.

3 PM10 speciation is based upon Option 1b (Total PM10, fabric filter/baghouse). Although the basis for the BART PM10 limit is unclear, TV Permit No. AP4911-0897 requires that PM10 source testing must consist of Metho

PM species (wt%) Inorganic CPM (SO4) 60% Organic CPM (SOA) 15% Coarse (PMC) 13% Fine Soil (PMF) 12% Elemental Carbon (EC) 0.47% Speciated PM10 Emissions 3

(lb/hr) NOx SO2 1 PM10 2Reid Gardner Generating Station Nevada Regiona Haze SIP Page 2 of 3 U.S. EPA, Region 9
Printed 4/2/2012 4 H2SO4 from SCR based upon "Estimating Total Sulfuric Acid Emissions from Stationary Power Plants," EPRI, Technical Update, April 2010

E2 = K1 * K2 * C1 * S1, based upon Equation 4-2b. Although SO2 CEMS data exists, it was not used in the calculation because insufficient data exists to calculate the CEMS correction factor

Where,

E2 = SO2 emissions (lb/hr)

K1 = 2.00 S to SO2 mol wt ratio

K2 = 0.95 Sulfur Conversion to SO2, bituminous coal

C1 = Dry coal burn rate (lb/hr)

S1 = Coal sulfur dry wt fraction

Unit No.

C1 E2 (lb/hr) (lb/hr)

Unit 1 99838 1034.66

Unit 2 99838 1034.66

Unit 3 101646 1053.40

EM = K * S2 * f[sops] * E2 * F3[scr], based on equation 4-6

Where,

EM = H2SO4 manufactured (lb/hr)

K = 1.53 SO2 to H2SO4 molecular wt conversion

S2 = 0.0050 SCR catalyst SO2 oxidation rate, based upon 0.5% conversion at 3 layers of catalyst f[sops] = 0.98 Operating factor of SCR system. Corresponds to baseload operation, per Equation 4-6
F3[scr] = 1 SCR technology impact factor, non-PRB coal, per Equation 4-6

E2 = SO2 emissions, (lb/hr)

Unit No. H2SO4

EM (ton/hr)

Unit 1 7.76

Unit 2 7.76

Unit 3 7.90

ER NH3 = Ammonia Slip calculation

9780 dscf/MMBtu, from Method 19, Table 19-2 "Fuel F-factors". Fd-factor listed for bituminous coal @ 0% O2.

0.75 ppmv @ 6% O2 (ammonia slip), per Equation 4-6.

385.6 SCF/lbmol, molar volume @ STP.

17.0 lb/lbmol, NH3 MW

Unit No. Sample Calc (Unit 1):

SCFH lbmol/hr lb/hr

Unit 1 12.50 0.032 0.55 1215 MMBtu 9780 dscf 0.75 parts NH3 (20.9 - 0) O2 lbmol 17 lb NH3 = 0.55 lb

Unit 2 12.50 0.032 0.55 hr MMBtu 1,000,000 (20.9 - 6) O2 385.6 SCF lbmol hr

Unit 3 12.73 0.033 0.56 Ammonia Emission Rate SO2Reid Gardner Generating Station Nevada Regiona Haze SIP Page 3 of 3 U.S. EPA, Region 9
Printed 4/2/2012 ER = ((E M H2SO4 - ER NH3 )*MW H2SO4 ) * F2, based on modified equation 4-7

Where,

ER = H2SO4 emitted (lb/hr)

EM SO4 = H2SO4 manufactured (lbmol/hr)

ER NH3 = Ammonia slip (lbmol/hr)

MW H2SO4 = 98.6 lb/lbmol

F2 = 0.5 Table 4-3, air heater removal factor. Although fuel sulfur content is low, Reid Gardner coal ash is still assumed to be acidic (using low S eastern bituminous factor per EPRI recom

0.10 Table 4-4, baghouse

0.65 Table 4-5, wet venturi scrubber

Unit No.

lb/hr lbmol/hr lbmol/hr lb/hr

Unit 1 7.76 0.079 0.046 0.15

Unit 2 7.76 0.079 0.046 0.15

Unit 3 7.90 0.080 0.047 0.15 H2SO4

ER (post-reaction) EM (pre-reaction)Reid Gardner Generating Station Nevada Regiona Haze SIP Page 1 of 3 U.S. EPA, Region 9
Printed 4/2/2012 

### Reid Gardner Generating Station

NOx Control Scenario Emission Calculations
Control Scenario 6: SCR with LNB and OFA, EPA estimate of 0.06 lb/MMBtu NOx

Unit Name Control Technology Heat Input HHV Fuel Sulfur Moisture

NOx SO2 PM10 (MMBtu/hr) (Btu/lb) wt% wt%

Reid Gardner Unit 1 SCR + LNB

w/ OFA Wet Soda Ash

Scrubber (upgraded) Fabric Filter 1215 12,170 0.59 7.66

Reid Gardner Unit 2 SCR + LNB

w/ OFA Wet Soda Ash

Scrubber (upgraded) Fabric Filter 1215 12,170 0.59 7.66

Reid Gardner Unit 3 SCR + LNB

w/ OFA Wet Soda Ash

Scrubber (upgraded) Fabric Filter 1237 12,170 0.59 7.66

Control 6 emissions based on EPA estimate of NOx for SCR+LNB+OFA, NDEP's BART determination for SO2 and PM10

Unit Name H2SO4 4 SO4 (from SCR) SO4 SO4 (total) SOA Coarse Fine Soil EC (lb/MMBtu) (lb/hr) (lb/MMBtu) (lb/hr) (lb/hr) (lb/hr) (lb/MMBtu) (lb/hr)

Reid Gardner Unit 1 0.060 73 0.15 182 0.15 0.145 0.015 18 10.91 11.06 2.73 2.29 2.21 0.08

Reid Gardner Unit 2 0.060 73 0.15 182 0.15 0.145 0.015 18 10.91 11.06 2.73 2.29 2.21 0.08

Reid Gardner Unit 3 0.060 74 0.15 186 0.15 0.148 0.015 19 11.11 11.26 2.78 2.33 2.25 0.09

1 SO2 emissions based upon Nevada's SO2 BART determination of upgraded wet soda ash scrubber

2 PM10 emissions based upon Nevada's PM10 BART determination of fabric filters.

3 PM10 speciation is based upon Option 1b (Total PM10, fabric filter/baghouse). Although the basis for the BART PM10 limit is unclear, TV Permit No. AP4911-0897 requires that PM10 source testing must consist of Method 201A and

PM species (wt%) Inorganic CPM (SO4) 60% Organic CPM (SOA) 15% Coarse (PMC) 13% Fine Soil (PMF) 12% Elemental Carbon (EC) 0.47% NOx SO2 1 PM10 2 Speciated PM10 Emissions 3

(lb/hr)Reid Gardner Generating Station Nevada Regiona Haze SIP Page 2 of 3 U.S. EPA, Region 9
Printed 4/2/2012 4 H2SO4 from SCR based upon "Estimating Total Sulfuric Acid Emissions from Stationary Power Plants," EPRI, Technical Update, April 2010

E2 = K1 * K2 * C1 * S1, based upon Equation 4-2b. Although SO2 CEMS data exists, it was not used in the calculation because insufficient data exists to calculate the CEMS correction factor

Where,

E2 = SO2 emissions (lb/hr)

K1 = 2.00 S to SO2 mol wt ratio

K2 = 0.95 Sulfur Conversion to SO2, bituminous coal

C1 = Dry coal burn rate (lb/hr)

S1 = Coal sulfur dry wt fraction

Unit No.

C1 E2 (lb/hr) (lb/hr)

Unit 1 99838 1034.66

Unit 2 99838 1034.66

Unit 3 101646 1053.40

EM = K * S2 * f[sops] * E2 * F3[scr], based on equation 4-6

Where,

EM = H2SO4 manufactured (lb/hr)

K = 1.53 SO2 to H2SO4 molecular wt conversion

S2 = 0.0050 SCR catalyst SO2 oxidation rate, based upon 0.5% conversion at 3 layers of catalyst f[sops] = 0.98 Operating factor of SCR system. Corresponds to baseload operation, per Equation 4-6
F3[scr] = 1 SCR technology impact factor, non-PRB coal, per Equation 4-6

E2 = SO2 emissions, (lb/hr)

Unit No. H2SO4

EM (ton/hr)

Unit 1 7.76

Unit 2 7.76

Unit 3 7.90

ER NH3 = Ammonia Slip calculation

9780 dscf/MMBtu, from Method 19, Table 19-2 "Fuel F-factors". Fd-factor listed for bituminous coal @ 0% O2.

0.75 ppmv @ 6% O2 (ammonia slip), per Equation 4-6.

385.6 SCF/lbmol, molar volume @ STP.

17.0 lb/lbmol, NH3 MW

Unit No. Sample Calc (Unit 1):

SCFH lbmol/hr lb/hr

Unit 1 12.50 0.032 0.55 1215 MMBtu 9780 dscf 0.75 parts NH3 (20.9 - 0) O2 lbmol 17 lb NH3 = 0.55 lb

Unit 2 12.50 0.032 0.55 hr MMBtu 1,000,000 (20.9 - 6) O2 385.6 SCF lbmol hr

Unit 3 12.73 0.033 0.56 SO2

Ammonia Emission RateReid Gardner Generating Station Nevada Regiona Haze SIP Page 3 of 3 U.S. EPA, Region 9
Printed 4/2/2012 ER = ((EM H2SO4 - ER NH3 )*MW H2SO4 ) * F2, based on modified equation 4-7

Where,

ER = H2SO4 emitted (lb/hr)

EM SO4 = H2SO4 manufactured (lbmol/hr)

ER NH3 = Ammonia slip (lbmol/hr)

MW H2SO4 = 98.6 lb/lbmol

F2 = 0.5 Table 4-3, air heater removal factor. Although fuel sulfur content is low, Reid Gardner coal ash is still assumed to be acidic (using low S eastern bituminous factor per EPRI recommendation)

0.10 Table 4-4, baghouse

0.65 Table 4-5, wet venturi scrubber

Unit No.

lb/hr lbmol/hr lbmol/hr lb/hr

Unit 1 7.76 0.079 0.046 0.15

Unit 2 7.76 0.079 0.046 0.15

Unit 3 7.90 0.080 0.047 0.15 H2SO4

EM (pre-reaction) ER (post-reaction)Page 39 of 40 

### Appendix D:

Historical Emissions for Reid Gardner Generating Station (as reported in CAMD)

See www.regulations.gov , docket ID number EPA

- R09

- OAR

- 2011

- 0130

### Reid Gardner Generating Station
Nevada Regional Haze SIP Page 1 of 1
Reid Gardner 2001-10 (Annual) U.S. EPA Region 9
Printed 4/2/2012 STATE FACILITY_NAME ORISPL_CO UNITID OP_YEAR ASSOC_STA PRG_CODE SUM_OP_T NUM_MON SO2_MASS SO2_RATE NOX_RATE NOX_MASS CO2_MASS HEAT_INPUT CO2_RATE OWN_DISPLAY UNIT_TYPE_INFO PRIMARY_F SECONDAR SO2_CONT NOX_CONT PART_CONT CAPACITY_INPUT (tons/yr) (lb/MMBtu) (lb/MMBtu) (tons/yr) (tons/yr) (MMBtu/yr) (tons/MMBtu) (MMBtu/hr)

NV Reid Gardner 2324 1 2001 ARP 7211.5 12 587.506 0.15 0.42 1652.943 790,945 7,894,057 0.100 NV Energy (Operator) Dry bottom wall-fired Coal Sodium Bas Low NOx Bu Other 1215

NV Reid Gardner 2324 1 2002 ARP 7673.5 12 492.827 0.10 0.47 2221.394 956,356 9,491,928 0.101 NV Energy (Operator) (Ended Dec 3 Dry bottom wall-fired Coal Sodium Bas Low NOx Bu Other 1215

NV Reid Gardner 2324 1 2003 ARP 8271.5 12 749.629 0.15 0.45 2312.514 1,031,866 10,138,698 0.102 NV Energy (Owner/Operator) Dry bottom wall-fired Coal Sodium Bas Low NOx Bu Other 1215

NV Reid Gardner 2324 1 2004 ARP 7598.5 12 215.018 0.05 0.38 1771.312 933,887 9,237,466 0.101 NV Energy (Owner/Operator) Dry bottom wall-fired Coal Sodium Bas Low NOx Bu Other 1215

NV Reid Gardner 2324 1 2005 ARP 7902.75 12 186.87 0.04 0.37 1780.584 974,563 9,578,809 0.102 NV Energy (Owner/Operator) Dry bottom wall-fired Coal Sodium Bas Low NOx Bu Other 1215

NV Reid Gardner 2324 1 2006 ARP 7911.25 12 247.374 0.05 0.36 1663.686 934,613 9,088,376 0.103 NV Energy (Owner/Operator) Dry bottom wall-fired Coal Sodium Bas Low NOx Bu Other 1215

NV Reid Gardner 2324 1 2007 ARP 6583.68 12 132.603 0.04 0.38 1412.933 732,650 7,345,334 0.100 NV Energy (Owner/Operator) Dry bottom wall-fired Coal Sodium Bas Low NOx Bu Other 1215

NV Reid Gardner 2324 1 2008 ARP 6665.5 12 137.398 0.04 0.39 1340.789 671,618 6,732,582 0.100 NV Energy (Owner/Operator) Dry bottom wall-fired Coal Sodium Bas Low NOx Bu Baghouse ( 1215

NV Reid Gardner 2324 1 2009 ARP 6235.59 12 172.236 0.05 0.31 997.701 645,540 6,374,908 0.101 NV Energy (Owner/Operator) Dry bottom wall-fired Coal Sodium Bas Low NOx Bu Baghouse 1215

NV Reid Gardner 2324 1 2010 ARP 6481.17 12 200.513 0.06 0.27 856.633 631,645 6,339,957 0.100 NV Energy (Owner/Operator) Dry bottom wall-fired Coal Sodium Bas Low NOx Bu Baghouse 1215

NV Reid Gardner 2324 1 2011 ARP 6386.3 12 275.563 0.10 0.24 677.033 569,220 5,440,729 0.105 NV Energy (Owner/Operator) Dry bottom wall-fired Coal Sodium Bas Low NOx Bu Baghouse 1215

NV Reid Gardner 2324 2 2001 ARP 7492.5 12 436.285 0.10 0.43 1947.113 905,107 9,031,359 0.100 NV Energy (Operator) Dry bottom wall-fired Coal Sodium Bas Low NOx Bu Other 1215

NV Reid Gardner 2324 2 2002 ARP 8074.75 12 254.464 0.05 0.46 2504.151 1,099,225 10,841,071 0.101 NV Energy (Operator) (Ended Dec 3 Dry bottom wall-fired Coal Sodium Bas Low NOx Bu Other 1215

NV Reid Gardner 2324 2 2003 ARP 7599 12 527.698 0.10 0.46 2386.279 1,034,507 10,162,427 0.102 NV Energy (Owner/Operator) Dry bottom wall-fired Coal Sodium Bas Low NOx Bu Other 1215

NV Reid Gardner 2324 2 2004 ARP 8035 12 268.916 0.05 0.40 2285.593 1,165,348 11,556,209 0.101 NV Energy (Owner/Operator) Dry bottom wall-fired Coal Sodium Bas Low NOx Bu Other 1215

NV Reid Gardner 2324 2 2005 ARP 6992.5 12 224.022 0.05 0.39 1861.09 961,732 9,530,909 0.101 NV Energy (Owner/Operator) Dry bottom wall-fired Coal Sodium Bas Low NOx Bu Other 1215

NV Reid Gardner 2324 2 2006 ARP 7590.75 12 249.144 0.05 0.39 2053.589 1,058,480 10,323,703 0.103 NV Energy (Owner/Operator) Dry bottom wall-fired Coal Sodium Bas Low NOx Bu Other 1215

NV Reid Gardner 2324 2 2007 ARP 8157.26 12 188.967 0.04 0.40 1952.307 1,006,145 9,771,674 0.103 NV Energy (Owner/Operator) Dry bottom wall-fired Coal Sodium Bas Low NOx Bu Other 1215

NV Reid Gardner 2324 2 2008 ARP 7752.75 12 122.196 0.03 0.40 1606.043 821,436 8,048,541 0.102 NV Energy (Owner/Operator) Dry bottom wall-fired Coal Sodium Bas Low NOx Bu Other 1215

NV Reid Gardner 2324 2 2009 ARP 5406.78 12 153.722 0.05 0.33 949.288 572,183 5,590,251 0.102 NV Energy (Owner/Operator) Dry bottom wall-fired Coal Sodium Bas Low NOx Bu Baghouse ( 1215

NV Reid Gardner 2324 2 2010 ARP 6755.55 12 219.063 0.06 0.29 1045.961 699,409 6,967,468 0.100 NV Energy (Owner/Operator) Dry bottom wall-fired Coal Sodium Bas Low NOx Bu Baghouse 1215

NV Reid Gardner 2324 2 2011 ARP 6065.84 12 261.760 0.10 0.25 669.406 546,329 5,287,823 0.103 NV Energy (Owner/Operator) Dry bottom wall-fired Coal Sodium Bas Low NOx Bu Baghouse 1215

NV Reid Gardner 2324 3 2001 ARP 8172.25 12 571.735 0.11 0.44 2216.213 995,971 9,973,357 0.100 NV Energy (Operator) Dry bottom wall-fired Coal Sodium Bas Low NOx Bu Other 1237

NV Reid Gardner 2324 3 2002 ARP 8068.25 12 272.945 0.05 0.45 2320.33 1,014,028 10,154,344 0.100 NV Energy (Operator) (Ended Dec 3 Dry bottom wall-fired Coal Sodium Bas Low NOx Bu Other 1237

NV Reid Gardner 2324 3 2003 ARP 7698 12 519.154 0.11 0.36 1665.226 1,010,950 9,453,692 0.107 NV Energy (Owner/Operator) Dry bottom wall-fired Coal Sodium Bas Low NOx Bu Other 1237

NV Reid Gardner 2324 3 2004 ARP 8022.5 12 235.284 0.05 0.32 1672.191 1,041,994 10,365,003 0.101 NV Energy (Owner/Operator) Dry bottom wall-fired Coal Sodium Bas Low NOx Bu Other 1237

NV Reid Gardner 2324 3 2005 ARP 7875.25 12 270.388 0.06 0.30 1440.373 1,031,676 9,590,769 0.108 NV Energy (Owner/Operator) Dry bottom wall-fired Coal Sodium Bas Low NOx Bu Other 1237

NV Reid Gardner 2324 3 2006 ARP 6948.25 12 195.758 0.04 0.33 1504.294 943,403 9,009,871 0.105 NV Energy (Owner/Operator) Dry bottom wall-fired Coal Sodium Bas Low NOx Bu Other 1237

NV Reid Gardner 2324 3 2007 ARP 6833.33 12 141.604 0.03 0.28 1176.845 840,818 8,126,408 0.103 NV Energy (Owner/Operator) Dry bottom wall-fired Coal Sodium Bas Low NOx Bu Other 1237

NV Reid Gardner 2324 3 2008 ARP 7091.43 12 160.794 0.04 0.25 1032.485 841,932 8,101,831 0.104 NV Energy (Owner/Operator) Dry bottom wall-fired Coal Sodium Bas Low NOx Bu Other 1237

NV Reid Gardner 2324 3 2009 ARP 6747.79 12 221.27 0.06 0.26 969.336 783,836 7,549,004 0.104 NV Energy (Owner/Operator) Dry bottom wall-fired Coal Sodium Bas Low NOx Bu Baghouse ( 1237

NV Reid Gardner 2324 3 2010 ARP 7231.19 12 243.069 0.06 0.23 930.935 828,066 8,080,157 0.102 NV Energy (Owner/Operator) Dry bottom wall-fired Coal Sodium Bas Low NOx Bu Baghouse 1237

NV Reid Gardner 2324 3 2011 ARP 5965.13 12 295.296 0.10 0.21 578.259 592,631 5,642,747 0.105 NV Energy (Owner/Operator) Dry bottom wall-fired Coal Sodium Bas Low NOx Bu Baghouse 1237

NV Reid Gardner 2324 4 2001 ARP 7979.75 12 571.831 0.06 0.30 3221.881 2,118,040 20,697,548 0.102 NV Energy (Operator) Dry bottom wall-fired Coal Sodium Bas Low NOx Bu Baghouse 2956

NV Reid Gardner 2324 4 2002 ARP 8379.5 12 957.296 0.09 0.33 3688.655 2,282,248 21,802,457 0.105 NV Energy (Operator) (Ended Dec 3 Dry bottom wall-fired Coal Sodium Bas Low NOx Bu Baghouse 2956

NV Reid Gardner 2324 4 2003 ARP 7528.25 12 2843.657 0.25 0.37 4347.952 2,401,537 23,157,911 0.104 NV Energy (Owner/Operator) Califo Dry bottom wall-fired Coal Sodium Bas Low NOx Bu Baghouse 2956

NV Reid Gardner 2324 4 2004 ARP 7537.5 12 1017.362 0.10 0.29 3189.406 2,147,230 21,031,588 0.102 NV Energy (Owner/Operator) Califo Dry bottom wall-fired Coal Sodium Bas Low NOx Bu Baghouse 2956

NV Reid Gardner 2324 4 2005 ARP 7893 12 1412.474 0.13 0.34 3933.081 2,285,140 22,583,722 0.101 NV Energy (Owner/Operator) Califo Dry bottom wall-fired Coal Sodium Bas Low NOx Bu Baghouse 2956

NV Reid Gardner 2324 4 2006 ARP 7690.5 12 1322.722 0.12 0.30 3421.548 2,230,077 22,152,886 0.101 NV Energy (Owner/Operator) Califo Dry bottom wall-fired Coal Sodium Bas Low NOx Bu Baghouse 2956

NV Reid Gardner 2324 4 2007 ARP 7802.58 12 689.848 0.07 0.27 2829 2,139,141 20,913,608 0.102 NV Energy (Owner/Operator) Califo Dry bottom wall-fired Coal Sodium Bas Low NOx Bu Baghouse 2956

NV Reid Gardner 2324 4 2008 ARP 6792.28 12 520.515 0.07 0.22 1684.931 1,538,533 14,757,038 0.104 NV Energy (Owner/Operator) Califo Dry bottom wall-fired Coal Sodium Bas Low NOx Bu Baghouse 2956

NV Reid Gardner 2324 4 2009 ARP 7918.23 12 698.18 0.09 0.23 1725.657 1,558,907 14,863,684 0.105 NV Energy (Owner/Operator) Califo Dry bottom wall-fired Coal Sodium Bas Low NOx Bu Baghouse 2956

NV Reid Gardner 2324 4 2010 ARP 6974.02 12 576.771 0.10 0.20 1232.07 1,260,586 12,019,305 0.105 NV Energy (Owner/Operator) Califo Dry bottom wall-fired Coal Sodium Bas Low NOx Bu Baghouse 2956

NV Reid Gardner 2324 4 2011 ARP 6034.2 12 595.557 0.11 0.19 1141.287 1,126,632 10,742,124 0.105 NV Energy (Owner/Operator) Califo Dry bottom wall-fired Coal Sodium Bas Low NOx Bu Baghouse 2956

### Reid Gardner Generating Station
Nevada Regional Haze SIP Page 1 of 2
Reid Gardner 2010-11 (monthly) U.S. EPA Region 9
Printed 4/2/2012 STATE FACILITY_N ORISPL_C UNITID OP_YEAR ASSOC_ NTH PRG_CODE SUM_OP_TIME GLOAD SLOAD SO2_MASS NOX_RATE NOX_MASS CO2_MASS HEAT_INPUT CO2_Rate PRIMARY_F SECONDAR SO2_CONT NOX_CONT PART_CONTROL_INFO (hours/month) (MWh/month) (tons/month) (lb/MMBtu) (tons/month) (tons/month) (MMBtu/month) (tons/MMBtu)
(Measured) (Measured) (Calculated)

NV Reid Gardne 2324 1 2010 1 ARP 730 77698 18 0.27 107 77321 780991 0.099 Coal Sodium Bas Low NOx Bu Baghouse

NV Reid Gardne 2324 1 2010 2 ARP 672 73606 31 0.28 104 75374 748523 0.101 Coal Sodium Bas Low NOx Bu Baghouse

NV Reid Gardne 2324 1 2010 3 ARP 595 63029 29 0.30 99 63854 642373 0.099 Coal Sodium Bas Low NOx Bu Baghouse

NV Reid Gardne 2324 1 2010 4 ARP 515 48364 15 0.27 68 48722 488562 0.100 Coal Sodium Bas Low NOx Bu Baghouse

NV Reid Gardne 2324 1 2010 5 ARP 744 69680 14 0.28 99 70021 707571 0.099 Coal Sodium Bas Low NOx Bu Baghouse

NV Reid Gardne 2324 1 2010 6 ARP 636 59186 22 0.25 78 61609 618698 0.100 Coal Sodium Bas Low NOx Bu Baghouse

NV Reid Gardne 2324 1 2010 7 ARP 744 75120 26 0.28 111 78330 790081 0.099 Coal Sodium Bas Low NOx Bu Baghouse

NV Reid Gardne 2324 1 2010 8 ARP 557 53008 20 0.22 63 54948 554486 0.099 Coal Sodium Bas Low NOx Bu Baghouse

NV Reid Gardne 2324 1 2010 9 ARP 412 32317 12 0.24 41 33507 334823 0.100 Coal Sodium Bas Low NOx Bu Baghouse

NV Reid Gardne 2324 1 2010 10 ARP 222 18579 6 0.25 24 18835 189179 0.100 Coal Sodium Bas Low NOx Bu Baghouse

NV Reid Gardne 2324 1 2010 11 ARP 22 77 0 0.09 0 213 2468 0.086 Coal Sodium Bas Low NOx Bu Baghouse

NV Reid Gardne 2324 1 2010 12 ARP 633 43695 7 0.25 62 48909 482204 0.101 Coal Sodium Bas Low NOx Bu Baghouse

NV Reid Gardne 2324 1 2011 1 ARP 474 38998 12 0.23 48 43574 422126 0.103 Coal Sodium Bas Low NOx Bu Baghouse

NV Reid Gardne 2324 1 2011 2 ARP 0 Coal Sodium Bas Low NOx Bu Baghouse

NV Reid Gardne 2324 1 2011 3 ARP 58 1837 1 0.21 3 2096 22714 0.092 Coal Sodium Bas Low NOx Bu Baghouse

NV Reid Gardne 2324 1 2011 4 ARP 294 23626 11 0.24 33 26733 259754 0.103 Coal Sodium Bas Low NOx Bu Baghouse

NV Reid Gardne 2324 1 2011 5 ARP 565 43573 26 0.29 71 49012 479250 0.102 Coal Sodium Bas Low NOx Bu Baghouse

NV Reid Gardne 2324 1 2011 6 ARP 720 66595 56 0.27 98 77082 727630 0.106 Coal Sodium Bas Low NOx Bu Baghouse

NV Reid Gardne 2324 1 2011 7 ARP 743 66981 44 0.26 88 72052 681521 0.106 Coal Sodium Bas Low NOx Bu Baghouse

NV Reid Gardne 2324 1 2011 8 ARP 744 65516 27 0.25 77 65492 624454 0.105 Coal Sodium Bas Low NOx Bu Baghouse

NV Reid Gardne 2324 1 2011 9 ARP 717 58036 29 0.24 67 58399 556823 0.105 Coal Sodium Bas Low NOx Bu Baghouse

NV Reid Gardne 2324 1 2011 10 ARP 608 45449 20 0.23 54 49091 468074 0.105 Coal Sodium Bas Low NOx Bu Baghouse

NV Reid Gardne 2324 1 2011 11 ARP 720 59924 29 0.23 70 64074 610917 0.105 Coal Sodium Bas Low NOx Bu Baghouse

NV Reid Gardne 2324 1 2011 12 ARP 744 57604 20 0.23 68 61613 587467 0.105 Coal Sodium Bas Low NOx Bu Baghouse

NV Reid Gardne 2324 2 2010 1 ARP 684 70401 17 0.31 117 77549 752217 0.103 Coal Sodium Bas Low NOx Bu Baghouse

NV Reid Gardne 2324 2 2010 2 ARP 630 67548 24 0.31 112 73781 726047 0.102 Coal Sodium Bas Low NOx Bu Baghouse

NV Reid Gardne 2324 2 2010 3 ARP 595 63169 27 0.35 123 68485 681122 0.101 Coal Sodium Bas Low NOx Bu Baghouse

NV Reid Gardne 2324 2 2010 4 ARP 547 54346 22 0.32 97 58932 588523 0.100 Coal Sodium Bas Low NOx Bu Baghouse

NV Reid Gardne 2324 2 2010 5 ARP 744 70012 24 0.31 117 76517 763142 0.100 Coal Sodium Bas Low NOx Bu Baghouse

NV Reid Gardne 2324 2 2010 6 ARP 650 62525 21 0.30 107 69091 693868 0.100 Coal Sodium Bas Low NOx Bu Baghouse

NV Reid Gardne 2324 2 2010 7 ARP 483 41873 17 0.28 69 46135 475897 0.097 Coal Sodium Bas Low NOx Bu Baghouse

NV Reid Gardne 2324 2 2010 8 ARP 660 64159 22 0.26 96 72586 728205 0.100 Coal Sodium Bas Low NOx Bu Baghouse

NV Reid Gardne 2324 2 2010 9 ARP 675 54543 21 0.25 79 63156 626957 0.101 Coal Sodium Bas Low NOx Bu Baghouse

NV Reid Gardne 2324 2 2010 10 ARP 426 33888 13 0.26 53 39289 387095 0.101 Coal Sodium Bas Low NOx Bu Baghouse

NV Reid Gardne 2324 2 2010 11 ARP 10 0 0 0.04 0 47 713 0.066 Coal Sodium Bas Low NOx Bu Baghouse

NV Reid Gardne 2324 2 2010 12 ARP 652 47943 11 0.27 75 53841 543682 0.099 Coal Sodium Bas Low NOx Bu Baghouse

NV Reid Gardne 2324 2 2011 1 ARP 514 41314 12 0.29 69 46580 459082 0.101 Coal Sodium Bas Low NOx Bu Baghouse

NV Reid Gardne 2324 2 2011 2 ARP 310 25868 19 0.26 39 29417 289361 0.102 Coal Sodium Bas Low NOx Bu Baghouse

NV Reid Gardne 2324 2 2011 3 ARP 0 Coal Sodium Bas Low NOx Bu Baghouse

NV Reid Gardne 2324 2 2011 4 ARP 0 Coal Sodium Bas Low NOx Bu Baghouse

NV Reid Gardne 2324 2 2011 5 ARP 621 46425 26 0.25 72 53342 537280 0.099 Coal Sodium Bas Low NOx Bu Baghouse

NV Reid Gardne 2324 2 2011 6 ARP 563 45916 38 0.24 68 55171 544195 0.101 Coal Sodium Bas Low NOx Bu Baghouse

NV Reid Gardne 2324 2 2011 7 ARP 743 65741 48 0.25 88 73730 711074 0.104 Coal Sodium Bas Low NOx Bu Baghouse

NV Reid Gardne 2324 2 2011 8 ARP 744 62252 30 0.24 75 65999 629266 0.105 Coal Sodium Bas Low NOx Bu Baghouse

NV Reid Gardne 2324 2 2011 9 ARP 599 44743 20 0.26 61 48819 465481 0.105 Coal Sodium Bas Low NOx Bu Baghouse

NV Reid Gardne 2324 2 2011 10 ARP 744 54721 23 0.23 68 61974 590899 0.105 Coal Sodium Bas Low NOx Bu Baghouse

NV Reid Gardne 2324 2 2011 11 ARP 720 59202 30 0.24 76 65626 625716 0.105 Coal Sodium Bas Low NOx Bu Baghouse

NV Reid Gardne 2324 2 2011 12 ARP 507 40950 18 0.25 54 45671 435468 0.105 Coal Sodium Bas Low NOx Bu Baghouse

### Reid Gardner Generating Station
Nevada Regional Haze SIP Page 2 of 2
Reid Gardner 2010-11 (monthly) U.S. EPA Region 9
Printed 4/2/2012 STATE FACILITY_N ORISPL_C UNITID OP_YEAR ASSOC_ NTH PRG_CODE SUM_OP_TIME GLOAD SLOAD SO2_MASS NOX_RATE NOX_MASS CO2_MASS HEAT_INPUT CO2_Rate PRIMARY_F SECONDAR SO2_CONT NOX_CONT PART_CONTROL_INFO (hours/month) (MWh/month) (tons/month) (lb/MMBtu) (tons/month) (tons/month) (MMBtu/month) (tons/MMBtu)
(Measured) (Measured) (Calculated)

NV Reid Gardne 2324 3 2010 1 ARP 707 77024 23 0.25 106 87858 842894 0.104 Coal Sodium Bas Low NOx Bu Baghouse

NV Reid Gardne 2324 3 2010 2 ARP 670 74279 21 0.24 97 84132 813445 0.103 Coal Sodium Bas Low NOx Bu Baghouse

NV Reid Gardne 2324 3 2010 3 ARP 593 64219 19 0.26 95 73197 710223 0.103 Coal Sodium Bas Low NOx Bu Baghouse

NV Reid Gardne 2324 3 2010 4 ARP 719 73106 25 0.24 98 84712 827120 0.102 Coal Sodium Bas Low NOx Bu Baghouse

NV Reid Gardne 2324 3 2010 5 ARP 564 49496 17 0.22 63 57475 565832 0.102 Coal Sodium Bas Low NOx Bu Baghouse

NV Reid Gardne 2324 3 2010 6 ARP 712 69416 23 0.23 92 80183 793660 0.101 Coal Sodium Bas Low NOx Bu Baghouse

NV Reid Gardne 2324 3 2010 7 ARP 716 73449 30 0.23 99 86489 851718 0.102 Coal Sodium Bas Low NOx Bu Baghouse

NV Reid Gardne 2324 3 2010 8 ARP 695 65800 25 0.20 84 84691 818442 0.103 Coal Sodium Bas Low NOx Bu Baghouse

NV Reid Gardne 2324 3 2010 9 ARP 658 54401 19 0.20 66 66451 650978 0.102 Coal Sodium Bas Low NOx Bu Baghouse

NV Reid Gardne 2324 3 2010 10 ARP 482 46185 24 0.23 65 58265 562684 0.104 Coal Sodium Bas Low NOx Bu Baghouse

NV Reid Gardne 2324 3 2010 11 ARP 79 5175 1 0.19 7 6411 63216 0.101 Coal Sodium Bas Low NOx Bu Baghouse

NV Reid Gardne 2324 3 2010 12 ARP 635 46988 16 0.19 58 58201 579944 0.100 Coal Sodium Bas Low NOx Bu Baghouse

NV Reid Gardne 2324 3 2011 1 ARP 685 60715 24 0.20 75 76920 735798 0.105 Coal Sodium Bas Low NOx Bu Baghouse

NV Reid Gardne 2324 3 2011 2 ARP 412 37941 23 0.20 45 47706 455431 0.105 Coal Sodium Bas Low NOx Bu Baghouse

NV Reid Gardne 2324 3 2011 3 ARP 0 Coal Sodium Bas Low NOx Bu Baghouse

NV Reid Gardne 2324 3 2011 4 ARP 260 20360 6 0.21 27 25497 238626 0.107 Coal Sodium Bas Low NOx Bu Baghouse

NV Reid Gardne 2324 3 2011 5 ARP 445 27936 22 0.23 40 34850 328082 0.106 Coal Sodium Bas Low NOx Bu Baghouse

NV Reid Gardne 2324 3 2011 6 ARP 709 67371 65 0.19 78 84044 797957 0.105 Coal Sodium Bas Low NOx Bu Baghouse

NV Reid Gardne 2324 3 2011 7 ARP 682 63662 49 0.21 75 73278 699952 0.105 Coal Sodium Bas Low NOx Bu Baghouse

NV Reid Gardne 2324 3 2011 8 ARP 715 63312 35 0.21 72 71198 678864 0.105 Coal Sodium Bas Low NOx Bu Baghouse

NV Reid Gardne 2324 3 2011 9 ARP 568 43737 22 0.20 46 50155 478210 0.105 Coal Sodium Bas Low NOx Bu Baghouse

NV Reid Gardne 2324 3 2011 10 ARP 590 45679 22 0.20 48 51578 491782 0.105 Coal Sodium Bas Low NOx Bu Baghouse

NV Reid Gardne 2324 3 2011 11 ARP 650 52704 23 0.19 54 59156 564046 0.105 Coal Sodium Bas Low NOx Bu Baghouse

NV Reid Gardne 2324 3 2011 12 ARP 250 16643 4 0.24 19 18249 173998 0.105 Coal Sodium Bas Low NOx Bu Baghouse

NV Reid Gardne 2324 4 2010 1 ARP 633 147714 88 0.22 160 149597 1426374 0.105 Coal Sodium Bas Low NOx Bu Baghouse

NV Reid Gardne 2324 4 2010 2 ARP 321 85569 39 0.21 89 87140 830860 0.105 Coal Sodium Bas Low NOx Bu Baghouse

NV Reid Gardne 2324 4 2010 3 ARP 56 0 0 0.03 0 400 3817 0.105 Coal Sodium Bas Low NOx Bu Baghouse

NV Reid Gardne 2324 4 2010 4 ARP 627 96658 33 0.21 107 102556 977833 0.105 Coal Sodium Bas Low NOx Bu Baghouse

NV Reid Gardne 2324 4 2010 5 ARP 639 72380 27 0.21 84 82594 787501 0.105 Coal Sodium Bas Low NOx Bu Baghouse

NV Reid Gardne 2324 4 2010 6 ARP 572 97455 46 0.21 104 100665 959813 0.105 Coal Sodium Bas Low NOx Bu Baghouse

NV Reid Gardne 2324 4 2010 7 ARP 744 146529 76 0.20 137 150608 1436003 0.105 Coal Sodium Bas Low NOx Bu Baghouse

NV Reid Gardne 2324 4 2010 8 ARP 733 136697 51 0.19 127 141694 1351015 0.105 Coal Sodium Bas Low NOx Bu Baghouse

NV Reid Gardne 2324 4 2010 9 ARP 616 110989 47 0.19 107 116637 1112104 0.105 Coal Sodium Bas Low NOx Bu Baghouse

NV Reid Gardne 2324 4 2010 10 ARP 669 106081 33 0.19 109 116342 1109292 0.105 Coal Sodium Bas Low NOx Bu Baghouse

NV Reid Gardne 2324 4 2010 11 ARP 647 82251 42 0.21 93 95108 906817 0.105 Coal Sodium Bas Low NOx Bu Baghouse

NV Reid Gardne 2324 4 2010 12 ARP 718 103274 97 0.20 115 117244 1117877 0.105 Coal Sodium Bas Low NOx Bu Baghouse

NV Reid Gardne 2324 4 2011 1 ARP 15 0 0 0.06 0 246 2347 0.105 Coal Sodium Bas Low NOx Bu Baghouse

NV Reid Gardne 2324 4 2011 2 ARP 620 89922 55 0.22 110 101878 971377 0.105 Coal Sodium Bas Low NOx Bu Baghouse

NV Reid Gardne 2324 4 2011 3 ARP 192 17585 7 0.17 22 20377 194295 0.105 Coal Sodium Bas Low NOx Bu Baghouse

NV Reid Gardne 2324 4 2011 4 ARP 0 Coal Sodium Bas Low NOx Bu Baghouse

NV Reid Gardne 2324 4 2011 5 ARP 556 102011 44 0.18 98 107913 1028925 0.105 Coal Sodium Bas Low NOx Bu Baghouse

NV Reid Gardne 2324 4 2011 6 ARP 648 130140 80 0.22 142 134642 1283777 0.105 Coal Sodium Bas Low NOx Bu Baghouse

NV Reid Gardne 2324 4 2011 7 ARP 744 157867 97 0.20 151 162505 1549441 0.105 Coal Sodium Bas Low NOx Bu Baghouse

NV Reid Gardne 2324 4 2011 8 ARP 686 136139 90 0.21 144 141577 1349895 0.105 Coal Sodium Bas Low NOx Bu Baghouse

NV Reid Gardne 2324 4 2011 9 ARP 647 137850 94 0.22 147 142205 1355874 0.105 Coal Sodium Bas Low NOx Bu Baghouse

NV Reid Gardne 2324 4 2011 10 ARP 561 116332 55 0.20 116 117480 1120130 0.105 Coal Sodium Bas Low NOx Bu Baghouse

NV Reid Gardne 2324 4 2011 11 ARP 666 86361 28 0.21 90 88739 846115 0.105 Coal Sodium Bas Low NOx Bu Baghouse

NV Reid Gardne 2324 4 2011 12 ARP 699 103695 44 0.22 121 109070 1039947 0.105 Coal Sodium Bas Low NOx Bu Baghouse

### Reid Gardner Generating Station
Nevada Regional Haze SIP Page 1 of 2
Graphs U.S. EPA Region 9
Printed 4/2/2012 2011 Unit 1 Nox lb/Mmbtu

0.23 0.000 (

0.21 0.000

0.24 0.000

0.29 0.000

0.27 0.000

0.26 0.000

0.25 0.000

0.24 0.000

0.23 0.000

0.23 0.000

0.23 0.000

Unit 2 Nox lb/Mmbtu (

0.29

0.26

0.25

0.24

0.25

0.24

0.26

0.23

0.24

0.25

Unit 3 NOx lb/Mmbtu (

0.20

0.20

0.21

0.23

0.19

0.21

0.21

0.20

0.20

0.19

0.24 0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 

# Unit 1 Nox lb/Mmbtu

Unit 1 Nox lb/Mmbtu

0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 

# Unit 2 Nox lb/Mmbtu

Unit 2 Nox lb/Mmbtu

0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 

# Unit 3 NOx lb/Mmbtu

Unit 3 NOx lb/Mmbtu

### Reid Gardner Generating Station
Nevada Regional Haze SIP Page 2 of 2
Graphs U.S. EPA Region 9
Printed 4/2/2012 NOX_RATE (lb/MMBtu) year

0.42 2001

0.47 2002

0.45 2003

0.38 2004

0.37 2005

0.36 2006

0.38 2007

0.39 2008

0.31 2009

0.27 2010

0.24 2011

NOX_RATE (lb/MMBtu)

0.43 2001

0.46 2002

0.46 2003

0.40 2004

0.39 2005

0.39 2006

0.40 2007

0.40 2008

0.33 2009

0.29 2010

0.25 2011

NOX_RATE (lb/MMBtu)

0.44 2001

0.45 2002

0.36 2003

0.32 2004

0.30 2005

0.33 2006

0.28 2007

0.25 2008

0.26 2009

0.23 2010

0.21 2011 0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 

# NOX_RATE (lb/MMBtu)

NOX_RATE (lb/MMBtu)

0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 

# NOX_RATE (lb/MMBtu)

NOX_RATE (lb/MMBtu)

0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 

# NOX_RATE (lb/MMBtu)

NOX_RATE (lb/MMBtu)Page 40 of 40 

### Appendix E:

The files and spreadsheets listed below are too voluminous to b e included in a har dcopy version,

and are available electronically on www.regulations.gov

, under D ocket ID number EPA

- R09

- OAR

- 2011

- 0130

In addition, the CALPUFF modeling input and output files , including meteorological data

, will

be made available electronically upon request

.

Model File list ( mod_files.txt )

Comparison of EPA ’ s RGGS CALPUFF modeling and variants to WRAP BART modeling

results ( WRAP_compare_tables.xls )

CALPUFF Model Results ( RGGS_TSD_CALPUFF_tables.xls ) EPA results for 98th percentile delta deciviews, with NOx emissions Visibility Method 6, annual avg. background Visibility Method 6, best 20% backgroun d Visibility Method 8, annual avg. background Visibility Method 8, best 20% background

EPA results for 98th percentile delta deciviews, with individual years Visibility Method 6, annual avg. background Visibility Method 6, best 20% background Visibility Method 8, annual avg. background Visibility Method 8, best 20% background

EPA results for Number of days over 0.5 and 1.0 deciviews Visibility Method 6, annual avg. background Visibility Method 6, best 20% background Visibility Method 8 , annual avg. background Visibility Method 8, best 20% background

Modeling results from CH2MHill for Nevada Energy

RGGS control scenario names in Nevada Energy in BART analysis

Unit 1 Reid Gardner G.S

. Visibility Impacts as Modeled by CH2MHill in 2 008

Unit 2 Reid Gardner G.S

. Visibility Impacts as Modeled by CH2MHill in 2008

Unit 3 Reid Gardner G.S

. Visibility Impacts as Modeled by CH2MHill in 2008