Region 9, Air Permits OfficeOverview of EPA Proposals forN j G ti St tiNavajoGeneratingStationPlans to Red ceEmissions of Nitrogen O ides toPlanstoReduceEmissionsofNitrogenOxidestoImprove Visibility at Federally Protected NationalParks Affected byNGSLocation Place DateLeChee, Navajo Nation LeChee Chapter House November 12, 2013 (AM)Page, Arizona Page High School November 12, 2013 (PM)Kykotsmovi, Hopi Tribe Hopi Day School November 13, 2013 (PM)Phoenix, ArizonaPhoenix Convention CenterNovember 14, 2013 (PM)1Phoenix,ArizonaPhoenixConventionCenterNovember14,2013(PM)Tucson, Arizona Pima Community College –West CampusNovember 15, 2013 (PM)Region 9, Air Permits OfficeWhy are we here today?• To hear your comments on two EPA proposalsrequiring NGS to reduce emissions of nitrogen(O)oxidesNxand the visibility impairment it causesat National Parks and Wilderness AreasThe purpose of this presentation is to briefly•Thepurposeofthispresentationistobrieflydescribe–What we proposedWhatweproposed– Why we proposed it–Howyou can submit comments on theseproposalspp2Region 9, Air Permits OfficeI t f Fl t hInsertmapfromFletcherRegion 9, Air Permits OfficeWhy are we evaluating NGS?C•ongress required EPA to improve visibility atNational Parks and Wilderness Areas (Class I areas)–Regional Haze ProgramRegionalHazeProgram• Large, old sources of air pollution that affect visibilityin Class I areas must be evaluated to determine ifinClassIareasmustbeevaluatedtodetermineifnew air pollution controls should be required (BestAvailable Retrofit Technology – BART)• NGS affects visibility at 11 Class I areas, includingGrand Canyon and Canyonlands National Parks andi bj t t th BART i t f th R i lis subjecttotheBARTrequirementoftheRegionalHaze Program4Region 9, Air Permits OfficeHow do we improve visibility?• Air pollutants (for example, particles and gases like NOxthatform particles) cause regional haze•By reducing emissions of air pollutants that cause haze, we canByreducingemissionsofairpollutantsthatcausehaze,wecanimprove visibility• The same pollutants that impair visibility are a concern forhuman health therefore reducing haze also improves air qualityhumanhealth,thereforereducinghazealsoimprovesairquality• In general, states evaluate whether new controls should berequired for all facilities that are subject to BART requirementthrough State Implementation Plans• The Navajo Nation EPA has not sought to develop a TribalImplementation Plan for NGS,therefore EPA is developinga, pgFederal Implementation Plan to implement BART5Region 9, Air Permits OfficeHow is BART determined?• BART is determined based on a 5-Factor analysis• Factor 1 – How much would controls cost?• Factor 2 – Are there energy, economic, or otherenvironmental impacts of the controls?• Factor 3 – What are the existing controls at the facility?• Factor 4–What is the remaininguseful life of thefacility?• Factor 5–What are the anticipated visibilityyimprovements from adding controls?6Region 9, Air Permits OfficeEPA’s Proposals• Based on our BART analysis, EPA has proposed thatnew controls at NGS to reduce NOxemissions:–are cost-effectivearecosteffective,– and would reduce the visibility impairment caused by NGS at11 Class I areas.– Please see poster for a more detailed discussion of our 5-factor analysis•We also proposed two Alternatives that provideWealsoproposedtwoAlternativesthatprovideadditional flexibility (Alternative 1 and an Alternativefrom the Technical Work Groupon NGS)as “Better)than BART”7Region 9, Air Permits Office( )Why can EPA Propose an Alternative?• The Regional Haze Rule(RHR)requires eitherBART oran alternative measure that will achievegreater reasonable progress than BARTgreaterreasonableprogressthanBART(Alternatives must be better than BART)•EPA is proposing to determine that Alternative 1 andEPAisproposingtodeterminethatAlternative1andthe TWG Alternative will achieve greater emissionsreductions than our BART proposal (both are betterth BART)thanBART)• EPA is using our authority and discretion under theCAA d EPA l ti t t d th liCAAandEPAregulationsto extendthe compliancetimeframe for Alternatives to BART8Region 9, Air Permits Office1stProposal (February 5, 2013)• Proposed to require NGS to comply with an emission limitfor nitrogen oxides (NOx) of 0.055 lb/MMBtu within 5 years offinal rlue• This limit can be met with selective catalytic reduction (SCR)in combination with low NOxburners with separated over fireair (LNB/SOFA) installed and operated on all 3 unitsair(LNB/SOFA)installedandoperatedonall3units• We also proposed an Alternative to BART (Alternative 1) thatcredits NGS for earlyinstallation of LNB/SOFA(in 2009-(2011) and proposes flexibility in the compliance date (to 2021– 2023)•Total emissions reductions under Alternative 1 are greaterTotalemissionsreductionsunderAlternative1aregreaterthan under our BART proposal (Better than BART)9Region 9, Air Permits Office2ndProposal (October 22, 2013)B d Alt ti t BART t f th b th T h i l•BasedonAlternativetoBARTputforthbytheTechnicalWork Group on NGS (TWG Alternative)•TWG Alternative sets a cap in totalNOemissions overTWGAlternativesetsacapintotalxemissionsover2009-2044 and calls for closure of 1 unit by end of 2019 (orcurtailment of electricity generation), and installation of SCRby end of 2030 on two units to meet limit of 0 07 lb/MMBtubyendof2030ontwounitstomeetlimitof0.07lb/MMBtu• Two current owners (Los Angeles Department of Water andPower and NV Energy) intend to divest from NGS by 2019PowerandNVEnergy)intendtodivestfromNGSby2019due to state law in CA and NV• The 2009-2044 NOxcap ensures total emissions from TWGAlternative are less than under BART (TWG Alternative isbetter than BART)10Region 9, Air Permits OfficeTo makeOral Comments: Fill out aSpeaker RequestHow can I comment?•TomakeOralComments:FilloutaSpeakerRequestFormand put it in theSpeaker Boxat the RegistrationTable• To make Written Comments:–Fill out a comment form and put it in theComment BoxatFilloutacommentformandputitintheCommentBoxthe Registration Table– Mail or e-mail comments to Anita Lee:• 75 Hawthorne Street; US EPA (Air-2); San Francisco, CA 94105• Email: r9ngsbart@epa.gov• The Comment Period Ends January 6, 201411Region 9, Air Permits OfficeWhat happens after January 6, 2014?• EPA will review and consider all comments beforemaking a final decision• We will respond to all substantive comments inwriting and incorporate any changes to the proposalas a result of comments in our final decisionasaresultofcommentsinourfinaldecision• When we make a final decision, we will notify byemail those individuals who registered on the SignemailthoseindividualswhoregisteredontheSignin Sheets and provided an email addressDocuments will also be posted on the EPA Region 912•DocumentswillalsobepostedontheEPARegion9website and in our docket for this rulemaking