Operating company

Otter Tail 

Power PGE 

Facility

Big Stone 

Generating 

Station Boardman 

State SD Oregon

Proposed Controls SOFA+SCR

BART

LNB+OFA

Cost Year 2009 2007

Unit #1

Boiler type cyclone wall-fired

Fuel PRB

PRB subbituminous

Rating (MW Gross) 475 617

Presumptive BART limit (lb/mmBtu) 0.10 0.23

Reductions (tpy) 16,000 4,756

Capital Cost $ 81,800,000 $ 32,700,000

Capital Cost ($/kW) $ 172 $ 53

Total Annual Cost $ 13,210,000 $ 3,700,000

Cost-Effectiveness ($/ton) $ 825 $ 778

Proposed BART Limit 0.10 0.23

units lb/mmBtu lb/mmBtu

by SD DENR ODEQ

Visibility analyses

Visibility Impact before BART (dv at Max Class I) 1.079 4.60

Visibility Impact after BART (dv at Max Class I)

Visibility Improvement (dv at Max Class I) 0.909 0.58

Cost-Effectiveness ($/98th % dv at Max Class I) $51,350,763 $ 6,400,000

Visibility Impact before BART (dv at Summed Class I) 3.447 31.08

Visibility Impact after BART (dv at Summed Class I)

Visibility Improvement (dv at Summed Class I) 1.515 4.62

Cost-Effectiveness ($/98th % dv at Summed Class I) $ 8,718,137 $ 800,000
BART Determinations

Minnesota 

Power PacifiCorp Great River Energy

Boswell Energy 

Center Jim Bridger Jim Bridger Jim Bridger Jim Bridger Coal Creek

MN WY WY WY WY ND

LNB+OFA+SCR

BART

LNB+OFA

BART

LNB+OFA

BART

LNB+OFA

BART

LNB+OFA LNB+SOFA

2006

Unit #3 JB #1 JB #2 JB #3 JB #4 #1

tangential tangential tangential tangential tangential tangential

sub-bituminous sub-bituminous sub-bituminous sub-bituminous sub-bituminous ND lignite

375 530 530 530 530 550

0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.17

 4,850 4,494 - 4,494 4,494 1,607

 $ 77,000,000 $ 11,300,000 $ - $ 11,300,000 $ 11,300,000 $ 5,260,000

 $ 205 $ 21 $ - $ 21 $ 21 $ 10

 $ 12,497,622 $1,144,944 $ - $1,144,944 $1,144,944 $ 660,000

$ 3,201 $ 255 $ - $ 255 $ 255 $ 411

0.07 0.26 0.26 0.26 0.26 0.17

lb/mmBtu lb/mmBtu lb/mmBtu lb/mmBtu lb/mmBtu lb/mmBtu

MPCA WY DEQ WY DEQ WY DEQ WY DEQ ND DOH

not done

1.321 0.884 1.317 1.237

0.998 0.884 0.994 0.916

0.323 0.000 0.323 0.321 0.100

$ 3,544,385 $ 3,544,385 $ 3,567,033 $ 6,580,303

2.804 1.933 2.802 2.613

2.177 1.933 2.175 1.978

0.627 0.000 0.627 0.635 0.187

$ 1,825,895 $ 1,825,895 $ 1,803,177 $ 3,520,388
BART Determinations

Great River Energy Tri-State generation Colorado Springs Utilities

Coal Creek Craig Craig Martin Drake

ND CO CO CO

LNB+SOFA

addition of 

SNCR to 

existing 

LNB+OFA

addition of 

SCR to 

existing 

LNB+OFA addition of OFA to existing LNB ULNB

2009 2009

#2 #1 #2 #5 #6 #7

tangential

dry-bottom, wallfireddry-bottom, wallfired wall-fired wall-fired wall-fired

ND lignite bit/sub-bit mix bit/sub-bit mix bit/sub-bit mix bit/sub-bit mix bit/sub-bit mix

550 428 428 55 85 145

0.17 0.39 0.39 0.39

1,607 779 3,975 154 283 583

$ 5,260,000 $ 13,118,000 $ 209,552,000

$ 10 $ 31 $ 490 $ - $ - $ -

$ 660,000 $ 3,797,000 $ 25,036,709 $105,000 $105,000 $386,000

$ 411 $ 4,874 $ 6,299 $ 682 $ 371 $ 662

0.17 0.28 0.08 0.39 0.39 0.33

lb/mmBtu lb/mmBtu lb/mmBtu lb/mmBtu lb/mmBtu lb/mmBtu

ND DOH CDPHE CDPHE CDPHE CDPHE CDPHE

 3.73 3.73

 3.42 2.75

 0.100 0.31 0.98 0.07 0.18 0.24

$ 6,580,303 $ 12,248,387 $ 25,547,662 $ 1,500,000 $ 583,333 $ 1,608,333

 0.187

$ 3,520,388
erminations

Nevada Energy Arizona Public Service

Ft. Churchill Four Corners Power Plant

NV Navajo Nation (NM)

LNB+FGR LNB+FGR LNB LNB LNB+OFA LNB+OFA

Unit #1 Unit #2 FCPP #1 FCPP #2 FCPP #3 FCPP #4

Wall-fired Wall-fired Wall-fired Cell burner

Pipeline NG & blended Fuel Oil bituminous bituminous bituminous bituminous

113 113 185 185 235 790

0.39 0.39 0.39 0.40

 686 459 2,569 1,573 2,465 3,798

$ 1,610,000 $ 1,610,000 $ 3,823,000 $ 3,823,000 $ 4,359,000 $ 13,320,000

14 14 $ 21 $ 21 $ 19 $ 17

$ 490,969 $ 490,969 $857,000 $857,000 $979,000 $3,008,000

$ 716 $ 1,070 $ 334 $ 545 $ 397 $ 792

0.20 0.16 0.43 0.43 0.33 0.35

lb/mmBtu lb/mmBtu lb/mmBtu lb/mmBtu lb/mmBtu lb/mmBtu

NDEP NDEP Arizona Public Service

0.332 0.244 0.051 0.031 0.049 0.075

$ 1,478,822 $ 2,012,168 $ 16,801,486 $ 27,439,935 $ 20,003,074 $ 39,889,064

2.092 1.159 0.614 0.376 0.589 0.907

$ 234,653 $ 423,663 1,396,881.72 2,281,366.26 1,663,062.93 3,316,391.45
BART Determinations

Neveda Energy Xcel Energy

Reid Gardner Hayden

NV CO

LNB+OFA

ROFA + 

Rotamix

ROFA + 

Rotamix

ROFA + 

Rotamix

2006 2006

FCPP #5 Unit #1 Unit #2 Unit #3 #1 #2

Cell burner wall-fired boiler wall-fired boiler wall-fired boiler

dry-bottom, wallfired tangentially-fired

bituminous bituminous coal bituminous coal bituminous coal coal coal

790 110 110 110 184 262

0.40 0.39 0.39 0.39

 3,798 1,308 1,443 869 3,120 3,032

$ 13,320,000 $ 7,884,900 $ 7,884,900 $ 7,884,900

$ 17 72 72 72 $ - $ -

$3,008,000 $ 1,450,193 $ 1,498,001 $ 1,379,809 $ 10,560,612 $ 12,321,491

$ 792 $ 1,109 $ 1,038 $ 1,588 $ 3,385 $ 4,064

0.35 0.20 0.20 0.28 0.08 0.07

lb/mmBtu lb/mmBtu lb/mmBtu lb/mmBtu lb/mmBtu lb/mmBtu

NDEP NDEP NDEP CDPHE CDPHE

 0.075 0.592 0.514 0.514 1.12 0.85

$ 39,889,064 $ 2,449,650 $ 2,914,399 $ 2,684,453 $ 9,429,118 $ 14,495,872

 0.907 1.668 1.776 1.623

3,316,391.45 $ 869,164 $ 843,303 $ 850,181

addition of SCR to existing 

LNB+OFA
BART Determinations

Golden Valley 

Electric 

Association PacifiCorp Xcel Energy

Healy Dave Johnston

Allen S. King 

Generating 

Plant

AK WY IL IL MN

SNCR proposed 

by AK LNB+OFA LNB+OFA

existing 

OFA+SCR

existing 

OFA+SCR existing SCR

#1 DJ #3 DJ #4 #1 #2 Unit #1

wall-fired, wet 

bottom

wall-fired cell 

burner tangential cyclone cyclone cyclone

sub-bituminous sub-bituminous sub-bituminous sub-bituminous sub-bituminous sub-bituminous

25 230 330 660 660 550

0.23 0.45 0.15 0.10 0.10 0.10

134 2,723 6,142 9,171 9,476 9,191

 $ 2,538,900 $ 17,500,000 $ 7,900,000

 $ 102 $ 76 $ 24 $ - $ -

 $ 563,985 $1,764,775 $841,527

$ 4,209 $ 648 $ 137

0.20 0.28 0.15 0.07 0.07 0.10

lb/mmBtu lb/mmBtu lb/mmBtu lb/mmBtu lb/mmBtu lb/mmBtu

ADEQ WY DEQ WY DEQ IL EPA IL EPA MPCA

 -

none done

3.359

2.739

0.620 0.171 0.135

$909,653 $ 10,306,214 $ 6,211,484

 0.407 0.335

$ 4,332,984 $ 2,515,268

Dominion

Kincaid
RT Determinations

PacifiCorp Basin Electric Power

Laramie River Leland Olds Leland Olds

WY ND ND

proposed OFA proposed OFA proposed OFA

basic SOFA + 

SNCR ASOFA + SNCR 

LRS #1 LRS #2 LRS #3 #1 #2

wall-fired wall-fired wall-fired wall-fired cyclone

sub-bituminous sub-bituminous sub-bituminous ND lignite & PRB ND lignite & PRB

550 550 550 216 440

0.23 0.23 0.23 0.29 0.10

936 931 955 1,246 6,553

$ 22,096,000 $ 22,096,000 $ 22,096,000 $ 6,234,000 $ 16,800,000

$ 40 $ 40 $ 40 $ 29 $ 38

$1,944,000 $1,944,000 $1,944,000 $ 3,099,000 $ 10,870,000

$ 2,077 $ 2,088 $ 2,036 $ 2,487 $ 1,659

0.23 0.23 0.23 0.19 0.35

lb/mmBtu lb/mmBtu lb/mmBtu lb/mmBtu lb/mmBtu

WY DEQ WY DEQ WY DEQ ND DOH ND DOH

0.0720 0.0710 0.0730 0.114 0.598

$ 27,000,000 $ 27,380,282 $ 26,630,137 $ 27,263,930 18,186,700.18

0.1380 0.1380 0.1380 0.228 1.199

$ 14,086,957 $ 14,086,957 $ 14,086,957 $ 13,592,105 9,066,761.35
BART Determinations

Southern California Edison Minnkota Power PacifiCorp

Mohave MR Young MR Young Naughton

NV ND ND WY

LNB+OFA LNB+OFA

ASOFA + 

SNCR 

ASOFA + 

SNCR 

proposed 

LNB+OFA

proposed 

LNB+OFA

Unit #1 Unit #2 #1 #2 #1 #2

Dry bottom wallfired boilerDry bottom wallfired boiler cyclone cyclone tangential tangential

PNG PNG ND lignite ND lignite sub-bituminous sub-bituminous

790 790 257 477 160 210

0.10 0.10 0.15 0.15

 12,297 5,248 8,994 2,334 2,649

$ 11,200,000 $ 8,113,000 $ 17,128,000 $ 9,600,000 $ 9,100,000

14 $ 32 $ 36 $ 60 $ 43

$ 1,500,000 $ 7,472,000 $ 11,405,000 $993,248 $ 945,683

$ 122 $ 1,424 $ 1,268 $ 426 $ 357

0.15 0.15 0.36 0.35 0.26 0.26

lb/mmBtu lb/mmBtu lb/mmBtu lb/mmBtu lb/mmBtu lb/mmBtu

NDEP NDEP ND DOH ND DOH WY DEQ WY DEQ 

1.779 2.025

1.598 1.812

1.02 1.072 0.705 0.181 0.213

$ 1,470,588 $ 6,970,149 $ 16,184,957 $ 5,476,985 $ 4,434,068

2.675 3.147

2.421 2.846

 1.684 1.366 0.254 0.301

$ 4,437,055 $ 8,351,233 $ 3,908,268 $ 3,137,147
BART Determination

Salt River Project Public Service of New Mexico

Navajo Generating Station San Juan Generating Station

Navajo Nation/EPA R-9 NM

proposed 

LNB+OFA+SCR LNB+SOFA LNB+SOFA LNB+SOFA proposed SCR proposed SCR

#3 Unit #1 Unit #2 Unit #3 1 2

tangential tangential tangential tangential

dry-bottom wallfireddry-bottom wallfired

sub-bituminous bituminous bituminous bituminous sub-bituminous sub-bituminous

330 750 750 750 360 350

0.15 0.28 0.28 0.28 0.23 0.23

 5,542 4,830 3,651 2,909 3,174 3,158

$ 136,800,000 $ 14,000,000 $ 14,000,000 $ 14,000,000 $ 164,732,000 $ 177,178,000

$ 415 $ 19 $ 19 $ 19 $ 458 $ 506

$15,682,702 $ 1,622,000 $ 1,622,000 $ 1,622,000 $21,988,000 $23,364,000

$ 2,830 $ 336 $ 444 $ 558 $ 6,928 $ 7,398

0.07 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.30 0.3

lb/mmBtu lb/mmBtu lb/mmBtu lb/mmBtu 0.03 - 0.07 0.03 - 0.07

WY DEQ SRP SRP SRP NMED NMED

1.922 1.34 1.34

1.234 0.67 0.67

0.688 0.230 0.174 0.138 0.67 0.67

$ 22,794,625 $ 7,065,350 $ 9,347,419 $ 11,733,351 $ 32,982,000 $ 34,871,642

2.885 5.92 5.89

1.862 2.82 3.08

1.023 1.725 1.304 1.038 3.10 3.10

$ 15,330,109 $ 940,502 $ 1,244,279 $ 1,561,882 $ 7,085,285 $ 7,528,679
BART Determinations

blic Service of New Mexico

Northshore 

Mining

Rochester 

Public Utilities Xcel Energy

n Juan Generating Station

Silver Bay 

Power Plant Silver Lake Plant

Sherburne 

County 

Generating 

Station

NM MN MN MN

proposed SCR proposed SCR LNB+OFA ROFA/Rotamix LNB+SOFA

3 4 Unit #2 Unit #4 Unit #1

dry-bottom wallfireddry-bottom wallfired wall-fired wall-fired tangential

sub-bituminous sub-bituminous sub-bituminous bituminous sub-bituminous

544 544 75 60 690

0.23 0.23 0.23 0.15

4,931 4,837 748 309 5,200

$ 227,774,000 $ 211,764,000 $ 3,420,000 $ 19,000,000

$ 419 $ 389 $ 46 $ 28

$30,527,000 $28,760,000 $ 472,370 $ 2,200,000

$ 6,191 $ 5,946 $ 632 $ 423

0.30 0.30 0.37 0.25 0.15

0.03 - 0.07 0.03 - 0.07 lb/mmBtu lb/mmBtu lb/mmBtu

NMED NMED MPCA MPCA MPCA

 1.73 1.72

 0.94 0.92

0.79 0.80 0.817 0.45

$ 38,479,412 $ 35,950,000 $ 967,971 $ 4,898,785

 8.31 8.20

4.07 4.01

4.24 4.19 1.13

$ 7,194,108 $ 6,858,506 $ 1,939,103
BART Determinations

Great River Energy Minnesota Power Nevada Energy

Stanton Taconite Harbor Tracy Generating Station

ND MN NV

LNB+OFA+SNCR LNB+OFA+SNCR ROFA/Rotamix LNB+FGR LNB+FGR

#1 #1 Unit #3 Unit #1 Unit #2

wall-fired wall-fired tangential

Lignite PRB bit/sub-bituminous Pipeline NG & blended Fuel Oil

188 188 75 55 83

0.29 0.23 0.15

 983 794 840 91 165

$ 8,338,450 $ 8,406,968 $ 8,113,000 $ 1,820,000 $ 2,156,000

$ 44 $ 45 $ 108 $ 33 $ 26 

$ 3,000,000 $ 3,000,000 $ 2,876,000 $ 276,611 $ 398,425

$ 3,052 $ 3,778 $ 3,424 $ 3,040 $ 2,415

0.29 0.23 0.13 0.15 0.12

lb/mmBtu lb/mmBtu lb/mmBtu lb/mmBtu lb/mmBtu

ND DOH ND DOH MPCA NDEP NDEP

 0.091 0.073 0.047 0.128

$ 33,088,235 $ 40,964,402 $ 5,885,340 $ 3,112,695

 0.177 0.143 0.562 0.597

$ 16,917,293 $ 20,944,206 $ 492,594 $ 667,379
RP Determinations

PacifiCorp PG&E

nerating Station Wyodak Boardman 

WY Oregon

CC+SCR SCR CC+SCR

LNB+FGR

Low NOx Burners 

with Overfire Air

Unit #3 #1 JB #3

wall-fired wall-fired

 & blended Fuel Oil sub-bituminous PRB sub-bituminous

83 335 617

0.23 0.23

 229 1,483 8,647 3,054 8,987

$ 2,072,000 $ 13,100,000 $ 223,500,000 $ 190,800,000 $ 177,800,000

 $ 25 $ 39 $ 362 $ 309 $ 335

$ 574,613 $1,306,203 $ 26,800,000 $ 23,100,000 $20,296,400

$ 2,509 $ 881 $ 3,096 $ 7,564 $ 2,258

0.19 0.23 0.07

lb/mmBtu lb/mmBtu lb/mmBtu

NDEP WY DEQ OR DEQ

4.60 4.02 1.317

 0.671

0.072 0.402 1.84 0.55 0.646

$ 9,811,931 $ 3,250,682 $ 14,650,000 $ 42,000,000 $ 31,417,100

 31.08 26.46 2.802

 1.548

 0.608 0.707 9.00 4.38 1.254

$ 1,161,773 $ 1,847,468 $ 2,170,000 $ 5,272,727 $ 16,184,567

RP LNB+OFA+SCR RP = CC+SCR

Jim Bridger

WY

lb/mmBtu

0.15

tangential

sub-bituminous

530

WY DEQ 

0.07
RP Determinations

Tri-State 

Generation PacifiCorp

Craig Jim Bridger

CO WY

SCR CC+SCR SCR SNCR

RP = 

CC+SNCR BART + RP

JB #3 JB #4 #3 Combined

dry-bottom, wallfired

biruminous + 

sub-bituminous

408 2,120

 4,493 8,987 4,494 854 22,468

$ 166,500,000 $ 177,800,000 $ 166,500,000 $ 13,139,000 $ 366,900,000

$ 314 $ 335 $ 314 $ 32 $ 173

$19,151,456 $20,296,400 $19,151,456 $ 4,173,000 $ 41,737,744

$ 4,262 $ 2,258 $ 4,262 $ 4,886 $ 1,858

0.28

lb/mmBtu

CDPHE

1.317 1.237 1.237 5.20 4.759

 0.994 0.595 0.916 4.88 3.148

0.323 0.642 0.321 0.32 1.611

$ 59,292,433 $ 31,617,848 $ 59,661,857 $ 13,040,625 $ 25,907,328

 2.802 2.613 2.613 10.152

 1.343 7.001

0.627 1.270 0.635 3.151

$ 30,544,587 $ 15,983,196 $ 30,159,773 $ 13,245,549

530

PacifiCorp

RP = CC+SCR

Jim Bridger

WY

RP = CC+SCR

Jim Bridger

WY

tangential

sub-bituminous

lb/mmBtu

0.15

tangential

sub-bituminous

530

0.15

WY DEQ 

0.07

lb/mmBtu

WY DEQ 

0.07
Facility Combined

TransAlta

Arizona Public 

Service

Basin Electric 

Power

Minnkota 

Power PacifiCorp

Salt River 

Project

Centralia

Four Corners 

Power Plant Leland Olds MR Young Naughton

Navajo 

Generating 

Station 

WA

Navajo Nation 

(NM) ND ND WY EPA R-9

existing LNB+OFA LNB+SOFA

Combined Combined Combined Combined Combined Combined

tangential

PRB sub-bituminous

ND lignite & 

PRB

1405 2,185 656 734 700 2,250

0.17 0.28

 14,203 7,799 14,242 10,525 11,390

$ 38,645,000 $ 23,034,000 $ 25,241,000 $ 155,500,000 42,000,000

$ 18 $ 35 $ 34 $ 222 $ 19

$ 9,793,000 $ 13,969,000 $ 18,877,000 $ 17,621,633 $ 4,866,000

$ 690 $ 1,791 $ 1,325 $ 1,674.25 $ 427

0.26 0.24

lb/mmBtu lb/mmBtu

WA DOE SRP

3.899 6.224 10.096 5.794 5.726 6.609

3.899 5.685 9.385 4.017 4.643 5.477

0.000 0.28 0.711 1.777 1.083 1.131

$ 34,726,950 $ 19,637,139 $ 10,624,953 $ 16,276,750 $ 4,301,120

24.298 46.586 17.608 10.552 8.707 39.242

24.298 37.951 16.181 7.502 7.128 28.184

0.000 8.64 1.427 3.050 1.579 11.058

 - $ 1,134,105 $ 9,789,860 $ 6,189,857 $ 11,162,915 $ 440,043
Xcel Energy

Sherburne 

County 

Generating 

Station

MN

Combined

 1,373

 6,600

$ 23,200,000

$ 17

$ 2,690,000

$ 408

2.68

0.57

$ 4,719,298

6.81

1.44

$ 1,868,056
NOx Summary Statistics for BART at 61 EGUs

Median Mean Max

Rating (MW Gross) 350 372 790

Presumptive BART limit (lb/mmBtu) 0.23 0.24 0.45

Reductions (tpy) 2,609 3,267 16,000

Capital Cost $ 11,300,000 $ 33,787,961 $ 227,774,000

Capital Cost ($/kW) $ 30 $ 79 $ 506

Total Annual Cost $ 1,622,000 $ 5,090,578 $ 30,527,000

Cost-Effectiveness ($/ton) $ 960 $ 1,872 $ 7,398

Proposed BART Limit 0.23 0.23 0.43

units lb/mmBtu lb/mmBtu lb/mmBtu

Visibility analyses

Visibility Improvement (dv at Max Class I) 0.242 0.373 1.120

Cost-Effectiveness ($/98th % dv at Max Class I) $ 9,347,419 $ 14,644,736 $ 51,350,763

Visibility Improvement (dv at Summed Class I) 0.671 1.135 4.620

Cost-Effectiveness ($/98th % dv at Summed Class I) $ 3,137,147 $ 5,128,460 $ 20,944,206
Min Totals

25 22,670

0.10

0 196,048

0 $ 1,723,186,018

0 $ 76

0 $ 285,072,349

0 $ 1,454

0.07

lb/mmBtu

0.000 20.2

$ 583,333 $ 14,134,797

0.000 50.0

$ 234,653 $ 5,706,026
Operating company Arizona Electric Power Co

Facility Apache

State AZ

Contact

Proposed Controls LNB+FGR LNB+OFA

Unit 1 2

Boiler Type

dry-bottom wallfireddry-bottom turbofired

Fuel PNG + #2 FO

biruminous + 

sub-bituminous

Rating (MW Gross) each 85 195

Presumptive BART limit (lb/mmBtu) 0.32

Rating (mmBtu/hr) 1,097 1,814

Uncontrolled Emissions (tpy) 593 3,817

Uncontrolled Emissions (lb/mmBtu) 0.147 0.471

Combustion Controls

Control Efficiency 50.2% 34.2%

Controlled emissions (lb/mmBtu) 0.06 0.31

Controlled Emissions (tpy) 296 2,512

Emissions Reduction (tpy) 297 1,305

Capital Cost $ 1,184,000 $ 4,760,000

Capital Cost ($/kW) $ 14 $ 24

O&M Cost $ 203,643 $ 80,000

Annualized Cost $ 552,000 $ 532,808

Cost-Effectiveness ($/ton) $ 1,859 $ 408

Proposed BART Limits

Proposed BART limit (company)

Proposed BART limit (state) 0.06 0.31

Effective Reduction from Current

Effective BART Limit (tpy) 288 2,463

Effective Reduction from Current (tpy) 305 1,354

Visibility analyses

Visibility Impact before BART (dv at Max Class I) 2.750 2.470

Visibility Impact after BART (dv at Max Class I) 2.556 2.203

Visibility Improvement (dv at Max Class I) 0.194 0.267

Cost-Effectiveness ($/98th % dv at Max Class I) $ 2,845,361 $ 1,995,536

Pollutant Control Effectiveness (dv/ton) 0.0007 0.0002

Visibility Impact before BART (dv at Summed Class I) 10.170 11.200

Visibility Impact after BART (dv at Summed Class I)

Visibility Improvement (dv at Summed Class I)

Cost-Effectiveness ($/98th % dv at Summed Class I)

Pollutant Control Effectiveness (dv/ton)
LNB+OFA

3

dry-bottom turbofired ADEQ report

biruminous + 

sub-bituminous company report

195 ADEQ report

0.32 company report

 1,814 company report

 3,318 company report

0.430 company report

27.9% ADEQ report

ADEQ report

 2,392 calculated

 926 company report

$ 4,760,000 ADEQ report

$ 24 calculated

$ 80,000 ADEQ report

$ 532,808 ADEQ report

$ 575 ADEQ report

0.31 ADEQ report

 2,463 calculated

 855 calculated

2.370 ADEQ report

 2.164 calculated

0.206 ADEQ report

$ 2,586,447 ADEQ report

0.0002 calculated

10.290 calculated
Operating company Otter Tail Power 

Facility Big Stone Generating Station

State SD

Contact

Proposed Controls SOFA company report SOFA+SCR DENR

Unit #1 company report #1 DENR

Boiler Type cyclone company report cyclone DENR

Fuel PRB company report PRB DENR

Rating (MW Gross) 475 company report 475 company report

Presumptive BART limit (lb/mmBtu) 0.10 company report 0.10 company report

Rating (mmBtu/hr) 5,609 company report 5,609 company report

Current Emissions (tpy) 18,080 company report 18,080 company report

Current Emisison Rate (lb/mmBtu) 0.86 company report 0.86 company report

Cost-benefit Analyses

Control Efficiency 42% company report 88% calculated

New Emisison Rate (lb/mmBtu) 0.50 company report 0.10 DENR

New Emissions (tpy) 10,440 calculated 2,080 calculated

Emissions Reduction (tpy) 7,640 company report 16,000 DENR

Capital Cost $ 4,800,000 company report (2009 $) $81,800,000 DENR (2009 $)

Capital Cost ($/kW) $ 10 company report (2009 $) $ 172 calculated

O&M Cost $ 152,000 company report (2009 $) $ 4,110,000 DENR (2009 $)

Total Annual Cost $ 650,000 company report (2009 $) $13,210,000 DENR (2009 $)

Cost-Effectiveness ($/ton) $ 85 company report (2009 $) $ 825 DENR (2009 $)

Proposed BART Limits

Proposed BART limit (company) 0.50 company report

Proposed BART limit (state) 0.10 DENR

Effective Reduction from Current 42% calculated 88% calculated

Effective BART Limit (tpy) 12,284 calculated 2,457 calculated

Effective Reduction from Current (tpy) 5,796 calculated 15,623 calculated

Visibility analyses According to DENR:

Visibility Impact before BART (dv at Max Class I) 1.079 company report 1.079 DENR Otter Tail Power Company did not provide a cost per deciview reduction 

Visibility Impact after BART (dv at Max Class I) company report company report for each of the proposed control options. DENR calculated a cost per deciview 

Visibility Improvement (dv at Max Class I) calculated calculated reduction by summing the annualized cost of each of the control alternatives 

Cost-Effectiveness ($/98th % dv at Max Class I) calculated $51,350,763 DENR associated with the control options and dividing by the visibility reduction 

Pollutant Control Effectiveness (dv/ton) calculated - calculated identified by the modeling from the baseline condition. 

Visibility Impact before BART (dv at Summed Class I) 3.447 calculated 3.447 calculated (calculated by NPS for seven Class I areas modeled by company)

Visibility Impact after BART (dv at Summed Class I) calculated calculated (calculated by NPS for seven Class I areas modeled by company)

Visibility Improvement (dv at Summed Class I) 0.724 calculated 1.515 calculated (calculated by NPS for seven Class I areas modeled by company)

Cost-Effectiveness ($/98th % dv at Summed Class I) $ 898,382 calculated $ 8,718,137 calculated (calculated by NPS for seven Class I areas modeled by company)

Pollutant Control Effectiveness (dv/ton) 0.000095 calculated 0.000095 calculated (calculated by NPS for seven Class I areas modeled by company)
Operating company PGE 

Facility Boardman 

State Oregon

Contact Brian Finneran finneran.brian@deq.state.or.us 503-229-6278

Proposed Controls OR DEQ recommended LNB+OFA OR DEQ recommended SCR OR DEQ recommended LNB+OFA+SCR

Boiler type wall-fired OR DEQ BART Report wall-fired OR DEQ BART Report wall-fired OR DEQ BART Report The unit is a Foster Wheeler dry bottom opposing wall 

Fuel PRB sub-bituminous OR DEQ BART Report PRB sub-bituminous OR DEQ BART Report PRB sub-bituminousOR DEQ BART Report fired design with first generation low NOx burners and overfire air. 

Rating (MW Gross) 617 OR DEQ BART Report 617 OR DEQ BART Report 617 OR DEQ BART Report

Presumptive BART limit (lb/mmBtu) 0.23 OR DEQ BART Report for wall-fired boiler > 200 MW firing sub-bituminous coal

Rating (mmBtu/hr) 5,793 Company report 5,793 Company report 5,793 Company report

Current Emissions (tpy) 10,349 OR DEQ BART Report 10,349 OR DEQ BART Report 10,349 OR DEQ BART Report

Current Emisison Rate (lb/mmBtu) 0.46 OR DEQ BART Report 0.23 OR DEQ BART Report 0.07 OR DEQ BART Report

Cost-benefit Analyses

Reduction 50% calculated 70% calculated 85% calculated

New Emisison Rate (lb/mmBtu) 0.23 OR DEQ BART Report 0.07 Proposed RP limit 0.07 Proposed RP limit

New Emissions (tpy) 5,593 calculated 1,702 calculated 1,702 calculated

Reductions (tpy) 4,756 OR DEQ BART Report 3,054 OR DEQ BART Report 8,647 OR DEQ BART Report

Capital Cost $ 32,700,000 OR DEQ BART Report (2007 $) $ 190,800,000 OR DEQ BART Report (2007 $) $ 223,500,000 OR DEQ BART Report (2007 $)

Capital Cost ($/kW) $ 53 calculated $ 309 calculated $ 362 calculated

O&M Cost not available not available not available

Total Annual Cost $ 3,700,000 OR DEQ BART Report (2007 $) $ 23,100,000 OR DEQ BART Report (2007 $) $ 26,800,000 OR DEQ BART Report (2007 $)

Cost-Effectiveness ($/ton) $ 778 OR DEQ BART Report (2007 $) $ 7,564 OR DEQ BART Report (2007 $) $ 3,096 OR DEQ BART Report (2007 $)

Proposed BART Limits Proposed RP Limit Proposed RP Limits

Proposed BART Limit 0.23 OR DEQ BART Report 0.07 OR DEQ BART Report 0.07 OR DEQ BART Report

Effective Reduction from Current 50% calculated 85% calculated 85% calculated

Effective BART Limit (tpy) 5,836 calculated 1,776 calculated 1,776 calculated

Effective Reduction from Current 4,513 tpy 8,573 tpy 8,573 tpy

Visibility analyses LNB+OFA Benefits SCR Benefits LNB+OFA+SCR Benefits

Visibility Impact before BART (dv at Max Class I) 4.60 OR DEQ BART Report OR DEQ BART Report 4.60 OR DEQ BART Report

Visibility Impact after BART (dv at Max Class I) OR DEQ BART Report OR DEQ BART Report 3.47 calculated

Visibility Improvement (dv at Max Class I) OR DEQ BART Report calculated 1.84 OR DEQ BART Report

Cost-Effectiveness ($/98th % dv at Max Class I) $ 6,400,000 OR DEQ BART Report #DIV/0! calculated $ 14,650,000 OR DEQ BART Report

Pollutant Control Effectiveness (dv/ton) - calculated - calculated 0.00021 calculated

Visibility Impact before BART (dv at Summed Class I) 31.08 OR DEQ BART Report - OR DEQ BART Report 31.08 OR DEQ BART Report

Visibility Impact after BART (dv at Summed Class I) OR DEQ BART Report OR DEQ BART Report OR DEQ BART Report

Visibility Improvement (dv at Summed Class I) OR DEQ BART Report calculated OR DEQ BART Report

Cost-Effectiveness ($/98th % dv at Summed Class I) $ 800,000 OR DEQ BART Report #DIV/0! calculated $ 2,170,000 OR DEQ BART Report

Pollutant Control Effectiveness (dv/ton) - calculated - calculated - calculated

Nitrogen oxides: (see OR DEQ BART report for further details)

The Department considers new low NOx burners with modified over fire air system PHASE 2 NOX CONTROLS: (see OR DEQ BART report for further details)

(NLNB/MOFA) to meet the statutory requirements for BART. However, due to the design of 

the boiler, LNB/MOFA may not quite be able to achieve the presumptive limits established by In addition to the controls identified above for BART, the Department recommends the 

EPA. Therefore, the Department recommends a contingency plan for installing SNCR if it is installation of selective catalytic reduction (SCR) or equivalent control by no later than July 1, 

demonstrated that NLNB/MOFA cannot meet 0.23 lb/mmBtu as a 12-month rolling average. The 2017

Department would assess the need to invoke this contingency one year after new Low NOx 

Burners are operational.
Operating Company Minnesota Power

Facility Name Boswell Energy Center

Contact Anne Jackson

Distance to nearest Class I Area (km)

# of Class I Areas evaluated/within 300 km 0 of 4

Data Source

Proposed Controls LNB+OFA+SCR MPCA report as operating conditions allow, 

EGU Unit #3 MN Power lowers nitrogen oxide (NOx) emissions by simulating over-fire air combustion 

Boiler type tangential MPCA report by operating the top burner level as a combustion air port only.

Fuel sub-bituminous MPCA report

Rating each (MW gross) 375 MPCA report

Presumptive BART limit (lb/mmBtu) 0.15 BART Guidelines EGU >200 MW at facility >750 MW

Heat Input (mmBtu/hr) 3,750 NPS estimate

Current Emissions (tpy) 5,878 MPCA report

Current Emisison Rate (lb/mmBtu) 0.37 company report

Cost-benefit Analysis

Control Efficiency 83% calculated

New Emisison Rate (lb/mmBtu) 0.07 MPCA report

New Emissions (tpy) 1,028 MPCA report

Emissions Reduction (tpy) 4,850 MPCA report

Capital Cost $ 77,000,000 company report (2006 $)

Capital Cost ($/kW) $ 205 calculated

O&M Cost $ 2,500,000 company report (2006 $)

Total Annual Cost $ 12,497,622 company report (2006 $)

Cost-Effectiveness ($/ton) $ 3,201 company report (2006 $)

Proposed BART limit (lb/mmBtu) 0.07 MPCA report 30-day rolling average

Effective Reduction from Current 81% calculated

Effective BART Limit (tpy) 1,150 calculated The MPCA issued permit no. 06100004-003 on March 28, 2007 that allows Power boiler No. 3

Effective Reduction from Current (tpy) 4,728 calculated to be retrofitted with Low NOX burners, over fire air and selective catalytic reduction for

nitrogen oxides control. It will be retrofitted with a baghouse filter for particulate and mercury

Visibility analyses not done control, and finally, with a wet scrubber for SO2 control. Currently the only control equipment

Visibility Improvement (dv at Max Class I) serving the boiler is a wet scrubber for particulate emissions. Combustion controls will be

Cost-Effectiveness ($/98th % dv at Max Class I) installed and/or updated for CO control.

Pollutant Control Effectiveness (dv/ton)

Visibility Improvement (dv at Summed Class I)

Cost-Effectiveness ($/98th % dv at Summed Class I)

Pollutant Control Effectiveness (dv/ton)
Operating company PacifiCorp

Facility Jim Bridger

State WY

Contact

Proposed Controls proposed BART = LNB+OFA BART RP = CC+SCR RP

Unit JB #1 JB #2 JB #3 JB #4 Combined JB #3 JB #4 Combined

Boiler Type tangential tangential tangential tangential WY DEQ report

Fuel sub-bituminous sub-bituminous sub-bituminous sub-bituminous

Rating (MW Gross) 530 530 530 530 WY DEQ report 2,120 2,120

Presumptive BART limit (lb/mmBtu) 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 tangential fired boiler > 200 MW burning sub-bituminous coal at a Facility > 750 MW

Rating (mmBtu/hr) 6,000 6,000 6,000 6,000 WY DEQ report 24,000 24,000

Current Emissions (tpy) 10,643 6,150 10,643 10,643 WY DEQ report 38,079 38,079

Current Emisison Rate (lb/mmBtu) 0.45 0.24 0.45 0.45 WY DEQ report

Cost-benefit Analyses LNB+OFA Installed LNB+OFA LNB+OFA CC+SCR SCR CC+SCR SCR

Control Efficiency 42.2% 42.2% 42.2% Company report 84.4% 73.1% 84.4% 73.1%

New Emisison Rate (lb/mmBtu) 0.26 0.26 0.26 0.26 WY DEQ report 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.07

New Emissions (tpy) 6,149 6,150 6,149 6,150 WY DEQ report 24,599 1,656 1,656 1,656 1,656 15,611 calculated

Emissions Reduction (tpy) 4,494 - 4,494 4,494 WY DEQ report 13,481 8,987 4,493 8,987 4,494 22,468 calculated

Capital Cost $ 11,300,000 $ - $ 11,300,000 $ 11,300,000 WY DEQ report (2006 $) $ 33,900,000 $ 177,800,000 $ 166,500,000 $ 177,800,000 $ 166,500,000 $ 366,900,000 calculated (2006 $)

Capital Cost ($/kW) $ 21 $ - $ 21 $ 21 calculated $ 335 $ 314 $ 335 $ 314 $ 173 calculated (2006 $)

O&M Cost $70,000 $ - $70,000 $70,000 Company report (2006 $) $ 210,000 $3,382,286 $3,312,286 $3,382,286 $3,312,286 $ 6,834,572 calculated (2006 $)

Total Annual Cost $1,144,944 $ - $1,144,944 $1,144,944 WY DEQ report (2006 $) $ 3,434,832 $20,296,400 $19,151,456 $20,296,400 $19,151,456 $ 41,737,744 calculated (2006 $)

Cost-Effectiveness ($/ton) $ 255 $ - $ 255 $ 255 WY DEQ report (2006 $) $ 255 $ 2,258 $ 4,262 $ 2,258 $ 4,262 $ 1,858 calculated (2006 $)

Proposed BART Limits

Proposed BART limit (company) 0.26 0.26 0.26 0.26 Company report claims coal is similar to bituminous in nitrogen content

Proposed BART limit (state) 0.26 0.26 0.26 0.26 WY DEQ report 0.07 WY DEQ report 0.07 WY DEQ report

Effective Reduction from Current 42% -8% 42% 42% calculated 84% calculated 84% calculated

Effective BART Limit (tpy) 6,833 6,833 6,833 6,833 WY DEQ report 27,331 1,840 WY DEQ report 1,840 WY DEQ report

Effective Reduction from Current (tpy) 3,810 (683) 3,810 3,810 calculated 10,748 8,803 calculated 8,803 calculated

Visibility analyses incremental improvements

Visibility Impact before BART (dv at Max Class I) 1.321 0.884 1.317 1.237 calculated 4.759 1.317 1.317 1.237 1.237 4.759

Visibility Impact after BART (dv at Max Class I) 0.998 0.884 0.994 0.916 calculated 3.792 0.671 0.994 0.595 0.916 3.148

Visibility Improvement (dv at Max Class I) 0.323 - 0.323 0.321 WY DEQ report 0.967 0.646 0.323 0.642 0.321 1.611

Cost-Effectiveness ($/98th % dv at Max Class I) $ 3,544,385 #DIV/0! $ 3,544,385 $ 3,567,033 Company report $ 3,551,902 $ 31,417,100 $ 59,292,433 $ 31,617,848 $ 59,661,857 $ 25,907,328

Pollutant Control Effectiveness (dv/ton) 0.00007 0.00007 0.00007 0.00007 calculated 0.00007 0.00007 0.00007 0.00007 0.00007 0.00007

Visibility Impact before BART (dv at Summed Class I) 2.804 1.933 2.802 2.613 calculated 10.152 2.802 2.802 2.613 2.613 10.152

Visibility Impact after BART (dv at Summed Class I) 2.177 1.933 2.175 1.978 calculated 8.263 1.548 1.343 7.001

Visibility Improvement (dv at Summed Class I) 0.627 - 0.627 0.635 WY DEQ report 1.889 1.254 0.627 1.270 0.635 3.151

Cost-Effectiveness ($/98th % dv at Summed Class I) $ 1,825,895 #DIV/0! $ 1,825,895 $ 1,803,177 calculated $ 1,818,259 $ 16,184,567 $ 30,544,587 $ 15,983,196 $ 30,159,773 $ 13,245,549

Pollutant Control Effectiveness (dv/ton) 0.00014 0.00014 0.00014 0.00014 calculated 0.00014 0.00014 0.00014 0.00014 0.00014 0.00014

PacifiCorp comments for Unit #1: The average incremental cost effectiveness for Scenario 1 compared to the Baseline for the Bridger Wilderness area (Table 5-4) is reasonable at $300,000 per day and $7.7 million per dV.

PacifiCorp comments for Unit #2: The incremental cost effectiveness for Scenario 1 compared with the baseline for the Bridger WA, for example, is reasonable at $580,000 per day and $18.5 million per deciview.

PacifiCorp comments for Unit #3: The incremental cost-effectiveness for Scenario 1—compared to the Baseline for the Bridger WA, for example—is reasonable at $320,000 per day and $7.9 million/dV.

PacifiCorp comments for Unit #4: The incremental cost effectiveness for Scenario 1 compared to the Baseline for the Bridger Wilderness Area, for example, is reasonable at $290,000 per day and $5.6 million per dV.

6,000

tangential

10643

0.45 0.45

10643

6,000

tangential

sub-bituminous

530

0.15

sub-bituminous

530

0.15
Operating company TransAlta

Facility Centralia

State WA

Contact Al Newman

Proposed Controls existing LNB+OFA

Unit #1 or #2

Boiler Type tangential

Fuel PRB sub-bituminous

Rating (MW Gross) each 702.5

Presumptive BART limit (lb/mmBtu) 0.17

Rating (mmBtu/hr) 7,049

Current Emissions (tpy) 5,406

Current Heat Input (mmBtu/yr) 51,080,525

Current Emissions (lb/mmBtu) 0.21

Baseline Emissions (tpy) 7,050

Baseline Emisison Rate (lb/mmBtu) 0.26

Cost-benefit Analysis

Control Efficiency

Controlled emissions (lb/mmBtu)

Controlled Emissions (tpy)

Emissions Reduction (tpy)

Capital Cost 

Capital Cost ($/kW)

O&M Cost 

Annualized Cost 

Cost-Effectiveness ($/ton)

Proposed BART Limits

Proposed State BART limit 0.24

Effective BART Limit (tpy) @ 100% utilization 7,410

Effective Reduction from Current (2,003)

Effective BART Limit (tpy) @ 2008 utilization 6,130

Effective Reduction from Current (723)

Visibility analyses

Visibility Impact before BART (dv at Max Class I) 3.899

Visibility Impact after BART (dv at Max Class I) 3.899

Visibility Improvement (dv at Max Class I) -

Cost-Effectiveness ($/98th % dv at Max Class I) #DIV/0!

Pollutant Control Effectiveness (dv/ton)

Visibility Impact before BART (dv at Summed Class I) 24.298

Visibility Impact after BART (dv at Summed Class I) 24.298

Visibility Improvement (dv at Summed Class I) -

Cost-Effectiveness ($/98th % dv at Summed Class I) #DIV/0!

Pollutant Control Effectiveness (dv/ton)
WA DOE report

BART Guidelines for tangential boiler > 200 MW firing lignite at facility > 750 MW

company report

2008 CAM data

2008 CAM data

2008 CAM data

NPS based upon OAQPS Control Cost Manual

company report projecting 2009 rate

lb/mmBtu (30-day rolling average)

calculated

calculated

calculated

calculated

WA DOE report

WA DOE report

calculated

calculated

calculated

calculated

calculated

calculated

calculated

calculated
Operating company Arizona Public Service 

Facility Cholla

State AZ

Contact

Proposed Controls LNB+SOFA LNB+SOFA

Unit 2 3

Boiler Type tangential tangential

Fuel

biruminous + subbituminousbiruminous + 

sub-bituminous

Rating (MW Gross) each 300 300

Presumptive BART limit (lb/mmBtu) 0.28 0.28

Rating (mmBtu/hr) 2,938 2,929

Uncontrolled Emissions (tpy) 5,890 4,524

Uncontrolled Emissions (lb/mmBtu) 0.503 0.41

Combustion Controls

Control Efficiency 56.3% 46.3%

Controlled emissions (lb/mmBtu) 0.22 0.22

Controlled Emissions (tpy) 2,576 2,428

Emissions Reduction (tpy) 3,314 2,096

Capital Cost $ 5,418,000 $ 5,418,000

Capital Cost ($/kW) $ 18 $ 18

O&M Cost $ 120,000 $ 120,000

Annualized Cost $ 635,403 $ 635,403

Cost-Effectiveness ($/ton) $ 192 $ 303

Proposed BART Limits

Proposed BART limit (company) 0.22 0.22

Proposed BART limit (state) 0.22 0.22

Effective Reduction from Current

Effective BART Limit (tpy) 2,831 2,822

Effective Reduction from Current (tpy) 3,059 1,702

Visibility analyses

Visibility Impact before BART (dv at Max Class I)

Visibility Impact after BART (dv at Max Class I) - -

Visibility Improvement (dv at Max Class I)

Cost-Effectiveness ($/98th % dv at Max Class I) #DIV/0! #DIV/0!

Pollutant Control Effectiveness (dv/ton) 0.0000 0.0000

Visibility Impact before BART (dv at Summed Class I) 10.170 11.200

Visibility Impact after BART (dv at Summed Class I)

Visibility Improvement (dv at Summed Class I)

Cost-Effectiveness ($/98th % dv at Summed Class I)

Pollutant Control Effectiveness (dv/ton)
LNB+SOFA

4

tangential ADEQ report

biruminous + 

sub-bituminous company report

425 ADEQ report

0.28 company report

 4,268 company report

 7,215 company report

0.415 company report

47.0% ADEQ report

0.22 ADEQ report

 3,825 calculated

 3,390 company report

$ 6,837,000 ADEQ report

$ 16 calculated

$ 170,000 ADEQ report

$ 820,389 ADEQ report

$ 242 ADEQ report

0.22

0.22 ADEQ report

 4,113 calculated

 3,102 calculated

ADEQ report

 - calculated

ADEQ report

#DIV/0! ADEQ report

0.0000 calculated

10.290 calculated
Operating company Great River Energy

Facility Coal Creek

State ND

Contact Tom Bachman tbachman@nd.gov (701) 328-5188

Distance to nearest Class I Area (km)

# of Class I Areas evaluated/within 300 km 2 of 2

Proposed Controls LNB+SOFA LNB+SOFA

Unit #1 #2

Boiler Type tangential tangential

Fuel ND lignite ND lignite

Rating (MW Gross) each 550 550 ND DOH report

Presumptive BART limit (lb/mmBtu) 0.17 0.17 BART Guidelines for tangential boiler > 200 MW firing lignite at facility > 750 MW

Rating (mmBtu/hr) 6,015 6,022 ND DOH report

Current Emissions (tpy) 5,116 5,391 ND DOH report The Coal Creek Station is a two-unit, 1,100 gross megawatt (MW) 

Current Emissions (lb/mmBtu) 0.21 0.23 ND DOH report mine-to-mouth power plant consisting primarily of two steam 

Baseline Emissions (tpy) 5,357 5,357 ND DOH report generators and associated coal and ash handling systems. Unit 1 

Baseline Emisison Rate (lb/mmBtu) 0.22 0.22 ND DOH report and Unit 2 are identical Combustion Engineering boilers firing 

pulverized lignite coal tangentially from a maximum of 64 firing 

Cost-benefit Analysis points each.

Control Efficiency 30% 30% ND DOH report

Controlled emissions (lb/mmBtu) 0.15 0.15 ND DOH report

Controlled Emissions (tpy) 3,750 3,750 ND DOH report

Emissions Reduction (tpy) 1,607 1,607 ND DOH report

Capital Cost $ 5,260,000 $ 5,260,000 company report

Capital Cost ($/kW) $ 10 $ 10 calculated

O&M Cost $ 7,942 $ 7,942 company report

Annualized Cost $ 660,000 $ 660,000 ND DOH report

Cost-Effectiveness ($/ton) $ 411 $ 411 ND DOH report

Proposed BART Limits

Proposed BART limit (company) 0.17 0.17 company report

Proposed State BART limit 0.17 0.17 lb/mmBtu (30-day rolling average)

Effective BART Limit (tpy) 4,479 4,484 tpy

Effective Reduction from Current 19% 26% calculated

Effective Reduction from Current 637 907 calculated

Visibility analyses

Visibility Improvement (dv at Max Class I) 0.100 0.100 calculated

Cost-Effectiveness ($/98th % dv at Max Class I) $ 6,580,303 $ 6,580,303 calculated

Pollutant Control Effectiveness (dv/ton) 0.00006 0.00006 calculated

Visibility Improvement (dv at Summed Class I) 0.187 0.187 calculated

Cost-Effectiveness ($/98th % dv at Summed Class I) $ 3,520,388 $ 3,520,388 calculated

Pollutant Control Effectiveness (dv/ton) 0.00012 0.000 calculated
Operating company Salt River Project

Facility Coronado

State AZ

Contact

Proposed Controls LNB+SOFA

Unit 1

Boiler Type

dry-bottom turbofired ADEQ report

Fuel

biruminous + subbituminous company report

Rating (MW Gross) each 395 ADEQ report

Presumptive BART limit (lb/mmBtu) company report

Rating (mmBtu/hr) 5,448 company report

Uncontrolled Emissions (tpy) 10,332 company report

Uncontrolled Emissions (lb/mmBtu) 0.43 company report

Combustion Controls

Control Efficiency 25.6% calculated

Controlled emissions (lb/mmBtu) 0.32 ADEQ report

Controlled Emissions (tpy) 7,413 calculated

Emissions Reduction (tpy) 2,919 ADEQ report

Capital Cost $ 6,500,000 ADEQ report

Capital Cost ($/kW) $ 16 calculated

O&M Cost $ - ADEQ report

Annualized Cost $ 613,500 ADEQ report

Cost-Effectiveness ($/ton) $ 210 ADEQ report

Proposed BART Limits

Proposed BART limit (company) 0.32

Proposed BART limit (state) 0.32 ADEQ report

Effective Reduction from Current

Effective BART Limit (tpy) 7,636 calculated

Effective Reduction from Current (tpy) 2,696 calculated

Visibility analyses

Visibility Impact before BART (dv at Max Class I) 1.334 ADEQ report

Visibility Impact after BART (dv at Max Class I) 1.279 calculated

Visibility Improvement (dv at Max Class I) 0.055 ADEQ report

Cost-Effectiveness ($/98th % dv at Max Class I) $ 11,154,545 ADEQ report

Pollutant Control Effectiveness (dv/ton) 0.0000 calculated

Visibility Impact before BART (dv at Summed Class I) calculated

Visibility Impact after BART (dv at Summed Class I)

Visibility Improvement (dv at Summed Class I)

Cost-Effectiveness ($/98th % dv at Summed Class I)

Pollutant Control Effectiveness (dv/ton)
Operating company Tri-State Generation

Facility Craig 

State CO

Contact Lisa Clarke Lisa.Clarke@dphe.state.co.us (303) 692-3117

BART BART RP

Proposed Controls

addition of SNCR to 

existing LNB+OFA

addition of SCR to existing 

LNB+OFA

addition of SNCR to 

existing LNB+OFA

Unit #1 #2 #3

Boiler Type dry-bottom, wall-fired dry-bottom, wall-fired dry-bottom, wall-fired

Fuel

biruminous + subbituminous biruminous + sub-bituminousbiruminous + subbituminous

Rating (MW Gross) each 428 428 408 CDPHE report

Presumptive BART limit (lb/mmBtu) BART Guidelines for units > 200 MW at facility > 750 MW

Rating (mmBtu/hr) 4,417 4,417 4,600 CDPHE report

Current Emissions (tpy) 5,190 5,372 5,693 CDPHE report

Current Emissions (lb/mmBtu) 0.278 0.271 0.283 CDPHE report

Current Control Efficiency ? ? CDPHE report

Cost-benefit Analysis

Addiitonal Control Efficiency 13.7% 74.2% 15.2% CDPHE report

Controlled Emissions (lb/mmBtu) 0.24 0.07 0.24 CDPHE report

Controlled emissions (tpy) 4,412 1,397 4,839 CDPHE report

Emission Reductions (tpy) 779 3,975 854 CDPHE report

Capital Cost $ 13,118,000 $ 209,552,000 $ 13,139,000 CDPHE report (2009 $)

Capital Cost ($/kW) $ 31 $ 490 $ 32 calculated

O&M Cost $ 2,559,000 $ 6,384,000 $ 2,933,000 CDPHE report (2009 $)

Annualized Cost $ 3,797,000 $ 25,036,709 $ 4,173,000 CDPHE report (2009 $)

Cost-Effectiveness ($/ton) $ 4,874 $ 6,299 $ 4,886 CDPHE report (2009 $)

Proposed BART Limits

Proposed BART Limit (company)

Proposed BART Limit (CDPHE) 0.28 0.08 0.28 lb/mmBtu 30-day rolling average

Effective Reduction from Current -1% 70% 1% calculated

Effective BART Limit (tpy) 5,417 1,548 5,641 calculated

Effective Reduction from Current (227) 3,824 52 calculated

Visibility analyses

Visibility Impact before BART (dv at Max Class I) 3.73 3.73 5.20 CDPHE report

Visibility Impact after BART (dv at Max Class I) 3.42 2.75 4.88 CDPHE report

Visibility Improvement (dv at Max Class I) 0.31 0.98 0.32 CDPHE report

Cost-Effectiveness ($/98th % dv at Max Class I) $ 12,248,387 $ 25,547,662 $ 13,040,625 calculated

Pollutant Control Effectiveness (dv/ton) 0.00040 0.00025 0.00037 calculated

Visibility Impact before BART (dv at Summed Class I)

Visibility Impact after BART (dv at Summed Class I)

Visibility Improvement (dv at Summed Class I)

Cost-Effectiveness ($/98th % dv at Summed Class I)

Pollutant Control Effectiveness (dv/ton)

Accordingly, as part of its five factor consideration the state has elected to generally

employ criteria for NOx post-combustion control options to aid in the assessment and

determinations for BART – a $/ton of NOx removed cap, and two minimum applicable

Δdv improvement figures relating to CALPUFF modeling for certain emissions control

types, as follows.

- For the highest-performing NOx post-combustion control options (i.e., SCR

systems for electric generating units) that do not exceed $5,000/ton of pollutant

reduced by the state’s calculation, and which provide a modeled visibility benefit

on 0.50 Δdv or greater at the primary Class I Area affected, that level of control is

generally viewed as reasonable.

- For lesser-performing NOx post-combustion control options (e.g., SNCR

technologies for electric generating units) that do not exceed $5,000/ton of

pollutant reduced by the state’s calculation, and which provide a modeled

visibility benefit of 0.20 Δdv or greater at the primary Class I Area affected, that

level of control is generally viewed as reasonable.

CDPHE report
Operating company Colorado Springs Utilities

Facility Martin Drake

State CO

Contact Jim Geier james.geier@state.co.us (303) 692-3167

Proposed Controls addition of OFA to existing LNB ULNB

Unit #5 #6 #7

Boiler Type wall-fired wall-fired wall-fired CDPHE report Babcock & Wilcox wall-fired, dry bottom

Fuel bit/sub-bit mix bit/sub-bit mix bit/sub-bit mix CSU report Drake #5 already has “current” low NOx burners (Babcock and Wilcox, DRB-XCL PC/Gas Fired

Rating (MW Gross) each 55 85 145 CDPHE report Burners, installed in 1998).

Presumptive BART limit (lb/mmBtu) 0.39 0.39 0.39 BART Guidelines Drake #6 already has “current” low NOx burners (Babcock and Wilcox, DRB-XCL PC/Gas Fired 

Rating (mmBtu/hr) 548 850 1,336 CDPHE report Burners, installed in 1998). 

Current Emissions (tpy) Drake #7 already has “current” low NOx burners (Babcock and Wilcox, DRB-XCL PC/Gas Fired 

Current Emissions (lb/mmBtu) 0.62 0.40 0.39 CDPHE report Burners, installed in 1999). 

Current Control Efficiency ? ? ? Based on the BART Analysis Guidance, therefore, overfire air is the 

only technology that must be evaluated, and an analysis of ROFA is not required. 

Cost-benefit Analysis

Addiitonal Control Efficiency 

Controlled Emissions (lb/mmBtu)

Controlled emissions (tpy)

Emission Reductions (tpy) 154 283 583 CDPHE report

Capital Cost 

Capital Cost ($/kW) $ - $ - $ - calculated

O&M Cost 

Annualized Cost $105,000 $105,000 $386,000 CDPHE report

Cost-Effectiveness ($/ton) $ 682 $ 371 $ 662 CDPHE report

Proposed BART Limits

Proposed BART Limit (company) none none none CSU report Accordingly, as part of its five factor consideration the state has elected to generally

Proposed BART Limit (CDPHE) 0.39 0.39 0.33 lb/mmBtu 30-day rolling average employ criteria for NOx post-combustion control options to aid in the assessment and

Proposed BART Limit (CDPHE) 0.35 0.35 lb/mmBtu annual average determinations for BART – a $/ton of NOx removed cap, and two minimum applicable

Effective Reduction from Current Δdv improvement figures relating to CALPUFF modeling for certain emissions control

Effective BART Limit (tpy) 840 1,303 calculated types, as follows.

Effective Reduction from Current - For the highest-performing NOx post-combustion control options (i.e., SCR

systems for electric generating units) that do not exceed $5,000/ton of pollutant

Visibility analyses reduced by the state’s calculation, and which provide a modeled visibility benefit

Visibility Improvement (dv at Max Class I) 0.07 0.18 0.24 CDPHE report on 0.50 Δdv or greater at the primary Class I Area affected, that level of control is

Cost-Effectiveness ($/98th % dv at Max Class I) $ 1,500,000 $ 583,333 $ 1,608,333 calculated generally viewed as reasonable.

Pollutant Control Effectiveness (dv/ton) 0.00045 0.00064 0.00041 calculated - For lesser-performing NOx post-combustion control options (e.g., SNCR

Visibility Improvement (dv at Summed Class I) technologies for electric generating units) that do not exceed $5,000/ton of

Cost-Effectiveness ($/98th % dv at Summed Class I) pollutant reduced by the state’s calculation, and which provide a modeled

Pollutant Control Effectiveness (dv/ton) visibility benefit of 0.20 Δdv or greater at the primary Class I Area affected, that

level of control is generally viewed as reasonable.
Operating company Nevada Energy

Facility Ft. Churchill

State NV

Contact Adele King Malone amalone@ndep.nv.gov (775) 687-9356

Proposed Controls LNB+FGR LNB+FGR

Unit Unit #1 Unit #2

Boiler type

front wall-fired boiler manufactured 

by Babcock and Wilcox.

front wall-fired boiler manufactured 

by Babcock and Wilcox.

Fort Churchill 1 began operation in 1968. Fort 

Churchill 2 began operation in 1968.

Fuel Pipeline NG & blended Fuel Oil NDEP report

Rating (MW Gross) 113 113 NDEP report

Presumptive BART limit (lb/mmBtu) BART Guidelines 

Rating (mmBtu/hr) 1,320 1,320 company report

2001 - 2003 Max 24-hr Emisison Rate (lb/mmBtu) 0.554 0.513 company report

Total Heat Input allowed (mmBtu) 11,561,448 11,561,448 NDEP report

Base heat input (mmBtu) 5,742,541 5,197,003 NDEP report

Base Emissions (tpy) 1,209 862 NDEP report

Base Emissions (lb/mmBtu) 0.55 0.51 company report

State Cost-benefit Analysis

Control Efficiency 56.7% 53.2% NDEP report

New Emisison Rate (lb/mmBtu) 0.191 0.155 NDEP report

New Emissions (tpy) 523 403 NDEP report

Emissions Reduction (tpy) 686 459 NDEP report

Capital Cost $ 1,610,000 $ 1,610,000 NDEP report

Capital Cost ($/kW) 14 14 company report

O&M Cost $ 320,219 $ 320,219 NDEP report

Total Annual Cost $ 490,969 $ 490,969 NDEP report

Cost-Effectiveness ($/ton) $ 716 $ 1,070 NDEP report

Proposed BART Limits

Proposed BART limit (lb/mmBtu ann. avg.) 0.28 0.28 company report

Proposed BART limit (lb/mmBtu ann. avg.) 0.20 0.16 NDEP report

Effective Reduction from Current 63.6% 68.6% calculated

Effective BART Limit (tpy) 1,156 925 calculated

Effective Reduction from Current (tpy) 53 (63) calculated

Visibility analyses

Visibility Improvement (dv at Max Class I) 0.332 0.244 company report for Mokelumne Wilderness 

Cost-Effectiveness ($/98th % dv at Max Class I) $ 1,478,822 $ 2,012,168 company report

Pollutant Control Effectiveness (dv/ton) 0.00048 0.00053 calculated from company report

Visibility Improvement (dv at Summed Class I) 2.092 1.159 calculated from company report

Cost-Effectiveness ($/98th % dv at Summed Class I) $ 234,653 $ 423,663 calculated from company report

Pollutant Control Effectiveness (dv/ton) 0.00305 0.00252 calculated from company report

CH2M HILL was requested to perform a BART analysis for NV

Energy (NVE) Fort Churchill Unit 1

Based on an evaluation of the cost per delta-dv reduction from Tables 5-4 and 5-5, new LNB is

selected as BART for Fort Churchill 1.

Based on an evaluation of the cost per Idv reduction from Tables 5-4 and 5-5, new LNB is

selected as BART for Fort Churchill 2.
Operating company Arizona Public Service Arizona Public Service

Facility Four Corners Power Plant Four Corners Power Plant

State Navajo Nation (NM) Navajo Nation (NM)

Contact

Proposed Controls LNB LNB LNB+OFA LNB+OFA LNB+OFA Company report

Unit Combined FCPP #1 FCPP #2 FCPP #3 FCPP #4 FCPP #5

Boiler Type Wall-fired Wall-fired Wall-fired Cell burner Cell burner Company report

Fuel bituminous bituminous bituminous bituminous bituminous Company report

Rating (MW Gross) 2,185 calculated 185 185 235 790 790 Company report 4370

Presumptive BART limit (lb/mmBtu) 0.39 0.39 0.39 0.40 0.40 BART Guidelines for boiler > 200 MW firing lignite at facility > 750 MW

Rating (mmBtu/hr) 1,863 1,863 2,400 7,806 7,806 Company report

Current Emissions (tpy) 42,180 calculated 5,703 4,788 5,633 13,028 13,028 Company report

Current Emisison Rate (lb/mmBtu) 0.78 0.64 0.59 0.49 0.49 Company report

Cost-benefit Analysis

Control Efficiency 45% 33% 44% 29% 29% calculated

New Emisison Rate (lb/mmBtu) 0.43 0.43 0.33 0.35 0.35 Company report

New Emissions (tpy) 27,977 calculated 3,134 3,215 3,168 9,230 9,230 calculated

Emissions Reduction (tpy) 14,203 calculated 2,569 1,573 2,465 3,798 3,798 Company report

Capital Cost $ 38,645,000 calculated $ 3,823,000 $ 3,823,000 $ 4,359,000 $ 13,320,000 $ 13,320,000 Company report

Capital Cost ($/kW) $ 18 calculated $ 21 $ 21 $ 19 $ 17 $ 17 calculated

O&M Cost $ - calculated

Total Annual Cost $ 9,793,000 Company report $857,000 $857,000 $979,000 $3,008,000 $3,008,000 Company report

Cost-Effectiveness ($/ton) $ 690 $ 334 $ 545 $ 397 $ 792 $ 792 Company report

Proposed BART limit (company) 0.43 0.43 0.33 0.35 0.35 Company report

Effective Reduction from Current 45% 33% 44% 29% 29% calculated

Effective BART Limit (tpy) 3,509 3,509 3,469 11,967 11,967 calculated

Effective Reduction from Current (tpy) 2,194 1,279 2,164 1,061 1,061 calculated

Visibility analyses

Visibility Impact before BART (dv at Max Class I) 6.224 NPS model

Visibility Impact after BART (dv at Max Class I) 5.685 NPS model

Visibility Improvement (dv at Max Class I) 0.28 Company report 0.051 0.031 0.049 0.075 0.075 calculated

Cost-Effectiveness ($/98th % dv at Max Class I) $ 34,726,950 Company report $ 16,801,486 $ 27,439,935 $ 20,003,074 $ 39,889,064 $ 39,889,064 calculated

Pollutant Control Effectiveness (dv/ton) 0.00002 calculated 0.00002 0.00002 0.00002 0.00002 0.00002 calculated

Visibility Impact before BART (dv at Summed Class I) 46.586 NPS model

Visibility Impact after BART (dv at Summed Class I) 37.951 NPS model

Visibility Improvement (dv at Summed Class I) 8.64 calculated 1.562 0.956 1.499 2.309 2.309 calculated

Cost-Effectiveness ($/98th % dv at Summed Class I) $ 1,134,105 calculated 548,699.37 896,127.58 653,256.16 1,302,688.61 1,302,688.61 calculated

Pollutant Control Effectiveness (dv/ton) 0.00061 calculated 0.00061 0.00061 0.00061 0.00061 0.00061 calculated
Operating company Nevada Energy

Facility Reid Gardner

State NV

Contact Adele King Malone amalone@ndep.nv.gov (775) 687-9356

Proposed Controls ROFA + Rotamix ROFA + Rotamix ROFA + Rotamix

Unit Unit #1 Unit #2 Unit #3

Boiler type

wall-fired boiler manufactured 

by Foster Wheeler with 

LNB&OFA

wall-fired boiler manufactured 

by Foster Wheeler with 

LNB&OFA

wall-fired boiler manufactured 

by Foster Wheeler with 

LNB&OFA

Reid Gardner 1 was placed in service in 1965. Reid 

Gardner 2 was placed in service in 1965. Reid 

Gardner 3 was placed in service in 1976

Fuel western bituminous western bituminous western bituminous NDEP report

Rating (MW Gross) 110 110 110 NDEP report

Presumptive BART limit (lb/mmBtu) 0.39 0.39 0.39 BART Guidelines 

Rating (mmBtu/hr) 1,132 1,082 1,135 company report

2001 - 2003 Max 24-hr Emisison Rate (lb/mmBtu) 0.576 0.613 0.579 company report

Total Heat Input allowed (mmBtu) 10,643,400 10,643,400 10,836,120 NDEP report

Base heat input (mmBtu) 9,815,313 10,501,749 10,063,851 NDEP report

Base Emissions (tpy) 2,267 2,445 2,268 NDEP report

Base Emissions (lb/mmBtu) 0.38 0.39 0.32 company report

State Cost-benefit Analysis

Control Efficiency 57.7% 59.0% 38.3% NDEP report

New Emisison Rate (lb/mmBtu) 0.161 0.191 0.278 NDEP report

New Emissions (tpy) 959 1,002 1,399 NDEP report

Emissions Reduction (tpy) 1,308 1,443 869 NDEP report

Capital Cost $ 7,884,900 $ 7,884,900 $ 7,884,900 NDEP report

Capital Cost ($/kW) 72 72 72 calculated

O&M Cost $ 613,952 $ 661,760 $ 543,568 NDEP report

Total Annual Cost $ 1,450,193 $ 1,498,001 $ 1,379,809 NDEP report

Cost-Effectiveness ($/ton) $ 1,109 $ 1,038 $ 1,588 NDEP report

Proposed BART Limits

Proposed BART limit (lb/mmBtu ann. avg.) 0.39 0.39 0.39 company report

Proposed BART limit (lb/mmBtu ann. avg.) 0.20 0.20 0.28 NDEP report

Effective Reduction from Current 47.4% 48.7% 12.5% calculated

Effective BART Limit (tpy) 991.63 948 1,392 calculated

Effective Reduction from Current (tpy) 1,275 1,497 876 calculated

Visibility analyses

Visibility Improvement (dv at Max Class I) 0.592 0.514 0.514 company report for Grand Canyon

Cost-Effectiveness ($/98th % dv at Max Class I) $ 2,449,650 $ 2,914,399 $ 2,684,453 company report

Pollutant Control Effectiveness (dv/ton) 0.00063 0.00092 0.00092 calculated from company report

Visibility Improvement (dv at Summed Class I) 1.668 1.776 1.623 calculated from company report

Cost-Effectiveness ($/98th % dv at Summed Class I) $ 869,164 $ 843,303 $ 850,181 calculated from company report

Pollutant Control Effectiveness (dv/ton) 0.00128 0.00123 0.00187 calculated from company report

CH2M HILL was requested to perform a BART analysis for NV

Energy (NVE) Reid Gardner Station

Based on an evaluation of the cost per Jdv reduction from Table 5-4, LNB with OFA is

selected as BART for Reid Gardner 1.

Based on an evaluation of the cost per Jdv reduction from Table 5-4, LNB with OFA is

selected as BART for Reid Gardner 2.

Based on an evaluation of the cost per Jdv reduction from Table 5-4, LNB with OFA is

selected as BART for Reid Gardner 3.
Operating company Xcel Energy

Facility Hayden

State CO

Contact Lisa Clarke Lisa.Clarke@dphe.state.co.us(303) 692-3117

Proposed Controls addition of SCR to existing LNB+OFA

Unit #1 #2

Boiler Type dry-bottom, wall-fired

dry-bottom, 

tangentially-fired CDPHE report

Fuel bituminous bituminous CDPHE report

Rating (MW Gross) each 190 275 CDPHE report

Presumptive BART limit (lb/mmBtu) BART Guidelines for units > 200 MW at facility > 750 MW

Rating (mmBtu/hr) 1,963 2,712 CDPHE report

Current Emissions (tpy) 3,750 3,743 CDPHE report

Current Emissions (lb/mmBtu) 0.415 0.320 CDPHE report

Current Control Efficiency 54.1% 33.3% CDPHE report

Cost-benefit Analysis

Addiitonal Control Efficiency 83.2% 81.0% CDPHE report

Controlled Emissions (lb/mmBtu) 0.070 0.061 CDPHE report

Controlled emissions (tpy) 630 711 CDPHE report

Emission Reductions (tpy) 3,120 3,032 CDPHE report

Capital Cost $ 61,938,167 $ 71,780,853 CDPHE tech analysis (2006 $)

Capital Cost ($/kW) $ 326 $ 261 calculated (2006 $)

O&M Cost $ 4,714,087 $ 5,545,886 CDPHE report (2006 $)

Annualized Cost $ 10,560,612 $ 12,321,491 CDPHE report (2006 $)

Cost-Effectiveness ($/ton) $ 3,385 $ 4,064 CDPHE report (2006 $)

Proposed BART Limits

Proposed BART Limit (company)

Proposed BART Limit (CDPHE) 0.08 0.07 lb/mmBtu 30-day rolling average

Effective Reduction from Current

Effective BART Limit (tpy) #REF! #REF! calculated

Effective Reduction from Current

Visibility analyses

Visibility Improvement (dv at Max Class I) 1.12 0.85 CDPHE report

Cost-Effectiveness ($/98th % dv at Max Class I) $ 9,462,914 $ 14,427,975 CDPHE report

Pollutant Control Effectiveness (dv/ton) 0.00036 0.00028 calculated

Visibility Improvement (dv at Summed Class I)

Cost-Effectiveness ($/98th % dv at Summed Class I)

Pollutant Control Effectiveness (dv/ton)

Accordingly, as part of its five factor consideration the state has elected to generally

employ criteria for NOx post-combustion control options to aid in the assessment and

determinations for BART – a $/ton of NOx removed cap, and two minimum applicable

Δdv improvement figures relating to CALPUFF modeling for certain emissions control

types, as follows.

- For the highest-performing NOx post-combustion control options (i.e., SCR

systems for electric generating units) that do not exceed $5,000/ton of pollutant

reduced by the state’s calculation, and which provide a modeled visibility benefit

on 0.50 Δdv or greater at the primary Class I Area affected, that level of control is

generally viewed as reasonable.

- For lesser-performing NOx post-combustion control options (e.g., SNCR

technologies for electric generating units) that do not exceed $5,000/ton of

pollutant reduced by the state’s calculation, and which provide a modeled

visibility benefit of 0.20 Δdv or greater at the primary Class I Area affected, that

level of control is generally viewed as reasonable.
Operating company Golden Valley Electric Association (GVEA)

Facility Healy

State AK Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation

Contact Rebecca Smith, Environmental Program Specialist, Air Permit Program, rebecca.smith@alaska.gov

Proposed Controls SNCR rejected by GVEA SNCR proposed by AK added to Low NOx burners (LNB) and over-fired air (OFA) ports installed in 1996.

Unit #1 #1 Healy 1 began operation in 1967

Boiler Type wall-fired, wet bottom wall-fired, wet bottom manufactured by Foster Wheeler Emviroplan report

Fuel sub-bituminous sub-bituminous Company report

Rating (MW Gross) 25 25 Emviroplan report

Presumptive BART limit (lb/mmBtu) 0.23 0.23 wall-fired boiler > 200 MW burning sub-bituminous coal 

Rating (mmBtu/hr) 340 Company report 340 Company report

Current Emissions (tpy) 383 calculated 429 calculated Enviroplan Consulting (Enviroplan) was retained by the Alaska Department of Environmental

Current Emisison Rate (lb/mmBtu) 0.25 Company report 0.28 Emviroplan report Conservation (Department) to review a Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART) control

analysis submitted on July 28, 2008 by Golden Valley Electric Association (GVEA), with

Cost-benefit Analyses supplemental information submitted on October 3, 2008, November 11, 2008 and December 10,

Control Efficiency 24% Company report 32% Emviroplan report 2008; with a revised final BART analysis report submitted on January 2, 2009.

New Emisison Rate (lb/mmBtu) 0.19 Company report 0.19 Emviroplan report

New Emissions (tpy) 291 calculated 295 calculated

Emissions Reduction (tpy) 92 Company report 134 Emviroplan report

Capital Cost $2,538,900 Company report $ 2,538,900 Emviroplan report Enviroplan calculated the cost of SCR on a dollar per ton ($/ton) of NOx removed basis, using

Capital Cost ($/kW) $ 102 calculated $ 102 calculated the OAQPS Control Cost Manual, as follows:

O&M Cost $122,191 Company report $122,191 Emviroplan report

Total Annual Cost $ 563,985 Company report $ 563,985 Emviroplan report

Cost-Effectiveness ($/ton) $ 6,130 calculated $ 4,209 Emviroplan report

Proposed BART Limits

Proposed BART limit (company) 0.25 Company report

Proposed BART limit (state) 0.20 lb/mmBtu 30-day rolling average

Effective Reduction from Current 0% calculated 29% calculated

Effective BART Limit (tpy) 372 calculated 283 calculated

Effective Reduction from Current (tpy) 11 calculated 146 calculated

Visibility analyses

Visibility Impact before BART (dv at Max Class I) 3.359 Company report 3.359 Emviroplan report

Visibility Impact after BART (dv at Max Class I) 2.739 Company report 2.739 Emviroplan report

Visibility Improvement (dv at Max Class I) 0.620 calculated from Company report 0.620 Emviroplan report

Cost-Effectiveness ($/98th % dv at Max Class I) $909,653 Company report $909,653 Emviroplan report

Pollutant Control Effectiveness (dv/ton) 0.0067 calculated 0.0046 calculated

Visibility Improvement (dv at Summed Class I)

Cost-Effectiveness ($/98th % dv at Summed Class I)

Pollutant Control Effectiveness (dv/ton)
Operating company PacifiCorp

Facility Dave Johnston

State WY

Contact

Proposed Controls LNB+OFA LNB+OFA

Unit Combined DJ #3 DJ #4

Boiler Type wall-fired cell burner tangential WY DEQ

Fuel sub-bituminous sub-bituminous WY DEQ

Rating (MW Gross) 560 230 330 WY DEQ

Presumptive BART limit (lb/mmBtu) 0.45 0.15 boiler > 200 MW burning sub-bituminous coal 

Rating (mmBtu/hr) 6,900 2,800 4,100 WY DEQ

Current Emissions (tpy) 14,380 5,814 8,566 calculated

Current Emisison Rate (lb/mmBtu) 0.70 0.40 Company report

Cost-benefit Analyses

Control Efficiency 60.0% 62.5% Company report

New Emisison Rate (lb/mmBtu) 0.28 0.15 WY DEQ

New Emissions (tpy) 5,515 3,091 2,424 WY DEQ

Emissions Reduction (tpy) 8,865 2,723 6,142 WY DEQ

Capital Cost $ 25,400,000 $ 17,500,000 $ 7,900,000 WY DEQ

Capital Cost ($/kW) $ 45 $ 76 $ 24 calculated

O&M Cost $ 190,000 $100,000 $90,000 WY DEQ

Total Annual Cost $ 2,606,302 $1,764,775 $841,527 WY DEQ

Cost-Effectiveness ($/ton) $ 294 $ 648 $ 137 WY DEQ

Proposed BART Limits

Proposed BART limit (company) 0.28 0.15 Company report

Proposed BART limit (WY) 0.28 0.15 WY DEQ

Effective Reduction from Current 60.0% 62.5% calculated

Effective BART Limit (tpy) 2,723 6,142 WY DEQ

Effective Reduction from Current (tpy) 3,091 2,424 calculated

Visibility analyses

Visibility Impact before BART (dv at Max Class I) 3.585 1.935 1.650 WY DEQ

Visibility Impact after BART (dv at Max Class I) 3.278 1.764 1.515 calculated

Visibility Improvement (dv at Max Class I) 0.307 0.171 0.135 calculated

Cost-Effectiveness ($/98th % dv at Max Class I) $ 8,497,519 $ 10,306,214 $ 6,211,484 calculated

Pollutant Control Effectiveness (dv/ton) 0.00003 0.00006 0.00002 calculated

Visibility Impact before BART (dv at Summed Class I) 6.372 3.423 2.949 calculated

Visibility Impact after BART (dv at Summed Class I) 5.630 3.016 2.614 calculated

Visibility Improvement (dv at Summed Class I) 0.742 0.407 0.335 calculated

Cost-Effectiveness ($/98th % dv at Summed Class I) $ 3,513,217 $ 4,332,984 $ 2,515,268 calculated

Pollutant Control Effectiveness (dv/ton) 0.00008 0.00015 0.00005 calculated

PacifiCorp comments on Unit #3: For example, Table 5-3 shows that the incremental cost effectiveness for Scenario 1

compared to the Baseline is reasonable at $0.4 million per day and $14.4 million per dV to

improve visibility at Badlands NP.

PacifiCorp comments on Unit #4: For example, Table 5-3 shows that the incremental cost effectiveness for Scenario 1

compared to the Baseline is reasonable at about $800,000 per day and $31.7 million per dV.
Operating company Dominion

Facility Kincaid

State IL

Contact

Proposed Controls existing OFA+SCR existing OFA+SCR

Unit #1 #2

Boiler Type cyclone cyclone IL EPA

Fuel sub-bituminous sub-bituminous IL EPA

Rating (MW Gross) 660 660 Company report

Presumptive BART limit (lb/mmBtu) 0.10 0.10 boiler > 200 MW burning sub-bituminous coal 

Rating (mmBtu/hr) 6,634 6,406 Company report

Current Emissions (tpy) 10,300 10,605 IL EPA

Current Emisison Rate (lb/mmBtu) 0.64 0.66 IL EPA

Cost-benefit Analyses

Control Efficiency 89.1% 89.4% calculated

New Emisison Rate (lb/mmBtu) 0.07 0.07 IL EPA

New Emissions (tpy) 1,129 1,128 IL EPA

Emissions Reduction (tpy) 9,171 9,476 IL EPA

Capital Cost 

Capital Cost ($/kW) $ - $ -

O&M Cost 

Total Annual Cost 

Cost-Effectiveness ($/ton)

Proposed BART Limits

Proposed BART limit (company) 0.07 0.07 Company report

Proposed BART limit (state) 0.07 0.07 IL EPA

Effective Reduction from Current 89.1% 89.4% calculated

Effective BART Limit (tpy) 2,034 1,964 calculated

Effective Reduction from Current (tpy) 4,600 4,442 calculated

Visibility analyses

Visibility Improvement (dv at Max Class I)

Cost-Effectiveness ($/98th % dv at Max Class I)

Pollutant Control Effectiveness (dv/ton)

Visibility Improvement (dv at Summed Class I)

Cost-Effectiveness ($/98th % dv at Summed Class I)

Pollutant Control Effectiveness (dv/ton)
Operating Company Xcel Energy

Facility Name Allen S. King Generating Plant

State MN

Contact Anne Jackson

Distance to nearest Class I Area (km) Permit action 005 authorized modification of the King Plant. The Rehabilitation Project is

# of Class I Areas evaluated/within 300 km 0 of 1 complete and includes the installation of new pollution control equipment, modification of the

Data Source plant heat rejection system, and rehabilitation and life extension of the main (EU 001, coal-fired)

EGU Unit #1 boiler. The rehabilitation allows the plant to operate at a capacity approaching its original design

Boiler type cyclone MPCA report rating.

Fuel sub-bituminous MPCA report

Rating each (MW gross) 550 MPCA report

Presumptive BART limit (lb/mmBtu) 0.10 BART Guidelines EGU >200 MW at facility < 750 MW

Heat Input (mmBtu/hr)

Current Emissions (tpy) 11,892 MPCA report

Current Emisison Rate (lb/mmBtu) 0.70 CAM data for 2002 - 2004

Proposed Controls SCR MPCA report The boiler rehabilitation consisted of:

Control Efficiency 77% calculated • Replacement of the furnace floor and support system.

New Emisison Rate (lb/mmBtu) 0.10 MPCA report • Installation of new cyclone burners and re-entrant throats.

New Emissions (tpy) 2,701 MPCA report • Replacement of furnace sidewalls and furnace floor tubes.

Emissions Reduction (tpy) 9,191 calculated • Installation of induced draft fans to accommodate additional draft requirements of new

Capital Cost control equipment.

Capital Cost ($/kW) The new (additional) control equipment consists of:

O&M Cost $ - • Selective Catalytic Reduction (SCR) reactor for control of NOX emissions.

Total Annual Cost MPCA report • Spray dryer absorber lime-based semi-dry Flue Gas Desulfurization (FGD) system for

Cost-Effectiveness ($/ton) MPCA report control of SO2 emissions

• Pulse-Jet cleaned Fabric Filter (PJFF) for additional control of PM.

Proposed BART limit (lb/mmBtu) 0.10

Effective Reduction from Current 86%

Effective BART Limit (tpy) -

Effective Reduction from Current (tpy)

Visibility analyses none done

Visibility Improvement (dv at Max Class I)

Cost-Effectiveness ($/98th % dv at Max Class I)

Pollutant Control Effectiveness (dv/ton)

Visibility Improvement (dv at Summed Class I)

Cost-Effectiveness ($/98th % dv at Summed Class I)

Pollutant Control Effectiveness (dv/ton)
Operating company Kansas City Power & Light

Facility LaCygne

State KN

Contact

proposed SCR

Unit LaCygne #1 LaCygne #2 Unit 1 is an 840 MW supercritical cyclone coal 

Boiler Type cyclone wall-fired Company report boiler that was manufactured in 1973 by Babcock and Wilcox with a scrubber for sulfur dioxide 

Fuel sub-bituminous sub-bituminous Company report (SO2) and particulate matter (PM) control and overfire air that minimizes the formation of thermal 

Rating (MW Gross) 840 750 Company report was manufactured in 1976 by Babcock and Wilcox with an electrostatic precipitator (ESP) for PM 

Presumptive BART limit (lb/mmBtu) 0.10 0.23 boiler > 200 MW at facility > 750 MW nitrogen oxides (NOX). Unit 2 is a 710 MW radiant opposed-fired pulverized coal (PC) boiler that 

Rating (mmBtu/hr) 9,312 8,288 Company report control. Unit 1 burns a blend of Powder River Basin (PRB) coal and local coal. Unit 2 burns 100 

Current Emissions (tpy) 25,555 8,434 CAM data for 2001 - 2003 percent PRB coal. 

Current Emisison Rate (lb/mmBtu) 1.01 0.29 Company report

LNB+OFA

Control Efficiency 20% calculated

New Emisison Rate (lb/mmBtu) 0.23 Company report

New Emissions (tpy) 7,303 Company report

Emissions Reduction (tpy) 3,365 Company report

Capital Cost $ 20,714,670 Company report

Capital Cost ($/kW) $ 28 calculated

O&M Cost $557,116 Company report

Total Annual Cost $3,308,249 Company report

Cost-Effectiveness ($/ton) $ 983 Company report

SCR

Control Efficiency 90% 20% calculated

New Emisison Rate (lb/mmBtu) 0.10 0.23 Company report

New Emissions (tpy) - 3,175 calculated

Emissions Reduction (tpy) - 7,493 calculated

Capital Cost $ - $ 63,325,110 calculated

Capital Cost ($/kW) $ - $ 84 calculated

O&M Cost $0 $1,910,111 calculated

Total Annual Cost $0 $14,908,532 calculated

Incremental Cost-Effectiveness ($/ton) #DIV/0! $ 1,990 calculated

LNB+OFA+SCR

Control Efficiency Company report

New Emisison Rate (lb/mmBtu) Company report

New Emissions (tpy) calculated

Emissions Reduction (tpy) Company report

Capital Cost Company report

Capital Cost ($/kW) calculated

O&M Cost Company report

Total Annual Cost Company report

Cost-Effectiveness ($/ton) Company report

Proposed BART limit (company) 0.10 0.23 Company report

Effective Reduction from Current

Effective BART Limit (tpy)

Effective Reduction from Current (tpy)

Visibility analyses

Visibility Improvement (dv at Max Class I)

Cost-Effectiveness ($/98th % dv at Max Class I)

Pollutant Control Effectiveness (dv/ton)

Visibility Improvement (dv at Summed Class I)

Cost-Effectiveness ($/98th % dv at Summed Class I)

Pollutant Control Effectiveness (dv/ton)
Operating company Basin Electric

Facility Laramie River

State WY

Contact

Proposed Controls proposed LNB+OFA

Unit LRS #1 LRS #2 LRS #3

Boiler Type wall-fired wall-fired wall-fired WY DEQ

Fuel sub-bituminous sub-bituminous sub-bituminous WY DEQ

Rating (MW Gross) 550 550 550 WY DEQ

Presumptive BART limit (lb/mmBtu) 0.23 0.23 0.23 tangential fired boiler > 200 MW burning sub-bituminous coal at a Facility > 750 MW

Rating (mmBtu/hr) 6,420 6,420 6,600 Company report

Current Emissions (tpy) 6,320 6,285 6,448 Company report

Current Emisison Rate (lb/mmBtu) 0.27 0.27 0.27 Company report

Cost-benefit Analyses

Control Efficiency 14.8% 14.8% 14.8% Company report

New Emisison Rate (lb/mmBtu) 0.23 0.23 0.23 WY DEQ

New Emissions (tpy) 5,384 5,354 5,493 WY DEQ

Emissions Reduction (tpy) 936 931 955 WY DEQ

Capital Cost $ 22,096,000 $ 22,096,000 $ 22,096,000 WY DEQ

Capital Cost ($/kW) $ 40 $ 40 $ 40 calculated

O&M Cost $22,000 $22,000 $22,000 Company report

Total Annual Cost $1,944,000 $1,944,000 $1,944,000 WY DEQ

Cost-Effectiveness ($/ton) $ 2,077 $ 2,088 $ 2,036 Company report

Proposed BART Limits

Proposed BART limit (company) 0.23 0.23 0.23 Company report

Proposed BART limit (WY) 0.23 0.23 0.23 WY DEQ

Effective Reduction from Current 15% 15% 15% calculated

Effective BART Limit (tpy) 6,468 6,468 6,649 calculated

Effective Reduction from Current (tpy) (148) (183) (201) calculated

Visibility analyses

Visibility Improvement (dv at Max Class I) 0.0720 0.0710 0.0730 calculated from WY DEQ report

Cost-Effectiveness ($/98th % dv at Max Class I) $ 27,000,000 $ 27,380,282 $ 26,630,137 calculated

Pollutant Control Effectiveness (dv/ton) 0.00008 0.00008 0.00008 calculated

Visibility Improvement (dv at Summed Class I) 0.1380 0.1380 0.1380 calculated from WY DEQ report

Cost-Effectiveness ($/98th % dv at Summed Class I) $ 14,086,957 $ 14,086,957 $ 14,086,957 calculated

Pollutant Control Effectiveness (dv/ton) 0.00015 0.00015 0.00014 calculated

Basin statement: Based on the visibility improvement modeled and the total annual cost evaluated

in the impact analysis stage (Step 4) of the BART process, the cost-effectiveness for

visibility improvement (annual cost per improvement in visibility, $/dv), was determined

...the cost-effectiveness for maximum visibility improvement from LRS is 8.9 million $/dv
Operating company Basin Electric Power

Facility Leland Olds Basin Electric Power

State ND lignite & PRB Leland Olds

Contact Tom Bachman tbachman@nd.gov (701) 328-5188 ND lignite & PRB

Distance to nearest Class I Area (km)

# of Class I Areas evaluated/within 300 km 2 of 2

Proposed Controls basic SOFA + SNCR ASOFA + SNCR The Department agrees with the determination that BART

Unit #1 #2 SCR is not technically feasible at this time Combined

Boiler Type wall-fired ND DOH report cyclone ND DOH report

Fuel ND lignite & PRB ND DOH report ND lignite & PRB ND DOH report ND lignite & PRB

Rating (MW Gross) each 216 ND DOH report 440 ND DOH report 656

Presumptive BART limit (lb/mmBtu) 0.29 wall-fired > 200 MW firing lignite 0.10 cyclone > 200 MW firing lignite 

Rating (mmBtu/hr) 2,622 ND DOH report 5,130 ND DOH report 7,752

Current Emissions (tpy) 2,501 ND DOH report 10,422 ND DOH report 12,923

Current Emissions (lb/mmBtu) 0.27 ND DOH report 0.61 ND DOH report

ND DOH Cost-benefit Analysis

Baseline Emissions (tpy) 2,967 ND DOH report 12,023 ND DOH report 14,990

Baseline Emisison Rate (lb/mmBtu) 0.285 ND DOH report 0.67 ND DOH report

Overall Control Efficiency 42.0% ND DOH report 54.5% ND DOH report

Controlled emissions (tpy) 1,721 ND DOH report 5,470 ND DOH report 7,191

Controlled emissions (lb/mmBtu) 0.165 ND DOH report 0.305 ND DOH report

Emission Reductions (tpy) 1,246 ND DOH report 6,553 ND DOH report 7,799

Capital Cost $ 6,234,000 company report $ 16,800,000 company report $ 23,034,000

Capital Cost ($/kW) $ 29 calculated $ 38 calculated $ 35

O&M Cost $ 2,030,000 company report $ 7,830,000 company report $ 9,860,000

Annualized Cost $ 3,099,000 ND DOH report $ 10,870,000 ND DOH report $ 13,969,000

Cost-Effectiveness ($/ton) $ 2,487 ND DOH report $ 1,659 ND DOH report $ 1,791

ND DOH Proposed BART Limits #1

Proposed BART limit (company) 0.29 lb/mmBtu 0.35 lb/mmBtu The Department proposes that BART is 

Proposed State BART limit 0.19 lb/mmBtu (30-day rolling average) 0.35 lb/mmBtu (30-day rolling average) an emission limit of 0.19 lb/106 Btu on a 30-day 

Effective Reduction from Current 30% calculated 43% calculated rolling average basis.

Effective BART Limit (tpy) 2,182 calculated 7,864 calculated #2

Effective Reduction from Current (tpy) 319 calculated 2,558 calculated Therefore, the Department proposes 

Effective Reduction from Current (tpy) 13% calculated 25% calculated that BACT is an emission limit of 0.35 lb/106 Btu on 

Effective Reduction from Future (tpy) 785 tpy 4,159 tpy a 30-day rolling average basis.

Effective Reduction from Future (tpy) 26% reduction 35% reduction

Visibility analyses

Visibility Impact before BART (dv at Max Class I) 2.169 company report 7.927 NPS model 10.096

Visibility Impact after BART (dv at Max Class I) 2.055 calculated 7.329 calculated 9.385

Visibility Improvement (dv at Max Class I) 0.114 calculated from NDDH report 0.598 calculated 1.114 NPS results uisng P-G stability 0.711

Cost-Effectiveness ($/98th % dv at Max Class I) $ 27,263,930 calculated $ 18,186,700 calculated $ 9,760,551 calculated $ 19,637,139

Pollutant Control Effectiveness (dv/ton) 0.00009 calculated 0.00009 calculated 0.00017 calculated 0.00009

Visibility Impact before BART (dv at Summed Class I) 4.091 calculated 13.517 NPS model 17.608

Visibility Impact after BART (dv at Summed Class I) 3.86 calculated 12.32 calculated 16.181

Visibility Improvement (dv at Summed Class I) 0.228 calculated from NDDH report 1.199 calculated 1.666 NPS results uisng P-G stability 1.427

Cost-Effectiveness ($/98th % dv at Summed Class I) $ 13,592,105 calculated $ 9,066,761 calculated $ 6,525,916 calculated $ 9,789,860

Pollutant Control Effectiveness (dv/ton) 0.00018 calculated 0.00018 calculated 0.00025 calculated 0.00018
Operating company Southern California Edison

Facility Mohave

State NV

Contact Adele King Malone amalone@ndep.nv.gov

Proposed Controls LNB+OFA LNB+OFA

Unit Unit #1 Unit #2

Boiler type Dry bottom wall-fired boiler Dry bottom wall-fired boiler NDEP report

Fuel PNG PNG NDEP report

Rating (MW Gross) 790 790 NDEP report

Presumptive BART limit (lb/mmBtu) BART Guidelines 

Rating (mmBtu/hr) 7,880 company report

2001 - 2003 Max 24-hr Emisison Rate (lb/mmBtu) company report

Total Heat Input allowed (mmBtu) NDEP report

Base heat input (mmBtu) NDEP report

Base Emissions (tpy) NDEP report

Base Emissions (lb/mmBtu) #DIV/0! calculated

State Cost-benefit Analysis

Control Efficiency NDEP report

New Emisison Rate (lb/mmBtu) #DIV/0! NDEP report

New Emissions (tpy) 4,694 NDEP report

Emissions Reduction (tpy) 12,297 NDEP report

Capital Cost $ 11,200,000 NDEP report

Capital Cost ($/kW) 14 calculated

O&M Cost $ - NDEP report

Total Annual Cost $ 1,500,000 NDEP report

Cost-Effectiveness ($/ton) $ 122 NDEP report

Proposed BART Limits

Proposed BART limit (lb/mmBtu ann. avg.) 0.15 0.15 NDEP report

Effective Reduction from Current calculated

Effective BART Limit (tpy) 5,177 calculated

Effective Reduction from Current (tpy) calculated

Visibility analyses

Visibility Improvement (dv at Max Class I) 1.02 company report

Cost-Effectiveness ($/98th % dv at Max Class I) $ 1,470,588 calculated

Pollutant Control Effectiveness (dv/ton) 0.00008 calculated

Visibility Improvement (dv at Summed Class I) not provided

Cost-Effectiveness ($/98th % dv at Summed Class I) not provided

Pollutant Control Effectiveness (dv/ton) not available
Operating company Minnkota Power Minnkota Power

Facility MR Young MR Young

State ND ND

Contact Tom Bachman tbachman@nd.gov (701) 328-5188

Distance to nearest Class I Area (km)

# of Class I Areas evaluated/within 300 km 2 of 2

Proposed Controls ASOFA + SNCR ASOFA + SNCR The Department does not consider SCR to be 

Unit #1 #2 technically feasible at this time Combined

Boiler Type cyclone ND DOH report cyclone ND DOH report

Fuel ND lignite ND DOH report ND lignite ND DOH report

Rating (MW Gross) each* 257 ND DOH report 477 ND DOH report *actual capacity may be greater 734

Presumptive BART limit (lb/mmBtu) 0.10 cyclone > 200 MW firing lignite 0.10 BART Guidelines for tangential boiler > 200 MW firing lignite at facility > 750 MW may apply

Rating (mmBtu/hr) 3,200 ND DOH report 6,300 ND DOH report 9,500

Current Emissions (tpy) 8,665 ND DOH report 14,705 ND DOH report 23,370

Current Emissions (lb/mmBtu) 0.81 ND DOH report 0.81 ND DOH report

Baseline Emissions (tpy) 9,032 ND DOH report 15,507 ND DOH report 24,539

Baseline Emisison Rate (lb/mmBtu) 0.849 ND DOH report ND DOH report

ND DOH Cost-benefit Analysis

Control Efficiency 58.1% ND DOH report 58.0% ND DOH report

Controlled emissions (tpy) 3,784 ND DOH report 6,513 ND DOH report 10,297

Controlled emissions (lb/mmBtu) 0.356 ND DOH report 0.330 ND DOH report

Emission Reductions (tpy) 5,248 ND DOH report 8,994 ND DOH report 14,242

Capital Cost $ 8,113,000 company report $ 17,128,000 company report $ 25,241,000

Capital Cost ($/kW) $ 32 calculated $ 36 calculated $ 34

O&M Cost $ 5,417,000 company report $ 7,397,000 company report $ 12,814,000

Annualized Cost $ 7,472,000 ND DOH report $ 11,405,000 ND DOH report $ 18,877,000

Cost-Effectiveness ($/ton) $ 1,424 ND DOH report $ 1,268 ND DOH report $ 1,325

ND DOH Proposed Permit Limits

Proposed Permit Limit (company) 0.36 company report 0.35 company report

Proposed State BART limit 0.36 lb/mmBtu (30-day rolling average) 0.35 lb/mmBtu (30-day rolling average)

Effective Reduction from Current 56% calculated 57% calculated

Effective BART Limit (tpy) 5,046 calculated 9,658 calculated

Effective Reduction from Current (tpy) 3,619 calculated 5,047 calculated

Effective Reduction from Current (tpy) 42% calculated 34% calculated

Visibility analyses

Visibility Impact before BART (dv at Max Class I) 3.041 company report 2.753 company report 5.794

Visibility Impact after BART (dv at Max Class I) 1.969 company report 2.049 company report 4.017

Visibility Improvement (dv at Max Class I) 1.072 calculated from company & ND DOH reports 0.705 calculated from company & ND DOH reports 1.777

Cost-Effectiveness ($/98th % dv at Max Class I) $ 6,970,149 calculated $ 16,184,957 calculated $ 10,624,953

Pollutant Control Effectiveness (dv/ton) 0.00020 calculated 0.00008 calculated 0.00012

Visibility Impact before BART (dv at Summed Class I) 5.348 calculated 5.204 calculated 10.552

Visibility Impact after BART (dv at Summed Class I) 3.664 calculated 3.839 calculated 7.502

Visibility Improvement (dv at Summed Class I) 1.684 calculated from company & ND DOH reports 1.366 calculated from company & ND DOH reports 3.050

Cost-Effectiveness ($/98th % dv at Summed Class I) $ 4,437,055 calculated $ 8,351,233 calculated $ 6,189,857

Pollutant Control Effectiveness (dv/ton) 0.00032 calculated 0.00015 calculated 0.00021

Minnkota Power Cooperative, Inc. operates the Milton R. Young Station near Center, North Dakota. Minnkota has proposed the most efficient The Department proposes that BART is represented by 

MRYS is a steam electric generating plant with two units. Unit No. 1 is a Babcock & Wilcox (B&W) technically feasible option (SNCR + ASOFA) as BART. selective non-catalytic reduction (SNCR) plus

cyclone-type coal-fired boiler burning lignite coal, serving a turbine generator with a nameplate rating The Department concurs with this selection. SNCR + advanced separated overfire air (ASOFA). This 

of 257 MW. 2 Particulate control is provided by a Research-Cottrell Electrostatic Precipitator rated at ASOFA will achieve an emission rate of 0.355 lb/106 technology will achieve an annual average emission 

approximately 99% control. Unit 1 has no sulfur dioxide (SO2) control system and exhausts to a 300 Btu on an annual average basis. The Department rate of 0.33 lb/106 Btu. Based on a 30-day rolling 

foot tall stack. Unit No. 2 is a B&W cyclone-fired unit burning lignite coal, with a turbine-generator proposes that BART, during normal operations, is a average basis, an emission rate of 0.35 lb/106 Btu 

name plate rating of 477 MW. 2 Particulate control for Unit 2 is provided by a Wheelabrator-Lurgi is achievable and is proposed as BART for normal 

precipitator rated at approximately 99% control. Unit 2 has a Combustion Equipment Associates wet operating conditions. 

flue gas desulfurization (FGD) system (modified by Combustion Engineering) that treats 

approximately 78 percent of the flue gas with the remaining flue gas by-passed for stack gas reheat. 

The FGD system achieves approximately 75 percent SO2 removal and exhausts to a 550 foot tall 

stack. Unit 1 began commercial operation on November 20, 1970 and Unit 2 on May 11, 1977.

On 17 June 2002, Minnkota Power Cooperative, Inc. received a Notice of Violation (NOV) from 

EPA. The NOV states that Minnkota allegedly violated the Prevention of Significant Deterioration 

(PSD) regulations. The NOV was issued pursuant to Section 113 of the Clean Air Act. The alleged 

violation was caused by modifications to both Unit 1 and 2 at MRYS which allegedly resulted in a 

potential increase of SO2, NOX and PM. Without an admission of liability, Minnkota entered into a 

settlement in the form of a Consent Decree (CD) with the EPA and NDDH to resolve the issues. The 

CD requires that Minnkota install a level of control for SO2, NOX and PM on both Unit 1 and 2 at 

MRYS, equivalent to BACT. The effect of the CD on the BART analysis and the requirement to 

install BACT-level controls are discussed later in the report. 
Operating company PacifiCorp PacifiCorp

Facility Naughton Naughton

State WY WY

Contact

Proposed Controls proposed LNB+OFA proposed SCR

Unit #1 #2 #3 Combined

Boiler Type tangential tangential tangential WY DEQ

Fuel sub-bituminous sub-bituminous sub-bituminous Company report

Rating (MW Gross) 160 210 330 WY DEQ 700

Presumptive BART limit (lb/mmBtu) 0.15 0.15 0.15 tangential fired boiler > 200 MW burning sub-bituminous coal 

Rating (mmBtu/hr) 1,850 2,400 3,700 WY DEQ 7,950

Current Emissions (tpy) 4,230 5,109 6,563 Company report 15,902

Current Emisison Rate (lb/mmBtu) 0.58 0.54 0.45 Company report

Cost-benefit Analyses

Control Efficiency 55.2% 51.9% 84.4% Company report

New Emisison Rate (lb/mmBtu) 0.26 0.26 0.07 WY DEQ

New Emissions (tpy) 1,896 2,460 1,021 WY DEQ 5,377

Emissions Reduction (tpy) 2,334 2,649 5,542 WY DEQ 10,525

Capital Cost $ 9,600,000 $ 9,100,000 $ 136,800,000 WY DEQ $155,500,000

Capital Cost ($/kW) $ 60 $ 43 $ 415 calculated $ 222

O&M Cost $ 80,000 $ 80,000 $2,668,918 WY DEQ $ 2,828,918

Total Annual Cost $993,248 $ 945,683 $15,682,702 WY DEQ $ 17,621,633

Cost-Effectiveness ($/ton) $ 426 $ 357 $ 2,830 WY DEQ $ 1,674

Proposed BART Limits

Proposed BART limit (company) 0.26 0.26 0.07 Company report claims coal is similar to bituminous in nitrogen content

Proposed BART limit (WY) 0.26 0.26 0.07 WY DEQ

Effective Reduction from Current 55% 52% 84% calculated

Effective BART Limit (tpy) 2,107 2,733 1,134 WY DEQ

Effective Reduction from Current (tpy) 2,123 2,376 5,429 calculated

Visibility analyses

Visibility Impact before BART (dv at Max Class I) 1.779 2.025 1.922 calculated 5.726

Visibility Impact after BART (dv at Max Class I) 1.598 1.812 1.234 calculated 4.643

Visibility Improvement (dv at Max Class I) 0.181 0.213 0.688 calculated 1.083

Cost-Effectiveness ($/98th % dv at Max Class I) $ 5,476,985 $ 4,434,068 $ 22,794,625 calculated $ 16,276,750

Pollutant Control Effectiveness (dv/ton) 0.00008 0.00008 0.00012 calculated

Visibility Impact before BART (dv at Summed Class I) 2.675 3.147 2.885 calculated 8.707

Visibility Impact after BART (dv at Summed Class I) 2.421 2.846 1.862 calculated 7.128

Visibility Improvement (dv at Summed Class I) 0.254 0.301 1.023 WY DEQ 1.579

Cost-Effectiveness ($/98th % dv at Summed Class I) $ 3,908,268 $ 3,137,147 $ 15,330,109 calculated $ 11,162,915

Pollutant Control Effectiveness (dv/ton) 0.00011 0.00011 0.00018 calculated

PacifiCorp statement for Unit #1: For example, Table 5-3 shows that the incremental cost effectiveness for Scenario 1 compared to

the Baseline is reasonable at $400,000 per day and $11.1 million per dV to improve visibility at the Bridger WA.

PacifiCorp statement for Unit #2: For example, Table 5-3

shows that the incremental cost-effectiveness for Scenario 1 compared to the Baseline is

$450,000 per day and $13.96 million per dV to improve visibility at the Bridger WA.

Therefore, the EPA Least-cost Analysis indicates that Scenario 1

represents the proper BART control technology for Naughton 2

PacifiCorp statement for Unit #3: For example, Table 5-3 shows that the incremental cost-effectiveness for Scenario 1,

compared to the Baseline, is reasonable at $70,000 per day and $4.08 million per dV to

improve visibility at the Bridger WA.
Operating Company Salt River Project

Facility Name Navajo Generating Station 

Contact EPA R-9

Data Source Data Source

Proposed Controls LNB+SOFA Company report LNB+SOFA LNB+SOFA LNB+SOFA Company report

EGU Combined Company report Combined Unit #1 Unit #2 Unit #3

Boiler type tangential tangential tangential Company report

Fuel bituminous bituminous bituminous Company report

Rating each (MW gross) 2250 Company report 2,250 750 750 750 Company report

Presumptive BART limit (lb/mmBtu) 0.28 Company report 0.28 0.28 0.28 BART Guidelines EGU >200 MW at facility >750 MW

Heat Input (mmBtu/hr) 27,947 calculated 27,947 9,498 9,724 8,724 CAM data

Current Emissions (tpy) 55,735 calculated 34,803 12,051 12,123 10,629 EPA CAM data for 2008

Current Emisison Rate (lb/mmBtu) 0.48 Company report 0.36 0.368 0.357 0.305 EPA CAM data for 2008

Cost-benefit Analyses

Control Efficiency 48% Company report 30% 35% 33% 21% calculated

New Emisison Rate (lb/mmBtu) 0.24 Company report 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24 Company report

New Emissions (tpy) 28,982 calculated 24,354 7,853 8,145 8,356 calculated

Emissions Reduction (tpy) 26,753 Company report 10,449 4,198 3,978 2,273 calculated

Capital Cost $ 42,000,000 Company report 42,000,000 $ 14,000,000 $ 14,000,000 $ 14,000,000 Company report

Capital Cost ($/kW) $ 19 calculated $ 19 $ 19 $ 19 $ 19 calculated

O&M Cost $ - Company report $ - $ - $ - Company report

Total Annual Cost $ 4,866,000 Company report 4,866,000 $ 1,622,000 $ 1,622,000 $ 1,622,000 Company report

Cost-Effectiveness ($/ton) $ 182 Company report $ 466 $ 386 $ 408 $ 713 calculated

Proposed BART limit (lb/mmBtu) 0.24 Company report 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24 Company report

Effective Reduction from Current 50% calculated 33% 35% 33% 21% calculated

Effective BART Limit (tpy) 29,378 calculated 29,378 9,985 10,222 9,171 calculated

Effective Reduction from Current (tpy) 26,358 calculated 5,425 2,066 1,901 1,458 calculated

Visibility analyses

Visibility Impact before BART (dv at Max Class I) 2.684 calculated 6.609 NPS results

Visibility Impact after BART (dv at Max Class I) 2.312 calculated 5.477 NPS results

Visibility Improvement (dv at Max Class I) 0.372 Company report 1.131 0.455 0.431 0.246 NPS results

Cost-Effectiveness ($/98th % dv at Max Class I) $ 13,080,645 Company report $ 4,301,120 $ 3,568,620 $ 3,766,259 $ 6,589,482 NPS results

Pollutant Control Effectiveness (dv/ton) 0.000014 calculated 0.00011 0.00011 0.00011 0.00011 NPS results

Visibility Impact before BART (dv at Summed Class I) 19.209 calculated 39.242 NPS results

Visibility Impact after BART (dv at Summed Class I) 15.143 calculated 28.184 NPS results

Visibility Improvement (dv at Summed Class I) 4.067 calculated 11.058 4.443 4.209 2.406 NPS results

Cost-Effectiveness ($/98th % dv at Summed Class I) $ 1,196,557 calculated $ 440,043 $ 365,102 $ 385,322 $ 674,164 NPS results

Pollutant Control Effectiveness (dv/ton) 0.00015 calculated 0.00106 0.00106 0.00106 0.00106 NPS results
Operating Company Northshore Mining

Facility Name Silver Bay Power Plant

Contact Anne Jackson

Distance to nearest Class I Area (km) BWCA

# of Class I Areas evaluated/within 300 km 1 (BWCA) of ?

Data Source

Proposed Controls LNB+OFA MPCA report The Silver Bay Power

EGU Unit #2 plant has two boilers identified as Unit 1 and Unit 2. Unit 1 has a wall-fired configuration with

Boiler type wall-fired MPCA report a maximum heat input rating of 517 MMBtu/hr heat input and about 35 megawatts output. Unit

Fuel sub-bituminous MPCA report 2 has a dry bottom, front-wall fired configuration with a maximum heat input rating of 765

Rating each (MW gross) 75 MPCA report MMBtu/hr and an output of 75 megawatts. Both units are permitted to fire natural gas and coal,

Presumptive BART limit (lb/mmBtu) 0.23 BART Guidelines and both use a fabric filter to control particulate matter (PM). NOX emissions are controlled

Heat Input (mmBtu/hr) 765 MPCA report through good combustion practices. There are no post-combustion SO2 controls.

Current Emissions (tpy) 1,870 calculated Boiler No. 2 at the facility is subject to BART as start-up for this unit was in 1963. Boiler No. 1

Current Emisison Rate (lb/mmBtu) 0.62 MPCA report is not subject to BART because start-up of that unit was in 1959, prior to the BART-eligibility

date of 1962.

Cost-benefit Analyses

Control Efficiency 40% MPCA report

New Emisison Rate (lb/mmBtu) 0.37 MPCA report

New Emissions (tpy) 1,122 calculated

Emissions Reduction (tpy) 748 MPCA report

Capital Cost $ 3,420,000 company report

Capital Cost ($/kW) $ 46 calculated

O&M Cost $ -

Total Annual Cost $ 472,370 MPCA report

Cost-Effectiveness ($/ton) $ 632 MPCA report

Proposed BART limit (lb/mmBtu) 0.37 MPCA report

Effective Reduction from Current 40% calculated

Effective BART Limit (tpy) 1,246 calculated

Effective Reduction from Current (tpy) 624 calculated

Visibility analyses

Visibility Improvement (dv at Max Class I) 0.817 calculated

Cost-Effectiveness ($/98th % dv at Max Class I) $ 967,971 calculated

Pollutant Control Effectiveness (dv/ton) 0.00109 calculated from company report Table 5-18 /Table A-1.

Visibility Improvement (dv at Summed Class I)

Cost-Effectiveness ($/98th % dv at Summed Class I)

Pollutant Control Effectiveness (dv/ton)
Operating company Xcel Energy

Facility Pawnee

State CO

Contact Lisa Clarke Lisa.Clarke@dphe.state.co.us (303) 692-3117

Proposed Controls

addition of SCR to 

existing 

LNB+CCOFA

Unit #1

Boiler Type tangential CDPHE report

Fuel PRB CDPHE report

Rating (MW Gross) each 500 CDPHE report

Presumptive BART limit (lb/mmBtu) 0.23 BART Guidelines for units > 200 MW at facility > 750 MW

Rating (mmBtu/hr) CDPHE report

Current Emissions (tpy) 4,538 CDPHE report

Current Emissions (lb/mmBtu) 0.22 CDPHE report

Current Control Efficiency CDPHE report

Cost-benefit Analysis

Addiitonal Control Efficiency 68.2% CDPHE report

Controlled Emissions (lb/mmBtu) 0.070 CDPHE report

Controlled emissions (tpy) 1,403 CDPHE report

Emission Reductions (tpy) 3,134 CDPHE report

Capital Cost 

Capital Cost ($/kW)

O&M Cost 

Annualized Cost $ 13,700,681 calculated

Cost-Effectiveness ($/ton) $ 4,371 CDPHE report

Proposed BART Limits

Proposed BART Limit (company)

Proposed BART Limit (CDPHE) 0.07 lb/mmBtu 30-day rolling average

Effective Reduction from Current

Effective BART Limit (tpy) calculated

Effective Reduction from Current

Visibility analyses

Visibility Impact before BART (dv at Max Class I) 1.19

Visibility Impact after BART (dv at Max Class I)

Visibility Improvement (dv at Max Class I)

Cost-Effectiveness ($/98th % dv at Max Class I)

Pollutant Control Effectiveness (dv/ton)

Visibility Impact before BART (dv at Summed Class I)

Visibility Impact after BART (dv at Summed Class I)

Visibility Improvement (dv at Summed Class I)

Cost-Effectiveness ($/98th % dv at Summed Class I)

Pollutant Control Effectiveness (dv/ton)

Δdv improvement figures relating to CALPUFF modeling for certain emissions control

types, as follows.

- For the highest-performing NOx post-combustion control options (i.e., SCR

systems for electric generating units) that do not exceed $5,000/ton of pollutant

reduced by the state’s calculation, and which provide a modeled visibility benefit

on 0.50 Δdv or greater at the primary Class I Area affected, that level of control is

generally viewed as reasonable.

- For lesser-performing NOx post-combustion control options (e.g., SNCR

technologies for electric generating units) that do not exceed $5,000/ton of

pollutant reduced by the state’s calculation, and which provide a modeled

visibility benefit of 0.20 Δdv or greater at the primary Class I Area affected, that

level of control is generally viewed as reasonable.
Operating Company Rochester Public Utilities

Facility Name Silver Lake Plant

State MN

Contact Anne Jackson

Distance to nearest Class I Area (km)

# of Class I Areas evaluated/within 300 km

Proposed Controls ROFA/Rotamix

EGU Unit #4 MPCA report

Boiler type wall-fired MPCA report

Fuel bituminous MPCA report

Rating each (MW gross) 60 MPCA report

Presumptive BART limit (lb/mmBtu)

Heat Input (mmBtu/hr) 600 NPS assumption

Current Emissions (tpy) 3,175 MPCA report 451 CAM data for 2002 - 2004

Current Emisison Rate (lb/mmBtu) 0.44 CAM data for 2002 - 2004

Cost-benefit Analyses

Control Efficiency 43% calculated

New Emisison Rate (lb/mmBtu) 0.25 MPCA report

New Emissions (tpy) 2,866 MPCA report 259 calculated

Emissions Reduction (tpy) 309 calculated 192 calculated

Capital Cost 

Capital Cost ($/kW)

O&M Cost 

Total Annual Cost 

Cost-Effectiveness ($/ton)

Proposed BART limit (lb/mmBtu) 0.25 The MPCA has determined that installation of the Mobotec system represents BART for NOX on Unit 4. 

Effective Reduction from Current 43% Initial operation of Mobotec has shown an emission rate of 0.25 lbs/mmBtu is achievable on a 30-day rolling average basis.

Effective BART Limit (tpy) 657

Effective Reduction from Current (tpy)

Visibility analyses none conducted

Visibility Improvement (dv at Max Class I)

Cost-Effectiveness ($/98th % dv at Max Class I)

Pollutant Control Effectiveness (dv/ton)

Visibility Improvement (dv at Summed Class I)

Cost-Effectiveness ($/98th % dv at Summed Class I)

Pollutant Control Effectiveness (dv/ton)
Operating company

Facility

State

Contact

Proposed Controls proposed SCR

Unit 1

Boiler Type dry-bottom wall-fired

Fuel sub-bituminous

Rating (MW Gross) each 360

Presumptive BART limit (lb/mmBtu) 0.23

Rating (mmBtu/hr) 3,707

Uncontrolled Emissions (tpy) 5,394

Uncontrolled Emissions (lb/mmBtu) 0.43

LNB+OFA (added under Consent Decree)

Control Efficiency 23%

Controlled emissions (lb/mmBtu) 0.30

Controlled Emissions (tpy) 4,140

Emissions Reduction (tpy) 1,254

Capital Cost $ 14,580,000

Capital Cost ($/kW) $ 40

O&M Cost $ 2,000

Annualized Cost $ 1,422,000

Cost-Effectiveness ($/ton) $ 1,134

SCR (proposed BART)

Control Efficiency 77%

Controlled emissions (lb/mmBtu) 0.07

Controlled Emissions (tpy) 966

Emissions Reduction (tpy) 3,174

Capital Cost $ 164,732,000

Capital Cost ($/kW) $ 458

O&M Cost $5,252,000

Total Annual Cost $21,988,000

Cost-Effectiveness ($/ton) $ 6,928

LNB+OFA+SCR

Control Efficiency 84%

Controlled emissions (lb/mmBtu) 0.07

Controlled Emissions (tpy) 966

Emissions Reduction (tpy) 4,428

Capital Cost $ 179,312,000

Capital Cost ($/kW) $ 498

O&M Cost $ 5,254,000

Annualized Cost $ 23,410,000

Cost-Effectiveness ($/ton) $ 5,287

Proposed BART Limits

Proposed BART limit (company) 0.30
Proposed State BART limit 0.03 - 0.07

Effective BART Limit (tpy)

Effective Reduction from Current

Effective Reduction from Current

Visibility analyses

Visibility Impact before CD (dv at Max Class I) 1.66

Visibility Impact after CD (dv at Max Class I) 1.34

Visibility Improvement (dv at Max Class I) 0.32

Pollutant Control Effectiveness (dv/ton) 0.00025

Visibility Impact before CD (dv at Summed Class I) 7.47

Visibility Impact after CD (dv at Summed Class I) 5.92

Visibility Improvement (dv at Summed Class I) 1.55

Pollutant Control Effectiveness (dv/ton) 0.00124

Visibility Impact after BART (dv at Max Class I) 0.67

Visibility Improvement (dv at Max Class I) 0.67

Cost-Effectiveness ($/98th % dv at Max Class I) $ 32,982,000

Pollutant Control Effectiveness (dv/ton) 0.00021

Visibility Impact after BART (dv at Summed Class I) 2.82

Visibility Improvement (dv at Summed Class I) 3.10

Cost-Effectiveness ($/98th % dv at Summed Class I) $ 7,085,285

Pollutant Control Effectiveness (dv/ton) 0.00098
Public Service of New Mexico

San Juan Generating Station

NM

Elizabeth Bisbey-Kuehn

proposed SCR proposed SCR proposed SCR

2 3 4

dry-bottom wall-fired dry-bottom wall-fired dry-bottom wall-fired

sub-bituminous sub-bituminous sub-bituminous

350 544 544 NMED report

0.23 0.23 0.23 BART Guidelines for wall-fired boiler > 200 M

 3,688 5,758 5,649 NMED report

6,179 9,004 8,833 calculated

 0.45 0.42 0.42 calculated

33% 29% 29% NMED report

0.30 0.30 0.30 CD limit

4,119 6,431 6,309 NMED report

2,060 2,573 2,524 NMED report

$ 14,126,000 $ 12,715,000 $ 12,870,000 NMED report

$ 40 $ 23 $ 24 calculated

$ 2,000 $ 2,000 $ 2,000 company report Appendix C

$ 1,378,000 $ 1,240,000 $ 1,256,000 NMED report

$ 669 $ 482 $ 498 NMED report

77% 77% 77% calculated

0.07 0.07 0.07 NMED report

961 1,501 1,472 NMED report

3,158 4,931 4,837 NMED report

$ 177,178,000 $ 227,774,000 $ 211,764,000 NMED report

$ 506 $ 419 $ 389 calculated

$5,406,000 $7,363,000 $7,155,000 Company report

$23,364,000 $30,527,000 $28,760,000 NMED report

$ 7,398 $ 6,191 $ 5,946 NMED report

84% 83% 83% calculated

0.07 0.07 0.07 calculated

961 1,501 1,472 calculated

5,218 7,504 7,361 calculated

$ 191,304,000 $ 240,489,000 $ 224,634,000 calculated

$ 547 $ 442 $ 413 calculated

$ 5,408,000 $ 7,365,000 $ 7,157,000 calculated

$ 24,742,000 $ 31,767,000 $ 30,016,000 calculated

$ 4,742 $ 4,233 $ 4,078 calculated

0.3 0.30 0.30 PSNM
0.03 - 0.07 0.03 - 0.07 0.03 - 0.07 NMED

1.66 2.08 2.09 calculated

1.34 1.73 1.72 calculated

0.32 0.35 0.37 calculated

0.00016 0.00013 0.00015 calculated

7.50 10.54 10.65 calculated

5.89 8.31 8.20 calculated

1.60 2.23 2.45 calculated

0.00078 0.00087 0.00097 calculated

0.67 0.94 0.92 calculated

0.67 0.79 0.80 calculated

$ 34,871,642 $ 38,479,412 $ 35,950,000 calculated

0.00021 0.00016 0.00017 calculated

3.08 4.07 4.01 calculated

3.10 4.24 4.19 calculated

$ 7,528,679 $ 7,194,108 $ 6,858,506 calculated

0.00098 0.00086 0.00087 calculated
or wall-fired boiler > 200 MW firing sub-bituminous coal at facility > 750 MW
Operating Company Xcel Energy Xcel Energy

Facility Name Sherburne County Generating StationSherburne County Generating Station

Contact Anne Jackson

Distance to nearest Class I Area (km)

# of Class I Areas evaluated/within 300 km 3 of 3

Data Source The air pollution control equipment for Units 1 and 2 consists primarily of spray towers (wet

Proposed Controls LNB+SOFA

Combustion 

Optimization MPCA report scrubbing) and high efficiency wet electrostatic precipitators to control particulate and sulfur

EGU Unit #1 Unit #2 Combined dioxide (SO2) emissions. In 2007 Xcel installed low NOX burners, separated/close coupled overfire

Boiler type tangential tangential MPCA report air systems, and a combustion optimization system for Unit 1. For Unit 2, Xcel installed a

Fuel sub-bituminous sub-bituminous MPCA report computer based combustion optimization system for the overfire air system in 2006.

Rating each (MW gross) 690 683 1,373 MPCA report

Presumptive BART limit (lb/mmBtu) 0.15 0.15 BART Guidelines EGU >200 MW at facility >750 MW

Heat Input (mmBtu/hr) 7,111 7,111 14,222 MPCA report

Current Emissions (tpy) 9,300 5,500 14,800 calculated

Current Emisison Rate (lb/mmBtu) 0.34 0.20 company report

Cost-benefit Analyses

Control Efficiency 56% 25% calculated

New Emisison Rate (lb/mmBtu) 0.15 0.15 MPCA report

New Emissions (tpy) 4,100 4,100 8,200 company report

Emissions Reduction (tpy) 5,200 1,400 6,600 combined

Capital Cost $ 19,000,000 $ 4,200,000 $ 23,200,000 company report

Capital Cost ($/kW) $ 28 $ 6 $ 17 calculated

O&M Cost $ 400,000 $ 100,000 $ 500,000 company report

Total Annual Cost $ 2,200,000 $ 490,000 $ 2,690,000 combined

Cost-Effectiveness ($/ton) $ 423 $ 350 $ 408 MPCA report

The MPCA has determined that the NOx emissions limitation of 0.15 lb/MMBtu on a 30-day

Proposed BART limit (lb/mmBtu) 0.15 0.15 MPCA report rolling average is BART for Sherco Units 1 and 2. The emission limits are achieved with low NOx

Effective Reduction from Current 56% 25% calculated burners and overfire air at Sherco 1 and additional computerized combustion controls on Unit 2.

Effective BART Limit (tpy) 4,672 4,672 calculated The technology achieves the “presumptive BART” emissions rate, and does not prohibit or prevent

Effective Reduction from Current (tpy) 4,628 828 calculated the future installation of any known additional NOx control technology.

Visibility analyses combined

Visibility Impact before BART (dv at Max Class I) 2.68 company report

Visibility Impact after BART (dv at Max Class I)

Visibility Improvement (dv at Max Class I) 0.45 0.12 0.57 company report (tables 23 - 26)

Cost-Effectiveness ($/98th % dv at Max Class I) $ 4,898,785 $ 4,052,632 $ 4,719,298 company report

Pollutant Control Effectiveness (dv/ton) 0.00009 0.00009 0.00009 combined

Visibility Impact before BART (dv at Summed Class I) 6.81 calculated

Visibility Impact after BART (dv at Summed Class I)

Visibility Improvement (dv at Summed Class I) 1.13 0.31 1.44 calculated from company report (tables 23 - 26)

Cost-Effectiveness ($/98th % dv at Summed Class I) $ 1,939,103 $ 1,604,167 $ 1,868,056 combined

Pollutant Control Effectiveness (dv/ton) 0.00022 0.00022 0.00022 combined
Operating company Great River Energy

Facility Stanton 

State ND

Contact Tom Bachman tbachman@nd.gov

Proposed Controls LNB+OFA+SNCR LNB+OFA+SNCR 

Unit #1 #1

Boiler Type wall-fired wall-fired

Fuel Lignite PRB

Rating (MW Gross) 188 188 ND DOH report

Presumptive BART limit (lb/mmBtu) 0.29 0.23 BART Guidelines for wall-fired boiler 

Rating (mmBtu/hr) 1,800 1,800 ND DOH report

Currrent Emissions (tpy) 2,048 2,048 ND DOH report The ‘BART Eligible’ Unit 1 coal-fired boiler has a dry bottom, 

Current Emisison Rate (lb/mmBtu) 0.42 0.42 ND DOH report front wall fired configuration with ratings of 1,800 MMBtu/hr; or an output of 188 

Baseline Emissions (tpy) 2,137 1,740 ND DOH report megawatts on PRB. Stanton Station is currently permitted to fire both Lignite and PRB 

Baseline Emisison Rate (lb/mmBtu) 0.44 0.36 ND DOH report coal. 

ND DOH Cost-benefit Analysis

Control Efficiency 45% 45% ND DOH report

Controlled emissions (tpy) 1,156 946 ND DOH report

Controlled emissions (lb/mmBtu) 0.239 0.196 ND DOH report

Emission Reductions (tpy) 983 794 ND DOH report

Capital Cost $ 8,338,450 $ 8,406,968 company report

Capital Cost ($/kW) $ 44 $ 45 calculated

O&M Cost $ 1,998,959 $ 4,308,007 company report

Annualized Cost $ 3,000,000 $ 3,000,000 ND DOH report

Cost-Effectiveness ($/ton) $ 3,052 $ 3,778 ND DOH report

ND DOH Proposed BART Limits

Proposed BART limit (company) 0.35 ND DOH report The Department proposes that BART is 

Proposed State BART limit 0.29 0.23 lb/mmBtu (30-day rolling average) represented by low-NOx burners (LNB) plus over-fire air (OFA) 

Effective Reduction from Current 31% 45% calculated plus selective non-catalytic reduction (SNCR). The Department 

Effective BART Limit (tpy) 2,286 1,813 calculated proposes that BART when combusting PRB coal is an emission 

Effective Reduction from Current (tpy) (149) (73) calculated limit of 0.23 lb/106 Btu on a 30-day rolling average basis.

Effective Reduction from Current (tpy) -7% -4% calculated limit of 0.23 lb/106 Btu on a 30-day rolling average basis.

Visibility analyses

Visibility Improvement (dv at Max Class I) 0.091 0.073 calculated from lignite modeling

Cost-Effectiveness ($/98th % dv at Max Class I) $ 33,088,235 $ 40,964,402 calculated from lignite modeling

Pollutant Control Effectiveness (dv/ton) 0.00009 0.00009 calculated from lignite modeling

Visibility Improvement (dv at Summed Class I) 0.177 0.143 calculated from lignite modeling

Cost-Effectiveness ($/98th % dv at Summed Class I) $ 16,917,293 $ 20,944,206 calculated from lignite modeling

Pollutant Control Effectiveness (dv/ton) 0.00018 0.00018 calculated from lignite modeling
Operating Company Minnesota Power

Facility Name Taconite Harbor

State MN

Contact Anne Jackson

Distance to nearest Class I Area (km)

# of Class I Areas evaluated/within 300 km

Proposed Controls ROFA/Rotamix MNPWR report Minnesota Power has undertaken an emissions reduction project for the three generating units,

EGU Unit #3 MPCA report referred to as the Arrowhead Regional Emissions Abatement (AREA) Project. Minnesota Power

Boiler type tangential MPCA report selected to begin the project with the retrofitting of Unit 2, which is not a BART eligible unit due

Fuel bit/sub-bituminous MPCA report to its construction date (1957). The MPCA issued permit no. 03100001-006 on January 8, 2007

Rating each (MW gross) 75 MPCA report that allows Power boiler No. 2 to be retrofitted with additional air pollution controls as a

Presumptive BART limit (lb/mmBtu) 0.15 BART Guidelines demonstration project.

Heat Input (mmBtu/hr) 745 MNPWR report

Current Emissions (tpy) 1,250 MNPWR report The emissions reduction project involves the installation of Nalco-Mobotec’s ROFA/Rotomix

Current Emisison Rate (lb/mmBtu) 0.40 MNPWR report control system to reduction NOx and SO2. Additionally, Mobotec’s “Minplus” injection system

was installed to control mercury emissions. The project also involved modifying the electrostatic

Cost-benefit Analyses

Control Efficiency 68% MNPWR report precipitators from “hot-side” to “cold-side”.

New Emisison Rate (lb/mmBtu) 0.13 MNPWR report Operation of the Rotamix system throughout 2008 demonstrated that the ROFA/Rotamix system

New Emissions (tpy) 410 calculated controlled emissions below the “presumptive BART” level for very large power boilers of 0.15

Emissions Reduction (tpy) 840 MNPWR report lb/MMBtu. Operation of the system however did not achieved SO2 removals as planned.

Capital Cost $ 8,113,000 MNPWR report Therefore the MPCA requested Minnesota Power prepare a BART analysis for Unit 3. The

Capital Cost ($/kW) $ 108 calculated analysis for NOx, SO2 and PM was submitted November 2008, recommending the installation of

O&M Cost $ 1,288,000 MNPWR report a fabric filter to achieve up to 50% removal of SO2 with the use of Rotamix.

Total Annual Cost $ 2,876,000 MNPWR report

Cost-Effectiveness ($/ton) $ 3,424 MNPWR report

Proposed BART limit (lb/mmBtu) 0.13 MPCA report The MPCA concurs with Minnesota Power’s assessment of controls and their costs. NalcoEffective Reduction from Current 68% calculated Mobotec is BART for NOx; furnace sorbent injection with a PM10 control limit of 0.012

Effective BART Limit (tpy) 424 calculated lb/MMBtu, achievable with the installation of a new fabric filter, is BART for SO2 and PM10.

Effective Reduction from Current (tpy) 826 calculated

Visibility analyses none conducted

Visibility Improvement (dv at Max Class I)

Cost-Effectiveness ($/98th % dv at Max Class I)

Pollutant Control Effectiveness (dv/ton)

Visibility Improvement (dv at Summed Class I)

Cost-Effectiveness ($/98th % dv at Summed Class I)

Pollutant Control Effectiveness (dv/ton)
Operating company Nevada Energy

Facility Tracy Generating Station

State NV

Contact Adele King Malone amalone@ndep.nv.gov (775) 687-9356

Proposed Controls LNB+FGR LNB+FGR LNB+SNCR

Unit Unit #1 Unit #2 Unit #3

Boiler type

front wall-fired boiler 

manufactured by Riley Stoker

front wall-fired boiler 

manufactured by Babcock 

and Wilcox

front wall-fired boiler 

manufactured by Babcock 

and Wilcox

Tracy 1 began operation in 1963. Tracy 2 began 

operation in 1965. Tracy 3 began operation in 1974.

Fuel Pipeline NG & blended Fuel Oil NDEP report

Rating (MW Gross) 55 83 113 NDEP report

Presumptive BART limit (lb/mmBtu) BART Guidelines 

Rating (mmBtu/hr) 731 1,004 1,150 company report

Max 24-hr Emisison Rate (lb/mmBtu) 0.275 0.473 0.323 company report

Total Heat Input allowed (mmBtu) 6,403,560 8,795,040 10,074,000 NDEP report

Base heat input (mmBtu) 1,772,289 2,591,991 5,485,741 NDEP report

Base Emissions (tpy) 221 321 795 NDEP report

Base Emissions (lb/mmBtu) 0.28 0.47 0.32 company report

State Cost-benefit Analysis

Control Efficiency 41.2% 51.4% 37.2% NDEP report

New Emisison Rate (lb/mmBtu) 0.147 0.120 0.182 NDEP report

New Emissions (tpy) 130 156 498 NDEP report

Emissions Reduction (tpy) 91 165 296 NDEP report

Capital Cost $ 1,820,000 $ 2,156,000 $ 4,431,875 NDEP report

Capital Cost ($/kW) 33 26 39 company report

O&M Cost $ 83,589 $ 169,768 $ 236,432 NDEP report

Total Annual Cost $ 276,611 $ 398,425 $ 706,459 NDEP report

Cost-Effectiveness ($/ton) $ 3,040 $ 2,415 $ 2,387 NDEP report

Proposed BART Limits

Proposed BART limit (lb/mmBtu ann. avg.) 0.25 0.29 0.27 company report

Proposed BART limit (lb/mmBtu ann. avg.) 0.15 0.12 0.19 NDEP report

Effective Reduction from Current 46.4% 74.5% 40.6% calculated

Effective BART Limit (tpy) 480 528 957 calculated

Effective Reduction from Current (tpy) (259) (207) (162) calculated

Visibility analyses

Visibility Improvement (dv at Max Class I) 0.047 0.128 0.072 company report for Desolation Wilderness 

Cost-Effectiveness ($/98th % dv at Max Class I) $ 5,885,340 $ 3,112,695 $ 9,811,931 company report

Pollutant Control Effectiveness (dv/ton) 0.00062 0.00036 0.00020 calculated from company report

Visibility Improvement (dv at Summed Class I) 0.562 0.597 0.608 calculated from company report

Cost-Effectiveness ($/98th % dv at Summed Class I) $ 492,594 $ 667,379 $ 1,161,773 calculated from company report

Pollutant Control Effectiveness (dv/ton) 0.00617 0.00362 0.00205 calculated from company report

CH2M HILL was requested to perform a BART analysis for NV

Energy

Based on an evaluation of the cost per Idv reduction from Tables 5-4 and 5-5, LNB with

FGR is selected as BART for Tracy 1.

Based on an evaluation of the cost per Idv reduction from Tables 5-4 and 5-5, new LNB is

selected as BART for Tracy 2.

Based on an evaluation of the cost per Idv reduction from Tables 5-4 and 5-5, new LNB is

selected as BART for Tracy 3.
Operating company PacifiCorp

Facility Wyodak

State WY

Contact

Proposed Controls Low NOx Burners with Overfire Air

Unit

Boiler Type wall-fired WY DEQ Wyodak is equipped with a wall-fired boiler manufactured by Babcock & Wilcox

Fuel sub-bituminous WY DEQ

Rating (MW Gross) 335 WY DEQ

Presumptive BART limit (lb/mmBtu) 0.23 wall-fired boiler > 200 MW burning sub-bituminous coal 

Rating (mmBtu/hr) 4,700 WY DEQ

Current Emissions (tpy) 5,744 calculated

Current Emission Rate (lb/mmBtu) 0.31 Company report

Cost-benefit Analyses

Control Efficiency 25.8% Company report

New Emission Rate (lb/mmBtu) 0.23 WY DEQ

New Emissions (tpy) 4,261 WY DEQ

Emissions Reduction (tpy) 1,483 WY DEQ

Capital Cost $ 13,100,000 WY DEQ

Capital Cost ($/kW) $ 39 calculated

O&M Cost $60,000 WY DEQ

Total Annual Cost $1,306,203 WY DEQ

Cost-Effectiveness ($/ton) $ 881 WY DEQ

Proposed BART Limits

Proposed BART limit (company) 0.28 Company report

Proposed BART limit (WY) 0.23 WY DEQ

Effective Reduction from Current 9.7% calculated

Effective BART Limit (tpy) 4,735 WY DEQ

Effective Reduction from Current (tpy) 1,009 calculated

Visibility analyses

Visibility Improvement (dv at Max Class I) 0.402 calculated

Cost-Effectiveness ($/98th % dv at Max Class I) $ 3,250,682 calculated

Pollutant Control Effectiveness (dv/ton) 0.00027 calculated

Visibility Improvement (dv at Summed Class I) 0.707 calculated

Cost-Effectiveness ($/98th % dv at Summed Class I) $ 1,847,468 calculated

Pollutant Control Effectiveness (dv/ton) 0.00048 calculated

PacifiCorp statement: Table 5-3 shows that the incremental cost effectiveness for Scenario 1, compared to the

Baseline, is at $350,000 per day and $16.3 million per dV to improve visibility at Badlands

NP.