## Operating company Otter Tail Power PGE

Facility Big Stone Generating Station Boardman

State SD Oregon

Proposed Controls SOFA+SCR BART LNB+OFA 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

$

## 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 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

$

## Great River Energy Tri-State generation Colorado Springs Utilities

Coal Creek Craig Craig Martin Drake

ND CO CO CO

LNB+SOFA addition of OFA to existing LNB ULNB #2 #1 #2 #5 #6 #7

tangential dry-bottom, wallfired dry-bottom, wallfired wall-fired wall-fired wall-fired

ND lignite 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 1,607 779 806 154 283 583 5,260,000 $ 10 $

- $

-

$

-

$ 660,000 $ 3,797,000

$ 3,797,000

$ $105,000 $105,000 $386,000 411 $ 4,874

$ 4,711

$ 682

$ 371

$ 662

$

0.17 0.27 0.27 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

0.100 0.31 0.31 0.07 0.18 0.24 6,580,303 $ 12,248,387

$ 12,248,387

$ 1,500,000

$ 583,333

$ 1,608,333

$

0.187 3,520,388 $ addition of SNCR to existing LNB+OFA

## 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

Wa ll-fired Wa ll-fired Wa ll-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

## Neveda Energy Xcel Energy

Reid Gardner Hayden

NV CO

LNB+OFA ROFA +

Rotamix ROFA +

Rotamix ROFA +

Rotamix 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

## 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

## 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

## 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 #2Dry bottom wallfired boiler Dry 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

$

## 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 wallfired dry-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

$

## Public Service of New Mexico Northshore Mining Rochester

Public Utilities Xcel Energy

San 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 #1dry-bottom wallfired dry-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 $

## 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

$

## PacifiCorp PG&E

Tracy Generating 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

Pipeline NG & 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

tangential

sub-bituminous 530

WY DEQ 0.07 lb/mmBtu 0.15

## PacifiCorp TransAlta

Jim Bridger Centralia

WY WA SCR CC+SCR SCR

BART + RP existing LNB+OFA JB #3 JB #4 Combined Combined

tangential

PRB sub-bituminous 2,120 1405

0.15 4,493 8,987 4,494 22,468 166,500,000 $ 177,800,000

$ 166,500,000

$ 366,900,000

$ 314 $ 335

$ 314

$ 173

$ $19,151,456 $20,296,400 $19,151,456 41,737,744 $ 4,262 $ 2,258

$ 4,262

$ 1,858

$

0.24 lb/mmBtu WA DOE

1.317 1.237 1.237 4.759 3.899 0.994 0.595 0.916 3.148 3.899 0.323 0.642 0.321 1.611 0.000 59,292,433 $ 31,617,848

$ 59,661,857

$ 25,907,328

$ 2.802 2.613 2.613 10.152 24.298

1.343 7.001 24.298 0.627 1.270 0.635 3.151 0.000 30,544,587 $ 15,983,196

$ 30,159,773

$ 13,245,549

$

- PacifiCorp

RP = CC+SCR Jim Bridger

WY

RP = CC+SCR Jim Bridger

tangential

sub-bituminous WY

530 tangential

sub-bituminous 530

WY DEQ 0.07 lb/mmBtu WY DEQ 0.07 lb/mmBtu 0.15 0.15

## Arizona Public

Service Basin Electric

Power Minnkota

Power PacifiCorp Salt River Project Xcel Energy

Four Corners Power Plant Leland Olds MR Young Naughton Navajo Generating Station Sherburne

County Generating Station Navajo Nation (NM) ND ND WY EPA R-9 MN

LNB+SOFA Combined Combined Combined Combined Combined Combined

ND lignite & PRB 2,185 656 734 700 2,250 1,373 0.28 14,203 7,799 14,242 10,525 11,390 6,600 38,645,000 $ 23,034,000

$ 25,241,000

$ 155,500,000

$ 42,000,000 23,200,000 $ 18 $ 35

$ 34

$ 222

$ 19

$ 17

$ 9,793,000 $ 13,969,000

$ 18,877,000

$ 17,621,633

$ 4,866,000

$ 2,690,000

$ 690 $ 1,791

$ 1,325

$ 1,674.25

$ 427

$ 408

$

0.24 lb/mmBtu SRP

6.224 10.096 5.794 5.726 6.609 2.68 5.685 9.385 4.017 4.643 5.477 0.28 0.711 1.777 1.083 1.131 0.57 34,726,950 $ 19,637,139

$ 10,624,953

$ 16,276,750

$ 4,301,120

$ 4,719,298

$ 46.586 17.608 10.552 8.707 39.242 6.81 37.951 16.181 7.502 7.128 28.184 8.64 1.427 3.050 1.579 11.058 1.44 1,134,105 $ 9,789,860

$ 6,189,857

$ 11,162,915

$ 440,043

$ 1,868,056

$

## NOx Summary Statistics for BA RT at 61 EGUs Me dian Me an Ma x Min Totals Rating (MW Gross) 350 372 790 25 22,670 Presumptive BA RT limit (lb/mmBtu) 0.23 0.24 0.45 0.10 Reductions (tpy ) 2,517 3,215 16,000 0 192,879 Capital Cost 11,200,000 $ 30,622,776

$ 227,774,000

$ 0 1,500,516,018 $ Capital Cost ($/kW ) 28 $ 73

$ 506

$ 0 66 $ Total Annual Cost 1,622,000 $ 4,711,297

$ 30,527,000

$ 0 263,832,640 $ Cost-Effectiveness ($/ton) 960 $ 1,844

$ 7,398

$ 0 1,368 $

Proposed BA RT Limit 0.24 0.23 0.43 0.07 units lb/m mB tu lb/m mB tu lb/m mB tu lb/m mB tu

Visibility analyses Visibility Improvement (dv at Max Class I) 0.242 0.361 1.120 0.000 19.5 Cost-Effectiveness ($/98th % dv at Max Class I) 9,347,419 $ 14,393,806

$ 51,350,763

$ 583,333

$ 13,531,180

$ Visibility Improvement (dv at Summed Class I) 0.671 1.135 4.620 0.000 50.0 Cost-Effectiveness ($/98th % dv at Summed Class I) 3,137,147 $ 5,128,460

$ 20,944,206

$ 234,653

$ 5,280,891

$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 A nalyses 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 81,800,000 $ DENR Capital Cost ($/kW ) 10 $ company report 172 $ calculated O&M Cost 152,000 $ company report 4,110,000 $ DENR Total Annual Cost 650,000 $ company report 13,210,000 $ DENR Cost-Effectiveness ($/ton) 85 $ company report 825 $ DENR

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-bituminous OR 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 Analy

ses 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 190,800,000 $ OR DEQ BART Report 223,500,000 $ OR DEQ BART Report 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 23,100,000 $ OR DEQ BART Report 26,800,000 $ OR DEQ BART Report Cost-Effectiveness ($/ton) 778 $ OR DEQ BART Report 7,564 $ calculated 3,096 $ OR DEQ BART Report

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

analy ses 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 ### 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 Capital Cost ($/kW ) 205 $ calculated O&M Cost 2,500,000 $ company report Total Annual Cost 12,497,622 $ company report Cost-Effectiveness ($/ton) 3,201 $ company report

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 Emissions Reduction (tpy) 4,494

- 4,494 4,494 WY DEQ report 13,481 8,987 4,493 8,987 4,494 22,468 Capital Cost 11,300,000 $

-

$ 11,300,000

$ 11,300,000

$ WY DEQ report 33,900,000 $ 177,800,000

$ 166,500,000

$ 177,800,000

$ 166,500,000

$ 366,900,000

$ Capital Cost ($/kW) 21 $

-

$ 21

$ 21

$ calculated 335 $ 314

$ 335

$ 314

$ 173

$ O&M Cost $70,000

- $ $70,000 $70,000 Company report 210,000 $ $3,382,286 $3,312,286 $3,382,286 $3,312,286 6,834,572 $ Total Annual Cost $1,144,944

- $ $1,144,944 $1,144,944 WY DEQ report 3,434,832 $ $20,296,400 $19,151,456 $20,296,400 $19,151,456 41,737,744 $ Cost-Effectiveness ($/ton) 255 $

-

$ 255

$ 255

$ WY DEQ report 255 $ 2,258

$ 4,262

$ 2,258

$ 4,262

$ 1,858

$

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. 0.45 0.45 tangential tangential sub-bituminous 530 0.15 6,000 10643 sub-bituminous 530 0.15 6,000 10643

## 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 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 calculatedOperating company Tri-State generation Facility Craig State CO Contact Jim Geier james.geier@state.co.us (303) 692-3167

Proposed Controls addition of SNCR to existing LNB+OFA Unit #1 #2 Boiler Type dry-bottom, wall-fired dry-bottom, wall-fired company report Fuel Rating (MW Gross) each 428 428 company report Presumptive BART limit (lb/mmBtu) BART Guidelines for units > 200 MW at facility > 750 MW Rating (mmBtu/hr) 4,417 4,417 company report Current Emissions (tpy) Current Emissions (lb/mmBtu) 0.35 0.35 CDPHE report Current Control Efficiency ? ?

Cost-benefit Analysis Addiitonal Control Efficiency Controlled Emissions (lb/mmBtu) 0.24 0.23 CDPHE report Controlled emissions (tpy) Emission Reductions (tpy) 779 806 CDPHE report Capital Cost Capital Cost ($/kW)

- $

- $ calculated O&M Cost Annualized Cost 3,797,000 $ 3,797,000 $ CDPHE report Cost-Effectiveness ($/ton) 4,874 $ 4,711 $ CDPHE report

Proposed BART Limits Proposed BART Limit (company) Proposed BART Limit (CDPHE) 0.27 0.27 lb/mmBtu 30-day rolling average Proposed BART Limit (CDPHE) 0.24 0.23 lb/mmBtu annual average Effective Reduction from Current Effective BART Limit (tpy) 4,643 4,450 calculated Effective Reduction from Current

Visibility analyses Visibility Improvement (dv at Max Class I) 0.31 0.31 CDPHE report Cost-Effectiveness ($/98th % dv at Max Class I) 12,248,387 $ 12,248,387 $ calculated Pollutant Control Effectiveness (dv/ton) 0.00040 0.00038 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 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 Analy

sis 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

analy ses 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 Pow er Plant Four Corners Pow er 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 calculatedOperating 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 Jim Geier james.geier@state.co.us (303) 692-3167

Proposed Controls addition of SCR to existing LNB+OFA Unit #1 #2 Boiler Type dry-bottom, wall-fired tangentially-fired CAM database Fuel coal coal CAM database Rating (MW Gross) each 184 262 company report Presumptive BART limit (lb/mmBtu) BART Guidelines for units > 200 MW at facility > 750 MW Rating (mmBtu/hr) 1,992 2,678 company report Current Emissions (tpy) Current Emissions (lb/mmBtu) 0.61 0.37 CDPHE report Current Control Efficiency ? ?

Cost-benefit Analysis Addiitonal Control Efficiency Controlled Emissions (lb/mmBtu) 0.07 0.06 CDPHE report Controlled emissions (tpy) Emission Reductions (tpy) 3,120 3,032 CDPHE report Capital Cost Capital Cost ($/kW)

- $

- $ calculated O&M Cost CSU report Annualized Cost 10,560,612 $ 12,321,491 $ CDPHE report Cost-Effectiveness ($/ton) 3,385 $ 4,064 $ CDPHE report

Proposed BART Limits Proposed BART Limit (company) Proposed BART Limit (CDPHE) 0.08 0.07 lb/mmBtu 30-day rolling average Proposed BART Limit (CDPHE) 0.07 0.06 lb/mmBtu annual average Effective Reduction from Current Effective BART Limit (tpy) 611 704 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) 9,429,118 $ 14,495,872 $ calculated 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 $/dvOperating 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 availableOperating company Minnkota Pow er Minnkota Pow er 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/w ithin 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 resultsOperating 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 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 NO X 

### 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 Public Service of New Mexico

Facility San Juan Generating Station State NM Contact Elizabeth Bisbey-Kuehn

Proposed Controls proposed SCR proposed SCR Unit 1 2 Boiler Type dry-bottom wall-fired dry-bottom wall-fired Fuel sub-bituminous sub-bituminous Rating (MW Gross) each 360 350 Presumptive BART limit (lb/mmBtu) 0.23 0.23 Rating (mmBtu/hr) 3,707 3,688 Uncontrolled Emissions (tpy) 5,394 6,179 Uncontrolled Emissions (lb/mmBtu) 0.43 0.45

LNB+OFA (added under Consent Decree) Control Efficiency 23% 33% Controlled emissions (lb/mmBtu) 0.30 0.30 Controlled Emissions (tpy) 4,140 4,119 Emissions Reduction (tpy) 1,254 2,060 Capital Cost 14,580,000 $ 14,126,000 $ Capital Cost ($/kW ) 40 $ 40 $ O&M Cost 2,000 $ 2,000 $ Annualized Cost 1,422,000 $ 1,378,000 $ Cost-Effectiveness ($/ton) 1,134 $ 669 $

SCR (proposed BART) Control Efficiency 77% 77% Controlled emissions (lb/mmBtu) 0.07 0.07 Controlled Emissions (tpy) 966 961 Emissions Reduction (tpy) 3,174 3,158 Capital Cost 164,732,000 $ 177,178,000 $ Capital Cost ($/kW ) 458 $ 506 $ O&M Cost $5,252,000 $5,406,000 Total Annual Cost $21,988,000 $23,364,000 Cost-Effectiveness ($/ton) 6,928 $ 7,398 $

LNB+OFA+SCR Control Efficiency 84% 84% Controlled emissions (lb/mmBtu) 0.07 0.07 Controlled Emissions (tpy) 966 961 Emissions Reduction (tpy) 4,428 5,218 Capital Cost 179,312,000 $ 191,304,000 $ Capital Cost ($/kW ) 498 $ 547 $ O&M Cost 5,254,000 $ 5,408,000 $ Annualized Cost 23,410,000 $ 24,742,000 $ Cost-Effectiveness ($/ton) 5,287 $ 4,742 $

Proposed BART Limits Proposed BART limit (company) 0.30 0.3

## Proposed State BART limit 0.03 - 0.07 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 1.66 Visibility Impact after CD (dv at Max Class I) 1.34 1.34 Visibility Improvement (dv at Max Class I) 0.32 0.32 Pollutant Control Effectiveness (dv/ton) 0.00025 0.00016 Visibility Impact before CD (dv at Summed Class I) 7.47 7.50 Visibility Impact after CD (dv at Summed Class I) 5.92 5.89 Visibility Improvement (dv at Summed Class I) 1.55 1.60 Pollutant Control Effectiveness (dv/ton) 0.00124 0.00078

Visibility Impact after BART (dv at Max Class I) 0.67 0.67 Visibility Improvement (dv at Max Class I) 0.67 0.67 Cost-Effectiveness ($/98th % dv at Max Class I) 32,982,000 $ 34,871,642 $ Pollutant Control Effectiveness (dv/ton) 0.00021 0.00021 Visibility Impact after BART (dv at Summed Class I) 2.82 3.08 Visibility Improvement (dv at Summed Class I) 3.10 3.10 Cost-Effectiveness ($/98th % dv at Summed Class I) 7,085,285 $ 7,528,679 $ Pollutant Control Effectiveness (dv/ton) 0.00098 0.00098

## Public Service of New Mexico San Juan Generating Station

NM Elizabeth Bisbey-Kuehn

proposed SCR proposed SCR 3 4 dry-bottom wall-fired dry-bottom wall-fired sub-bituminous sub-bituminous

544 544 NMED report 0.23 0.23 BART Guidelines for wall-fired boiler > 200 MW firing sub-bituminous coal at facility > 750 MW 5,758 5,649 NMED report 9,004 8,833 calculated 0.42 0.42 calculated

29% 29% NMED report 0.30 0.30 CD limit 6,431 6,309 NMED report 2,573 2,524 NMED report 12,715,000 $ 12,870,000 $ NMED report 23 $ 24 $ calculated 2,000 $ 2,000 $ company report Appendix C 1,240,000 $ 1,256,000 $ NMED report 482 $ 498 $ NMED report

77% 77% calculated 0.07 0.07 NMED report 1,501 1,472 NMED report 4,931 4,837 NMED report 227,774,000 $ 211,764,000 $ NMED report 419 $ 389 $ calculated $7,363,000 $7,155,000 Company report $30,527,000 $28,760,000 NMED report 6,191 $ 5,946 $ NMED report

83% 83% calculated 0.07 0.07 calculated 1,501 1,472 calculated 7,504 7,361 calculated 240,489,000 $ 224,634,000 $ calculated 442 $ 413 $ calculated 7,365,000 $ 7,157,000 $ calculated 31,767,000 $ 30,016,000 $ calculated 4,233 $ 4,078 $ calculated

0.30 0.30 PSNM

## 0.03 - 0.07 0.03 - 0.07 NMED

2.08 2.09 calculated 1.73 1.72 calculated 0.35 0.37 calculated 0.00013 0.00015 calculated 10.54 10.65 calculated 8.31 8.20 calculated 2.23 2.45 calculated 0.00087 0.00097 calculated

0.94 0.92 calculated 0.79 0.80 calculated 38,479,412 $ 35,950,000 $ calculated 0.00016 0.00017 calculated 4.07 4.01 calculated 4.24 4.19 calculated 7,194,108 $ 6,858,506 $ calculated 0.00086 0.00087 calculated

## BART Guidelines for wall-fired boiler > 200 MW firing sub-bituminous coal at facility > 750 MWOperating Company Xcel Energy Xcel Energy Facility Name Sherburne County Generating Station Sherburne 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 combinedOperating 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 A nalysis 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 MNPW R 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 MNPW R report Current Emissions (tpy) 1,250 MNPW R report The emissions reduction project involves the installation of Nalco-Mobotec’s ROFA/Rotomix Current Emisison Rate (lb/mmBtu) 0.40 MNPW R 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% MNPW R report precipitators from “hot-side” to “cold-side”. New Emisison Rate (lb/mmBtu) 0.13 MNPW R 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 MNPW R report lb/MMBtu. Operation of the system however did not achieved SO2 removals as planned. Capital Cost 8,113,000 $ MNPW R 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 $ MNPW R report a fabric filter to achieve up to 50% removal of SO2 with the use of Rotamix. Total Annual Cost 2,876,000 $ MNPW R report Cost-Effectiveness ($/ton) 3,424 $ MNPW R 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.