[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 71 (Thursday, April 12, 2012)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 21896-21908]
[FR Doc No: 2012-8713]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R09-OAR-2011-0130, FRL-9658-5]

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
State of Nevada; Regional Haze State and Federal Implementation Plans;
BART Determination for Reid Gardner Generating Station

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to partially approve and partially disapprove
the remaining portion of a revision to the Nevada State Implementation
Plan (SIP) to implement the regional haze program for the first
planning period through July 31, 2018. This Notice proposes to approve
the chapter of Nevada's Regional Haze SIP that requires Best Available
Retrofit Technology (BART) for emissions limits of oxides of nitrogen
(NOX) from Units 1 and 2 at the Reid Gardner Generating
Station (RGGS). We are proposing to disapprove the NOX
emissions limit for Unit 3. We are also proposing to disapprove the
provision of the RGGS BART determination that sets a 12-month rolling
average for Units 1 through 3. This Notice proposes to promulgate a
Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) that establishes certain requirements
for which the State, in a letter dated March 22, 2012, has agreed to
submit a SIP revision. The FIP sets an emissions limit of 0.20 lbs/
MMBtu (pounds per million British thermal units) for Unit 3 as BART and
requires the determination of emissions from Units 1 through 3 based on
a 30-day rolling average (averaged across all three units). In a prior
action, EPA approved Nevada's Regional Haze SIP except for its BART
determination for NOX for RGGS Units 1 through 3.

DATES: Comments: Written comments must be received at the address below
on or before May 14, 2012.
    Public Hearing: We will hold a public hearing in early May at a
location near the Facility. We will post information on the specifics
on our Web site at http://www.epa.gov/region9/air/actions/nv.html#haze
and by publishing a notice in a general circulation newspaper at least
15 days before the date of the hearing.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R09-
OAR-2011-0130 by one of the following methods:

    1. Federal Rulemaking portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow
the on-line instructions for submitting comments.
    2. Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    3. Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER> (Attention: Thomas Webb)
    4. Mail: Thomas Webb, EPA Region 9, Planning Office, Air Division,
75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, California 94105.
    5. Hand Delivery or Courier: Such deliveries are only accepted
Monday through Friday, 8:30 a.m.-4:30 p.m., excluding federal holidays.
Special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed
information.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R09-OAR-
2011-0130. Our policy is that EPA will include all comments received in
the public docket without change. EPA may make comments available
online at http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal
information provided, unless the comment includes information claimed
to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information
that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through http://www.regulations.gov or email. The http://www.regulations.gov web site
is an ``anonymous access'' system, which means EPA will not know your
identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of
your comment. If you send an email comment directly to EPA, without
going through http://www.regulations.gov, EPA will include your email
address as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket and
made available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment,
EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact information
in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If
EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot
contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your
comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special characters,
any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses. For
additional information about EPA's public docket visit the EPA Docket
Center homepage at http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm.
    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the http://www.regulations.gov index. Although it is listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available (e.g., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute). Certain other material,
such as copyrighted material, voluminous records or large maps, will be
publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket
materials are available either electronically at http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Planning Office of the Air
Division, Air-2, EPA Region 9, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA
94105. EPA requests you contact the individual listed in the FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to view the hard copy material of
the docket. You may view the hard copy material of the docket Monday
through Friday, 9-5:30 PST, excluding federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Thomas Webb, U.S. EPA, Region 9,
Planning Office, Air Division, Air-2, 75 Hawthorne Street, San
Francisco, CA 94105. Thomas Webb can be reached at telephone number
(415) 947-4139 and via electronic mail at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Definitions

    For the purpose of this document, we are giving meaning to certain
words or initials as follows:

(1) The initials BART mean or refer to Best Available Retrofit
Technology
(2) The initials CAA mean or refer to Clean Air Act
(3) The initials CCM mean or refer to EPA's Control Cost Manual
(4) The words or initials EPA, we, us or our mean or refer to the
United States Environmental Protection Agency
(5) The initials GCNP mean or refer to Grand Canyon National Park
(6) The initials IMPROVE mean or refer to Interagency Monitoring of
Protected Visual Environments
(7) The word Jarbidge means or refers to the Jarbidge Wilderness Area
(8) The initials LNB mean or refer to low NOX burners
(9) The initials LTS mean or refer to Long-Term Strategy
(10) The initials NDEP mean or refer to Nevada Division of
Environmental Protection
(11) The words Nevada and State mean or refer to the State of Nevada
(12) The initials NOX mean or refer to nitrogen oxides
(13) The initials OFA mean or refer to overfire air
(14) The initials RGGS means or refers to Reid Gardner Generating
Station Units 1 through 3
(15) The initials RHR mean or refer to Regional Haze Rule
(16) The initials ROFA mean or refer to rotating overfire air
(17) The word Rotamix means or refers to a technology that combines a
conventional SNCR system with a proprietary air and reagent injection
system
(18) The initials RPG mean or refer to Reasonable Progress Goal
(19) The initials SCR mean or refer to selective catalytic reduction
(20) The initials SIP mean or refer to State Implementation Plan
(21) The initials FIP mean or refer to Federal Implementation Plan
(22) The initials SNCR mean or refer to selective non-catalytic
reduction
(23) The initials TSD mean or refer to Technical Support Document

Table of Contents

I. Background
II. State Submittals and EPA's Prior Action
III. Overview of Proposed Action
IV. Requirements for Regional Haze SIPs
    A. Regional Haze Rule
    B. Best Available Retrofit Technology
    C. Roles of Agencies in Addressing Regional Haze
    D. Lawsuits
V. EPA's Analysis of Nevada's RH SIP
    A. Affected Class I Areas
    B. Identification of Sources Subject to BART
    C. Evaluation of Nevada's NOX BART Determination for
Reid Gardner Generating Station
    1. Costs of Compliance
    2. Degree of Visibility Improvement
    3. Existing Pollution Control Technology
    4. Remaining Useful Life of the Source
    5. Energy and Non-Air Quality Impacts
VI. Federal Implementation Plan To Address NOX BART for
Reid Gardner
    A. Unit 1 Through 3 Averaging Period
    B. Unit 3 Emission Limit
    C. Control Technology Basis
VII. EPA's Proposed Action
VIII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Background

    The CAA requires each state to develop plans, referred to as SIPs,
to meet various air quality requirements. A state must submit its SIPs
and SIP revisions to us for approval. Once approved, a SIP is
enforceable by EPA and citizens under the CAA, and is, therefore,
federally enforceable. If a state fails to make a required SIP
submittal or if we find that a state's required submittal is incomplete
or unapprovable, then we must promulgate a FIP to fill this regulatory
gap. CAA section 110(c)(1). 40 U.S.C. 7410(c).
    This proposed action is intended to fulfill the requirement that
states adopt and EPA approve SIPs that address regional haze. In 1990,
Congress added section 169B to the CAA to address regional haze issues,
and we promulgated regulations addressing regional haze in 1999. 64 FR
35714 (July 1, 1999), codified at 40 CFR part 51, subpart P. For a more
detailed discussion please see our prior proposed action at 76 FR 36450
(June 22, 2011).

II. State Submittals and EPA's Prior Action

    The Nevada Division of Environmental Protection (NDEP) adopted and
transmitted its ``Nevada Regional Haze State Implementation Plan''
(Nevada RH SIP) to EPA Region 9 with a letter dated November 18, 2009.
The Nevada RH SIP was complete by operation of law on May 18, 2010.
Nevada provided public notice and held a public hearing on the proposed
Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART) controls for four stationary
sources, including RGGS, on April 23, 2009. The State submitted to EPA
additional documentation of public process and adoption of a more
stringent emission limit for one of the BART sources on February 18,
2010. Revised Nevada Division of Environmental Protection BART
Determination Review of NV Energy's Reid Gardner Generation Station
Units 1, 2 and 3, Revised October 22, 2009 (hereinafter ``RGGS BART
Determination''). Nevada included in its SIP submittal NDEP's responses
to written comments from EPA Region 9, the National Park Service, and a
consortium of conservation organizations. NDEP responded to comments on
its RGGS BART Determination for NOX in two sections of its
documents.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See Appendix C (starting at C-8) and D (starting at D-141)
of the NV Regional Haze SIP, available as attachments to EPA-R09-
OAR-2011-0130-0003.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On June 22, 2011, EPA proposed to approve the entire Nevada
Regional Haze SIP submittal, including the RGGS BART Determination. 76
FR 36450 (June 22, 2011). EPA received adverse comments on the proposed
approval, including specific comments on NDEP's modeling and cost
analysis of the RGGS BART Determination for NOX. See
Modeling for the Reid Gardner Generating Station: Visibility Impacts in
Class I Areas, Prepared by H. Andrew Gray, Ph.D., August 2011 and
Review of EPA's Proposed Approval of a Revision to the State of
Nevada's State Implementation Plan to Implement the Regional Haze
Program, Comments on Determination of Best Available Retrofit
Technology, August 22, 2011, prepared by Petra Pless, D. Env. and Bill
Powers, P.E. \2\ (``Pless Powers Report'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Both reports can be found as attachments to EPA-R09-OAR-
2011-0130-0062, with supporting information located in -0063.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On December 13, 2011, EPA signed its final approval of the Nevada
RH SIP submittal that was published in the Federal Register on March
26, 2012. 77 FR 17334 (March 26, 2012). In our final approval, we
delayed taking any action on the Nevada's RGGS BART Determination for
NOX.\3\ EPA indicated that we needed additional time to
consider the substantial comments submitted on the RGGS BART
Determination for NOX.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ 77 FR 17334.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On December 22, 2011, we sent a letter via email to NDEP requesting
clarification on several issues related to the comments on the RGGS
BART Determination for NOX.\4\ NDEP responded on February 6
and February 14, 2012 by providing us with cost-related information.
These cost estimates consisted of updates to specific line items in
order to reflect September 2011 material costs, but did not include any
supporting information such as detailed equipment lists, vendor quotes,
or the design basis for line item costs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Email dated December 22, 2011, from Colleen McKaughan (EPA)
to Mike Elges (NDEP) and others.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA requested further information from NDEP on March 14, 2012
regarding the emissions limit that NDEP had proposed as BART for Unit
3.\5\ Comments submitted on our June 22, 2011, proposed approval
indicated that the actual average emission rate that RGGS reported for
Unit 3 was significantly lower than NDEP's BART emissions limit for
NOX of 0.28 lb/MMBtu. Pless Powers at 48. EPA also requested
information regarding NDEP's basis for allowing a 12-month rolling
average for NOX for Units 1-3, which was also raised as an
issue in the comments. Pless Powers at 52.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Email dated March 14, 2012, from Colleen McKaughan (EPA) to
Mike Elges (NDEP).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In response, NDEP informed EPA on March 22, 2012 that it had
conducted further analysis resulting in NDEP's conclusion to lower the
BART emissions limit for Unit 3 BART for NOX to 0.20 lb/
MMBtu.\6\ NDEP also informed EPA that its further analysis supported
determining the NOX BART limit for all RGGS Units based on a
30-day rolling average rather than the 12-month rolling average
contained in the adopted rules and submitted SIP, provided that
compliance is determined based on a three-unit average. Finally, NDEP
indicated that it had evaluated requiring Selective Non-Catalytic
Reduction (SNCR) with LNB and OFA rather than ROFA with Rotamix as
BART. NDEP stated that Nevada Energy had installed ROFA on Unit 4 but
that it has not operated as expected. NDEP anticipated SNCR with LNB
and OFA would produce more reliable performance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Letter dated March 22, 2012 from Mike Elges (NDEP) to
Deborah Jordan (EPA).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Nevada RH SIP included an evaluation of SNCR finding that it
would result in a higher emissions limit for each unit than ROFA with
Rotamix.\7\ NDEP's recent re-evaluation has concluded that SNCR with
LNB and OFA would result in a NOx BART emissions limit of 0.20 lb/MMBtu
for Units 1 through 3. NDEP indicates that it will submit a SIP
revision by September 2012 that evaluates the substitution of SNCR with
LNB and OFA for ROFA with Rotamix, lowers the NOX BART limit
for RGGS Unit 3, and requires a NOX emissions limit of 0.20
lb/MMBtu on a 30-day rolling average (averaged across all three
units).\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ As indicated by controlled emission rates summarized in
Table 1, NDEP Reid Gardner BART Determination, October 22, 2009.
Available as Docket Item No. EPA-R09-OAR-2011-0130-0005.
    \8\ Letter dated March 22, 2012, from Mike Elges (NDEP) to
Deborah Jordan (EPA).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Overview of Proposed Action

    Today's proposal addresses the RGGS BART Determination for
NOX, and if finalized, will complete our action on the
Nevada Regional Haze SIP submitted on November 18, 2009. In its BART
determination of RGGS, NDEP considered several control technologies,
including Selective Catalytic Reduction (SCR), SNCR and ROFA with
Rotamix. NDEP concluded that SCR would result in a very small
incremental improvement of visibility over other technologies, which
did not justify the incremental cost of installing and operating SCR.
The results of our own analysis of the incremental visibility
improvement and cost for SCR differ from NDEP's analysis in certain
respects, but support NDEP's decision to establish a NOX
BART emission limit that could be achieved with ROFA and Rotamix (or
SNCR) rather than requiring an emission limit consistent with SCR
technology. This proposal and our TSD provide additional information
concerning our approval of NDEP's determination that SCR is not
required as BART for RGGS. We considered the comments that we received
on our June 22, 2011, proposed approval. We also conducted an
independent modeling analysis to evaluate the incremental visibility
improvement attributable to the NOX emission rates indicated
in the RH SIP. Our analysis examined the visibility improvement that
would be expected by requiring RGGS to meet a NOX emission
limit of 0.06 lbs/MMbtu based on installation and operation of SCR. Our
proposed approval is based in large part on this modeling analysis,
discussed in detail below and in the TSD, showing that SCR controls at
RGGS would not result in enough incremental visibility improvement at a

single Class I area to justify the incremental cost of the
technology.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ In NDEP/Nevada Energy's analysis, and in our analysis, the
highest impacted Class I area is Grand Canyon National Park.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Therefore, we are proposing to approve NDEP's determination that
NOX BART for Units 1 and 2 is a limit of 0.20 lbs/MMBtu,
which can be achieved with ROFA with Rotamix, or with SNCR with LNB and
OFA. We are proposing to disapprove NDEP's NOX BART
determination for RGGS Unit 3 and the SIP's provision to measure
NOX emissions from Units 1 through 3 on a 12-month rolling
average. Because we are proposing to disapprove these provisions of the
SIP, we are concurrently proposing a FIP. Our FIP proposes promulgating
a NOX BART emissions limit for RGGS Unit 3 of 0.20 lbs/
MMbtu. We are also proposing a FIP provision requiring that
NOX emissions for RGGS Units 1 through 3 are measured on a
rolling 30-day average (across all three units). Our justification for
our proposed disapproval and proposed FIP provisions is discussed in
detail in our Technical Support Document (TSD) in the docket for this
Notice.

IV. Requirements for Regional Haze SIPs

A. Regional Haze Rule

    Regional haze SIPs must establish a long-term strategy that ensures
reasonable progress toward achieving natural visibility conditions in
each Class I area affected by the state's emissions. For a further
discussion of this topic, please see our Notice of Proposed Rulemaking.
76 FR 36450 (June 22, 2011).

B. Best Available Retrofit Technology

    Section 169A of the CAA directs states to evaluate the use of
retrofit controls at certain larger, often uncontrolled, older
stationary sources in order to address visibility impacts from these
sources. Specifically, section 169A(b)(2)(A) of the CAA requires states
to revise their SIPs to contain such measures as may be necessary to
make reasonable progress towards the natural visibility goal, including
a requirement that certain categories of existing major stationary
sources \10\ built between 1962 and 1977 procure, install, and operate
the ``Best Available Retrofit Technology'' as determined by the state.
Under the RHR, states are directed to conduct BART determinations for
such ``BART-eligible'' sources that may be anticipated to cause or
contribute to any visibility impairment in a Class I area.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ The set of ``major stationary sources'' potentially subject
to BART is listed in CAA section 169A(g)(7).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Roles of Agencies in Addressing Regional Haze

    Successful implementation of the regional haze program will require
long-term coordination among states, tribal governments and various
federal agencies. EPA published on July 6, 2005, the Guidelines for
BART Determinations under the Regional Haze Rule at Appendix Y to 40
CFR part 51 (hereinafter referred to as the ``BART Guidelines'') to
assist states in determining which of their sources should be subject
to the BART requirements and in determining appropriate emission limits
for each applicable source. In making a BART determination for a fossil
fuel-fired electric generating plant with a total generating capacity
in excess of 750 megawatts, a state must use the approach set forth in
the BART Guidelines. In contrast, however, our BART Guidelines
encourage, but do not require, States to follow the BART Guidelines in
making BART determinations for other types of sources, including fossil
fuel-fired electric generating plants with a total generating capacity
that is less than 750 megawatts. 70 FR 39104, 39108 (July 6, 2005)
(``The better reading of the Act indicates that Congress intended the
guidelines to be mandatory only with respect to 750 megawatt power
plants.'') The CAA, therefore, allows States to exercise broader
discretion in applying the BART guidelines to power plants that are
smaller than 750 megawatts, such as RGGS. Id.
    In their SIPs, states must document their BART control
determination analyses. In making BART determinations, section
169A(g)(2) of the CAA requires that states consider the following
factors: (1) The costs of compliance; (2) the energy and non-air
quality environmental impacts of compliance; (3) any existing pollution
control technology in use at the source; (4) the remaining useful life
of the source; and, (5) the degree of improvement in visibility which
may reasonably be anticipated to result from the use of such
technology. States are free to determine the weight and significance
assigned to each factor, and as discussed above, generally have greater
latitude in this determination for power plants that are smaller than
750 megawatts.
    A regional haze SIP must include source-specific BART emission
limits and compliance schedules for each source subject to BART. Once a
state has made its BART determination, the BART controls must be
installed and in operation as expeditiously as practicable, but no
later than five years after the date EPA approves the regional haze
SIP. CAA section 169(g)(4). 40 CFR 51.308(e)(1)(iv). In addition to
what is required by the RHR, general SIP requirements mandate that the
SIP must also include all regulatory requirements related to
monitoring, recordkeeping and reporting for the BART controls on the
source.

D. Lawsuits

    In two separate lawsuits, environmental groups sued EPA for our
failure to take timely action with respect to the regional haze
requirements of the CAA and our regulations. In particular, the
lawsuits alleged that we had failed to promulgate FIPs for these
requirements within the two-year period allowed by CAA section 110(c)
or, in the alternative, fully approve SIPs addressing these
requirements. EPA entered into a Consent Decree agreeing to sign a
Federal Register Notice taking action on the Nevada RH SIP by December
13, 2011. The litigants agreed to extend our time for taking action on
the RGGS NOX BART determination portion of the Nevada SIP
given the extensive comments we received on our June 22, 2011, proposed
approval. Our proposed action today meets our agreement with the
litigants.

V. EPA's Analysis of Nevada's RH SIP

A. Affected Class I Areas

    There are four Class I areas within a 300 kilometer (km) radius of
RGGS: Grand Canyon National Park, Bryce Canyon National Park, Zion
National Park and Sycamore Canyon Wilderness. Joshua Tree National
Monument is just on the border of the 300 km radius of RGGS. Of these,
GCNP is the nearest area to RGGS, located at a distance of 85 km.

B. Identification of Sources Subject to BART

    EPA's final approval of the Nevada RH SIP agreed with NDEP's
determination of its BART-eligible sources within the state, and its
determination of which sources were subject to BART based on their
contribution to visibility impairment. EPA's final approval included
NDEP's BART determinations for the Tracy, Fort Churchill, and Mohave
electrical generating stations.\11\ In our final approval of the Nevada
RH SIP, we took no action on NDEP's NOX BART Determination
for RGGS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 77 FR 17334.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Evaluation of Nevada's NOX BART Determination for Reid
Gardner Generating Station

    Background: Reid Gardner is a coal-fueled, steam-electric
generating plant with four operating units producing a total of 557 MW.
Three of the units, built in 1965, 1968, and 1976 are BART-eligible,
and were determined by NDEP to be subject to BART. Each of these units
produces about 100 MW with steam boilers that drive turbine-generators.
At present, the units are equipped with LNB and over-fire air (OFA)
systems, mechanical collectors for particulate control, wet scrubbers
that use soda ash for sulfur dioxide (SO2) removal, as well
as recently installed baghouses. NDEP's review of Nevada Energy's BART
report for RGGS resulted in NDEP agreeing only with the control
technologies proposed as BART for SO2 and
PM10.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ EPA approved that portion of NDEP's BART determination for
RGGS on December 13, 2011.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NOX BART Determination: NDEP performed a five-factor analysis for
the BART-eligible units at RGGS that included several feasible
technologies including SCR, SNCR, and ROFA with Rotamix, among other
control technologies. NDEP eliminated SCR-based options and determined
that BART controls for NOX are rotating opposed fire air
(ROFA) with Rotamix for Units 1 through 3. For this control technology,
NDEP determined emission limits, based on a rolling 12-month average,
of 0.20 lb/MMBtu for Units 1 and 2, and 0.28 lb/MMBtu for Unit 3. In
its five factor analysis, NDEP eliminated SCR because it gave
significant weight to the incremental cost of compliance. NDEP also
cited the relatively low visibility improvement at GCNP that would
result from SCR over ROFA with Rotamix.
    EPA has carefully reviewed NDEP's BART analysis, focusing primarily
on the incremental cost of compliance and incremental degree of
improvement of visibility between SCR and ROFA with Rotamix. After
receiving extensive comments in August 2011, we performed a significant
amount of additional analysis for these two factors, including
revisions to control cost calculations and new CALPUFF visibility
modeling.
1. Costs of Compliance
    NDEP's analysis: NDEP evaluated the costs of compliance for each
feasible NOX control option by analyzing the average and
incremental cost effectiveness of each control technology. Average cost
effectiveness ($/ton) is based on the total annualized cost ($) of a
control option divided by the total amount of NOX removed
(tons) by that control option. Incremental cost effectiveness is
calculated when considering one control technology in relation to
another, and examines the differing costs and the differing
NOX removal ability of the two control options.
    When moving from a less stringent to a more stringent
NOX control technology, the more stringent technology will
result in greater amounts of NOX removal, but will also
typically be more expensive. Incremental cost ($/ton) is calculated by
dividing the difference in annualized costs ($) of the two technologies
by the difference in NOX removal (ton) of the two
technologies. Incremental costs are typically calculated ``in order'',
by comparing one control technology with the less stringent technology
immediately preceding it. The control cost data that NDEP included in
the RH SIP and relied upon in making its NOX BART
determination is summarized in Table 1 below.

                      Table 1--Summary of NDEP NOX BART Determination Results for RGGS Unit 1 Through 3 (as Included in the RH SIP)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Emission
                                                                      Control      Emission    reduction    Annualized   Average cost   Incremental cost
                          Control option                             efficiency    rate \1\    \1\ (ton/    costs \1\    effectiveness    effectiveness
                                                                      \1\ (%)     (lb/MMBtu)      yr)         ($MM)       \1\ ($/ton)      \1\ ($/ton)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                   Reid Gardner Unit 1
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
LNB + OFA (enhanced)..............................................         21.3         0.36          483        $0.55          $1,143            $1,143
LNB + OFA + SNCR..................................................         40.9         0.27          927         1.13           1,222             1,308
ROFA + Rotamix....................................................         57.7          0.2         1308         1.45           1,109               833
SCR + LNB + OFA...................................................         81.6        0.085         1850         4.75           2,566             6,085
SCR + ROFA \3\....................................................         81.6        0.085         1850         5.39           2,916             7,280
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                   Reid Gardner Unit 2
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
LNB + OFA (enhanced)..............................................         23.7        0.355          580         0.55             952               952
LNB + OFA + SNCR..................................................         42.7        0.267         1044         1.16           1,106             1,299
ROFA + Rotamix....................................................         59.0         0.19         1443         1.50           1,038               860
SCR + LNB + OFA...................................................         82.2        0.083         2010         4.80           2,386             5,813
SCR + ROFA \3\....................................................         82.2        0.083         2010         5.47           2,721             7,001
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                   Reid Gardner Unit 3
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
LNB + OFA (enhanced)..............................................          6.5         0.42          147         0.55           3,742             3,742
LNB + OFA + SNCR..................................................         29.9        0.316          678         1.08           1,596             1,000
ROFA + Rotamix....................................................         38.0        0.278          869         1.38           1,588             1,560
SCR + LNB + OFA...................................................         78.2        0.098         1774         4.72           2,660             3,688
SCR + ROFA \2\....................................................         78.2        0.098         1774         5.40           3,045             4,444
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ As summarized in Table 1, NDEP Reid Gardner BART Determination, October 22, 2009. Available as Docket Item No. EPA-R09-OAR-2011-0130-0005.
\2\ Incremental cost effectiveness based on ROFA + Rotamix as previous control technology.

    The annualized costs listed in Table 1 are based on total capital
installation costs and certain annual operating costs submitted to NDEP
by Nevada Energy in its BART analysis. These costs were relied upon by
NDEP and included in the SIP without modification. These cost
calculations provided line item summaries of capital costs and annual
operating costs, but did not provide further supporting information
such as detailed equipment lists, vendor quotes, or the design basis
for line item costs.
    In its RH SIP, NDEP indicated that it based its NOX BART
determination of ROFA with Rotamix rather than SCR primarily on the
incremental costs of compliance. NDEP judged the costs of ROFA with
Rotamix as cost effective based on an average cost effectiveness of
approximately $1100-1600/ton, as seen in Table 1. NDEP then eliminated
more stringent control options, such as the SCR-based options, based on
high incremental cost effectiveness. Specifically, NDEP stated that
``the $/ton of NOX removed increased significantly * * *
without correspondingly significant improvements in visibility.'' \13\
Per NDEP estimates, the incremental cost effectiveness of SCR with LNB
and OFA is approximately $3,600-6,100/ton. NDEP determined that this
additional incremental cost per ton for SCR technologies did not appear
cost effective compared to the incremental visibility improvement
achieved by the SCR-based control options.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ Revised NDEP Reid Gardner BART Determination Review, page
6. Available as Docket Item No. EPA-R09-OAR-2011-0130-0005.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA's analysis: In reviewing the Nevada RH SIP and public comments,
we identified several aspects of NDEP's approach to this factor with
which we disagreed, and for which we have performed additional
analysis. We received several public comments that NDEP's cost
calculations were overestimated and based on methodology inconsistent
with EPA's Control Cost Manual (CCM).\14\ We agree that NDEP included
inappropriate costs and our analysis excludes those costs that are not
allowed by the CCM. Therefore, we have revised these cost calculations
and adjusted the value of specific variables to conform to values
allowed by the CCM. Aside from these items, other commenters alleged
that aspects of NDEP's cost estimates were unjustified or
overestimated, such as a failure to account for multiple unit discount
and overestimated reagent costs.\15\ We agree that the record does not
support the positions that NDEP has taken on these cost items. However,
we did not account for these additional discrepancies in our revised
cost estimate since disallowing those costs not in the CCM resulted in
our finding that SCR is cost effective. The disallowed costs result in
a decrease of 25-33 percent in the average and incremental cost
effectiveness of the control technology options. Detailed cost
calculations, in which we revised the original cost calculations (as
included in the RH SIP) and the updated cost calculations (as provided
by NDEP on February 14, 2012) for each NOX control
technology, are included in Appendix A of our TSD. Summarized in Table
2 below is a comparison of the updated NDEP cost calculations (as
provided on February 14, 2012) and our revised cost calculations for
the SCR with LNB and OFA control technology option.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ See comments from NPCA Consortium (EPA-R09-OAR-2011-0130-
0062), National Park Service and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
(EPA-R09-OAR-2011-0130-0054) and in expert report by Petra Pless/
Bill Powers (attachment to EPA-R09-OAR-2011-0130-0062).
    \15\ These items were primarily noted in the expert report by
Petra Pless/Bill Powers (attachment to EPA-R09-OAR-2011-0130-0062).

      Table 2--Cost Effectiveness Comparison--SCR With LNB and OFA
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                  Average cost        Incremental cost
                               effectiveness  ($/    effectiveness  ($/
                                      ton)                  ton)
          Unit No.           -------------------------------------------
                                            EPA                   EPA
                                 NDEP     revised      NDEP     revised
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unit 1......................     $2,827     $2,110     $6,370     $4,534
Unit 2......................      2,627      1,967      6,080      4,330
Unit 3......................      2,932      2,183      3,856      2,756
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Based on our revised cost estimates, we do not consider these
average and incremental cost effectiveness values for SCR with LNB and
OFA as cost prohibitive. Our analysis of this factor indicates that
costs of compliance (average and incremental) are not sufficiently
large to warrant eliminating SCR from consideration.
    The incremental cost effectiveness values for Units 1 and 2 are
around $4,500/ton. Although EPA does not consider this incremental cost
prohibitive, we note that the State has certain discretion in weighing
this cost. Because RGGS is not a facility over 750 megawatts and
therefore not subject to EPA's presumptive BART limits, the State may
exercise its discretion more broadly in this particular determination.
2. Degree of Visibility Improvement
    NDEP's Analysis: As part of its BART analysis, Nevada Energy
performed visibility modeling in order to evaluate the visibility
improvement attributable to each of the NOX control
technologies that it considered. Results of the visibility modeling
performed by Nevada Energy in its submittal to NDEP are summarized in
Table 3 below.

                     Table 3--Summary of Nevada Energy Estimates of Visibility Benefit \16\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                           Visibility improvement (from WRAP        Visibility
                                                                    baseline) \17\                  improvement
                                                     --------------------------------------------  (incremental,
                   Control option                                                                  from control)
                                                        RGGS1      RGGS2      RGGS3      Total   ---------------
                                                         (dv)       (dv)       (dv)       (dv)      Total  (dv)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
LNB + OFA (enhanced)................................      0.440      0.479      0.407       1.33  ..............
LNB + OFA + SNCR....................................      0.521      0.560      0.485       1.57            0.24
ROFA + Rotamix......................................      0.592      0.630      0.514       1.74            0.17
SCR + LNB + OFA.....................................      0.698      0.735      0.652       2.09            0.35
SCR + ROFA \18\.....................................      0.698      0.735      0.652       2.09            0.35
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Based upon these results, the installation of SCR with LNB and OFA
would result in an incremental visibility improvement at Grand Canyon
National Park of 0.35 deciviews (dv). This visibility improvement is
based upon the NOX emission rates estimated by Nevada Energy
in their BART analysis for each control technology option, and is
relative to visibility impacts based on emissions used by the Western
Regional Air Partnership (WRAP). In preparing the RH SIP, however, NDEP
developed its own set of NOX emission estimates for the
various control technology options. The differences between Nevada
Energy's estimates and the emission estimates that form the basis of
the Nevada RH SIP are summarized in Table 4 below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ Visibility improvement listed here are for the Class I area
with the highest impact, Grand Canyon National Park. They represent
the change in the 98th percentile impacts from three modeled years.
The ``total'' is the simple total of the impacts from the three
individual units, which Nevada Energy modeled separately.
    \17\ From Table 5-4 of NVE BART Analysis Reports, Reid--
Gardner--1--10-03-08.pdf, Reid--Gardner--2--10-03-08.pdf, Reid--
Gardner--3--10-03-08.pdf. Available in Docket Item No. EPA-R09-OAR-
2011-0130-0007. The improvements here are relative to the ``WRAP
baseline'', impacts from emission levels used by the Western
Regional Air Partnership and modeled by Nevada Energy. This is a
different ``baseline'' than used for the cost estimates below.
    \18\ Incremental visibility benefit of SCR + ROFA is based upon
ROFA + Rotamix as previous control technology.

               Table 4--Comparison of Nevada Energy and NDEP Control Technology Emission Estimates
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                    Nevada energy                 NDEP
                                                             ---------------------------------------------------
                       Control option                           Emission     Control      Emission     Control
                                                               factor \1\   efficiency   factor \3\   efficiency
                                                               (lb/MMBtu)    \2\ (%)     (lb/MMBtu)    \3\ (%)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                               Reid Gardner Unit 1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Baseline (LNB + OFA)........................................         0.38  ...........        0.462  ...........
LNB + OFA (enhanced)........................................         0.30         21.3        0.360         21.3
LNB + OFA + SNCR............................................         0.23         40.9        0.270         40.9
ROFA + Rotamix..............................................         0.16         57.7        0.200         57.7
SCR + LNB + OFA.............................................         0.07         81.6        0.085         81.6
SCR + ROFA..................................................         0.07         81.6        0.085         81.6
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                               Reid Gardner Unit 2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Baseline (LNB + OFA)........................................        0.393  ...........        0.466  ...........
LNB + OFA (enhanced)........................................         0.30         23.7        0.355         23.7
LNB + OFA + SNCR............................................         0.23         42.7        0.267         42.7
ROFA + Rotamix..............................................         0.16         59.0        0.190         59.0
SCR + LNB + OFA.............................................         0.07         82.2        0.083         82.2
SCR + ROFA..................................................         0.07         82.2        0.083         82.2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                               Reid Gardner Unit 3
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Baseline (LNB + OFA)........................................         0.32  ...........        0.451  ...........
LNB + OFA (enhanced)........................................         0.30          6.5        0.420          6.5
LNB + OFA + SNCR............................................         0.23         29.9        0.316         29.9
ROFA + Rotamix..............................................         0.20         38.0        0.278         38.0
SCR + LNB + OFA.............................................         0.07         78.2        0.098         78.2
SCR + ROFA..................................................         0.07         78.2        0.098         78.2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ From each respective unit's NVE BART Analysis, Table 3-1. Available in Docket Item No. EPA-R09-OAR-2011-0130-
  0007.
\2\ From each respective unit's NVE BART Analysis, Table 3-2. Available in Docket Item No. EPA-R09-OAR-2011-0130-
  0007.
\3\ As summarized in Table 1, NDEP Reid Gardner BART Determination, October 22, 2009. Available as Docket Item
  No. EPA-R09-OAR-2011-0130-0005. Baseline emission factor is not explicitly calculated by NDEP. The factor
  listed in this table represents the listed annual emissions divided by ``Base Heat Input''.

    As seen in these tables, NDEP's estimates of controlled emission
rates differ from Nevada Energy's estimates. These differences are a
result of NDEP's use of a different emission baseline in its
calculations than Nevada Energy, which is discussed below in our
discussion of existing pollution control technology. Since NDEP elected
to calculate controlled emission rates by retaining the respective
percent reduction values for each control technology, rather than each
control technology's emission rate (lb/MMBtu), the use of a higher
baseline emission rate results in higher emission estimates for each
control technology option. As a result, NDEP's estimated performance
for each control technology is less stringent than Nevada Energy's
estimates. NDEP, however, did not perform additional modeling to
determine the visibility improvement attributable to its emission
estimates, and continued to rely on the visibility modeling performed
by Nevada Energy.
    As noted in the discussion of cost of compliance, part of NDEP's
basis for rejecting control technology options more stringent that ROFA
with Rotamix as BART was that the incremental costs of more stringent
control options were not justified relative to their corresponding
increases in visibility improvement. However, without updated
visibility modeling that indicates the visibility improvement
attributable to NDEP's emission estimates, we do not consider NDEP to
have properly considered the appropriate magnitude of incremental
visibility improvement in reaching its determination. As discussed
below, we have performed our own visibility modeling to determine these
visibility impacts.
    EPA's Analysis: In performing our own visibility modeling, the
primary goal of our approach was to determine the visibility
improvement associated with the NOX emission estimates
relied upon in the RH SIP. In developing a modeling strategy, we
decided that an approach that consisted of simply using Nevada Energy's
modeling with model emission rates updated to reflect NDEP's estimates
was not appropriate. As a result of changes to CALPUFF regulatory
guidance that have occurred in the intervening time since Nevada Energy
performed its visibility modeling, we elected to perform our visibility
modeling in a manner that more closely adheres with current EPA
regulatory guidance on CALPUFF modeling. Key elements of our modeling
approach that differ from Nevada Energy's modeling include:

--CALPUFF system version: We performed our visibility modeling using
version 5.8 of the CALPUFF model, and version 5.8 of the CALMET
meteorological preprocessor, which are the current regulatory-approved
versions. Nevada Energy's modeling used CALPUFF version 6.112, and
CALMET version 6.211.
--Meteorological inputs: We used the meteorological inputs developed by
the Western Regional Air Partnership, augmented with upper air data.
Nevada Energy's modeling used some different inputs, and did not
incorporate upper air data.
--SCR catalyst conversion efficiency: We performed our visibility
modeling using an SCR catalyst SO2 to SO3
conversion efficiency of 0.5 percent for purposes of calculating
sulfuric acid emissions. Nevada Energy's modeling relied upon 1 percent
conversion efficiency.
--Calculation of visibility impact: We calculated our visibility
impacts using the revised IMPROVE equation (Method 8, mode 5) \19\ in
addition to the original IMPROVE equation (Method 6). Nevada Energy's
modeling was performed before the availability of modeling guidance
regarding the use of the revised IMPROVE equation and its incorporation
into CALPUFF as Method 8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ The IMPROVE equation translates modeled or monitored
concentrations of pollutants like sulfate and nitrate into
extinction, a measure of visibility. See: http://vista.cira.colostate.edu/improve/Extinction, in turn, is used to
calculate deciviews, the visibility impact metric used in the BART
Guidelines. The various visibility ``methods'' in CALPUFF differ in
how they account for background concentrations and adjustments for
relative humidity. Method 8, mode 5 is the currently-recommended
method. ``Federal Land Managers' Air Quality Related Values
Workgroup (FLAG) Phase I Report'' (December 2000), U.S. Forest
Service, National Park Service, U.S. Fish And Wildlife Service. See:
http://www.nature.nps.gov/air/Pubs/pdf/flag/FlagFinal.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

--Control technology performance: We performed our visibility modeling
using the NOX baseline emission rate and NOX
control technology emission rates listed under the ``NDEP'' column in
Table 4, which had not previously been modeled.
--In addition, we modeled another SCR control technology case
corresponding to a NOX emission rate of 0.06 lb/MMBtu. As
indicated in Table 4, both Nevada Energy and NDEP used control
efficiency values in the range of 78 to 82 percent to estimate SCR
performance. Typical SCR catalyst vendor guarantees can indicate 90
percent NOX reduction.\20\ We have elected to model 0.06 lb/
MMBtu based on a selection of a mid-range control efficiency of 85
percent reduction from Nevada Energy's NOX emission
baseline.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ We received public comments to this effect that included
multiple vendor quotes. Available as attachments to Docket Items
EPA-R09-OAR-2011-0130-0062 and -0063.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A more detailed discussion of our visibility modeling, including
full visibility results for all Class I areas located within 300 km of
RGGS, is in our TSD and associated emission calculation spreadsheet. A
summary of visibility results is presented in Table 5 below.

                 Table 5--Summary of Visibility Impacts
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                 Visibility improvement
                                   Visibility --------------------------
                                   Impact \1\               Incremental,
         Control option            (all three      From         from
                                  units) (dv)    baseline     previous
                                                   (dv)      option (dv)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Baseline (LNB w/OFA)............         0.59  ...........  ............
LNB w/OFA (enhanced)............         0.51         0.08          0.08
SNCR + LNB w/OFA................         0.37         0.21          0.13
ROFA w/Rotamix..................         0.31         0.28          0.06
SCR w/LNB + OFA.................         0.22         0.36          0.09

SCR w/LNB + OFA \2\ (0.06 lb/            0.20         0.38          0.10
 MMBtu, each unit)..............
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Visibility impact summarized here represents the three-year 98th
  percentile impact at the Class I area with the highest impact, Grand
  Canyon National Park All three units were modeled together. The
  CALPUFF model output was post-processed using CALPOST visibility
  Method 8, the revised IMPROVE equation, and using natural background
  concentrations for the best 20% of days. For full visibility results,
  including impacts at other Class I areas within 300 km and using other
  visibility methods, please see the TSD in today's docket.
\2\ Incremental visibility improvement compared to ROFA with Rotamix.

    As seen in these results, the total incremental visibility
improvement resulting from the installation of SCR with LNB and OFA
compared to ROFA with Rotamix is 0.09 dv. This occurred at Grand Canyon
National Park, the Class I area with the highest impact. In addition,
we note that even our additional scenario that models the SCR control
option at a 0.06 lb/MMBtu level of performance results in an
incremental visibility improvement of only 0.10 dv relative to ROFA
with Rotamix. Based on this small quantity of incremental visibility
improvement, we agree with NDEP's conclusion that the control options
more stringent than ROFA with Rotamix (or SNCR with LNB and OFA
achieving the same emission limit) are not justified.
3. Existing Pollution Control Technology
    NDEP's analysis: Nevada Energy prepared and submitted a BART
analysis to NDEP that accounted for the presence of low-NOX
burners by using baseline NOX emission factors corresponding
to 2004 actual emissions data.\21\ In preparing the RH SIP, NDEP
developed a baseline NOX emission factor that was based upon
past actual emission data over a 2001-07 time frame.\22\ This resulted
in baseline NOX emission rates that are approximately 15
percent higher than those presented in Nevada Energy's BART analysis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ Baseline emission factors as listed in Table 2-2 of each
unit's respective Nevada Energy BART Analysis. Available as
attachments to EPA-R09-OAR-2011-0130-0007.
    \22\ Per NDEP's Reid Gardner BART Determination Summary, NDEP
used the average of the two consecutive years with highest annual
emissions. Available as Docket Item No. EPA-R09-OAR-2011-0130-0005.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA's analysis: While NDEP's use of a set of baseline emissions
different from those presented in Nevada Energy's BART analysis does
result in a higher baseline emission rate, NDEP's baseline emissions
still reflect the use of low-NOX burners. We find that
NDEP's approach to this factor is reasonable, and have not modified
NDEP's NOX emission baseline in performing our own analysis.
We do note that due to the emission calculation methodology NDEP used
to calculate NOX control scenario emissions, increases to
the NOX emission baseline will affect emission estimates for
NOX control scenarios. These effects are discussed further
in the analysis of degree of visibility impact.
4. Remaining Useful Life of the Source
    NDEP's analysis: In its BART analysis submittal to NDEP, Nevada
Energy used a plant economic life of 20 years and performed control
technology cost calculations based on control equipment lifetime equal
to the plant economic life. In developing the RH SIP, NDEP relied upon
these cost calculations without revision.
    EPA's analysis: Use of a 20-year equipment life is consistent with
assumptions made in EPA's Control Cost Manual for the equipment
lifetime of certain NOX control technologies such as SCR and
SNCR. Commenters alleged that without a firm shutdown date to ensure a
plant lifetime of 20 years, a longer equipment life should be used in
cost calculations. Use of a longer equipment life would result in lower
annualized costs, thereby making control technologies more cost
effective. As discussed further in the analysis of costs of compliance,
we already consider certain control technology options more stringent
than ROFA with Rotamix, such as SCR with LNB and OFA, to be cost
effective. As a result, we decline to pursue an analysis examining
whether use of a 20-year plant economic life is appropriate.
5. Energy and Non-Air Quality Impacts
    NDEP's Analysis: In its BART analysis submitted to NDEP, Nevada
Energy identified certain energy impacts such as increased energy usage
associated with ROFA as a result of induced draft fan installations.
For SCR installations, increased energy usage is expected in order for
existing fan systems to compensate for the additional pressure drop
created by the SCR catalyst bed. Nevada Energy quantified these energy
impacts as annual operating cost line items in cost calculations.
    Non-air quality impacts identified by Nevada Energy in its BART
analysis include the potential for ammonia slip from SCR or SNCR to
impact the salability and disposal of fly ash, as well as to create a
visible stack plume. The potential for transportation and storage of
ammonia to result in an accidental release was also identified as a
potential non-air quality impact. Nevada Energy cited these as negative
impacts in its consideration of SCR and SNCR control options. In
preparing the RH SIP, NDEP did not further expand on these impacts in
determining ROFA with Rotamix as BART for NOX.
    EPA's Analysis: Although we consider the energy impacts accounted
for by Nevada Energy to be reasonable, we note that supporting
calculations were not provided for the line item cost associated with
these impacts in control cost calculations. At this time, we decline to
provide our own estimate of these impacts. Regarding non-air quality
impacts, while we acknowledge that the items described by Nevada Energy
are indeed potential concerns for the control technologies considered,
we note that neither Nevada Energy's analysis nor the RH SIP provide
further information discussing the extent to which these are site-
specific concerns for RGGS Units 1 through 3. As a result, we consider
these non-air quality impacts as not sufficiently significant at RGGS
to warrant eliminating any of the control technology options.

VI. Federal Implementation Plan To Address NOX BART for Reid
Gardner

    Although our analysis supports NDEP's decision to not require
control technology options more stringent than ROFA with Rotamix (or
SNCR with LNB and OFA achieving the same emissions

limit) as BART, completion of the BART process requires establishing
enforceable emission limits that reflect the BART control technology
requirements.\23\ As described in the sections below, we find certain
elements of the emission limits established for RGGS in the RH SIP as
either unsupported by the record or inconsistent with BART Guidelines.
NDEP notified us in a letter dated March 22, 2012 that it intends to
submit a RH SIP revision that will address these elements, which
include establishing a NOX limit of 0.20 lb/MMBtu for Unit
3, and establishing NOX limits for each unit on a 30-day
rolling average (averaged across all three units), rather than a 12-
month rolling average. In addition, NDEP has indicated that the RH SIP
revision it intends to submit will revise the selected control
technology from ROFA with Rotamix to SNCR with LNB and OFA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ 70 FR 39172.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In order to meet the terms of our consent decree, it is necessary
for EPA to propose action on Nevada's RH SIP at this time. As a result,
we are proposing the promulgation of a FIP that will address the
elements described below. We expect these elements to match the content
of the revised RH SIP that Nevada has indicated it intends to submit.
    Based upon the March 22, 2012 letter sent by NDEP indicating its
intent to submit a revised RH SIP, we do not expect to receive the
revised RH SIP prior to our consent decree deadline for final action on
this proposal. Although we will not receive the revised RH SIP prior to
our final action, we do intend to act expeditiously on the revised RH
SIP once it is submitted to EPA.

A. Unit 1 Through 3 Averaging Period

    We are proposing to promulgate a FIP to establish a NOX
emission limit of 0.20 lb/MMBtu for Unit 3. In its RH SIP, NDEP
proposed a NOX emission limit of 0.28 lb/MMBtu for Unit 3.
This limit for Unit 3 (0.28 lb/MMBtu) was higher than the emission
limit NDEP proposed for Units 1 or 2 (0.20 lb/MMBtu each). The higher
emission limit appears to be partially attributable to the fact that
the application of control technology to Unit 3 was projected to result
in less stringent levels of performance relative to Units 1 and 2. As
shown in Table 4 of this notice, Nevada Energy's emission estimates
indicate that application of ROFA with Rotamix achieves nearly 60
percent reduction from baseline on Units 1 and 2, but only a 38 percent
reduction from baseline on Unit 3. These percent reduction values were
used by NDEP in developing its own estimate of NOX
emissions, which form the basis for the proposed NOX limits.
    Nevada Energy's BART analysis for Unit 3 did not provide a unit-
specific explanation for this difference in control effectiveness. In
responding to comments on this issue, NDEP indicated that it deferred
to Nevada Energy's operational experience in developing control
efficiency data, and had no reason to question Nevada Energy's
estimates.\24\ The case-by-case nature of the BART determination
process does provide for the consideration of site-specific and unit-
specific characteristics in the BART analysis.\25\ While there may be
unique characteristics associated with Unit 3 that justify the lower
percent reduction values used by Nevada Energy and NDEP, we do not find
the record on this issue to be sufficiently detailed to support this
determination. In the absence of what we consider sufficient
justification by Nevada Energy and NDEP, we have evaluated Unit 3
control option emissions predicated upon similar levels of performance
relative to Units 1 and 2. Based upon the Unit 3 baseline emissions
relied upon by NDEP (described in the `NDEP' column in Table 4), if a
percent reduction similar to Units 1 and 2 were applied to Unit 3
baseline emissions, it can be expected to attain a NOX
emission rate of 0.20 lb/MMBtu using the ROFA with Rotamix control
option.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ Page D-37, Appendix D and C-9, Appendix C, Nevada RH SIP.
Available as attachments to EPA-R09-OAR-2011-0130-0003.
    \25\ For example, when determining what control options are
considered technically feasible at a specific unit, 70 FR 39165.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Unit 3 Emission Limit

    We are proposing to promulgate a FIP to establish a 30-day rolling
average, averaged across all three units, as the basis for the
NOX emission limits for RGGS Units 1 through 3. In its RH
SIP, NDEP proposed NOX limits for Units 1 through 3 based
upon a 12-month rolling average, which is a longer averaging period
than the 30-day rolling average indicated by the BART Guidelines.
Longer averaging periods allow operators the flexibility to ``smooth
out'' short-term emission spikes by averaging those values with periods
of lower emission rates. In responding to comments on this issue in its
RH SIP, NDEP indicated that it specified the longer averaging period
because Nevada Energy expected a high degree of operational variability
with the ROFA with Rotamix control option based upon previous
operational experience with ROFA.\26\ Although operational flexibility
can be a legitimate consideration when establishing an enforceable
limit, we consider use of a rolling 12-month averaging period instead
of a rolling 30-day average to be inconsistent with BART
Guidelines.\27\ We believe the fluctuations of the NOX
emissions from each of the units is better dealt with by averaging the
emissions from the three units to determine compliance over the 30-day
rolling average.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ Page D-60, Appendix D, Nevada RH SIP. Available as
attachments to EPA-R09-OAR-2011-0130-0003.
    \27\ 70 FR 39172.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Control Technology Basis

    In its RH SIP, NDEP proposed emission limits for Units 1 through 3
based upon a control technology determination of ROFA with Rotamix. In
its March 22, 2012 letter, NDEP indicated that it intends to submit an
RH SIP revision that will revise the control technology determination
to SNCR with LNB and OFA. In addition, the corresponding BART emission
limits for NOX that NDEP has indicated it will establish for
Units 1 through 3 are of equal or greater stringency than those
included in the current RH SIP.
    In its RH SIP, NDEP estimated that SNCR with LNB and OFA would be
capable of achieving a NOX emission rate in the range of
0.27 to 0.31 lb/MMBtu (as summarized in Table 1 of this notice). These
emission rates indicate that the SNCR with LNB and OFA control option
is less stringent than ROFA with Rotamix, which NDEP estimated would be
capable of achieving a NOX emission rate in the range of
0.20 to 0.28 lb/MMBtu. As noted in the BART Guidelines, BART ``means an
emission limitation based on the degree of reduction achievable through
the application of the best system of continuous emission reduction.''
\28\ Although NDEP may propose a less stringent control technology
determination in a future RH SIP revision, we would not consider the
final BART determination to be less stringent if the selected control
option is capable of meeting the NOX emission limit of 0.20
lb/MMBtu (30-day rolling average, averaged across all three units)
established in our FIP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ 70 FR 39163.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

VI. Federal Implementation Plan To Address NOX BART for Reid
Gardner

    With the exception of the NOX BART emission limit for
Unit 3 and the NOX averaging time for all three units, EPA
is proposing to find the Nevada RH BART determination for
NOX fulfills all

the relevant requirements of CAA Section 169A and the Regional Haze
Rule. Therefore, we are proposing to approve NDEP's conclusion that SCR
is not required as BART for NOX. NDEP weighed the
incremental cost of requiring SCR against the relatively small
visibility improvement that would be achieved from installing and
operating SCR. NDEP's incremental cost included costs that
inappropriately increased the cost estimate. However, NDEP is allowed
to weigh the incremental cost against the incremental visibility
improvement. Our independent modeling found that incremental visibility
improvement at adjacent Class I areas would be significantly lower than
the improvement modeled by NDEP. This information supports our
determination that NDEP is within the discretion allowed by the BART
Guidelines to establish the NOX emissions limit that can be
achieved with ROFA and Rotamix (or SNCR with LNB and OFA achieving the
same emissions limit) as BART rather than requiring an emission limit
consistent with SCR technology.
    NDEP, however, failed to support applying a higher emission limit
for Unit 3 and failed to provide a sufficient basis for approving the
emissions limit on a 12-month rolling average. Therefore, EPA is
disapproving the RGGS NOX BART determination for Unit 3 and
promulgating a FIP setting the same emission limit for Unit 3 that NDEP
set for Units 1 and 2. EPA is also promulgating a FIP requiring Units 1
through 3 to meet the NOX emissions limit of 0.20 lbs/mmbtu
on a rolling 30-day average (across all three units).

VII. EPA's Proposed Action

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review

    This proposed action is not a ``significant regulatory action''
under the terms of Executive Order (EO) 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4,
1993), and is therefore not subject to review under the Executive
Order. The proposed FIP applies to only one facility and is therefore
not a rule of general applicability.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

    This proposed action does not impose an information collection
burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C.
3501 et seq. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act, a ``collection of
information'' is defined as a requirement for ``answers to * * *
identical reporting or recordkeeping requirements imposed on ten or
more persons * * *.'' 44 U.S.C. 3502(3)(A). Because the proposed FIP
applies to just one facility, the Paperwork Reduction Act does not
apply. See 5 CFR 1320(c).
    Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources
expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or
provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time
needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize
technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and
verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and
disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to
comply with any requirements; train personnel to be able to respond to
a collection of information; search data sources; complete and review
the collection of information; and transmit or otherwise disclose the
information.
    An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a
currently valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number.
The OMB control numbers for our regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40
CFR part 9.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an agency
to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to
notice and comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative
Procedure Act or any other statute unless the agency certifies that the
rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities. Small entities include small businesses,
small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions.
    For purposes of assessing the impacts of today's proposed rule on
small entities, small entity is defined as: (1) A small business as
defined by the Small Business Administration's (SBA) regulations at 13
CFR 121.201; (2) a small governmental jurisdiction that is a government
of a city, county, town, school district or special district with a
population of less than 50,000; and (3) a small organization that is
any not-for profit enterprise which is independently owned and operated
and is not dominant in its field.
    After considering the economic impacts of this proposed action on
small entities, I certify that this proposed action will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
The Regional Haze FIP for the single facility being proposed today does
not impose any new requirements on small entities. The proposed partial
approval of the SIP, if finalized, merely approves state law as meeting
Federal requirements and imposes no additional requirements beyond
those imposed by state law. See Mid-Tex Electric Cooperative, Inc. v.
FERC, 773 F.2d 327 (D.C. Cir. 1985)

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)

    Under sections 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
(``Unfunded Mandates Act''), signed into law on March 22, 1995, EPA
must prepare a budgetary impact statement to accompany any proposed or
final rule that includes a Federal mandate that may result in estimated
costs to State, local, or tribal governments in the aggregate; or to
the private sector, of $100 million or more (adjusted to inflation) in
any 1 year. Under section 205, EPA must select the most cost-effective
and least burdensome alternative that achieves the objectives of the
rule and is consistent with statutory requirements. Section 203
requires EPA to establish a plan for informing and advising any small
governments that may be significantly or uniquely impacted by the rule.
    Under Title II of UMRA, EPA has determined that this proposed rule
does not contain a Federal mandate that may result in expenditures that
exceed the inflation-adjusted UMRA threshold of $100 million by State,
local, or Tribal governments or the private sector in any 1 year. In
addition, this proposed rule does not contain a significant Federal
intergovernmental mandate as described by section 203 of UMRA nor does
it contain any regulatory requirements that might significantly or
uniquely affect small governments.

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    Federalism (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999) revokes and replaces
Executive Orders 12612 (Federalism) and 12875 (Enhancing the
Intergovernmental Partnership). Executive Order 13132 requires EPA to
develop an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful and timely input
by State and local officials in the development of regulatory policies
that have federalism implications.'' ``Policies that have federalism
implications'' is defined in the Executive Order to include regulations
that have ``substantial direct effects on the States, on the
relationship between the national government and the States, or on the
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of
government.'' Under Executive Order 13132, EPA may not issue a
regulation that has federalism implications, that imposes substantial
direct compliance costs, and that is not

required by statute, unless the Federal government provides the funds
necessary to pay the direct compliance costs incurred by State and
local governments, or EPA consults with State and local officials early
in the process of developing the proposed regulation. EPA also may not
issue a regulation that has federalism implications and that preempts
State law unless the Agency consults with State and local officials
early in the process of developing the proposed regulation.
    This rule will not have substantial direct effects on the States,
on the relationship between the national government and the States, or
on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various
levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132, because it
merely addresses elements of the State's Regional Haze SIP that are
inconsistent with the Regional Haze Rule. In addition, the State has
indicated that it intends to submit a SIP revision, the contents of
which are intended to match the content of the FIP proposed in this
rule. Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not apply to this action. In the
spirit of Executive Order 13132, and consistent with EPA policy to
promote communications between EPA and State and local governments, EPA
specifically solicits comment on this proposed rule from State and
local officials.

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian
Tribal Governments

    Executive Order 13175, entitled Consultation and Coordination with
Indian Tribal Governments (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), requires EPA
to develop an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful and timely
input by tribal officials in the development of regulatory policies
that have tribal implications.'' We note that the SIP is not approved
to apply in Tribal lands located in the State, will not impose
substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law,
and does not affect the distribution of power and responsibilities
between the Federal Government and any Indian tribes. As a result,
while this rule applies to an emissions source that is adjacent to the
Moapa Reservation, it does not have direct tribal implications as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
However, we acknowledge that concerns about the environmental impacts
of this facility have been raised by the Moapa Tribe. We have formally
consulted with the Moapa Tribe regarding those concerns, and have
visited the reservation and the facility. We will continue to work with
the Moapa Tribe as we proceed with our action.

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks

    Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children from Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), applies to
any rule that: (1) Is determined to be economically significant as
defined under Executive Order 12866; and (2) concerns an environmental
health or safety risk that we have reason to believe may have a
disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action meets
both criteria, the Agency must evaluate the environmental health or
safety effects of the planned rule on children, and explain why the
planned regulation is preferable to other potentially effective and
reasonably feasible alternatives considered by the Agency.
    This rule is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it does
not involve decisions intended to mitigate environmental health or
safety risks. However, to the extent this proposed rule will limit
emissions of NOX, the rule will have a beneficial effect on
children's health by reducing air pollution.

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use

    This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355
(May 22, 2001)), because it is not a significant regulatory action
under Executive Order 12866.

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    Section 12 of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
(NTTAA) of 1995 requires Federal agencies to evaluate existing
technical standards when developing a new regulation. To comply with
NTTAA, EPA must consider and use ``voluntary consensus standards''
(VCS) if available and applicable when developing programs and policies
unless doing so would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise
impractical. The EPA believes that VCS are inapplicable to this action.
Today's action does not require the public to perform activities
conducive to the use of VCS.

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations

VIII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994), establishes
federal executive policy on environmental justice. Its main provision
directs federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and
permitted by law, to make environmental justice part of their mission
by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high
and adverse human health or environmental effects of their programs,
policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income
populations in the United States. We have determined that this proposed
rule, if finalized, will not have disproportionately high and adverse
human health or environmental effects on minority or low-income
populations because it increases the level of environmental protection
for all affected populations without having any disproportionately high
and adverse human health or environmental effects on any population,
including any minority or low-income population. This proposed rule
limits emissions of NOX from a single facility in Nevada.
The partial approval of the SIP, if finalized, merely approves state
law as meeting Federal requirements and imposes no additional
requirements beyond those imposed by state law.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Intergovernmental
relations, Nitrogen oxides, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Authority:  42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

    Dated: April 2, 2012.
Jared Blumenfeld,
Regional Administrator, Region 9.

    For the reasons stated in the preamble, Part 52, chapter I, title
40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is proposed to be amended as
follows:

PART 52--[AMENDED]

    1. The authority citation for Part 52 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

    2. Part 52 is amended by adding Sec.  52.1488(e) to 52.1488
Visibility Protection, to read as follows:

Sec.  52.1488  Visibility protection.

* * * * *
    (e) This paragraph (e) applies to each owner and operator of the
coal-fired

electricity generating units (EGUs) designated as Units 1, 2, and 3 at
the Reid Gardner Generating Station in Clark County, Nevada.
    (1) Definitions. Terms not defined below shall have the meaning
given to them in the Clean Air Act or EPA's regulations implementing
the Clean Air Act. For purposes of this section:
    Ammonia injection shall include any of the following: anhydrous
ammonia, aqueous ammonia or urea injection.
    Combustion controls shall mean new low NOX burners, new
overfire air, and/or rotating overfire air.
    Continuous emission monitoring system or CEMS means the equipment
required by 40 CFR Part 75 to determine compliance with this section.
    NOX means nitrogen oxides expressed as nitrogen dioxide
(NO2).
    Owner/operator means any person who owns or who operates, controls,
or supervises an EGU identified in paragraph (e) of this section.
    Unit means any of the EGUs identified in paragraph (e) of this
section.
    Unit-wide means all of the EGUs identified in paragraph (e) of this
section.
    (2) Emission limitations--The NOX limit, expressed as
nitrogen dioxide, for Units 1, 2, and 3 shall be 0.20 lb/MMBtu based on
a unit-wide heat input weighted average determined over a rolling 30-
calendar day period. NO2 emissions for each calendar day
shall be determined by summing the hourly emissions measured in pounds
of NO2 for all operating units. Heat input for each calendar
day shall be determined by adding together all hourly heat inputs, in
millions of BTU, for all operating units. Each day the thirty-day
rolling average shall be determined by adding together that day and the
preceding 29 days' pounds of NO2 and dividing that total
pounds of NO2 by the sum of the heat input during the same
30-day period. The results shall be the 30-calendar day rolling pound
per million BTU emissions of NO2.
    (3) Compliance date. The owners and operators subject to this
section shall comply with the emissions limitations and other
requirements of this section within 5 years from promulgation of this
paragraph and thereafter.
    (4) Testing and Monitoring. (i) The owner or operator shall use 40
CFR Part 75 monitors and meet the requirements found in 40 CFR Part 75.
In addition to these requirements, relative accuracy test audits shall
be performed for both the NO2 pounds per hour measurement
and the hourly heat input measurement, and shall have relative
accuracies of less than 20%. This testing shall be evaluated each time
the 40 CFR Part 75 monitors undergo relative accuracy testing.
Compliance with the emission limit for NO2 shall be
determined by using data that is quality assured and considered valid
under 40 CFR Part 75, and which meets the relative accuracy of this
paragraph.
    (ii) If a valid NOX pounds per hour or heat input is not
available for any hour for a unit, that heat input and NOX
pounds per hour shall not be used in the calculation of the unit-wide
rolling 30-calendar day average. Each Unit shall obtain at least 90%
valid hours of data over each calendar quarter. 40 CFR Part 60 Appendix
A Reference Methods may be used to supplement the Part 75 monitoring.
    (iii) Upon the effective date of the unit-wide NOX
limit, the owner or operator shall have installed CEMS software that
meets with the requirements of this section for measuring
NO2 pounds per hour and calculating the unit-wide 30-
calendar day rolling average as required in paragraph (e)(2) of this
section.
    (iv) Upon the completion of installation of ammonia injection on
any of the three units, the owner or operator shall install, and
thereafter maintain and operate, instrumentation to continuously
monitor and record levels of ammonia consumption for that unit.
    (5) Notifications. (i) The owner or operator shall notify EPA
within two weeks after completion of installation of combustion
controls or ammonia injection on any of the units subject to this
section.
    (ii) The owner or operator shall also notify EPA of initial start-
up of any equipment for which notification was given in paragraph
(e)(5)(i).
    (6) Equipment Operations. After completion of installation of
ammonia injection on any of the three units, the owner or operator
shall inject sufficient ammonia to minimize the NOX
emissions from that unit while preventing excessive ammonia emissions.
    (7) Recordkeeping. The owner or operator shall maintain the
following records for at least five years:
    (i) For each unit, CEMS data measuring NOX in lb/hr,
heat input rate per hour, the daily calculation of the unit-wide 30-
calendar day rolling lb NO2/MMbtu emission rate as required
in paragraph (e)(2) of this section.
    (ii) Records of the relative accuracy test for NOX lb/hr
measurement and hourly heat input
    (iii) Records of ammonia consumption for each unit, as recorded by
the instrumentation required in paragraph (e)(4)(iv) of this section.
    (8) Reporting. Reports and notifications shall be submitted to the
Director of Enforcement Division, U.S. EPA Region IX, at 75 Hawthorne
Street, San Francisco, CA 94105. Within 30 days of the end of each
calendar quarter after the effective date of this section, the owner or
operator shall submit a report that lists the unit-wide 30-calendar day
rolling lb NO2/MMBtu emission rate for each day. Included in
this report shall be the results of any relative accuracy test audit
performed during the calendar quarter.
    (9) Enforcement. Notwithstanding any other provision in this
implementation plan, any credible evidence or information relevant as
to whether the unit would have been in compliance with applicable
requirements if the appropriate performance or compliance test had been
performed, can be used to establish whether or not the owner or
operator has violated or is in violation of any standard or applicable
emission limit in the plan.

[FR Doc. 2012-8713 Filed 4-11-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


Comment Info: =================

General Comment:I am writing to ask that the Comment period be kept open for an additional 180 days on the E-Cigarette issue.

I am a retail tobacco store owner and have seen great success with my customers quitting their smoking habits with the use of Electronic Cigarettes.   A lot of these customers have tried Chantix and nicotine patches before with no success.  They are now smoke free and say they will never go back.   This is a product that works to help people free themselves from tobacco.

Please don't harsly over-react and stop a product that is actually doing what has been preached about for the last 40 years - Stopping tobacco cigarette use.  These products truely are the key to getting people to kick the habit.