### Attachments:

Attachment 1: Evidence the State has Adopted the Revision

1.1 Staff Report, Agenda Item K of the December 9-10, 2010 EQC Meeting. Also see Certificate and order for Filing Permanent Administrative Rules in

Attachment 4.2

Attachment 2: Ev idence that the State has the Necessary Legal Authority

See Attachment 1.1 "Commission Authority" (page 9 of Staff Report, Agenda Item K)

Attachment 3: Provisions Submitted for Approval - Adopted and amended SIP rules

submitted to SOS

3.1 General Air Pollution Procedures and Definitions: OAR 340-200-0040. Effective December 10, 2010

3.2 Regional Haze Rules: OAR 340-223-0010 through 340-223-0080. Effective December 10, 2010

3.3 Oregon Regional Haze Plan for Implementing Section 308 (40 CFR 51.308) of the Regional Haze Rule. Effective December 9, 2010 (see attached binder)

Redline/strikeout version of adopted, amended and repealed SIP rules

3.4 General Air Pollution Procedures and Definitions: OAR 340-200-0040. Effective December 10, 2010

3.5 Regional Haze Rules: OAR 340-223-0010 through 340-223-0080. Effective December 10, 2010

Attachment 4: Evidence that the State followed the Administrative Procedures Act

4.1 Public notice in the Secretary of State's Oregon Bulletin , September 1, 2010.

4.2 Certificate and Order for Filing Permanent Administrative Rules, filed and effective December 10, 2010

Attachment 5: Evidence of Adequate Public Notice

5.1 Affidavit of Publication: The Dalles Chronicle , August 20, 2010 publication

5.2 Affidavit of Publication: The Daily Journal of Commerce , August 20, 2010 publication

### 5.3 Affidavit of Publication: East Oregonian , August 21, 2010 publication

5.4 Affidavit of Publication: Medford Mail Tribune , August 21, 2010 publication

5.5 Affidavit of Publication: The Oregonian , August 21, 2010 publication

5.6 Affidavit of Publication: The Register-Guard , August 21, 2010 publication

Attachment 6: Certification of Public Hearing

See paragraph #3 of cover letter and Attachment 7.1

Attachment 7: Compilation of Public Comments and Department's Response

7.1 Presiding Officer's Report for Rulemaking Hearings, dated November 12,

2010

7.2 Summary of Public Comment and Agency Response, dated November 30,

2010

## Attachment 1

Evidence the State has Adopted the Revision

1.1 Staff Report, Agenda Item K of the December 9-10, 2010 EQC Meeting

Also see Certificate and Order for Filing Permanent Administrative Rules in Attachment 4.2

## At tachment 2

Evidence that the State has the Necessary Legal Authori ty

See Attachment 1.1 “Commission Authority” (page #9 of Staff Report, Agenda Item K)

## Attachment 3

Provisions Submitted for Approval

Adopted and amended SIP rules submitted to SOS

3.1 General Air Pollution Procedures and Definitions: OAR 340-200-0040. Effective December 10, 2010

3.2 Regional Haze Rules: OAR 340-223-0010 through 340-223-0080. Effective December 10, 2010

3.3 Oregon Regional Haze Plan for Implementing Section 308 (40 CFR 51.308) of the

Regional Haze Rule. Effective December 9, 2010 (See attached binder)

Redline/strikeout version of adopted, amended and repealed SIP rules

3.4 General Air Pollution Procedures and Definitions: OAR 340-200-0040. Effective December 10, 2010

3.5 Regional Haze Rules: OAR 340-223-0010 through 340-223-0080. Effective December 10, 2010Attachment 3.1, pg. 1



## DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY

DIVISION 200

GENERAL AIR POLLUTION

PROCEDURES AND DEFINITIONS

340 -200-0040

State of Oregon Clean Air Act Implementation Plan

(1) This implementation plan, consisting of Volumes 2 and 3 of the State of Oregon Air Quality Control Program, contains control strategies, rules and standards prepared by the Department of Environmental Quality and is adopted as the state implementation plan (SIP) of the State of Oregon pursuant to the

federal Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C.A 7401 to 7671q

.

(2) Except as provided in section (3), revisions to the SIP will be made pursuant to the Commission’s rulemaking procedures in division 11 of this chapter and any other requirements contained in the SIP and will be submitted to the United States Environmental Protection Agency for approval. The State Implementation Plan was last modified by the Commission on December 9, 2010.

(3) Notwithstanding any other requirement contained in the SIP, the Department may:

(a) Submit to the Environmental Protection Agency any permit condition implementing a rule that is part of the federally-approved SIP as a source-specific SIP revision after the Department has complied with the public hearings provisions of 40 CFR 51.102 (July 1, 2002); and

(b) Approve the standards submitted by a regional authority if the regional authority adopts verbatim any standard that the Commission has adopted, and submit the standards to EPA for approval as a SIP

revision.

NOTE : Revisions to the State of Oregon Clean Air Act Implementation Plan become federally enforceable upon approval by the United States Environmental Protection Agency. If any provision of the federally approved Implementation Plan conflicts with any provision adopted by the Commission, the Department shall enforce the more stringent provision.

Stat. Auth.: ORS 468.020 Stats. Implemented: ORS 468A.035Attachment 3.2, pg. 1



## DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY

DIVISION 223

REGIONAL HAZE RULES

340 -223-0010

Purpose

OAR 340-223-0020 through 340-223- 00 80 establish requirements for certain sources emitting air pollutants that reduce visibility and contribute to regional haze in Class I areas, for the purpose of implementing Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART) requirements and other requirements associated with the federal Regional Haze Rules in 40 CFR § 51.308, as in effect on December 9, 2010

.

NOTE : This rule is included in the State of Oregon Clean Air Act Implementation Plan as adopted by the Environmental Quality Commission under OAR 340- 200 -0040.

Stat. Auth.: ORS 468 & 468A Stats. Implemented: ORS 468A.025 Hist.: DEQ 3-2009, f. & cert. ef. 6- 30 -09

340 -223-0020

De finitions

The definitions in OAR 340- 200 -0020 and this rule apply to this division. If the same term is defined in this rule and OAR 340-200-0020, the definition in this rule applies to this division.

(1) “BART

- eligible source” means any source determine d by the Department to meet the criteria for a

BART -eligible source established in Appendix Y to 40 CFR Part 51, “Guidelines for BART Determinations Under the Regional Haze Rule”, and in accordance with the federal Regional Haze Rules

under 40 CFR § 51.308(e), as in effect on December 9, 2010

.

(2) “Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART)” means an emission limitation based on the degree of reduction achievable through the application of the best system of continuous emission reduction for each pollutant that is emitted by an existing stationary facility. The emission limitation must be established, on

a case- by -case basis, taking into consideration the technology available, the costs of compliance, the energy and nonair quality environmental impacts of compliance, any pollution control equipment in use or in existence at the source or unit, the remaining useful life of the source or unit, and the degree of improvement in visibility which may reasonably be anticipated to result from the use of such technology.Attachment 3.2, pg. 2

(3) “Deciview” means a measurement of visibility impairment. A deciview is a haze index derived from calculated light extinction, such that uniform changes in haziness correspond to uniform incremental changes in perception across the entire range of conditions, from pristine to highly impaired. The deciview haze index is calculated based on the following equation (for the purposes of calculating deciview, the atmospheric light extinction coefficient must be calculated from aerosol measurements):

Deci view haze index=10ln(b ext /10 Mm -1 )

Where bext= the atmospheric light extinction coefficient, expressed in inverse megameters (Mm-1).

(4) “Dry sorbent injection pollution control system” means a pollution control system that reduces sulfur dioxide emissions by combining a dry alkaline reagent directly with the boiler exhaust gas stream to enable the reagent to adsorb sulfur dioxide and be collected by the existing electrostatic precipitator.

(5 ) “Subject to BART” means a BART -eligible source that based on air quality dispersion modeling causes visibility impairment equal to or greater than 0.5 deciview in any Class I area, at the 98th percentile for both a three-year period and one-year period.

(6 ) “Ultra

- low sulfur coal” means coal that contains no more than 0.25 lb sulfur/mmBtu heat input on

average.

NOTE : This rule is included in the State of Oregon Clean Air Act Implementation Plan as adopted by the Environmental Quality Commission under OAR 340- 200 -0040.

Stat. Auth.: ORS 468 & 468A Stats. Implemented: ORS 468A.025 Hist.: DEQ 3-2009, f. & cert. ef. 6- 30 -09

340 -223-0030

BART and Additional Regional Haze Requirements for the Foster-Wheeler Boiler at the Boardman Coal-Fired Power Plant (Federal Acid Rain Program Facility ORISPL Code 6106)

(1) Emissions limits:

(a) Between July 1, 2011 and December 31, 2020, nitrogen oxide emissions must not exceed 0. 23 lb/mmBtu heat input as a 30-day rolling average, provided that:

(A) If the source submitted a complete application for construction and/or operati on of pollution control equipment to satisfy the emissions limit in subsection (1)(a) at least eight months prior to the compliance date of July 1, 2011

, and the Department has not approved or denied the application by the compliance date, the compliance date is extended until the Department approves or disapproves the application, but may not be extended to a date more than five years from the date that the United States Environmental Protection Agency approves a revision to the State of Oregon Clean Air Act Implementation Plan that incorporates OAR 340-223-0030; and

(B) If it is demonstrated by December 31, 2011 that the emissions limit in subsection (1)(a) cannot be achieved with combustion controls, the Department by order may grant an extension of compliance to July 1, 201 3.Attachment 3.2, pg. 3

(b) Except as provided in section (3) below:

(A) Between July 1, 2014 and June 30, 2018, sulfur dioxide emissions must not exceed 0.40 lb/mmBtu heat input as a 30-day rolling average; and

(B) Between July 1, 2018 and December 31, 2020, sulfur dioxide emissions must not exceed 0.30 lb/mmBtu heat input as a 30-day rolling average.

(c ) Between July 1, 2014 and December 31, 2020, particulate matter emissions must not exceed 0.0 40 lb/mmBtu heat input as determined by compliance source testing

.

(d ) During periods of startup and shutdown, the following emissions limits apply instead of the limits in subsections (a) through (c):

(A) Sulfur dioxide emissions must not exceed 1.20 lb/ mm Btu, as a 3-hour rolling average;

(B) Nitrogen oxide emissions must not exceed 0.70 lb/mmBtu, as a 3-hour rolling average; and

(C) Particulate matter emissions must be minimized to extent practicable pursuant to approved startup and shutdown procedures in accordance with OAR 340-214-0310.

(e) The Foster-Wheeler boiler at the source must permanently cease burning coal by no later than December 31, 2020. Notwithstanding the definition of netting basis in OAR 340- 200 -0020, and the process for reducing plant site emission limits in OAR 340-222-0043, the netting basis and PSELs for the boiler are reduced to zero upon the date on which the boiler permanently ceases burning coal, and prior to that date the netting basis and PSELs for the boiler apply only to physical changes or changes in the method of operation of the source for the purpose of complying with emission limits applicable to the

boiler.

(2) Studies to evaluate compliance with the sulfur dioxide emissions limits in paragraphs (1)(b)(A)-(B), and the potential side effects of compliance with those limits, if required by section (3), must be completed as follows:

(a) A plan to evaluate the sulfur dioxide emissions limit in paragraph (1)(b)(A) must be submitted for Department approval by July 1, 2011, and the results of the evaluation must be submitted to the Department by July 1, 2013;

(b) A plan to evaluate the sulfur dioxide emissions limit in paragraph (1)(b)(B) must be submitted for Department approval by July 1, 2015, and the results of the evaluation must be submitted to the Department by July 1, 2017; and

(c) Each study pursuant to this section (2) must:

(A) Evaluate whether a dry sorbent injection pollution control system is technically infeasible, will prevent compliance with mercury emissions limits under OAR 340- 228 -0606, or cause a significant air quality impact (as that term is defined in OAR 340-200-0020) for PM 10 or PM 2.5 ;

(B) Evaluate a range of

commercially available sorbent materials that could be used in a dry sorbent injection pollution control system to reduce sulfur dioxide emissions;Attachment 3.2, pg. 4

(C) Evaluate the potential for significant air quality impacts for PM 10 or PM 2.5 as follows:

(i) Perform modeling consistent with the requirements of OAR 340- 225 -0050(1) with screening meteorological data containing conservative meteorological assumptions; or

(ii) I f modeling with screening meteorological data pursuant to subparagraph (i) demonstrates that significant air quality impacts for PM 10 or PM 2.5 will occur, perform modeling with site specific meteorological data obtained from the installation of a meteorological monitoring station, including one year of monitoring data for each study. The meteorological monitoring station must be installed, certified, operated and maintained, and the output of the meteorological monitoring station must be recorded, in accordance with a plan approved by the Department ;

(D) Evaluate the use of other sulfur dioxide pollution control systems of equal or lower cost as a dry sorbent injection pollution control system, including but not limited to the use of ultra-low sulfur coal, i f the study demonstrates that the use of a dry sorbent injection pollution control system is technically infeasible, will prevent compliance with mercury emissions limits under OAR 340-228-0606, or will cause a significant air quality impact (as that term is defined in OAR 340-200-0020) for PM 10 or PM 2.5 ; and

(E) If applicable, propose an emissions limit for sulfur dioxide based on a 30-day rolling average that exceeds the limits listed in paragraphs (1)(b)(A)- (B) , based upon the reduction of sulfur dioxide emissions to the maximum extent feasible through the use of a dry sorbent injection pollution control system or another sulfur dioxide pollution control system of equal or lower cost, including but not limited to the use of ultra-low sulfur coal, provided that the emissions limit may not exceed 0. 55 lb/mmBtu heat input as a

30 -day rolling average.

(3) Between July 1, 2014 and December 31, 2020, sulfur dioxide emissions may exceed the limit listed in paragraph (1)(b)(A) or (B) , or both, if:

(a) Studies have been submitted pursuant to section (2);

(b) Compliance with the applicable emissions limit or limits would:

(A) Be technically infeasible;

(B) Prevent compliance with mercury emissions limits under OAR 340-228-0606; or

(C) Cause a significant air quality impact, as that term is defined in OAR 340-200-0020, for PM 10 or
PM 2.5 ;

(c) Sulfur dioxide emissions are otherwise reduced to the maximum extent feasible as described in subsection (2)(c); and

(d) The source’s Oregon Title V Operating Permit i s modified to include a federally enforceable permit limit reflecting the requirements of subsection (2)(c), prior to the compliance date for the sulfur dioxide emissions limit in paragraph (1)(b)(A) or (B) that will be exceeded; provided that if the sourc e’s Oregon Title V Operating Permit has not been modified prior to the applicable compliance date, sulfur dioxide emissions may exceed the emissions limit in paragraph (1)(b)(A) or (B) if the source submitted a complete application to modify its Oregon Title V Operating Permit at least eight months prior to theAttachment 3.2, pg. 5

applicable compliance date and sulfur dioxide emissions do not exceed the emissions limit proposed in its application (which may not exceed 0. 55 lb/mmBtu heat input as a 30-day rolling average).

(4) Compliance demonstration. Using the procedures specified in section (5) of this rule:

(a) Compliance with a 30-day rolling average limit must be demonstrated within 180 days of the compliance date specified in section (1) of this rule; and

(b) Compliance with any 30-day rolling average limit for sulfur dioxide that may be established pursuant to subsection (3)(c) must be demonstrated within 180 days of the compliance date for the limit in paragraph (1)(b)(A) or (B) that is superseded by the emissions limit established pursuant to subsection (3)(c)

.

(5) Compliance Monitoring and Testing.

(a) Compliance with the emissions limits in subsections (1)(a), (b) and (d)(A)- (B) , and with any emissions limit for sulfur dioxide that may be established pursuant to subsection (3)(c), must be determined with a continuous emissions monitoring system (CEMS) installed, operated, calibrated, and maintained in accordance with the acid rain monitoring requirements in 40 CFR Part 75 as in effect on December 9

, 2010.

(A) The hourly emissions rate in terms of lb/mmBtu heat input must be recorded each operating hour, including periods of startup and shutdown.

(B) The daily average emissions rate must be determined for each boiler operating day using the hourly emissions rates recorded in (A), excluding periods of startup and shutdown.

(C) 30-day rolling averages must be determined using all daily average emissions rates recorded in (B) whether or not the days are consecutive.

(D) The daily average emission rate is calculated for any calendar day in which the boiler combusts any fuel. An operating hour means a clock hour during which the boiler combusts any fuel, either for part of

the hour or for the entire hour.

(b) Compliance with the particulate matter emissions limit in subsection (1)(c) must be determined by EPA Methods 5 and 19 as in effect on December 9, 2010.

(A) An initial particulate matter source test must be conducted by January 1, 2015.

(B) Subsequent tests must be conducted in accordance with a schedule specified in the source’s Oregon Title V Operating Permit, but not less than once every 5 years.

(C) All testing must be performed in accordance with the Department’s Source Sampling Manual as in effect on December 9, 2010.

(6) Notifications and Reports.Attachment 3.2, pg. 6

(a) The Department must be notified in writing within 7 days after any control equipment (including combustion controls) used to comply with emissions limits in section (1), and with any emissions limit for sulfur dioxide that may be established pursuant to subsection (3)(c), begins operation.

(b) For nitrogen oxide and sulfur dioxide emissions limits in section (1) based on a 30-day rolling average, a compliance status report, including CEMS data, must be submitted within 180 days of the compliance dates specified in section (1).

(c) For any sulfur dioxide emissions limit that may be established pursuant to subsection (3)(c), a compliance status report, including CEMS data, must be submitted within 180 days of the compliance date for the limit in paragraph (1)(b)(A) or (B) that is superseded by the emissions limit established pursuant to subsection (3)(c).

(d) For particulate matter, a compliance status report, including a source test report, must be submitted within 60 days of completing the initial compliance test and all subsequent tests as specified in subsection (5)(b).

(e) The Department must be notified in writing within 7 days of the date upon which the boiler permanently ceases burning coal.

(7) The following provisions of this rule constitute BART requirements for the Foster-Wheeler Boiler: subsection (1)(a), paragraph (1)(b)(A), subsections (1)(c)-(e), (2)(a) and (2)(c), and sections (3)-(6).

(8) The following provisions of this rule constitute additional requirements pursuant to the federal Regional Haze Rules under 40 CFR § 51.308(e) for the Foster-Wheeler Boiler : paragraph (1)(b)(B)

, subsections (2)(b) and (2)(c), and sections (3)-(6).

NOTE : This rule is included in the State of Oregon Clean Air Act Implementation Plan as adopted by the Environmental Quality Commission under OAR 340- 200 -0040.

Stat. Auth.: ORS 468 & 468A Stats. Implemented: ORS 468A.025 Hist.: DEQ 3-2009, f. & cert. ef. 6- 30 -09

340 -223-0040

Federally Enforceable Permit Limits

(1) A BART-eligible source that would be subject to BART may accept a federally enforceable permit

limit or limits that reduces the source’s emissions and prevents the source from being subject to BART.

(2) Any BART-eligible source that accepts a federally enforceable permit limit or limits as described in section (1) to prevent the source from being subject to BART, and that subsequently proposes to terminate its federally enforceable permit limit or limits, and that as a result will increase its emissions and become subject to BART, must submit a BART analysis to the Department and install BART as determined by the Department prior to terminating the federally enforceable permit limit or limits.

(3) The Foster-Wheeler boiler at The Amalgamated Sugar Company plant in Nyssa, Oregon (Title V permit number 23-0002) is a BART-eligible source, and air quality dispersion modeling demonstrates thatAttachment 3.2, pg. 7

it would be subject to BART while operating. However, it is not operating as of December 9, 2010, and therefore is not subject to BART. Prior to resuming operation, the owner or operator of the source must

either:

(a) Submit a BART analysis and install BART as determined by the Department by no later than five years from the date that the United States Environmental Protection Agency approves a revision to the State of Oregon Clean Air Act Implementation Plan that incorporates OAR chapter 340, division 223, or before resuming operation, whichever is later; or

(b) Obtain and comply with a federally enforceable permit limit or limits assuring that the source’s emissions will not cause the source to be subject to BART.

NOTE : This rule is included in the State of Oregon Clean Air Act Implementation Plan as adopted by the Environmental Quality Commission under OAR 340- 200 -0040.

Stat. Auth.: ORS 468 & 468A Stats. Implemented: ORS 468A.025 Hist.: DEQ 3-2009, f. & cert. ef. 6- 30 -09

340 -223-0050

Alternative Regional Haze Requirements for the Foster-Wheeler Boiler at the Boardman CoalFired Power Plant (Federal Acid Rain Program Facility ORISPL Code 6106)

(1) The owner and operator of the Foster-Wheeler boiler at the Boardman coal-fired power plant may elect to comply with OAR 340-223- 0060 and 340- 223

- 00 70, or with OAR 340- 223 -0080, in lieu of complying with OAR 340- 223 -0030, if the owner or operator provides written notification to the Director by no later than July 1, 2014. The written notification must identify which rule of the two alternatives the owner or operator has chosen to comply with. The owner or operator may not change its chosen method of compliance after July 1, 2014.

(2 ) Compliance with OAR 340 -223-0080 in lieu of complying with OAR 340-223-0030 is allowed only if the Foster-Wheeler boiler at the Boardman coal-fired power plant permanently ceases to burn coal within five years of the approval by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) of the revision to the State of Oregon Clean Air Act Implementation Plan that incorporates OAR chapter 340, division 223.

If the boiler has not permanently ceased burning coal by that date, the owner and operator shall be liable for violating OAR 340-223-0030 for each day beginning July 1, 2014 on which the owner or operator did not comply with OAR 340- 223 -0030. This liability shall include, but is not limited to, civil penalties pursuant to OAR chapter 340, division 12, which includes penalties for the economic benefit of operating the facility without the required pollution controls.

(3 ) If , by December 31, 2011, the EPA fails to approve a revision to the State of Oregon Clean Air Act Implementation Plan that incorporates OAR 340-223-0030 (concerning BART requirements based upon permanently ceasing the burning of coal in the Foster-Wheeler Boiler by December 31, 2020), or OAR

340 -223- 00 60 and 340- 223

- 00 70, then the compliance date of July 1, 2014 in OAR 340

- 223

- 0060 (2 )( b) and (c) (sulfur dioxide and particulate matter emissions limits ) is delayed until three years from the date of EPA approval.

(4) Notwithstanding sections (1) and (3), if the EPA approves a revision to the State of Oregon Clean Air Act Implementation Plan that incorporates OAR 340- 223 -0030 (concerning BART requirements basedAttachment 3.2, pg. 8

upon permanently ceasing the burning of coal in the Foster-Wheeler Boiler by December 31, 2020), then

OAR 340 -223- 00 60 and 340-223- 00 70 are repealed

, compliance with OAR 340

- 223

- 00 60 and 340-223-

00 7 0 in lieu of complying with OAR 340- 223 -0030 is no longer an alternative, and compliance with OAR

340 -223-0030 or OAR 340- 223

- 00 80 is required.

340 -223-0060

Alternative BART Requirements for the Foster-Wheeler Boiler at the Boardman Coal-Fired Power Plant (Federal Acid Rain Program Facility ORISPL Code 6106) Based Upon Operation Until 2040 or Beyond

(1) Subject to OAR 340 -223-0050, the owner or operator of the Foster-Wheeler boiler at the Boardman coal-fired power plant may elect to comply with this rule and 340- 223 -0070 in lieu of compliance with

OAR 340-223-0030.

(2) Emissions limits:

(a) On and after July 1, 2011, nitrogen oxide emissions must not exceed 0.28 lb/mmBtu heat input as a

30 -day rolling average and 0.23 lb/mmBtu heat input as a 12-month rolling average.

(A) If it is demonstrated by July 1, 2012 that the emissions limits in (a) cannot be achieved with combustion controls, the Department may grant an extension of compliance to July 1, 2014.

(B) If an extension is granted, on and after July 1, 2014 the nitrogen oxide emissions must not exceed

0.19 lb/mm Btu heat input as a 30-day rolling average

, and the emissions limits of 0.28 lb/mmBtu heat input as a 30-day rolling average and 0.23 lb/mmBtu heat input as a 12-month rolling average no longer apply

.

(b) On and after July 1, 2014, sulfur dioxide emissions must not exceed 0.12 lb/mmBtu heat input as a 30- day rolling average.

(c) On and after July 1, 2014, particulate matter emissions must not exceed 0.012 lb/mmBtu heat input as determined by compliance source testing.

(d) During periods of startup and shutdown, the following emissions limits apply instead of the limits in subsections (2)(a) through (c):

(A) Sulfur dioxide emissions must not exceed 1.20 lb/mmBtu, as a 3-hour rolling average;

(B) Nitrogen oxide emissions must not exceed 0.70 lb/mmBtu, as a 3-hour rolling average; and

(C) Particulate matter emissions must be minimized to extent practicable pursuant to approved startup and shutdown procedures in accordance with OAR 340 -214-0310.

(3) Compliance demonstration. Using the procedures specified in section (4) of this rule:

(a) Compliance with a 30-day rolling average limit must be demonstrated within 180 days of the compliance date specified in section (2) of this rule.Attachment 3.2, pg. 9

(b) Compliance with a 12-month rolling average must be demonstrated within 12 months of the compliance date specified in section (2) of this rule.

(4) Compliance Monitoring and Testing.

(a) Compliance with the emissions limits in (2)(a), (b) and (d)(A)-( B) must be determined with a continuous emissions monitoring system (CEMS) installed, operated, calibrated, and maintained in accordance with the acid rain monitoring requirements in 40 CFR Part 75 as in effect on December 9

, 2010

.

(A) The hourly emissions rate in terms of lb/mmBtu heat input must be recorded each operating hour, including periods of startup and shutdown.

(B) The daily average emissions rate must be determined for each boiler operating day using the hourly emissions rates recorded in (A), excluding periods of startup and shutdown.

(C) 30-day rolling averages must be determined using all daily average emissions rates recorded in (B) whether or not the days are consecutive.

(D) 12-month rolling averages must be determined using calendar month averages based on all daily averages during the calendar month.

(b) Compliance with the particulate matter emissions limit in (2)(c) must be determined by EPA Methods 5 and 19 as in effect on December 9, 2010

.

(A) An initial test must be conducted by January 1, 2015.

(B) Subsequent tests must be conducted in accordance with a schedule specified in the Oregon Title V Operating Permit, but not less than once every 5 years.

(C) All testing must be performed in accordance with the Department’s Source Sa mpling Manual as in effect on December 9, 2010

.

(7) Notifications and Reports.

(a) The Department must be notified in writing within 7 days after any control equipment (including combustion controls) used to comply with emissions limits in section (2) begin operation.

(b) For nitrogen oxide and sulfur dioxide limits based on a 30-day rolling average, a compliance status report, including CEMS data, must be submitted within 180 days of the compliance dates specified in section (2).

(c) If applicable, a compliance status report for the 12-month rolling average nitrogen oxide limit in section (2)(a) must be submitted by August 1, 2012.

(d) For particulate matter, a compliance status report, including a source test report, must be submitted within 60 days of completing the initial compliance test specified in section (4)(b).Attachment 3.2, pg. 10

NOTE : This rule is included in the State of Oregon Clean Air Act Implementation Plan as adopted by the Environmental Quality Commission under OAR 340- 200 -0040.

Stat. Auth.: ORS 468 & 468A Stats. Implemented: ORS 468A.025

340 -223- 00 7 0

Additional NOx Requirements for the Foster-Wheeler Boiler at the Boardman Coal-Fired Power Plant (Federal Acid Rain Program Facility ORISPL Code 6106) Based Upon Operation Until 2040 or Beyond

(1) Subject to OAR 340 -223-0050, the owner or operator of the Foster-Wheeler boiler at the Boardman coal-fired power plant may elect to comply with this rule and 340- 223 -0060 in lieu of compliance with

OAR 340-223-0030.

(2) On and after July 1, 2017, nitrogen oxide em issions must not exceed 0.070 lb/mmBtu heat input as a

30 -day rolling average, excluding periods of startup and shutdown.

(3) Compliance with the nitrogen oxide emissions limit in section (2) must be determined with a continuous emissions monitoring system in accordance with OAR 340-223- 00 6 0( 3)-(4).

(4) The Department must be notified in writing within 7 days after any control equipment used to comply with the emissions limit in section (2 ) begins operation.

(5) A compliance status report, including CEMS data, must be submitted by January 1, 2018.

NOTE : This rule is included in the State of Oregon Clean Air Act Implementation Plan as adopted by the Environmental Quality Commission under OAR 340- 200 -0040.

Stat. Auth.: ORS 468 & 468A Stats. Implemented: ORS 468A.025

340 -223- 00 8 0

Alternative Requirements for the Foster-Wheeler Boiler at the Boardman Coal-Fired Power Plant (Federal Acid Rain Program Facility ORISPL Code 6106) Based Upon Permanently Ceasing the Burning of Coal Within Five Years of EPA Approval of the Revision to the Oregon Clean Air Act State Implementation Plan Incorporating OAR Chapter 340, Division 223.

(1) Subject to OAR 340 -223-0050, the owner or operator of the Foster-Wheeler boiler at the Boardman coal-fired power plant may elect to comply with this rule in lieu of compliance with OAR 340-223-0030

if the boiler permanently ceases to burn coal within five years of the approval by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) of the revision to the State of Oregon Clean Air Act Implementation Plan that incorporates OAR chapter 340, division 223.

(2) Emissions limits:Attachment 3.2, pg. 11

(a) Beginning July 1, 2011, nitrogen oxide emissions must not exceed 0.23 lb/mmBtu heat input as a 30- day rolling average, provided that:

(A) If the source submitted a complete application for construction and/or operation of pollution control equipment to satisfy the emissions limit in subsection (2)(a) at least eight months prior to the compliance date of July 1, 2011, and the Department has not approved or denied the application by the compliance date, the compliance date is extended until the Department approves or disapproves the application, but may not be extended to a date more than five years from the date that the EPA approves a revision to the State of Oregon Clean Air Act Implementation Plan that incorporates OAR 340- 223 -0030; and

(B) If it is demonstrated by December 31, 2011 that the emissions limit in subsection (2)(a) cannot be achieved with combustion controls, the Department by order may grant an extension of compliance to July 1, 2013.

(b) During periods of startup and shutdown, the emissions limit in subsection (2)(a) does not apply, and nitrogen oxide emissions must not exceed 0.70 lb/mmBtu, as a 3-hour rolling average.

(c) The Foster-Wheeler boiler at the source must permanently cease burning coal by no later than five years after the approval by the EPA of the revision to the State of Oregon Clean Air Act Implementation Plan that incorporates OAR chapter 340, division 223. Notwithstanding the definition of netting basis in OAR 340-200-0020, and the process for reducing plant site emission limits in OAR 340- 222 -0043, the netting basis and PSELs for the boiler are reduced to zero upon the date on which the boiler permanently ceases burning coal, and prior to that date the netting basis and PSELs for the boiler apply only to physical changes or changes in the method of operation of the source for the purpose of complying with emission limits applicable to the boiler.

(3) Compliance demonstration. Using the procedures specified in section (4) of this rule , c ompliance with a 30-day rolling average limit must be demonstrated within 180 days of the compliance date specified in section (2) of this rule.

(4) Compliance Monitoring and Testing. Compliance with the emissions limit in subsection (2)(a) must be determined with a continuous emissions monitoring system (CEMS) installed, operated, calibrated, and maintained in accordance with the acid rain monitoring requirements in 40 CFR Part 75 as in effect

on December 9, 2010.

(a) The hourly emission rate in terms of lb/mmBtu heat input must be recorded each operating hour, including periods of startup and shutdown.

(b) The daily average emission rate must be determined for each boiler operating day using the hourly emission rates recorded in (a), excluding periods of startup and shutdown.

(c) 30-day rolling averages must be determined using all daily average emissions rates recorded in (b ) whether or not the days are consecutive.

(d) The daily average emission rate is calculated for any calendar day in which the boiler combusts any fuel. An operating hour means a clock hour during which the boiler combusts any fuel, either for part of

the hour or for the entire hour.

(5) Notifications and ReportsAttachment 3.2, pg. 12

(a) The Department must be notified in writing within 7 days after any control equipment (including combustion controls) used to comply with emissions limit in subsection (2)(a) begin operation.

(b) A compliance status report, including CEMS data, must be submitted within 180 days of the compliance date specified in section (2).

NOTE : This rule is included in the State of Oregon Clean Air Act Implementation Plan as adopted by the Environmental Quality Commission under OAR 340- 200 -0040.

Stat. Auth.: ORS 468 & 468A Stats. Implemented: ORS 468A.025

## Attachment 3.3

Placeholder

–

See attached binder for

Oregon Regional Haze Plan for Implementing Section 308 (40 CFR 51.308) of the

Regional Haze Rule. Effective December 9, 2010Attachment 3

. 4 , pg

. 1



### DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY

DIVISION 2 00

GENERAL AIR POLLUTION

PROCEDURES AND DEFINITIONS

340

- 200

- 0040

State of Oregon Clean Air Act Implementation Plan

(1) This implementation plan, consisting of Volumes 2 and 3 of the State of Oregon Air Qual ity Control Program, contains control strategies, rules and standards prepared by the Department of Environmental Quality and is adopted as the state implementation plan (SIP) of the State of Oregon pursuant to the

federal Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C.A 7401 to 7671q

.

(2) Except as provided in section (3), revisions to the SIP will be made pursuant to the Commission’s rulemaking procedures in division 11 of this chapter and any other requirements contained in the SIP and

will be submitted to the United States E nvironmental Protection Agency for approval. The State Implementation Plan was last modified by the Commission on December 9 , 2010.

(3) Notwithstanding any other requirement contained in the SIP, the Department may:

(a) Submit to the Environmenta l Protection Agency any permit condition implementing a rule that is part of the federally

- approved SIP as a source

- specific SIP revision after the Department has complied with the public hearings provisions of 40 CFR 51.102 (July 1, 2002); and

(b) Approv e the standards submitted by a regional authority if the regional authority adopts verbatim any standard that the Commission has adopted, and submit the standards to EPA for approval as a SIP

revision.

NOTE : Revisions to the State of Oregon Clean Air Act Implementation Plan become federally enforceable upon approval by the United States Environmental Protection Agency. If any provision of the federally approved Implementation Plan conflicts with any provision adopted by the Commission, the Department shall enforce the more stringent provision.

Stat. Auth.: ORS 468.020 Stats. Implemented: ORS 468A.035 Deleted: April 29Attachment 3

. 5 , pg

. 1



### DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY

DIVISION 223

REGIONAL HAZE RULES

340

- 223

- 0010

Purpose

OAR 340

- 223

- 0020 through 340

- 223

- 00 80 establish requirements for certain sources emitting air pollutants that reduce visibility and contribute to regional haze in Class I areas, for the purpose of implementing Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART) requirements and other requirements associated with the federal Regional Haze Rules in 40 CFR § 51.308, as in effect on December 9 , 2010

.

NOTE : This rule is included in the State of Oregon Clean Air Act Implementation Plan as adopted by the Environmental Quality Commission under OAR 340

- 200

- 0040.

Stat. Auth.: ORS 468 & 468A Stats. Implemented: ORS 468A.025 Hist.: DEQ 3

- 2009, f. & cert. ef. 6

- 30

- 09

340

- 223

- 0020

Definitions

The definitions in OAR 340

- 200

- 0020 and this rule apply to this division. If the same term is defined in

this rule and OAR 340

- 200

- 0020, the definition in this rule applies to this division.

(1) “BART

- eligible source” means any source determined by the Department to meet the criteria for a

BART

- eligible source established in Appendix Y to 40 CFR Part 51, “Guidelines for BART Determinations Under the Regional Haze Rule”, and in accordan ce with the federal Regional Haze Rule s under 40 CFR § 51.308(e), as in effect on December 9 , 2010

.

(2) “Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART)” means an emission limitation based on the degree of reduction achievable through the applicat ion of the best system of continuous emission reduction for each pollutant that is emitted by an existing stationary facility. The emission limitation must be established, on

a case

- by

- case basis, taking into consideration the technology available, the cos ts of compliance, the energy and nonair quality environmental impacts of compliance, any pollution control equipment in use or in existence at the source or unit, the remaining useful life of the source or unit, and the degree of improvement in visibility which may reasonably be anticipated to result from the use of such technology. Deleted: 0050

Deleted: 1⁄4

Deleted: June 19, 2009

Deleted: the federal BART rule in 40

Deleted: 1⁄4

Deleted: CFR 51.308

,

Deleted: 1⁄4

Deleted: June 19, 2009Attachment 3

. 5 , pg

. 2

(3) “Deciview” means a measurement of visibility impairment. A deciview is a haze index derived from calculated light extinction, such that uniform changes in haziness correspo nd to uniform incremental changes in perception across the entire range of conditions, from pristine to highly impaired. The deciview haze index is calculated based on the following equation (for the purposes of calculating deciview, the atmospheric light extinction coefficient must be calculated from aerosol measurements):

Deciview haze index= 10ln(b ext /10 Mm

- 1 )

Where bext= the atmospheric light extinction coefficient, expressed in inverse megameters (Mm

- 1).

(4) “Dry sorbent injec ti on pollution control system” means a pollution control system that reduces sulfur dioxide emissions by combining a dry alkaline reagent directly with the boiler exhaust gas stream to enable the reagent to adsorb sulfur dioxide and be collected by the exist ing electrostatic precipitator.

( 5 ) “Subject to BART” means a BART

- eligible source that based on air quality dispersion modeling causes visibility impairment equal to or greater than 0.5 deciview in any Class I area, at the 98th percentile for both a thre e

- year period and one

- year period.

( 6 ) “Ultra

- low sulfur coal” means coal that contains no more than 0.25 lb sulfur /mmBtu heat input on

average.

NOTE : This rule is included in the State of Oregon Clean Air Act Implementation Plan as adopted by the

Environ mental Quality Commission under OAR 340

- 200

- 0040.

Stat. Auth.: ORS 468 & 468A Stats. Implemented: ORS 468A.025 Hist.: DEQ 3

- 2009, f. & cert. ef. 6

- 30

- 09

340

- 223

- 0030

BART and Additional Regional Haze Requirements for the Foster

- Wheeler Boiler at the Boa rdman

Coal

- Fired Power Plant (Federal Acid Rain Program Facility ORISPL Code 6106)

(1) Emissions limits:

(a) Between July 1, 2011 and December 31, 2020, nitrogen oxide emissions must not exceed 0. 23 lb/mmBtu heat input as a 30

- day rolling average , provid ed that:

(A) If the source submit ted a complete application for construction and/or operati on of pollution control equipment to satisfy the emissions limit in subsection (1)(a) at least eight months prior to the compliance date of July 1, 2011

, and the Dep artment has not approved or denied the application by the compliance date, the compliance date is extend ed until the Department approves or disapproves the application, but may not be extended to a date more than five years from the date that the United St ates Environmental Protection Agency approves a revision to the State of Oregon Clean Air Act Implementation Plan that incorporates OAR 340

- 223

- 0030 ; and

(B) I f it is demonstrated by December 31, 2011 that the emission s limit in subsection (1)(a) cannot b e achieved with combustion controls, the Department by order may grant an extension of compliance to July 1, 201 3. Deleted: 10 lne (bext/10 Mm

- 1)

Deleted: ¶

Deleted: 4Attachment 3

. 5 , pg

. 3

(b) Except as provided in section ( 3 ) below:

(A) Between July 1, 2014 and June 30, 2018, sulfur dioxide emissions must not exceed 0.4 0 lb/ mmBtu heat input as a 30

- day rolling average; and

(B) Between July 1, 2018 and December 31, 2020, sulfur dioxide emissions must not exceed 0.3 0 lb/mmBtu heat input as a 30

- day rolling average.

( c ) Between July 1, 2014 and December 31, 2020 , particulate mat ter emissions must not exceed 0.0 40 lb/mmBtu heat input as determined by compliance source testing.

( d ) D uring periods of startup and shutdown , the following emissions limits apply instead of the limits in

subsections (a) through ( c ) :

(A) S ulfur dioxide emissions must not exceed 1.2 0 lb/ mm Btu, as a 3

- hour rolling average;

(B) N itrogen oxide emissions must not exceed 0.70 lb/m m Btu, as a 3

- hour rolling average; and

(C) P articulate matter emissions must be minimized to extent practicable pursuant to approved startup and

shutdown procedures in accordance with OAR 340

- 214

- 0310.

(e) The Foster

- Wheeler boiler at the source must permanently cease burning coal by no later than December 31, 2020. Notwithstanding the definition of netting basis in OAR 340

- 200

- 0020, a nd the process for reducing plant site emission limits in OAR 340

- 222

- 0043, the netting basis and PSELs for the boiler are reduced to zero upon the date on which the boiler permanently ceases burning coal, and prior to that date the netting basis and PSELs for the boiler apply only to physical changes or changes in the method of operation of the source for the purpose of complying with emission limits applicable to the

boiler.

(2) Studies to evaluate compliance with the sulfur dioxide emissions limits in pa ragraphs (1)(b)(A)

- (B), and the potential side effects of compliance with those limits, if required by section (3), must be completed as follows:

(a) A plan to evaluate the sulfur dioxide emission s limit in paragraph (1)(b)(A) must be submitted for Depart ment approval by July 1, 2011, and the results of the evaluation must be submitted to the Department by July 1, 2013;

(b) A plan to evaluate the sulfur dioxide emission s limit in paragraph (1)(b)(B) must be submitted for Department approval by July 1, 2015 , and the results of the evaluation must be submitted to the Department by July 1, 2017; and

(c) Each study pursuant to this section (2) must:

(A) Evaluate whether a dry sorbent injection pollution control system is technically infeasible, will

p revent co mpliance with mercury emission s limits under OAR 340

- 228

- 0606 , or c ause a significant air quality impact ( as that term is defined in OAR 340

- 200

- 0020 ) for PM 10 or PM 2.5 ;

(B) Evaluate a range of commercially available sorbent materials that could be used in a dry sorbent injection pollution control system to reduce sulfur dioxide emissions;Attachment 3

. 5 , pg

. 4

(C) Evaluate the potential for significant air quality impact s for PM 10 or PM 2.5 as follows:

(i) Perform modeling consistent with the requirements of OAR 340

- 225

- 0050(1 ) with screening meteorological data containing conservative meteorological assumptions ; or

(ii) If modeling with screening meteorological data pursuant to subparagraph (i) demonstrates that significant air quality impact s for PM 10 or PM 2.5 will occur, per form model ing with site specific meteorological data obtained from the installation of a meteorological monitoring station, including one year of monitoring data for each study. The meteorological monitoring station must be installed, certified, operated and maintained, and the output of the meteorological monitoring station must be recorded, in accordance with a plan approved by the Department ;

(D) Evaluate the use of other sulfur dioxide pollution control systems of equal or lower cost as a dry

sorbent injection pollution control system, including but not limited to the use of ultra

- low sulfur coal

, i f the study demonstrates that the use of a dry sorbent injection pollution control system is technically infeasible, will p revent compliance with mercury em ission s limits under OAR 340

- 228

- 0606 , or will

c ause a significant air quality impact ( as that term is defined in OAR 340

- 200

- 0020 ) for PM 10 or PM 2.5 ; and

(E) If applicable, propose an emissions limit for sulfur dioxide based on a 30

- day rolling average th at
exceeds the limits listed in paragraphs (1)(b)(A)

- (B) , based upon the reduc tion of s ulfur dioxide emissions

to the maximum extent feasible through the use of a dry sorbent injection pollution control system or another sulfur dioxide pollution control sy stem of equal or lower cost, including but not limited to the use

of ultra

- low sulfur coal, provided that the emissions limit may not exceed 0. 55 lb/mmBtu heat input as a

30

- day rolling average

.

(3) Between July 1, 2014 and December 31, 2020, sulfu r dioxide emissions may exceed the limit listed in paragraph (1)(b)(A) or (B) , or both, if:

(a) Studies have been submitted pursuant to section (2);

(b) Compliance with the applicable emissions limit or limits would:

(A) Be technically infeasible;

(B) P revent compliance with mercury emission s limits under OAR 340

- 228

- 0606; or

(C) Cause a significant air quality impact, as that term is defined in OAR 340

- 200

- 0020 , for PM 10 or
PM 2.5 ;

(c) Sulfur dioxide emissions are otherwise reduced to the maximum extent feasible as described in subsection (2)(c) ; and

(d) The source’s Oregon Title V Operating Permit is modified to include a federally enforceable permit limit reflecting the requirements of subsection ( 2 )(c), prior to the compliance date for the sulfur diox ide emissions limit in paragraph (1)(b)(A) or (B) that will be exceeded ; provided that if the source’s Oregon Title V Operating Permit has not been modified prior to the applicable compliance date

, sulfur dioxide

emissions may exceed the emissions limit in paragraph (1)(b)(A) or (B) if the source submitted a complete application to modify its Oregon Title V Operating Permit at least eight months prior to the Deleted:Attachment 3

. 5 , pg

. 5

applicable compliance date and sulfur dioxide emissions do not exceed the emissions limit proposed i n its application (which may not exceed 0. 55 lb/mmBtu heat input as a 30

- day rolling average )

.

(4) Compliance demonstration. Using the procedures specified in section (5) of this rule:

(a) Compliance with a 30

- day rolling average limit must be demonstrat ed within 180 days of the compliance date specified in section (1) of this rule ; and

(b) Compliance with any 30

- day rolling average limit for sulfur dioxide that may be established pursuant to subsection (3)(c) must be demonstrated within 180 days of the c ompliance date for the limit in paragraph (1)(b)(A) or (B) that is superseded by the emission s limit established pursuant to subsection (3)(c)

.

(5) Compliance Monitoring and Testing

.

(a) Compliance with the emissions limits in subsections (1)(a) , (b) and ( d ) (A)

- (B) , and with any emission s limit for sulfur dioxide that may be established pursuant to subsection (3)(c), must be determined with a continuous emissions monitoring system (CEMS) installed, operated, calibrated, and maintained in

accordance with t he acid rain monitoring requirements in 40 CFR Part 75 as in effect on December 9

, 2010.

(A) The hourly emission s rate in terms of lb/mmBtu heat input must be recorded each operating hour, including periods of startup and shutdown.

(B) The daily average emission s rate must be determined for each boiler operating day using the hourly

emission s rates recorded in (A), excluding periods of startup and shutdown.

(C) 30

- day rolling averages must be determined using all daily average emissions rates recorded in (B) whether or not the days are consecutive.

(D) The daily average emission rate is calculated for any calendar day in which the boiler combusts any fuel. An operating hour means a clock hour during which the boiler combusts any fuel, either for part of

the hour or for the entire hour.

(b) Compliance with the particulate matter emissions limit in subsection (1)( c ) must be determined by

EPA Methods 5 and 19 as in effect on December 9 , 2010.

(A) An initial particulate matter source test must be conducted b y January 1, 2015.

(B) Subsequent tests must be conducted in accordance with a schedule specified in the source’s Oregon Title V Operating Permit, but not less than once every 5 years.

(C) All testing must be performed in accordance with the Department’s Source Sampling Manual as in

effect on December 9 , 2010.

(6) Notifications and Reports

.Attachment 3

. 5 , pg

. 6

(a) The Department must be notified in writing within 7 days after any control equipment (including combustion controls) used to comply with emissions limits in sect ion (1), and with any emission s limit for sulfur dioxide that may be established pursuant to subsection (3)(c), begins operation.

(b) For nitrogen oxide and sulfur dioxide emissions limits in section (1) based on a 30

- day rolling average, a compliance sta tus report, including CEMS data, must be submitted within 180 days of the compliance dates specified in section (1).

( c ) For any sulfur dioxide emissions limit that may be established pursuant to subsection (3)(c), a compliance status report, including CEM S data, must be submitted within 180 days of the compliance

date for the limit in paragraph (1)(b)(A) or (B) that is superseded by the emission s limit established pursuant to subsection (3)(c)

.

( d ) For particulate matter, a compliance status report, includ ing a source test report, must be submitted within 60 days of completing the initial compliance test and all subsequent tests as specified in subsection (5)(b).

(e) The Department must be notified in writing within 7 days of the date upon which the boiler permanently ceases burning coal.

(7) The following provisions of this rule constitute BART requirements for the Foster

- Wheeler Boiler:

subsection (1)(a), paragraph (1) (b)(A), subsections (1) (c)

- ( e ), (2)(a) and (2)(c), and sections (3)

- (6).

(8) The follow ing provisions of this rule constitute additional requirements pursuant to the federal Regional Haze Rule s under 40 CFR § 51.308(e) for the Foster

- Wheeler Boiler : paragraph (1) (b)(B)

, subsections (2)(b) and (2)(c), and sections (3)

- (6).

NOTE : This rule is included in the State of Oregon Clean Air Act Implementation Plan as adopted by the

Enviro nmental Quality Commission under OAR 340

- 200

- 0040.

Stat. Auth.: ORS 468 & 468A Stats. Implemented: ORS 468A.025 Hist.: DEQ 3

- 2009, f. & cert. ef. 6

- 30

- 09

340

- 223

- 0040

Federally Enforceable Permit Limits

(1) A BART

- eligible source that would be subject to B ART may accept a federally enforceable permit

limit or limits that reduces the source’s emissions and prevents the source from being subject to BART.

(2) Any BART

- eligible source that accepts a federally enforceable permit limit or limits as described in

s ection (1) to prevent the source from being subject to BART, and that subsequently proposes to terminate its federally enforceable permit limit or limits , and that as a result will increase its emissions and become subject to BART, must submit a BART analy sis to the Department and install BART as

determined by the Department prior to terminating the federally enforceable permit limit or limits.

(3) The Foster

- Wheeler boiler at The Amalgamated Sugar Company plant in Nyssa, Oregon (Title V permit number 23

- 0 002) is a BART

- eligible source, and air quality dispersion modeling demonstrates that Deleted: (1) Emissions limit s: ¶ (a) On and after July 1, 2011, nitrogen oxides emissions must not exceed 0.28 lb/mmBtu heat input

as a 30

- day rolling average and 0.23 lb/mmBtu heat input as a 12

- month rolling average. ¶ (A) If it is demonstrated by July 1, 2012 that the

emission limit s in (a) cannot be achieved with combustion controls, the Department may grant an extension of compliance to July 1, 2014. ¶ (B) If an extension is granted, the nitrogen oxides

emissions must not exceed 0. 23 lb/mm Btu heat input as a 30

- day rolling average on and after July 1,

2014

. ¶ (b) On and after July 1, 2014, sulfur dioxide emissions must not exceed 0.12 lb/mmBtu heat input

as a 30

- day rolling average. ¶ (c) On and after July 1, 2014, particulate matter

emissions must not exceed 0.012 lb/mmBtu heat input as determined by compliance source testing. ¶ (d) The emission limits in (a) through (c) above do not apply during periods of startup or shutdown. ¶ (2) Compliance demonstration. Using the procedures specified in section (3) of this rule: ¶ (a) Compliance w ith a 30

- day rolling average limit must be demonstrated within 180 days of the compliance date specified in section (1) of this rule. ¶ (b) Compliance with a 12

- month rolling average

must be demonstrated within 12 months of the compliance date specified in section (1) of this rule. ¶ (3) Compliance Monitoring and Testing ¶ (a) Compliance with the emissions limits in (1)(a) and (b) must be determined with a continuous emissions monitoring system (CEMS) installed, operated, calibrated, and maintained in accordan ce with the acid rain monitoring requirements in 40

CFR Part 75 as in effect on June 19, 2009

. ¶ (A) The hourly emission rate in terms of lb/mmBtu heat input must be recorded each operating hour, including periods of startup and shutdown. ¶

... Deleted: 340

- 223

- 0040 ¶ Additional NOx Requirements for the Foster

Wheeler Boiler at the Boardman Coal

- Fired

P ower Plant (Federal Acid Rain Program Facility ORISPL Code 6106) ¶ On and after July 1, 2017, nitrogen oxides emissions must not exceed 0.070 lb/mmBtu heat input, excluding periods of startup and shutdown. ¶ ( 1 ) Compliance with the NOx emissions limit must

b e determined with a continuous emissions monitoring system in accordance with OAR 340

- 223

- 0030(2) and (3). ¶ ( 2 ) The Department must be notified in writing within 7 days after any control equipment used to comply with the emission limit begins operation. ¶

... Deleted: 0050

Deleted: (1) Any BART

- eligible source that causes visibility impairment less than 0.5 deciview

in all Class I areas, at the 98th percentile for both a

three

- year period and one

- year period, based on a federally enforceable permit limit or limits, is not subject to BART. ¶ (2) If a BART

- eligible source’s federally enforceable permit limit will be terminated, and as a result the source will be subject to BART, the source is required to submit a BART analysis and install BART as determined by the Department prior to terminating the federally enforceable permit limit.Attachment 3

. 5 , pg

. 7

it would be subject to BART while operating. However, it is not operating as of December 9 , 2010 , and therefore is not subject to BART. Prior to resuming ope ration, the owner or operator of the source must

either:

(a) Submit a BART analysis and install BART as determined by the Department by no later than five years from the date that the United States Environmental Protection Agency approves a revision to th e State of Oregon Clean Air Act Implementation Plan that incorporates OAR chapter 340, division 223, or before resuming operation, whichever is later; or

(b) Obtain and comply with a federally enforceable permit limit or limits assuring that t he source’s emissions will not cause the source to be subject to BART.

NOTE : This rule is included in the State of Oregon Clean Air Act Implementation Plan as adopted by the Environmental Quality Commission under OAR 340

- 200

- 0040.

Stat. Auth.: ORS 468 & 468A Stats. Implemented: ORS 468A.025 Hist.: DEQ 3

- 2009, f. & cert. ef. 6

- 30

- 09

340

- 223

- 0050

Alternative Regional Haze Requirements for the Foster

- Wheeler Boiler at the Boardman Coal

Fired Power Plant (Federal Acid Rain Program Facility ORISPL Code 6106)

(1) The owner and operator of the Foster

- Wheeler boiler at the Boardman coal

- fired power plant may elect to comply with OAR 340

- 223

- 00 60 and 340

- 223

- 00 70 , or with OAR 340

- 223

- 0080, in lieu of complying with OAR 340

- 223

- 0030, if the owner or operator provid es written notification to the Director by no later than July 1, 2014. The written notification must identify which rule of the two alternative s the

owner or operator has chosen to comply with. The owner or operator may not change its chosen method

of com pliance after July 1, 2014.

(2 ) Compliance with OAR 340

- 223

- 0080 in lieu of complying with OAR 340

- 223

- 0030 is allowed only if

the Foster

- Wheeler boiler at the Boardman coal

- fired power plant permanently ceases to burn coal within five years of the a pproval by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) of the revision to the State of Oregon Clean Air Act Implementation Plan that incorporates OAR chapter 340, division 223.

If the boiler has not permanently ceased burning coal by that date , the owner and operator shall be liable for violating OAR 340

- 223

- 0030 for each day beginning July 1, 2014 on which the owner or operator did not comply with OAR 340

- 223

- 0030. This liability shall include, but is not limited to, civil penalties

pursuant to OAR chapter 340, division 12, which includes penalties for the economic benefit of operating the facility without the required pollution controls.

( 3 ) If

, by December 31, 2011, the EPA fails to approve a revision to the State of Oregon Clean Air Act Imp lementation Plan that incorporates OAR 340

- 223

- 0030 (concerning BART requirements based upon permanently ceasing the burning of coal in the Foster

- Wheeler Boiler by December 31, 2020)

, or OAR

340

- 223

- 00 6 0 and 340

- 223

- 00 7 0

, then t he compliance date of July 1, 2014 in OAR 340

- 223

- 0060 ( 2 )(b) and (c) ( sulfur dioxide and particulate matter emissions limit s ) is delayed until three years from the date of EPA approval.

( 4 ) Notwithstanding section s (1) and ( 3 ) , if the EPA approves a revision to the State of Oregon C lean Air Act Implementation Plan that incorporates OAR 340

- 223

- 0030 (concerning BART requirements based Deleted: June 19, 2009

Deleted: July 1, 2014Attachment 3

. 5 , pg

. 8

upon permanently ceasing the burning of coal in the Foster

- Wheeler Boiler by December 31, 2020), then

OAR 340

- 223

- 00 6 0 and 340

- 223

- 00 7 0 are repealed

, co mpliance with OAR 340

- 223

- 00 6 0 and 340

- 223

- 00 7 0 in lieu of complying with OAR 340

- 223

- 0030 is no longer an alternative, and compliance with OAR

340

- 223

- 0030 or OAR 340

- 223

- 00 8 0 is required

.

340

- 223

- 0060

Alternative BART Requirements for the Foster

- Wheele r Boiler at the Boardman Coal

- Fired Power Plant (Federal Acid Rain Program Facility ORISPL Code 6106) Based Upon Operation Until 2040 or Beyond

(1) S ubject to OAR 340

- 223

- 0050, the owner or operator of the Foster

- Wheeler boiler at the Boardman

coal

- fired p ower plant may elect to comply with this rule and 340

- 223

- 0070 in lieu of compliance with

OAR 340

- 223

- 0030.

( 2 ) Emissions limits:

(a) On and after July 1, 2011, nitrogen oxide emissions must not exceed 0.28 lb/mmBtu heat input as a

30

- day rolling average and 0.23 lb/mmBtu heat input as a 12

- month rolling average.

(A) If it is demonstrated by July 1, 2012 that the emission s limits in (a) cannot be achieved with combustion controls, the Department may grant an extension of compliance to July 1, 2014.

(B) I f an extension is granted, on and after July 1, 2014 the nitrogen oxide emissions must not exceed

0. 19 lb/mm Btu heat input as a 30

- day rolling average

, and the emission s limits of 0.28 lb/mmBtu heat input as a 30

- day rolling average and 0.23 lb/mmBtu heat input as a 12

- month rolling average no longer apply

.

(b) On and after July 1, 2014, sulfur dioxide emissions must not exceed 0.12 lb/mmBtu heat input as a 30

- day rolling average.

(c) On and after July 1, 2014, particulate matter emissions must not excee d 0.012 lb/mmBtu heat input as determined by compliance source testing.

(d) D uring periods of startup and shutdown , the following emissions limits apply instead of the limits in subsections ( 2 ) (a) through ( c ) :

(A) Sulfur dioxide emissions must not exceed 1.20 lb/mmBtu, as a 3

- hour rolling average;

(B) Nitrogen oxide emissions must not exceed 0.70 lb/mmBtu, as a 3

- hour rolling average; and

(C) Particulate matter emissions must be minimized to extent practicable pursuant to approved startup and shutdown pro cedures in accordance with OAR 340

- 214

- 0310.

( 3 ) Compliance demonstration. Using the procedures specified in section ( 4 ) of this rule:

(a) Compliance with a 30

- day rolling average limit must be demonstrated within 180 days of the compliance date specified in section ( 2 ) of this rule.Attachment 3

. 5 , pg

. 9

(b) Compliance with a 12

- month rolling average must be demonstrated within 12 months of the compliance date specified in section ( 2 ) of this rule.

( 4 ) Compliance Monitoring and Testing

.

(a) Compliance with the emissions lim its in ( 2 )(a)

, (b) and (d) (A)

- (B) must be determined with a continuous emissions monitoring system (CEMS) installed, operated, calibrated, and maintained in accordance with the acid rain monitoring requirements in 40 CFR Part 75 as in effect on December 9

, 2010

.

(A) The hourly emission s rate in terms of lb/mmBtu heat input must be recorded each operating hour, including periods of startup and shutdown.

(B) The daily average emission s rate must be determined for each boiler operating day using the hourly

e mission s rates recorded in (A), excluding periods of startup and shutdown.

(C) 30

- day rolling averages must be determined using all daily average emissions rates recorded in (B) whether or not the days are consecutive.

(D) 12

- month rolling averages must be determined using calendar month averages based on all daily averages during the calendar month.

(b) Compliance with the particulate matter emissions limit in ( 2 )(c) must be determined by EPA Methods

5 and 19 as in effect on December 9 , 2010

.

(A) An in itial test must be conducted by January 1, 2015.

(B) Subsequent tests must be conducted in accordance with a schedule specified in the Oregon Title V Operating Permit, but not less than once every 5 years.

(C) All testing must be performed in accordance with the Department’s Source Sampling Manual as in

effect on December 9 , 2010

.

( 7 ) Notifications and Reports

.

(a) The Department must be notified in writing within 7 days after any control equipment (including combustion controls) used to comply with emi ssions limits in section ( 2 ) begin operation.

(b) For nitrogen oxide and sulfur dioxide limits based on a 30

- day rolling average, a compliance status report, including CEMS data, must be submitted within 180 days of the compliance dates specified in

secti on ( 2 ).

(c) If applicable, a compliance status report for the 12

- month rolling average nitrogen oxide limit in section ( 2 )(a) must be submitted by August 1, 2012.

(d) For particulate matter, a compliance status report, including a source test report, mus t be submitted within 60 days of completing the initial compliance test specified in section ( 4 )(b).Attachment 3

. 5 , pg

. 10

NOTE : This rule is included in the State of Oregon Clean Air Act Implementation Plan as adopted by the Environmental Quality Commission under OAR 340

- 200

- 0040.

Stat. Auth.: ORS 468 & 468A Stats. Implemented: ORS 468A.025

340

- 223

- 00 7 0

Additional NOx Requirements for the Foster

- Wheeler Boiler at the Boardman Coal

- Fired Power Plant (Federal Acid Rain Program Facility ORISPL Code 6106) Based Upon Operation Un til 2040 or Beyond

(1) S ubject to OAR 340

- 223

- 0050, the owner or operator of the Foster

- Wheeler boiler at the Boardman

coal

- fired power plant may elect to comply with this rule and 340

- 223

- 0060 in lieu of compliance with

OAR 340

- 223

- 0030.

( 2 ) On and after July 1, 2017 , nitrogen oxide emissions must not exceed 0.070 lb/mmBtu heat input as a 30

- day rolling average , excluding periods of startup and shutdown.

( 3 ) Compliance with the nitrogen oxide emissions limit in section ( 2 ) must be determined with a

contin uous emissions monitoring system in accordance with OAR 340

- 223

- 00 6 0( 3 )

- ( 4 ).

( 4 ) The Department must be notified in writing within 7 days after any control equipment used to comply

with the emission s limit in section ( 2 ) begins operation.

( 5 ) A complianc e status report, including CEMS data, must be submitted by January 1, 2018.

NOTE : This rule is included in the State of Oregon Clean Air Act Implementation Plan as adopted by the Environmental Quality Commission under OAR 340

- 200

- 0040.

Stat. Auth.: ORS 46 8 & 468A Stats. Implemented: ORS 468A.025

340

- 223

- 00 8 0

Alternative Requirements for the Foster

- Wheeler Boiler at the Boardman Coal

- Fired Power Plant (Federal Acid Rain Program Facility ORISPL Code 6106) Based Upon Permanently Ceasing the Burning of Coal Within Five Years of EPA Approval of the Revision to the Oregon Clean Air Act State Implementation Plan Incorporating OAR Chapter 340, Division 223.

(1) S ubject to OAR 340

- 223

- 0050, the owner or operator of the Foster

- Wheeler boiler at the Boardman

coal

- fi red power plant may elect to comply with this rule in lieu of compliance with OAR 340

- 223

- 0030

if the boiler permanently ceases to burn coal within five years of the approval by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) of the revision to the State of Oregon Clean Air Act Implementation Plan that incorporates OAR chapter 340, division 223.

( 2 ) Emissions limits:Attachment 3

. 5 , pg

. 11

(a) Beginning July 1, 2011

, nitrogen oxide emissions must not exceed 0.23 lb/mmBtu heat input as a 30

- day rolling average, provide d that:

(A) If the source submitted a complete application for construction and/or operation of pollution control equipment to satisfy the emissions limit in subsection ( 2 )(a) at least eight months prior to the compliance date of July 1, 2011, and the Dep artment has not approved or denied the application by the compliance date, the compliance date is extended until the Department approves or disapproves the application, but may not be extended to a date more than five years from the date that the EPA appro ves a revision to the State of Oregon Clean Air Act Implementation Plan that incorporates OAR 340

- 223

- 0030 ; and

(B) If it is demonstrated by December 31, 2011 that the emissions limit in subsection ( 2 )(a) cannot be achieved with combustion controls, the D epartment by order may grant an extension of compliance to July 1, 2013

.

(b) During periods of startup and shutdown, the emissions limit in subsection (2)(a) does not apply, and

n itrogen oxide emissions must not exceed 0.70 lb/mmBtu, as a 3

- hour rolling a verage

.

(c) The Foster

- Wheeler boiler at the source must permanently cease burning coal by no later than five years after the approval by the EPA of the revision to the State of Oregon Clean Air Act Implementation Plan that incorporates OAR chapter 340, di vision 223 . Notwithstanding the definition of netting basis in

OAR 340

- 200

- 0020, and the process for reducing plant site emission limits in OAR 340

- 222

- 0043, the netting basis and PSELs for the boiler are reduced to zero upon the date on which the boiler p ermanently ceases burning coal, and prior to that date the netting basis and PSELs for the boiler apply only to physical changes or changes in the method of operation of the source for the purpose of complying with emission limits applicable to the boiler.

( 3 ) Compliance demonstration. Using the procedures specified in section ( 4 ) of this rule , c ompliance with

a 30

- day rolling average limit must be demonstrated within 180 days of the compliance date specified in section ( 2 ) of this rule.

( 4 ) Compliance Mon itoring and Testing. Compliance with the emissions limit in subsection ( 2 )(a) must be determined with a continuous emissions monitoring system (CEMS) installed, operated, calibrated, and maintained in accordance with the acid rain monitoring requirements in 40 CFR Part 75 as in effect

on December 9 , 2010.

(a) The hourly emission rate in terms of lb/mmBtu heat input must be recorded each operating hour, including periods of startup and shutdown.

(b) The daily average emission rate must be determined for e ach boiler operating day using the hourly emission rates recorded in ( a ), excluding periods of startup and shutdown.

(c) 30

- day rolling averages must be determined using all daily average emissions rates recorded in ( b ) whether or not the days are consecu tive.

(d) The daily average emission rate is calculated for any calendar day in which the boiler combusts any fuel. An operating hour means a clock hour during which the boiler combusts any fuel, either for part of

the hour or for the entire hour.

( 5 ) Not ifications and ReportsAttachment 3

. 5 , pg

. 12

(a) The Department must be notified in writing within 7 days after any control equipment (including combustion controls) used to comply with emissions limit in sub section ( 2 ) (a) begin operation.

(b) A compliance status report, incl uding CEMS data, must be submitted within 180 days of the compliance date specified in section ( 2 ).

NOTE : This rule is included in the State of Oregon Clean Air Act Implementation Plan as adopted by the Environmental Quality Commission under OAR 340

- 200

- 0 040.

Stat. Auth.: ORS 468 & 468A Stats. Implemented: ORS 468A.025

## Attachment 4

Evidence that the State followed the Administrative Procedures Act

4.1 Public notice in the Secretary of State’s Oregon Bulletin, September 1, 2010

4.2 Certificate and Order for Filing Permanent Administrative Rules, filed and effective December 10, 2010Attachment 4.1, pg. 1



# Oregon Bulletin

September 1, 20 10

NOTICES OF PROPOSED RULEMAKING AND

PROPOSED RULEMAKING HEARINGS

The following agencies provide Notice of Proposed Rulemaking to offer interested parties reasonable opportunity to submit dat a or views on proposed rulemaking activity. To expedite the rulemaking process, many agencies have set the time and place for a hearing in the notice. Copies of rulemaking materials may be obtained from the Rules Coordinator at the address and telephone

number indicated.

Public comment may be submitted in writing directly to an agency or presented orally or in writing at the rulemaking hearing. Written comment must be submitted to an agency by 5:00 p.m. on the Last Day for Comment listed, unless a different time of day is specified. Written and oral comments may be submitted at the appropriate time during a rulemaking hearing as outlined in

OAR 137-001-0030.

Agencies providing notice request public comment on whether other options should be considered for achieving a proposed administrative rule's substantive goals while reducing negative economic impact of the rule on business.

In Notices of Proposed Rulemaking where no hearing has been set, a hearing may be requested by 10 or more people or by an association with 10 or more members. Agencies must receive requests for a public rulemaking hearing in writing within 21 days following notice publication in the Oregon Bulletin or 28 days from the date notice was sent to people on the agency mailing list, whichever is later. If sufficient hearing requests are received by an agency, notice of the date and time of the rulemaking hearing must be published in the Oregon Bulletin at least 14 days before the hearing.

*Auxiliary aids for persons with disabilities are available upon advance request. Contact the agency Rules Coordinator listed in

the notice information

.

Rule Caption: Proposed Revisions to DEQ Regional Haze/BART rules for the PGE Boardman Power Plant.

Date: Time: Location: 9-21-10 6 p.m. Metro Regional Ctr.

Council Chambers

600 NE Grand Ave. Portland, OR 9-23-10 6 p.m. Eugene State Office Bldg.,

Willamette Conference Rm.

165 East 7th Ave. Eugene, OR 9-28-10 6 p.m. Hermiston Conference Ctr. 415 S. Hwy. 395 Hermiston, OR 9-29-10 6 p.m. DEQ Medford Office,

Conference Rm.Attachment 4.1, pg. 2

221 Stewart Ave., Suite 201 Medford, OR 9-30-10 6 p.m. Columbia Gorge Community College, 400 E. Scenic Dr. Health Sciences Bldg., Bldg. 3, Room 3.203 The Dalles, OR Hearing Officer: DEQ Staff

Stat. Auth.: ORS 468.020 & 468A.310 Stats. Implemented: ORS 468A.025 Proposed Adoptions: 340-223-0060, 340-223-0070, 340-223-0080, 340-223-0090 Proposed Amendments: 340-200-0040, 340-223-0010, 340-223-0020, 340-223-0030, 340-223-0040, 340-223-0050

Last Date for Comment: 10-1-10, 5 p.m. Summary: This rulemaking will amend the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality’s (DEQ) 2009 regional haze rules adopted for the PGE Boardman coal-fired power plant, as part of a regional haze plan to improve visibility and reduce air pollution in O regon’s Class I wilderness areas and national parks. On June 17, the Environmental Quality Commission voted to deny a petition submitted by Portland General Electric (PGE) to reduce the stringency of these rules, based on a proposal to close the plant by 2020, and directed DEQ to begin rulemaking and examine a wide range of pollution control options, consistent with an early shutdown of the plant. DEQ is seeking public comment on three early closure options, which each establish regional haze pollution reduction requirements that meet federal Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART) requirements considering the early shutdown dates in each of the three options. If adopted, these options would be added to the current regional haze rules that apply to the Boardman plant. DEQ is proposing to adopt all three options and allow PGE to select the option that matches the closure date the owners select for the plant. To use one of the early closure options, PGE would have to notify DEQ of its intent to do so before July 1, 2014, the date when sulfur dioxide (SO2) limits would otherwise go into effect under the current regional haze rules that were adopted in 2009. If PGE selects none of these early closure options, the current regional haze rules adopted in 2009 would apply. Those rules would allow PGE to run the plant indefinitely and do not contain any closure deadline. DEQ followed EPA guidance for determining BART for each option. DEQ is seeking comment on its evaluation of the BART criteria, including but not limited to: • The technical feasibility of control options; • The control effectiveness of each control options; and • The cost effectiveness of each option. Additionally, DEQ is seeking comment on its use of $7,300/ton for reducing emissions as a cost effectiveness threshold. This selected threshold is based on the high end of the range used by other states, based on significant visibility impacts i n 14 national parks and wilderness areas (Class I areas) in Oregon and Washington from the PGE Boardman plant.

The current rules. The 2009 regional haze rules adopted for the Boardman plant require a 46% reduction of nitrogen oxide (NOx) emissions in 2011, an 80 percent reduction of sulfur dioxide (SO2) emissions in 2014, and an additional 36 percent reduction of NOx emissions in 2017. The estimated cost of the required pollution controls is approximately $498

million. Option 1 - 2020 shutdown. This option would require the same NOx reduction in 2011, the same SO2 reduction in 2014, but not the additional NOx reduction in 2017. Under a 2020 shutdown, the additional pollution controls for NOx in 2017 would be replaced by less expensive additional NOx controls in 2014. This option has the same 2020 shutdown date as proposed by PGE, but unlike their petition, would still require an 80 percent reduction in SO2 by 2014. The estimated cost of these pollution controls is approximately $320 million. Option 2 - 2018 shutdown. This option would require the same NOx reduction in 2011, and a 40% reduction in SO2 emissions in 2014 by installing less expensive SO2 pollution controls. Like Option 1, the additional pollution controls for NOx in 2017 would be replaced by less expensive additional NOx controls in 2014. To meet federal BART requirements, this option establishes a shutdown date in 2018. The estimated cost of these pollution controls is approximately $103

million. Option 3 - 2015/2016 shutdown. This option would require the same NOx reduction in 2011, and no other pollution controls after this date. The shutdown date under this option is based on the requirement to install BART pollution controls within five years of federal approval of a state regional haze plan. Since Oregon’s 2009 Regional Haze Plan is expected to be approved by late 2010 or early 2011, this option establishes a shutdown date in five years, or by 2015 or 2016. The estimated cost of these pollution controls is approximately $36 million.

Note: All three options still require the Boardman plant to comply in 2012 with DEQ’s current mercury regulations. DEQ is also seeking comment on an alternative proposed by PGE that would be similar to Option 2, but would allow the plant to operate until 2020. For more information on PGE’s proposal, see PGE’s July 30, 2010 letter “PGE Comments on DEQ’s Proposed Revisions to its Regional Haze Rules” at DEQ’s PGE Boardman website or go toAttachment 4.1, pg. 3

www.deq.state.or.us/aq/haze/shutdown.htm. This proposed rulemaking includes amending parts of the 2009 Oregon Regional Haze Plan that pertain to the PGE Boardman plant, and then submitting all rule and plan changes to the Environmental Protection Agency as a revision to the Oregon State Implementation Plan under OAR 340-200-0040. The proposed rulemaking is different from, or in addition to, applicable federal requirements because it is more specific than the federal requirements. Oregon is required by the federal Clean Air Act to establish BART regional haze pollution controls for the PGE Boardman plant, pursuant to rules and guidelines established by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). However, while Oregon follows EPA rules and guidelines in establishing BART, the determination of what controls satisfy BART is made by Oregon. Also, applicable federal requirements do not require Oregon to establish multiple options for BART based upon potential early closure dates that PGE may choose, but because PGE has requested early closure options, DEQ is proposing options that are different from and are in addition to the minimum federal requirement to establish BART for the remaining useful life of the facility. Additional information on the relationship of the proposed rules to applicable federal requirements may be found online at DEQ’s PGE Boardman website under the Relationship to Federal Requirements document, or go to www.deq.state.or.us/aq/haze/shutdown.htm. To request additional information regarding this rulemaking, please contact: Brian Finneran at the Department of Environmental Quality, call toll free in Oregon 800-452-4011 or local (503) 229-6278. You may also visit DEQ’s at DEQ’s PGE Boardman website at www.deq.state.or.us/aq/haze/shutdown.htm or see DEQ’s proposed administrative rules webpage at www.deq.state.or.us/regulations/proposedrules.htm To comment on this rulemaking, submit your comments to: Brian Finneran, Oregon Department of Environmental Quality, 811 SW Sixth Ave. Portland, Oregon 97204, or by fax to (503) 229-5675, or by email to NewBART4PGE@deq.state.or.us (if you do not receive an auto response to your emailed comments, contact staff listed above).

Rules Coordinator: Maggie Vandehey

Address: Department of Environmental Quality, 811 SW Sixth Ave., Portland, OR 97204-1390 Telephone: (503) 229-6878

## Attachment 5

Evidence of Adequate Public Notice

5.1 Affidavit of Publication: The Dalles Chronicle , August 20, 2010 publication

5.2 Affidavit of Publication: The Daily Journal of Commerce , August 20, 2010 publication

5.3 Affidavit of Publication: East Oregonian , August 21, 2010 publication

5.4 Affidavit of Publication: Medford Mail Tribune , August 21, 2010 publication

5.5 Affidavit of Publication: The Oregonian , August 21, 2010 publication

5.6 Affidavit of Publication: The Register-Guard , August 21, 2010 publication

## Attachment 6

Certification of Public Hearing

See paragraph #3 of cover letter and Attachment 7.1

## Attachment 7

Compilation of Public Comments and Department’s Response

7.1 Presiding Officer’s Report for Rulemaking Hearings, dated November 12, 2010

7.2 Summary of Public Comments and Agency Responses, dated November 30, 2010Attachment 7.1, pg. 1



## State of Oregon Department of Environmental Quality Memorandum

Date: November 12, 2010

To: Environmental Quality Commission

From: Brian Finneran, DEQ Air Quality Division

Subject: Presiding Officer's Report for Rulemaking Hearings

Title of Proposal: Revisions to DEQ Regional Haze BART rules for the PGE

Boardman Power Plant

1 st



### Comment Period Hearing Dates and Time: September 21, 23, 28, 29, and 30, 2010. 6:00 p.m.

Hearing Locations: 1. Portland OR, Metro Regional Center 2. Eugene OR, State Office Building 3. Hermiston OR, Conference Center 4. Medford OR, DEQ Regional Office 5. The Dalles OR, Columbia Gorge Community College

2 nd 

### Comment Period Hearing Dates and Time: November 8, 9, 2010. 6:00 p.m.

Hearing Locations: 6. Portland OR, Metro Regional Center

7. Boardman OR, Port of Morrow

The Department held seven public hearings on the proposed rulemaking at the locations, dates, and times noted above. The following is a summary of each of these hearings.

First Comment Period, September 1

– October 1, 2010

Public Hearing #1 . September 21, 2010, Metro Regional Center, 600 NE Grand Avenue,

Portland. The hearing officer was Linda Hayes-Gorman from DEQ. Present from DEQ were Brian Finneran, Mark Fisher, William Knight and Marcia Danab.

140 people attended the hearing, 42 provided oral testimony, and 193 written comments were

submitted.

Linda Hayes-Gorman announced that she was serving as the hearing officer to this hearing. Linda introduced Brian Finneran and Mark Fisher from DEQ, who gave a presentation summarizing the proposed rulemaking. A question and answer period followed the presentation.Attachment 7.1, pg. 2



### Linda announced at 7:08 p.m. she would like to begin the formal hearing on the proposed rulemaking. She informed people that the hearing would be recorded and that testimony would become part of the public record for the rulemaking. Linda explained her role was to take testimony on behalf of the EQC and prepare a report summarizing the written and verbal comments. She asked that people interested in providing oral testimony fill out a witness registration form, and would call people to testify in the order they turned in the form. She added that written comments would be given the same weight as oral comments.

Linda reminded the audience that the deadline date for receipt of written comments on the proposed rules is Friday, October 1, 2010, at 5 p.m. She stated that after reviewing the comments, the department may consider revisions to the proposed rules. She added that the department's final recommendation for rule adoption will be made at the EQC meeting scheduled for December 9-10, 20 10 , and that the EQC can use its own discretion in deciding whether to adopt all, part or none of the proposed rules, postpone adoption, or hold additional public hearings.

Summary of the testimony:

42 persons provided oral testimony, and 5 written comments were submitted by persons who did not testify, with one of the five written comments being a form letter that contained 189 signatures. Table 1 lists the names of those who provided testimony and the primary position supported by each person. After this is a summary of the comments provided at the hearing.

Table 1 Portland Hearing 9/21/10

Name Affiliation In Sup port of Oral Testimony: (*also provided written comments) ( + testified at more than one hearing)

1. Arya Behbehani * + Portland General Electric Company PGE “BART III” 2020 plan

2. Jay Dudley + Portland General Electric Company PGE “BART III” 2020 plan

3. Dave Robertson + Portland General Electric Company PGE “BART III” 2020 plan

4. Wilda Parks N.Clackamas Co. Chamber of Commerce PGE “BART III” 2020 plan

5. Nick Engelfried + private citizen 2015 closure or sooner

6. John Maloney private citizen 2020 if PGE needs time

7. Margo Bryant Portland General Electric Company PGE “BART III” 2020 plan

8. Larry Givens * + Umatilla County Commissioner PGE “BART III” 2020 plan

9. Nancy Hatch private citizen 2015 closure

10. Bernie Bottomly * Portland Business Alliance PGE “BART III” 20 20 plan

11. Corky Collier * Columbia Corridor Association PGE “BART III” 2020 plan

12. Travis Stovall East Metro Economic Alliance PGE “BART III” 2020 plan

13. Jason Brandt Salem Chamber of Commerce PGE “BART III” 2020 plan

14. Joe Esmonde IBEW Local 48 PGE “BART III” 2020 plan

15. John Mohlis Columbia Pacific Building Trades Council PGE “BART III” 2020 plan

16. Jonathon Schlueter * Westside Economic Alliance PGE “BART III” 2020 plan

17. Debbie Kitchen Inter Works PGE “BART III” 2020 plan

18. Mike Holcomb small business owner PGE “BART III” 2020 plan

19. Denzel Scheller Hillsboro Chamber of Commerce PGE “BART III” 2020 plan

20. Manuel Castaneda small business owner PGE “BART III” 2020 planAttachment 7.1, pg. 3

21. Tom Wood Associated Oregon Industries PGE “BART III” 2020 plan

22. Wayne Lei private citizen PGE “BA RT III” 2020 plan

23. Andree Yost Portland General Electric Company PGE “BART III” 2020 plan

24. Elizabeth Kaplan * private citizen 2015 closure or sooner

25. Rodger Winn Sierra Club more protecti on of health

26. Vern Groves private citizen close as soon as possible

27. Roger Cole Sierra Club 2015 closure

28. Robin Everett Sierra Club 2015 closure or sooner

29. Robin Fahy student closure not addressed

30. Katie Kann student close as soon as possible

31. Tyler Gerlach student close as soon as possible

32. Geoff Guillory student close as soon as possible

33. Maye Thompson * Oregon Physicians for Socia l Responsibility 2015 closure Option 3

34. Antonio Samora private citizen close as soon as possible

35. Erika Winters Greenpeace close as soon as possible

36. Alyssa Ransbury Greenpeace close as soon as p ossible

37. Christopher Froman Greenpeace close as soon as possible

38. Anna Sotia Gidlund Greenpeace close as soon as possible

39. David Pfosr Sierra Club close as soon as possible

40. Wesley Kempler Sierra Club early closure in general

41. Cesia Kearns private citizen 2015 closure or sooner

42. Fred Heutte Sierra Club & small business owner 2015 closure or sooner Written comments received from persons who did not testify:

1. Martin Donohoe, MD Physician closure by 2014

2. Borden Beck private citizen 2015 closure

3. Caitlin Pise rchia student 2020 closure Option 1

4. Louise Waitt private citizen close as soon as possible

5. 189 names on form

letter submitted Sierra Club 2015 closure or sooner



### Comment Summary. At this hearing, the public comments were even ly divided between

suppor t of PGE’s “BART III” 2020 plan, and closing the plant in 2015 or as soon as possible. Only a f ew comments were made in support of DEQ’s proposed Option 3 (reflecting a 2015-16 closure).

Supporters of PGE’s BART III proposal included not only PGE employees, but also representatives of chambers of commerce and business associations. Many of the comments focused on concerns about the economic impact of the plant closing early, and the need to provide PGE with sufficient time (10 years) to buy or build replacement power that is affordable, reliable, cost effective, and includes the potential for renewable and “greener” options. It was pointed out that the PGE Boardman plant is currently an important “ base load ” source of power

, and that it would take time to find replacement power. Many of the commenters expressed concern that while closure of the Boardman plant would worsen the current economy and affect many jobs , PGE’s BART III proposal was clearly better than DEQ’s proposed three options

. Other comments in support of PGE ’s proposal included the following: (1 ) it ends reliance on coal and provid es a smoother transition into other types of energy; (2) it eliminates all emissions from the plant after 2020; (3 ) it provides significant cost savings to DEQ’s proposed options, and thus lowers the overall economic impact; (4 ) rather than using the highest thresholds in theAttachment 7.1, pg. 4



### nation, it represents a lower and reasonable cost effectiveness level that is more consistent with what other states have adopted for BART; (5) avoids a hasty shutdown that could lead to increased electricity rates and impacts on low-income citizens and small businesses; and (6 ) gives PGE the ability to verify that the proposed dry sorbent injection (DSI) controls are technically feasible by conducting a pilot test study first. Representatives of PGE stated that DEQ’s proposed 3 options do provide PGE with some flexibility, but are unworkable and too costly. They said their BART III proposal would meet EPA approvability requirements and result in significant air quality and environmental benefits after 2020, and prior to that date, includes the installation of $75 million in pollution controls for nitrogen oxide (NOx) and sulfur dioxide (SO2) emissions, significantly reducing these emissions over the next 10 years. They

stated that PGE’s proposal has no legal barriers in terms of federal approvability or enforceability, and represents a unique opportunity to end coal combustion 20 years early, as an alternative to the plant continuing to operate to 2040 and beyond. They added that PGE is still moving forward to meet DEQ’s mercury rules a year ahead of the required 2012 compliance date, which will reduce these emissions by 90 percent.

Supporters of an earlier closure of the PGE Boardman plant than 2020 included environmental groups, students, and private citizens. These comments supported plant closure in 2015 or as soon as possible. The reasons cited focused primarily on concerns about the health effects from the burning of coal, and the need to address global warming now. Health concerns pointed to the plant’s current emissions of approximately 25,000 tons of air pollution, as well as mercury emissions, and that these emissions cause significant health problems, including asthma, lung

can cer, and other respiratory issues. Global warming concerns pointed to the plant currently emitting about 4 million tons of greenhouse gas emissions, the largest in the state. There was strong support to end reliance on coal technology, to pursue cleaner and renewable energy resources. Others commented that allowing PGE to operate until 2020 was too long, would significantly harm public health and the environment, and that PGE does not need 10 years to find affordable and reliable replacement power, as cleaner forms of power generation are

available now. Those who supported DEQ’s Option 3 said that closure in 2015 was less expensive than the other options and would provide significant air quality benefits. Other comments included (1) from a cost standpoint, the earlie st closure would avoid making unnecessary investments in expensive controls for an “outdated plant” ; (2) transitioning to renewable energy could create more “green jobs”; (3) urging DEQ to repeal the existing rules for PGE Boardman which allow the plant to continue operate if PGE decides against any of the options, (4) opposition to giving PGE another 10 years to operate when the plant has avoid ed installing any major pollution controls since it was constructed in 1977, and (5) criticism of DE Q for not taken action during this time to require controls or close the plant.

There was no other testimony provided. The hearing was adjourned at 9 :0 0 p.m.

Public Hearing #2 . September 23, 2010, Willamette Conference Room, Eugene State Office Building, 165 East 7th Avenue, Eugene. The hearing officer was William Knight from DEQ. Also present from DEQ were Brian Finneran and Mark Fisher.

33 people attended the hearing, and 15 provided oral testimony.Attachment 7.1, pg. 5



### William Knight announced that he was serving as the hearing officer to this hearing. He introduced Brian Finneran and Mark Fisher from DEQ, who gave a presentation summarizing the proposed rulemaking. A question and answer period followed the presentation.

William announced at 7:14 p.m. he would like to begin the formal hearing on the proposed rulemaking. He stated that the hearing was being recorded and testimony would become part of the public record for the rulemaking. He explained his role was to take testimony on behalf of the EQC and prepare a report summarizing the written and verbal comments. He asked that people interested in providing oral testimony fill out a witness registration form, and would call people to testify in the order they turned in the form. He added that written comments would be given the same weight as oral comments.

William reminded the audience that the deadline date for receipt of written comments on the proposed rules is Friday, October 1, 2010, at 5 p.m. He stated that after reviewing the comments, the department may consider revisions to the proposed rules. He added that the department's final recommendation for rule adoption will be made at the EQC meeting scheduled for December 9-10, 20 10 , and that the EQC can use its own discretion in deciding whether to adopt all, part or none of the proposed rules, postpone adoption, or hold additional public hearings.

Summary of the testimony:

15 persons provided oral testimony. Table 2 lists the names of those who provided testimony and the primary position supported by each person. After this is a summary of the comments provided at the hearing.

Table 2 Eugene Hearing 9/23/10

Name Affiliation In Support of Oral Testimony: (*also provided written comments) ( + testified at more than one hearing)

1. Jo hn Steele Friends of Dorena Dam Habitat 2015 closure or sooner

2. Katie Taylor * OSPIRG 2015 closure

3. Casey Gifford * Climate Justice League 2015 closure

4. Emma Newman Climate Justice League 2015 closure

5. Dave Hauser Oregon State Chamber of Commerce PGE “BART III” 2020 plan

6. Kathy Ging private citizen 2015 closure Option 3

7. Arya Behbehani * + Portland General Electric Company PGE “BART III” 2020 plan

8. Amy Krol student 2015 closure Option 3

9. Chet Phillips * + Mayor, City of Boardman PGE “BART III” 2020 plan

10. Ar iel McCoy OSPIRG close as soon as possible

11. Sania Radcliffe Portland General Electric Company PGE “BART III” 2020 plan

12. Catherine Thomasson Oregon Physicians for Socia l Responsibility 2015 closure Option 3

13. Kylie Halloran Sierra Club 2015 closure Option 3

14. Nick Engelfried + private citizen 2015 closure or sooner

15. David Besonon small business owner close as soon as possibleAttachment 7.1, pg. 6



### Comment Summary. At this hearing, the testimony reflected the majority of comments and viewpoints expressed at the Portland hearing, and the divergence between those in favor of PGE’s BART III proposal and those in favor of an earlier closure. M ore than half of the

comments were in support of a 2015 plant closure and DEQ’s Option 3 , with fewer advocating the close as soon as possible of the plant.

There was no other testimony provided. The hearing was adjourned at 8:05 p.m.

Public Hearing #3 . September 28, 2010, Hermiston Conference Center, 415 S. Hwy 395,

Hermiston. The hearing officer was William Knight from DEQ. Also present was Brian Finneran, Mark Fisher, and Linda Hayes-Gorman from DEQ, and EQC Commissioner and Vice Chairman, Ken Williamson.

48 people attended the hearing, and 22 provided oral testimony.

William Knight announced that he was serving as the hearing officer to this hearing. He introduced EQC Commissioner Ken Williamson who provided some introductory remarks. Ken informed the audience that the EQC was very interested to hear from the public on this proposed rulemaking. He provided some background on the 2009 rules adopted for PGE Boardman, and how DEQ’s rule proposal reflects PGE’s proposed 2020 plant closure, and will give PGE the choice to close early or continue operating under the 2009 rules. Next, Brian Finneran and Mark Fisher from DEQ gave a mo re detailed presentation summarizing the proposed rulemaking. A question and answer period followed the presentation.

William announced at 7:14 p.m. he would like to begin the formal hearing on the proposed rulemaking. He stated that the hearing was being recorded and testimony would become part of the public record for the rulemaking. He explained his role was to take testimony on behalf of the EQC and prepare a report summarizing the written and verbal comments. He asked that people interested in providing oral testimony fill out a witness registration form, and would call people to testify in the order they turned in the form. He added that written comments would be given the same weight as oral comments.

William reminded the audience that the deadline date for receipt of written comments on the proposed rules is Friday, October 1, 2010, at 5 p.m. He stated that after reviewing the comments, the department may consider revisions to the proposed rules. He added that the department's final recommendation for rule adoption will be made at the EQC meeting scheduled for December 9-10, 20 10 , and that the EQC can use its own discretion in deciding whether to adopt all, part or none of the proposed rules, postpone adoption, or hold additional public hearings.

Summary of the testimony:

22 persons provided oral testimony. Table 3 lists the names of those who provided testimony and the primary position supported by each person. After this is a summary of the comments provided at the hearing.Attachment 7.1, pg. 7

Table 3

He rmiston Hearing 9/28/10

Name Affiliation In Support of Oral Testimony: (*also provided written comments) ( + testified at more than one hearing)

1. David Nelson State Senator, District 29 postpone the rulemaking

2. Bob Jenson State Representative, Dist rict 58 postpone the rulemaking

3. Terry Tallman * + Morrow County Judge postpone the rulemaking

4. Larry Givens * + Umatilla County Commissioner postpone the rulemaking

5. Chet Phillips * + Mayor, City of Boardman PGE “BART III” 2020 plan

6. Karen Wolff Morrow Co unty resident PGE “BART III” 2020 plan

7. Arya Behbehani * + Portland General Electric Company PGE “BART III” 2020 plan

8. Bill Nicholson Portland General Electric Company PGE “BART III” 2020 plan

9. Diane Wolfe Boardman Chamber of Commerce PGE “BART III” 2020 plan

10. Rick Main IBEW Local 125 PGE’s “BART III” or no closure

11. Sheryll Bates Heppner Chamber of Commerce PGE “BART III” 2020 plan

12. Karen Pettigrew City of Boardman PGE “BART III” 2020 plan

13. Steve Eldrige Umatilla Electrical Cooperative oppose early closur e
14. Chuck Little + Pendleton Building Trades oppose early closure

15. Randy Yates private citizen PGE’s 2020 plan or postpone

16. Rod Osgood IUOE Local 701 oppose early closure

17. John Edmundson Heppner Chamber of Commerce oppose early closure

18. Gary Neal Port of Mo rrow concerned about early closure

19. Debbie Pedro Hermiston Chamber of Commerce PGE “BART III” 2020 plan

20. Tamra Mabbott Umatilla County Planning Dept. need comprehensive planning

21. Don Anderson NAES Power Contractors PGE “BART III” 2020 plan

22. David Richards Boardman resident oppose early closure



### Comment Summary. At this hearing, all of the testimony was either in support of PGE’s BART III proposal, or stating that PGE should not close the Boardman plant, including several comments urging postponement of th e rulemaking. There was no support for any of DEQ’s proposed three options, and a few comments that the $7,300 per ton cost effectiveness threshold was too high. Comments in support of PGE’s BART III proposal stated that it represents a reasonable transition plan for workers and the local community to adjust to an early closure, that shutting down before 2020 would have significant economic impacts , and that PGE’s plan was clearly a better alternative than DEQ’s proposed 3 options from an economic standpo int. There were also many comments opposed to any closure of plant, emphasizing concerns about loss of jobs, tax revenue, and other economic impacts. Testimony from local officials with the City of Boardman and Morrow and Umatilla counties pointed out that the plant employs 110 full-time and 225 seasonal workers, and the loss of these jobs could indirectly affect up to 1000 jobs in the area. It was also stated that property taxes from the Boardman plant funds 37 taxing districts, and generates about three-million dollars per year in revenue, or about 15% to local government in Umatilla and Morrow counties. These taxes pay for health services, public safety, and schools. While much of this testimony indicated a preference for the continued operation of the plant, they noted that if PGE chooses to close the plant, the best option would be PGE’s BART III proposal. Several others including a state senator and representative urged DEQ to postpone the rulemaking, citing the same concerns as noted above about major economic impacts if PGE closes the plant.Attachment 7.1, pg. 8



### There was no other testimony provided. The hearing was adjourned at 9:05 p.m.

Public Hearing #4 . September 29, 2010, Conference Room, Suite 201, DEQ Medford Office 221 Stewart Avenue, Medford . The hearing officer was Brian Finneran from DEQ. Also present was Mark Fisher from DEQ and EQC Commissioner Judy Uherbelau.

12 people attended the hearing, and 9 provided oral testimony.

Brian Finneran announced he was the hearing officer, and that he and Mark Fisher would provide a presentation summarizing the proposed rulemaking. A question and answer period followed the presentation.

Brian announced at 6:55 p.m. he would like to begin the formal hearing on the proposed rulemaking. He stated that the hearing was being recorded and testimony would become part of the public record for the rulemaking. He explained his role was to take testimony on behalf of the EQC and prepare a report summarizing the written and verbal comments. He asked that people interested in providing oral testimony fill out a witness registration form, and would call people to testify in the order they turned in the form. He added that written comments would be given the same weight as oral comments.

Brian reminded the audien ce that the deadline date for receipt of written comments on the proposed rules is Friday, October 1, 2010, 2009, at 5 p.m. He stated that after reviewing the comments, the department may consider revisions to the proposed rules. He added that the department's final recommendation for rule adoption will be made at the EQC meeting scheduled for December 9-10, 20 10 , and that the EQC can use its own discretion in deciding whether to adopt all, part or none of the proposed rules, postpone adoption, or hold additional public hearings.

Summary of the testimony:

9 persons provided oral testimony. Table 4 lists the names of those who provided testimony and the primary position supported by each person. After this is a summary of the comments provided at the hearing.

Table 4 Medford Hearing 9/29/10

Name Affiliation In Support of Oral Testimony: (*also provided written comments) ( + testified at more than one hearing)

1. Bill Hoke City of Medford PGE “BART III” 2020 plan

2. Ray Hendricks + Portland General El ectric Company PGE “BART III” 2020 plan

3. Ron Fox * SOREDI PGE “BART III” 2020 plan

4. Monte Mendenhall Pacific Power PGE “BART III” 2020 plan

5. Deane Funk Portland General Electric Company PGE “BART III” 2020 plan

6. Sarah Westover Beyond Coal Campaign 2015 clo sure
7. Meryl Six Cascade Climate Network + Beyond Coal close as soon as possible

8. Steve Vincent Avista Utilities PGE “BART III” 2020 plan

9. Benji Nagel student 2015 closure or soonerAttachment 7.1, pg. 9



### Comment Summary. At this hearing, most of the testimony supported PGE’s BART III proposal, citing the same reasons as noted above at the prior hearings. Two PGE representatives commented that the $7,300 per ton cost effectiveness is too high, in that unlike other states which used a high cost threshold, it does not take into account the permanent shutdown of the plant and zero emissions after 2020, as does PGE’s BART III proposal. The remaining comments supported a 2015 closure or sooner, citing concerns about mostly global warming, and the need to transition to clean energy as quickly as possible.

There was no other testimony provided. The hearing was adjourned at 7:24 p.m.

Public Hearing #5 . September 30, 2010, Columbia Gorge Community College, Health Sciences, Building Three, Room 3.203, 400 E. Scenic Drive, The Dall es

. The hearing officer was William Knight from DEQ. Brian Finneran and Mark Fisher from DEQ were also present.

39 people attended the hearing, and 21 provided oral testimony.

William Knight announced that he was serving as the hearing officer to this hearing. He introduced Brian Finneran and Mark Fisher from DEQ, who gave a presentation summarizing the proposed rulemaking. A question and answer period followed the presentation.

William announced at 7:20 p.m. he would like to begin the formal hearing on the proposed rulemaking. He stated that the hearing was being recorded and testimony would become part of the public record for the rulemaking. He explained his role was to take testimony on behalf of the EQC and prepare a report summarizing the written and verbal comments. He asked that people interested in providing oral testimony fill out a witness registration form, and would call people to testify in the order they turned in the form. He stated that written comments would be given the same weight as oral comments.

William reminded the audience that the deadline date for receipt of written comments on the proposed rules is Friday, October 1, 2010, at 5 p.m. He stated that after reviewing the comments, the department may consider revisions to the proposed rules. He added that the department's final recommendation for rule adoption will be made at the EQC meeting scheduled for December 9-10, 20 10 , and that the EQC can use its own discretion in deciding whether to adopt all, part or none of the proposed rules, postpone adoption, or hold additional public hearings.

Summary of the testimony:

21 persons provided oral testimony. Table 5 lists the names of those who provided testimony and the primary position supported by each person. After this is a summary of the comments provided at the hearing.Attachment 7.1, pg. 10

Table 5 The Dalles Hearing 9/30/10

Name Affiliation In Support of Oral Testimony: (*also provided written comments) ( + testified at more than one hearing)

1. Ted Ferrioli State Senator, District 30 concerned about early closure

2. John Huffman State Representative, District 59 PGE “BART III” 2020 plan

3. Terry Tallman * + Morrow County Judge concerned about early closure

4. Larry Givens * + Umatilla County Commissioner concerned about early clo sure
5. Ray Hendricks + Portland General Electric Company PGE “BART III” 2020 plan

6. Jay Dudley + Portland General Electric Company PGE “BART III” 2020 plan

7. Dave Robertson + Portland General Electric Company PGE “BART III” 2020 plan

8. Dale Coyle Portland Gene ral Electric Company PGE “BART III” 2020 plan

9. John McClain Portland General Electric Company PGE “BART III” 2020 plan

10. Chuck Little + Pendleton Building Trades PGE “BART III” 2020 plan

11. Barry Beyeler * City of Boardman PGE “BART III” 2020 plan

12. Daniel Spa tz Columbia Gorge Community College PGE “BART III” 2020 plan

13. Paul Woodin Community Renewable Energy Association PGE “BART III” 2020 plan

14. Peter Cornelison Friends of the Columbia Gorge 2015 closure Option 3

15. John Wood private citizen close as soon as poss ible

16. Mary Repar * private citizen 2015 closure or sooner

17. Tom Wood private citizen 2015 closure or sooner

18. John Nelson private citizen 2015 closure or sooner

19. Tom Ivancie * Energy Action NW PGE “BART III” 2020 plan

20. Jurgen Hess * private citizen 2015 cl osure Option 3

21. Dave Berger private citizen 2015 closure or sooner



### Comment Summary. At this hearing, the comments were similar to th ose expressed at the earlier hearings, in terms of the divergence in support between PGE’s BART III proposal and those supporting an earlier closure in 2015 or sooner. Most of the comments in support of PGE’s BART III proposal cited the following: (1) provides PGE with sufficient time (10 years) to develop affordable and reliable replacement power, including renewable energy; (2) a 2020 closure eliminates all emissions, provides significant air quality and visibility benefits, and represents a unique opportunity to end coal combustion 20 years early, as an alternative to the plant continuing to operate to 2040 and beyond; (3) DEQ’s three options cost too much, and the $7,300 cost effectiveness level is too high, and not consistent with the cost effectiveness used by other states; (4) avoids a hasty shutdown that could lead to increased electricity rates, affecting those on fixed incomes the most; and (5) gives PGE the ability to verify that the proposed dry sorbent injection (DSI) controls are technically feasible by conducting a pilot test study first. Most of the comments supporting a 2015 or earlier closure focused on the magnitude of the Boardman plant emissions, and the affects this has on public health and global warming. These comments included concerns about the extent of air quality impacts in the Columbia Gorge from the Boardman plant. Other comments opposed giving PGE another 10 years to operate when the plant has avoided installing any major pollution controls since it was constructed in 1977, and criticized DEQ for not taken action during this time to require controls or close the plant. A few comments were made that not enough focus has been give to energy efficiency and conservation,

and that this would allow PGE to close in 2015 or even sooner.Attachment 7.1, pg. 11



### There was no other testimony provided. The hearing was adjourned at 9:05 p.m.

Second Comment Period, October 29

– November 15, 2010

Public Hearing #6 . November 8, 2010, Metro Regional Center, 600 NE Grand Avenue,

Portland. The hearing officer was Pat Vernon from DEQ. Present from DEQ were Brian Finneran, Mark Fisher, Joanie Stevens-Schwenger, and David Collier.

55 people attended the hearing, 41 provided oral testimony, and 4 written comments were

submitted.

Pat Vernon announced that she was serving as the hearing officer to this hearing. She introduced Mark Fisher from DEQ, who gave a presentation summarizing the proposed rulemaking. A question and answer period followed the presentation.

Pat announced at 6:35 p.m. that she would like to begin the formal hearing on the proposed rulemaking. She informed people that the hearing would be recorded and that testimony would become part of the public record for the rulemaking. Pat explained her role was to take testimony on behalf of the EQC and prepare a report summarizing the written and verbal comments. She asked that people interested in providing oral testimony fill out a witness registration form, and would call people to testify in the order they turned in the form. She added that written comments would be given the same weight as oral comments.

Pat reminded the audience that the deadline date for receipt of written comments on the proposed rules is Monday, November 15, 2010, at 5 p.m. She stated that after reviewing the comments, the department may consider revisions to the proposed rules. She added that the department's final recommendation for rule adoption will be made at the EQC meeting scheduled for December 9-10, 2010, and that the EQC can use its own discretion in deciding whether to adopt all, part or none of the proposed rules, postpone adoption, or hold additional public hearings.

Summary of the testimony:

41 persons provided oral testimony, and 4 written comments were submitted, one by a person

wh o did not testify. Table 6 lists the names of those who provided testimony and the primary position supported by each person. After this is a summary of the comments provided at the hearing.

Table 6

Portland Hearing 11 / 8 /10

Name Affiliation In Support of Oral Testimony: (*also provided written comments) ( + testified at more than one hearing)

1. Dave Robertson + PGE revised PGE 2020 proposa l

2. Wendi Eiland Beaverton Chamber of Commerce revised PGE 2020 proposal

3. Marcy Putman IBEW Local 125 revised PGE 2020 proposal

4. Kristan Sheeran, Phd Economics for Equity and Environment

Network support closure before 2020

5. Erika Winters

- Heilman Private c itizen close by summer 2011Attachment 7.1, pg. 12

6. Kaician Kitko Private cit i zen support closure before 2020

7. Kyle Gorman * Clackamas county Fire District #1 revised PGE 2020 proposal

8. Linda Moholt Tualatin Chamber of Commerce revised PGE 2020 proposal

9. Jay Halladay Coaxis revi sed PGE 2020 proposal

10. Mark Clemons Group MacKenzie revised PGE 2020 proposal

11. Samantha Cummings Private citizen close in 2011

12. Jon Pauletto Private citizen close by July 2011

13. Adam Walters Student close by July 2011

14. Trevor Griffith Private citizen close by July 2011

15. Robin Everett Sierra Club support e arly closure

16. Sofia Gidlund Greenpeace close in 2011

17. Elizabeth Kaplan Private citizen 2015 closure or sooner

18. Geoff Guillory Private citizen close as soon as possible

19. Roger Cole Sierra Club close as soo n as possible

20. Liam Doherty

Nicholson Greenpeace close by July 2011

21. Bob Jenks * Citizen Utility Board close no later than 2020

22. Jason Lehne Foundation Life Management revised PGE 2020 proposal

23. Angi Dilkes * Oregon Business Association revised PGE 2020 pr oposal

24. Caitlin Piserchia Private citizen support early closure option

25. Cesia Kearns Private citizen support early closure option s
26. Duncan Reid Private citizen collaboration, early closure

27. Nathan Jones Private citizen collaboration, early closure

28. Alden M oss Private citizen 2014 or 2015 closure

29. Jenny Bedell

- Stiles Private citizen support DEQ 3 options

30. NickEngelfried Private citizen 2015 closure or sooner

31. Maye Thompson Oregon Physicians for Social Responsibility 2015 closure Option 3

32. Daniel Cobb Private citizen close as soon as possible

33. Nancy H a tch Private citizen close by 2016 at latest

34. Antonio Zamora Greenpeace close as soon as possible

35. Bill Bigelow Private citizen close as soon as possible

36. Borden Beck PGE customer 2015 closure

37. Tom Wood Associate Oregon Industries close as soon as possible

38. Mathilde Mouw Student 2015 closure

39. Joel Durr Private citizen close as soon as possible

40. Natasha Hultmann Private citizen close as soon as possible

41. Tom Ivancie Energy Action Northwest close as soon as possibl e Written comments received from persons who did not testify:

1. Nicole Forbes Friends of the Columbia Gorge comments from 5 members



### Comment Summary. At this hearing, the public comments were evenly divided between support of PGE’s revised 2020 proposal, and closing the plant in 2015 or as soon as possible. Supporters of PGE’s revised 2020 proposal commented that it represented a good compromise between DEQ’s Option 2 with a 2018 closure date, and PGE’s BART III proposal with a 2020 closure date. They al so restated their original support for PGE’s BART III proposal, noting that a 2020 closure would provide PGE with sufficient time (10 years) to buy or build replacement power that is affordable, reliable, and cost effective, and allows time for workers at the Boardman plant to transition to new jobs after the closure of the plant. They also pointed outAttachment 7.1, pg. 13



### that PGE’s proposal represents a significant cost savings to DEQ’s proposed options, and thus lowers the overall economic impact, and that a hasty shutdown could lead to increased electricity rates and impacts on low-income citizens and small businesses.

Supporters of an earlier closure of the PGE Boardman plant cited the need to close the plant in 2015 or as soon as possible. They expressed concerns about the health effects from the plant’s emissions, and the need to address global warming now. The health problems mentioned included asthma, lung cancer, and other respiratory issues. Global warming concerns focused on the plant being the largest source of gr eenhouse gas emissions in the state. There was strong support to end reliance on coal technology, to pursue cleaner and renewable energy resources. Other comments included (1) from a cost standpoint, the earliest closure would avoid making

unnecessary investments in expensive controls for an “outdated plant”; (2) transitioning to renewable energy could create more “green jobs”; (3) opposition to giving PGE another 10 years to operate when the plant has avoided installing any major pollution controls since it was constructed in 1977, and (4) criticism of DEQ for not taken action related to a Notice of Violation recently issued recently against the PGE Boardman plant by EPA for allegedly violating New Source Performance Standards.

There was no other testimony provided. The hearing was adjourned at 8:26 p.m.

Public Hearing #7 . November 9, 2010, Port of Morrow, River Front Room, Boardman. The hearing officer was Larry Calkins from DEQ. Present from DEQ were Mark Fisher and Joanie Stevens-Schwenger.

32 people attended the hearing, and 17 provided oral testimony.

Larry announced that he was serving as the hearing officer to this hearing. He introduced Mark Fisher from DEQ, who gave a presentation summarizing the proposed rulemaking. A question

an d answer period followed the presentation.

Larry announced at 6:35 p.m. he would like to begin the formal hearing on the proposed rulemaking. H e informed people that the hearing would be recorded and that testimony would become part of the public record for the rulemaking. Larry explained h is role was to take testimony on behalf of the EQC and prepare a report summarizing the written and verbal comments. He asked that people interested in providing oral testimony fill out a witness registration form, and would call people to testify in the order they turned in the form. He added that written comments would be given the same weight as oral comments.

Larry reminded the audience that the deadline date for receipt of written comments on the proposed rules is Monday, November 15, 2010, at 5 p.m. He stated that after reviewing the comments, the department may consider revisions to the proposed rules. He added that the department's final recommendation for rule adoption will be made at the EQC meeting scheduled for December 9-10, 20 10 , and that the EQC can use its own discretion in deciding whether to adopt all, part or none of the proposed rules, postpone adoption, or hold additional public hearings.

Summary of the testimony:Attachment 7.1, pg. 14



### 17 persons provided oral testimony. Table 7 lists the names of those who provided testimony and the primary position supported by each person. After this is a summary of the comments provided at the hearing.

Table 7

Boardman Hearing 11 / 8 /10

Name Affiliation In Support of

Oral Testimony: (*also provided written comments) ( + testified at more than one hearing)

1. Terry Tallman Morrow County Judge concerned about early closure

2. Chet Phillips Mayor, City of Boardman revised PGE 2020 proposal

3. Dave Robertson Portland General El ectric Company revised PGE 2020 proposal

4. Barry Beyeler City of Boardman revised PGE 2020 proposal

5. Rick Main IBEW Local 125 revised PGE 2020 proposal

6. Marcy Putman IBEW Local 125 revised PGE 2020 proposal

7. Sheryll Bates Heppner Chamber of Commerce revised PGE 2020 proposal

8. Diane Wolfe Boardman Chamber of Commerce revised PGE 2020 proposal

9. Steve Doherty Private Citizen opposed to any closure

10. Chuck Little Pendleton Building Trades revised PGE 2020 proposal

11. Dave De May o City of Heppner continued use of c oal

12. Karen Pettigrew City of Boardman revised PGE 2020 proposal

13. Karen Wolff Morrow County resident revised PGE 2020 proposal

14. Randal Curtis Private Citizen revised PGE 2020 proposal

15. Don Russell Private Citizen opposed to any closure

16. Gary Neal Port of Morrow revised PGE 2020 proposal

17. Jody Marston Private Citizen revised PGE 2020 proposal



### Comment Summary. At this hearing, most of the testimony was in support of PGE’s revised 2020 proposal, which would set one closure date (2020) and eliminate the current rules adopted in 2009. Some of the testimony express ed a preference for continued operation of the plant until 2040, but recognized that since PGE has proposed a 2020 closure, the new proposal was the best alternative. There was also testimony that i n adopting PGE’s new 2020 proposal, there should be no earlier closure options added to the rules, such as DEQ’s Option 2 and 3, which had 2018 and 2015-16 closure dates, respectively. The comments stressed the importance of one closure date in 2020, and nothing else. A few comments were made opposing any closure of the Boardman plant, citing the importance of continuing to use coal for energy, and that the regional haze regulations are not valid reasons for requiring expensive pollution controls for the plant.

There was no other testimony provided. The hearing was adjourned at 7:37 p.m.Attachment 7.2, pg. 1



## Summary of Public Comments and Agency Responses

Revisions to DEQ Regional Haze BART rules for the PGE Boardman Power Plant

Prepared by: Brian Finneran, Mark Fisher, Pat Vernon, DEQ Air Quality

Date: November 30, 2010

Comment

Period : There were two public comment periods associated with this rulemaking. The

first was from September 1, 20 10

, to October 1 , 20 10 , with five public hearings

. The second was from October 2 9 , 2010, to November 15, 2010 , with two additional public hearings

. Public Hearings: DEQ held the following public hearings:

September 21, 2010, 6 p.m. Metro Regional Center

, Council Chambers

600 NE Grand Avenue Portland, OR

1 40 people attended the hearing; 42 people testified.

September 23, 2010, 6 p.m. Eugene State Office Building

, W illamette Conference Room

165 East 7 th 

### Avenue Eugene, OR 33 people attended the hearing; 1 5 people testified

September 28, 2010, 6 p.m.

Hermiston Conference Center 415 S. Hwy 395 Hermiston, OR 48 people attended the hearing; 2 2 people testified

Septem ber 29, 2010, 6 p.m. DEQ Medford Office

, Conference Room

, Suite 201

221 Stewart Avenue Medford, OR 12 people attended the hearing; 9 people testified

September 30, 2010, 6 p.m. Columbia Gorge Community College Health Sciences Building Building Three, Roo m 3.203

400 E. Scenic Drive The Dalles, OR 39 people attended the hearing; 2 1 people testifiedAttachment 7.2, pg. 2



### November 8, 2010, 6 p.m. Metro Regional Center

Council Chambers

600 NE Grand Avenue Portland, OR

55 people attended the hearing; 41 people testified

Nov ember 9, 2010, 6 p.m.

River Front Room

2 Marine Drive Boardman, OR

32 people attended the hearing; 17 people testified

Total attendance at public hearings: 359 persons Total number providing verbal testimony: 167 persons

Organization of

comments and

responses: Summaries of the comments received and DEQ ’s response are provided

below. Comments are summarized by issue category. The full public record is available for review by the public at the Portland DEQ office (811 SW 6th Ave.). Copies are availabl e upon request.

Explanation of acronyms used

in this document BART = Best Available Retrofit Technology

DSI = Dry Sorbent Injection DEQ = Department of Environmental Quality EPA = Environmental Protection Agency EQC = Environmental Quality Commission

L NB/MOFA = Low NOx Burner with Modified Overfire Air (control equipment) NOx = Nitrogen oxides

PGE = Portland General Electric

PM10 = Particulate Matter under 10 microns in size

SO 2 

### = Sulfur dioxide

SDFGD = Semi

- dry Flue Gas Desulfurization (also called a “ dry scrubber”)

SNCR = Selective Non

- Catalytic Reduction (control equipment) SIP = State Implementation Plan VOC = Volatile Organic CompoundsAttachment 7.2, pg. 3



### Table of Contents

Page

Overview of Public Comment process 3

Overview of this Comment and Response Document 4

How to Find Your Comments 4

Summary of Comments and DEQ Response s 6

I. Comments on DEQ’s Proposed Three Emission Reductions Options 1, 2 and 3 6

II. Comments on PGE’s BART III 2020 Proposal alternative to DEQ’s three options 1 5

III. Comments in support of other options related to an early closure of the PGE Boardman plant. 1 8

IV. Comments related to the new PGE BART proposal on 2020 closure, associated

with the re

- opening of the comment period. 20

V. Other Comments and Issues Raised durin g this proposed r ulemaking 22

V I

. Miscellaneous Comments 27

List of People and Organizations Submitting Comments (by Commenter Number) 2 8

Overview of Public Comment process

DEQ presented this proposed rulemaking for public comment from Sept. 1, 2010 to Oct. 1, 2010, and from Oct. 29, 2010 to Nov. 15, 2010. Comments were received via email, in writing and orally. DEQ received the following types of comments:

1795 emails 91 written letters (by mail, at hearings, or attached to emails) 5728 postcards

167 persons testified at the public hearings. (see DEQ’s Hearing Officer’s Report on Public Hearings, Attachment C)

Overall, DEQ received 8193 comments.

All comments received have been made part of the public record and have been reviewed by DEQ. In addition to this summary, the full record of individual comments will be made available to the Environmental Quality Commission. A copy of the full public comment record is available for the DEQ Headquarters, 811 SW 6 th 

### Ave. Portland. Photocopies of the record are available for a fee.Attachment 7.2, pg. 4



### Overview of this Comment and Response Document

Due to the large number public comments, this document is organized by type of comment, rather than name of commenter. Comments are grouped into six issue categories, as described below. DEQ responses correspond to the order of the comments listed in each issue category. In a few cases, there may be one DEQ response addressing several comments. Due to this format of grouping comments by issue category, most comments have been summarized or paraphrased.

The following describes the six sections in this document:

1. Comments related primarily to DEQ’s proposed three emission reduction options. Subcategories in this section address various comments on each of the three options, the cost effectiveness threshold of $7,300 per ton, DEQ’s fiscal impact analysis, and miscellaneous related comments.

2. Comments related primarily to support of PGE’s “BART III” 2020 plan . Subcategories in this section include the proposed pilot study for dry sorbent injection (DSI) controls, specific DSI feasibility comments, and the BART approvability of PGE’s plan

.

3. Comments primarily in support of other options or approaches to the proposed early closure of the Boardman plant by PGE. Subcategories include co mments opposed to any plant closure, various comments supporting immediate closure, or prior to 2020, and comments in favor of postponing or taking no action.

4. Comments related primarily to PGE’s revised 2020 proposal and DEQ’s re -opening of the comment period. Subcategories include comments in favor or opposed to the proposal, and whether to add earlier closure options to the rules.

5. Other comments and issues related to this rulemaking, but not falling into any of the above sections. Subcategories include comments on impacts on air quality and public health, opposition to coal burning, and comments related to DEQ’s BART analysis for the Boardman plant. In most cases these comments are beyond the scope of this rulemaking, but DEQ responses have been provided.

6. Miscellaneous comments, similar to Section 5, but beyond the scope of this rulemaking with no DEQ response. These are included as general issues and concerns being included for the record.

How to Find Your Comments

Using the overview described above, go to the section that corresponds to the comment you provided to DEQ. DEQ made every effort to identify as many comments as possible, and has provided a response to each one. However, due to the extremely high number of comments, DEQ was not able to cross reference each comment to the person or organization providing the comment.

All persons who provided comments are listed at the back of this document, starting on page 28. This list is divided into (1) written letters, sent by mail, provided at a hearing, or attached to anAttachment 7.2, pg. 5



### email; (2) oral testimony provided at the public hearings; and (3) email comments. 1 

### Commenters are also listed by whether the comment was provided in the first or second public comment period. To avoid duplication, those who provided both oral and written comments, priority was given responding to comments provided in writing rather than oral testimony, based on time limitations on testimony that were necessary at the hearings. Also, many of the comments were provided via a form letter, either by email or a postcard. These names are listed separately in an attachment to this document, due the very high volume of names. See Attachment 1. Both this document and Attachment 1 are provided on DEQ’s website at www.deq.state.or.us/aq/pge.htm

.

General Guide to Comments

To assist in finding your comments, the following is a summary of the different groups that commented on this rulemaking, and notes where in this document the responses can be found. This is intended to be a general guide to finding most of the comments, but not all.

1. Comments provided by EPA, National Park Service, and the U.S. Forest Service. These comments focused on the technical and cost aspects of DEQ’s three proposed emission reduction options, citing general support of them, but suggesting more stringency in some cases.

These comments also did not support PGE’s BART III 2020 proposal, citing technical and cost

concerns.

2. Comments from PGE, Industry, Business and Utility related groups, city and county governments, chambers of commerce, and Morrow County government. The majority of these comments supported PGE’ s BART III 2020 proposal and PGE’s revised 2020 proposal , and generally opposed DEQ’s proposed thr ee options, citing concerns primarily about the cost and timing of DEQ’s options . There were also comments about potential impacts to the economy under any early closure scenario.

3. Comments provided by environmental organizations

. Th is included the Oregon Environmental Council, Sierra Club, Northwest Environmental Defense Center, Friends of the Columbia Gorge, Columbia Riverkeeper, Hells Canyon Preservation Council, Environment Oregon, National Parks Conversation Association, Greenpeace, and others. These comments generally supported DEQ’s proposed three options, but also suggested more stringency in some cases. They focused on the importance of an early closure of PGE Boardman plant, citing concerns about the plant ’s visibility impacts in Class I areas and the Columbia Gorge, on public health and the environment, and global warming. Some cited specific technical and cost reasons for more stringent emission limits prior to an early shutdown of the plant. Other comments focused on the need to end reliance on coal energy, avoid making additional major investments in the Boardman plant if it is closing, and instead invest in cleaner, lower-carbon energy resources.

4. Comments from the general public. These comments reflected the divergent opinions between support of PGE’s two proposal s, and those in favor of an earlier closure. Many of the latter

comments support ed a 2015 plant closure, such as DEQ’s Option 3, or the earliest possible

1 Those who submitted written letters with verbal testimony or attached to an email are listed under “written letters”. This grouping of comments is based on ease of organization, and does not reflect any ranking or priority order based on type of comment provided to DEQ.Attachment 7.2, pg. 6



### closure of the plant. Separate from these comments were some which did not support any early closure, and instead urged PGE to continue operating the plant until 2040 and beyond.

SUMMARY OF COMMENTS AND DEQ RESPONSE S

I. Comments on DEQ’s Proposed Three Emission Reductions Options 1, 2 and 3

1. DEQ’s Option

1 should

consid er selective catalytic

reduction for
NO

x a) In determining that selective catalytic reduction was not cost effective for Option 1, DEQ overestimated the cost of Option 1 controls, and

underestimated the control effectiveness of selective catalytic reduction

, which

can achieve a 90 percent NOx reduction. DEQ should consider selective catalytic reduction as BART for Option 1. b) S elective catalytic reduction can reduce emissions by 90 percent . The

emission limit that is achievable for selective catalytic reductio n is 0.02
lb/ mmBtu heat input, not 0.07 lb/ mmBtu , as currently in DEQ’s rules. c) Using EPA’s Cost Manual, if selective catalytic reduction is operated for at least five years, the cost meets the $7,300/ton threshold used by DEQ.
Response a) DEQ evaluated the cost of selective catalytic reduction for the rules adopted in

2009. DEQ contracted with ERG to specifically evaluate the costs of selective catalytic reduction

. ERG concluded that PGE’s analysis is on the high end of the range of costs associated with se lective catalytic reduction retrofits. DEQ accepted PGE’s cost analysis due to the unique technica l difficulties associated with retrofitting the Boardman plan t with selective catalytic

reduction

. DEQ agrees that selective catalytic reduction on some units can achieve actual emissions at or below 0.05 lb/ mmBtu , but setting an emission limit at those levels would be difficult to comply with at all times. The limit that would represent BART for selective catalytic reduction was chosen at a level

that can be a chieved at all times. The limit was then used to evaluate emission

reductions due to selective catalytic reduction

. b) DEQ does not agree that the Boardman Plant could consistent l y ach ieve 0.02
lb/ m mBtu , if at all. c) DEQ’s consultant, ERG, concluded that the ac tual cost of retrofits is higher than the estimates provided by CUE cost and EPA’s Cost Manual. DEQ understands this is due to a very dramatic increase is labor and material costs in recent years.

2. DEQ’s Option 1 is too costly. a) Cost information provide d by the engineering company Sargent & Lundy
indicates that the true cost of SDFGD is 30 percent higher that DEQ’s estimate, and thus exceeds the $7,300 cost

- effective threshold, making Option 1 too costly. b) DEQ’s Option 1 is just too expensive. Claiming t his option cost $177 millionAttachment 7.2, pg. 7

less than the existing rules makes no sense either, as both approaches are too expensive and unsound investments. c) DEQ’s Option 1 imposes significant costs ($300 million) with little or no environmental benefit, a nd just doesn’ t make sense. d) DEQ’s Option 1 cost $217 million more than Option 2. That is significant, and the money would be better spent on securing the cleanest and most reliable power by 2020. Response a) DEQ is not relying on the cost estimates provided by Sargent & Lundy

because the analysis did not include any supporting documentation. b) Option 1 was based on PGE’s BART proposal in April, which did not include consideration of dry sorbent injection (DSI)

. Without DSI as a consideration for

a 2020 closure

, DEQ determi ned that semi

- dry flue gas desulfurization is a

cost effective control for a 2020 closure. DEQ concluded that selective catalytic

reduction is not a cost effective control for a 2020 closure. In comparison to the rules adopted in 2009, Option 1 would save $191 million dollars in capital

investment for selective catalytic reduction

. DEQ concluded that the suite of controls associated with the 2009 rules were cost effective considering the plant could operate indefinitely. c) Option 1 provided significant enviro nmental benefit: SO2 reduction of 11,988 tons/yr and visibility improvement of 3 dv in the Mt. Hood Wilderness area, not to mention the visibility improvement in 13 other Class I areas. d) PGE could decide to close the plant in 2018 and use the $217 million t o develop replacement power.

3. DEQ Option 2

should not have been proposed a) DEQ should not propose an option that anticipates a 2018 closure, since PGE has not offered such a closure date, and DEQ lacks legal authority to require it.

Response a) DEQ’s Optio n 2 wa s not being proposed as a required closure date

. This

decision is to be made by PGE. DEQ’s Option 2 was a c hoice for PGE, should

it desire an earlier date than 2020. Option 2 represents an alternative for meeting BART that has a significantly lower cost associated with it, due to

different SO 2 controls being proposed than DEQ’s Option 3.

4. DEQ Options 1

and 2 need modeling a) DEQ failed to conduct a complete modeling analysis for Options 1 and 2

.

a) DEQ evaluate d the impacts in 6 of the 14 Class I areas, as well as the Columbia River Gorge. Total impacts for all Class I areas was estimated by interpolation of the existing modeling data. Since the rules were proposed, DEQ has completed modeling of all Cla ss I areas. The results are provided in an addendum to DEQ’s BART report.

5

. DEQ’s Option 2

should consider
SDFGD for SO 2 a) In determining that Semi

- dry flue gas desulfurization (SDFGD) was not cost

effective for Option 2, the cost of SDFGD was overestimat ed and its
effectiveness was underestimated. DEQ should consider SDFGD as BART for Option 2. b) SDFGD can reduce emissions by 9 5 percent

. A permit recently issued to a plant in Nevada set an emission limit of 0.09 lb/ mmBtu heat input, based on a

24

- hr rollin g average, and not 0.07 lb/ mmBtu , as currently in DEQ’s rules.Attachment 7.2, pg. 8

d) Using EPA’s Cost Manual, i f SDFGD i s operated for three years, the cost meets the $7,300/ton threshold used by DEQ

. Response a) Based on DEQ’s evaluation of PGE’s cost analysis of selective cat alytic

reduction , as discussed above, DEQ concluded that PGE’s cost analysis for SDFGD was acceptable. DEQ evaluated the performance of SDFGD at other plants and concluded that a limit of 0.12 lb/ m mBtu could be achieved at all times and represents BART. Lo wer limits may not be achievable at all times for

a retrofit installation. b) 95 percent reduction depends on the uncontrolled SO2 limits. The higher the uncontrolled emissions, the more emission reduction is possible. The federal
New Source Performance Stand ards take this into consideration, so it is

reasonable to also consider it for BART. The Boardman Plant ’s uncontrolled emissions are relatively low due to the use of low

- sulfur coal. New plants are expected to meet lower limits because they can be specific ally designed to

meet the lower limits. c) Please see the response to ( a )

.

6 . DEQ’s Option
2 DSI controls

can achieve much higher efficiency a) DEQ has assumed that Dry Sorbent Injection (DSI) can only achieve a 35 percent SO 2 emission reduction, when 90 percent efficiency can be achieved. DEQ should require the lowest emission limit possible.

Response a) DEQ is not aware of a DSI system such as proposed for the Boardman Plant to

have been installed on a similar sized unit. DSI has been used on smaller unit s that also included fabric filters, which both contribute to improved efficiency of the DSI system. DEQ’s proposal relies on the existing ESP and does not include the installation of a fabric filter, which would cost over $100 million. In addition, the du cts between the air heater and the ESP are much larger at the

Boardman Plant. It is more difficult to adequately disperse the sorbent reagent in larger ducts and still maintain enough residence time for the sorbent to react
with the SO2. 35 percent efficie ncy is probably a little conservative, but a BART

limit should be achievable at all times.

7. DSI controls

should be

installed sooner

rather than later a) The DSI controls being proposed as part of this rulemaking should be installed as expeditiously as possible, in according with BART requirements.

Response a) The BART rules allow controls to be installed up to 5 years after EPA approves

revisions to the state implementation plan (SIP). EPA may approve the SIP revision as early as May 2011, so the absolu te latest the controls could be installed would be May 2016. DEQ recommends the DSI controls be installed by 7/1/14, nearly two years before the BART rules would require. The proposed compliance date allows PGE three years to design the system and

conduct the pilot study, which may involve evaluation of several types of sorbent materials and injection locations, along with particulate matter stack testing. Given the extent of the pilot study, three years to install the controls is considered “as expeditious ly as possible .”

8 . DEQ’s Option a) If DEQ agrees to PGE’s proposal for a DSI pilot study to evaluate the feasibilityAttachment 7.2, pg. 9

2 emission limit enforceability of DSI technology, DEQ rules will need to ensure that the emission limit found

to be achievable is also enforceable. Response a) DEQ agrees. The revised rules include provisions for establishing the

alternative limit in the Oregon Title V Operating permit to ensure that the limit is federally enforceable.

9 . DEQ’s Option

2 should extend

to 2020

. a) Since the re is some question about DSI equipment on facilities as large as Boardman, technology, a reasonable compromise may be to extend DEQ’s Option 2 to 2020, but include more stringent emission limits of 0.35 lb/ mmBtu in 2019, and 0.30 lb/ mmBtu in 2020. b) Allow the Boardman plant to operate until 2020, but for the last 3 years (2017

- 2020), limit the plant’s emissions by two

- thirds, so that total emissions during this time would be the same as DEQ’s Option 2, which has a 2018 closure

date. c) Pur sue a compliance agr eement that combines Option 2 and PGE’s BART III,

and achieves the optimum pollution control at a reasonable cost to PGE, based on reduced hours of plant operations during the final two to three years of plant operation. d) DEQ’s Option 2 should extend to 20 20, provided PGE take immediate steps to develop replacement power to offset the early closure. PGE’s proposed 2020 shutdown is reasonable because it is only two years beyond the 2018 date in DEQ’s Option 2, and is technically similar.

Response a) DEQ agre es this approach may be a reasonable compromise, subject to

conducting a pilot study of DSI to determine the feasibility of this technology, as proposed by PGE. DEQ is recommending a limit of 0.40 lb/ m mBtu in 201 4
and 0.30 lb/

m mBtu in 2018, contingent on t he results of the pilot studies. b) DEQ evaluated lowering the limit to accommodate 2 addition al years of operation and determined that limits in 2014 and 2018 are reasonable considering the time it will take to conduct the pilot studies. c) DEQ believes that li mits on hours of operation would have to be proposed by PGE, much the same as a commitment to closing the plant. DEQ does not have the authority to close a plant or limit hours of operation, unless specifically requested by the owner of the facility. d) DEQ h as no authority over the development of replacement power. DEQ must ensure that the BART requirements are met for the existing unit during the

time that it is operating.

10

. DEQ’s Option 2 cost is

uncertain a) DEQ’s analysis suggests Option 2 will cost $103 million. However, if the DSI controls increase particulate emissions and triggers the need for a baghouse,

the cost could double. This would make Option 2 no longer cost effective. b) Cost of the controls under this option won’t be determined until this equ ipment

is installed. This option does not make sense. Response a) DEQ agrees. DEQ’s analysis of DSI did not include a fabric filter. DEQ has

revised the proposed rule to include a pilot study to ensure that a fabric filter will not be required. b) DEQ’s cost e stimate is based on vendor data, but the cost may be overstated

because it is not clear whether the vendor would include a fabric filter or not.Attachment 7.2, pg. 10

PGE provided a cost estimate that does not include a fabric filter. PGE’s cost
estimate is less than DEQ’s esti mate by about $28 million.

1 1

. DEQ’s Option 3 should
consider DSI for
SO 2 a) Under BART, the five

- year requirement to install BART says “as expeditiously as practicable .” It is possible that DSI could meet DEQ’s cost

- effectiveness threshold if only used for a few years , and therefore should be required under Option 3

. Response a) DEQ has agreed to a pilot study to ensure that the DSI limit will not result in a

requirement to install a fabric filter. PGE will probably not initiate the study until

the rules are approved by EPA in 2011. This allows PGE about 3 years to conduct the pilot study and make an y permit revisions necessary to install and operate the DSI system. A compliance date of 7/1/14 will require installation of the DSI system as expeditiously a s practicable.

1 2 . DEQ’s Option

3 should include
SNCR a) In addition to Low NOx burners and Over

- fire air system, Option 3 should
include Selective Non

- Catalytic Reduction, as it meets DEQ’s $7,300 cost

effectiveness threshold. Response a) DEQ included SNCR i n Options 1 and 2, but no longer recommends SNCR because it will only provide 0.18 dv improvement and there are concerns with the ammonia slip contributing to fine particulate matter emissions. DEQ does not believe it is cost effective for Option 3, which will result in closure of the plant 5 years sooner than the 2020 option.

1 3 . DEQ’s Option

3 closure date a) The closure date under Option 3 needs further clarification, as it is tied to EPA approval of the Oregon SIP within 5 years. In case approval is dela yed, the following language should be added: “but in no event later than May 16, 2016 .” Response a) DEQ does not agree. The whole concept of Option 3 is tied to EPA’s approval

of the SIP as specified in the BART requirements.

1 4 . DEQ’s Option

3 should be adopted. a) The PGE Boardman plant is Oregon’s largest source of smog, acid rain, haze

, and carbon dioxide

. DEQ’s Option 3 2015 closure is the best alternative

. b) Option 3 represents the best balance between the environment, public health, and electricity rate s. Response DEQ appreciates the support for Option 3.

1 5 . Support

2015 closure a) Support ending coal burning by 2015 and transitioning to cleaner energy sources, in order to reduce haze, acid rain, and mercury contamination, especially in Columbia Gorge.
b) Closing the Boardman plant in 2015 gives PGE enough time to develop

alternatives and cleane r energy. c) The pollution from the PGE Boardman plant poses a major risk to public health and global warming, and the cheapest and environmentally responsible optio n is to close the plant by 2015. Response DEQ believes the proposed Option 3 is the best approach to a plant closure in

2015, should PGE choose this option

.

1 6 . DEQ’s 3 options should be a) DEQ’s 3 proposed options should be adopted as proposed. T hey provide the greatest practicable protection of visibility in the Columbia Gorge, whenAttachment 7.2, pg. 11

adopted. considering technical feasibility, costs, and other important socio

- economic

values.
b) DEQ’s three early closure options should not be watered down. Response DEQ app reciates the support for the three options being proposed.

1 7 . DEQ’s cost

effectiveness

threshold of $7,300 a) DEQ’s cost effectiveness threshold is too high, as other BART analyses across the country are much less. DEQ used the highest cost it could find, c iting a proposed BART determination in another state that has not ye t been officially approved. b) DEQ ’s cost effectiveness threshold is too high and too expensive

. c) DEQ’s cost effectiveness threshold does not take into account the benefits

associated with e arly closure, and sh ould be lower.
d) DEQ’s approach to cost effectiveness is problematic, in that it is much different

than the PUC’s view of cost effectiveness. It should be more flexible.
e) DEQ should not be proposing one of the highe st threshold s of $7,30 0, but

rather a reasonable lower cost way to meet federal requirements. DEQ should be trying to make this affordable for customers, not the most expensive.
f) Using DEQ’s $7,300 per ton cost threshold, installing selective catalytic

reduction controls for th e remaining useful life of 5 years under this threshold,

and should be considered under DEQ’s Option 1.
g) Using DEQ’s $7,300 per ton cost threshold, installing SDFGD controls for the remaining useful life of 3 years falls under this threshold, and should be considered under DEQ’s Option 2.
h) Using DEQ’s $7,300 per ton cost threshold, installing S N CR controls for the remaining useful life of 2 years is under this threshold, and should be considered under DEQ’s Option 3

. Response a) BART is based on several fact ors. No single factor can determine BART. DEQ

considers $7,300 to be cost effective considering the number of Class I areas impacted and the magnitude of the impacts. Plant c losure will provide significant visibility improvement in the long term, but not f or the short term.

BART must address both short and long term impacts

. T he remaining useful life of the plant is a significant factor for determining the cost effectiveness of a control option. DEQ has included the remaining useful life of the plant in its analysis. b) See response (a). c) See response (a). d) DEQ is unable to respond to this comment. e) DEQ is aware of the potential cost to rate payers. The modified 2020 proposal
does not include SDFGD or selective catalytic reduction , which are the most expensive con trol options. f) DEQ does not agree that selective catalytic reduction is cost effective for 5

years

. The incremental cost as compared to LNB is greater than $10,000/ton if selective catalytic reduction is installed on 7/14, which is 6.5 years of operation. T

he incremental cost would be even higher for 5 years of operation. g) According to DEQ’s analysis, the cost effectiveness of SDFGD is approximately $7,300/ton, which is the threshold for cost effectiveness. That is why SDFGD is not included in option 2. T he i ncremental cost as compared to
DSI is approximately $7,200/ton if the plant runs until 12/31/20. Therefore,Attachment 7.2, pg. 12

DEQ does not consider SDFGD cost effective for a 2020 closure , as well

. h) DEQ agrees that SNCR is cost effective, but SNCR will only achieve .018 dv

f urther visibility improvement as compared to LNB. Considering the negligible improvement and the potential PM issues associated with ammonia slip, DEQ
does not recommend SNCR.

1 8

. DEQ’s cost per deciview a) DEQ used a cost per deciview of $10 million/ dv as a factor in determining

BART. This is below the national average of $14

- $18 million/ dv

. Response a) Cost effectiveness in terms of deciviews is not a well established parameter.

DEQ has tried to incorporate the parameter into its BART analysis using

informat ion from several, but not all BART evaluations. DEQ appreciates the

additional information.

1 9 . DEQ’s use

of incremental

cost a) According to EPA’s BART Guidelines, incremental cost should be used in combination with the average cost effectiveness in determi ning BART. To use incremental cost correctly, it must be compared to other similar situations. DEQ did not provide comparisons of incremental cost used by other states for

BART. b) DEQ should clarify that the $7,300/ton threshold applies to both the annualize d

cost effectiveness and the incremental cost effectiveness. Response DEQ used incremental cost in addition to average cost effectiveness in its

analysis. The same threshold is used for incremental cost as is used for the average cost effectiveness.

20

. Emission

reductions after

closure a) DEQ’s proposed rulemaking fails to fully consider or recognize the impact of an early closure, in terms of the elimination of all emissions.

a) DEQ acknowledges that plant closure will eliminate 25,700 tons of visibility impairing pollutant emissions from the coal

- fired power plant and will eliminate its impact on the visibility in Class I areas. This is a significant factor for meeting the reasonable progress goals of the regional haze program. However, DEQ must also sati sfy the BART requirements in the near term.

2 1 . Determining compliance with
NOx limits a) As currently proposed, DEQ’s rules allow PGE an entire year to demonstrate compliance with the 30

- day rolling average N O x emission limit. This amount of

time is unneces sary, and should be changed to 30 days after the emission limit goes into effect. a) DEQ recommends changing the evaluation period to 180 days based on a 30

- day rolling average. This will provide PGE time to fine tune the low NOx

burners.

2 2

. Startup/shu tdow

n e mission s not
addressed a) DEQ’s proposed BART rules improperly exclude emissions during periods of startup and shutdown, related to the emission limits proposed for NOx, SO2,

and PM. The rules need to account for the frequency and duration of these

per iods, the quantity of emissions, and the visibility impacts during these periods in Class I areas. a) DEQ does not necessarily agree that BART was intended to establish emissionAttachment 7.2, pg. 13

limits and controls for startup and shutdown periods. The BART guidelines

spec ifically state that emissions during startup and shutdown should not be used in the visibility analysis used to determine if a source is subject to BART. (Guidelines III.A.2.Option 1) This analysis is not only used to establish whether a source is subject to BART, but also establishes the baseline for evaluating the visibility improvement due to various control technology options. Without determining the visibility impacts during periods of startup and shutdown in the baseline period, it is not possible to evaluate the visibility improvement of retrofit control technologies during periods of startup and shutdown. However, to minimize the emissions during periods of startup and shutdown, DEQ recommends making the current NSPS limits for SO 2 and NO

x applicable at all

times. For PM, DEQ recommends adding a reference to DEQ ’s excess emission rules that require approved startup/shutdown plans for minimizing

emissions to the extent practicable, including minimizing the duration of startups. (see OAR 340

- 214

- 0310)

2 3

. DEQ’s Fiscal Impact
Statement a) DEQ’s Fiscal and Economic Impact Statement was flawed, in that it failed to consider the cost of replacement power associated the with Boardman plant

closure. b) The cost of any BART option that includes mandatory or prematu re plant closure must include cost of replacement power. c) In identifying increases in electricit y rates, DEQ did not consider factors such as the timing of these rate impacts and whether they might affect different customer classes disproportionally

. d) DEQ’ s Fiscal and Economic Impact Statement should have included an analysis of the benefits of greenhouse gas reductions associated with early plant closure. e) DEQ’s Fiscal and Economic Impact Statement did not adequately consider the impact of plant closure on the economy, such as loss of employment and

tax revenue. Response a) DEQ is required to conduct a fiscal and economic impact analysis on the costs

related to the rulemaking it proposes. This rulemaking would require the installation of pollution control eq uipment, or other changes at the Boardman plant to meet emission limits based on DEQ’s BART determination. As a result, the costs identified in the fiscal and economic impact statement address the costs of purchasing, installing, and operating the pollutio n controls. It should also be noted that the proposed rules provide PGE with the option of closing or continuing to operate to 2040 and beyond, under the existing rules. DEQ is not requiring early closure, nor has the authority to do

so. Decisions that PGE may make in the future about replacement power, should Boardman close, is part of the Integrated Resource Planning process that involves PGE and the Public Utilities Commission, and therefore beyond the scope of this rulemaking. Having said this, DEQ did include did include information provided by PGE on likely rate impact increases if PGE decides to close the plant, that included potential cost of replacement power, and cost associated with decommissioning the plant.
b) See response (a).
c) DEQ’s Fiscal and Ec onomic Impact Statement did include estimates ofAttachment 7.2, pg. 14

electricity rate increases on different customer classes, such as residential, small business, local government, and others, based on the three options being proposed, and in comparison to the rate impacts u nder the current 2009 rules. The estimates of rate increases did vary between these customer classes, showing how the potential impacts could be disproportional between

these classes.
d) DEQ’s Fiscal and Economic Impact Statement did not an analysis of the

g reenhouse gas emission reduction benefits. As noted above, this rulemaking addresses regional haze/BART requirements, not carbon regulation. An analysis of these benefits is beyond the scope of this rulemaking.
e) DEQ did include a preliminary assessment of the potential economic impacts on employment and local government tax revenues, even though these costs are not a direct result of the proposed rules, but rather the result of a decision made by the PGE and owners of the Boardman plant to close early.

2 4

. Miscellaneous a) DEQ should add to its proposed rules additional time for compliance, if DEQ cannot act on a permit application to install controls in a reasonable timeframe. b) Remove the reference in the rules to the “Foster

- Wheeler boiler” at the Boardman p lant. DEQ should strike this name, and replace it with “any coal

fired boiler”, so that no other coal

- fired boiler could be installed. c) The enforceability of DEQ’s three options is not strong enough. The rules should void the operating permit for the plant if PGE fails to comply with the

selected closure deadline. Also, the rules should state that non

- compliance would result in the state, EPA, and citizens are able to apply for both injunctive and civil penalty relief. d) DEQ should correct its definition of deciview in Section 340

- 223

- 0020 to: ( dv ) = 10ln(b ext

/10 Mm - 1 ) e) In Section 340

- 223

- 0040, please specify the averaging period for the 0.070
lb/ mmBtu NOx emission limit. f) Please specify the control technologies assumed to be implemented to achieve

the emissio n rates in each rule section on DEQ’s three options. g) As currently proposed, the rule allows PGE an entire year to demonstrate compliance with the 30

- day rolling average NOx emission limit. Rather than a year, the rule should say “within 30

- days after the e mission limit goes into

effect .” h) Section 340

- 223

- 0080 in (2)(b)(A) has a typo. It says the emission limit is 0.40
lb/ mmBtu , but it should be 0.12 lb/ mmBtu

. i) DEQ should work openly and collaboratively with the Oregon PUC and utilities

to find a workable solu tion. j) DEQ’s proposed rules, when combined with many other federal regulations, such as greenhouse gas emissions and hazardous air pollutants, impose such significant costs that they are essentially regulating the plant out of business. Response a) DEQ has added provisions for extending the compliance date in the event the

DEQ does not issue a timely permit revision, but the extension is limited to no more than 5 years from the date EPA approves the SIP revision.
b) DEQ has revised the rules to “cease firing co al” instead of requiring shutdown

of the Foster Wheeler boiler.
c) DEQ believes that the rules for ceasing to fire coal are enforceable by the stateAttachment 7.2, pg. 15

and will be federally enforceable once EPA approves the revision to the SIP.
d) The proposed rules have been revi sed as requested.
e) DEQ will add a 30

- day rolling average to the limit.
f) Option1 and 2 are now combined. The control technologies are low NOx

burners with over

- fire air on 7/1/11, SNCR contingency by 7/1/13 if 0.23
lb/ m mBtu can’t be met by 7/1/11 with the low NOx burners, dry sorbent injection on 7/1/14 with a limit of 0.40 lb/ m mBtu and dry sorbent injection with a
limit of 0.30 lb/

m mBtu by 7/1/18.
g) DEQ agrees. The evaluation period has been shortened to 180 days.
h) DEQ has made the correction.
i) The PUC is conside red a significant stakeholder for DEQ’s rulemaking.
j) DEQ agrees there are many uncertainties associated with future regulations and the viability of the plant.



### II

. Comments on PGE ’s BART III 2020 Propos al alternative to DEQ’s three options

A. C omme nts in Support

1

. 2020 closure is

reasonable a) PGE’s BART III proposal meets federal requirements , is cost effective, and is the best approach for the economy in meeting PGE’s objective for an early

closure. b) PGE’s BART III proposal should be supported as i t is reasonable approach for closing the plant 20 years earlier than planned. c) PGE’s BART III proposal is the least expensive to customers and provides

environmental benefits. d) PGE’s BART III proposal is a reasonable, cost

- effective step to improve air

qua lity in the near term, while providing even greater improvements over the long term. e) PGE’s BART III proposal for a 2020 shutdown is reasonable

, in that it provides enough transition time to buy or build affordable replacement power

. f) PGE’s BART III propos al for a 2020 shutdown is reasonable, in that it would lessen the economic impact, and allow workers at the plant and nearby

communities to make transition and adjust to this shutdown. g) With 110 full

- time employees, 30 contractor positions, and 225 seasona l workers, the Boardman plant is a critical employment source in the region. PGE’s BART III proposal is the best approach to address early closure and loss of these jobs. h) Prefer the plant operate until 2040, given the impact early closure would have on jo bs and the economy. But if early closure must happen, support PGE’s BART III proposal. i) While I’m not convinced the plant should be closed in 2020, PGE has made a generous offer that should be considered. j) Closing the plant too early could have significant impact on low

- income families. For them, low cost power is essential. k) PGE’s BART III plan gives enough time to develop renewable energy

. l) Global warming is a real problem. But we need to find environmentally sound

business solutions to meet all of our nee ds. PGE’s proposal is the kind of compromise that can be an example for the rest of the country.Attachment 7.2, pg. 16

Response DEQ appreciates these comments and understands the concerns about the

economic impact of PGE’s decision for early closure, the need for time to

deve lop replacement power and transition to a new technology, the importance of providing reliable, affordable, and renewable energy to PGE

customers , and the others concerns expressed above

.

2

. DSI Pilot Study a) If the pilot study that PGE is proposing demons trates that the 0.4 lb/ mmBtu SO2 limit cannot be reached, DEQ will need to set an alternate limit that PGE can meet without affecting the performance of mercury controls or triggering
PSD for PM2.5. b) The DSI pilot studies need to focus on technical issues and not cost. Response a) DEQ has restructured the rules to add provisions for conducting a pilot study

and establishing alternative emission limits. b) The proposed rules specifically state that alternative limits for DSI would be

considered if it is demonstra ted that DSI would either reduce the efficiency of the mercury controls or increase fine particulate matter that would result in ambient concentrations above the significant impact level. DEQ believes it is very important that the mercury emissions be redu ced by 90 percent if at all possible. DEQ did not intend for the DSI system to include a fabric filter in place of the existing ESP. Adding a fabric filter would increase the efficiency of the DSI system, but would not be cost effective considering the cap ital cost of a fabric filter is approximately $100 million. DEQ proposes a limit of 0.40 lb/mmBtu for the DSI system specifically to avoid a requirement to install a fabric filter. The pilot study will further evaluate whether the limit can be met

without affecting the mercury controls and/or increase PM ambient concentrations above the significance level. The pilot study is not intended to

further evaluate the cost effectiveness of a fabric filter.

B. Support Opposed

3. Not protective enough a) PGE’s BAR T III plan will not protect Oregon’s special places, air quality, or the health of our families and should be rejected. Response a) DEQ’s proposed three options would provide more emission reductions and

visibility improvement than PGE’s BART III plan. Howe ver, all approaches include a shutdown of the plant, which eliminates all emissions, and therefore would have significant benefits to visibility, as well as result in improvements in air quality.

4

. Disagree with
PGE on SDFGD being BART in

2020 a) DEQ’s Opt ion 1 states that SDFGD is BART in 2020. PGE submitted costs
that SDFGD is 30 percent over its previous estimates, but has not provided

sufficient information to support this claim.

Response a) DEQ agrees. DEQ is not relying on PGE’s revised cost analysis. DEQ

believes SDFGD is still cost effective i f the plant operates through 2020 based on the average cost effectiveness of the controls. However, with DSI included in the rules, the incremental cost of SDFGD is nearly $7,300/ton. Therefore,
DEQ does not beli eve SDFGD is cost effective if the plant closes down
on12/31/20 and DSI is installed on 7/1/14.Attachment 7.2, pg. 17

5 . PGE’s claim
DSI is infeasible is

without merit a) Just because no DSI system has been demonstrated on a boiler exactly the same the Boardman plant does not mea n the technology is infeasible. DSI technology is feasible for this plant. (23)(49)
b) In looking at other similar plants in the country, the PPL Montour power plant in Washingtonville PA is currently installing DSI on two 750 MM coal

- fired

boiler s

. Respons e As stated in DEQ’s BART Report for PGE Boardman Plant, DEQ has

determined that DSI is BART for this facility, even though this technology has been only demonstrated on smaller boilers than the one at the Boardman plant. DEQ sees no reason why DSI would n ot be feasible for the Boardman boiler. The proposed pilot study to test the effectiveness of DSI will allow the

control effectiveness of this technology to be fully evaluated.

6

. DSI would trigger PSD is

without merit a) PGE’s claim that DSI would increas e particulate emissions and trigger pollution controls such as a baghouse is premature and without merit, unless further documentation, such as modeling, ca n be provided and verified. Response a) DEQ acknowledges that the use of sorbent injection will incre ase particulate

emissions, but not to the point of triggering additional pollution controls. This will be confirmed by further evaluation through the pilot study being proposed as part of these rule changes

. The pilot study will include an evaluation of

av ailable sorbent materials, the effect of the sorbent materials on the existing particulate matter control system and mercury control system, and finally, air dispersion modeling will be conducted if necessary to determine if PM

emissions will have an adver se impact on air quality.

7

. PGE’s BART III fails to satisfy

BART a) If interim controls such as DSI are not feasible, PGE proposes to use low

sulfur coal, which would reduce SO2 emission by less than 2 percent from the

baseline emission rate. A 2 percen t reduction for a facility that continue s to operate five years after EPA’s approval of the SIP is not BART, and would not be approvable by EPA. Response a) DEQ believes DSI is feasible and will achieve emission reductions in the range

of 20 to 35 percent i

nitially.

8

. PGE’s BART cost analysis

needs more

evaluation a) PGE’s cost analysis for its’ BART III proposal needs to be reviewed to
determine if it was done in accordance with EPA’s OAQPS Cost Manual. PGE should not have included the cost of replacement po wer in its’ BART analysis.

Response a) The cost analysis performed by PGE was not in strict adherence to EPA’s

OAQPS Cost Manual. PGE’s estimates more closely reflect real world cost due to higher than normal escalation of costs in recent years. PGE did not include the cost of replacement power in its BART analysis. The cost of replacement power is a concern, but the cost was not included in the BART analysis.

9

. Miscellaneous a) The heat input rates in PGE’s proposal are unclear. DEQ should clarify the

approp riate heat input from which to measure the emission reductions that are claimed by PGE , and how these calculations were done

. a) DEQ should also ensure that the calculations of annual pollution under BART are correct given PGE Boardman’s maximum capacity to emit for purposes ofAttachment 7.2, pg. 18

setting the PSEL. Response a) The heat inputs for each pollutant represent the highest 12

- month heat input

associated with the highest 24

- hour emissions during calendar years 2003 through 2005. This information is provided in Table 5

- 1 of PGE’s report. The values are 48,630,688 m mBtu /yr for NO

x , 48,571,330 m mBtu

/yr for SO 2 , and 49,093,487 m mBtu

/yr for PM. These values were also used to calculate the projected actual emission s after installing the BART control s

. b) The heat inputs were used to calculate the projected annual emissions after the BART controls are installed for the purpose of determining emission reductions and visibility analysis. The Plant Site Emission Limits will be based on the capacity of the facility using the BART contro l limits.



### III. Comments in support of other options related to an early closure of the PGE Boardman plant.

1. Do not allow Boardman plant to

continue operation to 2040 a) The PGE Boardman plant should not be allowed the option of continuing to operate u ntil 2040 and beyond , due to the amount of air pollution it produces

. The existing rules should be eliminated. b) The PGE Boardman plant should not be allowed to continue to operate through 2040 due to its mercury emissions, and the resulting impact on water quality and fish. c) Keeping the PGE Boardman plant running until 2040 is ludicrous, and the plant should be shutdown in 2020. d) Most important goal is to avoid making a large investment in coal that results in Boardman operating thru 2040, and find a single closure option that is reasonable, and meets both DEQ and PGE needs. e) DEQ’s existing rules will cost the PGE Boardman plant over $500 million. Investing this amount of money in coal power is not in the best interests of Oregon. Response PGE’s revised 20 20 proposal would eliminate the 2009 rules adopted for the

PGE Boardman plant, which allowed the plant to continue to operate indefinitely

, and would instead establish a firm closure date of Dec. 31, 2020. The control technologies identified as BART with a 2020 closure were chosen taking into consideration the remaining useful life of the plant. The revised recommendation does not require selective catalytic reduction or SDFGD, but would require the less expensive DSI system.

2

. Find a middle ground betwee n Option 2 and

PGE’s 2020 proposal a) Efforts should be made to find ing an agreeable result between DEQ’s Option 2 and PGE’s BART III 2020 proposal, with adjustments to avoid triggering additional pollution controls, and then closing the plant. Both approache s involve the same DSI technology, and only two years apart, which could be a time to find cleaner replacement power.
b) Since there is some question about DSI equipment on facilities as large as Boardman, technology, a reasonable compromise may be to extend DEQ’s Option 2 to 2020, but include more stringent emission limits of 0.35 lb/ mmBtu in 2019, and 0.30 lb/ mmBtu in 2020. c) Allow the Boardman plant to operate until 2020, but for the last 3 years (2017

-Attachment 7.2, pg. 19

2020), limit the plant ’s emissions by two

- thirds, so th at total emissions during this time would be the same as DEQ’s Option 2, which has a 2018 closure

date.
d) Pursue a compliance agreement that achieves optimum pollution control at a reasonable cost to PGE, based on reduced hours of plant operations during

th e final two to three years of plant operation.
e) Keeping the PGE Boardman plant running until 2040 is ludicrous, and the plant should be shutdown in 2020.
f) DEQ should remove the 2040 option and wo rk with PGE and other

stakeholders to find practical options f or closure no later than 2020. g) PGE has voluntarily offered to cut the plant’s useful lifespan by 20 years. DEQ needs to find a practicable approach to balancing the environmental and

economic issues.
h) Give PGE the time it needs to develop replacement powe r that is affordable. Response PGE’s revised 2020 proposal does represent a middle ground between their

BART III proposal and DEQ’s 2018 Option 2. First, it removes the 2040 option,

and establishes a firm 2020 closure date. Second, after 2018, it establi shes a
lower SO 2 emission limit for the two years prior to 2020 closure

3 . Close the plant

earlier than 2015 a) Close the PGE Boardman plant in 2014, rather than 2020, and transition to cleaner energy sources

. Response a) DEQ’s Option 3 includes a closure dat e of 2015

- 16, which is based on the

federal requirement to install BART in five of EPA approval of the Oregon Regional Haze Plan. Under this option, PGE may choose to close the plant at that time, and not install any BART controls, beyond those required in 2011 for
NOx. As noted below, DEQ does not have authority to require an earlier shutdown (or any shutdown other than those established by rule as an option for PGE).

4. Close the plant

as soon as possible a) T he PGE Boardman plant should be closed at the e arliest date possible

, to end reliance on coal, and transition to cleaner energy sources

.

Response a) DEQ lacks the authority under its current regulations to simply close the PGE

Boardman plant

. This facility currently operates under an approved air quali ty permit, and therefore cannot be shutdown, unless there is regulatory authority

to do so. DEQ has proposed three options to meet federal BART requirements
that allow PGE to close the plant early. Should PGE choose one of these options, the date for plant closure under that option would be mandatory and enforceable. Outside of this regulatory authority, there is no other means to require plant closure.

5. Postpone this rulemaking a) DEQ should postpone any decision on this rulemaking. Shutting down the
PGE Boardman plant is unnecessary. The economic impact would be too severe, and now is not the time to be considering this action. Response a) DEQ is required under the federal Regional Haze Rules to meet BART

regulations that apply to facilities like PGE Board man. In 2009, the EQC adopted the Oregon Regional Haze Plan that included rules to meet federal

BART requirements, and then submitted this plan to EPA for approval. TheAttachment 7.2, pg. 20

plan i ncluded a provision that allowed PGE to make a formal request for a rule change t o the newly adopted BART rules, should PGE wish to close the plant early. This rulemaking is in response to such a request from PGE. Postponing this rulemaking would require PGE to rescind their request, and continue
under the 2009 rules. Over the last six months, PGE has made it clear to DEQ, the PUC, and their stakeholders that they seek rule changes to allow for an early closure of the plant.

6 . More

collaboration and less regulation a) DEQ should take a balanced, reasonable approach to this rulemaking wi th PGE, which focuses more on coll aboration than regulation.
b) DEQ should work openly and collaboratively with the Oregon PUC and utilities

to find a workable solution.
c) DEQ should adopt a proposal that inflicts the least cost on Oregon’s ailing economy and minimizes further job losses.
d) First approach should be to develop comprehensive energy plan, which involves collaboration between PUC, EFSC, and DEQ. Need an impact analysis on jobs and economy if plant were to shutdown. Response As noted above, this r ulemaking was triggered by a formal request from PGE for a rule change

. Upon receiving this request, DEQ has taken a collaborative approach in working with PGE to develop regulatory options to address PGE ’s stated objective for an early closure of the plan t. This has included seeking public comment on two proposals developed by PGE, as part of this rulemaking effort.

7

. Set 2011 as

decision date a) Set 2011 as the decision point to either close Boardman or make PGE comply

with new rules on an accelerated sc hedule. Response a) In essence, PGE will be required to decide what option to take in 2011

because of the lead time to procure and install the control equipment. The decision date in the rule merely requires PGE to confirm what option they have

chosen befor

e the compliance dates in Options 1 and 2

.



### IV. Comments related to the new PGE BART proposal on 2020 closure, associated with

the re

- opening of the comment period.

1. Support the

revised proposal a) PGE’s new BART proposal is a reasonable approach that sets one date,

eliminates the existing rules and ability to operat e until 2040, and is a good compromise with DEQ’s Option 2.
b) In addition to the revised proposal, also still support PGE’s BART III proposal.
c) Would prefer the plant to continue operating unt il 2040, but if early closure must happen, support PGE’s revised 2020 proposal. Response DEQ agrees with PGE’s proposal to close the plant in 2020. By presenting the

2020 proposal, PGE has decided not to run the plant beyond 12/31/20.

2. Do not add early closure options to the

rules a) Support PGE’s new 2020 proposal, and do not add any earlier closure date options to the rules, such as 2018 or 2015

- 16. Rules should just have one

closure date.Attachment 7.2, pg. 21

Response a) DEQ appreciates these comments, but believes there is still merit in retaining

the 2015/2016 closure option. If PGE chooses to close the plant within 5 years of the date EPA approves the SIP, the cost savings from not purchasing and installing the dry sorbent injection system could offset the costs of replace ment

power. The 2015/2016 option may also be useful in responding to future regulatory requirements, such as the National Emission Standard for
Hazardous Air Pollutant Standard schedule d for adoption in 2011 and carbon regulations.

3

. Add early

closure da te options b) Both the 2015/16 and 2018 closure options should be added to the rules.

Response b) As noted above, DEQ recommends adding the 2015/16 closure option, within

5 years after EPA approves the SIP revision. The Boardman p lant would have to comply with NO

x limits in 2011, but not the SO 2 limits in 2014. DEQ does not recommend including BART requirements for a 2018 closure because it would not be substantively different than the BART requirements for the 2020

closure.

4

. Opposed to the revised proposal a) The new proposal from PGE is not much different than the prior proposal

, and is therefore not much of an improvement, or supportable.
b) Still support early closure in 2015 or sooner.
c) Still support closure as soon as possible. Response The revised proposal from PGE is different than their prior BART III proposal,

in that it proposes to eliminate the current rules and the 2040 option and set a firm closure date of 2020, and also establishes a lower SO 2 emission limit for the two year period from 2018 to 2020 closure.

5 . 2020 closure must be federally

enforceable a) Under PGE’s new BART proposal, any rule requirement for permanent closure in 2020 must be federally enforceable.

Response a) The requirement to cease burning coal by 12/31/20 will be federally

enforce able if the requirement is approved by EPA as a revision to DEQ’s state implementation plan. Failure to comply with the requirement would result in enforcement action (civil or criminal).

6 . Repowering the plant after closure a) The plant can’t be repowered without permitting it as if it were a new source.

Response a) The proposed rules require PGE to cease burning coal in the Foster

- Wheeler boiler by 12/31/20. Since the Foster

- Wheeler boiler is currently designed to burn only coal, other than during short pe riods of startup, the requirement to cease burning coal will eliminate the netting basis for the Foster

- Wheeler boiler in accordance with the definition of “netting basis” in OAR 340

- 200

- 0020. If there are future modifications to the boiler, such as re

- pow ering using fuels other than coal, the requested emissions associated with the modification will be compared to the netting basis in accordance with the definition of “major modification” in OAR 340

- 200

- 0020. If the requested emissions due toAttachment 7.2, pg. 22

the modificat

ion are equal to or greater than a significant emission rate above the netting basis, the modification would be subject to PSD because the source will still be a federal major source by virtue of the co

- located Carty Plant (permit pending). It would be phy sically impossible to re

- power a boiler

the size of the Foster

- Wheeler boiler with any type of fuel without at least one criteria pollutant emissions greater than a significant emission rate. Therefore, repowering would be subject to PSD.

7

. Opposed to an y plant closure a) Opposed to this rulemaking, and to any early closure of the plant.

b) Coal burning is still a viable option and should not eliminated Response As noted above, this rulemaking was triggered by a request from PGE for a

rule change to reflect t

heir desire for an early p lant closure. Th is decision is being made by PGE and other co

- owners of the plant, and will be subject to review by the Public Utilities Commission

.



### V

. Other Comments and Issues Raised during this proposed r ulemaking

1. PGE

Boardman plant is health

threat a) PGE Boardman is a large source of mercury, toxic air pollutants, and other dangerous pollutants, which represent a serious threat to public health. DEQ should be addressing this as well as regional haze. It’s time to move b eyond coal and transition to cleaner energy source. Response a) DEQ recognizes these concerns. While the Boardman plant is a major source

of air pollutants, it is a permitted source, and as such is required to operate in compliance with established air qual ity health standards, which DEQ is responsible to enforce . The purpose of this rulemaking is to meet the requirements of the federal Regional Haze Rule, related to improving visibility in Class I areas. DEQ’s Air Quality Division conducts other rulemakings directed at protecting public health and meeting the requirements of the Clean

Air Act. It should be noted that if PGE does decide to close the plant early by a certain date, this will eliminate all of the plant’s emissions, which will have public health benefits, and reduce acid deposition, greenhouse gases, and other air pollutants.

2

. Comments on DEQ’s existing

2009 rules for
PGE Boardman a) DEQ should significantly strengthen the rules involving the “no closure option” (i.e., the existing 2009 rules). Th e NOx, SO2, and PM emission limits set forth in these rules do not reflect the best demonstrated system of continuous emission reduction that can be achieved at Boardman, and thus do not meet

BART. Response a) DEQ’s existing regional haze rules that were ad opted for the PGE Boardman

plant in 2009 are not part of this rulemaking, and therefore DEQ is not seeking

comment on these rules. Additionally, t hese comments were previously submitted by the commenter during the 2009 rulemaking (on Jan. 30, 2009)

and wer e specifically addressed by DEQ at that time.

3. PGE Boardman plant is out of a) DEQ needs to take action to remedy the violation of the Clean Air Act, related to the failure to comply with New Source Performance Standards andAttachment 7.2, pg. 23

compliance Prevention of Signi ficant Deterioration requirements, including a Notice of Violation recently issued by EPA against the PGE Boardman plant Response a) The recent action taken by EPA involving the issuance of a Notice of Violation

against the PGE Boardman plant is not related to this rulemaking. b) DEQ acknowledges that there is a pending law suit with allegations that PGE has not complied with PSD and NSPS requirements that were applicable to the facility due to physical modifications in the past. More recently, EPA

issued a No tice of Violation for not complying with the NSPS requirements due to physical changes in 1998 through 2004. Given the complexity of the factual and legal issues involved in resolving whether the Boardman facility

undertook a modification or a series of mo difications which triggered NSPS requirements, and given that these issues are being litigated in the case of Sierra Club, et al. v. PGE , Federal District Court for the District of Oregon,
Case No. CV 08

- 1136 HA, DEQ declines to make a specific finding of non

applicability of any NSPS modification requirements.

The issuance of an NOV by EPA is not, by itself, sufficient to demonstrate that the Boardman Plant is not in compliance with the Clean Air Act, pursuant to section 502(b)(2) of the Act. An NOV is an early step in the process for determining whether a violation has occurred, and is not a final EPA determination that a violation occurred. Likewise, as a legal matter it is not final agency action subject to judicial review. DEQ understands that EPA is

s till in the process of obtaining further information from PGE about whether a

violation occurred. Therefore, DEQ lacks sufficient information at this point to reach a conclusion about whether PGE violated NSPS requirements. Like EPA, DEQ will consider addi tional information from PGE before reaching a

conclusion.

4 . Adopt CO2

rules now a) Climate change and greenhouse gases are the most important issue that DEQ should be addressing

. Response a) This rulemaking is not being proposed to adopt greenhouse gas limit s or requirements for the Boardman plant, but rather meet federal requirements for

BART.

5 . DEQ

should not aggregate
PGE

Boardman impacts. a) By stating that PGE Boardman impacts 14 Class I areas, DEQ is aggregating these impacts, which distorts and exagger ates the true impact on these areas.

Response a) DEQ does not intend to exaggerate the impacts of the Boardman Plant, but it

is important to recognize that the Boardman Plant impacts numerous Class I

areas. The purpose of the regional haze rules is to reduc e the visibility impacts in all Class I areas, not just the one closest to a plant.

6 . Only DEQ has authority

to determine

BART. a) Legally, DEQ not EPA has the authority to determine BART. EPA has a

limited role.Attachment 7.2, pg. 24

Response a) EPA must take action on DEQ’s reg ional haze plan, which must include a

BART determination for affected facilities. EPA can disapprove the plan if it does not meet the requirements of the Clean Air Act.

7 . Issues with
DEQ’s BART analysis for

the Boardman plant a) Costs associated with the BA RT control options have been overstated.

b) The BART control options can achieve lower emission limits. c) DEQ’s BART analysis fails to account for the cost of replacement power,

s hould the plant close early. d) DSI is an unproven technology that has not been demo nstrated for a plant
with a boiler the size of the one at PGE Boardman. For that reason, it is neither technically feasible nor cost effective for BART. Also, it is reasonable to expect that the sorbent injection will trigger PSD for PM2.5, requiri ng addit ional controls. e) Using Indonesian coal to reduce SO2 emissions is neither technically feasible

nor cost

- effective for BART

. f) DEQ’s BART analysis failed to take into account the rate of p rogress at the 14
Class I areas within 300 kilom eters of the Boardman p lant. g) In the modeling, if SDFGD controls are compare d to DSI, the visibility improvement is below 0.5 d eciviews , which is not a perceptible change. h) DEQ’s modeling of the PGE Boardman plant’s visibility impacts is highly questionable. The modeling results are not credible. i) The visibility improvement needs to be documented for all the affected Class I

areas. Response a) DEQ disagrees. DEQ was concerned with PGE’s cost estimates when

evaluating their BART analysis for the rules adopted in 2009 because PGE

co ncluded that selective catalytic reduction was not cost effective for BART. As a result, DEQ contracted with ERG to evaluate the cost of selective catalytic reduction

. ERG concluded that the tools usually used to estimate costs (e.g., CUE Cost and EPA’s Co st Manual) underestimated real world

costs. ERG further concluded that PGE’s cost estimates were within the range of real world costs, albeit at the high end of the range. Although DEQ did not request ERG to specifically evaluate PGE’s cost estimates for S DFGD, DEQ assumed that the real world costs for SDFGD would also be higher than

estimates obtained from the usual cost estimation tools. The overall cost estimate using ERG’s estimates was about 11 percent less than PGE’s cost

estimate. Due to the uncertai nties associated with the cost estimates, DEQ

decided to use PGE’s cost estimates. The cost estimates for the 2009 rules were based on 2007 dollars. PGE adjusted the costs to 2010 dollars using a

factor of 9.2 percent for the three year period. DEQ receive d a comment that the adjustment factor should only be 5.9 percent . DEQ acknowledges this discrepancy, but does not believe that a correction of 3.3 percent would change the BART conclusions. b) As noted in Section 1 of this document, DEQ received several comm ents that selective catalytic reduction and SDFGD can achieve lower emission rates than proposed by DEQ. If the control effectiveness were based on lower limits, there would be more emission reductions and the controls might be

considered cost effective ev en if the plant were to shutdown on 12/31/20. The requests for using lower limits for the control technologies (~0.05 vs. 0.07Attachment 7.2, pg. 25

lb/mmBtu for selective catalytic reduction and ~0.09 vs. 0.12 lb/mmBtu for SDFGD) are based on actual emissions data from other c oal

- fired plants, as well as permit limits in recently issued permits for new sources. DEQ agrees

that in some cases the controls can achieve lower emissions than the limits used in the BART analysis. In fact, DEQ expects that the actual emissions will

be less than the limits because the source would otherwise be out of compliance. DEQ does not believe that the actual emissions of other plants justifies establishing lower limits considering normal process and control

device variables. DEQ believes that it i s important to establish a limit that will require at least the type of control being considered in the BART analysis, but can be met at all times provided the controls are operated properly. DEQ does

not believe a limit should be established that can be m et only part of the time

under ideal conditions. DEQ also believes it is not appropriate to use emission limits established for new sources for retrofit technologies; especially if it has not been demonstrated that the sources can actually meet the limit. Controls

for new sources are an integral part of the design and should be able to achieve slightly lower limits. c) DEQ agrees. The BART determination includes an analysis of the cost of compliance, energy impacts, non

- air quality environmental impacts, and the remaining useful life of the plant. The BART guidelines specify that “the analysis should focus on the direct impact of the control alternative .” [BART guidelines III.Step 4] d) DEQ disagrees. DSI is a proven technology that is feasible for the Boardman

p lant

. DEQ agrees that there are potential side effects that need to be evaluated before establishing a firm limit for DSI. e) DEQ agrees that using Indonesian coal may not be feasible at this time. However, it is possible that coal f r om the western US may be shipped to other countries from western ports in the future. If the infrastructure is developed to

sh i p coal out of the country, it is possible that coal could be shipped into the country using the same infrastructure. f) The rate of progress in the Mt. Hood Wilderness area as a result of the proposed BART requirements for the Boardman plant will be approximately

1.44 dv on 7/1/11, 2. 4 1 dv on 7/14, 2. 75 dv on 7/1/18, and 4.98 dv on 12/31/20

. g) DEQ agrees that SDFGD only provides about 0.4 dv improvement over DS I in 2014, assuming that the DSI system can meet a limit of 0.40 lb/ m mBtu

. In addition, DEQ has determined that the incremental cost of SDFGD over DSI is nearly $7,300/ton. For these reasons, DEQ does not believe SDFGD is BART

if the plant close s o n 12/31/ 2020 and DSI is installed and operated from 7/1/14 through 12/31/20. h) DEQ and PGE conducted modeling in accordance with a modeling protocol developed and approved in corroboration with EPA, the National Park System, US Forest Service, Washington DOE, and Id aho DEQ. Air dispersion modeling is a tool for estimating the impacts of source s and tends to be conservative. The model uses actual meteorological data from the period of 2003 through

2005. Haze in the Columbia River Gorge and Class I areas has been

docum ented with actual monitoring data. i) DEQ has conducted additional modeling. The results of the modeling for each Class I area are provided in Table 10.5.1

- 2 under Section 10.5.1 , Chapter 10,Attachment 7.2, pg. 26

of DEQ’s revised 2009 Oregon Regional Haze Plan.

8 . BART is not

“ all or nothing” a) The regional haze BART requirements was never intended to be an all

- or

nothing approach forcing plant closures or intended to apply control technology considerations similar to MACT. Response a) DEQ agrees. BART requirements are intended to achieve emission reductions

and visibility improvement based on an analysis of available controls. They were not intended to close down a plant. However, PGE has requested that the remaining useful life of the plant be considered in the BART determination

process. For this to be possible, the remaining useful life of the plant must be federally enforceable. PGE has decided to close the plant, not DEQ. The rules adopted in 2009 did not include a closure date for the plant.

9 . Hold local meeting

before adopt ing

rules. a) It is vital that meetings be held in both Morrow and Umatilla Counties before a

final decision is made. It is important to understand the impact in these areas.

Response a) DEQ agrees on the importance of holding local meetings, and for that reas on

held two of the public hearings in this area

– one in Hermiston, and one in Boardman. These hearings allowed local citizens to voice their concerns about the possible closure of PGE Boardman plant, and DEQ’s proposed rule options related to this decisio n by PGE. At the beginning of each hearing, DEQ presented information on this proposed rulemaking, and participated in a question and answer discussion prior to accepting public testimony. The comments DEQ received at these public hearings expressed many o f the concerns of local residents about the impact of this rulemaking. DEQ is carefully considering all of the comments submitted in making its final recommendation on this rulemaking to the EQC.

10 . Keep the plant open through

2040 a) PGE Boardman provides cheap electrical power and jobs. Do not close the plant by 2020. It should be kept open unti l at least 2040. b) Given the current economy, please do not impose expensive and burdensome regulations on PGE. This especially affects the jobless, elderly, and th e poor. Response DEQ agrees that the Boardman plant currently provides cheap and reliable

power. A decision to close the plant can only be made by PGE , not DEQ. Consistent with this, DEQ has proposed rule changes with less expensive controls, which conta in early closure date options for PGE. PGE could also continue to operate the plant if they so choose.

1 1 . DEQ’s

reasonable

progress demonstration a) In the Oregon 2009 Regional Haze Plan, DEQ’s reasonable progress demonstration shows a slower rate of prog ress than what is needed to attain

natural conditions in 2064. Under federal rules, DEQ needs to show that the 2064 target is not reasonable.

a) Oregon’s haze plan does not assert the 2064 glideslope or target is “not

reasonable. ” In fact, DEQ maintains th at rate of progress identified in the plan
to attain natural conditions in 2064 is reasonable. DEQ notes that it would beAttachment 7.2, pg. 27

premature to reject or replace the 2064 glideslope to reach natural conditions just because initial projections for the worst 20 perce nt days in the first haze plan were less than the 2018 milestone

. The next plan update in 2013 will contain several work products that are likely to provide additional emission

reductions needed for reasonable progress

. In addition, revisions to Oregon’s

r egional haze plan based on this rulemaking do acknowledge the PGE Boardman emission reductions after 2018, which could be considerable, as part of the reasonable progress demonstration in the plan

.

1 2 . Comments on coal burning a) Coal contributes to four of the five leading causes of mortality in the US

– heart disease, cancer, stroke, and COPD. DEQ should consult regularly with the Center for Research on Occupational and Environmental Toxicology at OHSU and the Department of Environmental and M olecular Toxi cology at
OSU.
b) Oregon should be coal

- f ree. c) Clean coal does not exist.
d) Coal is plentiful and very economical compared to other fuels, and is reliable for base load applications. Emissions from coal burning can be effectively

controlled. Response DEQ ag rees there are other cleaner sources of electricity than coal, such as

natural gas, wind, and solar energy. Decisions regarding the future of coal use, or the continued operation of the PGE Boardman plant, are beyond the scope of this rulemaking.



### V I

. Miscellaneous Comments

There is no credible evidence that regional haze is a problem, or that the Boardman plant is causing haze problems.
Replacing the Boardman coal plant with biomass combustion is just as bad as coal, in terms of

carbon emissions an d contributing to global warming.

The 2020 closure date allows sufficient time to evaluate a different fuel source such as biomass.
DEQ should conduct more monitoring of priority pollutants, visibility, and mercury, so that data can be properly shared and analyzed.
PGE Boardman has been operating for far too long without any pollution controls, and causing impacts on public health. Enough is enough. The plant should be closed as soon as possible.
Aggressive action is needed to pursue energy conserv ation and energy efficiency programs.
Replacing the Boardman coal plant with a natural gas plant just replaces one type of pollution with

another.
Electricity costs are going up because of regulations like this. Nuclear power and increased use of hydroe lectric power should be pursued.
DEQ is not adequately considering the well

- being of the state’s manufacturing sector in requiring unnecessary controls which will drive up operational costs for the state’s remaining manufacturing

base. DEQ should adopt r ules that inflict the least cost to Oregon’s ailing economy and minimizes further job loss.
Further investment in coal will prevent us from meeting state climate goalsAttachment 7.2, pg. 28

Regulations on climate change are currently being developed, and reducing Boardman p lant’s greenhouse gas emissions is therefore important.
PGE should develop a plan for closing the Boardman plant as soon as possible, and develop a long

- range master plan for transitioning into more energy conservation and renewable energy.

The PGE Boa rdman plant is a critical base load facility, and as such is a key source of reliable

energy. I t is important to provide enough time to replace such energy generation for overall grid reliability, especially as we transition to more renewable generation so urces. I believe in global liberation



### List of People and Organizations Submitting Comments

Public Comments from first Comment Period 9/ 1/ 10 to 10/1/ 10

Letters Letters include written comments received by mail, at public hearings, and atta ched to emails. Do es not include

attachments (see footnote 2 )

No. Name Location Affiliation or Organization Submit

Date

1. Arya Behbehani 2
Manager, Environmental
Services Portland Portland General Electric Company 9/08/2010
10/01/2010

2. Catherine Collins Gresham 9/11/2010

3. Keith Mays, Mayor Sherwood City of Sherwood 9/14/2010

4. Andy Duyck Washington County Commissioner, District 4 Hillsboro Washington County Board of County
Commissioners 9/15/2010

5. Denny Doyle, Mayor Beaverton City of Beaverton 9/15/2 010

6. Steve and Patricia

Mosbacher Beaverton 9/15/2010

7. Craig E. Dirksen, Mayor Tigard City of Tigard 9/16/2010

8. Pat Shaw Gilliam County Judge Condon Gilliam County 9/20/2010

9. Martin Donohoe, MD Portland 9/21/2010

10. Jonathan Schlueter

Executive Direc tor Tigard Westside Economic Alliance 9/21/2010

11. Elizabeth B. Kaplan Portland 9/21/2010

12. Bernie Bottomly Portland Portland Business Alliance 9/21/2010

13. Maye Thompson Portland O R Physicians for Social Responsibility 9/21/2010

14. Borden Beck Portland 9/2 1/2010

15. Caitlin Piserchia Portland 9/21/2010

16. Louise Waitt Portland 9/21/2010

17. Andrew Sherman Vancouver 9/21/2010

18. Tom Stodd Portland 9/22/2010

19. Stephen M. Amy Robin Bloomgarden Beaverton 9/22/2010Attachment 7.2, pg. 29

20. Casey Gifford Eugene 9/23/2010

21. Katie Taylor Eugene 9/23/2010

22. Enid Griffin Portland 9/24/2010

23. Mary Wagner 2
Regional Forester Portland U.S. Forest Service Pacific Northwest Region 9/27/2010

24. Joanne Delmonico Portland 9/27/2010

25. Lorraine Heller Sandy Sieglinger Portland 9/27/2010

26. David Sy kes, President Heppner Willow Creek Valley Economic Development Group 9/27/2010

27. Claire Sponseller
Lisanne Currin Sheryll Bates Heppner Heppner Chamber of Commerce 9/27/2010

28. Elwood Patawa, Chairman Pendleton Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla

Indian Re servation 9/28/2010

29. Rodney B. Mruk

Reverend Hermiston

Pendleton Trinity Evangelical Lutheran Church

Faith Lutheran Church 9/28/2010

30. Beth Anderson Molalla 9/28/2010

31. anonymous n/a 9/28/2010

32. W. Lawrence Givens,
Commissioner Terry K. Tallman, Judge P endleton

Heppner Umatilla County

Morrow County 9/28/2010

33. Terry K. Tallman, Judge Heppner Morrow County 9/28/2010

34. Barry C. Beyeler, Community Development Director Boardman City of Boardman 9/28/2010

35. Pamela Barrow Portland Northwest Food Processors A ssociation 9/29/2010

36. Lou Ogden, Mayor Tualatin City of Tualatin 9/29/2010

37. Gary Thompson, Sherman County Judge Moro Sherman County 9/29/2010

38. Janet Taylor, Mayor Salem City of Salem 9/29/2010

39. Ron Fox

Executive Director Medford SOREDI (Southern Oregon Regional Economic Development, Inc.) 9/29/2010

40. Chet Phillips, Mayor Boardman City of Boardman 9/29/2010

41. Jurgen A. Hess Hood River 9/30/2010

42. Jill Arens

Executive Director White Salmon, WA Columbia River Gorge Commission 9/30/2010

43. Marcy Putman Po rtland International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 125 9/30/2010

44. Jeanne E. Burch Wheeler County Judge Fossil Wheeler County 9/30/2010

45. Corky Collier

Executive Director Portland Columbia Corridor Association 9/30/2010

46. Pam Gilmer

President P ortland The Mazamas 9/30/2010

47. Sam Adams, Mayor Portland City of Portland 9/30/2010

48. John Ledger

Vice President Salem Associated Oregon Industries 9/30/2010

49. Brian Pasko Michael Lang

Mark Riskedahl Lauren Goldberg Brian Kelly

Brock Howell Portland,

othe r Sierra Club, Oregon Chapter

Friends of the Columbia Gorge
Northwest Environmental Defense Center Columbia Riverkeeper Hells Canyon Preservation Council Environment Oregon 10/01/2010

50. Andrea Durbin Portland Oregon Environmental Council 10/01/2010Attachment 7.2, pg. 30

Executive Director

51. Eric Chung Portland PacifiCorp 10/01/2010

52. Bob Jenks

Executive Director Portland Citizens Utility Board of Oregon 10/01/2010

53. Kevin Lynch 2
Stephanie Kodish Boulder, CO Knoxville, TN Environmental Defense Fund

National Parks Conservation As sociation 10/01/2010

54. John Bunyak 2
Acting Chief, Air Resources

Division Denver, CO National Park Service 10/01/2010

55. Richard Albright

Director Seattle, WA EPA Region 10 10/01/2010

56. Mike McArthur

Executive Director Salem Association of Oregon Counties 1 0/01/2010

57. Kathleen F. Martin The Dalles 10/01/2010

58. Mary J. Repar Stevenson,

WA 10/01/2010

59. Tom Ivancie Portland Energy Action Northwest 10/01/2010

60. Steven Weiss Seattle, WA NW Energy Coalition 10/01/2010

61. Rachel Shimshak

Executive Director Portlan d Renewable Northwest Project 10/01/2010

62. William L. Kovacs Washington
D.C. Chamber of Commerce of the United

States of America 10/01/2010

63. Angus Duncan, Chair Salem Oregon Global Warming Commission 10/01/2010

64. Kathryn VanNatta Mercer Island, WA Northw est Pulp & Paper Association 10/01/2010

65. Manuel Castaneda

President Hillsboro Washington County Business Council 10/01/2010

66. Terry K. Tallman, Judge Ken A. Grieb, Commissioner Leann Rea, Commissioner Heppner Morrow County 10/01/2010

67. Joan Barton Portlan d 10/01/2010

68. Form Letter 1 (189) 3 n/a Sierra Club members 9/21/2010

69. Form Letter 2 (36) 3 n/a 9/27/2010

70. Form Letter 3 (25) 3 n/a Sierra Club members 10/01/2010

71. Form Letter 4 (38) 3 Misc. local government, chambers of commerce, and businesses 10/ 01/2010

72. Form Letter/postcard 1 (2396) 3 n/a 9/01/2010 to
10/01/2010

73. Form Letter/postcard 2 (155) 3 n/a 9/01/2010 to
10/01/2010

Oral Testimony Location represents the site of the public hearing. Those who provided written comments are noted with *

. To avoid duplication, those who provided both oral and written comments, priority was given referencing the written comments, rather than the oral testimony. Those who testified are more than one hearing are noted with +

. For additional information, see Attachment C “ DEQ Hearing Officer’s Report on Public Hearings .”

74. Arya Behbehani * + Portland Portland General Electric Company 9/21/2010

75. Jay Dudley * + Portland Portland General Electric Company 9/21/2010

76. Dave Robertson * + Portland Portland General Electric Company 9/21/2010

77. Wilda Parks Portland N.Clackamas Co. Chamber of Commerce 9/21/2010

78. Nick Engelfried + Portland private citizen 9/21/2010

79. John Maloney Portland private citizen 9/21/2010

80. Margo Bryant Portland Portland General Electric Comp any 9/21/2010Attachment 7.2, pg. 31

81. Larry Givens * + Portland Umatilla County Commissioner 9/21/2010

82. Nancy Hatch Portland private citizen 9/21/2010

83. Bernie Bottomly * Portland Portland Business Alliance 9/21/2010

84. Corky Collier * Portland Columbia Corridor Association 9/2 1/2010

85. Travis Stovall Portland East Metro Economic Alliance 9/21/2010

86. Jason Brandt Portland Salem Chamber of Commerce 9/21/2010

87. Joe Esmonde Portland IBEW Local 48 9/21/2010

88. John Mohlis Portland Columbia Pacific Building Trades Council 9/21/2010

89. J onathon Schlueter * Portland Westside Economic Alliance 9/21/2010

90. Debbie Kitchen Portland Inter Works 9/21/2010

91. Mike Holcomb Portland small business owner 9/21/2010

92. Denzel Scheller Portland Hillsboro Chamber of Commerce 9/21/2010

93. Manuel Castaneda P ortland small business owner 9/21/2010

94. Tom Wood Portland Associated Oregon Industries 9/21/2010

95. Wayne Lei Portland private citizen 9/21/2010

96. Andree Yost Portland Portland General Electric Company 9/21/2010

97. Elizabeth Kaplan * Portland private citiz en 9/21/2010

98. Rodger Winn Portland Sierra Club 9/21/2010

99. Vern Groves Portland private citizen 9/21/2010

100. Roger Cole Portland Sierra Club 9/21/2010

101. Robin Everett Portland Sierra Club 9/21/2010

102. Robin Fahy Portland student 9/21/2010

103. Katie Kann Portl and student 9/21/2010

104. Tyler Gerlach Portland student 9/21/2010

105. Geoff Guillory Portland student 9/21/2010

106. Maye Thompson * Portland O R Physicians for Social Responsibility 9/21/2010

107. Antonio Samora Portland private citizen 9/21/2010

108. Erika Winters Po rtland Greenpeace 9/21/2010

109. Alyssa Ransbury Portland Greenpeace 9/21/2010

110. Christopher Froman Portland Greenpeace 9/21/2010

111. Anna Sotia Gidlund Portland Greenpeace 9/21/2010

112. David Pfosr Portland Sierra Club 9/21/2010

113. Wesley Kempler Portland Sierra Club 9/21/2010

114. Cesia Kearns Portland private citizen 9/21/2010

115. Fred Heutte Portland Sierra Club & small business owner 9/21/2010

116. John Steele Eugene Friends of Dorena Dam Habitat 9/23/2010

117. Katie Taylor * Eugene OSPIRG 9/23/2010

118. Casey Gifford * Eug ene Climate Justice League 9/23/2010

119. Emma Newman Eugene Climate Justice League 9/23/2010

120. Dave Hauser Eugene Oregon State Chamber of Commerce 9/23/2010

121. Kathy Ging Eugene private citizen 9/23/2010

122. Arya Behbehani + Eugene Portland General Electric Com pany 9/23/2010

123. Amy Krol Eugene student 9/23/2010

124. Chet Phillips + Eugene Mayor, City of Boardman 9/23/2010

125. Ariel McCoy Eugene OSPIRG 9/23/2010

126. Sania Radcliffe Eugene Portland General Electric Company 9/23/2010

127. Catherine Thomasson Eugene O R Physici ans for Social Responsibility 9/23/2010

128. Kylie Halloran Eugene Sierra Club 9/23/2010

129. Nick Engelfried + Eugene private citizen 9/23/2010

130. David Besonon Eugene small business owner 9/23/2010

131. David Nelson Hermiston State Senator, District 29 9/28/2010

132. Bob Jenson Hermiston State Representative, District 58 9/28/2010

133. Terry Tallman * + Hermiston Morrow County Judge 9/28/2010Attachment 7.2, pg. 32

134. Larry Givens * + Hermiston Umatilla County Commissioner 9/28/2010

135. Chet Phillips * + Hermiston Mayor, City of Boardman 9/28/201 0

136. Karen Wolff Hermiston Morrow County resident 9/28/2010

137. Arya Behbehani + Hermiston Portland General Electric Company 9/28/2010

138. Bill Nicholson Hermiston Portland General Electric Company 9/28/2010

139. Diane Wolfe Hermiston Boardman Chamber of Commerce 9/28/2010

140. Rick Main Hermiston IBEW Local 125 9/28/2010

141. Sheryll Bates Hermiston Heppner Chamber of Commerce 9/28/2010

142. Karen Pettigrew Hermiston City of Boardman 9/28/2010

143. Steve Eldrige Hermiston Umatilla Electrical Cooperative 9/28/2010

144. Chuck Li ttle + Hermiston Pendleton Building Trades 9/28/2010

145. Randy Yates Hermiston private citizen 9/28/2010

146. Rod Osgood Hermiston IUOE Local 701 9/28/2010

147. John Edmundson Hermiston Heppner Chamber of Commerce 9/28/2010

148. Gary Neal Hermiston Port of Morrow 9/2 8/2010

149. Debbie Pedro Hermiston Hermiston Chamber of Commerce 9/28/2010

150. Tamra Mabbott Hermiston Umatilla County Planning Dept. 9/28/2010

151. Don Anderson Hermiston NAES Power Contractors 9/28/2010

152. David Richards Hermiston Boardman resident 9/28/2010

153. Bi ll Hoke Medford City of Medford 9/29/2010

154. Ray Hendricks * + Medford Portland General Electric Company 9/29/2010

155. Ron Fox * Medford SOREDI 9/29/2010

156. Monte Mendenhall Medford Pacific Power 9/29/2010

157. Deane Funk Medford Portland General Electric Company 9/29/2010

158. Sarah Westover Medford Beyond Coal Campaign 9/29/2010

159. Meryl Six Medford Cascade Climate Network / Beyond Coal 9/29/2010

160. Steve Vincent Medford Avista Utilities 9/29/2010

161. Benji Nagel Medford student 9/29/2010

162. Ted Ferrioli The Dalles State Senator, District 30 9/30/2010

163. John Huffman The Dalles State Representative, District 59 9/30/2010

164. Terry Tallman * + The Dalles Morrow County Judge 9/30/2010

165. Larry Givens * + The Dalles Umatilla County Commissioner 9/30/2010

166. Ray Hendricks * + The Dalles Portland General Electric Company 9/30/2010

167. Jay Dudley + The Dalles Portland General Electric Company 9/30/2010

168. Dave Robertson + The Dalles Portland General Electric Company 9/30/2010

169. Dale Coyle The Dalles Portland General Electric Company 9/3 0/2010

170. John McClain The Dalles Portland General Electric Company 9/30/2010

171. Chuck Little + The Dalles Pendleton Building Trades 9/30/2010

172. Barry Beyeler * The Dalles City of Boardman 9/30/2010

173. Daniel Spatz The Dalles Columbia Gorge Community College 9/30/2010

174. Paul Woodin The Dalles Community Renewable Energy Assoc

. 9/30/2010

175. Peter Cornelison The Dalles Friends of the Columbia Gorge 9/30/2010

176. John Wood The Dalles private citizen 9/30/2010

177. Mary Repar * The Dalles private citizen 9/30/2010

178. Tom Wood The Dalles private citizen 9/30/2010

179. John Nelson The Dalles private citizen 9/30/2010

180. Tom Ivancie * The Dalles Energy Action NW 9/30/2010

181. Jurgen Hess * The Dalles private citizen 9/30/2010

182. Dave Berger The Dalles private citizen 9/30/2010

E mails Those who provided written testimony along with an email are listed above under l etters.Attachment 7.2, pg. 33

183. Aaron Douglas 9/7/2010

184. Andy Palmer 9/21/2010

185. Anita Morrison 9/9/2010

186. Audie Huber 9/28/2010

187. Bill and Lucy Kimbro 9/2/2010

188. Bill Lonerman 9/9/2 010

189. Chris Cook 9/4/2010

190. Chuck Little 9/3/2010

191. Craig Smith 9/17/2010

192. Curtis Cutsforth 9/1/2010

193. Dan Jaffee 9/1/2010

194. Dave Vanderzanden 9/21/2010

195. David and Patti Lane 9/23/2010

196. David Shapiro 9/17/2010

197. Denis Mo soswski 9/2/2010

198. Denis e Steffenhagen 9/1/2010

199. Diane Winn 9/22/2010

200. Don Scholter 9/3/2010

201. E. Marlow 9/6/2010

202. Ed Berg 9/1/2010

203. Ellynne Kutschera 9/17/2010

204. Garey Kurtz 9/8/2010

205. Gerald Waters 9/1/2010

206. Greg Debros 9/21/2010

207. Iriana Phillips 9/22/2010

208. Ha rry Shaich 9/23/2010

209. Jim Conroy 9/18/2010

210. Jodi Miller 9/2/2010

211. John Denton 9/1/2010

212. Judi L. Baker 9/2/2010

213. Keith and Karen Harding 9/18/2010

214. Kevin Horan 9/29/2010

215. Linda Cate 9/30/2010

216. Lisa Caballery 9/28/2010

217. L J Ross 9/29/2010

218. Lowrey Brown 9/20/2010

219. Margaret Davies 9/21/2010

220. Marilyn Burke 9/1/2010

221. Mike Litt 9/2/2010

222. Nicholas Loos 9/22/2010

223. Nicholas Page 9/7/2010

224. Pam Barrow 9/29/2010

225. Randall Webb 9/8/2010

226. Sara W. Baker 9/11/2010

227. Shane Dugherty 9/1/20 10

228. Shirley Cereghino 9/27/2010

229. Stuart Phillips 9/1/2010

230. Tanya Baikow

- Smith 9/27/2010

231. W. Badrick 9/1/2010

232. Email form letter 1

- (24 4 ) 3 9/01/2010 to
10/01/2010

233. Email form letter 2

- (5) 3 9/01/2010 to
10/01/2010Attachment 7.2, pg. 34

234. Email form letter 3

- ( 63 ) 3 9/01/2010 to
10/01/2010

235. Email form letter 4

- (1 40 ) 3 9/01/2010 to
10/01/2010

Public Comments from second Comment Period 10/29 to 11/15

Letters Letters includes written comments received by mail, at public hearings, and attached to emails. Doe s not include attachments (see footnote 2 )

No. Name Location Affiliation or Organization Submit

Date

236. Nicole Forbes Portland Friends of the Columbia Gorge 11/8/2010

237. Kyle Gorman Milwaukie Clackamas Fire District #1 11/8/2010

238. Maye Thompson Portland OR Physicians for Social Responsibility 11/8/2010

239. Stephen M. Amy Beaverton 11/11/2010

240. Steven Quennoz 2

Vice President, Power Supply/Generation Portland Portland General Electric Company 11/15/2010

241. Brian Pasko

Mark Riskedahl Michael Lang Greg Dyson

Ma ye Thompson

Bret VandenHeuvel Steve Pedery Brent Fenty Josh Laughlin Mary Preveto

Lisa Arkin Portland, and

other Sierra Club, Oregon Chapter

Northwest Environmental Defense Center Friends of the Columbia Gorge Hells Canyon Preservation Council OR Physician s for Social Responsibility Columbia Riverkeeper Oregon Wild Oregon Natural Desert Association Cascadia Wildlands Project Neighbors for Clean Air Oregon Toxics Alliance 11/15/2010

242. Rick Till Portland Native Plant Society of Oregon 11/15/2010

243. John Bunyak 2
Acting Chief, Air Resources

Division Denver, CO National Park Service 11/15/2010

244. Arya Behbehani Portland Portland General Electric Company 11/15/2010

245. Andrea Durbin

Executive Director Portland Oregon Environmental Council 11/15/2010

246. Keith Rose Seat tle WA EPA Region 10 11/15/2010

247. Terry K. Tallman, Judge Ken A. Grieb, Commissioner Leann Rea, Commissioner Heppner Morrow County 11/15/2010

248. Janette K. Brimmer Aubrey Balwin Earthjustice on behalf of Sierra Club Pacific Environmental Advocacy Center,

o n behalf of Sierra Club, Northwest Environmental Defense Center, Friends of the Columbia Gorge, Columbia Riverkeepers, and Hells Canyon
Preservation Council 11/15/2010

249. Lucy Roberts n/a 11/15/2010

250. Emily Tuchman Portland 11/15/2010

251. Lauren Reiterman P ortland 11/15/2010

252. Hillary Patin Portland 11/15/2010Attachment 7.2, pg. 35

253. Miriam Coe Portland 11/15/2010

254. Tom Lang Portland 11/15/2010

255. Barbara Robinson Mosier 11/15/2010

256. Form Letter 1 3 (118) n/a 11/8/2010

257. Form Letter/postcard 1 (238) 3 n/a 9/01/2010 to
10/0 1/2010

258. Form Letter/postcard 2 (1928)

3 n/a 9/01/2010 to
10/01/2010

259. Form Letter/postcard 3 (11) 3 n/a 9/01/2010 to
10/01/2010

Oral Testimony Location represents the site of the public hearing. Those who provided written comments are noted with *. To avoid duplication, those who provided both oral and written comments, priority was given referencing the written comments, rather than the oral testimony. Those who testified are more than one hearing are noted with +

. For additional information, see A ttachment C “DEQ Hearing Officer’s Report on Public Hearings .”

260. Dave Robertson + Portland PGE 11/8/2010

261. Wendi Eiland Portland Beaverton Chamber of Commerce 11/8/2010

262. Marcy Putman Portland IBEW Local 125 11/8/2010

263. Kristan Sheeran, Phd Portland Econ omics for Equity and Environment

Network 11/8/2010

264. Erika Winters

- Heilman Portland Private citizen 11/8/2010

265. Kaician Kitko Portland Private citizen 11/8/2010

266. Kyle Gorman * Portland Clackamas county Fire District #1 11/8/2010

267. Linda Moholt Portland T ualatin Chamber of Commerce 11/8/2010

268. Jay Halladay Portland Coaxis 11/8/2010

269. Mark Clemons Portland Group MacKenzie 11/8/2010

270. Samantha Cummings Portland Private citizen 11/8/2010

271. Jon Pauletto Portland Private citizen 11/8/2010

272. Adam Walters Portlan d Student 11/8/2010

273. Trevor Griffith Portland Private citizen 11/8/2010

274. Robin Everett Portland Sierra Club 11/8/2010

275. Sofia Gidlund Portland Greenpeace 11/8/2010

276. Elizabeth Kaplan Portland Private citizen 11/8/2010

277. Geoff Guillory Portland Private c itizen 11/8/2010

278. Roger Cole Portland Sierra Club 11/8/2010

279. Liam Doherty

- Nicholson Portland Greenpeace 11/8/2010

280. Bob Jenks * Portland Citizen Utility Board 11/8/2010

281. Jason Lehne Portland Foundation Life Management 11/8/2010

282. Angi Dilkes * Portland Oregon Business Association 11/8/2010

283. Caitlin Piserchia Portland Private citizen 11/8/2010

284. Cesia Kearns Portland Private citizen 11/8/2010

285. Duncan Reid Portland Private citizen 11/8/2010

286. Nathan Jones Portland Private citizen 11/8/2010

287. Alden Moss Portland Private citizen 11/8/2010

288. Jenny Bedell

- Stiles Portland Private citizen 11/8/2010

289. NickEngelfried Portland Private citizen 11/8/2010

290. Maye Thompson Portland O R Physicians for Social Responsibility 11/8/2010

291. Daniel Cobb Portland Private citize n 11/8/2010

292. Nancy Hatch Portland Private citizen 11/8/2010

293. Antonio Zamora Portland Greenpeace 11/8/2010

294. Bill Bigelow Portland Private citizen 11/8/2010Attachment 7.2, pg. 36

295. Borden Beck Portland PGE customer 11/8/2010

296. Tom Wood Portland Associate Oregon Industries 11 /8/2010

297. Mathilde Mouw Portland Student 11/8/2010

298. Joel Durr Portland Private citizen 11/8/2010

299. Natasha Hultmann Portland Private citizen 11/8/2010

300. Tom Ivancie Portland Energy Action Northwest 11/8/2010

301. Terry Tallman Boardman Morrow County Judge 11 /9/2010

302. Chet Phillips Boardman Mayor, City of Boardman 11/9/2010

303. Dave Robertson Boardman Portland General Electric Company 11/9/2010

304. Barry Beyeler Boardman City of Boardman 11/9/2010

305. Rick Main Boardman IBEW Local 125 11/9/2010

306. Marcy Putman Board man IBEW Local 125 11/9/2010

307. Sheryll Bates Boardman Heppner Chamber of Commerce 11/9/2010

308. Diane Wolfe Boardman Boardman Chamber of Commerce 11/9/2010

309. Steve Doherty Boardman Private Citizen 11/9/2010

310. Chuck Little Boardman Pendleton Building Trades 11/9/2010

311. Dave De Mayo Boardman City of Heppner 11/9/2010

312. Karen Pettigrew Boardman City of Boardman 11/9/2010

313. Karen Wolff Boardman Morrow County resident 11/9/2010

314. Randal Curtis Boardman Private Citizen 11/9/2010

315. Don Russell Boardman Private Citi zen 11/9/2010

316. Gary Neal Boardman Port of Morrow 11/9/2010

317. Jody Marston Boardman Private Citizen 11/9/2010

Emails Those who provided written testimony along with an email are listed above under l etters.

318. Alyssa Ransbury 11/15/2010

319. Andrew 11/6 /2010

320. Brad Mattison 11/10/2010

321. Carol Crawford 11/13/2010

322. Charles Little n/a

323. Cheryl McEvoy 11/15/2010

324. Christa Sprinkle 11/12/2010

325. Clay Spencer 10/31/2010

326. Curtis French 11/14/2010

327. Dan Huntington 11/15/2010

328. Darryl Lloyd 11/13/2010

329. Darvel Lloyd 11/12/2010

330. Dave Mull 11/9/2010

331. Deb Hupcey 11/12/2010

332. Donn Chalfant 10/30/2010

333. Ellen Cantwell 11/14/2010

334. Gladys Biglor 11/6/2010

335. Ineke Deruyter 11/8/2010

336. James Adcock 11/15/2010

337. Jay D. McIntosh 11/13/2010

338. John Gear 11/13/2010

339. Kelsey Ward 11/12/2010

340. Kipp Coddington 11/11/2010

341. Larry Read n/a

342. Laura Carver 11/11/2010

343. Marcia Turnquist n/aAttachment 7.2, pg. 37

344. Marcus Lanskeyh 10/29/2010

345. Mona Price 11/11/2010

346. Neal s. Walker 11/15/2010

347. Nicole 11/13/2010

348. Patty Sitts er n/a

349. Pixahm Cuj 11/14/2010

350. Ramona Crocker 11/14/2010

351. Robert Graham 11/7/2010

352. Robert Kimbro n/a

353. Ron Mink 11/7/2010

354. Ruth Phinney 11/15/2010

355. Scott Mara 11/12/2010

356. Scott & Tracey 11/9/2010

357. Sue and Pat Harford 10/29/2010

358. Ted Erns t 11/12/2010

359. Tyler Grimes 11/10/2010

360. Email form letter

- (125 5 ) 3 10/29/2010

- 11/15/2010

2 Commenters who provided attachments (available upon request)

3 For the list of commenters in this group, see Attachment 1 (available upon request). Numbers in bold reflect multiple commenters (via form letter or email).