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Redline/strikeout version of adopted, amended and repealed SIP rules 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















Attachment 2 

Evidence 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 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.035 

Attachment 3.2, pg. 1 

DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY 

DIVISION 223 

REGIONAL HAZE RULES 

340-223-0010 

Purpose 

OAR 340-223-0020 through 340-223-0080 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 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): 

Deciview haze index=10ln(bext/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 operation 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, 2013.
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 0.040

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/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. 

(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 PM10 or PM2.5; 

(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 PM10 or PM2.5 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 impacts for PM10 or PM2.5 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, if 

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 PM10 or PM2.5; 

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 PM10 or 

PM2.5; 

(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 dioxide 

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 
Attachment 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 that 
Attachment 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 340-223-0070, 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

340-223-0060 and 340-223-0070, 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 based 
Attachment 3.2, pg. 8 

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

OAR 340-223-0060 and 340-223-0070 are repealed, compliance with OAR 340-223-0060 and 340-223-

0070 in lieu of complying with OAR 340-223-0030 is no longer an alternative, and compliance with OAR 

340-223-0030 or OAR 340-223-0080 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 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 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 

340-223-0070 

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 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 

continuous emissions monitoring system in accordance with OAR 340-223-0060(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 

340-223-0080 

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, 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. 

(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 Reports 
Attachment 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, 2010 

Attachment 3.4, 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.035

Deleted: April 29

Attachment 3.5, pg. 1

DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY

DIVISION 223

REGIONAL HAZE RULES

340-223-0010 

Purpose

OAR 340-223-0020 through 340-223-0080 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 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. 

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, 2009
Attachment 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 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): 

Deciview haze index=10ln(bext/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 operation 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, 2013.

Deleted: 10 lne (bext/10 Mm-1)

Deleted: ¶

Deleted: 4
Attachment 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 0.40 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 0.040

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/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.

(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 PM10 or PM2.5;

(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 impacts for PM10 or PM2.5 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 impacts for PM10 or PM2.5 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, if 

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 PM10 or PM2.5; 

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 PM10 or 

PM2.5;

(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 dioxide 

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 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 3.5, 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 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 that 

Deleted: (1) Emissions limits: ¶

(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 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, 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 with 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 accordance 

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 FosterWheeler Boiler at the Boardman Coal-Fired 

Power 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 

be 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 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 340-223-0070, 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

340-223-0060 and 340-223-0070, 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 based 

Deleted: June 19, 2009

Deleted: July 1, 2014
Attachment 3.5, pg. 8

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

OAR 340-223-0060 and 340-223-0070 are repealed, compliance with OAR 340-223-0060 and 340-223-

0070 in lieu of complying with OAR 340-223-0030 is no longer an alternative, and compliance with OAR 

340-223-0030 or OAR 340-223-0080 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 3.5, 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 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 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 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 3.5, 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

340-223-0070 

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 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 

continuous emissions monitoring system in accordance with OAR 340-223-0060(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

340-223-0080 

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 3.5, 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, 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, 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. 

(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 Reports 
Attachment 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 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 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 4.1, pg. 1 

Oregon Bulletin 

September 1, 2010

NOTICES OF PROPOSED RULEMAKING AND 

PROPOSED RULEMAKING HEARINGS 

The following agencies provide Notice of Proposed Rulemaking to offer interested parties reasonable opportunity to submit data 

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 Oregon’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 in 

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 to 
Attachment 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, 2010 

Attachment 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 

 1st 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 

 2nd 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, 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: 

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 Support 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” 2020 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 plan
Attachment 7.1, pg. 3 

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

22. Wayne Lei private citizen PGE “BART 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 protection 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 Social 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 possible

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 Piserchia 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 evenly divided between 

support of PGE’s “BART III” 2020 plan, and closing the plant in 2015 or as soon as possible. 

Only a few 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 provides 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 the 
Attachment 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 

cancer, 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 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) 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 avoided

installing any major pollution controls since it was constructed in 1977, and (5) criticism of DEQ 

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 9:00 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, 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: 

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. John 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. Ariel 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 Social 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 possible
Attachment 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. More 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 more 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, 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: 

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

Hermiston 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, District 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 County 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 closure

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 Morrow 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 the 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 standpoint. 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 audience 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, 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: 

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 Electric 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 closure 

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 sooner
Attachment 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 Dalles. 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, 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: 

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 closure

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 General 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 Spatz 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 possible

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 closure Option 3

21. Dave Berger private citizen 2015 closure or sooner

Comment Summary. At this hearing, the comments were similar to those 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 

who 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 proposal

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 citizen close by summer 2011
Attachment 7.1, pg. 12

6. Kaician Kitko Private citizen 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 revised 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 early 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 soon as possible

20. Liam DohertyNicholsonGreenpeace 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 proposal

24. Caitlin Piserchia Private citizen support early closure option

25. Cesia Kearns Private citizen support early closure options

26. Duncan Reid Private citizen collaboration, early closure

27. Nathan Jones Private citizen collaboration, early closure

28. Alden Moss 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 Hatch 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 possible

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 also 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 out 
Attachment 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 greenhouse 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 

and answer period followed the presentation. 

Larry announced at 6:35 p.m. he would like to begin the formal hearing on the proposed 

rulemaking. He informed people that the hearing would be recorded and that testimony would 

become part of the public record for the rulemaking. Larry 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. 

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, 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: 
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 Electric 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 Mayo City of Heppner continued use of coal 

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 expressed 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 in 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, 2010, to October 1, 2010, with five public 

hearings. The second was from October 29, 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

140 people attended the hearing; 42 people testified.

September 23, 2010, 6 p.m.

Eugene State Office Building, Willamette Conference Room 

165 East 7th Avenue

Eugene, OR

33 people attended the hearing; 15 people testified

September 28, 2010, 6 p.m.

Hermiston Conference Center

415 S. Hwy 395 

Hermiston, OR 

48 people attended the hearing; 22 people testified

September 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, Room 3.203

400 E. Scenic Drive

The Dalles, OR

39 people attended the hearing; 21 people testified
Attachment 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 

November 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 available 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

LNB/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

SO2 = 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 Compounds
Attachment 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 Responses 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 15

III. Comments in support of other options related to an early closure of the PGE 

Boardman plant.

18

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 during this proposed rulemaking 22

VI. Miscellaneous Comments 27

List of People and Organizations Submitting Comments (by Commenter Number) 28

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 6th 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 comments 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 an 
Attachment 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 three 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. This 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 proposals, and those in favor of an earlier closure. Many of the latter 

comments supported 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 RESPONSES

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

1. DEQ’s Option 

1 should 

consider 

selective 

catalytic 

reduction for 

NOx

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) Selective catalytic reduction can reduce emissions by 90 percent. The 

emission limit that is achievable for selective catalytic reduction 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 selective catalytic reduction retrofits. DEQ 

accepted PGE’s cost analysis due to the unique technical difficulties 

associated with retrofitting the Boardman plant 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 achieved 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 consistently achieve 0.02 

lb/mmBtu, if at all.

c) DEQ’s consultant, ERG, concluded that the actual 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 provided 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 this option cost $177 million 
Attachment 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, and 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 determined 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 environmental 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 to 

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 Option 2 was not being proposed as a required closure date. This 

decision is to be made by PGE. DEQ’s Option 2 was a choice 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 SO2 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 evaluated 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 Class I areas. The results are provided in 

an addendum to DEQ’s BART report.

5. DEQ’s Option 2 

should consider 

SDFGD for SO2

a) In determining that Semi-dry flue gas desulfurization (SDFGD) was not cost 

effective for Option 2, the cost of SDFGD was overestimated and its 

effectiveness was underestimated. DEQ should consider SDFGD as BART for 

Option 2. 

b) SDFGD can reduce emissions by 95 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 rolling average, and not 0.07 lb/mmBtu, as currently in DEQ’s rules.
Attachment 7.2, pg. 8 

d) Using EPA’s Cost Manual, if SDFGD is 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 catalytic 

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/mmBtu could be achieved at all 

times and represents BART. Lower 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 Standards 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 specifically 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 SO2 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 units 

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 ducts 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 efficiency 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 absolute 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 expeditiously as possible.”

8. DEQ’s Option a) If DEQ agrees to PGE’s proposal for a DSI pilot study to evaluate the feasibility 
Attachment 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 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. 

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) Pursue a compliance agreement 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 2020, 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 agrees 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/mmBtu in 2014

and 0.30 lb/mmBtu in 2018, contingent on the results of the pilot studies.

b) DEQ evaluated lowering the limit to accommodate 2 additional 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 limits 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 has 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 equipment 

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 estimate 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 estimate by about $28 million.

11. DEQ’s 

Option 3 should 

consider DSI for 

SO2

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 any 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 as practicable.

12. 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 in 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.

13. 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 delayed, 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. 

14. 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 rates. 

Response DEQ appreciates the support for Option 3.

15. 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 cleaner 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 option 

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.

16. DEQ’s 3 

options should be 

a) DEQ’s 3 proposed options should be adopted as proposed. They provide the 

greatest practicable protection of visibility in the Columbia Gorge, when 
Attachment 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 appreciates the support for the three options being proposed.

17. 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, citing a 

proposed BART determination in another state that has not yet 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 early closure, and should 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 highest thresholds of $7,300, 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 the 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 SNCR 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 factors. 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 closure will provide 

significant visibility improvement in the long term, but not for the short term.

BART must address both short and long term impacts. The 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 control 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. The 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. The incremental 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

further visibility improvement as compared to LNB. Considering the negligible 

improvement and the potential PM issues associated with ammonia slip, DEQ 

does not recommend SNCR.

18. 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 

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

additional information.

19. 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 determining 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 annualized 

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 satisfy the BART requirements in the near term.

21. 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 NOx emission limit. This amount of 

time is unnecessary, 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.

22. 

Startup/shutdow

n emissions 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 

periods, 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 emission 
Attachment 7.2, pg. 13

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

specifically 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 SO2 and NOx 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)

23. 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 premature plant 

closure must include cost of replacement power. 

c) In identifying increases in electricity 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 equipment, 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 pollution 

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 Economic Impact Statement did include estimates of 
Attachment 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 under 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 

greenhouse 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.

24.

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 plant. DEQ should strike this name, and replace it with “any coalfired 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(bext/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 emission 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 emission 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 solution. 

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 coal” instead of requiring shutdown 

of the Foster Wheeler boiler.

c) DEQ believes that the rules for ceasing to fire coal are enforceable by the state 
Attachment 7.2, pg. 15

and will be federally enforceable once EPA approves the revision to the SIP.

d) The proposed rules have been revised 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/mmBtu 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/mmBtu and dry sorbent injection with a 

limit of 0.30 lb/mmBtu 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 considered 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 Proposal alternative to DEQ’s three options

A. Comments 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 it 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 

quality 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 proposal 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 seasonal 

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 jobs 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 needs. 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 

develop 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 demonstrates 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 demonstrated 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 reduced 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 capital 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 BART 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. However, 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 Option 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 if 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 believe 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 mean 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 

boilers. 

Response 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 not 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 increase particulate emissions and trigger 

pollution controls such as a baghouse is premature and without merit, unless 

further documentation, such as modeling, can be provided and verified.

Response a) DEQ acknowledges that the use of sorbent injection will increase 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 

available 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 adverse 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 lowsulfur coal, which would reduce SO2 emission by less than 2 percent from the 

baseline emission rate. A 2 percent reduction for a facility that continues 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 initially.

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 power 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 

appropriate 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 of 
Attachment 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 mmBtu/yr for NOx, 48,571,330 mmBtu/yr for SO2, and 

49,093,487 mmBtu/yr for PM. These values were also used to calculate the 

projected actual emissions after installing the BART controls.

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 control 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 until 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 2020 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 between 

Option 2 and 

PGE’s 2020 

proposal

a) Efforts should be made to finding 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 approaches 

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 that 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 

the 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 work with PGE and other 

stakeholders to find practical options for 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 power 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 establishes a 

lower SO2 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 date 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) The PGE Boardman plant should be closed at the earliest 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 quality 

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 Boardman. 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. The 
Attachment 7.2, pg. 20

plan included a provision that allowed PGE to make a formal request for a rule 

change to 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 with 

PGE, which focuses more on collaboration 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 rulemaking 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 plant. 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 schedule. 

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 before 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 operate 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 until 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 replacement 

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 scheduled for adoption in 2011 and carbon 

regulations.

3. Add early 

closure date 

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 plant would have 

to comply with NOx limits in 2011, but not the SO2 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 SO2 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 

enforceable 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 periods 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-powering 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 to 
Attachment 7.2, pg. 22

the modification 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 physically 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 any 

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 their desire for an early plant closure. This 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 rulemaking

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 beyond 

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 quality 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). The 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 adopted for the PGE Boardman 

plant in 2009 are not part of this rulemaking, and therefore DEQ is not seeking 

comment on these rules. Additionally, these comments were previously 

submitted by the commenter during the 2009 rulemaking (on Jan. 30, 2009) 

and were 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 and 
Attachment 7.2, pg. 23

compliance Prevention of Significant 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 Notice 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 modifications 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 nonapplicability 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 

still 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 additional 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 limits 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 exaggerates 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 reduce 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 regional 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 BART 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, 

should the plant close early. 

d) DSI is an unproven technology that has not been demonstrated 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, requiring 

additional 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 progress at the 14 

Class I areas within 300 kilometers of the Boardman plant. 

g) In the modeling, if SDFGD controls are compared to DSI, the visibility 

improvement is below 0.5 deciviews, 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 

concluded 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 Cost 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 SDFGD, 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 uncertainties 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 received 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 comments 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 even if the plant were to shutdown on 12/31/20. The 

requests for using lower limits for the control technologies (~0.05 vs. 0.07 
Attachment 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 coal-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 is 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 met 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 

plant. 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 from the western US may be shipped to other 

countries from western ports in the future. If the infrastructure is developed to 

ship 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, 2.41 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 DSI in 

2014, assuming that the DSI system can meet a limit of 0.40 lb/mmBtu. 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 closes on 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 Idaho DEQ. Air dispersion modeling 

is a tool for estimating the impacts of sources 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 

documented 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-ornothing 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 

adopting 

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 reason 

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 decision 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 of 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 until 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 the 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 contain early closure date options for PGE. PGE could also 

continue to operate the plant if they so choose.

11. DEQ’s

reasonable 

progress 

demonstration 

a) In the Oregon 2009 Regional Haze Plan, DEQ’s reasonable progress 

demonstration shows a slower rate of progress 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 that rate of progress identified in the plan 

to attain natural conditions in 2064 is reasonable. DEQ notes that it would be 
Attachment 7.2, pg. 27

premature to reject or replace the 2064 glideslope to reach natural conditions 

just because initial projections for the worst 20 percent 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 

regional 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.

12. 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 Molecular Toxicology at 

OSU. 

b) Oregon should be coal-free. 

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 agrees 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.

VI. 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 and 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 conservation 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 

hydroelectric 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 rules 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 goals 
Attachment 7.2, pg. 28

Regulations on climate change are currently being developed, and reducing Boardman plant’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 Boardman plant is a critical base load facility, and as such is a key source of reliable 

energy. It is important to provide enough time to replace such energy generation for overall grid 

reliability, especially as we transition to more renewable generation sources.

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 attached to emails. Does 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 9/15/2010

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 Director

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 OR Physicians for Social Responsibility 9/21/2010

14. Borden Beck Portland 9/21/2010

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 9/22/2010
Attachment 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 Sykes, 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 Reservation

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

Pendleton

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 Association 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 Portland 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

Portland 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, 

other

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 10/01/2010
Attachment 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 Association

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 10/01/2010

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

Portland 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

Northwest 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 Portland 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 Company 9/21/2010
Attachment 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 9/21/2010

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. Jonathon 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 Portland 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 citizen 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 Portland student 9/21/2010

104. Tyler Gerlach Portland student 9/21/2010

105. Geoff Guillory Portland student 9/21/2010

106. Maye Thompson * Portland OR Physicians for Social Responsibility 9/21/2010

107. Antonio Samora Portland private citizen 9/21/2010

108. Erika Winters Portland 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 * Eugene 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 Company 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 OR Physicians 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 9/28/2010
Attachment 7.2, pg. 32

134. Larry Givens * + Hermiston Umatilla County Commissioner 9/28/2010

135. Chet Phillips * + Hermiston Mayor, City of Boardman 9/28/2010

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 Little + 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 9/28/2010

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. Bill 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 9/30/2010

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

Emails 

Those who provided written testimony along with an email are listed above under letters.
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 9/9/2010

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 Mososwski 9/2/2010

198. Denise 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. Harry 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 9/1/2010

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 

- (244)

3

9/01/2010 to

10/01/2010

233. Email form letter 2 

- (5)

3

9/01/2010 to

10/01/2010
Attachment 7.2, pg. 34

234. Email form letter 3 - (63)

3

9/01/2010 to

10/01/2010

235. Email form letter 4 - (140)

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. Does 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

Maye 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 Physicians 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 Seattle 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, 

on 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 Portland 11/15/2010

252. Hillary Patin Portland 11/15/2010
Attachment 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

10/01/2010

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 Attachment 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 Economics 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 Tualatin 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 Portland 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 citizen 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 OR Physicians for Social Responsibility 11/8/2010

291. Daniel Cobb Portland Private citizen 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 11/8/2010
Attachment 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 Boardman 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 Citizen 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 letters.

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/a
Attachment 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 Sittser 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 Ernst 11/12/2010

359. Tyler Grimes 11/10/2010

360. Email form letter - (1255)

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).