### Departmentof Environmental Quality 

# regon Headquarters 811 SW SixthAvenue Theodore R. Kulongoski, Governor Portland, OR 97204-1390 (503) 229-5696 

# Received FAX (503) 229-6124 

# JUL 162009 1JIY 1-800-735-2900 

### July 13, 2009 

## Office OfAir, 

## VVaste And Toxies Michelle Pirzadeh, Acting Regional Administrator U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10 1200 Sixth Avenue Seattle, W A 98101

RE: Revision to the Oregon State Implementation Plan: Oregon Regional Haze Plan and Associated Rulemaking

Dear Ms. Pirzadeh:

The Oregon Department ofEnvironmental Quality (DEQ) requests approval ofrevisions to the Oregon State ImplementationPlan (SIP) from the Office ofAir, Waste, and Toxics, State and Tribal Air Programs Unit ofthe U.S. EPA, Region 10. Copies ofthe amendments are submitted for your review.

The Environmental Quality Commission (EQC) adopted revisions to the SIP under OAR 340­ 200-0040 on June 19,2009. DEQ submits these revisions to EPAas part ofthe SIP and pursuant to 40 CFR51.104.

I certify that a public notice was published in six newspapers ofgeneral circulation on December 5, December 7, and December 10,2008, respectively, and in the Secretary ofState's Oregon Bulletin on December 1, 2008. The notices included a statement that adoption ofthe rules would revise the SIP. I further certify that public hearings were held on January 6, 7, 8, 12, and 13, 2009, in Portland, Eugene, Medford, Hermiston, and The Dalles, respectively.

This SIP revision adopts the 2008 Oregon Regional Haze Plan and new controls for the PGE Boardman powerplant, to meet the federal Regional Haze Rule. It

### also incorporates the Oregon Smoke Management Plan into the SIP.

. Thank you for your assistance with these revisions to Oregon's SIP. The staffcontact for this submittal is Brian Finneran, in the Air Quality Division, at (503) 229-6278, and Shelley Matthews, SIP Coordinator, at (503) 229-6457. Sincerely,

# JOC1U:~~ Deputy Director Oregon DEQ

### Enclosures

cc w/attachments: Donna Deneen, EPA Region 10 (3 complete sets plus 2 additional copies ofnew and revised rules, Attachment 3)

cc 

### wlo attachments: Shelley Matthews, DEQ,.AQ SIP Coordinator Andrew Ginsburg, DEQ, AQ Administrator Dan Brown, EPA, Oregon SIP Coordinator

### Attachments:



### Attachment 1:1.1



### Attachment 2:

Attachment3:

3.1

3.2

3.3

3.4



### 3.5



### Attachment4: 4.1

4.2



### Attachment5: 5.l 

### 5.2

5.3



### 5.4

5.5 

### Evidence the State has Adopted the Revision StaffReport, Agenda Item J ofthe June 18-19,2009 EQC Meeting

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



### Evidence the Statehas theNecessary LegalAuthority See Attachment 1.1 "Commission Authority" (page #9 ofStaffReport, Agenda Item J).



### Adopted and amended SIP rules submitted to SOS General Air Pollution Procedures and Definitions: OAR 340-200-0040. Effective June 30, 2009. Regional Haze Rules: OAR 340-223-0010 through OAR 340-223-0050. Effective June 30, 2009.
Oregon Regional Haze Plan for Implementing Section 308 (40 CFR 51.308) ofthe Regional Haze Rule. Effective June 19,2009.

Smoke Management: OAR 629-048-0001 through OAR 629-048-0500. Effective June 19,2009.



### Redline/strikeoutversion ofadopted, amended and repealed SIP rules General Air Pollution Procedures and Definitions: OAR 340-200-0040. Effective June 30,2009.



### Evidence that the State followed the Administrative Procedures Act Public notice in the Secretary ofState's Oregon Bulletin, December 1, 2008. Certificate and Order for Filing Permanent Administrative Rules, filed and effective June 30,2009.



### Evidence ofAdequate PublicNotice Affidavit ofPublication: The Oregonian, December 5,2008 pUblication. Affidavit ofPublication: The Register-Guard, December 7,2008 publication. Affidavit ofPublication: Medford Mail Tribune, December 7, 2008 publication. Affidavit ofPublication: Hermiston Herald, December 10, 2008 publication. Affidavit ofPublication: East Oregonian, December 10, 2008 publication.


### 1

### 5.6

Attachment 6:

Attachment 7:

### 7.1

7.2 Affidavit ofPublication: The Dalles Chronicle, December 10, 2008 publication.

Certification ofPublic Hearing 

### See paragraph #3 ofcover letter and Attachrnent 7.1 Compilation ofPublic Comments and Department's Response 

### Presiding Officer's Report for Rulemaking Hearings, dated January 26, 2009. Summary ofPublic Comment and Agency Response, dated April 27, 2009.



### 2**I';";i'>:''''·c>:\'.\'~;l'?''x·c ,:~**  :.''.,''.", 

### "". :;""";''';;,:;'c:;:'; "".'·'.,.SIRSubmlttaJ Cheekllst' ;'."'

.. 'c "j',' "','< .,., . .,< ','; }>;"



### . "".,'.

,. ;"(", InclUded, 'Attachment 'c', .·;..,;it;**i;~;t/!'** ',' ':;**;';.>;'~/·./·f'1'j~"i::::!.** 

## .:**.~.** .,..... , ..' , ., .Title" , ,,;i'; ,..,; ." ..... ;.;', 

### .,".,"," ':.' ',;

. ;', 

### 1 Evidence the State has Adopted the Revision

X , 1.1 Staff Report, Agenda Item J ofthe June 18-19,2009 EQC Meeting Also see Certificate and order for Filing Permanent Administrative Rules in Attachment 4.2 2 Evidence that the State has the Necessary Legal Authority X 2.1 See Attachment 1.1 "Commission Authority" (page 9 of Staff Report, Agenda Item J) 3 Provisions Submitted for Approval

3.1 Adopted and amended SIP rules submitted to 50S X General Air Pollution Procedures and Definitions: OAR 340-200-0040. Effective June 30, 2009 X 3.2 Regional Haze Rules: OAR 340-223-0010 through OAR 340-223-0050. Effective June 30, 2009 I X 3.3 Oregon Regional Haze Plan for ImpJementing Section 308 (40 CFR 51.308) ofthe Regional Haze Rule. Effective June 19, 2009. X 3.4 Smoke Management: OAR 629-048-0001 through OAR 629-048-0500. Effective June 19, 2009 i
3.5 Redline/strikeout version of adopted, amended and repealed SIP rules I X General Air Pollution Procedures and Definitions: OAR 340-200-0040. Effective June 30, 2009

• 4 Evidence that the State followed the Administrative Procedures Act X 4.1 Public notice in the Secretary_of State's Oregon Bulletin, December 1, 2008. X 4.2 Certificate and Order for Filing Permanent Administrative Rules, filed and effective June 30, 2009 5 EVidence of Adequate Public Notice X 5.1 Affidavit of Publication: The Oregonian, December 5, 2008 publication X 5.2 Affidavit of Publication: The Register-Guard, December 7,2008 publication X 5.3 Affidavit of Publication: Medford Mail Tribune, December 7,2008 publication X 5.4 Affidavit of Publication: Hermiston Herald, December 10, 2008 publication X 5.5 Affidavit of Publication: East Oregonian, December 10, 2008 publication X 5.6 Affidavit of Publication: The Dalles Chronicle, December 10, 2008 publication 6 Certification of Public Hearing X 6.1 See paragraph # 3 of cover letter and Attachment 7.1 7 Compilation of Public Comments and Department's Response X 7.1 Presiding Officer's Report for Rulemaking Hearings, dated January 26, 2009 X 7.2 Summary of Public Comment and Agency Response, dated April 27,**200~**

## Attachment 1



## Evidence the State has Adopted the Revision

1.1 StaffReport, Agenda Item J ofthe June 18-19,2009 EQC Meeting

Also see Certificate and Order for Filing Permanent Administrative Rules inAttachment 4.2Attachment 1.1, 

### pg. 1



### State 

## ofOregon



# .Department ofEnvironmental Quality Memorandum
/ Date: 

### May 22, 2009 

# V

To: EnVirOnmental. Quaijly

# Conf\issi\?r..L

From: Dick Pedersen,Director 

# fJ/'

Subject:• AgendaItem J, Action Item: 2008 Oregon Regional HazePlan and new controls for

.POEBoardman coal-firedpowerplant proposed rulemaking June 18-19,2009EQCMeeting Wbythis is Important

DEQ Recommendation 

### andEQCMotion Airpollution 

### inthe form ofhaze cantravel hundreds ofmiles, affecting.the quality ofthe viewing experience in scenic areaslikeCraterLake National Park.To address this problem, the Environmental Protection Agency adopted the regionai hazerule in 1999toimprove andprotect visibilityin 

### 156 national parks and wilderness areas across the country. Thisrule requires statestoadoptregional haze plans. To address theproblem ofregional haze 

### inOregon, DEQhas developed the 2008 Oregon Regional Haze Plan, which includes newcontrols for thePOEBoardmanpower plant.

. .
The Department ofEnvironmental Quality recommends thattheEnvironmental Quality Commission adoptthe following proposed plans and rules as revisions to the Oregon State ImplementationPlan:

• Proposed new regional haze rules, Division 223, as presented 

### in Attachment A-I;
• Oregon Smoke ManagementPlan, Division 629, as presented 

### inAttachment A-2; and
• The "Oregon Regional HazePlanfor Implementing Section 308 ofthe RegionalHazeRule," as presented in AttachmentA-3.
DEQ also recommends thatthe EQC adoptthe following related rule amendments:

I • Proposedchanges tothe compliance extension contingencyprovision in the mercury rules, Division 228, as presented in Attachment A-4.

After extensive review and considerationofover 1200 public comments, DEQ is recommending adoption ofits initialDec. 2008 ruleproposal that includes new emission control requirements for thePOE Boardman powerplant with one· change, which would allow POEto formally request a rule change to aVQid installing S02 or Selective Catalytic Reduction controls, 

### ifand whenPGE decides to pennanently close the Boardman coal-firedpowerplant.!

I This proposed change canbe found on pages 155 and 202 ofthe proposed Oregon Regional Haze Plan

Item J 000001Attachment 1.1, pg. 2

Agenda Item J Action Item: 2008 Oregon Regional Haze Plan and new controls for PGE Boardman coal-fired power plant June 18-19, 2009 EQC Meeting Page 2 of 16**Bac~.ound** 

### and Need for Rnlemaking Congress designated certain national parks and wilderness areas as Class I areas, where visibility was identified as an important value. Currentlythere are 

### 156 Class I areas inthe country. Oregon has 12 Class I areas, includingCraterLake National Parkand 11 wilderness areas. Underthe federal regional haze rule, states mustdevelop plans thatwill improve Class 1area visibilityon the haziest days, the worst 20 percent, and ensure nodegradation onthe"clearest days, the best 20

. percent, overthe next 60 years. This longtimeframe recognizes themany challenges faced in reducing haze across the country. This inCludes the need for very complextechnical analysis coveringthousands ofdifferent emissions sources, andthe need for multi-jurisdictional coordination among states, :federal land managers such as theUS Forest Service and National Park Service, EPA, NativeAmericantribes, and manyother stakeholders. The goal ofthe regional hazerule is toreturn visibilityin Class 

### I areasto natural background levels bythe year 2064.

The purpose ofthis rulemaking is to adoptthe first ina series ofregional haze

•plans forOregon's 12 Class I areas. Thelargest andmost significantpartofthe

regional haze rule is the requirementto evaluate bestavailable retrofit technology, known as BART, for olderindustiial sources builtbefore· 197'7, when federal rules were adopted to protect visibilityin Class I areas

# frOm new industrial "
sources. Some ofthese older sources are still uncontrolled and have significant visibilityimpacts 

### in Class I areas. 

### Inaddition totheBARTrequirement, the regional hazerule requires states to showhow reasonable progress is beingmade to reduce hazeby a benchmarkcalledthe 2018Milestone. Regional haze plans must include a long-term strategyto identify actions the 

### statewill take to**reduc~** . haze overthe nexttenyears.
Thirteen western states coordinated regional hazeplanningefforts through an organization called the Western Regional AirPartnership2, and through individual consultation with neighboring states. DEQconsultedwith Washington, California..Nevada. and Idaho air agencies, as well as the US Forest Service and. theNational Park Service.At five year intervals stateswill develop updatesto theirregional haze plans, showingthe latest visibility analysis, the current status for meetingreasonableprogress milestones andproposed emission reduction stl1rtegies for making incremental progress inhaze reduction.
I 

### Overview ofthe Oregon Regional Haze Phin and Requirements forPGE Boardman

I) Comprehensive review ofvisibility conditions in each ofOregon's 12 Class I areas, showing majorpollutants and sources causinghaze, and.a projection of statewide emissions andvisibilityconditions 

### in 2018;

.

2 http://www.wrapair.org/aboutlO309wrapmap.pdf

Item J 000002Attachment 1.1, pg. 3

Agenda Item J Action Item: 2008 Oregon Regional Haze Plan and new controls for PGE Boardman coal-fired power plant. June 18-19, 2009 EQC Meeting**P~ge** 3 of 16
2) Summary ofDEQ'sBARTevaluation ofthe PGE Boardman coal-fired power plant and other sources potentially subjectto BART, including new rules for emission controls for PGEBoardman; 3) Reasonable progress demonstration for the best and worst visibility days. related to the 2018 Milestonebenchmark; 4) Umg-term strategythat describes sources that will be evaluated in the next 10 years to make visibilityimprovements; and 5) Summary ofthe consultation and coordination process with neighbm;ing states, Tribes, and federal land managers.
Additional information onparts two, three and four are described below. Discussions ofparts one and five above can be found in Chapters 6-9 and 13 of the proposed OregonRegionalHaze Plan. See also Attachment A-5:Executive Summaryfrom the Oregon Regional Haze Plan.

The most significant action associated with the 2008 Oregon Regional HazePlan

. is DEQ'sproposed rulerequiring emission controls attheBoardman coal-fired·

powerplant. This proposed action would provide the largest envirorunental benefit ofany strategy in the plan, and have the largest fiscal impact. 

### Summary ofDEQ'sBARTEvaluation

Under BART, states must evaluate pre-l977 major industrial sources to determine which have significant visibility impacts, and would therefore needto reduce emissionsthrough changes in plant operations orbyretrofittingwith new pollution controls. DEQ evaluated over 100 sources andfound ten to be BARTeligiblebymeeting certain criteria in the federal rule. One ofthese ten sources was the PGE Boardman coal-fired power plant. DEQ's visibility modeling analysis showed that the PGEBoardman plant caused considerably greater visibility degradation**t~n** any other BART-eligible source. Four other sources, listed on page 6, hadvisibility impactsjustoverthe significant impact level, while the remaining five did not. The Boardman plant.was evaluated for BART controls, whilethe other four sources chose to reduce theiremissions by making

, ohanges to theiroperations andtaking enforceable permit limits. Theproposed rules accompanyingthe Oregon Regional Haze Plan apply to PGE Boardman and the four other sources taking permit limits

.



### .DEQ's airquality assessment ofPGEBoardman coal-fired powerplant

The POE Boardmanplant is a 600 megawatt coal-fired electric generatingplant. Originallypermitted in 1977, PGEBoardman is Oregon's only coal-fired power·

. plant, and represents approximately20percent ofPGE's total energy generating

capacity. Thefacility currently emits about 25,000 tons ofairpollution peryear.

Item J 000003Attachment 1.1, 

### pg. 4

Agenda Item J Action Item: 2008 Oregon Regional Haze Plan and new controls for PGE Boardman coal-fired power plant. June 18-19, 2009 EQC Meeting Page 4 of 16 DEQ'svisibility modeling analysis showsthat sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide emissions from this fl,lcility can travel more than 200 miles, significantly degrading visibility in 14 Class I areas in Oregon, Washington, and Idaho. The modeling analysis also shows these emissipns significantly degrade visibility in the ColumbiaRiver GorgeNational Scenic Areaand contributeto acid deposition, which can threaten importantNativeAmerican cultural resources such
as ancientrockimages. DEQ'smodeling analysis shows thatthe highest visibility degradation occurs attheMt. Hood Class IArea and in the ColumbiaRiver Gorge. DEQ's modeling analysis can be found at t http://wwW.deg.state.or.us/aqlhaze/docs/modelingAnalysis.pdf Based onthis analysis, DEQ developed its emission control proposal for the PGE Boardman facility with three environmental priorities in mind:
1) Meet federal requirements for BART; 2) Minimize Boardman'sNOx and 

### S02 emissions tohelp Oregon demonstrate thatreasonable progress is being made toward the 2018 Milestone; and 3) MinimizeBoardman'sNOx and 

### S02 emissions toimprove visibility andbetter protectNative American culturalresources in the CohimbiaRiver Gorge.

While thefirst priority meets the federal requirements for BART, the other two priorities go beyond BARTto provide extra environmental protection. As described below, this is expected to provide significantvisibilityimprovements and a general benefitto public health.
DEQ's emission control proposal for PGE Boardman

Basedon DEQ's assessment ofvisibility impacts from thePGEBoardman facility, a two-phased approach for installing controls was developed that would. reduce total emissionsby81 percent, or about 21,000 tons peryear, andreduce peak visibility impacts in the 14Class I areas byan average of83 percent. Phase
one controls would cut sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, and particulate matter emissionsbyabout 17,000tons peryear, while the phasetwo controlswould provide additional reduction of4,000 tonsper year ofNOx.Thetotal cost ofthese controls would be approximately $471 million. The following summarizes DEQ's proposed controls: \

• PhaseoneNOx 

### controls: New 10w-NOx burners with modified overfire air control system, at a cost of$32.6 million, which would cutNOxemissions by A,800tons per.year, for a46 percent reduction: These controlsmust be

. installed by July 2011.3

1Tbe proposed niles wQuld allow DEQ to grant an extension to July 2014, ifitis demonstnLted that the proposed emission limit cannot be achieved withthese combustion 'controls. Ifan extension is granted, POE Boardman would nee(i additional time to install other controls (which can meet this limit),/which accounts forthe 2014 installation date. However, evenifan extension is granted,the low NOx Burners and.modified overfire air system would stillbe installed by July 2011.

Item J 000004

.Attachment 1.1, 

### pg. 5

Agenda Item J Action Item: 2008 Oregon Regional Haze Plan and new controls for PGE Boardman coal-fired power plant. June 18-19, 2009 EQC Meeting Page 5 of 16

• S02controls: Semi-dry flue gas desulfurization, at a cost of$247 million, which would cut S02 emissions by 12,000 tons peryear for an 80 percent reduction. These controls must beinstalJed byJuly 2014. These controls are compatible with themercury controls required by 2012. See the mercuryrule amendments described on page 7.

• Particnlate mattercontrols: Pulsejetfabric filter. These controls are a side ben,ept and part ofinstalling the S02controls and would supplement the existing electrostaticprecipitator. This installation would cutparticulate matter emissions by 122 tons per year for a 29 percent reduction. These controls mustbe installed byJuly 2014.**Th~** combination 

### Ofthe above controlsmeets BART requirements.


### Inaddition, DEQrecommends phase two NOx controls.

PhasetwoNOx control is selective catalytic reduction, at a cost of$191 million,

, whichwould cutNOxemissionsby anadditional 4,000 tons per year for an

additional 38 percent reduction. These controls must be installed byJuly 2017.

ThephasetwoNOx controls gobeyondBART and were recommended for several
reasons. The controls would reduce the magnitude ofPGEBoardman's visibility impacts in 14 Class I areas, as described above, and would increasethetotalNOx reduction from 46to 84 percent, which is a significant reduction and consistentwith the 80percent reduction from theproposed SOz controls. There is\also a need for demonstrating reasonableprogress and greater visibility improvementbythe 2018 regionalhazemilestone. Additionally, these controls would reduce aciddeposition and improvevisibility in the ColumbiaRiver Gorge, and provide general benefitsto air qualityand public health. BART-eJigible sourc,es takingfederally enforceable permitlimits

ABmentioned above, there were four BART-eligible sources thathadmuch smallervisibility impactsthan PGE Boar.dman, yetwere still over the significant impactlevel. EPA guidance allows BART-eligible sources to take a federally enforceable permitlimitiftheypermanentlylower their emissions sothatthe ambient concentration stays belowthis significant impactlevel. Thefederal' regional haze rule requires enforceable limits to be in place before submittingthe sQlte regional haze planto EPA. Sources that take these enforceable limits are notsubjectto further**evaluatio~** for BARTcontrols; however, as with other emission sources, theywill be re-evaluated 

### in the future for reasonable progress purposes, as part ofthe long-term strategy. The air quality permits for these four sources have been modified to meetthese emission limits.

• PGE Beaverpower plant is a 558 megawatt electric generating plant located in Clatskanie, Oregon. Thisplant is reducing its emissionsby using a cleaner

Item J 000005Attachment 1.1 , 

### pg. 6

Agenda Item J Action Item: 2008 Oregon Regional Haze Plan and new controls for PGE Boardman coal-fired power plant. June 18-19. 2009 EQC Meeting Page 6 of 16
ultra-low sulfurdiesel fuel1;>lend as a backup fuel in its steam gas turbines, andby limitingthe amount ofultra-low sulfurdiesel fuel it can,bum in any given day.

• IntemationalPaper (formerlyWeyerhaeuser)is a containerboard plant located in Springfield, Oregon

..The plantwill soon begin workonrepairsthat willreduce its emissions. and show compliancetlirough operational limits and

. monitoring. 

### Inthe interim, limits onboth operation and oil usewill apply"

especially during periods ofinspection and maintenance ofdamaged equipment when emissions canvary.

• Amalgamated Sugaris a sugarbeet processing plant located inNyssa, Oregon, nearthe Idaho border, which is currentlyclosed. Since its air quality permit is still active, this facility will.have an emission limit added to its current permit, which becomes effective ifthe facility resumes operation in

. . the future.

• GeorgiaPacific,Wauna

### Mill is a pulp and papermanufacturing plant located
near Clatskanie,Oregon. Themill is reducing its emissions bytaking a permit limitbased onpermanentlyreducing oil usage, reconfiguring an emission control systemto eliminate an incineratorbiterthis year and applying production limits before and afterthe incinerator is eliminated.

The reasonable progress demonstration for regional haze 

## The first regional haze plan must show reasonable progress inmeetingthe 

### 2018 Milestone.as a benchinarktowards achievingnatural conditions by

### 2064. DEQ relied on regional modeling conductedbythe Western Regional 

### AirPartnership

.to estimate Visibility conditions in 2018 for each Class I area in Oregon, based on estimated emission reductions from BART sources, emission reductions from known "on-the-books" regulations, emissions arid population growth projections for Oregon andthe region, future estimates offire emissions and other factors. 

### In terms ofmeetingthe 2018 Milestone;inost'OregonClass I areas show a slower rate ofprogress for the 

### 20 percentworst days, butmeetthe objective for no degradation for the 

### 20 percent best days. Theprimarycontributor to the slower rate ofprogress for the worst days was natural fire or wildfires and windblown dust. Another large Colltributor totheworStdays in western Oregon Class I 

### areas was commercial offshore shipping, for which few regulations have yet been developed. DEQ suspects forestry and otheroutdoor burning sources may also be contributingtotheworse dilys, and will'evaluatethese sources underthe longterm strategy, as described below. Thephasetwo selectivecatalyticreduction 'CoritrolSlorPGRBoardIDan\1iillresuffin'greafervisibilityimprovement arid

. reasonable progress bythe

### 2018 Milestone.

Item J 0'00006 'Attachment 1.1, 

### pg. 7

Agenda Item J Action Item: , 2008 Oregon Regional Haze Plan and new controls for PGE Boardman coal-fired power plant. June 18-19, 2009 EQC Meeting Page 7 of:16


### The long-term strategy for future visibility improvements

An importantpart ofthe Oregon Regional Haze Plan is the long-term strategy, which identifies ongoing efforts and new measures to improve visibility over the next 10 years. Examples ofongoing efforts**incl~de** major new source review rulesfor bew and expanding major industrial sources, DEQ's low emission vehiCle standards for cars and trucks, federal emission standards for non-road engines and residential wood heating rules. Interms ofnew measilres, the longtenn strategy contains work commitments for DEQto evaluate other industrial
sources not covered bythe BARTrules, forestry prescribed burning, residential and rangeland burning, offshore commercial shipping and ammonia sources in orderto determine potential visibility improvements by 2018. DEQ will work closely with EPA, federal limd managers, appropriate stakeholders and tribal nations in conducting these evaluations, and preparing a report for the 2013 , regional haze planupdate.



### Otheractions proposed with this rulemaking



### 1. Amendments to the mercury rule compliance extension contingency for PGE Boardman
There are two changes related to this proposed rulemakingmodifying existing rules thatrequire PGEto reduce mercury emissions atthe Boardman plan. These 2006 rules allowed DEQto grant a one-year extensionto the July 2012 compliance date ifthere are circUmstances preventing compliance by that date. DEQ is proposing to change this extension contingency measure to two years, to reflectthe timeframe for installing S02 controls for BART in 2014. Sincethe S02 and mercury controls share some ofthe same control equipment, it is advantageous for them to be installed atthe sametime. PGEBoardmanmay use an existing electrostatic precipitatorto control mercury emissions until the**S~** controls are installed. However, it is possible this could result in contamination ofthe fly ash, which is avaluable byproduct sold for making concrete. As a result, DEQis also proposingto add fly ash contamination as a reason for granting a two-year extension to 2014. '



### 2. Incorporates changes madeto the Oregon SmokeManagement Plan into the StateImplementation Plan
This proposed rulemaking also incorporates changes madeto the Oregon Smoke Management Plan into the State Implementation Plan. The Oregon Department of Forestry, in consultation with DEQ, revised the Oregon Smoke Management Plan inNovember 2007 and included new visibility protection provisions. These are referenced in the Oregon Regional HazePlan, and include voluntary measures to protect Oregon Class I areas when burning inside orupwind ofa Class I area. No ,cqanges to the updated Oregon Smoke ManagementPlan were made as part of this 'regional haze rulemaking, but anychange t6 Oregon Smoke Management Plan requires a State hnplementation Plan revision.

Item J 000007Attachment 1.1, pg. 8

Agenda Item J Action-Item: 2008 Oregon Regional Haze Plan and new controls for PGE Boardman coal-fired power plant. June 18-19, 2009 EQC Meeting

­ Page 8 of 16

Effects ofRule As described above, ifthis proposed rulemaking is adopted, it would have the following effects:

1. Require new controls for the PGEBoardman plant. Reduces PGEBoardman's peakvisibility impacts by 83 percent among other improvements. DEQ would revise the plant's air permit after adoption ofthis proposed rulemaking.

2. Include enforceablepermit limits for four BART-eligible sources. Reduces the emissions from these sourcespermanently, tobelow a level thatwould cause a significant visibility impact. These sources have already had their air permit revised in orderto take this option, except for Amalgamated Sugar, which is

_ currently shutdown.

3. Adoptthe Oregon Regional Haze Plan as part ofthe State Implementation Plan. DEQ would submitthis plan and all the associated rulemaking to EPAfor approval as a State Implementation Planrevision. This plan serves as a legal commitment, similartoother rules and plans submitted to EPA, on how Oregon is goingto meetthis federal rule.

4. Amend the mercuryrules to align the installation ofmercury controls to S(h. controls for PGEBoardman. Ibis r:ule change would not be submitted to EPA, as it is nota State ImplementationPlan revision and would take effect immediately. However, as described above, this is only a changeto a contingencymeasurethat is triggered ifPGErequests an extensiontothe proposed 2012 compHance date._

5. Incorporate the Oregon SmokeManagementPlan into the State Implementation Plan. This plan is anappendix inthe OregonRegional HazePlan, and wouldbesubmittedto EPAfor approval as a State ImplementationPlan revision with the rest of this proposed rulemaking.

Fiscal Impact:

• Installing newpollution control technology onthe facility willrepresent a major capital investment and costto the owners oftheBoardman powerplant Total

I capital costs forthefull suite ofNOx and S02 controls are estimated at

approximately $471 million by 2018. It is possiblethat these costs wouldbe passed on to customers servedbytheBoardmanplant through increased electric rates which DEQ estimates will average aboutthreeto four percentby2018. Thispotentialrate increase will be contingent on future actions taken bythe OregonPubiic Utility Commission. PendingPublic Utility Commission approval, theserate increases wouldlikelyphase

### in overtime, beginningwith rate increases averaging 0.2to 0.3 percentbetween 2011 and 2014, twoto three percentbetween2014 and 2017, with

# a maximum ofthreeto fourpercentby 20.18.

Item J 000008Attachment 1.1, 

### pg. 9

Agenda Item J Action Item:

. 2008 Oregon Regional Haze Plan and new controls for PGE Boardman coal-fired power plant. ..!une 18-19,2009 EQC Meeting Page 9 of16



### Commission Authority StakehQlder Involvement

. • DEQ anticipates no significantfiscal impact to the four other BART-eligible industrial sources thathave accepted federally enforceable pennitlimits ortheir customers from the proposed new emission limits, because these limits do not

.require any significant capital investment in these facilities. These sources did not identifyany significant fiscal impacts duririgthe commentperiod or at the

. time their airpermits were modified.

• No otherfiscal or economic impacts are expected from the rest oftheproposed regional haze plan.

.

• DEQ's·fiscal advisory committee agreedthatthere will be a general positive economic Impacttopublic health andthe environment**re~ulting** 

### from the reduction of21,000tons peryearofairpollutionfrom POE Boardman. Even though these benefits cannotbe quantified, the committee agreed they shouldbe acknowledged in principle.

For amore detailed summary ofthe fiscal and economic effects of this proposal see
. AttachmentE: Statementof Needand Fiscal andEconomic Impact.
The commission has authorityto take this action under ORS 468.020, 468A.025, 468A.035, 468A.310 and 477.013.

Aregional hazelBARTworkshop was held in Portland in 

### 2007, and was attendedby

. industry, environmental representatives andthepublic. During 2007 and 2008 DEQ metwith environmental andindiIStry groups to discuss various aspects ofthe BART requirements. DEQ also metwithEPA andfederal land managers during the

.preparation oftheOregonRegional HazePlan, andparticipated in numerous Western Regional Air

### Partnership meetings withneighboring states preparing similarregional haze plans. DEQ met with severaltribes in addition to thetribal nations inthe Western Regional AirPartnership. Duringthis time, DEQ also workedwith Oregon DepartmentofForestry to adopt, through apublic process,· regional haze-related provisions into the Oregon Smoke Management Plan.
In

### October 2008, DEQ convened afiscal advisory committee to review the economic impacts associated withthis proposed rulemaking, with emphasis onthe 

## • costs relatedto the proposed controls forPOE Boardman. The committeehad a wide range ofmembership; from utility, powerand energy organizations, to small business groups, environmental, health, and tribal interests. The committeemet in October2008, as described above, and again in January 2009 afterDEQ received comments from POE proposing alternatives to DEQ'sproposal for BART and reasonable progress.



### Public Comment The public commentperiod began December 1.2008, and ended January 30, 2009. This 60-day comment period was twice the length ofmost DEQ rulemakings. In

### response to PGE'sproposal described**below~** 

### which DEQ

Item J 000009Attachment 1.1. pg. 10

Agenda Item J Action Item: 2008 Oregon Regional Haze Plan and new controls for PGE Boardman coal-fired power plant.

. June 18-19, 2009 EQC Meeting

. Page106f16
received as a publiccomment, DEQ extended the public commentperiod bytwo 

### weeks.·

.
Therewere five publichearingsheld in Portland, Eugene-Springfield, Medford, Hermiston and TheDalles.A total of 111 persons attendedthe hearings, and45

.provided testimony_ DEQreceived over 1200 comments, mostlyvia email, with

61 written commentsreceived. As-a result ofthe extensivepublic comments and additional time needed for review and evaluation oftbese comments, this proposed rulemaking was reschedufed from the April 200.9 EQC meeting to the June2009 EQC meeting. Summary ofthe prtblic comments
Thesummaryofcomments and DEQ'sresponses can be found in Attachment B: Summaryo(PublicComments and Agency Responses, and Attachment C: Hearing Officer's Report on PublicHearings.

POE'spr?posed decision points:

OnDecember 17, 2008, POE submitted comments onthis rulemaking requesting DEQconsider addingtwo decision points or closure options to the proposed rules, which would allow POEtheoption ofdecommissioning the Boardman plantrather than investing in additional air pollution controls. The first decision point in 2012 would allow POEto decide to closethe plant and operate it without additioqal controls unti12020. and the second in 2015 would allow POEto decide

..to close theplant and operate itwithout additional controls until 2029. PGE cited

theneed for thesetwo closure options as being primarilyrelatedto the impactand costs ofupcomingcarbon regulationsto address global warming. PGEnoted that these closureoptions would: (1) provide needed flexibility in making critical planning decisions aboutthe future**oftheplant~** (2) allow sound economic decisions tobemade for PGE'scustOmers; and (3) satisfy DEQ'sregulatory needsas alternate ways ofmeetingthe BARTand reasonable progress requirements:

. Summary ofkey comlpents and DEQ responses

. . I Thefollowing represents some ofthekeycommentsDEQ received onthis**rulemaking~** DEQ's detailed response to these cOmments can be found in AttachmentB: SummaryofPublic Comments and DEQResponses. Several of the**topil::~. r~lsed**  in**~econ1mel1tsbeloW.!u."~.<lls<? di~~Il~~Qjl1:th.e** **Is:_~yj~sues** section onpage 12 ofthis report.

• PGE's**deci~ion** pointproposal. Most ofthecomments infavor·ofPOE's decision point closure options cited the importance ofgiving PGE the flexibilitytomake sound economic decisions inthe future when carbon regulations are known. POE and others alsocommentedthatthese decision

Item J 000010Attachment 1.1, pg. 11

. Agenda Item J Action Item:

2008 Oregon Regional Haze Plan and new contn?ls for PGE Boardman coal-fired power plant. June 18-19, 2009 EQC Meeting

. Page 11 of16 

### points would still allow DEQ to meet BART and reasonable progress requirements. See DEQ responses #19-21,23-25 inAttachmentB.



### • Overall stringency and installation timeline ofDEQ's proposed controls for PGEBoardman. Those in favor ofmore stringency stated thatthe proposed NOx and S02emission limits did notreflect the lowest levels achievable usingthis control technology. Therewere also many comments advocating faster installation ofcontrols than proposed, suchas requiring S02 controls in 2013 instead of2014. See DEQ responses #1­ 9;11,12.16

.



### • Selective catalytic red.uction requirements.There were

# many comments in

. favor ofrequiring selective catalytic reduction controls as BART. In 

### contrast,

many opposed selective catalytic reduction controls as being too stringent and

.expensive. See DEQ responses #6,11.

.



### • Overallcost ofthe proposed controlsfor PGE Boardman is too expensive. Many comments cited selective catalyticreduction controls as beingtoo expensive, and that the overall estimated cost of$471 million would have major impacts onthe economy. energy supply, and electricity rates, which couldultimately force theplantto 

### shutdown. See DEQ responses #11,13.15,18,52.



### •

.Proposed compliance date extensioncontingency measures for phase
oneNOx and mercury. There was some oppositionto allowing DEQto grant compliance date extensions for installingphase one NOx controls and mercury controls via**contingencymeasures~** SeeDEQ responses #3, 14,48.



### • Adequacy ofDEQ's BART evaluation for other industrial sources. There
were a nwnber ofcomments ontheBART evaluation ofotherindustrial
sources**bes~des** 

### PGE Boardman. mostlyrelated to modeling and selection of
sourcesto be evaluated for BARTcontrols. See DEQresponses #35-37.



### • Adequacy ofthe reasonable progress demonstration. Several comments noted that since most Oregon Class I areas showed a slowerrate ofprogress thanthe 2018 Milestone more controls should be·required. See DEQ response #38.



### • Comments onDEQ's proposed evaluation offire sources underthe longter:m strategy.There were several comments and questions on the proposed evaluation offorestry prescribed burning. and how DEQ would address fire
sources in generaL See DEQ response #41.

Item J 000011Attachment 1.1, pg. 12

. Agenda IteniJ Action Item:

2008 Oregon Regional Haze Plan and new controls for PGE Boardman coal-fired power plant. June 18-19, 2009 EQC Meeting Page 12 of 16

• Failureofthe plan to address otherissues besides Class I visibility. There
were many comments from the general publicthatthisrulemaking was too limited in scope, and should 

### be addressing visibility in the ColumbiaRiver Gorge, general air quality impacts, public health and global warming. See 

### DEQ

### responses #46-50,54. 

### Key Issues HasDEQ identified tbe appropriate controls forPGE Boardman?

As described in this report, DEQ'svisibilitymodeiingfor POE Boardman showed this plantto be one ofthe most significant single sources ofhaze pollution in Oregon, impacting 14 ClassI areas in Oregon and Washington; within a 200 mileradius ofthe plant, and accountingfor halfofthe Class 

### 1 visibilityimpacts from the five BART**s~urces** thatweremodeled. Its highest impact atthe 

### Mt. Hood Class I Area is approximatelyninetimes the significant impact level, and about seven times this level at the ColumbiaRiver Gorge. 

### In

·addition, the NOx and S02 emissions from PGEBoardman contributeto acid deposition in these 14 Class I areas andthe ColumbiaRiver Gorge.

·As noted above, during the public comment periodthere were many comments
on the stringency and overall estimated cost of$471 million for the proposed controlsfor PGEBoardman. Some argued the costs weretoo high, while

·others argue for greater stringency and faster implementation ofthese controls.
DEQ conducted an exhaustive three-year evaluation ofthe appropriate controls for

### this facility, researching numerous control technologies and recentretrofits
across the countryfor similar power plants.DEQ also hired an independent consultant, Eastern Research Group, with extensiveexpertise in coal plant control technology, to assistjnthe contrpl evaluation. DEQ staffreviewed over 30 different types and combinations ofcontrol technologies, evaluatingthe cOst and control efficiencies ofeach, andthe engineering requirements for retrofittingthe Boardman plantand worked closelywith PGEplant engineers duringthis evaluation. DEQ madeadditional assessments onthe shortesttime feasible for installation, and set.emissionlimitsthatwere the highest achievable, yet reflect the use ofproperaveragingtimes, and account for·

. normal fluctuations in emissionsthat would ensurecompliance with permit limits. The endresult was a suiteofemission controls'forPGEBoardmanthat is both stringent and cost-effective, and complies with the regulatory requirements forBARTand reasonable progress
.



### . ,In addition togeneral comments onthe stringency and cost;there were specific

comments on the proPosed phasetwo selective catalytic reduction controls.

·Some argued that selective catalytic reduction controls should beincluded as part ofthe BARTcontrols and required by2014, while others strongly'opposed these controls as beingtoo stringent and expensive. notproviding enough visibilityimprovementto bejustified orthatDEQ was unfairly singling out PGE Boardmanfor additional controls.

Item J 000012Attachment 1.1, pg. 13

Agenda Item J Action Item: 2008 Oregon Regional Haze Plan and new controls for PGE Boardman coal-fired power plant. June 18-19, 2009 EQC Meeting Page 13 of 16

The magnitude ofPGEBoardman's visibility impacts in 14Class I areas was a key factor inDEQrecommending selective catalyticreduction controls. Withoutthe selective catalyticreduction controls, theNOxreduction is only 46 percent, and the combinedtotal emission reduction only

### 66 percent. With selective catalyticreduction controls, the total NOx reduction increasesto 84 percent, and thecombinedtotal emission reduction to 

### 81 percent The overall cost-effectiveness ofselective catalytic reduction,. combined with phase one NOx controls, is nearlythe same as the 

### S02controls on a costper tonbasis. Additionally, there is more vIsibility improvement from reducing NOxthan" 

### S02 due to thefact thatNOx contributes slightly moreto haze formation than " 

### S0 2. DEQ did not recommend selectivecatalytic reduction controls as BARTdue to cost and implementation concerns. Although selectivecatalyticreduction is " considered cost effective, the cost is about six :times morethanthe phase one NOxcontrols,yet onlyprovide about twice as much visibilityimprovement. DEQ also determined that installation ofselective catalytic reduction would take longerthan the five years allowed undertheBART

### rules, duetothetime needed for engineering,procurement, and construction and additional time needed for extensivemodificationsto the boilerto accommodatethis retrofit.
Overall, DEQ believes the phaseone NOxcontrols combinedwith the 

### S02 controls to be the best approach to meetBART, and adding thephasetwo selective catalytic reduction controls are both necessaryandjustified. Overthe next eightyearsthe combination ofthese controls will reducethe plant's emissionsby approximately 21,000 tons per year, reduce peakvisibility impacts at the 14 ClassI areas by an average of83 percent, improve visibility bythe2018 Milestone, reduce visibilitydegradation 

### in the ColumbiaRiver Gorge and provide general air quality andpublichealthbenefits. These controls will also help reducethe risk to importantNative American cultural resources in the Gorge. Theproposed controls arecost-effective and are realistically achievable for PGE.

Should theproposed controls forBoardman"includethe closure option decisio/a pointsproposed by PGE?
DEQ does not supportPGE's closure options proposal. Thepreferred approach would befor PGEto request an alternate compliancepath at a future time when the full extent ofcarbon regulations is known, when costs andtradeoffs have been evaluated and when a decision has been made onthe future ofthe Boardmanplant.

EPA and federal land managers also questioned ifPGE's proposallegal1y satisfiestheBART and reasonable progress requirements. Their comments cited the lackofan evaluation ofotherBART controls that mightbe costItem J 000013Attachment 1.1, pg. 14

Agenda Item J Action Item: 2008 Oregon Regional Haze Plan and new controls for PGE Boardman coal-fired power plant. June 18-19,2009 EQC Meeting Page 14 of 16 effective, and the visibility improvements such controlsmightprovide, priorto the proposed clo'sure dates. The federal BARTrules require that all control technologies be evaluatedwith specific emphasis on the expected visibility improvements and requires full public review and comment ofany BART determination. PGE also concluded no controls were needed for the 2015 decision point, priortothe2029 closure date. DEQ agrees these factors were not fully addressed in PGE'sproposal forthe2012 decision point and thatthe proposal does not address the required 2018 Milestone and necessary visibility 

### , improvements. Proposed change: 

### Inresponse to PGE'sproposal, DEQhas added provisions to the proposed Oregon Regional Haze Planthatwould allow PGEto formally request a rule changeto avoid installing S02or selective catalytic reduction controls, ifand when PGE decides to'permanently closetheBoardman coal-

. fired powerplant.4 PGEwould'have to makethis request well 

### in advance of the required installation dates forthese controls, allowing sufficienttime for a full public process. 

### Inconsidering a request, DEQwould initiate a public rulemaking process involving participation by a fiscal advisory committee, stakeholder interests, tribal nations andthe public. 

### An opportunetimeforPGE to considerthis option would be as part ofDEQ's2013 regionalhazeplan update; although PGE could request a rule change at anytime the decisionhas beenmadeto closetheBoardman faciHty. See AttachmentA-6 for the proposed language.

ShouldDEQ allow extensions to compliancedates for phaseoneNOx.aud mercury coutrols?

Therewere manycomments ontheproposed compliance date extension contingencymeasuresfor phase one NOxand mercury controls. DEQ recommends retainingthesemeasures as proposed.
DEQhas proposed a stringent phase oneNOx emission limitfor the boilerat Boardman. PGEmustcombustion controls to meetthese limits byJuly 2011 andno extension would be granted for the instaIiation ofcombustion controls. However, dueto the unique design oftheBoardmanboiler, it is possiblethese

, combustion controls may not achievethe proposed limit. IfPGEfails tomeet •

the required limit, there is a contingency measure in theproposedrules that will require PGEto install more costlypollution**controls~** known as a selective non-catalytic reduction system. 

### Ifselective non-catalytic reduction system is . '

..necessary,DEQwillextend.the.phase one.NOx,compliance dateto 2014 to allow for the engineering;fabrication arid installation'ofthese controls. The selective non-catalytic reduction system would betemporary, and would be eitberreplaced orused in conjunction withthe selective catalytic reduction controls required in pbasetwo.

4This proposed change can be found on pages 155 and 202 ofiheproposed OregonRegionalHaze Plan

Item J 000014Attachment 1.1, 

### pg. 15

Agenda Item J Action Item: 2008 Oregon Regional Haze Plan and new controls for PGE Boardman coal-fired power plant. June 18-19. 2009 EQC Meeting Page 15 of 16

Next Steps

Attachments

Availab1e Upon 

### Request The proposed revision to the mercury rules would extend the existing compliance extension contingency measure from one totWo years. This proposal is not changing the default 

### 2012 compliance date for installing mercury controls and existingrules allow DEQ to grant a oneyear extension if there are circumstances preventing compliance bythat date. DEQrecommends changingthis contingency measure to two years to align with the installation of**S~** controls in 2014.**S~** and mercury controls share some ofthe same control equipment and it is advantageous'for them to be installed at the same time. 

### In addition, DEQ recommends adding fly ash contamination as a reason for granting this extension. POE Boardmanmaybe able. to use activated carbon injectionwith an existing electrostatic precipitatorto control mercUry emissions until the**S~** controls are installed. There is a possibflitythat this process could contaminatethe fly ash, make it unusable for concrete production and require landfill disposal. 

### Ifthis occurs, POE could be granted a two-year extension rather.than one.



### • Ifapproved, DEQ will submitthe Oregon Regional Haze Plan and accompanying regional haze rules, and Oregon SmokeManagement Plan, to EPAas a revision to the Oregon State Clean AirAct Implementation Plan.

• POE Boardman's Title V Permit will be modified to reflect the newrules.



### A. Proposed Rulemaking 1. Proposed new regional hazerules, Division 

### 223 2. Oregon Smoke Management Plan, Division 629 3. 2008 Oregon Regional Haze Plan (electronic copy, see attacheddisc) 4. Proposed amendments to mercuryrules, Division

### 228 5. Executive Summaryfrom the OregonRegional Haze Plan 6. Proposed changes to Plan to address POE decision points proposal (excerptfrom the revised Plan) 

### B. Summary ofPublic Comments and AgencyResponses C. Hearing Officer's Report on Public Hearings D. Relationshipto Federal Requirements Questions E. Statement of Need and Fiscal and Economic Impact F. Land Use Evaluation Statembnt



### 1. DEQ'sFiscal ImpactReport 2. DEQ Visibility and Acid Deposition ModelingAnalysis ofthe PGE BoardmanPower Plant 

### 3. Proposed RulemakingAnnouncement 4. Writtencomments received 5. December 17,2008 "decisionpoints" comment letter from POE 6. DEQ'sBARTReport for POE Boardman 7. Rule Implementation Plan 8. Legal Notice ofHearing

Item J 000015Attachment 1.1. pg. 16

Agenda Item J Action Ite.m: , 2008 Oregon Regional Haze Plan and new controls for PGE Boardman coal-fired power plant June 11;1-19.• 2009 EQC Meeting Page 16 of 16

Approved: Section:

# ~C=.f-r· David Collier;AirQualityPlaiullng Section Manager '.

Section: t.A i'--"'" Linda; Hliyes-Go an, EasternRegionAir

### Quali~ Manager ""7.

# J 9C 

# -& '

.. Division:**~~~----+-~~~--------~=** Andy Oins 

### Ur,

### Air Quality**A~inistrator**

Reportprepared by: Brian Finheranand

### Mark Fishet

, . :phone: 503-229-6278

--- .. 

### ---

..

ItemJ 00001f;i

## Attachment 2


# Evidence that the State has the Necessary Legal Authority

See Attachment 1.1 "Commission Authority" (page #9 ofStaffReport, Agenda Item J)

## 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 June 30, 2009.

3.2 Regional Haze Rules: OAR 340-223-0010 through OAR 340-223-0050. Effective June 30, 2009.

3.3 Oregon Regional Haze Plan for Implementing Section 308 (40 CFR 51.308) ofthe Regional Haze Rule. Effective June 19,2009.

3.4 Smoke Management: OAR 629-048-0001 through OAR 629-048-0500. Effective June 19,2009.



### Redline/strikeoutversion ofadopted, amended and repealed SIP rules

3.5 General Air Pollution Procedures and Definitions: OAR 340-200-0040. Effective June 30, 2009.Attachment 3.1, pg. 1



### DIVISION 200

GENERAL AIR POLLUTION PROCEDURESAND DEFINITIONS

General

340-200-0040 State-ofOregon Clean AirAct Implementation Plan (1) This implementation plan, consisting ofVolumes 2 and 3 ofthe State ofOregon 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) ofthe 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 pursuantto the Commission'srulemaking procedures in division 11 ofthis chapter and any otherrequirements 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 onJune 19, 2009. (3)Notwithstanding any otherrequirement contained in the SIP, the Departmentmay: (a) Submit to the Environmental Protection Agency any permit condition implementing a rule that is part ofthe federally-approved SIP as a source-specific SIP revision after the Department has complied with the public hearings provisions of40 CFR 51.1 02 (July 1, 2002); and (b) Approve the standards submitted by a regional authority ifthe regional authority adopts verbatim any standard that the Commissionhas adopted, and submit the standards to EPA for approval as a SIP revision. 

### NOTE: Revisions to the State ofOregon Clean Air Act Implementation Planbecome federally enforceable upon approval by the United States Environmental Protection Agency. Ifany provision ofthe 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 340-223-0050 establish requirements for certain sources emitting airpollutants that reduce visibility and contribute to regional haze in Class I areas, for the purpose ofimplementing 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 June 19,2009. NOTE: This rule is included in the State ofOregon 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

340-223-0020 

### Definitions The definitions in OAR 340-200-0020 and this rule apply to this division. Ifthe 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 the federal BART rule in 40 

### § CFR 51.308, Appendix Y to Part 51, "Guidelines for BART Determinations Under the Regional Haze Rule", and in accordance withthe Regional Haze Rule under 40 

### § CFR 51.308(e), as in effect on June 19, 2009. (2) "Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART)" means an emission limitation based on the degree ofreduction achievable through the application ofthe best system ofcontinuous 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 ofcompliance, the energy and nonair quality environmental impacts of compliance, anypollution control equipment in use or in existence at the source orunit, the remaining useful life ofthe source orunit, and the degree ofimprovement invisibility which may reasonably be anticipated to result from the use ofsuch technology. (3) "Deciview" means a measurement ofvisibility 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 ofconditions, from pristine to highly impaired. The deciview haze index is calculated based on the following equation (for the purposes ofcalculating deciview, the atmospheric light extinction coefficient must be calculated from aerosol measurements): Deciview haze index=lO Ine 

### (bexl10 Mm'I) Where b

### ext= 

### the atmospheric light extinction coefficient, expressed in inverse megameters (Mm,I).

### Attachment 3.2, 

### pg. 2



### (4) "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-yearperiod. 

### NOTE: This rule is included in the State ofOregon Clean Air Act Implementation Plan as adopted bythe Environmental Quality Commission under OAR**340~200-0040.** 

### Stat. Auth.: ORS 468 & 

### 468A Stats. Implemented: ORS 468A.025



### 340-223-0030 BARTRequirements for the Foster-Wheeler boiler at the Boardman Coal-Fired Power Plant (Federal Acid rain program facility ORISPLcode 6106) (1) Emissions limits: (a) On and after July 1,2011, nitrogen oxides emissions must not exceed 0.28lb/mmBtu heat input as a 30-day rolling average and 0.23 Ib/mmBtu heat input as a 12-month rolling average. (A) Ifitis demonstrated by July 1,2012 that the emission limits in (a) cannotbe achieved with combustion controls, the Department may grant an extension ofcompliance to July 1,2014. (B) Ifan 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 0.12lb/mmBtu 

### heat input as a 30-day rolling average. (c) On and after July 1,2014, particulate matter emissions mustnot exceed 0.012 Ib/mmBtu 

### heat input as determined by compliance source testing. (d) The emission limits in (a) through (c) above do not apply during periods ofstartup or shutdown. (2) Compliance demonstration. Using the procedures specified in section (3) ofthis rule: (a) Compliance with a 30-day rolling average limit must be demonstrated within 180 days ofthe compliance date specified in section (1) ofthis rule. (b) Compliance with a 12-month rolling average mustbe demonstrated within 12 months ofthe compliance date specified in section (1) ofthis 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 CFRPart 75 as in effect on June 19, 2009. (A) The hourly emission rate in terms oflb/mmBtu

### heat input must be recorded each operating hour, including periods ofstartup and shutdown. (B) The daily average emission rate must be determined for eachboiler operating day using the hourly emission rates recorded in (A), excluding periods ofstartup and shutdown. (C) 

### 30-day rolling averages mustbe determined using all daily average emissions rates recorded in (B) whether or notthe days are consecutive. (D) 12-month rolling averages mustbe determinedusing calendarmonth averages based on all daily averages during the calendar month. (b) Compliance with the particulate matter emissions limit in (1)(c) must be determined by EPA Methods 5 and 19 as in effect on June 19,2009. (A) An initial test mustbe conducted by January 1,2015.Attachment 3.2. 

### pg. 3



### (B) Subsequent tests must be conducted in accordance with a schedule specified in the Oregon Title V Operating Permit, butnot 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 June 19,2009. (4) Notifications and Reports (a) The Departmentmust be notified in writing within 7 days after any control equipment (including combustion controls) used to comply with emissions limits in section (1) 

### begin operation. (b) ForNOx 

### and S021imits based on a 30-day rolling average, a compliance status report, including CEMS data, must be submitted within 180 days ofthe compliance dates specified in section (1 ). 

### (c) Ifapplicable, a compliance status report for the 12-month rolling average NOx 

### limit in section (l)(a) mustbe submitted byAugust 1,2012. (d) For particulate matter, a compliance status report, including a source test report, must be submitted within 60 days ofcompletingthe initial compliance test specified in section (3)(b). NOTE: This rule is included inthe State ofOregon Clean Air Act Implementation Plan as adopted bythe Environmental Quality Commission under OAR 340-200-0040. Stat. Auth.: ORS 468 

### & 468A Stats. Implemented: ORS 468A.025

340-223-0040 Additional NOx 

### Requirements for the Foster-Wheeler boiler at the Boardman Coal-Fired Power Plant (FederaJ Acid rain program facility ORISPL code 6106) (1) 

### On and afterJuly 1,2017, nitrogen oxides emissions must not exceed 0.070 Ib/mmBtu 

### heat input, excluding periods ofstartup and shutdown. (a) 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). (b) The Department must be notified in writing within 7 days after any control equipment used to comply withthe emissionlimitbegins operation. (c) A compliance status report, including CEMS data, mustbe submitted by January 1, 2018. NOTE: This rule is included inthe State ofOregon Clean Air Act Implementation Plan as adopted by the Environmental Quality Commissionunder OAR 340-200-0040. Stat. Auth.: ORS 468 

### & 468A Stats. Implemented: ORS 468A.025

340-223-0050 Federally Enforceable Permit Limits (1) 

### Any BART-eligible source that causes visibility impairment less than 0.5 deciview in all Class I areas, atthe 98th 

### percentile for both a three-year period and one-yearperiod, based on a federally enforceable permit limit or limits, is not subject to BART. (2) IfaBART-eligible source's federally enforceable permit limit will be terminated, and as a resultthe source will be subject to BART, the source is required to submit a BART analysis and install BARTas determined bythe Departmentpriorto terminating the federally enforceable permit limit. (3) The Foster-Wheelerb()iler at The Amalgamated Sugar Companyplant in Nyssa, Oregon (Title V permit number 23-0002) is a BART-eligible source, and air quality dispersion modeling

### Attachment 3.2, 

### pg. 4



### demonstrates that it would be subjectto BART while operating. However, it is not operating as ofJune 19,2009, and therefore is not subject to BART. Priorto resuming operation, the owner oroperator ofthe source must either: (a) Submit a BART analysis and install BART as detennined by the Department by no laterthan July 1,2014orbefore resuming operation, whichever is later; or (b) Obtain and comply with a federally enforceablepennit limit assuring thatthe source's emissions will not cause the source to be subject to BART. NOTE: This rule is included in the State ofOregon Clean AirAct 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) ofthe Regional Haze Rule. Effective June 19,2009.Attachment 3.4, pg. 1



### DEPARTMENT OFFORESTRY DIVISION 48 Smoke Management

629-048-0001 Title, Scope and Effective Dates (1) OAR 629-048-0001 through 629-048-0500 are known as the Smoke Management Rules. (2) The Smoke Management Rules apply to prescribed burning offorest fuels for forest management purposes within any forest protection district in Oregon as described by OAR 629­ 041-0500 to 629-041-0575. (3) Except as otherwise specified in these rules, the smoke management rules are effective January 1, 2008. Stat. Auth: ORS 477.013,477.562 (as amended by ch. 213, OL 2007, Enrolled HB 2973), 526.016, 526.041 Stats. Implemented: ORS 477.013,477.51 477.562 (as amended by ch. 213, OL 2007, Enrolled HB 2973) Hist.: DOF 4-2007, f. 12-31-07, cert. ef. 1-1-08

629-048-0005 Definitions Unless otherwise defined below, tenns used in this rule division shall have the meaning provided in ORS 477.001: (1) "Board" means the State Board ofForestry. (2) "Bumboss" means the person, authorized by the owner (may include the owner) or a federal land management agency to conduct and make decisions regarding the practices involved in conducting a prescribed burning operation and who is responsible for compliance with all requirements under this rule division and related laws. (3) "Bumregistration" means the act orproduct ofnotifYing the forester to the required level ofdetail, ofintent to conduct a prescribed burning operation as required by OAR 629-048-0300. (4) "Class I Area" means Crater Lake National Park and certain wilderness areas designated by Congress as federal Class I Areas that are subject to visibility protection under the Environmental Protection Agency's Regional Haze Rule and the federal Clean AirAct. (5) "Class 1 forestland" has the same meaning as given in ORS 526.324 to "timber class" and includes all forestland primarily suitable for the production oftimber. (6) "Class 2 forestland" has the same meaning as given in ORS 526.324 to "timber and grazing class" and includes all forestland primarily suitable forjointuse for timberproduction and the grazing oflivestock, as a pennanent or semi-pennanentjoint use, or as a temporaryjoint use during the interim between logging and reforestation. (7) 

### "Class 3 forestland" has the same meaning as given in ORS 526.324 to "agricultural class" and includes all forestland primarily suitable for grazing or other agricultural use. (8) "Department" means the State Forestry Department. (9) "Eastern Oregon" means the eighteen Oregon counties lying east ofMultnomah, Clackamas, Marion, Linn, Lane, Douglas, and Jackson Counties. (10) "Emissions" means the gaseous and particulate combustion products in smoke resulting from burning forest fuels. (11) "Federal land management agency" means the United States Department ofAgriculture's

### Attachment 3.4, 

### pg. 2



### Forest Service; the United States Department ofthe Interior's Bureau ofLand Management, National Park Service, Fish and Wildlife Service, orBureau ofIndian Affairs; or any other federal agency that may conduct prescribed burning within a forest protection district. (12) "Field administrator" means an employee ofthe State Forestry Department, a forest protective association, or federal land management agency who has, among other responsibilities,
an official role in determining whether a prescribed burn should proceed, continue orbe suspended. (13) "Forester" means the State Forester or authorized representative including but not limited to fire wardens appointed under ORS 477.355. (14) "Forest fuels" means any flammable woody material, grass or otherplant matter that may constitute a wildfire hazard or that is intended for disposal by prescribed burning, but does not include products that have had secondary processing such as boards, posts or paper. (15) "Forestprotection district" means an area offorestland designated by the State Forester for protection from fire pursuant to ORS 477.225. Detailed descriptions ofthe forest protection districts may be found in OAR 629-041-0500 to 629-041-0575. (16) "Ground level" means at or close to the surface ofthe earth suchthat smoke at "ground level" could be inhaled by persons going about their normal business, in or out ofdoors. It

### does not include smoke that passes overhead when prescribed burning is conducted in accordance with the smoke management forecast and instructions. (17) "Levell regulation" means the program ofrequirements that apply to all forestland managed by a federal land management agency statewide, and all class 1 forestland in western Oregon within a forest protection district (OAR 629-048-0100(2). These requirements include bumregistration at least seven days in advance (OAR 629-048-0300), fee administration (OAR 629-048-0310), compliance with smoke management forecast instructions (OAR 629-048-0230), andreporting ofaccomplishments (OAR 629-048-0320). (18) "Level 2 regulation" means the program ofrequirements that apply to all non-federal forestlands in eastern Oregon, and all class 3 forestland in western Oregon within a forest protection district (OAR 629-048-0100(3). These requirements include bumregistration (OAR 629-048-0300) and reporting ofaccomplishments (OAR 629-048-0320). (19) "Mop-up" means action, usually involving the application ofwater or other means to eliminate heat, remove fuel orreduce the supply ofoxygen, sufficient to make a fire safe or reduce residual smoke. (20) "Other areas sensitive to smoke" means specific recreation areas not listed as SSRAs in OAR 629-048-0140 but that are intended to receive consideration for focused forecasting attention for limited times during periods ofheavy use by the public such as coastal beaches on holidays, Class I Areas during peak summer use, and other areas during special events. All Oregon and Washington Class I areas shall be considered areas sensitive to smoke during the visibility protection period (July 1to September 15), defined in the Oregon Visibility Protection Plan (OAR 340-020-0040, Section 5.2). (21) "Prescribed burning" means the use offire ignited as a planned management activity on forestland to meet specific objectives involving the reduction orremoval offorest fuels. Prescribed burning does not include impromptu fires ignited for purposes such as warming fires, bum-out or backfire operations used in wildfire suppression, or lightning ignited "wildland fire use" as practiced by federal land management agencies. (22) "Regional haze" means air pollution transported over long distances into Class I Areas that reduces visibility in those areas.Attachment 3.4, pg. 3



### (23) "Residual smoke" means smoke produced after the initial fire has passed through the fuel. (24) "Smoke intrusion" means the verifIed entrance ofsmoke from prescribed burning into a smoke sensitive receptor area at ground level. (25) "Smoke management forecast unit" means any or all ofthe persons appointed or assigned by the State Forester to develop and interpret weather forecasts and produce smoke management instructions, usually operating from the department headquarters in Salem. (26) "Smoke sensitive receptor area or SSRA" means an area designated for the highest level ofprotection under the smoke management plan, as described and listed in OAR 629-048-0140. (27) "Underbuming" means low intensity prescribed burning to maintain forest health through reduction offuels in the understory ofa forest stand while maintaining the overstory stand characteristics. (28) "Verified smoke incident" means an entrance ofprescribed burning smoke into a community, other than an SSRA, investigated by the forester to: (a) Validate claims that smoke did, in fact, enter the area described, at ground level; (b) Determine ifthe smoke or a portion ofit, in fact, derived from forest management prescribed burning from a legally conducted operation; and (c) If(a) and (b) ofthis section were affirmed, determine the intensity and approximate duration ofthe smoke incident as described in OAR 629-048-0110. (29) "Western Oregon" means the eighteen Oregon counties lying west offlood River, Wasco, Jefferson, Deschutes and Klamath Counties. Stat. Auth: ORS 477.013,477.562 (as amended by ch. 213, OL 2007, Enrolled HB 2973), 526.016, 526.041 Stats. Implemented: ORS 477.013, 477.515, 477.562 (as amended by ch. 213, OL 2007, Enrolled HB 2973) Hist.: DOF 4-2007, f. 12-31-07, cert. ef 1-1-08

629-048-0010 Purpose (1) 

### ORS 477.013 requires the State Forester and the Department ofEnvironmental Quality to approve a plan for managing smoke in areas that they are to designate, for the purpose of maintaining air quality. The plan must designate areas within which all burning must comply with the plan. (2) 

### The Smoke Management Rules are intended to establish the areas required by ORS 477.013; describe the objectives ofthe smoke management plan; establish procedures to be followed in administering prescribed burning; educate the public as to the necessity ofprescribed burning and the measures being takento protect air quality, public health and visibility; and to provide enforceable mechanisms to ensure the requirements ofthe smoke management plan are met. (3) The Smoke Management Rules, promulgated by the State Forester, together with department directive 1-4-1-601, Operational Guidance for the Oregon Smoke Management Program, shall comprise the smoke management plan upon approval by the Department of Environmental Quality and filing with the Secretary ofState. (4) The objectives ofthe smoke management plan are to: (a) Prevent smoke resulting from prescribed burning on forestlands from being carried to or accumulating in smoke sensitive receptor areas or other areas sensitive to smoke, and to provide maximum opportunity for essential forestland burning while minimizing emissions;Attachment 3.4, pg. 4



### (b) Coordinate with other state smoke management programs; (c) Comply with state and federal air quality and visibility requirements; (d) Protect public health; and (e) Promote the reduction ofemissions by encouraging cost effective utilization offorestland biomass, alternatives to burning and alternative burning practices. Stat. Auth: ORS 477.013, 477.562 (as amended by ch. 213, OL 2007, Enrolled HB 2973), 526.016,526.041 Stats. Implemented: ORS 477.013,477.515,477.562 (as amended by ch. 213, OL 2007, Enrolled HB 2973) Hist.: OOF 4-2007, f. 12-31-07, cert. ef. 1-1-08

629-048-0020 

### Necessity ofPrescribed Burning (1) All ofOregon's forestlands are flammable under the right conditions offuel dryness, heat and wind. (2) As a part ofthe natural ecology offorestlands, wildfire is neither necessarily good nor bad, however, there are a number ofcharacteristics ofunplanned, uncontrolled fires that are usually regarded byhumans as undesirable. Among these are threats to public safety, destruction of natural resources, destruction ofproperty and the adverse health effects that can occur from breathing a significant amount offine particulate matter associated with wildfire smoke. (3) When areas do not experience fire orother means ofreducing forest fuels for extended periods, there is a greater wildfire hazard and the likelihood increases that ifunplanned ignitions occur, through whatever means, that the resulting wildfire will bum at greater intensity and be
more difficult to suppress. (4) Because wildfires typically bum during hotter, drier conditions than those usually planned for prescribed fires, forest fuels are more completely consumed, producing more emissions. Also, wildfires often occur during periods ofatmospheric stability and thus air stagnation, trapping smoke close to the ground where it is more likely to impact humans and less likely to be quickly carried away by higher altitude transport winds. (5) Prescribed burning is used as a management technique to reduce forest fuels either as the primary mechanism such as in grass and brush areas for maintenance ofgrazing, and underburning ofopen forest stands for forest healthpurposes; or as a secondary fuel reduction method following thinning or final harvesting. It is typically conducted at a time and under planned fuel and weather conditions whereby the fine fuels that more readily ignite and carry fire across the landscape are consumed but the larger fuels are consumed to a lesser degree than in a wildfire. ReSUlting emissions are both reduced overall, and more likely carried into higher altitudes and dissipated by high level winds, away from concentrations ofpeople. (6) When adequate forest fuel reduction can be achieved economically without the use of prescribed burning, because ofother fire associated risks, that choice is usually favored. Even so, there are often·silvicultural or agricultural advantages to prescribed burning such as site preparation, nutrient cycling and reduction ofpests and disease that may not be achieved by simply removing the forest fuels. Forall ofthe reasons described above, the Legislative Assembly (ORS 477.552) and the Board ofForestry have found it necessary to maintain theviability of prescribed burning as a forest management practice. Stat. Auth: ORS 477.013, 477.562 (as amended by ch. 213, OL 2007, Enrolled HB 2973), 526.016,526.041Attachment 3.4, 

### pg. 5



### Stats. Implemented: ORS 477.013, 477.515, 477.562 (as amended by eb. 213, OL 2007, Enrolled HB 2973) Hist.: DOF 4-2007, f. 12-31-07, eert. ef. 1-1-08



### 629-048-0100 Regulated 

### Areas (1) All lands classified as "forestland" under ORS 526.305 to 526.370 and all forestland managed by a federal agency regardless ofwhether or not classified, within a forest protection district, are subject to regulation ofprescribed burningpursuant to ORS 477.013. The level of regulation may vary according to specific classification; e.g., Class 1,2 or 3 forestland as described in ORS 526.305 to 526.370. (2) Class 1 forestland in western Oregon, and all forestland managed by a federal land management agency statewide, within a forest protection district, is subject to bum registration at least seven days in advance (OAR 629-048-0300), fee administration (OAR 629-048-0310), compliance with smoke management forecast instructions (OAR 629-048-0230), and reporting of accomplishments (OAR 629-048-0320). The forestlands and applicable regulations listed in this section may be referred to as "level 1 regulation." (3) All other non-federal forestland within a forest protection district, including, butnot limited to, private forestlands in eastern Oregon and Class 3 private forestland in western Oregon is subject to bumregistration (OAR 629-048-0300) and reporting ofaccomplishments (OAR 629­ 048-0320) but is not subjectto fee administration or compliance with smoke management forecast instructions. The forestlands and applicable regulations listed in this section may be referred to as "level 2 regulation." (4) All prescribed burning on forestland within a forest protection district is subject to suspension ofbuming by the forester under ORS 477.520 due to conditions such as air stagnation
or fire danger. Stat. Auth: ORS 477.013, 477.562 (as amended by ch. 213, OL 2007, Enrolled HB 2973), 526.016,526.041 Stats. Implemented: ORS 477.013, 477.515, 477.562 (as amended by ch. 213, OL 2007, Enrolled HB 2973) Hist.: DOF 4-2007, f. 12-31-07, cert. ef. 1-1-08



### 629-048-0110 Characterization ofSmoke Incidents orIntrusions (1)(a) When investigating or collecting information on smoke incidents or intrusions, the department will attempt to characterize the incident or intrusion in terms ofits intensity (light, moderate or heavy) and its duration in hours or minutes. To the extent it can reasonably do so, the department may also attempt to determine the amount ofpopulated area affected (in square miles
or acres) and an estimate ofthe number ofpeoplepresent during the incident or intrusion. (b) As used in the smoke managementrules, "smoke intrusion" refers only to prescribed burning smoke that enters a smoke sensitive receptor area at ground leveL Nonetheless, the methods and descriptions described in this rule may be applied to the measurement ofany smoke incident relevant to the smoke management plan. (2) When measurements or observations are available, incidents or intrusions are characterized in the following manner based on nephelometer values (averaged over a one hour period) above the clean air background:

### Attachment 3.4, 

### pg. 6



### (a) A light intensity incident or intrusion is characterized by a light scattering measurement of less than 1.8 x 10-4 B-scat (Beta scatter); (b) A moderate intensity incident or intrusion is characterized by a light scattering measurement ofgreater than or equal to 1.8 x 10-4 B-scatbut less than or equal to 4.9 x 10-4 Bscat; and (c) A heavy intensity incident or intrusion is characterizedby a light scattering measurement of greaterthan 4.9 x 10-4 B-scat. (3) The clean air background is the average nephelometer reading for the three hours prior to the incident or intrusion. (4) When no nephelometer data are available, incident or intrusion intensity is characterized based on reduction in visibility (also averaged over a one hour period) using standardNational Weather Service visibility observation criteria and a table ofreductions keyed to various background visibility levels as displayed in department directive 1-4-1-601, 

### Operational Guidance for the Oregon Smoke Management Program. As an example, on a day when background visibility has been greater than 50 miles, a light intensity incident or intrusion has reduced visibility to greaterthan orequal to 11.4 miles; a moderate intensity incident orintrusion has reduced visibility to less than 11.4'miles, but greater than or equal to 4.6 miles; and a heavy intensity incident or intrusion has reduced visibility to less than 4.6 miles. Stat. Auth: ORS 477.013, 477.562 (as amended by ch. 213, OL 2007, Enrolled HB 2973), 526.016,526.041 Stats. Implemented: ORS 477.013, 477.515, 477.562 (as amended by ch. 213, OL 2007, Enrolled HB 2973) Hist.: DOF4-2007, f. 12-31-07, cert. ef. 1-1-08



### 629-048-0120 Air Quality Maintenance Objectives 

### (l) When prescribed burning is conducted in proximity to, but outside communities or areas designated as smoke sensitive receptor areas, the objective ofthe smoke managementplan is no smoke intrusions into the SSRA. (2) When prescribed burning is conducted inside a smoke sensitive receptor area, the smoke managementplan objective is to use bestbum practices and prompt mop-up, as appropriate, along with tight parameters for bum site conditions that are intended to vent the main smoke plume up and out ofthe SSRA and minimize residual smoke. (3) In all other instances ofprescribedburning it is the intent under the smoke management plan to minimize the amount and duration ofsmoke that comes incontact withhumans at their places ofresidence or at otherplaces where they normally gather in numbers such as to work, conduct commerce or participate inpublic events. (4) The first element in minimizing smoke contactis encouraging forestland owners to burn only those units which cannot otherwise meet forest management objectives in cost effective alternative ways such as wood orbiomass utilization. (5) Whenprescribed burning is used, owners are further encouraged to employthe emission reduction techniques described in OAR 629-048-0210 to ensure the least emissions practicable. (6) In addition to compliance with smoke management instructions issued in the daily forecast and compliance with all conditions ofthe bum permit required under ORS 477.515, bumbosses and field administrators are encouragedto closely observe local conditions at the bum site and to light, manage, suspend lighting ifnecessary, and mop-up bums, when appropriate, in a mannerAttachment 3.4, 

### pg. 7



### that takes into consideration the possible smoke effects from the main smoke plume or significant residual smoke onresidences orbusinesses that may be in close proximity to the bum site. Stat Auth: ORS 477.013, 477.562 (as amended by ch. 213, OL 2007, Enrolled HB 2973), 526.016,526.041 Stats. Implemented: ORS 477.013, 477.515, 477.562 (as amended by ch. 213, OL 2007, Enrolled HB 2973) Hist.: DOF 4-2007, f. 12-31-07, cert. ef. 1-1-08

629-048-0130 

### Visibility Objectives (1) 

### It is the intent under the smoke management plan to comply with the Oregon Visibility Protection Plan (OAR 340-200-0040, Section 5.2). (2) 

### It is the intent under the smoke management plan to operate in a manner consistent with the Oregon Regional Haze Plan, including the Enhanced Smoke Management Program (ESMP) criteria contained in the plan, for the purpose ofprotecting Class I Area visibility. These ESMP criteria include: (a) Actions to minimize emissions; (b) Evaluation ofsmoke dispersion; (c) Alternatives to fire; (d) Public notification; (e) Air quality monitoring; (f) Surveillance and enforcement; (g) Program evaluation; (h) Burn authorization; and (i) Regional coordination. (3) When prescribed burning is conducted outside any Class I Area during the visibility protection period (July 1to September 15), an objective ofthe smoke managementplan is to minimize any smoke that impairs visibility inside the Class I Area. (4) When prescribed burning is conducted inside a Class I Area, the smoke management plan objective is to use best practices along with tight parameters for burn site conditions that will vent the main smokeplume up and out ofthe Class I Area and minimize residual smoke. (5) When prescribed burning is conducted outside the visibility protection period in proximity to, but outside and upwind ofClass I Areas, in addition to compliance with smoke management instructions issued inthe daily forecast and compliance with all conditions ofthe burn permit required under ORS 477.515, burn bosses and field administrators are encouraged to closely observe local conditions at the burn site to avoid the main smoke plume entering a Class I Area at ground level. (6) The Class I Areas in Oregon include Crater Lake National Park, Diamond Peak Wilderness, Eagle Cap Wilderness, Gearhart Mountain Wilderness, Hells Canyon Wilderness, Kalmiopsis Wilderness, Mountain Lakes Wilderness, Mount Hood Wilderness, Mount Jefferson Wilderness, Mount Washington Wilderness, Strawberry Mountain Wilderness and Three Sisters Wilderness. Stat. Auth: ORS 477.013,477.562 (as amended by ch. 213, OL 2007, Enrolled HB 2973), 526.016,526.041 Stats. Implemented: ORS 477.013,477.515,477.562 (as amended by ch. 213, OL 2007, Enrolled HB 2973)

### Attachment 3.4, pg. 

### 8



### Hist.: DOF 4-2007, 

### f. 12-31-07, cert. ef. 1-1-08

629-048-0140 

### Smoke Sensitive Receptor Areas A smoke sensitive receptor area is an area designated by the board, in consultation with the Department ofEnvironmental Quality, that is provided the highest level ofprotection under the smoke management plan because ofits past history ofsmoke incidents, density ofpopUlation or other special legal status related to visibility such as the ColumbiaRiver Gorge Scenic Area. The following are smoke sensitive receptor areas: (1) The area within the State ofOregon commonly understood to be the Willamette Valley that: (a) Lies east ofthe forest protection district boundaries ofthe Northwest Oregon, West Oregon and Western Lane Forest Protection Districts, west ofthe forest protection district boundaries of the North Cascade and South Cascade Forest Protection Districts and north ofwhere the Western Lane and South Cascade Forest Protection Districts come together in southern Lane County (for detailed district boundary descriptions, see OAR 629-041-0500 to 629-041-0575); (b) Notwithstanding the actual location ofthe forest protection district boundaries, includes the
area within the city limits ofthe following cities that straddle, or are within but immediately adjoin, the forest protection district boundary: (A) Carlton; (B) Corvallis; 

### (C) Cottage Grove; (D) Eugene; (E) McMinnville; (F) Portland; (G) Sheridan; (H) Silverton; (I) 

### Springfield; (1) 

### St. Helens; (K) Stayton; (L) Sublimity; (M) Veneta; (N) 

### Willamina; and (0) 

### Yamhill; (2) Within the acknowledged urban growth boundaries ofthe following cities: (a) Astoria; (b) Baker City; (c) Bend; (d) Burns; (e) Coos Bay; (f) Enterprise; (g) Grants Pass; (h) John Day; (i) Klamath Falls; 

### G) LaGrande; (k) Lakeview;Attachment 3.4, 

### pg. 9



### (I) 

### Lincoln City; (m) Newport; (n) North Bend; (0) 

### Oakridge; (p) Pendleton; (q) Redmond; (r) Roseburg; (s) The Dalles; and (t) Tillamook; (3) The area within the BearCreek and Rogue River Valleys described in OAR 629-048-0160, 

### including the cities ofAshland, Central Point, Eagle Point, Jacksonville, Medford, Phoenix and Talent; and (4) The area within the Columbia River Gorge Scenic Area, as described in 16 U.S.c. Section 544b, (2003). 

### Stat. Auth: ORS 477.013, 

### 477.562 (as amended by ch. 213, OL 2007, 

### Enrolled HB 2973), 526.016,526.041 

### Stats. Implemented: ORS 477.013, 

### 477.515, 477.562 (as amended by ch. 213, OL 2007, 

### Enrolled HB 2973) Hist.: DOF 4-2007, 

### f. 12-31-07, 

### cert. ef. 1-1-08



### 629-048-0150 

### Criteria for Future Listing ofSmoke Sensitive ReceptorAreas To ensure continued accomplishment ofthe smoke management plan objectives, additional smoke sensitive receptor areas may be listed according to the following procedures: (1) 

### Not more than once percalendar year, the board must consider additional SSRA listings if: 

### (a) The department recommends consideration ofa community for SSRA listing based on observations ofrepeated verified smoke incidents as described in section (5) ofthis rule; (b) The Department ofEnvironmental Quality recommends consideration ofa community for SSRA listing based on evidence ofairborne particulate concentrations in the community at levels that make periodic exceedance ofambient air quality standards a significant possibility; or (c) The governing body ofa city, or county for an unincorporated area, requests by official action consideration ofa community for SSRA listing, and cites the reasons for its request upon: (A) The occurrence ofa verified smoke incident lasting more than four hours; (B) More than one verified smoke incident in the same calendar year; or (C) Repeated verified smoke incidents as described in section (5) ofthis rule that have occurred within the five years immediately preceding the request. (2) When considering whether to list a community as an SSRA, the Board shall evaluate the evidence presented to it, including any information received at one or more public meetings. (a) Specifically, the board shall consider information regarding: (A) The frequency, duration and intensity ofverified smoke incidents; (B) Population ofthe community; (C) 

### The results, ifany, ofmechanical or systematic monitoring ofairborne particulate concentrations, or otherverifiable information regarding existing air quality problems in the community under consideration; (D) The nature and performance ofany local programs addressing airborne particulate concentrations;

### Attachment 3.4, 

### pg. 10



### (E) Recent trends in, and future plans for, prescribed burning activity on surrounding forestlands; (F) Any local topographic or meteorological effects that may influence the frequency, duration
or intensity ofsmoke incidents; (0) 

### Evaluation ofthe local and regional effect that listing the community as an SSRA will have on the smoke management plan's objectives ofmaintaining air quality and accomplishing necessary prescribed burning; (H) The reasons cited in a request received under subsection (l)(c) ofthis rule; (I)

### Thejointrecommendations ofthe department and the Department ofEnvironmental Quality regarding whether the community should be listed and why; and (1) 

### Any other information that is relevant to accomplishing the objectives ofthe smoke management plan. (b) If jointrecommendations are not achieved under paragraph (2)(a)(I) above, the department shall prepare a report for the board detailing any differences in recommendations and its explanations for the differences. (3) After considering the evidence presented to it, except as provided in section (4) ofthis rule, the board may take anyone ofthe following actions: (a) Reject the recommendation orrequest; 

### (b) Acknowledge that smoke incidents have occurred, but direct the department to pursue an alternate course offurther information gathering, monitoring, operational modifications or other efforts aimed at reducing the likelihood ofcontinuing smoke incidents; or (c) Accept the recommendation or request by defining the applicable boundaries ofthe community to be listed, directing the department to begin treating the community as an SSRA and following a timely process to amend OAR 629-048-0140 accordingly. (4)(a) The board's choice ofactions shall be limited to those described in either subsections (b)
or (c) ofthis section, ifit finds that all ofthe following circumstances exist: (A) The community proposed for listing has incurred repeated verified smoke incidents as described in section (5) ofthis rule, that have occurred within the five years immediately precedingthe request orrecommendation in section (1) above; (B) The community is a city with a population in excess of 10,000 within the incorporated city limits, according to the most recently published population estimate ofthe Population Research Center, Portland State University; and (C) There is a likelihood ofcontinuing frequent use ofprescribed burning as a forest management activity on forestland within 30 miles ofthe city limits. (b) Forcommunities withno air quality monitoring data, the board may delay a final action determining whether to list the community as an SSRA ifmonitoring equipment is installed in the community to gather information leading to a final determination; or (c) The board may define the applicable boundaries ofthe community to be listed, direct the department to begin treating the community as an SSRA and follow a timely process to amend OAR 629-048-0140 accordingly. (5) "Repeated verified smoke incidents" as used in this rule refers to any ofthe following combinations ofverified smoke incidents resulting from lawfully conducted prescribed burning on forestland in any continuous period ofthree years or less: (a) One heavy intensity smoke incident and one moderate or light intensity smoke incident, the latter lasting at least one hour; (b) Two moderate intensity smoke incidents, both lasting at least one hour; or

### Attachment 3.4, pg. 

### 11

(c) Three or more smoke incidents ofany combination ofintensity for a combined duration of at least three hours (using the intensity parameters described in OAR 629-04S-0110 for all ofthe above). Stat. Auth: ORS 477.0l3, 477.562 (as amended by ch. 213, OL 2007, Enrolled HB 2973), 526.016, 526.041 Stats. Implemented: ORS 477.013, 477.515, 477.562 (as amended by ch. 213, OL 2007, Enrolled HB 2973) Hist.: DOF 4-2007, f. 12-31-07, cert. ef. I-I-OS

629-048-0160 

### Bear Creek/Rogue River Valley SSRA The Bear Creek and Rogue River Valley smoke sensitive receptor area listed in OAR 629-048­ 0140 (3) is defined as beginning at a point approximately one mile NE ofthe town ofEagle Point, Jackson County, Oregon, at the NE comer ofSection 36, T35S, RIW; thence south along the Willamette Meridian to the SE comer ofSection 25, T37S, RlW; thence SE to the SE comer of Section 9, 39S, R2E; thence SSE to the SE comer ofSection 22, T39S, R2E; thence south to the SE comerofSection 27, T39S, R2E; thence SW to the SE comerofSection 33, T39S, R2E; thence west to the SW comer ofSection 31, T39S, R2E; thence NWto the NW comerofSection 36, T39S, RIE; thence west to the SW comer ofSection26, T39S, RIE; thence NW to the SE
comer ofSection 7, T39S, RIE; thence west to the SW comer ofSection 12, T39S, RlW; thence NW to the SW comer ofSection 20, T3SS, RlW; thence west to the SW comer ofSection 24, T3SS, R2W; thenceNWto the SW comer ofSection4, T3SS, R2W; thence westto the SWcomer ofSection 5, T3SS, R2W; thence NWto the SW comer ofSection 31, T37S, R2W; thence north to the Rogue River, thence north and east along the Rogue River to the north boundary ofSection 32, T35S, R1W; thence east to the point ofbeginning. Stat. Auth: ORS 477.0l3, 477.562 (as amended by ch. 213, OL 2007, Enrolled HB 2973), 526.016, 526.041 Stats. Implemented: ORS 477.013,477.515,477.562 (as amended by ch. 213, OL 2007, Enrolled HB 2973) Hist.: DOF 4-2007, f. 12-31-07, cert. ef. 1-1-08

629-048-0200 

### Alternatives to Burning (1) When planning forest management prescriptions and particularly final harvests (prior to reforestation), owners are encouraged to use practices that will eliminate or significantly reduce the volume ofprescribed burning necessary to meet their management objectives. Some practices to consider include, but are not limited to: (a) Maximizing the cost-effective use ofwoody material for manufacture ofproducts; (b) Where cost-effective, using wood or otherbiomass for energy production ormulch; (c) Lopping and scattering limbs and other woody material, or operating heavy machinery over the wood to maximize contact with the soil in orderto speed its breakdown; or (d) Re-arranging woody materials, as necessary to accomplish reforestation through the slash (from a fire prevention standpoint, this may not be desirable in areas ofheavy fuel concentrations
or where soil moistures are not conducive to breakdown offuels). (2) When prescribed burning is determined to be necessary to achieve forest management objectives, owners are encouragedto use emission reduction techniques as described in OAR 629­

### Attachment 3.4, pg. 

### 12



### 048-0210. (3) The following publications are recommended reading for forestland managers who frequently engage in prescribed burning: (a) "Non-burning Alternatives to Prescribed Fire onWildlands in the Western United States" (Western Regional Air Partnership, February, 2004); and' (b) "Annual Emission Goals for Fire Policy" (Western Regional Air Partnership, April, 2003). Stat. Auth: ORS 477.013, 477.562 (as amended by ch. 213, OL 2007, Enrolled HB 2973), 526.016,526.041 Stats. Implemented: ORS 477.013, 477.515,477.562 (as amended by ch. 213, OL 2007, Enrolled HB 2973) Hist.: DOF 4-2007, f. 12-31-07, cert. ef. 1-1-08

629-048-0210 Best Burn Practices; Emission Reduction Techniques 

### (1) "Bestbum practices" as used in this rule refers to those practices designed to minimize emissions from prescribed burning or accomplish burning at times and under such conditions as to minimize the likelihood that emissions will have adverse effects to the air quality maintenance or visibility objectives (OAR 629-048-0120 and 629-048-0130). Additional practices not described in this rule may be necessary to ensure against the escape offire orprotection offorest resources. (2) In general, best bumpractices involve methods that ensure the most rapid and complete combustion offorest fuels while nearby, "non-target" fuels are prevented from burning, such as: (a) Physical separation of"target" and "non-target" fuels; (b) Bumprescriptions, particularly for broadcast bums, that recognize and utilize the natural differences in fuel moistures oflarger and smallerpieces ofwoody material; or (c) Covering ofpiles sufficient to facilitate ignition and complete combustion, and then burning them at times ofthe year when all other fuels are damp, when it is raining orthere is snow on the ground. (3) Rapid combustion is well served by rapid ignition which may involve the use ofpetroleum accelerants (with appropriate safety precautions) and by maintaining an adequate air supply to the forest fuels being burned. Piles and windrows should be mostly free ofsoil, rocks and other noncombustible materials and should be loosely stacked to promote aeration. Where practicable, restacking or "feeding" the bum pile is encouraged to complete combustion and avoid smoldering. (4) When piles are covered as a best burn practice and the covers are to be removed before burning, any effective materials may be used, as long as they are removed for re-use orproperly disposed of. When covers will not be removed and thus will be burned along with the piled forest fuels, the covers must not consist ofmaterials prohibited under OAR 340-264-0060(3), except that polyethylene sheeting that complies with the following may be used: (a) Only polyethylene may be used. All otherplastics are prohibited; (b) The size ofeach polyethylene cover must not exceed 100 square feet. For small piles, covering only an area necessary to achieve rapid ignition and combustion, instead ofthe entire pile, is encouraged; (c) The thickness ofthe polyethylene cover must not exceed 4 mil; and (d) Layering or multiple covers (exceeding 100 square feet combined) within a pile is prohibited, unless authorized in writing by the forester to meet ignition and combustion needs. (5) The use ofpetroleum accelerants and polyethylene covers as "bestburn practices" described in this rule is expressly intended as an exception to OAR 340-264-0060(3) as allowed

### Attachment 3.4, 

### pg. 13



### by 340-264-0060. (6) In general, rapid mop-up ofprescribed burning is not needed to meet the objectives ofthe prescribed bum and protect air quality, however, in instances ofprescribed burning within an SSRA or when conditions change significantly from those forecasted or present at the time of ignition, rapid mop-up may become necessary to prevent excessive residual smoke or entry of smoke into an SSRA or other area sensitive to smoke. Bum plans required under OAR 629-043­ 0026(4), prescribed fire plans required by federal land management agency policy, or bumpermits required under ORS 477.515, when appropriate, should address conditions that may require mopup ofthe prescribed bum and to what extent. (7) When local conditions for smoke dispersal appear to be better than forecasted, bum bosses and field administrators are encouraged to communicate such information to the smoke management forecast unit, to further the objective ofaccomplishing burning during the most favorable conditions. Stat. Auth: ORS 477.013,477.562 (as amended by ch. 213, OL 2007, Enrolled HB 2973), 526.016,526.041 Stats. Implemented: ORS 477.013, 477.515, 477.562 (as amended by ch. 213, OL 2007, Enrolled HB 2973) Hist.: DOF 4-2007, f. 12-31-07, cert. ef. 1-1-08

629-048-0220 Forecast Procedures 

### (l) There are several concepts and procedural steps involved in accomplishing the smoke managementplan objectives, designed to maximize opportunities for accomplishing burning while minimizing the likelihood ofpublic health effects orvisibility impairment in Class I Areas. The following sections ofthis rule attempt to explain some ofthese concepts. (2) The basic underlying mechanism in smoke management is the use ofan understanding of atmospheric dynamics and combustion processes, in concert with current weather forecasts, to
ensure that the bulk ofemissions from prescribed burning are transported to areas oflow orno adverse effect by: (a) In the case ofbroadcast or large pile burning, generating heat rapidly so that the fuel is quickly consumed and emissions rise sufficiently above ground level to either: (A) Become diluted, and dispersed in the atmosphere via transport winds to areas ofminimal impact; or (B) Mix with the moisture in clouds and fall back to earth as precipitation; or (b) In the case oflow intensity underbuming or small piles underthe forest canopy, managing the volume ofmaterial burned per unit oftime and paying eareful attention to surface winds to keep total emissions low and disperse the smoke to unpopulated areas. (3) Foreach day that prescribed burning is planned on forestland with level 1

### regulation, a weather forecast is prepared by meteorologists specializing in smoke management. By examining the atmospheric conditions predicted for the bum day, such as vent heights, mixing layers, wind speed and direction, as well as infom1ation about what level ofpollutants may already be present in a given area, the meteorologists determine ifand where conditions will be favorable to accomplish burning. (4) In addition to the weather forecast, specific information is required on the location of planned bums, and the tonnage offuel that is expected to be consumed in a bum. This information is provided on a per unit basis at the time that bums are registered and planned with the forester

### Attachment 3.4, pg. 14

(see OAR 629-048-0300). (5) With knowledge ofthe infonnation described above, and based on dispersion models that have been developed through time and experience, forecasters are able to reasonably predicthow much smoke, and at what locations, canbe put into the atmosphere without likelihood ofthreat to air quality objectives. This infonnation is then converted into instructions to field administrators and bum bosses as to what tonnages, in what weather zones and at what distances from SSRAs prescribed burning may be pennitted. (6) The forecast and instructions are made available to field administrators and any interested parties by 3:15 p.m. each day, as necessary: Locally, planned bums are compared against the forecast and instructions, as well as any local prioritization ofbums, to detennine which bums, if any, will be pennitted on the following day. Ifthere are any changes in the forecast for the day of the bum, the smoke management forecast unit will make every effort to place a message on an automatic answering phone by 8:00 a.m. Stat. Auth: DRS 477.0l3, 477.562 (as amended by ch. 2l3, DL 2007, Enrolled HB 2973), 526.016,526.041 Stats. Implemented: ORS 477.013, 477.515, 477.562 (as amended by ch. 213, OL 2007, Enrolled HB 2973) Hist.: DOF 4-2007, f. 12-31-07, cert. ef. 1-1-08

629-048-0230 Burn Procedures (I) Before any prescribed burning is initiated, bum bosses should have a well thought out plan that takes into account: (a) How weather will be monitored and changes in conditions will be communicated; (b) Resources necessary to accomplish ignition and ignition sequences; (c) Resources and methodology necessary to contain and control the fire and prevent its escape, including communications to access additional resources, ifnecessary; and (d) Howthe bumwill be conducted to avoid smoke entering smoke sensitive receptor areas or other areas sensitive to smoke and to minimize smoke effects on other communities. (2) The forester mayrequire that a writtenbum plan be prepared for approval under OAR 629­ 043-0026(4), priorto issuance ofa bumpennit. A prescribed fire plan is required under federal policy for all prescribed burning on federal lands. (3) Prescribed bum operations with large tonnages (2000 tons ormore) orbums that will occur over multiple days should be adequately planned to provide opportunities to cease lighting and hold the existing bum within smaller compartments to mitigate undesirable smoke effects or changes in the actual burn conditions from those that were forecasted. (4) Forprescription bum units on forestland subject to level 1regulation, bum bosses must provide specific infonnation to be transmitted to the smoke management forecast unit in a standard fonnat acceptable to the forester, regarding unit location, method ofburning, and fuel loading tonnages by 5:00 p.m. on the day before the bum. (5)(a) Before ignition ofany prescribed burning in a fire season (as designated by the forester under ORS 477.505), the bum boss must obtain a pennit to bum from the forester as required by ORS 477.515 (not required for federal land management agencies). Federal land management agencies must follow agency policies that provide for an affinnative "go-no go decision" before ignition ofany prescribed burning as documented and approved by the federal land management agency's line officer.Attachment 3.4, pg. 15



### (b) A pennit to burn from the forester is also required for all prescribed burning on non-federal Class 1forestland in western Oregon at any time ofthe year. (c) Under ORS 477.515(1)(a), the forester may waive the requirement for a burn permit in instances ofburning other than described in subsections (a) and (b) ofthis section, so burn bosses should check with the forester locally to detennine whether pennits are required outside fire sea<;on. (6) Before ignition ofany prescribed burning on forestland subject to level 1regulation, the burn boss must obtain the current smoke management forecast and instructions and must conduct the burning in compliance with the instructions. Burn bosses must make provisions to be infonned ifthe forecast or instructions are subsequently changed. Through communication among the burn boss, field administrator and the smoke management forecast unit, based on infonnation specifically relevant to the burn location, a burn boss may obtain a variance from the instructions, but must document the time and method ofcommunication and adhere strictly to the conditions of the variance. (7) 

### Forprescribed burn operations with large tonnages (greater than 2000 tons) orburns that will occur overmultiple days, burn bosses may request at least two days in advance that a special forecast and instructions be issued to ensure adequate attention to meeting smoke management plan objectives. Issuance ofa special forecast and instructions will be solely within the discretion ofthe smoke management forecast unit based on workload and sufficient local infonnation to support the forecast. (8) The smoke management forecast unit, in developing instructions, and each field administrator issuing burn pennits are directed to manage the prescribed burning on forest land in connection with the management ofother aspects ofthe environment in order to maintain a satisfactory atmospheric environment in smoke sensitive receptor areas. This direction is to be applied to situations in which prescribed burning may impact SSRAs or other areas sensitive to smoke. (9) Each burn boss or field administrator must validate that forecasted weather conditions are consistent with actual on-site conditions prior to ignition ofburns. (10) A burn boss is required to tenninate ignition, in a mannerthat does not compromise worker safety orthe ability to prevent escape ofthe burn, ifeither ofthe following occurs: (a) The burn boss detennines, or is advised by a field administrator, that an SSRA, or other
area sensitive to smoke is already adversely affected by the burn or would likely become so with additional burning; or (b) The burn boss receives notice from the forester, through the smoke management forecast unit, or following consultation with the Department ofEnvironmental Quality, that air in the entire state or portion thereofis, or would likely become adversely affected by smoke. (11) Upon tennination ofignition required by section (10) ofthis rule, any burning already under way should be completed, residual burning should be extinguished as soon as practicable, and no additional burning may be attempted until approval has been received from the forester. Stat. Auth: ORS 477.013, 477.562 (as amended by ch. 213, OL 2007, Enrolled HB 2973), 526.016, 526.041 Stats. Implemented: ORS 477.013, 477.515, 477.562 (as amended by ch. 213, OL 2007, Enrolled HB 2973) Hist.: DOF 4-2007, f. 12-31-07, cert' ef. 1-1-08

629-048-0300

### Attachment 3.4, 

### pg. 16



### Registration ofIntent to Burn (I) In all instances ofprescribed burning on forestland within a forest protection district, the operator, federal land manager, landowner, or timber owner must first register with the forester all forestland that is intended to be burned. For forestland subject to level 1regulation, bum registration must be completed at least seven days before the first day ofignition. Mandatory registration ofprescribed burning on forestland subject to level 2 regulation is effective January 1, 2009. (2) The forester may waive the seven day waiting period required in section (1) ofthis rule contingent upon the forester's approval ofa bum plan orconditions offederally prescribed fire policies having already been met. (3) Informationprovided for bumregistration must be complete and recorded in a standard format approved by the forester. (4) No operator, federal land management agency, landowner ortimber owner shall be allowed to register additional forestland for burning ifpayment for theirprevious registration orburning, when required pursuant to OAR 629-048-0310, is more than 90 days past due. Stat. Auth: ORS 477.013, 477.562 (as amended by ch. 213, OL 2007, Enrolled HB 2973), 526.016,526.041 Stats. Implemented: ORS 477.013, 477.515,477.562 (as amended by ch. 213, OL 2007, Enrolled HB 2973) Hist.: DOF 4-2007, f. 12-31-07, cert. ef. 1-1-08

629-048-0310 

### Fees for Prescribed Burning (1) 

### Any prescribed burning on forestland**su~ject** 

### to level 1 regulation (OAR 629-048-0100) requires payment ofa non-refundable registration fee of$.50/acre and upon accomplishment (see section (3) ofthisrule), a bum fee as further described in sections (2), (3), (5), (6) and (8) below. (2) Bumfees for all forms ofprescribed burning, including but not limited to, broadcast burning and burning ofpiles (whether in-unit, on landings, or from rights-of-way) shall be assessed (where required) against the total acres in the unit from which the forest fuels were accumulated, as described in the bumregistration. (3) The first time that fire is applied to a prescribed bumunit, regardless ofactual accomplishment, payment ofa bum fee is required. Bumfees shall be charged according to the following schedule: (a) Ifonly landing orright-of-way piles are burned, the bum fee shall be $.50 per acre. Subsequent attempts to improve accomplishment only in landing or right-of-way piles in the same unit, in the same calendar year or the two following calendar years, shall not incur additional fees. (b) Ifsubsequent to burning only landing orright-of-way piles, the first time fire is applied to any other portion ofa registered unit (typically broadcast or in-unit pile burning), an additional bum fee of$2.60 per acre shall be required. (c) If

### the first application offire to the registered unit includes other than landing or right-ofway piles, the bum fee shall be $3.10 per acre regardless ofwhether landing orright-of-way piles
are burned. Subsequent attempts to improve accomplishment in any portion ofthe same unit, in the same calendar year or the two following calendar years, shall not incur additional fees. (4) (a) As used in this rule, "landing" means any location logs are yarded to for processing (trimming ends or limbs and tops remaining after yarding) and assembling for forwarding or loading onto trucks, including each loading site that may occur along a road. Consequently, a

### Attachment 3.4, pg. 17

landing pile contains only those residues resulting from the processing, and not additional forest fuels accumulated from growth on the site orthe felling process. (b) As used in this rule, "right-of-way piles" means any accumulated forest fuels that come only from the area cleared in the pioneering stage ofroad construction after appropriate utilization. (5) Areas burned as a result ofescaped fires that are outside the description oftheregistered bum area shall not be assessed fees ifthe fire outside ofthe described area is immediately attacked for wildfire suppression. Ifthe fire outside ofthe described area is managed as a prescribed fire then every additional acre burned shall incur a registration fee of$.50 per acre and a bum fee of $3.10 peracre. (6) Notwithstanding section (3) ofthis rule, forest health maintenance burning on forestland subject to level 1regulation, where significant fuel reduction has been accomplished through underburning within the last five years and where there are no piled forest fuels on the site, shall be charged a burn fee of$.50 per acre. (7) The forester shall prepare monthly billings to collect the appropriate registration and burn fees from the operator, federal land manager, landowner ortimber owner whose name is recorded
on the registration form for billingpurposes. (8) Notwithstanding sections (1) 

### and (3) ofthis rule, each bumunit requires a minimum combined registration and bum fee of$30.00. To reduce processing costs, the forester may elect to collect both registration and bum fees prior to accomplishment, for units less than 20 acres on one combined billing. (9) Notwithstanding sections (1), 

### (3) and (7) 

### ofthis rule, in accordance with ORS 477.562(6) (as amended by Chapter 213, Oregon Laws, 2007; enrolled HB 2973), a federal land management agency may enter into a cooperative agreement with the forester for payment ofregistration and bum fees at an annual flat rate. The rate shall be based on estimated acres to be treated as a percentage oftotal acres on all ownerships, applied against the overall annual estimated operating cost ofthe smoke management plan. Any such agreement shall have a provision that allows for periodic adjustment ofthe rate based on actual experience. (10) Notwithstanding section (7) 

### ofthis rule, any person orentity described in ORS 477.406(1) with a prior record oftimely payment may, at the discretion ofthe forester, enter into a cooperative agreement for the efficient administration and payment ofregistration and bum fees provided all payments equal no less than the registration rate described in section (1) 

### ofthis rule times the number ofacres registered plus the bum fee rate in sections (3) or (6) ofthis rule, as appropriate, times the number ofacres accomplished. Stat. Auth: ORS 477.013,477.562 (as amended by ch. 213, OL 2007, Enrolled HB 2973), 526.016, 526.041 Stats. Implemented: ORS 477.013,477.515,477.562 (as amended by ch. 213, OL 2007, Enrolled HB 2973) Hist.: DOF 4-2007, f. 12-31-07, cert. ef. 1-1-08

629-048-0320 

### Reporting ofAccomplishments (1) 

### Accomplishment information for all prescribed burning that takes place on forestland within the regulated area described in OAR 629-048-0100 must be recorded in a manner that details the amount ofburning and emissions produced for each day ofburning and must be reported to the department according to the schedule described below and in standard formats prescribed by the forester.Attachment 3.4, pg. 18



### (2) Prescribed burning on forestland subject to level 1regulation must be reported the next business day following each day's ignition as described in department directive 1-4-1-601, Operational Guidance for the Oregon Smoke Management Program, Appendix 

### 1. (3) Prescribed burning on forestland subject to level 2 regulation must be reported by the first business day ofthe week following ignition as described in department directive 1-4-1-601, Operational Guidance for the Oregon Smoke Management Program, Appendix 

### 1. (4) Section (3) ofthis rule is effectiveJanuary 1, 2009. [ED. NOTE: Appendix referenced are available from the agency.] Stat. Auth: ORS 477.013,477.562 (as amended by ch. 213, OL 2007, Enrolled HB 2973), 526.016,526.041 Stats. Implemented: ORS 477.013, 477.515, 477.562 (as amended by ch. 213, OL 2007, Enrolled HB 2973) Hist.: DOF 4-2007, f. 12-31-07, cert. ef. 1-1-08

629-048-0330 

### Emission Inventories (1) 

### In addition to the emissions information collected from prescribed burning under OAR 629-048-0320, the forester will annually estimate, using appropriate models and the best available information on acres burned and fuel type, the emissions produced by wildfires in Oregon. At a minimum, the forester will attempt to collect information about wildfires that bum on forestlands within a forest protection district. (2) Emissions information from prescribed burning and from wildfires will be maintained as distinct inventories, in appropriate forms, for analysis and distribution to improve the overall understanding ofthe relationships ofwildfire versus prescribed fire emissions. (3) The forester may include as much information on wildfires as may be readily available from the various protection agencies and other cooperators, provided that gathering ofsuch information does not create an unfunded cost to the smoke management program. Stat. Auth: ORS 477.013,477.562 (as amended by ch. 213, OL 2007, Enrolled HB 2973), 526.016,526.041 Stats. Implemented: ORS 477.013, 477.515, 477.562 (as amended by ch. 213, OL 2007, Enrolled HB 2973) Hist.: DOF 4-2007, f. 

### 12-31-07, cert. ef. 1-1-08

629-048-0400 

### Coordination with OtherRegUlatingJurisdictions and for OtherPollutants (1) 

### In order to meetthe air quality maintenance and visibility objectives ofthe smoke management plan (OAR 629-048-0120 and 629-048-0130), it is important that the forester, field administrators and other cooperators be well informed as to the existence of, or potential for smoke or other airborne pollutants other than that which will be produced by any planned prescribed burning in the affected airshed. Local field administrators are encouraged to maintain working relationships with other localjurisdictions that authorize open burning or monitor air quality so that all parties may be adequately informed ofplanned burns or conditions that cumulatively might exceed standards or objectives. (2) The forester is required to report the weather forecast, planned and accomplished burning and smoke intrusions, ifany, to the Department ofEnvironmental Quality for each applicable day,
on a timely basis.Attachment 3.4, 

### pg. 19



### (3) Any wildfire that has the potential for smoke input into an SSRA or other area sensitive to smoke must be reported immediately by the local unit ofthe state orfederal agency with jurisdiction for fire suppression to the State Forester's office. (4) The smoke management forecast unit will communicate periodically with appropriate prescribed burning regulators inthe surrounding states for the purpose ofcoordination and information sharing, as appropriate. Stat. Auth: ORS 477.013, 477.562 (as amended by ch. 213, OL 2007, Enrolled HB 2973), 526.016, 526.041 Stats. Implemented: ORS 477.013, 477.515, 477.562 (as amended by ch. 213, OL 2007, Enrolled HB 2973) Hist.: DOF 4-2007, f. 12-31-07, cert. ef. 1-1-08

629-048-0450 

### Periodic Evaluation and Adaptive Management (1) The department is responsible for analysis and evaluation ofthe prescribed burning operations conducted under the smoke management plan. (2) Reports summarizing annual activities ofthe program shall be published by the department addressing: (a) The level ofburning activity; (b) Results with regard to avoiding entrance ofsmoke into SSRAs and other areas sensitive to smoke and reports ofany smoke intrusions; (c) Accomplishment ofalternatives to burning and the use ofemission reduction techniques; (d) Evaluation ofoverall smoke management plan accomplishment; (e) Evaluationofadequacy oflisted SSRAs and protection measures; (f) Any other pertinent information related to smokemanagement plan evaluation and improvement; and (g) Revenues generated from bum fees andrelated smoke management plan costs. (3) Copies ofthe reports described in section (2) ofthis rule will be made available to all interested parties. (4) Upon publication ofa report in accordance with section (2) ofthis rule, the forester will consult at least annually with the Smoke ManagementAdvisory Committee created under ORS 477.556. Topics will include, but are not limited to, smoke management planimplementation, status ofthe Oregon Forest Smoke Management Account (ORS 477.560), and any fee changes that may be appropriate based onthe balance in this account. Stat. Auth: ORS 477.013, 477.562 (as amended by ch. 213, OL 2007, Enrolled HB 2973), 526.016,526.041 Stats. Implemented: ORS 477.013, 477.515, 477.562 (as amended by ch. 213, OL 2007, Enrolled HB 2973) Hist.: DOF 4-2007, f. 12-31-07, cert. ef. 1-1-08

629-048-0500 

### Enforcement (1) 

### Violations ofthe smoke management plan may be enforced either as violations ofthe fire prevention statutes and rules (ORS 477.980 to 477.993) or as violations ofthe forest practice rules (ORS 527.680 to 527.690 and 527.990 to 527.992). (2)(a) When, in thejudgment ofthe forester, a violation is related primarily to an act or

### Attachment 3.4, 

### pg. 20



### omission that has caused ormight cause fire to burn uncontrolled, enforcementunder the provisions ofthe fire prevention statutes and rules is appropriate. (b) When, inthejudgment ofthe forester, a violation is related primarily to an act or omission that has caused or might cause deterioration ofair quality, enforcement under the provisions ofthe Forest Practices Act and rules (specifically, OAR 629-615-0300) is appropriate. (3) Enforceable standards within the smoke management plan include requirements to: (a) Register burns prior to ignition (OAR 629-048-0230(4) and 629-048-0300); (b) Obtain approval for and follow a burn plan (OAR 629-048-0230(2) and 629-043-0026(4); (c) Obtain a burn permit and comply with any conditions included therein (OAR 629-048­ 0230(5) and ORS 477.515); (d) Obtain and comply with daily smoke management instructions and updates (OAR 629­ 048-0230(6); (e) 

### Comply with restrictions regarding use ofpolyethylene covers on burn piles (OAR 629­ 048-0210(4); (f) 

### Cease burning when directed by the forester (OAR 629-048-0100(4) and 629-048­ 0230(10); (g) Report accomplishments (OAR 629-048-0320); and (h) Pay fees (OAR 629-048-0310). (4) Section 118 ofthe federal Clean Air Act provides for enforcement ofstate air quality regulations against federal agencies. It 

### will be the policy ofthe Board ofForestry, 

### in the event ofa failure ofa federal land management agency to comply with the smoke managementplan, that the forester will first inform the responsible agency ofthe failure and coordinate efforts to ensure timely correction ofany breakdowns inprocedure that may have resulted in the failure. However, ifthis method does not appear in thejudgment ofthe State Foresterto result in necessary correction ofprocedures, orunder other circumstances that in thejudgment ofthe State Forester warrant further action, enforcement action may be taken as with any other responsible party. Stat. Auth: ORS 477.013, 477.562 (as amended by ch. 213, OL 2007, Enrolled HB 2973), 526.016,526.041 Stats. Implemented: ORS 477.013, 477.515, 477.562 (as amended bych. 213, OL 2007, Enrolled HB 2973) Hist.: DOF 4-2007, f. 12-31-07, cert. ef. 1-1-08Attachment 3.5, 

### pg. 1



### DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY

DIVISION 200

GENERAL AIR POLLUTION PROCEDURES AND DEFINITIONS

General

340-200-0040 State ofOregon Clean Air Act Implementation Plan (1) 

### This implementation plan, consisting ofVolumes 2 and 3 ofthe State ofOregon 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) ofthe 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 pursuantto the Commission's rulemaking procedures in division 11 ofthis chapter and any otherrequirements 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 June 19. 2009Deeember ]2, 2008. (3) Notwithstanding any other requirement contained in the SIP, the Departmentmay: (a) Submitto the Environmental Protection Agency any permit condition implementing a rule that is part ofthe federally-approved SIP as a source-specific SIP revision after the Department has complied withthe public hearings provisions of40 CFR 51.102 (July 1, 2002); and (b) Approve the standards submitted by a regional authority ifthe regional authority adopts verbatim any standard that the Commission has adopted, and submitthe standards to EPA for approval as a SIP revision. NOTE: Revisions to the State ofOregon Clean Air Act Implementation Plan become federally enforceable upon approval by the United States Environmental Protection Agency. Ifany provision ofthe 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 4

Evidence that the State followed the Administrative Procedures Act

4.1 Public notice in the Secretary ofState's Oregon Bulletin December 1,2008

4.2 Certificate and Order for Filing Permanent Administrative Rules, filed and effective June 30, 2009Attachment 4.1, 

### pg. 1



## ' eoo SurnmerSt NE SalemOR 97310 

## O

## regon S 

## tate A

## rch

## Ives 503373 07011 Moo.f"n a.m-44Spm Oregon Administrative Rules alpha links I numerical links IbulieUns Ifiling resources Irules coordinators Il'-lloutoars Isearch oars I buy oars I ors


# Oregon Bulletin

December 1,2008


## NOTICES OF PROPOSED RULEMAKING AND PROPOSEDRULEMAKING HEARINGS

The following agencies provide Notice ofProposed Rulemaking to offer interested parties reasonable opportunityto submit data
orviews on proposed rulemaking activity. To expedite the rulemaking process, many agencies have setthe time and place for a hearing in the notice. Copies ofrulemaking materials may be obtained from the Rules Coordinator atthe address and telephone number indicated.

Public comment may be submitted in writing directly to an agency orpresented orally orin writing at the rulemaking hearing. Written commentmust 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 appropriatetime during a rulemakinghearing as outlined in OAR 137-001-0030.
Agencies providing notice request public comment on whether other options should be considered for achieving a proposed administrativerule's substantive goals while reducing negative economic impact ofthe rule onbusiness.

In Notices ofProposed Rulemaking where no hearinghas 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 rulemakinghearing 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. Ifsufficient hearing requests are received by an agency, notice ofthe date and time ofthe rulemaking hearing must be published in the Oregon Bulletin at least 14 days before the hearing.
"Auxiliaryaidsforpersons with disabilities are available upon advance request. Contactthe agency Rules Coordinator listed in the notice information.

DepartmentofEnvironmental Quality Chapter 340 Rule Caption: Proposed adoption of Oregon 2008 Regional Haze Plan and New Controls for PGE Boardman Power Plant. Date: Time: Location: 1-6-09 6 p.m. DEQ Hdqtrs, Rm. EQC-A 811 SW 6thAve. Portland, OR 97204 1-7-09 6p.m. Lane RegionalAttachment 4.1, pg. 2

Air Pollution Authority LRAPA Mtg. Rm. 1010 Main St

.

.Springfield, OR 97474 1-8-09 6 p.m. DEQ Medford Office Conference Rm., Suite 201 221 StewartAve. Medford, OR9750I 1-12-09 6 p.m. Hermiston Conference Center Rotary Altrusa Rm. 415 S. Hwy. 395 Hermiston, OR 97838 1-13-09 6 p.m. Columbia Gorge Community College Lecture Hall, Bldg 2, Rm. 2.384 400 E. Scenic Dr. The Dalles, OR 97058 Hearing Officer: DEQ Staff Stat. Auth.: ORS 468.020 & 468A.310 Stats. Implemented: ORS 468A.025 Proposed Adoptions: 340-223-00I0, 340-223-0020, 340-223-0030, 340-223-0040, 340-223-0050 Proposed Amendments: 340-200-0040, 340-228-0671, 340-228-0673 LastDate for Comment: 1-16-09,5 p.m. Summary: Over the next several decades, DEQ must develop a series ofregional haze plans to meet the federal Regional Haze Rule. This rule requires States to make incremental progress in reducing air pollution in federal "Class I" wilderness areas and national parks by the year 2064. DEQ has developed the proposed 2008 Regional Haze Plan as the first step in haze reduction, and will update this plan every five years. This plan and the associated rulemaking is a revision to the Oregon State Implementation Plan (SIP).

The most significant action associated with the 2008 Regional Haze plan is DEQ's proposal for requiring emission controls at the PGE Boardman coal-frred power plant. This proposal is in response to the federal requirement for Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART), which is a mandatory requirement under the Regional Haze Rule. This proposed action would provide the largest environmental benefit ofany strategy proposed in the 2008 plan.

The proposed 2008 Regional Haze plan also contains the following: 1. It provides an analysis of current visibility conditions in Class I areas, a forecast ofexpected haze levels in 2018, and an analysis ofhow weB Oregon is meeting the Reasonable Progress "glide path" for haze reduction;

2. In addition to the proposal for PGE Boardman, it describes actions for reducing emissions of visibility impairing pollutants from four other industrial facilities in Oregon that were shown to have a significant impact on visibility in one or more Class I areas. These sources will reduce emission through federally enforceable permit limits related to the BARTrequirements mentioned above;

3. It identifies a list ofemission source categories (such as other large industrial facilities, and forestry burning) that will be evaluated for visibility impacts by the next regional haze plan update in 2013;

4. It adopts revisions made to the Oregon Smoke Management Plan (OSMP) by the Oregon Department of Forestry in 2007. These revisions include measures to protect visibility in Class I areas. DEQ is proposing to incorporate the OSMP (OAR 629-048-0001 through 629-048-0500) into the Oregon State Implementation Plan without any additional changes.

This rulemaking also aligns the installation ofmercury controls (adopted in 2006) for PGE Boardman with the proposed Phase 1 S02 controls. This rulemaking retains the July 1,2012 compliance date for mercury controls, but changes the compliance extension contingency from I-year to 2-years, adds fly ash contamination as a contingency for granting an extension, and aligns compliance reportingto the compliance date.

To submit comments or request additional information, please contact Brian Finneran at the Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ), 811 SW Sixth Ave., Portland, OR 97204, toll free in Oregon at 800-452-4011 or (503) 229-6278, or at regionalhaze@deq.state.or.us, or by fax (503) 229-5675, or visit DEQ's website http://www.deq.state.or.us/news/pubIicnoticesIPN.asp Rules Coordinator: Larry McAllister Address: Department ofEnvironmental Quality, 8] 1SW Sixth Ave., Portland, OR97204 Telephone: (503) 229-6412Attachment 4.2, pg. 1 

## 0-50 Secretary ofState Certificate and Order for Filing PERMANENT ADMINISTRATIVE RULES

Icertify that the artached copies* are true, full and correct copies ofthe PERMANENT Rule(s) adopted on June 19,2009 by the Date prior to or same as filing datc<

_________ < Environmental Ouality Commission to be administered byDEQ OARChapter 340 Agency and Division Administrative Rules Chapter Number Lany McAllister

«« 503-229-6412 Agency Rules**COOrdiDator----,-------------------------='''''':T:-':e1''=ep~ho-'ne!..!..i.=----------,-** 811 SW Sixth Avenue, Portland, OR97204 mcallister.lany@deq.state.or.us Addresslemail

to become effective upon filing Rulemaking Notice was published in the December I, 2008 Oregon Bulletin 

### **

< < Date upon filing or later Month and Year

RULE CAPTION Adoption of Oregon 2008 Regional Haze Plan and New Controls for PGE Boardman Power Plant

RULEMAKING ACTION
ADOPT: 340-223-0010,340-223-0020,340-223-0030. 340-223-0040, 340-223-0050

AMEND: 340-ZOQ...0040, 340-228-0606

REPEAL: None
RENUMBER: None

AMEND AND RENUMBER: None
ORS 468.020 and ORS 468A.310 Stat. Auth<: ORS 

# F I LED
JUN 3 0 2009

ARCHIVES DIVISION SECRETARY OF STATE
NA Other Autbority
ORS 468A.025 Slats. Implemented: ORS RULE SUMMARY
Over the next several decades, DEQ must develop a series of regional haze plans to meet the federal Regional Haze Rule. This rule requires States to make incremental progress in reducing air pollution in federal "Class I" wilderness areas and national parks by the year 2064. The 2008 Oregon Regional Haze Plan is the first step in haze reduction. and will be updated every five years. This plan and the associated rulemaking (except for Mercury rule amendments) are a revision to the Oregon State Implementation Plan (SIP).
The most significant action associated with the 2008 Oregon Regional Haze plan are DEQ rules requiring emission controls at the PGE Boardman coal-fired power plant. These rules are in response to the federal requirement for Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART), which is a mandatory requirement under the Regional Haze Rule. The 2008 Oregon Regional Haze plan also contains the following:

1. An analysis of current visibility conditions in Oregon Class I areas, a forecast of expected haze levels in 2018, and an analysis of howwell Oregon Class I areas are making Reasonable Progress by the 2018 Milestone; , '2, In addition to the new rules for PGE Boardman, it describes actions to reduce emissions ofvisibility impairing pollutants from fourother industrial facilities in Oregon thatwere shown to have a Significant impact on visibilit one or more Class I areas. These sources have taken federally enforceable permit limits related to the BART requirements mentioned above; y in

[2-27-05Attachment 4.2, pg. 2 3. Identifies a list of emission source categories (such as other large industrial facilities, and forestry burning) that will be evaluated for visibility impacts by the next regional haze plan update in 2013;

4. It adopts revisions made to the Oregon Smoke Management Plan (OSMP) by the Oregon Department of Forestry in 2007. These revisions include measures to protect visibility in Class I areas.
This rulemaking also aligns the installation of mercury controls (adopted in 2006) for PGE Boardman with the required Phase 1 S02 controls. This rulemaking retains the July 1,2012 compliance date for mercury controls, but changes the compliance extension contingency from 1 year to 2 years, and adds fly ash contamination as a contingency for granting an extension.

# Aut~~ Date

·Copiesinclude a photocopy ofthis certificate witb paper and declmnic copies ofeach rule listed in the Rutemaking Action. ·-The Oregon Bullet'" is published on the 1stofeach month andupdates the rule text found in the Oregon Administrative RulesCompilation. Notice forms mustbe submitted tothe Administ"'tive Rules Unit. Oregon State Archives. 800 Summer Street NE, Salem, Oregon 97310 by 5:00 pm on the 15th day Dfthe preceding month unless this deadline falls on a Saturday. Sunday or legal boliday when Notice forms are accepted until 5:00 pm on the precedingworkday

12-27-OS 2

## Attachment 5



## Evidence ofAdequate Public Notice

5.1 Affidavit ofPublication: The Oregonian, December 5,2008 publication.

5.2 Affidavit ofPublication: The Register-Guard, December 7,2008 publication.

5.3 Affidavit ofPublication: Medford Mail Tribune, December 7,2008 publication.

5.4 Affidavit ofPublication: Hermiston Herald, December 10,2008 publication.

5.5 Affidavit ofPublication: East Oregonian, December 10, 2008 publication.

5.6 Affidavit ofPublication: The Dalles Chronicle, December 10,2008 publication.Attachment 5.1, 

### pg. 1 

## Practically Indispensable.

1320 

### SW Broadway, Portland, 

### OR 97201 3499

Affidavit of Publication

/


### . 

## -**~** . . l 

# f11t

# Ce6die.; 

# 1!i? r-r15.

. duly sworn depose and say that I am the Principal Clerk OfThe Publisher ofThe Oregonian. a newspaper ofgeneral circulation, as defmed byORS 193.010 and 193.020, published in the city ofPortland. in Multnomah County, Oregon; thatthe advertisement was published without interruption in the entire and regular issue ofThe Oregonian or the issue onthe following date(s):

12/512008

OFFICIAL SEAL ALAN COLLINS NOTARY PUBUC-OREGON I 386700 C.
Notary:
Ad Order Number: 0002697507



# R.eceived
DEC 11 2009 DEQ-Accountlno.
.,Attachment 5.1, pg. 2 r

................................................ . 

# ! Practically Indispensable.

1320 

### SW Broadway, Portland, OR 97201-3499

Affidavit of Publication

PUBLIC Hearing on Proposed 2008 Oregon Regional Haze Plan The Department of Environmental Quality is proposing that the Environmental Quality Commission adopt the Oregon 2008 Regional Haze Plan to reduce haze causing pollution in national parks and wilderness areas. This plan and associated rulemaking is a revision to the State of Oregon Clean AirAct Implementation Plan under OAR 340-200-0040.
This proposed plan was developed in response to the federal Regional Haze Rules which applyto 156 national parks and wilderness areas (called "Class I areas") across the country. There are 12 Class I areas in Oregon (11 wilderness areas. and Crater Lake National Park). The federal rule requires each state to make incremental progress in reducing air pollution in these areas over the next 60 years. Class I areas such as Crater Lake National Park often have impaired visibility due to "haze" that is transported hundreds of miles from cars, industry. outdoor burning, and many other sources.
One ofthe most significant actions ofthe plan is the establishment oftighter pollution controls for the PGE Boardman coal-fired power plant, in response to the federal requirement for Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART). The Department is also proposing four other BART-eligible facilities reduce their emissions and change their permits to ensure they will not cause a significant impact on visibility in Oregon Class I areas. Included with these rules for PGE Boardman is an adjustment to the schedule for installing mercury emission controls at the Boardman plant. In addition. the Department is proposing to adopt recent revisions made to the Oregon Smoke Management Plan bythe Oregon Department of Forestry. as part ofthe Oregon Regional Haze Plan.
The Department will hold five public hearings at the follOwing locations: January 6,2009, at 6:00 p.m. in the EQC-A Conference Room on the tenth floor at DEQ Headquarters Office, 811 SW 6th Avenue, Portland, Oregon; January 7, 2009, at 6:00 p.m. in the LRAPA Meeting Room, at the Lane Regional Air Pollution Authority. 1010 Main Street, Springfield, Oregon; January 8.2009, at 6:00 p.m. in the Conference Room, Suite 201, atthe DEQ Medford Office, 221 Stewart Ave, Medford, Oregon; January 12, 2009, at 6:00 p.m. at the Hermiston Conference Center, Rotary Altrusa Room, at415 S. Hwy 395, Hermiston, Oregon; and January 13, 2009, at 6:00 p.m. at Columbia Gorge Community College, Lecture Hall, Building Two, Room 2.384. at 400 E. Scenic Drive, The Dalles, Oregon. Copies of the proposed rule package can be found on DEQ's regional haze website at www.deq.state.or.us/aq/haze/. oron DEQ's public notice website at www.deq.state.or.us/newslpublicnotices/PN.asp. or by contacting Brian Finneran at (503) 229-6278, toll-free in Oregon at 1-800-452-4011, orat this address: DEQ Air Quality Division. 811 SW Sixth Avenue, Portland, Oregon 97204.
Comments on the proposed rulemaking may be submitted anytime at the address above, byemail at regionalhaze@deq.state.or.us, by fax at (503) 229-5675 (attention Brian Finneran), or at any ofthe public hearings. All comments must be received no laterthan 5:00 p.m., January 16,2009.

# GUARD PUBLISHING COMPANY Attachment 5.2, pg.1 P.O. BOX 10188 PHONE (541) 485-1234 EUGENE. OREGON 97440 Leg.al 

## 4062246 Notice 

### Legal Notice Advertising

Case: 

### Proposed 2008 Oregon Regional Haze Plan Amt Due: 

### $177.11 OREGON DEPT. OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY BRIAN FINNERAN 811 SW 6TH AVE PORTLAND, OR 97204



### AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION STATE OF OREGON, } COUNTY OF LANE, } ss. #

I, Kelly Gant , being first duly affirmed, depose and saythat I am the Advertising Manager, or his principal clerk, of The Register-Guard, a newspaper of general circulation as defined in ORS 193.010 and 193.020; published at Eugene in the aforesaid county and state; that the Notice of Public Meeting/Hearing printed copy of which is hereto annexed, was published in the entire issue of said newspaperfor one successive and consecutive Day(s) •in the following issues:
December 07, 2008

Subscribe

My commission expires: 

### July 24, 2010 

# Received
DEC 10 lUOD DEQ-Accountlng

Account #: 

### 1000436 INVOICE 

### 4062246----------------Attachment 5.3, pg.1

LEGAL NotIcE OF PUBLIC HEARiNG Publi!,**~1J9** 911**Pro~** 2008 Oregon Regional HtWJ Plan

.

. TheOepirirtmem (If**En~auallty** Is proposing thatthe EnWonmental Quality COmmililSlOrledopt the 0regt;lfl200S Regional Haze PIan.to reduce haze causlrig poIIuII?!; In nationalpatks I!lldwHQerness areas. plan and**as:soc~ted** rulemaking isa re­ VISlO/1 to the State· of Oregon..Qsop· Nr Act Implementation Plan under OAR 340-20C1-0040.

. . ...--. . . .

This proposed Pian 

### was deveioped in response to the feder31 Regional Haze Rules which apply to 156 natlqIJaI Y/Udemess areas (caJlfJ!f. 'Class I aress') across the country. There.are 12 Class I areas In Oregon (11 wilderness areas.·and Crater lake National Park). The feder'al rUle I1!qulries each state to inake tricl1!mental progress In ra-

. ducing air pollution In these areas overthe n!lld 60y.ear'S. CIas:s.1 areas such as Crater lake NatiOnal Parkoften haveirOpalreii"itlsibility dlie'to··I1..ze·,that Is transported hLihdretIs ofmiles fTom cars,lndystry•.Outdoor burOing, and inanYotI1er SQUrces•.

One ofthe most**~tac:6Or)s** ofthe plan Is t!le**estabns~nt** oftighter pollution cO!jtrols for the roE Boardman coal-fired power pjailt, In response to the federal re;:­ quirement for Available Retrofit Technology {BARl}. The Department Is also pr0­ posing f9ur other BARf ..eligiblefacirltjeS reducetheir erniss!orls and change their permits toensUl1! theywill not cause a slgnificl!mt**Im~** qnvisibilityin Oregon ClaI!S Iare­ as; Inc;luded wi1h thesenilesrorroE BOardrrian islin' adjustmentto the schedule for Installing.mercury emil!Slon controlsatthe BoGrdman plant Inaddition,theDepartmentIs proeos1np to adopt**r~nt revis!ons.~**  to the O/1!gon.Smoke Management Plan by the Oregon Department pfForestry, ss partofthe Oregon Regional Haze Plan.

The Department will hold II. pUbllr,:**11~** on J1U1uary 8, 2009, at 6;00 p.m •.In the**~~~m, ~~it~** **~1,** the.**O,~~edfa!"d.** OffIce, 221 Stewart Avenue, MadCopies oft/)fI propo$9d rule**~ge** c;an be found !lIl OED's regional hal:e website at.·, WWW.deg.state.Qf.uslaqlbaze/. '. or on' OED's public notice website at**WWW.deg.stateQf.usln~publlcnot!cesJPN.ug .**  or by contacting Brian Fimeran at (503)229-6278,toIJ..free1h O/1!gtin 1It.1-800-452-4011,orat this address: OED Alr Qual­ )fOregon, (ofJackson 

## Affidavit of Publication
) ) ss. ) yI A.Curtis, being first duly sworn, depose and say that I am ncipal Clerk of Medford Mail Tribune newspaper ofgeneral tion, printed and published at Medford in the aforesaid county ate; that the ,I Notice

### Of Public Hearing

ityDIvIsion, 811 SW Sixth AV8fIue, Portland. Oregon 97204. .'

. -. d f hi h i h t d bl' h d I th t'

Comments on 1110 ruIemakIng may be submitted anytime at the addrd .e copy 0 W C s ere 0 annexe . ,was pu IS e n e en Ire above, py email atl"e\iionaJtiaZeodeq.litate.or.uS. by .fax .at(503) 229-5675 (et!enllon of said newspaperfor 1 Insertion in the following issues: Brian Finneran). oratthe public hearing. All comments must be received no I!lter then nber7,2008 , 5:00p.m., January 16,2009. ' .

. . .

Subscribed and sworn to before me this 19 day of December, 2008.

# ~~ Notary public for Or gon My Commission expires 16th day ofSeptember2011.

### ·'

...........**---------------""7'n'*""~:=_;"""',....,....,...__=_:::_::t"-------------------_** East Oregonian 

# Advertising
Hermiston Herald 211 SE Byers Ave Pendleton, OR 97801 Phone: (541)276-2211 

# Receipt
Fax: (541 }278-2680 

# Received

nte 18 ZOOS DEQ, Northwest Region, Air Quality 

### DeQ-Account Attn: Accounts Payable 811 SW 6th Avenue PORTLAND, OR 97204-1390**~g** Cust,: 04100203-000
Adll: 05505763 Phone: (503)229-5582

Date: 12109/08

Adtaker: DRS Salesperson: Classification: 900

Description Start Stop Cost/Day Surcharges Total

12 Hermiston Herald 22 HH Internet Bold Words Border 12110/08 12110/08 12110108 12110/08 112.62 1.10

Payment Reference:

#4511 Public Hearing on Proposed 2008 Oregon Regional Haze Plan The Department of Environmental Quality is proposing that the Environmental Quality Commission adoptthe Oregon 2008 Regional Haze Plan to reduce haze causing pollution in national parks and wilderness areas. This plan and associated rulernaking is a revision to the State of Oregon Clean Air Act Implementation Plan underOAR 340-200-0040. This proposed plan was developed in response to the federal Regional Haze Rules which apply to 156 national parks and wilderness areas (called 'Class I areas') across the country. There are 12 Class I areas in Oregon (11 wilderness areas, and Crater Lake National Park). The federal rule requires each state to make incremental progress in reducing air pollution in these areas over the next 60 years. Class I areas such as Crater Lake National Park often have impaired visibility due to "haze" that is transported hundreds of miles from cars, industry. outdoor burning. and many other sources. One ofthe most significant actions of the plan is the establishment oftighter pollution controls for the PGE Boardman coal-fired power plant, in response to the federal requirement Total: Tax:
Net: Prepaid:
(Total Due 112.63 1.10 0.50 3.50

117.73

0.00
117.73
117.73

0.00 )Attachment 5.4. 

### pg.2



### IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE STATE OF OREGON FOR UMATILLA COUNTY

AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLlCASTATE OF OREGON County of Umatilla} ss

I, Dayle Stinson being duly sworn,

### depose~' say that I am the principal clerk of the publisher of the Herrrn: a newspaper of general circulation, as defined by

. ORS 

### 193.010 and 

### 193.020; printed and published at Pen: ' . in the aforesaid county and state; thatthe


### #4511- OF PUBLIC HEARING
towhich a printed copy ofwhich is hereto annexed;

# ~as put:

entire issue of said newspaperfor

## --'1- succeSSIve and consecutive issues in the following issues:

DECEMBER 

### 10, 2008 Subscribed and sworn to before me on this, 

### '12 day (

DECEMBER, 2'

# D!M)~**Sbwi~**

OFFICIAL SEAl TERRI BRIGGS 

# dJ&4d &&<t
NOTARYPUBLIC-OREGON COMMISSION NO, 431621 MYCOMMISSlDN EXPIRESAUGUST 13,2012 

### Notary Public of**PnblicB~g** onProposed 2008DregonRegional Haze Plan !he Department of 'Enviromnental Quality IS proposing that the Environmental Quali**Co~sion** adopt the Oregon 2008 RegIOnal Haze Plan to reduce haze causing p<)llution in national parks and wilderness areas. This plan and assoCiated ruleDlllPn8 is a revision to the State of Oregon Clean Air Act Implementation Plan wider OAR 340-200-0040. This proposed plan was developed in ,response to the federal Regional Haze.Rules which apply to 156 nationalparks andwilderness areas (Called"Class I areas") across the country. There 

### are 12 Class I 

### areas in Oregon (llwildemess areas, and Crate Lake National Park). The federal rule requires each state tomakeincrementalprogress inreducing 

### !lit pollution in these areas oyer the next 60 yearS. Class I areas'such

. as Crater Lake National PaI:k: often have 

### impaired visibility,due to "haze"'that is transported hu,ndreds of miles from cars industry, outdoor burning, and

### manyoth~ sources.
. One ofthe 'moSt significant actions of the

.**~lan** is the establishment of tighter pollution controls for the POE Boardman coalfiredpowerplant,in response tothefe4eral requirement for Best Available

.Retrofit Technology (BART). The Department is also proposing four other BART-eligible facilities reduce theiremissions and change theirpermits to enSure they will notcause a significant impact on visibility in. Oregon Class I areas. Included 

### with theserules for POE Boardman is 

### aD adjustment to Ihe schedule for instaUitig mercury emission controls at the Boardllian plant. In addition, the J?<:partment ill proposing to adopt

.recent revlSlons,made to theOregon Smoke 

### Management Plan by the. Oregon Department ofForestry. as part ofthe Oregon Re**gio~a1** HazePlan.

. The Department will hold a public hearing
on January 12, 2009, at 6:00 p.m. at the Henniston Conference Center, Rotary AItrusa Room..!lt415 S. Hwy 395, Henniston, Oregon. Copies oftheproposedrulepackage'can be found on.PEQ's regional baze website at www.deq.state.or.uslaqlhazel

. or on DEQ's public notice website

. at wwiv.deq.state.or.Ustnewslpublicnotices/P N.asP. or by contacting Brian Finneran at (503) 229-6278, toll-free in Oregon at 1­ 800-452-4011, or at this address: DEQAir Quality Division, 811 SW Sixth Avenue Portland, Oregon

### 97:i04~ ,**Comm~ts** on the proposed rulemaking may be submitted anytime at the address above, by

.email 

## .at regionalhaze@deq.state.or.us,' by fax at**(5~3) 229-567~**  (attention Brian FlDDeran),
or at the public bearing. All comments must be received no later than 5:00 p:m., January16, 2009.

...•.......::::::::.:..:..::
...:'-

..: ..;., DeGember 10,2008-

...**"-·-.·-:::;-_c-::-'~··""'·-** .

# -- fmacnmem b.b, 

### pg. 1 East Oregonian 

# Advertising
Hermiston Herald 

# Received 211 SE Byers Ave Pendleton, OR 97801 

### [lEC 18 20DB Phone: (541)276-2211. 

# Receipt
Fax: (541)278-2680 

### DEQ-Accounting

DEQ, Northwest Region, Air Quality Attn: Accounts Payable 811 SW 6th Avenue PORTLAND, OR 97204-1390 Cust#: 041 00203-000
Ad#: 05505762 Phone: (503)229-5582

Date: 12109/08

Ad taker: DRS Salesperson: Classification: 900

Description Start Stop Cost/Day Surcharges Total

02 Internet 12110108 12110108 1 1.10 10 East Oregonian 12110/08 12110108 1 186.15 BoldWords Border

Payment Reference: Total: Tax: EO-3648 Public Hearing

. on Proposed 2008 Oregon Regional Haze Plan Net: Prepaid:
The Department of Environmental Quality is proposing that the Environmental Quality Commission adoptthe Oregon 2008 Regional Haze Plan to reduce haze causing pollution in national parks and wildemess areas. This plan and associated rulemaking is a revision to the State of Oregon Clean Air Act Implementation Plan under OAR 340-200-0040. This proposed plan was developed in response to the federal Regional Haze Rules which apply to 156 national parks and wilderness areas (called "Class I areas·) across the country. There are 12 Class I areas in Oregon (11 wilderness areas, and Crater Lake National Park). The federal rule requires each state to make incremental progress in redUCing air pollution in these areas over the next 60 years. Class I areas such as Crater Lake National Park often have impaired visibility due to "haze" that is transported hundreds of miles from cars, industry, outdoor burning, and many other sources. One ofthe most significant actions of the plan is the establishment of tighter pollution (Total Due 1.10 186.15

0.50 3.50

191.25

0.00
191.25
191.25

0.00

# JED-3648.j PUBLle Hl!!1IftlriG on Proposed 200B Oregon Regional Haze Plan Attachment 5.5, 

### pg. 2
The Departrrieot of**~nvironmental** Ql;I.ality is proposing that the Environmental Quality Commission adopt the Oregon 2008 Regional Haze Plan to reduce haze causing pollution In national 

### parks and wildemess areas. This plan and associated rulemaking is a revision to the State of 

### IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE STATE'OF OREGON Oregon Clean Air Act Implementation Plan un

### FOR UMATILLA COUNTY der OAR 340-200-0040.

. . This proposed plan was developed In response to the federal Regional Haze Rules whiph apply to 156 national parks and wilderness areas (called ·Class I areas") across the country. There are 12 Class I areas In Oregon (11 wilderness areas, and Crater Lake National Par!<); The federal rule requires eaC!l**stat~** to ma.kB**I~­** crernental progress in reducmg air pollution In Ihese areas over the next 60 years. Class I areas such as Crater Lake National Park often have impaired visibility due to**~haze·** that i5 transported hundreds of miles from cars, Indus· try, outdoor burning, and many. other sources. • One of the most significant actions of·lhe plan 

### STATE OF OREGON the establishment of tighter pollution controls fOI the PGE Boardman coal-fired ppwer plant. in re­ 

### County of Umatilfa} 55 sponse to the federal requirementfor**Be~t** Avail able Retrofit Technology (BART). The Depart ment is also proposing four olher BART -eligibll facilities reduce their emissions and changl Ihelr permits to ensure they will not cause a slg nificant impact on visibility in Oregon Class areas. Included with these rules for PGE**~ard** man is an adjustment to the schedule for Instal 

### I, Dayle Stinson being duly sworn, depose and ling mercury emission controls at Ihe Boardma plant.

. In addition, the Department Is proposlll 

### saythat I am the principal clerk of the publisher of the East Oregoniar to adopt recent revislo!,!s made to the Orego 

### a newspaper ofgeneral circulation, as defined by

. Smoke Management Plan by the Oregon DE 

### ORS 193.010 and 193.020; printed and published at Pendleton

## ~=Ie~~~**~:~.** as part of the Oregon RE 

### in the aforesaid county and state; that the

. . The Department will hold a public hearing 0 January 12, 2009, at 6:00 p.m. at the Hermisto Conference Center. Rotary Altrusa Room. I 

### EO-3648- PUBLIC HEARING 415 

### s. Hwy 395, Hermiston, Oregon,

.

______________________________ Copies of the proposed rule package can t found on DEQ's regional haze website , . 

### a printed copy ofwhich is hereto annexed; was published in the www.deq.state.or.uslaqlhazel

. or on DEQ's pul IIc notice : website 

### entire issue of said newspaperfor_1_ successive and www.deq.state.or.uslnewslpublicnoticeslPN.aSj 

### consecutive issues in the following issues:

, or by contacting Brian Finneran at (503) '22' 627B, tol/-free In Oregon at 1-800-452-4011, at this address: DEQ Air Quality Division, 8' SW SixthAvenue, Portland, Oregon 97204. 

### DECEMBER 10, 2008

. Comments on the proposed rulemaklng may I submitted anytime at Ihe address above. I email atreglonalhaze@deq.state.or.us. byJax



# ------ Subscribed and sworn to before me on this, 12 day of (503) 229-5675 (attention Brian Finneran). or the public hearing. All comments must be I celved no later than 5:00 p.m.; January 1 2009. December 10, 200B 

### DECEMBER, 2008

# []¥gu~ OFFICIALSEAL TERRI BRIGGS NOTARY PUBUC·OREGON COMMISSION NO. 431621 MYCOMMISSION EXPIRESAUGUST 13.2012


### Notary Public of OregonPUBIJC HEARING ON PROPOSED:.c-I'

# da'v' -I

# t, 0'

# f

200B OREGON REGIONAL HAZE PLAN 

# I 

# Publication

The**Pep~nvlronmentaf** Quality , is proposing that the Environmental Quality Commission adopt the Oregon 2008 Region-' { al Haze Plan to reduce haze causing poilu- 

### :E OF OREGON SS Attachment 5.6, 

### pg. 1 tion In national parks and**WI'dern~** areas. ' , , ' This**~an** and assoclataillulemaklng IS,a rEI- 

### tty ofWasco vision to the State of Oregon Clean NT Act Implementation Plan under OAR 34(}200­ 0040,

. d I _

### k**DeLeon~** 

### beingfirst duly sworn, depose and saythat 

### I am the principal ThIs proposed plan was develope n re, 

### fTh D' 11 

### ehr

. 1 ' 

### f' l' l' bI' h d . sponse to the lederal Regional Haze Rules, ) 

### e a es omc e, a newspaper 0 

### genera crrcu atlOn, pu IS 

### e III**whichapplytol~nationalparksa~,wilder-** 

### River Oregon in the aforesaid state and county ofWasco' that I know from**n~** areas (called 'ClasS I areas) across " " .' '. • the country. Thera era 12 Class Iareas in, 

### rsonal knowledgethatthe Haze Plan, a pnnted copy ofwhich IS 

### hereto Oregon (11 wilderness araes, and Crater 

### ed was publishedinthe entire issue ofsaid newspaper once in each ofone Leks National Park). The federal ,rule re- '. • ' • • ' . quires each state to rnakeincremenlal 

### mtiveweeks ill

### the follOWlllg Issues: progress In raducilg air pollution In**the~e** 

### Iber 10 2008**~** areas CJIIer the next 60 years. Class Iareas ' , •**~** such as Crater Laks National Park often 

## ,A. t./. /**~** have Impaired visibility due to 'haziI·'that Is 

## ?k-**Y""~** transported hundreds 01 miles from cars, in- ' 7 dustry, outdoor burning, and fll!IIlY other, 

### ibed and swornto beforeme this 15th day of
sources. ' "

One 01 the most significant aciions 01 the • plan Is the establishment 01 tighter pollution ' OFFICIAL SEAL controls for the PGE Boardman coal-flred SHIRLEY RINGlBAUER power plant, In response to Iha federal re- NOTARY PUBLIC-OREGON .' qulramentfor BastAvailable RetrolltTechnol·' COMMJSSIONNO.424826 ogy (BART).The**Depertment:I~~~~** MYCOMMISSION EXPIRES JANUARY9, 2012 Ingfour other**BART-ellglblBf!!c~~~{~** ,**CSe$~;.SSi5S~S!iss~Sii~sSs~'** their emissions and chimge**thillrp~®iis**

### liC
ensure \hey will not cause a Slgnfficanrlffl'.: pacton vlslblUty in Oregon Class I**~iis.** Included with these rules for PGE BoaitIman Is an adjustment tO i\f18 SchedUle for"lnStalling mercury emission controls at Iha Boardman, , plant. In addition, the Department is pr0pos­ :. !

,**~.** ing to adopt recent revisions,made**~o** the ""!-." Oregon Smoks Management Plan by the ' " Oregon Department of Forestry, as part 01 the Oregon Regional Haze Plan. \ The Departrrillntwillhold apublic healing on January 13, 2000, at 6:00 p.m. at Colum­ bia Gorge Community College, If)clure Hall, BuMding Two, AoOin 2.384, at 400 

## E:,Scenic Drive, The Dalles, OreQon. "

...

CopIesollha proposedrule pacfl!!gecan be found on DEQ's rligional haze website at YIWW.deq.slate.or.uslaqlhaieJ, or on ,DEC's public notice websile at wNw,deq.slate.or.uslnewslpubiicnoticesIPf'l.a sp, or by contacting Brian FlI1Ileran at (503) 229-6278, toll-free In 

### oregon at 1-800-452­ 4011, oratthis address: DEQ Alr Quality OJ· lIIsIon, 811 SW SIxth Avenue, Portland, Oragon 97204. ' , Comments on the proposed rulernaldng may be submitted anytime at,the addrass above, by email at reglonalhaze@deq.stete.or.us, by fax at (503) 229-5675 (attention Brian Finneran), or at the public hearing. All commenls must be received no iaterthan 5:00 p.m., January 16, 2009. Dec. 10, 200B 13632

## Attachment 6


# Certification ofPublic Hearing

See paragraph #3 ofcoverletter and Attachment 7.1

## Attachment 7 

# Compilation ofPublic 

# Comments and Department's Response

7.1**Pre~iding** 

### Officer's Report for Rulemaking Hearings, dated January 26, 2009

7.2 Summary ofPublic Comments and Agency Responses, dated April 27, 2009Attachment 7.1, 

### pg. 1



### State ofOregon 

## Department ofEnvironmental Quality Memorandum

Date: January 26, 2009

To: Environmental Quality Commission

From: BrianFinneran, DEQ Air Quality Division
Subject: Presiding Officer's Report for Rulemaking Hearings

Title ofProposal: Adoption of2008 Oregon Regional Haze Plan and New Controls for PGE BoardmanPowerPlant
Hearing Dates and Time: January 6, 7, 8, 12, and 13,2009. 6:00 p.m. Hearing Locations: 

### 1. Portland OR, DEQ Headquarters 2. Springfield OR, Lane Regional AirPollution Authority 3. Medford OR, DEQ Regional Office 4. Hermiston OR, Conference Center 5. The Dalles OR, Columbia Gorge Community College

TheDepartment held five public hearings onthe proposed rulemaking at the locations noted above. The following is a summary ofeach ofthese hearings.



### 1. January 6, 2009, DEQ Headquarters, Room**EQC~A,** 

### 811 

### SW 6th 

### Ave, Portland. The hearing officer was Linda Hayes-Gorman from DEQ. Also present were Kenneth Williamson, Vice Chair ofthe Environmental Quality Commission (EQC), Commissioners Donalda Dodson and Jane O'Keeffe, andDEQ Director DickPedersen. Thehearing began at 6:07 p.m.

28 people signed the attendance list at the hearing. II people testified.

Linda Hayes-Gorman announced that she was serving as the hearing officer to this hearing. She introduced EQC Commissioner Ken Williamson who provided some introductory remarks. Ken informedthe audience that the EQC was very interested to hear comments onthisproposed rulemaking, and mentioned PGE submitted comments proposing "decisionpoints" oroptions for shutting downthe Boardmanplanin the future. He said that to ensure the public had the opportunity to comment onthe proposed rulemaking and PGE's proposal, the public comment period was extendedby two weeks until January 30th. Ken added that the EQC would not be making any decisions tonight,just listening to the testimony. Lindaintroduced Brian Finneran from DEQ, who gave a presentation summarizing the proposed rulemaking. A question and
answerperiod followed the presentation.

Lindathen announced at 6:47 p.m. she would like to begin the formal hearing onthe proposed rulemaking hearing. She informed people that the hearing would be recorded and that testimony

### Attachment 7.1, 

### pg. 2



### would become part ofthe public record for the rulemaking. Linda explained herrole was to take testimony onbehalfofthe 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 orderthey turned in the form. She stated that written comments would be given the same weight as oral comments.
Linda reminded the audience that the deadline date for receipt ofwritten comments onthe proposed rules is Friday, January 30th

, 

### 2009, at 5 p.m. She statedthat after reviewing the comments, the department may considerrevisions to the proposed rules. She added that the department's final recommendation for rule adoption will be made at the EQC meeting scheduled for April 23-24,2009, in Portland Oregon, and that the EQC can use its own discretion in deciding whether to adopt all, part or none ofthe proposed rules, postpone adoption, orhold additional public hearings.

• Summary ofOral Testimony:

Eleven persons turned in witness registration forms, and testified in the following order. 

### Arya Behbehani-Divers, Portland Gas and Electric (PGE) Company Arya stated that pending climate change legislation poses many uncertainties for PGE. She gave some background information onthe PGE Boardmanpowerplant, and how it fits into PGE
resource mix. She saidthe proposed "decision points"being recommended by PGE in their December 17,2009 comment letterrepresents a fine tuning ofDEQ proposed Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART) rules, and ensures environmental protection, as well as addressing the uncertainty ofupcoming climate change regulation. She said PGE agrees with DEQ proposed BART controls for nitrogen oxides (NOx), and controls for sulfur dioxide (S02), only ifthe plant operates beyond 2040. Ayra added that PGE has significant concerns about the additional NOx controls for the Reasonable Progress determination, as this is a major cost that achieves minimal visibility benefit. She said that PGE proposed decisionpoints for plant shutdown allow flexibility to achieve the best economic and environmental outcomes for its customers, meets the BART and Reasonable Progress regulatory requirements under the regional haze rule, and achieves visibility improvements as good or better than DEQ'sproposed controls. She said that cost ofDEQ Phase 1 S02 controls proposed controls and Phase 2 NOx controls under the two closure options of2020 and 2029 exceed the cost criteria for BART and Reasonable Progress requirements, respectively, and therefore these controls should not be required, as both would be too high to be considered cost-effective.



### Bob Elliott, Southwest Clean Air Agency

Bob stated that air quality studies have shown that PGE Boardmanplant emissions have a significant impact on the Columbia Gorge. He said his agency urges DEQ to deny PGE's request for a compliance schedule delay proposal. He pointed out that PGE agrees with DEQ's BARTproposal, and that EPA approval ofthe emission limits being proposed for Boardman should not be a problem. Bob described successful efforts back in 1998 to reduce emissions from the TransAlta Centralia powerplant in Washington, where similar S02 controls were installed within4 years. He said PGE' proposal would undermine efforts to develop a protectionAttachment 7.1, pg. 3



### strategy in the Gorge, and have adverse and unacceptable impacts until at least 2020. In supporting DEQproposed rules for PGE Boardman, he said his agency believes the compliance time period for installing controls should be shorter, and would be easy to do. Theproposed Phase 1NOx controls should be July of2011, instead of2012, and the proposed S02 controls should be July of2013, instead of2014.

Jan Groh, citizen

Jan stated she supports closing the PGE Boardmanplant as soon as possible, and that other technologies should be pursued for power generation. The costs for theproposed controls are very high, and because ofupcoming global warming regulations, she would rather see Boardman shutdownby no later than 2020, and pursue instead new and environmentally friendly energy sources, such as solar and wind, and energy efficiency. Jan said we should move away from coal energy and that we have the technology to pursue these other sources. She also said she is opposed to importing liquefied natural gas, and that ifthe Boardman plant remains open, she supports using blue-green algae technologies to sequester carbon emissions.

David Rupar, citizen

David stated he supports ending reliance on coal as an energy source, and that the $471 million for controls for Boardman would 

### be better spent on clean energy and energy efficiency. He said this would go a long way in solving our air quality problems. He said ifthe only choice was between the $471 million to keep Boardman in operation, or the PGE proposal, his choice would be the PGEproposal, as this would allow PGE to invest in the cleaner "green" technologies. He stated that as a rate payer he would rather pay cleaner air and shutdown the Boardman plant as soon as possible.

Michael Lang, Friends ofthe Columbia Gorge

Michael noted that his organization has about 5,000 members, and PGE Boardman is the largest stationary source ofairpollution that affects the Columbia Gorge National Scenic Area. He said that even though the Gorge is not a Class I area, it is required under the Scenic Area Act to be protected. Michael noted that his organization supports the protection ofClass I areas as well. He said that DEQ has been participating in a strategy to protect air quality in the Gorge, and it is clear that PGE Boardman is a major contributor. Michael said that DEQ has done a goodjob in proposing controls for PGE Boardman as a first step, but it does not go far enough. He supports
new low NOx burners by 2011which should be able to lower emission rates by 66%, and that the timeline for installing S02 and NOx controls should be accelerated. He said the proposed control technologies should be able to reduce S02 and NOx combined by over 90%. He added that 2011, not 2012, should be enough time for PGE to decide whether to shut down the plant. He said DEQ should require installation ofmercury controls by 2012, and not extend by two years, as proposed by DEQ.Attachment 7.1, pg. 4



### Alan T. Edwards, citizen, PGE customer
Alan stated that he has 30 years experience as a licensed engineer. He submitted some supporting materials from a trade magazine on boiler technology on alternative viable retrofit technology, called the "cloud chamber scrubber", He said this multi-pollutant control technology has been shownto be very successful and cost-effective in removing particulate matter and soluble gases, using charged water droplets.



### Gordon Fulks PhD, citizen

Gordon stated that he agrees with PGEthat they should be not required to install expensive controls that couldbe scrapped inthe near future, but disagrees that global wanning is a real problem. He questioned DEQ's use ofthe "deciview" measurementto show visibility improvements, as it is ona logarithmic scale, which compared to a linear scale, exaggerates the amount ofimprovement. He said that is 

### it good to look at reducing man-made burning, such as field and slash burning, given that this burning takes place closer to Class I areas. He also supports better forest managementplans to reduce the impact offorest fires. Gordon said DEQ should not pick on PGE Boardmanjustbecause they are an easy target, and that the contribution offorest fires and other factors need to be looked at, such as population growth, car emissions, and future powerneeds. He said he would like to see how the estimated emission reduction from DEQ's proposed Boardmancontrols would translate into visibility improvement in deciview, and how must this would improve the total visibility in all Class I areas. He said coal plants are important to our future, and that alternative power sources are not enough. He supports all reasonable pollution controls, but strongly opposes forcing PGE to install any controls that will not have a reasonable life span to recoup the investment. 

### Aubrey Baldwin, Pacific Environmental Advocacy Center(PEAC) Aubrey stated that she plans to submit additional detailed written comments during the public comment period in addition to tonight's testimony. She said that it was 1977 when Congress identified visibility protection as important, 1999 since the federal regional haze rule was adopted, and a year since DEQ was to submit a regional haze plan for Oregon. She said now DEQ is proposing a rule that would give PGE another ten years to make visibility improvements. Aubrey said this adds up to 40 years since Congress first addressed visibility in 1977 to make any real improvements in visibility. She said that her coalition has a lawsuit against PGE for violations ofthe Clean Air Act, and that PGE Boardmanplant has operated uncontrolled since 1980. She stated that her coalition does not disagree with DEQ'stechnical determination of controls for Boardman, but does have serious concerns about the timeline and actual emission limitations being proposed. The timeline is much too long. The proposed control technology should be able to reduce total emissions by 90% at least. DEQ's emission limits for NOx and S02 are too lenient. She said othercoal plants can achieve 90% S02emissionreduction, and that SCR controls for NOx is shouldbe able 

### to achieve 93%reduction. Aubrey said her coalition supports July 2011 decision point for PGE to decide onplant shutdown, and for deciding on whetherto install both S02 controls and SCR controls. She said 2020 should be latest shutdown date, and does not supportthe proposed 2 year extension for mercury controls. She said PGE is
now at a crossroads to pour money in old, inefficient technologies, orprovide leadership and embrace new technologies and take an environmental leadership role.Attachment 7.1, pg. 5



### Andrew Hawley, Northwest Environmental Defense Center

Andrew stated that there should be no more delay, and DEQ should move quickly to finalize the Regional Haze Rule which is already a year overdue. He said adoption ofclear and enforceable timelines and specific emission limits are needed which will result in actual emission reductions and improvement to airquality. He stated that coal-burning plants are the nations' largest
sources ofairpollution and global warming, and PGE Boardmanis no exception. He said impacts onvisibility and public health go hand in hand. Andrew pointed out the PGE Boardman plant is the largest stationary emission source for S02 and NOx in Oregon. He said the plant contributes to acid rain and smog, and that carbon monoxide and mercury also poses threatto public health. Andrew said it is time for DEQ to move forward and take action to impose the required control technologies to protect the public and the environment by adopting BARTand the regional haze regulations.



### Tom Wood, Associated Oregon Industries

Tom said that he is the chair ofthe Energy and Environment Committee ofAOI and it is in that capacitythat he is offering testimony. He said that while DEQ did a goodjob onthe BART determination, he questions the stringency ofthe Phase 2 controls being proposed for Reasonable Progress purposes. He said the PGE's decision points proposal is a creative approach that recognizes the current regulatory uncertainty we are in related to burning fossil fuels, and is a good wayto bring in flexibility to the process, in orderto make informed decisions and what makes sense for Oregon. He said he was confused by Bob Elliott's suggestion that PGE is requesting is an extension, when it is really two different BART options, each standing ontheir
own merit. Tom said that PGE's presentation showedthat the aggregate emissions associated with the different closure options, and DEQ proposed controls, are essentially the same. He added that he thinks itwill take a longertime than 2 or 3 years to know what carbon regulations will require and cost. He concluded by saying EQC should adopt DEQ proposed rules with PGE'sproposed decision points included.



### Brian Pasko, Sierra Club

Brian stated that the PGE Boardmanplant has operated for decades without any modern controls, causing adverse impacts on the Gorge and wilderness areas, affecting tourism, the economy, and public health. He said the Boardman plant is also the largest stationary source ofgreenhouse gas emissions in Oregon, andthatthe outcome ofthis regional haze rulemaking will have a substantial impact on Oregon's efforts to continue to lead in reducing the impacts ofglobal warming, byinvesting in energy efficiency and renewable energy, and phasing out use ofcoal. He said the Sierra Club supports giving PGE regulatory flexibility options to make informed decisions on whether it wouldbe more prudent close the plant ahead ofschedule orto invest millions ofdollars in controls that will not reduce global warming. Brian said PGE proposed shutdown dates would result in high emissions to continue for too long before closing. He said that global warming must be addressed now, and that it makes economic and environmental
sense to shut down the PGE Boardmanplant in a shortertimeframe, and that PGE should make this decision by July 1, 2011.

There was no othertestimony provided. The hearing was adjourned at 8:07 p.m.

### Attachment 7.1, pg. 6

2. January 7, 2009, Lane Regional AirPollution Authority, LRAPA MeetingRoom, 1010 Main Street, Springfield. The hearing officer was Brian Finneran from DEQ. The hearing began at 6:10 p.m.
5people attended the hearing. 1person testified.

Brian Finneran announced he would like to start by providing a presentation summarizing the proposed rulemaking. A briefquestion and answerperiod followed the presentation.

Brianbegan the formal hearing on the proposed rulemaking hearing at 6:36 p.m. He stated that the hearing was being recorded and testimony would become part ofthe public record for the rulemaking. He explained his role was to take testimony onbehalfofthe 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 inthe form. Brian stated that written comments would be giventhe same weight as oral comments.
Brian mentioned that the deadline date for receipt ofwritten comments onthe proposed rules is Friday, January 30th

, 

### 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 April 23-24, 2009, in Portland Oregon, and that the EQC can use its owndiscretion in deciding whetherto adopt all, part ornone ofthe proposedrules, postpone adoption, or hold additional public hearings.

• Summary ofOral Testimony:

One person turned in a witness registration form.
Ray Hendricks from Portland Gas and Electric (PGE) Company Ray provided highlights ofthe December 17,2009 comment letter submitted to DEQ. He gave some background information on the POE Boardman powerplant, and howit fits into POE
resource mix. He mentioned that this coal plant is about a halfto two-third cheaper to operate than a natural gas plant. He described Integrated Resource Planning process that goes to the Oregon Public Utilities Commission (PUC), and how this is different than DEQ'srulemaking process. He stated that pending climate change legislation poses many uncertainties for POE. He said POE agrees with DEQ proposed BARTcontrols for nitrogen oxides (NOx), and controls for sulfur dioxide (S02), only ifthe life operates beyond 2040. Ray added that POE has significant concerns aboutthe additional NOx controls for the Reasonable Progress determination, as this is a major cost that achieves minimal visibility benefit. He said POE is only recommending minor changes to the proposed controls requirements. He pointed outthat each ofPOE alternatives to DEQ'sproposed rules meets the BART and Reasonable Progress regulatory requirements underthe regional haze rule, and that with the proposed closure options, the controls proposed by DEQ exceedthe cost-effectiveness range. He explained POE's decisions points proposal in detail, including howthe future resource mix needs to have coal and natural gas as a mix. Ray added that POE'sproposal allows flexibility to achieve the bestAttachment 7.1, 

### pg. 7



### economic and environmental outcomes, and iflooking at aggregate emissions or visibility improvement, PGE's decision points proposal is as good orbetter than DEQ'sproposed controls.

There was no other testimony provided. The hearing was adjourned at 6:58 p.m.
3. January 8, 2009, DEQ Medford Office, Conference Room, Suite 201, 221 Stewart Avenue, Medford. The hearing officer was Tom Peterson from DEQ. Also present was EQC CommissionerJudy Uherbelau. The hearing began at 6: 15 p.m.
4 people attended the hearing. 1person testified.

Tom Peterson announced that Brian Finneranwould be providing a presentation summarizing the proposed rulemaking. A briefquestion and answerperiod followed the presentation.

Tom began the formal hearing on the proposed rulemaking hearing at 7:10 p.m. He stated that the hearing was being recorded and testimony would become part ofthe public record for the rulemaking. He explained his role was to take testimony on behalfofthe 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 orderthey turned in the form. Tom stated that written comments would be given the same weight as oral comments.

Tom mentionedthat the deadline date for receipt ofwritten comments on the proposed rules is Friday, January 30th

, 

### 2009, at 5 p.m. He stated that after reviewing the comments, the department may considerrevisions to the proposed rules. He added that the department's final recommendation for rule adoption will be made at the EQC meeting scheduled for April 23-24, 2009, in Portland Oregon, and that the EQC can use its own discretion in deciding whether to adopt all, part ornone ofthe proposedrules, postpone adoption, orhold additional public hearings.

• Summary ofOral Testimony:

One person turned in a witness registration form.

Ray Hendricks from Portland Gas and Electric (PGE) Company Ray provided highlights ofthe December 17, 2009 comment letter submitted to DEQ. He gave some background information on the PGE Boardman power plant, and how it fits into PGE
resource mix. He mentioned that this coal plant is about a halfto two-third cheaper to operate than a natural gas plant. He described Integrated Resource Planning process that goes to the Oregon Public Utilities Commission (PUC), and how this is different than DEQ'srulemaking process. He stated that pending climate change legislation poses many uncertainties for PGE. He said PGE agrees with DEQ proposed BART controls for nitrogen oxides (NOx), and controls for sulfur dioxide (S02), only ifthe life operates beyond 2040. Ray added that PGE has

### Attachment 7.1, 

### pg. 8



### significant concerns about the additiQnal NOx controls for the Reasonable Progress determination, as this is a major cost that achieves minimal visibility benefit. He said PGE is only recommending minor changes to the proposed controls requirements. He pointed out that each otPGE alternatives to DEQ's proposed rules meets the BART and Reasonable Progress regulatory requirements under the regional haze rule, and that with the proposed closure options, the controls proposed by DEQ exceed the cost-effectiveness range. He explained PGE's decisions points proposal in detail, including how the future resource mix needs to have coal and natural gas as a mix. Ray added that PGE's proposal allows flexibility to achieve the best economic and environmental outcomes, and iflooking at aggregate emissions or visibility improvement, PGE's decision points proposal is as good or better than DEQ'sproposed controls.



### 4. January 12,2009,Hermiston Conference Center, Rotary Altrusa Room, 415 S. Hwy 395, Hermiston. The hearing officer was Linda Hayes-Gorman from DEQ. The hearing began at 6:08 p.m.
28 people attended the hearing. 5 people testified.

Linda Hayes-Gorman announced that Brian Finneran would be providing a presentation summarizing the proposedrulemaking. A question and answer period followed the presentation.

Lindabegan the formal hearing on the proposed rulemaking hearing at 7:25 p.m. She stated that the hearing was being recorded and testimony would become part ofthe public record for the rulemaking. She explained his role was to take testimony on behalfofthe 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 inthe form. Linda stated that written comments would be given the same weight as oral comments.

Linda mentioned that the deadline date for receipt ofwritten comments on the proposed rules is Friday, January 30th

, 

### 2009, at 5 p.m. She stated that after reviewing the comments, the department may considerrevisions to the proposed rules. She added that the department's final recommendation for rule adoption will be made at the EQC meeting scheduled for April 23-24, 2009, in Portland Oregon, and that the EQC can use its owndiscretion in deciding whether to adopt all, part ornone ofthe proposed rules, postpone adoption, orhold additional public hearings.
• Summary ofOral Testimony:

Five persons turned in witness registration forms, and testified in the following order. 

### Ray Hendricks from Portland Gas and Electric (PGE) Company Ray provided highlights ofthe December 17,2009 comment letter submitted to DEQ. He gave some background information on the PGE Boardman power plant, and how 

### it fits into PGE
resource mix. He mentioned that this coal plant is about a halfto two-third cheaper to operate than a natural gas plant. He described Integrated Resource Planning process that goes to the Oregon Public Utilities Commission (PUC), andhow this is different than DEQ'srulemaking process. He stated that pending climate change legislation poses many uncertainties for PGE. He said PGE agrees with DEQ proposed BART controls for nitrogen oxides (NOx), and controls

### Attachment 7.1, pg. 

### 9



### for sulfur dioxide (S02), only ifthe life operates beyond 2040. Ray added that PGE has significant concerns about the additional NOx controls for the Reasonable Progress detennination, as this is a majorcost that achieves minimal visibility benefit. He said PGE is only recommending minorchanges to the proposed controls requirements. He pointed out that each ofPGE alternatives to DEQ's proposed rules meets the BART and Reasonable Progress regulatory requirements under the regional haze rule, and that with the proposed closure options, the controls proposed by DEQ exceed the cost-effectiveness range. He explained PGE's decisions pointsproposal in detail, including how the future resource mix needs to have coal and natural gas as a mix. Ray added that PGE'sproposal allows flexibility to achieve the best economic and environmental outcomes, and iflooking at aggregate emissions or visibility improvement, PGE's decision points proposal is as good or better than DEQ's proposed controls.

Tamra Mabbott, citizen



### Tamra stated that DEQ needs to conduct a more thorough analysis ofthe fiscal impact, particularly in Morrow County. She said she strongly disagreed with DEQ's Fiscal Impact Report in Appendix B, page 12, that there would be no direct fiscal or economic impact on any local government from this rulemaking, ifthe PGE planthad to shutdown prematurely. She said she was surprised to learn that the State ofOregon does not have an energy supply planand that this year the Oregon Department ofEnergy is requesting funding for such a plan. She said thatif DEQ is proposing rules that could lead to a premature shutdown ofthe PGE Boardman plant, she questions where would the replacementpower come from. Tarnra said this raises the question whether the proposed controls for PGE Boardman would provide a measureable improvement in visibility. She stated that ifEPAis requiring haze improvements by 2064, she is surprised at the haste in DEQ adopting these requirements now, and why the rules apply retroactively to sources, rather than looking atjustnew ones. She commented on the lack offull analysis ofland use impacts, especially for replacement power should the plant shutdown. She encouraged DEQ to look at otherprecedents on how state and local governments can work together to achieve compliance with federal environmental regulations in a more comprehensive and balanced
manner. Tamra added this is importantrulemaking decision that requires a very thoughtful and comprehensive analysis, which includes looking at the unavoided and unintended consequences, such as increasingthe rate base, the land use impacts,other environmental impacts, and the economic and social impacts.Attachment 7.1, 

### pg. 1 0



### Gary Neal, Port ofMorrow Gary stated that the Power ofMorrow recognizes the PGE Boardman plant is an important part ofthe local economy. He said the Port supports DEQ'sproposed BART controls for S02,NOx, and particulate matter for the Boardman plant, however, they share PGE's concerns about NOx SCR controls that go beyond the BARTrequirements. He said these additional controls for Reasonable Progress do not make economic or environmental sense when the visibility improvement would be so minor. Gary added that the Port supports amending DEQ'sproposed rules to reflect PGE's decisionpoints proposal, for the reasons PGE has provided. 

### TerryTallman,Morrow CountyJudge Terry stated that he supports much ofthe earlier testimony provided by Tamra and Gary. He said that he read that PGE has 814,000 rate payers and that the plant provides 250,000 homes in the Portland area with power, and ifthe plant had to shutdown, where wouldthe replacement power come from. He added that this could affect economic development and have other consequences, and that the plant provides 2100jobs. He agreed withTamra's comments about the importance for state and local government consultation. Terry added that a major concern is the potential impact onPGE's rate payers, similar to what has happened to the public with gas and fuel prices, and there is concerned about unexpected consequences.


### John Cox, Confederated Tribes ofthe Umatilla Indian Reservation

John statedthat tribal people are very close the land, and respect the natural resources, including visibility, air and waterquality. He said that tribal people have been on the land for a long time, may be more impacted by these decisions related to these rules for PGE Boardman, due to their traditional uses. John added that he will be providing some written comments by the end ofthe comment deadline.

There was no othertestimony provided. The hearing was adjourned at 8:15 p.m.


### S. January 13, 2009, Columbia Gorge Community College, Lecture Hall, BuildingTwo, Room 2.384, 400 E. Scenic Drive, TheDalles. The hearing officerwas Linda Hayes-Gorman from DEQ. The hearing began at 6:07 p.m.
46 people attended thehearing. 17 people testified.

Linda Hayes-Gorman announced that Brian Finneran would be providing a presentation summarizing the proposed rulemaking. A question and answer period followed the presentation.

Linda began the formal hearing onthe proposed rulemaking hearing at 7:20 p.m. She stated that the hearing was being recorded andtestimony would become part ofthe public record for the rulemaking. She explained his role was to take testimony onbehalfofthe 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 orderthey turned in the form. Linda stated that written comments would be given the same weight as oral comments.Attachment 7.1, pg. 11



### Linda mentioned that the deadline date for receipt ofwritten comments on the proposed rules is Friday, January 30th

, 

### 2009, at 5 p.m. She stated that after reviewing the comments, the department may considerrevisions to the proposed rules. She added that the department's final recommendation for rule adoption will be made at the EQC meeting scheduled for April 23-24, 2009, in Portland Oregon, and that the EQC can use its own discretion in deciding whether to adopt all, part ornone ofthe proposedrules, postpone adoption, or hold additional public hearings.

• Summary ofOral Testimony:

Seventeen persons turned in witness registration forms, and testified in the following order. 

### Ray Hendricks from Portland Gas and Electric (PGE) Company
Ray provided highlights oftheDecember 17,2009comment letter submitted to DEQ. He gave some background information on the PGE Boardmanpower plant, and howit fits into PGE
resource mix. He mentioned that this coal plant is about a halfto two-third cheaperto operate than a natural gas plant. He described Integrated Resource Planning process that goes to the Oregon Public Utilities Commission (PUC), and how this is different than DEQ'srulemaking process. He stated that pending climate change legislationposes many uncertainties for PGE. He said PGE agrees with DEQ proposed BARTcontrols for nitrogen oxides (NOx), and controls for sulfur dioxide (S02), only ifthe life operates beyond 2040. Ray added that PGE has significant concerns about the additional NOx controls for the Reasonable Progress determination, as this is a major cost that achieves minimal visibility benefit. He said PGE is only recorrimending minor changes to the proposed controls requirements. He pointed out that each ofPGE alternatives to DEQ'sproposed rules meets the BART and Reasonable Progress regulatory requirements under the regional haze rule, and that with the proposed closure options, the controls proposed by DEQ exceed the cost-effectiveness range. He explained PGE's decisions pointsproposal in detail, including howthe future resource mix needs to have coal and natural gas as a mix. Ray added that PGE's proposal allows flexibility to achieve the best economic and environmental outcomes, and iflooking at aggregate emissions or visibility improvement, PGE'sdecision points proposal is as good orbetter than DEQ's proposed controls. Ray Hendricks from Portland Gas and Electric (PGE) Company 

### Joseph Kelsey, citizen Joseph stated that the public health impacts from pollution from PGE Boardman should be specified, so that DEQ could show what benefits to health could be expected from the different levels ofcontrols being proposed for the PGE Boardman plant.Attachment 7.1, pg. 12



### Lauren Goldberg, Columbia Riverkeeper

Lauren stated the Columbia Riverkeeper is part ofa coalition ofenvironmental groups that has filed a federal lawsuit claiming PGE Boardman has been violating the lawby not meeting the Clean Air Act. She said she's concerned about the impact ofBoardman's S02 and NOx emissions on aquatic systems. She commented that PGE's demand for regulatory flexibility must not interfere with achieving DEQ'sregional haze and policy goals. She said DEQ should provide PGE with flexibility to cease emissions entirely instead ofspending hundreds ofmillions
on some pollutants, butPGE'sproposed timeline allows them to continue to pollute for too long. She indicatedunder no circumstances should PGE be allowed to emit more under their proposal than under DEQ's, or weaken DEQ'sproposed rules, which are already too lenient. Lauren said DEQ should give PGE until 20IIto decide whether install controls orcease operation by 2020. 

### Jurgen Hess, citizen Jurgen stated that DEQ is proposing rules that only partially clean up PGE Boardman's air pollution. He said that PGE is seeking more time, which shouldnot be granted. He said he mostly supported DEQ rules, but that they need to have shorter timelines and require the most stringent controls now. He said to set 2011 as the decision point to either close the plant or comply with new rules on an accelerated schedule, and require that carbon rules now be considered. Jurgen encouraged PGE to be visionary in looking at new resources and shut the plant now, as 2020 is too long. He added that DEQ should ensure a healthy and nurturing environment.



### Rachael Pecore, Columbia Riverkeeper

Rachael stated that acid rain has been impacting rock images in the Gorge, and that a study has shown inNovember, the worst month for haze, 50% ofthe haze canbe directly attributable to PGE Boardman. She encouraged DEQ to require that PGE Boardman comply with reasonable and technologically achievable limits. She added thatthe NOxcontrols required by DEQ in 201 1should be able to achieve a 66% reduction, and that 802 controls should achieve a 90% reduction in 2014. Rachael stated that that PGE's demand for regulatory flexibility should not interfere with achieving DEQ'sregional haze and policy goals.



### PeterCornelison, Hood RiverValley Residents Committee

Peter stated that his organization supportsmore stringent regulation ofPGE Boardman that what is being proposed. He read an Oregonian article which advocated plant shutdown, citing the fact that the plant emits 28,000 tons ofairpollution, which causes acid rain, and which also emits mercury, and thus poses significant healthrisks. He encouraged adopting DEQ rules with an accelerated timeline in order to protect and enhance air quality in the Gorge and Class I areas, and with more stringent controls, or require early shutdown ofthe plant.Attachment 7.2, pg. 1



## Summary of Public Comments and Agency Responses
Adoption of 2008 Oregon Regional Haze Plan and New Controls for PGE Boardman Power Plant

Attachment 7.1, pg. 13



### David Berger, Oregon Conservancy Foundation

David stated that PGE Boardman has been avoiding putting on controls for 30 years. He mentioned concerns about mercury emissions and acid rain. He that even with better controls on PGE Boardman, significant pollution will still be emitted, so the best solution is too shut the plant now and looking at renewable energy sources and increased conservation. He believes that "rate-based" conservation should be encouraged and supported. David believes wind generators and sources ofrenewable energy need to replace coal power.


### Dan Richardson, citizen

Dan stated that he supports DEQ proposed controls for the Boardman plant, but that the timelines
are too long, and the controls levels too lenient. He said the PGE Boardman has had 30 years of
no controls, and their decision points proposal should not be accepted by DEQ. He added that DEQ should include more controls ofnon-point sources such as open burning in its regional haze plan.



### Jodi Tepoel, Columbia Gorge Community College

Jodi stated that the money targeted for PGE Boardman controls would be better spent on solar panels and other alternatives. She pointed out that in the Columbia Gorge autism rates are high and she believes affected by PGE Boardman emissions, and that the health risks are important and should be considered along with this rulemaking.



### John Carstensen, Idaho Power Company

John stated that Idaho Power agrees with PGE'stestimony in supporting the BART controls being proposed, but not the Reasonable Progress controls. He also supports PGE's decision points proposal, given the uncertainty offuture carbon regulations. He said he encourages DEQ to continue to use common sense and sound economicjudgment in this rulemaking.



### Jules Burton, Columbia Gorge Community College

Jules stated that DEQ needs to describe both the benefits to visibility and public health in its rulemaking. She commented that DEQ regional haze rules focus on high mountain areas which
are sensitive areas with high biodiversity, which should be addressed along with the focus on visibility. She said that DEQ should be addressing the fact that PGE proposal for plant shutdown in 30 years is too long, and cited public health concerns.


### MarkNelson, citizenAttachment 7.2, pg. 2

Explanation of BART

# =Best Available Retrofit Technology acronyms used DEQ

# =Department of Environmental Quality in this document EPA

# =Environmental Protection Agency EQC 

# =Environmental Quality Commission LNB/MOFA

# =Low NOx Burnerwith Modified Overfire Air (control equipment) NOx

# =Nitrogen oxides PGE

# =Portland General Electric PM10

# =Particulate Matter under 10 microns in size S02

# =Sulfur dioxide SCR

# =Selective Catalytic Reduction (control equipment) SNCR

# =Selective Non-Catalytic Reduction (control equipment) SIP 

# =State Implementation Plan VOC 

# = Volatile Organic Compounds WRAP

# = Western Regional Air Partnership

I

I I

I I

I 

## I Table of Contents
Page
i Overview of Public Comment process 3 Overview ofthis Comment and Response Document 3

Howto Find Your Comments 4 Summary of Comments and DEQ Responses 6



### I. Comments on DEQ's Proposed Phase 1 BART and Phase 2 Reasonable Progress Controls for PGE Boardman 6


### II. Comments on PGE Proposed "Decision Points" option for PGE Boardman closure 19


### A General comments in Support of PGE's proposal 19
B. Support of an earlier "decision point" option for PGE 21
C. Comments opposed to PGE's proposed "decision points" 21
D. Other comments on PGE's proposal 23
III. Specific Comments on the Contents ofthe Oregon Regional Haze Plan. 24 i 

### A Chapter 5 - Basic Plan Elements 24
B. Chapter 8 - Emission Source Inventory 25
C. Chapter 9 - Source Apportionment 25
D. Chapter 10- BART Evaluation 26
E. Chapter 11

- Reasonable Progress Goal Demonstration 27 J F. Chapter 12

- Long-Term Strategy 28Attachment 7.2, pg. 3



### IV. Other Comments and Issues Raised during this proposed Rulemaking 30


### V. Miscellaneous Comments 34
List of People and Organizations Submitting Comments (by Commenter Number) 36

Overview of Public Comment process
DEQ presented this proposed rulemaking for public comment from December 1, 2008 until January 30, 2009. Comments were received via email, in writing and orally. DEQ received the following types of comments:

• 1134 emails • 61 written letters (by mail, at hearings, or attached to emails)
• 45 persons testified at the public hearings. (see DEQ's Hearing Officer's Report on Public Hearings, Attachment 

### C) Overall, DEQ received 1215 comments.

All comments received have been made part ofthe 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 ofthe full public comment record is available for the DEQ Headquarters, 811 SW6th Ave. Portland. Photocopies ofthe record are available for a fee. This summary is also available on the agency website: http://www.deq.state.or.us/aq/haze/.
Overview ofthis Comment and Response Document

Due to the extremely large number of comments, this document has been organized in the following format. Comments and DEQ responses are divided into five sections, as described below. Within each section, public comments and DEQ responses are grouped into issue categories. There are 56 issue categories in this document. 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 ofgrouping comments by issue category, most comments have been summarized or paraphrased.
The following describes the five sections in this document:

1. Comments directly or indirectly related to DEQ's proposed controls or any controls (more or less stringent) related specifically to the PGE Boardman coal-fired power plant.

2. Any comments in response to PGE's proposed "decision points" closure options (mostly listed as either "for" and "against" the proposal).

3. Specific comments on the contents (analysis, data, strategies, etc.) ofthe proposed Oregon Regional Haze Plan. These are listed by the chapter they appear in the Plan.

4. General comments and issues indirectly related to this rulemaking, and not falling into any of the above sections. In most cases these comments are beyond the scope of this rulemaking, but DEQ responses have been provided.Attachment 7.2, pg. 4

5. Miscellaneous comments, similar to section 4, but beyond the scope of this rulemaking with no DEQ response. These were included as general issues and concerns that are being included for the record.

How to 

### Find Your Comments

All comments in this document are followed by a numberthat represents the person or organization that provided the comment. DEQ made every effort to match the commenter to the comment.
The list of commenters begins on page 36. This list is divided into (1) written letters, sent by mail, provided at a hearing, or attached to an email; (2) verbal testimony only, provided at the public hearings; and (3) email comments only. 1 Finally, many of the email comments were provided via a form letter. For instance, one form letter represented over 1000 comments. As a result, identical form letter emails were given one reference number. There were three form letters, and the reference numbers are highlighted in bold to reflect more than one comment.) Attachment 1 to this document provides additional names ofthose who commented by form letter email.
General Guide to Comments

To assist in finding your comments, the following is a summary ofthe 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 ofthe comments, but not all.



### 1. Comments provided by EPA, National Park Service, 

### U. 

### S Fish 

### & Wildlife Service, 

### U. 

### S. Forest Service, andthe Southwest Clean AirAgency. These comments focused on the technical and cost aspects of DEQ's BART determination, citing reasons for slightly more stringent emission limits, including requiring Phase 2 SCR controls as BART in 2014. These comments were opposed to PGE's proposal for closure options. They also cited legal issues associated with PGE's proposal meeting all ofthe BART and Reasonable Progress requirements. 

### These comments can be found in Section 1, 

### categories 1-9, 

### Section 2, 

### categories 23-25, 28-29, 

### and Section 3, 

### categories 31, 33-34, 38-45.



### 2. Comments from PGE, Industry, Business and Utility related groups, and Morrow County government. These comments supported PGE' proposed closure options, and generally supported DEQ's Phase 1 controls, but opposed the Phase 2 SCR controls. They also commented on the overall cost ofthe proposed controls, and potential impacts on the economy. 

### These comments can be found in Section 1, 

### categories 7,10-13,15, Section 2, categories 19-20, and Section 

### 4, category 56.
3. Comments providedprimarily byenvironmentalgroups. Most ofthese comments focused on the stringency of the proposed controls for PGE Boardman, and the timetable for installation and compliance. They also focused on PGE Boardman'S visibility impacts in Class I areas and the Columbia Gorge, and on public health and the environment in general. Some cited specific technical and cost reasons for lower emission limits from the proposed controls, including requiring SCR controls as BART in 2014. Also cited was opposition to the proposed compliance date contingency extensions for Phase 1 NOx and Mercury controls, and

1 Those who submitted written letters with verbal testimony or attached to an email are listed under group 1, 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. 5

comments on an earlier decision point (2011) than 2012, and earlier shutdown dates, related to PGE's closure options proposal. These comments can be found in Section 1, categories 1-7, 10-12,14, Section 2, 

### categories 22-23, 28, 

### and Section 3, 

### categories 30,32,35-37, and Section 4, categories 46-51, 53-54.



### 4. Comments from the generalpublic. Most ofthese reflected the comments of the environmental groups described above. Some advocated immediately closing PGE Boardman. Many cited concerns about air quality and visibility impacts in the Columbia Gorge. A smaller segment of public comments supported PGE's proposal, reflecting those of the industry, business and utility-related groups described above. These comments can be found in Section 1, categories 3-7, 11, 13-18, 

### Section 2, 

### categories19-23, 26, 

### and Section 3, 

### categories 46-49, 52,54-55.


### 5. Comments from tribal nations. The Umatilla, Yakama, and Nez Perce tribal nations provided comments regarding PGE Boardman's emissions, PGE's proposed closure options, DEQ's proposed controls, and the impacts on air quality, visibility, the ecosystem, public health, and acid deposition, including impacts on cultural resources. These comments can be found in Section 1, 

### category 17, 

### Section 2, 

### categories 23, 29, 

### and Section 3, 

### categories 47,50.

6. Comments from forestry-related groups, state and federal agencies, and the Oregon Forest Industries Council. Most of these comments were directed at DEQ's planned evaluation of forestry burning under the Long-Term strategy, and regarded the terms ofthe criteria and methodology for conducting this evaluation. The comments urged coordination with appropriate forestry agencies, representatives and stakeholders in all steps ofthe evaluation, including the review offindings and any recommendations for additional smoke management controls. These comments can be found in Section 3, 

### category 41.Su Attachment 7.2, pg. 6



### SUMMARY OF COMMENTS AND DEQ RESPONSES

I. Comments on DEQ's Proposed Phase 1 BART and Phase 2 Reasonable Progress Controls for PGE Boardman 1. DEQ's Phase 1 NOx emission limits 

# I a) b) c) d) e) f)

Response

b)

c)

d)

e)

f) Many other coal plants similar to Boardman can achieve lower emission rates with the Low NOx burners being proposed by DEQ. (54) Lower NOx emission rates can be achieved with Ultra-Low NOx burners. (17)(54) Lower emission rates reaching 66% reductions (equal to a limit of 0.15 Ibs/mmBtu) are reasonable and achievable. (17)(19)(72) BART guidelines recommend only a 30-day rolling average for utility boilers, not an annual rOiling average. (50) The annual limit is not enforceable during the first year ofoperation (17) It is well documented that Low NOx Burners with Overfire Air (LNB/MOFA) cannot achieve the same level of emission reduction when installed on wall-fired dry bottom boilers as when they are installed on tangentially fired boilers (22) Add a zero to the BART limits for compliance enforcement purposes (47) arts DEQ's Phase 1 NOx limit determination. 22 The effectiveness oflow LNBlMOFA airis dependent upon the design ofthe boilerand the type ofcoal burned. The Foster-Wheelerboilerat the Boardman plant is 

### a wall-fired dry bottom boiler, buthas unique design features that willaffectthe performance oflow NOx burners. One significant difference between the boilerat the Boardman plant and other wall-fired drybottom boilers are the wing walls that are installedin the upper region ofthe furnace zone forheat transfer. These wing walls reduce the effective mixing zone ofthe gases that would otherwise be available in otherboilers. Since low NOx burners rely on staged combustion, reducing the mixing zone will reduce the effectiveness ofthe burnerand overfire airsystem. The Ultra-Low NOx burnercited in the comments was installed on a B&Wboiler (Unit 6 at the 

### w.A. Parish facility in Texas). B&Wboilers have a different internal design configuration than the Foster Wheelerboilerat the Boardman plant. DEQ did not find thata 66% reduction (ata limit of0.15 Ibs/mmBtu) was achievable. There are approximately230 wal/-fired drybottom boilers in the US, but DEQ could onlyidentifyone otherboiler that is comparable to the boilerat the Boardman plant and that has relativelynewlow NOx burners (Unit 

### 1 at the Gerald Gentleman Station in Nebraska). In 2008 the annualaverage NOx emissions were 0.223 Ib/mmBtu. Only32 ofthe 230 wall-fired drybottom boilers with low NOx burners had betteremission rates in 2008. The few that hadloweremissions rates have different designs orbum different types ofcoals than the boilerat the Boardman plant. Based on the performance ofUnit 1 at the GGS facility in Nebraska, DEQ believes that 

### a limit of0.23 Ib/mmBtu wouldbe difficult to meet with lowNOx burners on 

### a 30-day roiling average, butshould be achievable as an annualrolling average. The annual limit enforceable during the firstyearofoperation. Annual emissions will be monitored with a certified continuous emissions monitoring system (GEMS). GEMS are the most reliable compliance monitoring methodavailable. The Departmentagrees that drybottom wall-fired units with low NOx burners and overfire airwill notachieve the same emission rates as tangentially fired units with low NOx burners and overfire air. The presumptive BARTlimits proposedbyEPA are 0.23 andO. 15lb/mmBtu heat input fordry bottom wall-fired units and tangentiallyfired units; respectively. Actualemissions data shows a difference between the two types ofboiler designs, but there is considerable scatterin the data suggesting that the emission performance is notjust dependant on the general design category, butit is also dependent upon the specific design ofthe units within in the generalcategories, as discussedabove.Su Attachment 7.2, 

### pg. 7

2. DEQ's S02 emission limits

Response g) The Department does not agree to add

### a zero to the standards because the monitoring and testing methods are generally onlyprecise to two Significant digits. Establishing limits with 2 significant digits is consistent with most New Source Performance Standards promulgated by EPA. h) DEQ appreciates the support for the Phase I NOx limit.
a) DEQ is incorrect in saying that a wet scrubber S02 emission rate of 0.06 Ib/mmBtu is not achievable as annual average. (52) b) DEQ should require a wet scrubber. (54) c) In evaluating semi-dry scrubbers for Boardman, DEQ should have looked at the Rawhide plant in Colorado and Stanton #10 plant in North Dakota, which can achieve .05 -.08 Ib/mmBtu on an annual average. d) Regardless of whether wet ordry scrubbers are required, Boardman should be able to meet 0.07lb/mmBtu on a 30-day rolling average rather than the 0.12 Ib/mmBtu proposed by DEQ. (52) e} DEQ should have considered Eastern U.S. retrofits. (47) f} The S02 controls proposed by DEQ should be able to achieve over a 90% reduction, rather than 80% that DEQ cites. (17)(21}(54)(72) g) The S02 BART limit should be 0.03 Ib/mmBtu. (17) h) Add a zero to the BART limits for compliance enforcement purposes (47) arts DEQ's 802 BART limit determination. 22 The control effectiveness ofthe wet scrubber that DEQ used in its BARTanalysis was based on actual emissions representative ofthe bestperforming systems in the U.S, taking into consideration normal fluctuations in emissions. Forexample, unit BW22 at the Centralia Plantin WaShington hadan annual average emission rate of0.036 IblmmBtu in 2008. However, when the 30-day rolling averages are evaluated, the 95% confidence level is about O. 1 IblmmBtu. Some ofthe difference between the annual and short term emission rate may be due to start-up orshutdown emissions, but DEQ believes it is important to base the control effectiveness for the BARTanalysis on emission limits that can be achievedin practice. Based on the data, DEQ believes that

### a control effectiveness of

### O.07 IblmmBtu is appropriate. b) DEQ does notagree that

### a wetscrubbershouldbe required forBART. DEQ agrees thata wet scrubbercan achieve loweremission rates than a dry scrubber, but the two control technologies produce about the same visibilityprotection. DEQ usedan emission rate ofO.

### 07 IblmmBtu for the wetscrubberand 

### O. 12 IblmmBtu for the dry scrubberin the BARTanalysis. Even though 

### a wetscrubbercan achieve lower emission rates, the wetscrubberdoes notprovide more visibility improvement than 

### a dryscrubberbecause ofthe plume characteristics (e.g., wetplume with much lower temperatures) and the wetscrubberis $135 million dollars more than·a dryscrubber. Therefore, DEQ determined that BARTis 

### a dryscrubberratherthan 

### a wet scrubber. c) Stanton #10 in North Dakota is onlyabout 100 MW, and the Rawhide Unit 101 in Colorado is about280 MW, which are both much smaller than the Boardman plant at about 600 MW The controleffectiveness ofthe dry scrubber that DEQ usedin its BARTanalysis was based on the performance ofemission units similar to the boilerat the Boardman plant. Although the S02 controls are less sensitive to boilerdesign, the type ofcoal andthe size ofthe unit can have significanteffects on the control effectiveness. Analysis ofexisting dry scrubbersystems indicates that smallerelectric generating units generally are capable ofachieving loweremission rates than larger units probablybecause there is less stackgas to treat in the scrubber. In addition, when 

### a detailed analysis ofthe emissions data is conducted, the emission levels that can be achieved forcompliance purposes are higherthan the annualaverage emission rates recommended in the comments. In terms ofmeeting 0.07/blmmBtu on 

### a 30-day rolling average with either

### a wet ordry scrubber, DEQ's response in (b) above describes why

### a dryscrubber was selected. DEQ's responses in (c) and (e) describe why the 0.12 IblmmBtu emission rate was selected.Attachment 

### 7.2. pg. 

### 8
e) DEQ has considered Eastern U.S. retrofits. In the U.S., there are 51 coal-fired electric generating units with dryscrubbers. Ofthese, more than halfhad annualaverage emission rates greaterthan O. 12 IblmmBtu in 2008. Ofthe ones that had lower emission rates than 0.12 IblmmBtu, mostare much smallerunits than at the Boardman plant. f) DEQ does not believe that

### a 90% reduction in 

### S02 is achievable in practice due to the relatively lowsulfurcontent ofthe coalburnedat the Boardman plant. There is a point of diminishing returns when the addition ofmore lime will not continue to significantly reduce the 

### S02 emissions. This phenomenon has always been addressedin regulations dealing with systems that rely on reagents to controlpollutantemissions. Forexample, the New Source Performance Standard forelectric generating units hasa requirement to reduce 

### S02 emission by 90% ifthe emissions are greaterthan 0.6 IblmmBtu and 70% ifthe emissions are less than 0.6 IblmmBtu. g) As discussed above, DEQ believes that the appropriate emission limit for the dry scrubbercontrols is 0.12 IblmmBtu as a 3D-day rolling average. h) The Department does not agree to add

### a zero to the standards because the monitoring and testing methods are generallyonlyprecise to two significant digits. Establishing limits with 

### 2 significant digits is consistent with mostNew Source Performance Standards promulgated by EPA. i) DEQ appreciates the support for the 

### S02 BARTlimit. 

## I 3. DEQ's Phase 1 a) PGE should require Phase 1 NOx controls by July 1, 2011 and not be allowed a 

### ! NOx controls compliance extension to July 2014. (17) (49).(48) (51)

, extension**L~9m~r:!~I}g_.** 

### ________, ___________ Response a) DEQ hasproposeda provision forextending the BARTcompliance date forNOx to I

. 2014 because there is some uncertaintyas to whetherLNBlMOFA can achieve a limit of0.23IblmmBtu. Although notspecifically required by the regional haze rules, DEQ believes that it is important to atleast try to achieve the presumptive limits provided in EPA's guidance document fornational consistency. The BARTlimitproposed for2011 satisfies the intent ofthe guidelines for installing LNBlMOFA. However, due to the unique deSign ofthe Boardman boiler, it maynot be possible to meet the limit. DEQ couldonlyidentify one other unit in the United States thathas the same design as the Boardman boilerandalreadyhas newLNBlMOFA installed. In 2008, the NOx emissions from unit 1 at the Gerald Gentleman Station in Nebraska were 0.223 IblmmBtu as an annual average. Based on this data andaverage emissions from previousyears, DEQ believes that itispossible for the Boardman boilerto meetan annual limitof0.23 IblmmBtu with LNBIMOFA. However, ifit is notpossible, DEQ proposes an extension to 2014 to allow PGEto install

### a Selective Non-Catalytic Reduction (SNCR) system. Although SNCR is not recommended as BARTfor the various reasons provided in the BARTreport, it is a reasonable add-on fora limited amountoftime to meet the presumptive BARTlimits, again fornational consistency. The SNCR system will onlybe temporary because it will be replaced by the SCR system in 2017orit will be used in conjunction with the SCR system, but there won'tbe nearlyas much excess ammonia emissions once the SCR is installed. PGE won't know whether the new LNBIMOFA system will achieve the proposed limit until2012 because the limit is an annual limitand the equipment won't be installed until2011. If 

## I the limitcan'tbe met, DEQ's proposal allows 2 additionalyears for PGE to design, 

## I procure, andinstall the SNCRsystem, which is a relativelyaggressive schedule.

i 4. DEQ's 802 ! a) PGE should install the 802controls by July 1, 2013, rather than July 1,2014. 

## I installation • (51)(49)(48) 

# l

__**~~hedule** ___.

__. 

## ..1 b)

# ~i~~!;:~2f:~~~~~;'~~tfor the

# _~:~~~alia**coal_~:ant** in 1998

# w~re**~~~e** to be

________...._, Response a) Based on the complexity ofthe retrofitprojectas wellas the potential forcompetition 'Attachment 7.2, 

### pg. 9

'"-------"-·"----r---;;.;Iiii-otherBAFifrefrofii-projects**nationally,ijEQdoesnotiJeiie~e** thaiit

# is reasonable 

## I I b) 

## I I 

## I I 

## I to require the S02 controls be installed byJuly1, 2013. The Centralia Plant was required to install wet scrubbers as a result ofa Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT) determination and orderin 1997. According to the Acid Rain Program emissions data, the controls were installed in 2001 forone unit and2002 for the otherunit. DEQ believes the schedule for the Boardman Plant is consistent with the Centralia Plant; especiallyconsidering that the Boardman Plant will have competition with otherBARTprojects.

I 5. Accelerate the 

## I a) DEO should accelerate the timeline for installation of Phase 1 NOx and S02 controls. 

### ! installation timeline 

### i (4) (19)(21) 

### I (no date specified) 

## I Response : a) DEQ believes that the schedules forinstalling the BARTcontrols are reasonable and expeditious. The Phase 1 NOx controls are required to be installed within 2 years and the S02 controls are required to be installed within 5 years. The schedule takes into consideration the time necessary for engineering, procurement, andconstruction of the specific control technologies andcoordination with the normal maintenance outage that occurs each yearin the late spring. However, the schedule does not take into consideration final approvalofthe SIPby EPA. According to the regional haze rules, the BARTcontrols are to be installedno laterthan 

### 5 years from approvalof the SIP. Therefore, the proposedschedule is more stringent than required because the SIP approval willprobablynot occuruntil the beginning of2010 at the earliest. In establishing the schedule, DEQ also considered it unreasonable to expect PGE to commit resources to the retrofitprojects until theyare certain what requirements must be met. DEQ is sensitive to the fact that there will be numerous otherretrofitprojects occurring at the same time throughout the country, and these projects willbe in direct competition for the necessary equipmentandresources, which was not necessarily the case when retrofit controls were added to the Centralia coalplant.



### I 6. DEO's Phase 1 I NOx controls 

## i should include

SCR

. -:-'-Response-'-T-aTOEQagreesSCRcontro/s

# woui2iprovide-slgniflcantvisiiJi,iiy7mprovemen"is, buTdoes·----"-< notagree SCR should be BART, because its annual costs are about6 times more than LNBIMOFA, yetprovides about2 times more visibility improvement. It is also unlikely 

## I a) The addition of SCR to Phase 1 NOx controls would almost double the visibility 

### ! improvement at Mt. Hood, and by 25% for the 14% Class I areas impacted by PGE

t Boardman, as the S02 controls. SCR should be BART because PGE Boardman's singular and significant contribution to haze and impact on visibility. (17) (52) (54) Adding SCR to the Phase 1 NOx controls is more cost-effectiveness and provides more visibility improvementthan DEO's S02 BART controls, and therefore should be included as BART to Phase 1. (17)(47)(52)(53) I c) DEO overestimated the cost of SCR, and the costs of a combined LNB+MOFA+SCR I system. (52)(54) I ! d) DEO underestimated the reductions achievable by SCR. (17)(52) I e) DEO's estimate of emissions reductions from SCR controls should be 9,266 tons, not

! 8,647 as estimated by DEO (based on a 30-day rolling average). (17)(52)

f) SCR costs did not consider the savings due to potential improvements in thermal 

## i efficiency. (47) I g) SCR is only six times as much as LNB/MOFA, not eight times as stated in the BART Report. (47) SCR is almost as cost effective as SNCR, and SNCR is relied on as a contingency for BART. (47) One reason for not selecting SCR as BARTwas to allow time for the development of innovative controls. Innovative controls should be evaluated before they are installed. (47) 

## i ij) The Salt River consent decree concluded that SCR is a reasonable retrofit. (47) I

### Attachment 7.2, 

### pg. 10

that SCR couldbe installed within the 5-yearperiod allowedby the BARTrules due 

### to the significantboilermodifications that will be necessary for the retrofit. b) DEQ agrees that when compared

### to each other, SCR is more cost effective and provides more visibilityimprovement than the S02 dryscrubbercontrols. However, BARTmustbe evaluated for each pollutantseparately. Similarcosts are not

. necessarilyan indicator that two control options are equal. DEQ concluded that LNBlMOFA betterfits the concept ofBARTthan SCR, and that SCR is cost-effective forproviding additionalNOx control. This was not the case when comparing the dry scrubberto the wetscrubber, where visibilityimprovement was about the same, yet the cost for the wetscrubber was much higher. 

### c) In response 

### to the comment that DEQ overestimated the cost ofSCR, DEQ believes that the costs used in the analysis reflect real world costs ofcomplex retrofitprojects. DEQ's consultant Eastern Research Group (ERG) concluded that traditional tools (CUECost and EPA's Cost Manual) underestimate the costs for SCR, but that PGE's estimates are probably20% high. ERG's conclusion was based on an assessmentof retrofits projects thathave occurredprimarilyin the eastern U.S. and mayrepresent easierretrofitprojects, as companies were inclined

### to getas much emissions reduction as soon aspossible at the lowest cost. The retrofit at the Boardman plant is consideredto be complex because ofthe extensive modifications to the boiler that are necessary

### to reduce the temperature ofthe exhaustgases entering the SCR. In terms ofthe cost of

### a combinedsystem, DEQ believes itis appropriate to add the annual costs forLNB and SCR togetherto arrive 

### ata total cost for the entire package. The onlysavings as a result ofhaving the LNB in front ofthe SCR is the amount of reagent usedin the SCR system each yearand that is not

### a significantportion ofthe total annualizedcost. Assuming that onlyhalfas much reagent is required when LNB is installed ahead ofthe SCR, the annual cost ofthe SCR system with LNG would be $22.7million, versus $23.1 million without LNB. d) In terms ofthe reductions achievable bySCR, DEQ conducted

### a more extensive evaluation ofthe SCR control effectiveness. There are 190 coal-fired electric generating units with SCR controls in the U.S. In 2008, 17 ofthe 190 units had an annualaverage emission rate less than 0.07 Ib/mmBtu and only three ofthe 17 were dry bottom wall-fired units. The lowest emission rate for the drybottom wall fired units was 0.052Ib/mmBtu as an annual average. When evaluated on a 30-day rolling average, the 95% confidence level was 0.068Ib/mmBtu. Based on this data, DEQ believes that the control effectiveness (e.g., 0.07Ib/mmBtu) used in the BARTanalysis represents the bestcontrol/ed drybottom wall-fired unit in the U.

### S. e) DEQ's estimate ofemission reductions usedin the calculation ofcost effectiveness was based on the difference between the maximum hourly emission rate in Ib/mmBtu during the period of2003 and2005 and the control effectiveness/emission limit in Ib/mmBtuforthe control option. The maximum hourly emission rate during 2003 to 2005 was used to calculate "baseline" emission because it corresponds 

### to the hourly emissions used in the visibility impact analysiS. The annual emissions before and after controls were calculated using the highest 12-month heatinput during the 2003 to 2005 period, assuming that the unit will be operatedat the same levels in the future. For both the pre andpost control emission calculations, the annualemissions will be more than the actual emissions. DEQ took this approach because there is no way to know what the actual emissions will be in the future, except that the actualemissions should be less than the allowable emissions calculated using the control effectiveness/emission limit forthe control optiOn. Since the pre-controlled emissions are basedon the maximum hourlyemissions, itis more accurate to determine the emission reduction using the allowable emissions afterthe controls are added because the allowable emissions are more representative ofmaximum emissions, making this an apples-to-apples comparison. f) The exhaustgas going to the ESP has to remain about the same before and after the redesign ofthe lowereconomizer. As a result, itis anticipated that the increased thermal efficiencyof

### a largereconomizerprior

### to the SCR willbe offsetby

### a decreaseAttachment 7.2, pg. 11

in thermal efficiency due to coolercombustion airafter the SCR. More heat will be extracted from the hotgases in the economizer to get the temperature down to the desired level before the SCR but this means that the temperature ofthe gases will be coolerat the preheaterso that there will be less heat transferred to the combustion air. Balancing the temperatures is the primary reason for why the SCR retrofit is so difficult. g) DEQ agrees the capital cost ofSCR by itself($191 million) is about 6 times as much as the cost ofLNBlMOFA ($32.7 million), not 8 times as much as stated in the BART report. h) SNCR is considered BARTonlyas a contingency due to otherfactors besides cost and visibilityprotection. As 

### a result, DEQ didnot considerthe relative costs ofSNCR and SCR. However, there is 

### a substantial difference in costs. The capitalcost ofSNCR is $17.4 million dollars versus $191 million forSCR.

f i) BARTrepresents emission limits that can be achieved using control technologies that I meet the BARTcriteria. However, BARTdoes not require that

### a certain type ofcontrol be installed to meet the limits. Some othertype ofcontrolmaybe installed to satisfy the BARTrequirement ifthe alternative or innovative control technology can achieve

i

# I !j) the emission limit established for BART. The only test foracceptance is whetherthe control technologymeets the limit. DEQ does not believe that controls establishedas the result ofan enforcement action shouldbe considered BARTunless they meet the BARTcriteria. 

## I i 7. EPA SIP 

### I a) DEQ has set a deadline for installing S02 controls ofJuly 1, 2014, without knowing how
i approval and long EPA approval ofthe SIP will take, which may not give PGE Boardman the full 

### 5 

## i timeline for 

## I year-time period allowed under BART after EPA approval ofthe SIP. (22)(58)

. installation b) DEQ should add provisions to the rules specifying that if EPA does not approve DEQ's 

## I SIP, PGE does not have to install any of the proposed controls. (22) 

# I c) PGE should be allowed to have the full five-year time period after EPA approval of the 

## I SIP. (159)(164)(170) 

### I d) The timeline for installing Phase 2 NOx should be 8 years after approval. (22) I e) The timetable for PGE installing controls should start right after EQC approval ofthe ! rulemaking. and notstart after EPA approval of DEQ's SIP, which could take a year or 

# I more. (51)

I f) EPA's Regional Haze Rule requires BART be installed "as expeditiously as possible", but not more than 5 years. The dates set by DEQ for compliance with BART are not as expeditiously as possible. (17)

. g) DEQ should add provisions that it may extend the Phase 1 deadlines in the event there



### __.... _ .. ·······_.. _f_·····_<:lr.f?

..

### delay§.!:>E3.YQ.'l9.~Qs:~.c:9r:!!r9'-:.<?.?.} ...___ .. __ ...._._.................

_ .....................

__.....

_.... Response • a) UnderBART, the controls mustbe instal/ed "as expeditiouslyaspossible, butno later 

### i than five years". I b) DEQ has everyexpectation EPA willapprove the SIP and these rules. DEQ as 

### a

i matterof policy does not adoptrules with conditionalprovisions related to EPA approval. c) See DEQ's response to (a) above. d) DEQ expects EPA will approve this SIP in 

### a timely manner. Assuming this approval in early2010, the time/ine forinstalling Phase 2 NOx is about 7years. This was determined byDEQ to be reasonable timeline, given the need forengineering, procurement, andconstruction, as well as additional time to make boilermodifications to accommodate the retrofit. e) Underthe BARTrequirements, the timeline forinstalling controls does not officially start until EPA approval ofthe SIP. Forboth the Phase 1 NOx and S02 controls, DEQ has established

### a timeline (2011 for NOx, 2014 for**SO~** that is shorterthan the 5-year maximum period. f) As stated above, the timeline for installing BARTcontrols for PGE Boardman was determined byDEQ to be "as expeditiouslyas possible". g) Except for the compliance extension contingency for Phase 1 NOx controls, DEQ does notsupport adding otherprovisions thatcould extend the Phase 1 deadlines.Attachment 7.2, 

### pg. 12



### !-8. -Cost:effective-"-""ra)'-'OECishouTd""ha'vem'ore consi'stentiyuseci"the"EPA;s Cont"roiCost

## Ma-r;ual.' (52)

, metrics ' b) DEQ placed undue emphasis on incremental cost-effectiveness. (52) c) The cost effectiveness for 502 BART is $3.5 miliion/dV and the cost effectiveness for NOx SCR is $2.2 million/dV, therefore 5CR should also be BART. (52) d) The BART Report has errors in tables 15 and 16, which make it difficultto evaluate the cost effectiveness. (47) Response a) DEQ didrely on EPA's Control Cost Manualas a tool forestimating cost, but also researched "real world" costs aspart ofourevaluation ofcontrol costs. DEQ believes it is important to use the bestavailable information and to provide the best estimate of the true costs. b) Incremental cost-effectiveness is an important metric to considerforretrofitprojects to ensure that the additional cost ofcontrols isjustifiedby corresponding environmental improvement. c) DEQ does not believe that the intent ofthe BARTregulations was to compare the cost effectiveness ofcontrols forone pollutant to the cost effectiveness ofcontrols for anotherpollutant. In fact, the BARTguidelines specificallystate that BARTshouldbe evaluated on 

### a pollutantbypollutantbasis. The costs of controls will vary dramatically from pollutantto pollutant, depending on the degree ofdifficulty associated with reducing the pollutantemissions. d) DEQ apologizes for the errors in tables 

### 15 and 

### 16. However, the cost effectiveness andincremental costeffectiveness in terms of$lton in Table 

### 15

### are correct. The annualcosts shouldhave been 

### $3.7 million forLNBlMOFA, 

### $7.1 million for LNBIMOFAlSNCR, 

### $23.1 million for SCR, and

### $26.8 million forLNBIMOFAISCR. In table 

### 16, the baseline emissions were notincluded for 

### S02 and PM. The baselines 

### are 14,902 tons for

### S02 and

### 417 tons for PM. These errors were pointed out to DEQ early in the public notice period and

### a revised report was postedon the rulemaking web page. Notice ofthe revised report was provided to all interestedpersons at the time that DEQprovidednotice for extending the commentperiod. In addition, the spreadsheets supporting the data in the tables were providedon the rulemaking web page.

9. DEQ's evaluation a) SNCR controls can achieve more NOx reduction than estimated by DEQ. (52) ofSNCR b) Although SNCR controls raise a problem of unreacted ammonia emissions, the benefits of reducing NOx far outwejgh the drawbacks of ammonia slip. (52) I c) What role will DEQ play in the SNCR contingency decision? (47) ,Attachment 7.2, 

### pg. 13
Response 

### a) There 

### is no actual data demonstrating that Selective Non-Catalytic Reduction (SNCR) can perform betterthan 0.23Ib/mmBtu on 

### a dry bottom wall-fired boilerin the size range ofthe boilerat the Boardman plant. There are 87 coal-fired electric generating units with SNCR controls andmostofthem are combined with lowNOx burners and overfire air. Only eight ofthe 87 boilers are larger than 400 MW The largest dry bottom wall-fired unit is 541 MWand the annual average emission rate in 2008 was 0.28Ib/mmBtu. The next largest

### is 437 MWand the annualaverage emission rate in 2008 was 0.229 Ib/mmBtu. Based in this information, DEQ does not believe that SNCR can achieve more NOx reduction than used in its BARTanalysis. b) DEQ concluded that in general, LNBIMOFA controls can meet the proposed Phase 1 NOx emission limit. However, due to the design ofthe boilerat PGE Boardman, it is possible these controls maynot quite achieve the proposedlimit, which 

### is why SNCR was addedas a contingencymeasure to the proposed rules. The cost ofSNCR is considerablyhigherthan LNB/MOFA, and SNCR not onlyhas ammonia Slip drawbacks, butalso slag issues andstorage andhandling safetyconcerns, which are the reasons it was not recommended as BART. c) The contingency will be added to the Title Vpermitalong with a requirement that PGE submit

### a request forthe contingencyifthe limit cannotbe metafterinstalling the low NOx burners. The Department will evaluate the request and eitherapprove or disapprove the compliance extension. Under the authority ofthe Highest and Best Practicable Treatment and Control regulations in OAR 340, Division 226, the Title V permit will include requirements foroperating the LNBlOFA system as effectivelyas possible in the interim until the SNCR control is installed and operating.
[ 10. Startup, a) Although DEa's rules include provisions that the emission limits do not apply during 

### i Shutdown. and 

# i Malfunction periods of startup and shutdown. they should also include malfunction or upset conditions. (22) [ conditions b) Startup and shutdown exemptions should be removed, and a malfunction exemption should not be added. (17) Response a) DEQ does notbelieve that an exemption should be providedfor malfunctions because thatis exactly the type ofexcess emissions that shouldbe avoided with an adequate preventive maintenance program. In the event that there is 

### a malfunction that is unavoidable, DEQ's excess emissions rules allow for enforcementdiscretion, butit should notbe automatic foreach malfunction. b) DEQ believes that the BARTemission limits shouldnotapply during startups and shutdowns ifit is notpossible to operate the controls during these periods. The low NOx burners will notbe effective until the combustion process is stabilized and the S02 controls cannotbe operated until the exhaust temperature is atleastgreaterthan the moisture dewpoint to prevent clogging and/ordamage ofthe bag filters. DEQ's excess emissions rules require startup andshutdown plans to minimize emissions during these periods to the extentpracticable.


### ! 11. Phase 2 NOx 

## I controls comments 

# I only 

## I a)

II : b) SCR results in significant visibility improvement in the Class I areas impacted by PGE Boardman'S emissions. (47)(50)(53) SCR controls can achieve emissions rates lower than what DEQ has proposed.

. (17)(54) I c) DEa's Phase 2 controls for SCR are too stringent and go beyond regional haze I requirements (22)(24)(25)(27)(35)(62)(69)(76)
1 d) DEa's reasonable progress Phase 2 controls for SCR do not achieve a significant 

### ! 

## i e) visibility improvement for the cost involved. (22)(25)(27)(38)(57)(69)(108)(164)(170) DEa has singled-out PGE Boardman for a reasonable progress determination, rather than looking at the contribution of other sources around the state. (22)(24)(27)(57)(66) (159)(164)(170) 

### ! f) 

## I In considering the benefits of SCR controls, DEa is limited to only considering the visibility benefits, as the 5 BART criteria do not include the consideration of air quality I benefits. (22)(24)(25)(38)(57)



# ______..

_ ..........

__.....J

.....**gl_Q~g.~b9~1c:1.c:1~I~y_~c:19~tin.9** ...

### .Ebas~ ....

## ?

..**.r.~**

# ..**I~.§.~ntil.Jb ~._!!~~!**  ..

### §I.E~.~.~n1J!!~I:_IIJ~I_lJ~iI"l9Jhe.§~Attachment 7.2, pg. 14

controls now will likely delay EPA SIP review and approval process, which in turn could delay implementation of the Phase 1 BART. (22) h) The Boardman Plant should be subject to Reasonable Progress due to the significant im acts. 17 Response a) DEQ agrees that SCR will result in significant visibility improvements in most of Oregon's Class I areas. b) As discussed in comment 6, DEQ believes that the emission limitproposed for SCR is as stringentas possible, but still achievable by PGE Boardman. c) For the reasons described in this group ofDEQ responses, the Phase 2 controls do not go beyond regional haze requirements, in DEQ'sjudgment. d) DEQ's visibility modeling showed PGE Boardman to be one ofthe most significant single sources ofhaze pollution in Oregon, impacting 14 Class I areas in Oregon and Washington, with the highestimpact at the 

### Mt. Hood Class I Area, at about nine times the significant visibility impactlevel, and accounting for halfofthe Class I visibility impacts from the BARTsources that were modeled. The proposed Phase 1 NOx and S02 controls reduce the impact from PGE Boardman at the 14 Class Iareas by an average of52%. The addition ofPhase 2 SCR controls increases that reduction to 81%, and also reduces the average impact to below the significant visibility impact level. e) DEQ's proposed Phase 2 SCR controls are needed for reasonable progress purposes, willprovide significant visibility improvements, and are cost-effective and realistically achievable for PGE. Phase 1 NOx controls provide only

### a 46 percent reduction, while Phase 2 NOx controls using SCR provides 84 percent. This additional reduction will provide greater visibility improvement by the 2018 Milestone. Also, the magnitude and extent ofPGE Boardman's visibility impacts in the 14 Class I areas cited in d) above justifies requiring these controls at this time. f) DEQ is notproposing Phase 2 SCR controls for BART, but rather for reasonable progress purposes. SCR controls willprovide significant visibility benefits and help achieve the reasonable progress goals, and are consistent with the reasonable progress requirements underthe federal Regional Haze rule Moreover, the Phase 2 SCR controls willprovide additional improvements, such as reducing acid deposition, improving visibility in the Columbia Gorge, andgeneral benefits to airquality andpublic health, that the EQC may consider underits state authority. g) Prior to the next SIP submittal (plan update) in five years, DEQ will be evaluating other industrialsources besides PGE Boardman as part ofthe evaluation ofnon-BART sources in the Long-term Strategy for making reasonable progress. In terms of delaying SCR controls for PGE Boardman, as notedabove, DEQ's visibility modeling showed that PGEBoardman is one ofthe most significant single sources ofhaze pollution in Oregon. Requiring SCR controls now will result in significant visibility improvements, andis needed to make reasonable progress in meeting the 2018 Milestone. It will also provide regulatory certainty now, in terms ofbeing able to plan for these controls in the upcoming years. For these reasons, DEQ does notsupport delaying adoption ofPhase 2 controls. In terms ofEPA SIP review and approval, DEQ expects this process will be expedited, due to EPA's involvement andcoordination with DEQ in this rulemaking effort, andbased on EPA's comments during the public commentperiod that indicate general support ofthis rulemaking as proposed. h) DEQ agrees that the Boardman Plant shouldbe subject to Reasonable Progress due to the Significant impacts.

, a) DEQ's proposed rule has 0.12 Ib/mmBtu as the limit. This is a typo, and should be limits not BART 12. PM10 emission 0.012 Ib/mmBtu. (22) b) DEQ's proposed PM10 emission limits of 0.012 Ib/mmBtu is not BART. A limit of 0.010 Ib/mmBtu has been required for new coal plants and should be required for Boardman. (54) c) A continuous emissions monitoring system (CEMS) should be required for determining compliance with the PM limit. (17)(47)Attachment 

### 7.2, pg. 15
a) The proposed rule has a typo. The PM BARTlimit shouldbe 0.012 as specified in the BARTReport. The rule has been revised to reflect this change. b) 	 The proposed PM10 emission limits are based on DEQ's BARTevaluation, which involves retrofitting existing facilities. This is different than the BestAvailable Control Technology (BACT) requirements for

### a newsource. The limit for

### a retrofitproject under BARTshould be based on what is demonstrated in practice forsimilartypes ofcontrols and emission units. Also, limits fornewplants thatare identified under

### a BACT analysis are not always achievedin practice. The difference between the proposed limit of0.012 and 0.010 is notsignificant when considering the reference test methods forPM are generally onlyaccurate to plus orminus 20%. 

### c) DEQ does notagree that

### a continuous emissions monitoring system (CEMS) for measuringparticulate matteremissions is necessary to assure compliance with the BARTlimit. CEMS forparticulate matterare expensive and require extensive maintenance to ensure they remain accurate. DEQ does not believe that the extra cost of

### a CEMS is warranted forsystems that that rely on fabric filters formeeting the standards. Fabric filters are generally very reliable control devices. The Title Vpermit will include parametric monitoring to ensure that the control device is operating properly. In addition, periodic testing will be required to determine compliance. The testing will also be used to establish parameteroperating levels to be monitored to ensure that the control device is operatingproperlyon a continuous basis. Response

13. Cost of DEQ's 

## I a) DEQ's proposed rules may lead to closing ofthe plant which would have a serious proposed controls 

### I negative impact on the economy. (38)(60) (130) and economic 

### ! b) DEQ's proposed rules could affect economic development and impact the 2100jobs at impact I the Boardman plant. (69)
! c} DEQ's proposed rules would force PGE to raise rates and place an undue hardship on lour economy. (31 )(69) I d) PGE should not be required to install expensive controls that could be scrapped in the 

### i near future, where they might not be able to recoup their investment. (66) 

# i e) In these very difficult economic times DEQ should not be demanding utilities to absorb unnecessary costs, which ultimately have to be passed to the consumer. (95){108) f) Whether new controls are required for PGE Boardman, 

### or the plant is shut down, will have a Significant economic impact on low-income Oregonians. (29)(61) g) Cost effective power generating facilities here in the Pacific Northwest are extremely important to the economic well being ofthe area. (150) h) PGE Boardman plant is a Significant source of affordable electricity for Oregon, and the proposed rules puts PGE in a position of potentially implementing measures without significant environmental benefit and unnecessarily spending large sums of money.(95) i) DEQ should take steps to lessen the impact on electricity customers if the plant has to shutdown.(108) j) I am PGE customer and am willing to pay more in order to have clean air through comprehensive pollution controls at PGE Boardman.(88)(127) k) The people who want some other type of power or none at all have seen only one side of the issue. More power at less cost should be the approach. (93) I) Money targeted on controls for PGE Boardman would be better spent on solar panels

c_"","c.__'"_.,**.....--- jc_C".c?Q,~LQ.the!.alt~rna!!y.EE** **§.:** 

### ..

## {?9L.,

.. "c,_ .....•.••"**'~__c_."** 

### __....,._........""""

.. c"__

..

### ,'c.'c,

.............. c,_

__ '_

....____ Response 

# i. DEQ's fiscal and economic impactanalysis on the proposed controls for PGE Boardman determined the costs are cost-effective andrealisticallyachievable for PGE. DEQ's FiscalAdvisory Committee reviewed the cost estimates associated with the proposed controls and concluded they were reasonable. DEQ anticipates that PGE and otherowners ofthe Boardman plant will seekto pass along compliance costs to customers byincreasing electricityrates. Anyrate increase will be subjectto the approval ofthe Oregon Public Utility Commission. DEQ's analysiS concluded that the average rate increase for PGE customers would be approximately2.8 percent in 2014. and4.1 percentby2018. Between 2010 and2014. rate increases could range from 0.2 percentto 0.3percent. In terms ofthe economic impact on low-income Oregonians,

### Attachment 7.2,

### pg. 16

DEQ cannot quantify the significance of

### a rate increase of3-4 percent over 11 years. Anyassessment on the economic impact regarding 

### a possible future shutdown ofthis facility cannot be made byDEQ at this time, and would be 

### a decision made by PGE and the otherplant co-owners.


### I 14. Mercury

. controls compliance I extension 

### I contingency

i Response

15. Supporting documentation a) DEQ should not allow a 2-year extension beyond the 2012 compliance date for installing mercury controls. (17) (19) (20) (21) (48) (49)(96)(118)(168)

a) In 2006, DEQ adopted Mercuryrules that require PGE Boardman to reduce mercury emissions by90% in 2012. Included in that rulemaking was 

### a one-yearcompliance extension contingency, ifthere 

### were circumstances preventing compliance by2012. DEQ'sproposed S02 controls to 

### meet BART

### are required byJuly2014. Since the mercuryand S02 control technologies are integral to each other, DEQ is proposing to change the compliance extension contingencyto 

### 2 years, to align the installation of these controls. PGE is still required to comply with the mercurystandard by2012 using existing equipment, if possible. However, the activated carbon used forcontrolling mercuryemissions maycontaminate the fly ash collected in the ESP to the extent that the material could notbe used

### as a concrete additive and would have to be disposed in 

### a landfill. This rulemaking adds fly ash contamination 

### asa reason forgranting 

### a twoyearextension.
a) While the monthly cost increase to the average residential rate payer is relatively small, businesses are affected more and I didn't see those costs reflected in the cost analysis. b) DEQ's Land Use Evaluation Statement is inadequate and does not address the full ,

range of impacts to land use, state agency coordination requirements, nor does it address the impact on jobs and other economic consequences ifthis rulemaking causes the Boardman plant to shut down. (38)(60) c) DEQ did not provide the required Land Use Compatibility Statement (LUCS). (60) d) DEQ's fiscal and economic impact analysis should considerthe cost of new carbon dioxide rules and controls. These costs could force PGE to close the plant. (30)(40)(58)(59){60) e) DEQ's Fiscal Impact Report erroneously states that there would 

### be no direct fiscal or economic impacts on any local government. (38) (60) f) Does DEQ have legal authority to change the air permit for PGE Boardman, and adopt rules that specifically apply to one source - PGE Boardman? (60) g) Has DEQ considered the impacts to the Site Certificate originally issued to PGE Boardman by the Oregon Department of Energy? (38) h) There is multi-pollutant control technology available called the "cloud chamber scrubber" that could be a viable alternate retrofit technology for PGE Boardman.(65)
Response a) DEQ's Fiscal and Economic Impact Statement estimates that the proposed rules would nothave a direct economic impact on small business, but could have a significant indirect impact through increased electricity rates. Ifapproved by the PUC, DEQ estimates that rates could increase 0.3 percent in 2011, 2.9 to 3.4 percentby2014, and4.2 to 5 percentby201 B. These 

### rates increases could be less ifthe small business is chargedat the residential rate class, and would only affectsmall businesses thatare customers ofPGE and the othercompanies that own the Boardman plant. b) DEQ believes its Land Use Evaluation Statement appropriately addresses the impact on land use. The consequences ofwhetherthis action will cause PGE Boardman to shutdown cannotbe ascertainedatthis time. DEQ believes the proposed controls are realisticallyachievable and cost-effective for PGE Boardman. c) DEQ is notrequiredto provide a LUCS with this proposed rulemaking. DEQ has met all the legal requirements regarding land use impacts associated with this proposedAttachment 7.2, 

### pg. 17
rulemaking. The LUCS are required fornew sources when theysubmit their application for

### a permit. In some cases, the LUCS is required for

### a permit modification ofan existing source ifthe change will involve 

### a physical expansion on the propertyor proposed use ofadditionalland, orifthe change results in 

### a netsignificant emission rate increase as defined in DEQ rules. However, for this rulemaking, the LUCS is not required. d) DEQ's fiscal and economic impact analysis is not required to analyze the potential impact ofregulations (such as carbon rules) thathave notbeen adoptedyet. Any attemptto do so wouldbe speculation. e) DEQ believes the Fiscal Impact Reportis correct in stating no direct fiscal oreconomic impactis anticipated on localgovemment from the proposedrules. The Fiscal Impact Report did acknowledge the proposed rules could have an indirect impact on local government in terms ofincreased electricityrates, ifapprovedby the Oregon Public Utility Commission. DEQ cannot estimate at this time anyeconomic impact on local government ifPGE chose to close the plantin the future.

i f) The Environmental Quality Commission has the authority to adoptrules forspecific 

### ! sources when mandatedby the federalgovernment or when necessary toprotect the environment. Once 

### a rule is adopted for

### a specific source, itbecomes an applicable requirement under the Oregon Title V Operating Permitprogram and the permit must be revised to include the requirement in the permit. (ORS 468A.025(4) and (5) and OAR Chapter340, Division 218) DEQ would considercomments addressing impacts on the Site Certificate; especially if theypointedout an inconsistency. However, DEQ did notreceive anycomments pertaining to anyinconsistency with the Site Certificate. DEQ evaluatedall control technologies thathave been demonstratedin practice for coalplants similarto Boardman. Innovative controls, such as the "cloud chamber scrubber" were not consideredbecause theyare not available and applicable controls according to the BARTguidelines. Although innovative control technologies were not evaluated for BART, PGE may use anycontrol technology that will meet the BART limits to satisfy the BARTrequirements.

16. General 

## I a) PGE Boardman is the largest single source of haze-causing pollution in Oregon. The 

### ! comments in favor 

## I current proposal fails to adequately control air pollution from the plant, and should be

of more controls revised to better protect the Columbia River Gorge, human health and ecosystems. I 

## I (96)(103)(118)(156)(161)(168) 

## I b) DEQ should require the controls for Boardman to reduce air pollution by over 90%.
I (19)(21)(96)(104)(118)(156)(161)(168)(169) 

### ! c) DEQ should require substantial reductions in emissions. These reductions should be ' the greatest allowed by law. (113) I DEQ's proposed emission limits should be strengthened to reflect what the proposed ,d) control technology can achieve. (6)(72)(96)(97)(118)(132)(148)(155)(168) (169) 

### ! e) All available air pollution controls should be required for Boardman, regardless ofthe 

## I cost. (84)(99) I f) PGE Boardman should be shut down or have the most stringent controls installed now (5}(14)( 10)(92}(122)(135)(146) ! g) Require 5CR and 502 controls by 2011, then consider shutdown in 2016 to address

. ' climate change. (55) I i h) DEQ proposed rules should be required sooner and should be the most stringent 

## : --- ..-.----**"-1····--c;gQ!r.9~~HZ1t-"."** 

## __.._ .....

_ ...

_

....

_ ................-.._.

_____._..............

__._._..........

___......-............

__....

___..........

__....

__..

_ ...._.

__..

_ .., I Response 

# I'. DEQ conducted an exhaustive three-yearevaluation ofthe appropriate controls for this facility. The end result was 

### a suite ofemission controls forPGEBoardman which is

. both stringentandcost-effective, andcomplies with the regulatory requirements for BARTand Reasonable Progress. Overthe next eightyears these controls will reduce the plant's emissions byapproximately21,000 tons peryear, therebyreducing peak visibilityimpacts at all 14 Class I areas by an average of83 percent, improving visibility by the 2018 Milestone, reducing visibility degradation and acid deposition in theAttachment 7.2, 

### pg. 18

Columbia Gorge, andproviding general airqualityandpublic health benefits. Given the extent and magnitude ofPGE Boardman's current visibility impacts, and the requirements ofthe regional haze rule, DEQ believes the proposed controls represent the appropdate level ofstringency for this facility.

17. General comments in support a) DEQ's proposed rules for Boardman will not only improve visibility but also reduce air pollution impacts on tribal lands. (1 )(2)(3) b) PGE Boardman has been allowed to operate with bare minimum controls for 30+ years, and now should install controls as soon as possible. (3)(73)(74)(77) c) PGE Boardman has by far the greatest impact on Oregon's Class I areas and the Columbia Gorge, both on visibility but also tribal cultural resources in these areas. (2) d) PGE Boardman contributes significantly to the overall pollution load, in terms of acid rain, haze, ozone and greenhouse gases. (1) e) DEQ should adopt all the proposed controls for PGE Boardman. (2)(25)(115)(120) f) Strong' pollution controls are needed as soon as possible to protect the Columbia Gorge. (7)(11)(18)(147) g) DEQ should take action now to clean up PGE Boardman, and there should be no further delay in reducing its' emissions. (3}(11)(63)(78)(79}(84) (86)(94)(100)(106)(107)(125)(134}(138) h) The Boardman plant is the largest haze-producing source in the state and it's time for something to be done about it. (63)(88)(105) i) Oppose any modification of DEQ's proposed rules that would allow PGE additional time to reduce emissions. (12) j) Aggressive action must be taken to curb PGE Boardman emissions, not only of mercury, but also haze causing sulfur and other gasses and particulates. (127)(165)

. k) Please reduce the amount of pollution the PGE Boardman power plant is allowed to emit.(129) I) We may need the power, but surely we need to restrict emissions to new standards to help preserve our environment and the planet as we know it. (157) m) These pollution restrictions are completely reasonable and achievable. Their full implementation will produce a better and cleaner environment. (115) n) Support the proposed controls but believe the timelines for implementation should allow for EPA approval ofthe SIP before PGE has to spend any money related to costs of installing controls. (159)(170)
Response • DEQ agrees thatstrongpollution controls are needed for the PGE Boardman plant given the extent ofits visibility impacts, andas stated in #16 above, has recommended controls that will have significant environmentalbenefits.

18. General a} DEQ's proposed rules should not be adopted as currently presented. (38)(130) Comments in opposition

Response 

## I b} c) d)

a) The impact of these rules single out PGE Boardman at the expense of all the other contributing sources to haze. (38)(60)(116)(162) EPA's Regional Haze Rule is a 60-year rule, so why is DEQ accelerating the federal timeline by requiring controls by the 2018 Milestone? (38)(60) Is it possible to provide PGE with more flexibility and/or more options to address this regional haze issue?
DEQ disagrees, and has cited many reasons why these proposed rules should be adopted. b) DEQ's visibility modeling for PGE Boardman showed this powerplantto be one ofthe mostsignificantsingle sources ofhaze pollution in Oregon, impacting 14 Class I areas in Oregon and Washington, within 

### a 200 mile radius ofthe plant, and accounting for halfofthe Class I visibilityimpacts from the five BARTsources. Given the magnitude ofPGEBoardman impacts, the need foradditional visibilityimprovement for Reasonable Progress, and otherairqualitybenefits thatcouldbe achieved, theAttachment 7.2, 

### pg. 19

.

__.'. ""._ _............. . ...........**rl~..............** "'"

...., .........,

.......m_._
...._",

........__.........

_ ...**~** .....,,'

..........",,'

..

_ .... M

................ ••_m...
.........,'.m

....

_ .._"m

__••

__•

___•...•••••••

__•·•··

___**·_~_·** ...,.... proposedcontrols for PGE Boardman arejustified. It should be noted that the other four BARTsources thatshowedsignificant visibility impacts (although much less than PGE Boardman) have lowered theiremissions as well, by taking a federally i i enforceable permit limit. I c) Although the Regional Haze rule is over60years, the first regional haze plan has to demonstrate Reasonable Progress by the 2018 Milestone. : d) As stated in DEQ's response #16, the proposed controls for PGE Boardman were the result ofan exhaustive three-yearevaluation in which many options were considered. 

## I They represent DEQ's determination of the appropriate stringencyandcosteffectiveness, given the extentof the plants'regional haze impacts, and the needto meet the regulatory requirements for BARTand Reasonable Progress under the Regional Haze Rule.



### II. Comments on PGE Proposed "Decision Points" option for PGE Boardman closure 

## I A. General comments in Support of PGE's proposal. 

### i 19. Allows flexibility I a) PGE's proposal will allow needed flexibility in making critical decisions about i and sound decision-, upcoming regulations to address global warming. (22)(23)(24)(25)(26)(27)(28)(29)(32) 

## i making 

## I (33)(34)(35)(36) (37)(39)(40)(42)(41)(44)(56)(58)(59)(60)(61)(62) (69)(76)(85)(95)
! i (116) (117)(139)(164)(170)

, b) PGE's proposal will allow sound economic decisions to be 

## I made.(23)(24)(25)(26)(27)(28)(30)(32)(33)(35)(36)(37)(40)( 43)(44)(59)(62)(76)(164) i c) Allows for better planning and more time to find replacement power ifthe plant needs to be shut down. (28) (43)(58) 

## I d) Helps PGE in its planning process with the Public Utilities Commission. (22)(24)(26)(27)(28)(30)(35)(41)(42)(44)(58)(59)
i e) PGE's proposal will minimize rate impacts on PGE customers. I ! (23)(24)(26)(28)(30)(31)(34)(35)(40)(42)(56)(58)

i f) The decision pOints will lessen the impact on the economy by using the best 

### I information available before making a decision to shut down the plant (24)(29)(30)(31)(38)(40)(42)(43)(61) g) There is no risk to PGE's proposal, but considerable risk to customers ifthe DEQ plan is accepted. (40) h) I believe it would be in the best interests ofthe residents ofOregon for the DEQ to allow PGE to follow through with their proposal.(91) i) Approve PGE's timetable for deciding when to install the new emission control devices at the Boardman coal-fired power plant. (108) (119)(139) (150) j) Support PGE's proposal. Ifthe plant has to shut down by 2020, PGE should pursue cleaner energy choices like wind or solar. (146) Response • DEQ understands PGE's desire to have regulatory flexibility once future carbon regulations are adopted. However, trying to establish alterative closure dates by rule at this time can onlybe based on incomplete information andspeculation. As a regulatory matterDEQ has additional concerns, which are described belowin detail in DEQ response #20 a),
• The preferredapproach would be forPGE to submit

### a written request to DEQ for

### a rule change ata time when the full extentof carbon regulations is known, when costs and tradeoffs have been evaluated, and when 

### a decision has been made 

### on the future ofthe Boardman plant. At that time DEQ and the EQC can evaluate the options for modifying the emission control requirements in light of

### a plant closure. DEQ would also work with EPA and others to take action as needed to prevent unnecessary expenditures,
• In response to PGE's proposedclosure options, DEQ has revised the Oregon RegionalHaze Plan to addprovisions that would allow PGE to make a formal requestAttachment 

### 7.2, pg. 

### 20

20. Meets regulatory requirements

Response for

### a rule change to DEQ, ifPGE determines that the impact and cost ofcarbon regulations will require the closure ofthe PGE Boardman plant. These provisions can be found on pages 

### 155 and202 ofthe proposed Oregon Regional Haze Plan. This action could be included in the 2013 regional haze plan update. The decision byDEQ to consideranyrule changes would reflect the need to conduct this action in an expeditious manner, yet with the full involvement ofthe public, stakeholders, and the fiscal advisory committee process. An ideal time for PGE to presentsuch 

### a request would be aspart ofthe 2013 regional haze plan update; although PGE could make this request at any time the decision has been made to close the Boardman plant.
a) PGE's proposal meets the BART and Reasonable Progress regulatory requirements. (22)(24)(27)(28)(35)(62) b) Based on PGE's 2012 decision pOint, DEQ should adopt an alternative to the Phase 1 S02 BART controls, using PGE's proposed 2020 shutdown date as the basis for the remaining useful life of the plant. (22)(24)(164) c) Based on PGE's 2015 decision point, DEQ should adopt an alternative to the Phase 2 NOx controls, using PGE's proposed 2029 shutdown date as the basis for the remaining useful life of the plant. (22)(24)(164) d) Using PGE's 2020 shutdown date, only the Phase 1 NOx controls proposed by DEQ represent BART. No S02 controls should be required, as they are too expensive at $5, 167/ton of S02 controlled, which is not cost-effective for BART. (22) e) Using PGE's 2029 shutdown date, PGE would install DEQ's Phase 1 for NOx and S02, but no SCR controls (Phase 2), as they are too expensive at $7,312/ton of NOx removed, which is not cost-effective. (22) f) PGE's proposal does not increase emissions and has same environmental impact. The aggregate emissions with the 2020 shutdown = 232,453 tons, while for 2029 shutdown 

### =231,292 tons. Under DEQ's proposed Phase 1 & 2 controls, the aggregate emissions 

## =237,149 tons (assuming plant life of2040). PGE's proposal same or less than DEQ's rules. (22)(23)(24)(25)(26)(27)(30)(34)(36)(37)(41)(44) (58)(59)(61)(62) g) PGE's proposal meets BART and the environmental goals supported by ossible. 159 our state but also res ect the need to kee our econom as stron and local as a) DEQ disagrees that PGE's proposed closure options meets the BARTand Reasonable Progress requirements. DEQ agrees with the comments submitted by EPA and federal land managers that PGE's proposal lacks an evaluation ofalternate controls that mightbe cost-effective and feasible (and the visibility improvements that such controls mightprovide) priorto the proposed closure dates. EPA's BARTrules require that all control technologies be evaluated with specific emphasis on the expected visibilityimprovements. There is also 

### a requirement for fullpublic review and comment ofanyBARTdetermination. These factors were not fully addressed in PGE's proposal for the 2012 decision point. PGEalso concluded that no additional NOx controls (i.e. no SCR orothercontrols) were neededpriorto the 2029 closure date ifPGE made 

### a closure decision in 2015. This critically overlooks the need for visibility improvements prior to the 201 BMilestone. Timelyairqualityimprovements in Class I areas is 

### a key reason forDEQ proposing additional SCR controls. b) DEQ does not support the 2012 decision point. See DEQ's response in (a) above. c) DEQ does not support the 2015 decision point. See DEQ's response in (a) above. DEQ disagrees that the proposed S02 controls and Phase 

### 2 NOx controls are too I d) expensive. EPA has notdefined an upperlimit to the cost ofBART, and States can use discretion in determining the cost effectiveness forcontrols based on reasonable guidelines. Even assuming 

### a theoretical closure date of2020 or2029 and the associatedshorterremaining useful life ofthe pollution control equipment, DEQ would considercosts in the range of

### $5, 000 to $7,000 per ton to be cost-effective for the PGE Boardman facility, and well belowcontrol costs of$10,000 to $15,000Iton typical for BestAvailable Control Technology (BACT) required fornew orexpanding major industrial sources.Attachment 7.2, pg. 21
e) See DEQ's response in (d) above. f) DEQ disagrees that PGE's closure options provide the same environmental benefitas DEQ's proposed rules. Allowing the Boardman facility to continue operation for many years without additional controls will result in continued visibility degradation and acid deposition. It is true that closure ofthe plant would result in a significant totalreduction in airpollution (i.e., PGE's "aggregate emissions"comparison) overthe long run. However, this wouldcome at the expense of continued visibility degradation and increase risk to Class I areas in the near term. Allowing visibility degradation to continue to 2020 or2029 is notbeneficial to Class I areas, norto the Columbia Gorge Scenic Area. g) DEQ disagrees, based on the responses provided above.

, 21. Unwanted a) Once the decision is made to invest $470 million (total cost for all controls proposed

, Consequences by DEQ), Oregon will lose the option ofclosing the plant early (and eliminating both carbon and other pollutants) due to the investment made by PGE and need to recover that investment. (42)
J 

# i-**-"Response---i-a)"ijEQ~prOPOsedruies** for

# PGEBoardmim would"'noi'requffethe ,Uiiinvesimerli'allat·-----· 

# i i once, but ratherin three separate time periods (compliance dates of2011, 2014, and 

### i ! 2017). It is anticipated that anydecision PGEmakes to close the plant early will be I made conSidering numerous factors, including but not limitedto the overall 

## I investment.



### B. Support ofalternate "decision points" orclosure dates for PGE.

: 22. Support of a 

## I a) DEQ should consider whether it's more prudent to close the plant ahead of schedule 

## ! 2011 decision pOint 

## I or to invest hundreds of millions of dollars in pollution controls. (17) 

## I b) DEQ should give PGE until 2011 to decide, not 2012, as PGE will have all the information needed to make a decision on plant closure. (4)(17)(20)(21)(64)(71 )(96)( 118)(138)(168) 

## I c) With a 2011 decision pOint, closure of plant should be no later than 2020. (20)(21)(71)

, (98) 

### ! d) With a 2011 decision point, closure of plant should be no later than 2016. (17)(55) 

## I e) Closure ofthe plant should be 2018 at the latest. (131) 

## I f) Allow the coal plant to operate, as is, until 2015 providing PGE invests an additional 200 million dollars in wind or solar during that period oftime. (123) 

## I g) DEQ should give PGE until 2011 to decide whether to install the most expensive control equipment (Selective Catalytic Reduction system and a Semi-Dry Scrubber) or cease emissions from the plant entirely, no later than 2020.(109) Response • As stated above, DEQ does not support incorporating PGE's proposed closure options into the rules forseveral reasons. However. DEQ is proposing an alternative process in which DEQ couldrevise its rules ata future date ifPGE decides plant closure is necessary. See DEQ response #19. 

## I C. Comments opposed to PGE's proposed "decision points". ! 23. General 

### I a) PGE's proposed shutdown dates (2020 and 2029) allow PGE to continue to emit at too

1 comments 'high a level in the short-term, before closure. (17)(50)(53)(64)(71) 

# I b) PGE's proposal is a Significant change to DEQ's proposed Phase 1 and Phase 2 controls for Boardman, and the general public should be given additional time to review and comment (47)(53) 

### ! c) Both shutdown options allow continued impacts on the ecosystem and cultural

:",',1 d)

### rpeGsoE~rces in the I .Shortt-term, btebfore

### ~hutdthown occutrs

### (1)1(50f~(53) t . 'b'l'ty

. s proposa IS no accep a le given e curren leve 0 Impac on VISI I I ,air quality, and cultural resources. (2)(3)**~** e) Both shutdown options have impacts in neighboring states ofWashington and Idaho,**~_,.,** ______ :.--i'etthere has been no consultationwith these states, and how it will affect theirAttachment 7.2, pg. 22

regional haze plans. (53). f) PGE's proposal does not establish an enforceable mechanism to ensure plant closure, and runs the risk of continued facility operation at a level higherthan DEQ proposed controls. (50)(53) g) PGE's use of aggregate emissions to show the "benefits" oftheir early shutdown options is deceptive due to the higher emission that would occur in the short-term, before shutdown. (47) h) PGE's use of aggregate emissions combines all pollutants, however NOx emissions contribute more to haze than S02. (17) i) If DEQ were to allow PGE to operate beyond the S02 or Phase 2 NOx compliance dates without installing the planned controls, DEQ must demonstrate there would be equivalent visibility benefits. (17) j) Under no circumstances should PGE be allowed to emit more under their proposal than under DEQ's, or weaken DEQ's proposed rules. (71) k) PGE should have until December 2009 to decide to install controls or shut down the plant, and if the later, cease**emission~** by no later than 2012. (161 ) Response • DEQ agrees with the majority ofthe comments above. The closure dates would result in highershort-term emissions, which wouldhave 

### a greaterimpact on the ecosystem and cultural resources than DEQ's proposed rules. The use ofaggregate emissions does notaddress visibility impacts. PGE's proposal is 

### a significant change to the proposed rules, and would need furtherreview by the public, as well as byneighboring states, in terms ofhowit would affect theirregional haze plans. An enforceable mechanism to ensure plantclosure would be addressedbyan enforceable permit condition establishedin the source's airpermit. However, as notedabove, DEQ does notsupport PGE's proposal closure options.

24. The 2012 a) BART reductions and controls are required within 5 years of SIP approval, however Decision Point the PGE proposal allows the plant to operate beyond that time without such controls, and is inconsistent the BART regulations. (50)(53) b) This decision point changes the BART determination made by DEQ, yet there has been no full analysis of BART, nor any ability for the public to comment. This requires DEQ to redo the BART evaluation for Boardman, considering all 5 BART factors, and take back out for public comment. (47)(53). Response a) PGE's 2012 decision pointchanges DEQ's BARTevaluation, and represents an alternate BARTanalysis based on using 

### a shorterremaining life ofthe equipment associated with plantshutdown in 2020. DEQ's understanding ofthe federal BART rule is that it allows a facility to use a shorteruseful life ofthe equipment ifit obtains a federally enforceable permit condition in which it commits to 

### a specific shutdown date. WhetherPGE's proposal is inconsistent with BARTin terms ofgoing beyond the 5 years forinstalling BARTcontrols is not the issue here, but rather that PGE's proposal does not fully meet BARTfor the reasons statedabove in DEQ response #20 a). b) DEQ agrees PGE has notprovided

### a sufficient BARTanalysis reflecting the 2012 closure option, and the proposal does not fully meet BARTdue to the reasons stated in DEQ response #20 a).

25. The 2015 a) DEQ's Phase 2 SCR NOx controls help achieve Reasonable Progress. PGE's 2015 Decision Point decision point would allow shutdown in 2029, which is 12 years (2017-2029) without any emission reductions. (47)(50)(53) b) PGE's proposed shutdown option for 2029 would deny the opportunity to review Boardman emissions as part ofthe required 10-year plan review in 2018 and 2028. (53) c) If PGE chooses this decision point, they should be required to shutdown the facility as soon as possible after PGE makes the decision not to install SCR controls. (47) d) PGE states the cost-effectiveness of SCR is $7,300/ton if based on the years 2017­ 2029, however, if SCR is part ofthe Phase 'I NOx controls, it is only $3,709/ton. (47) e) The 2029 closure date is too long with no controls in place. (134)(140)Attachment 7.2, pg. 23

Response a) DEQ agrees with the comments that PGE's 2015 decision point does not meet Reasonable Progress requirements based on the reasons cited in DEQ response 20. This includes not evaluating otheremission controls that might be feasible prior to 2029. b) DEQ also agrees the 2029 shutdown option does notaddress the review of Reasonable Progress in plan reviews in 2018 and2028. 

### c) DEQ acknowledges that PGE'sproposed2029 closure date is 

### a long period oftime, and that

### a shortercloser date would be preferable. d) DEQ agrees the cost-effectiveness ofSCR wouldbe less ifmadepart ofthe Phase 1 controls. e) DEQ agrees controls are needed, based on the schedule it hasproposed.



### D. Other comments on PGE's proposal 26. Shut down now 

## I a) PGE Boardman is a huge source of air pollution that is a danger to human health and the environment and should be closed now. (14)(15) b) PGE should consider creating a plan nowto shut down the plant ASAP. (4) Response • The decision to shut down the plantis 

### a decision forPGE to make. This facility has

### a legalpermit to operate at its current emission levels. DEQ'sproposed controls for this facility will reduce its emissions by21,000 tons, which is expected to benefitpublic health. While the extent ofthe public health benefit cannot be quantified, the magnitude ofthe emission reduction is significant. As PGE has indicated, it may decide to shutdown the plant in the future based on eventual carbon regulations and otherconsiderations.

27. Option to shut down in 5 years Response a) a) PGE has the option to shutdown within 5 years of EPA approval ofthe SIP, and still be in compliance with BART. (47)(50)(53) It is clear thatshutting down PGE Boardman in the 

### 5 years period allowedunder BART would more than satisfy this requirement.

28. No offsetting of emissions
Response a)

a) If PGE chooses to shutdown, DEQ should make provisions in their rules that would not allow the emission reductions from shutdown to offset emissions from a new facility. (47)(50)(53) UnderDEQ's rules, an owneror operatorwhich voluntarily chooses to shutdown a process, activity, or equipmentat a source, may use the emission reductions to offset emissions from newor modified equipment at the source withoutbeing subjectto New Source Reviewprovided the netting basis is sufficient for the change. Ifthe shutdQwn is required by rule, the emission reductions would notbe available for offsets afterthe date ofthe required shutdown. (See definition of "netting basis" and "major modification"in Division 200 andthe rules forEmission Reduction Credits in Division 268).

29. PGE's proposal a) PGE's proposal adversely impacts the Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area for related to the an unacceptably long time (i.e., 2020). (51)(64) Columbia Gorge b) Further delays in reducing emissions allow continued impairment of haze and damage (see also #47) to ecosystems and cultural resources in the Gorge. (50)(53) c) PGE's proposal is counter-productive to the 7-year work effort by Southwest Clear Air Agency, the USFS and DEQ to improve visibility in the Gorge. (50)(51) d) PGE's proposal may negatively affect SWCAA and DEQ relationships with the four Tribal Nations that have treaty rights in the Gorge_

...L(5_1..L)

___________-----i Response a) DEQ agrees that PGE Boardman's emissions impactboth visibilityand airquality in the Columbia Gorge. b) The proposed controls underthis rulemaking will reduce totalplant emissions by 81%, and result in visibility improvements in 14 Class I areas in Oregon and Washington currently impacted by PGE Boardman. Although the Columbia Gorge is not

### a federal

### Attachment 7.2, 

### pg. 24

Class I area, DEQ did conductan analysis ofthis area. Itshowed that the proposed controls, when fully installed by2017, will reduce PGE Boardman's visibility impacts by 78%, andprovide significant reductions in acid deposition. c) Under PGE's proposal, the short-term emissions priorto the proposed2020 and2028 closure dates would be higherthan DEQ's proposed controls. DEQ agrees this would be counter-productive to efforts overrecentyears to improve visibility in the Gorge. d) As stated in this document, DEQ does not support PGE's proposal.



### III. Specific Comments on the Contents ofthe Oregon Regional Haze 

### Plan.

A. Chapter 5 - Basic Plan Elements. 

## I 30. Natural ,a) DEQ estimate of "natural conditions" in 2064 is based on reliance on EPA guidance, ' 

### L

..9.2.rr9..i!I9!'! in

..

### ?_06,t.L._._.~.!:lJ.P-,~g...9.Q~~.QPJ.~~pl~iElJ:!.gw it

### appl.i~Q_.t~~tg u

### ida!!.9~.or estimated

### t~J;;m value. (1

## Z1.

___ .m._. Response a) DEQ did rely on EPA's 2003 "Guidance for Estimate Natural Visibility Conditions underthe Regional Haze Rule"for obtaining values representative ofnatural conditions for the 20% worst and20% bestdays. DEQ agrees with the comment that a State can "refine" these estimates based on its own analysis ofnatural conditions for the Class Iareas within its borders. DEQ chose notto consideranyrefinement to these estimates forseveral reasons: (1) DEQ believes EPA's estimates are SCientificallysoundandgenerallyaccurate, given the limitations in estimating "premanmade impairment" visibility conditions, (2) DEQ acknowledges it does not have the technical expertise to conductsuch an analysis; (3) re-evaluating EPA's estimates ofnatural conditions would be 

### a majorscientific studY,(4) for the first regional haze plan, using the EPA "default values"is acceptable to DEQ, and(5) as regional haze plan updates are made over the next60 years, it's likely newscience and estimation techniques maylead to revisions ofthese estimates ofnatural conditions.



### B. Chapter 8 - Emission Source Inventory.

31. EmiSSion a) The emission tables in this chapter do not reflect emission reductions from Oregon's tables BART process. (53) Response a) The emission tables in this chapterreflect the emissions information available at the time the Oregon Regional Haze Plan was being developed. Oregon, similarto other Western states, used the emissions inventory from the WRAP Technical Support System, which consisted ofPlan 02d emissions (200()"'2004 baseline) and PRP18a (2018 projection). PRP18a reflects emission estimates from national "on-the-books" regulations and the future year2018 projected emissions, andincluded estimated emission reductions for BART, but forelectricgenerating units (powerplants) only, and only

### S02 controls, no otherpollutant. The WRAP ispreparing

### a PRP18b emissions update, which will reflect BARTemission reductions across the West, including Oregon. DEQ will add this information aspart ofits 2013plan update, as wellas anyotherrelevant emission inventory adjustments. Itshouldbe noted that updating regional haze plan emission inventories will be a routine process as future plan updates are made.

32. Ammonia a) This chapter describes ammonia emissions and sources, but the plan does not include emissions any measures to control sources of ammonia. (17) Response a) DEQ cites in this chapterthatammonia emissions playa key role in the formation of haze. However, as stated on page 87, estimates ofammonia emissions have a high degree ofuncertainty, andas a result not much is known on the extentammonia sources currentlycontribute to regional haze in Oregon. DEQ has been studyingAttachment 7.2, pg. 25

ammonia emissions from animal feeding operations through the Oregon Dairy Task Force, which maylead to possible Best Management Practices (BMPs) to reduce these emissions. Improvements and refinements to ammonia emission inventories are expected in the future. The nextregional haze progress report in 2013 willprovide an update on efforts to improve ammonia emission inventories andammonia source contributions to regional haze.

i 

### C. Chapter 9 - Source Apportionment. l 33. Biogenic 

## i a) Include a discussion ofthe contribution of secondary biogenic emissions to organic 

## I emissions i carbon, based on WRAP TSS organic tracer modeling results. (5:...;.0-'-)

_______---< Response 

## i a) DEQ agrees biogenic emissions contribute to regional haze, and that adding this 

## i information to the plan would be useful in showing the extent ofthe contribution of naturalsources (biogenics and wildfire) to high organic carbon levels in the summer months. However, DEQ had to make certain decisions on what information could reasonablybe included in this plan, andplacedgreaterpriority on addressing manmade (anthropogenic) sources, which are "controllable", instead ofnaturalsources, which are mostly uncontrollable. Future updates to the regional haze plan willattempt to add this information to the plan.

I 34. PSAT VS. WEP a) Sulfate and nitrate contributions to haze are summarized using PM Source 

## I techniques ,ApportionmentTechnology (PSAT) tool. DEQ should include Weighted Emissions 

# l-.---.--",

..

# -.-----t---- Pote"r!!i

..

### ?l~!;..El!~~,_,as**~eIL.** (53)_"_

...._,.._",,,.,,

______.....

_ .......,

___.

____.

__.......

___.

___""_."

..."

..

__...

__"".

__..

____

### ."._,_~ 

## I Response 

### I a) DEQ believes PSA Tis a bettertool than WEP foridentifying the contribution of

i sulfates and nitrates to Oregon Class I areas, because (1) PSATaccounts for atmospheric chemistryanddeposition, while WEP does not, (2) PSATis betterat identifying the regional contribution ofsources from outside the WRAP region, and (3) PSA Tis the bettertool foridentifying anthropogenic sources. The results from the WEP analysis were usedprimarily to identify the pollutants more commonly associated with non-anthropogenic (natural) sources. Appendix B ofthe plan does include some WEP information forsulfates andnitrates in the form ofmaps which show the location and transport ofeach pollutantandits potential contribution to the 20% worst days at each Class Iarea.



### D. Chapter 10

- BART 

### Evaluation ! 35. BART process a) DEQ's process for determining BART sources was under protective, by not making all BART-eligible sources subject to a BART evaluation. (17)
Response a) EPA's BARTrules were adopted to address oldersources that came into operation priorto 1977 when New Source Review (NSR) rules were adopted. The BARTrules and EPA guidance identify

### a 3-step process forevaluating these oldersources: (1) determining BART-eligibility; (2) modeling Class I area visibilityimpacts; and (3) conducting 

### a BARTcontrol evaluation forsources with 

### a "significant"impact. Legally, it is correct that States have the option to skip step 

### 2 and make 

### a finding that

### all BART-eligible sources should be evaluated forBART However, DEQ believes that prior

### to evaluating BARTcontrols for

### a source, 

### itis important to first determine the extentofthe visibility impact in any Class I area. This approach is nearlyidentical with NSR rules that require similar visibility impact modeling. While it is correct DEQ had the choice to subjectall BART-eligible sources to 

### a BARTevaluation, we decided not to pursue this option. This "3-step"approach to BARTis consistent with actions taken byotherStates across the countryfor evaluating BARTsources.

1 36. BART Modeling a) The BART modeling protocol that was developed by DEQ for modeling BART sources

;**~** was done without public involvement. (17) b) DEQ's choice ofthe metric for modeling visibility impacts from BART sources was under protective.**(17~)'--** ________________________

### Attachment 7.2, 

### pg. 26

...m

..........- ..**m--·-----rC)DEQ;s···shoul;:rnoi··hiiveused··the~;98tiipercentije;;in·its;BART-modeiingior-·-···m** ..
:

.. :.':: d) doeEteQr,mining sfothurces

### «~Ubjec2t4tohBART"t· (17 1 )

.. "t d I' d t t s use 0 e maximum

- our ac ua emiSSions In I Smo e Ing un ers a es potential haze impacts. DEQ should have modeled the sources at the permitted level, taking into account periods ofstartup, shutdown, and malfunction. (17}

__...,.....,..--,--.

___ Response i a) DEQ useda BARTModeling Protocol that was developedjointly by Oregon, Idaho and Washington, including Federal Land Managers (National Park Service and U. S. Forest Service), and EPA Region 10, based on EPA Guidelines for BART Determinations underthe Regional Haze Rule (Appendix Y). The development of technicalprotocol is normallynot

### a publicprocess. The opportunity forcomment on the technical aspects ofDEQ's work (in this case, dispersion modeling) is when the i 

## I b) results ofthat work is made available to the public forreview. DEQ chose 0.5 dvas the metric for the "significance level", consistent with EPA's BARTmodeling guidance. This decision was based on several factors: (1) it equates to the 5% extinction threshold fornew sources underNSR rules, (2) is consistent with the threshold selectedbyotherStates across the country, (3) it represents the limit of perceptible change, and (4) there was no clearrationale or justification forselecting a lowerlevel. 

### I c) The use ofthe 98th percentile follows EPA's recommended approach formodeling BARTsources. The 98th percentile is a frequently used cutoffin modeling where there are measurementlimitations, andcertain model assumptions and uncertainties involved. d) Use ofthe maximum 24-houractual emissions, similar to the 9S h percentile, was based on the above BARTModeling Protocol

.

. 37. BART-eligibility 

## i a) OEQ excluded Oregon Steel Mills from the BART-eligible list as a "reconstructed source", without indicating ifthe source was subject to New Source Review. (17) : ; b) OEQ excluded the SFPP Eugene Gasoline Bulk Terminal from the BART-eligible list

_ ;._ ••• ••••••

__ •••••••

_ ••• m ••••

# I_

...**~"-~~.tbQIJ.9bJ!.I!1~!.~lt~ppli~!?.!e c.~!~iL~.:J1?L__**  

## __.

___..

_ ...

__.......

_ .........._.

__.......................

___1 Response 

### i a) Oregon Steel Mills met the definition of

### a "reconstructed source" underEPA's

. guidelines foridentifying BART-eligible sources (40 CFR 51.308, Appendix Y, II, How to Identify BART-Eligible Sources). The guidance defines reconstruction as when "the fixed capitalcost ofthe new component exceeds 50percent ofthe fixed capital cost of a comparable entirelynewsource," In the case ofOregon Steel Mills, the emission unit thatwas being reviewed for BART-eligibility went through a reconstruction as defined above. However, this reconstruction resulted in 

### a net decrease in emissions, and did notrepresent

### a majormodification, which would have triggered New Source Review (NSR). The specific emission unit is also currentlyshut down. It shouldbe noted the definition of

### a reconstructed source does not cite NSR as a prerequisite in meeting this definition fordetermining BART-eligibility. This is in contrast to the definition of

### a "modification" in the nextsection of Appendix Y, which does cite NSR in 

## l

:'i b'I m

# ~kintg .tthiS

# d~fiter":,inattiOtn. th t"

.. ·t

# ~ h' h t t' I ln ,ac , I spec/lca/,ysa es a anyemisSions um ,orw IC recons ruc Ion 

## i commencedafterAugust 7, 1977, is not BART-eligible. " This is in contrast to the definition of

### a "modification" in the nextsection ofAppendix Y, which does reference New Source Reviewas a factorin defining this term. 

## I c) EPA's guidelines foridentifying BART-eligible sources allow VOC sources to be excluded from BARTdue to the difficultyto model VOC emissions. The SFPP terminal meets the BARTcriteria for only VOC. Ratherthan chOOSing to immediately exclude the source, DEQ applied

### a screening model that treated 50% ofthe VOC emissions as being greaterthan six carbon atoms and equivalent to organic carbon (OC) for visibility modelingpurposes. Results ofthe conservative modeling analysis showed visibility impact well underthe significant visibilityimpact level ofO.5 deciview.

i 

### E. Chapter 11
- Reasonable Progress Goal Demonstration.Attachment 7.2, 

### pg. 27**~ ~** **~ ~** **~.** ...,.....,"_'"

.. ······················"".h·_···_·······_···_

.... __......,,_"**~_._._** .........

____.......... __ .................

__._...**~.**__.

__."

......... ................___ .....,,_ .............,...............

___. __ ,..... """""'

....**~,,,"** .....,, ......................

_ ...__ ....., ..... 1 Analysis measures, yet DEQ concluded it is not reasonable to require controls for these sources at this time. Please explain why. (50)(53) Response

. a) As noted on page 

### 161 of the plan, in conducting this four-factor analysiS, EPA guidance indicates that States have "considerable flexibility" in how these factors are taken into consideration, in terms of what sources orsource categories should be included in the analysis, and what additional control measures are reasonable. DEQ's analysisprovided useful information on possible control options and general costs, but was too preliminary to determine actual controls that would be reasonable at this time. 

### A more in-depth evaluation of non-BARTsources will take place aspartofthe LongTerm Strategyof the plan. The first step in this evaluation will be to develop guidance forconducting

### a comprehensive review of these sources. The 2013 plan update will contain 

### a report summarizing the developmentofthe guidance and its application to non-BARTsources, including estimates ofadditional emission reductions that may result from installation ofnewcontrols for these sources.

1 39. Redo years to a} Since the Reasonable Progress Goals (RPGs) in the plan do not meet the 2018

. reach Natural Milestone, DEQ is required to provide an assessment of how many years it would take 

## i Conditions to attain natural conditions. (50) I

, Response a) Under the regional haze rule the State may determine RPGs atgreater, lesseror equivalent visibility improvement than the uniform rate of progress to meet natural conditions in 2064. In cases where the RPG results in a slowerrate ofimprovement by 2018, the State mustdemonstrate why the uniform rate of progress "is not achievable", and then show how manyyears it would take to attain natural conditions. However, DEQ concludedit would be premature to assume that uniform rate of progress is notachievable, basedsolely on the initial estimates of progress in the first regional haze plan. New measures contained in the Long-Term Strategy mayproduce significant visibility improvements by2018, including the evaluations ofnon-BART sources and forestryprescribed burning. Furtheranalysis ofthe RPGs in this plan will be included as partofthe progress reporting required for the 2013 plan update.



### F. Chapter 12
- Long-Term Strategy.

40. Non-BART a} This evaluation should include looking at cumulative source impacts and modeling source evaluation from a grouping of industrial sources. (50}(53) b} The USFS would like to participate in the development ofthe gu idance for this

_____+-----=e:..:v.=a.:.::lu:.=a.::.:tio:.:n:..;..

...l.:(5:..:0:.LL

________________________--, Response

41. Prescribed Forestry Burning evaluation a) On page 200 ofthe plan, the listof factors to be considered in developing the guidance forevaluating non-BARTsources includes cumulative impacts (see #4). b) DEQ will be developing comprehensive guidance to conduct this evaluation, and intends to include the USFS and otherkey stakeholders.
a} The plan should acknowledge and include an assessment ofthe benefits or "tradeoff value" offorestry prescribed burning in reducing wildfires and their impacts on visibility. (45)(46}{50}(53) b) The methodology proposed to evaluate the contribution offorestry burning has some inherent biases and uncertainties that may result in artificial attribution tothis source. (45) c) The analysiS should look at year-round impacts rather than spring and fall months. (46) d) Should include an evaluation ofwildfire impacts, and compare to forestry burning impacts. (45)(46}(60) e} Need to involve Oregon Department of Forestry and interested forest landowner representatives in the discussions, evaluation, analysis design and conclusions of current conditions and possible policy changes. (45)(56) f} Initiate voluntary measures rather than mandatory, ifdeemed necessary upon1

i Attachment 7.2, 

### pg. 28
g) Page 193 states that the evaluation of prescribed burning will determine "if additional smoke managementtechniques "can be developed". This should say instead "may be required". (45) [h) The evaluation of prescribed burning should notjust be limited to this type of burning, but should consider all burning. (45)
: i) The evaluation of prescribed burning should include a meteorological analysis first.

1 (45) 

### i j) Page 203 refers to adopting "basic" smoke management techniques, if additional smoke protection is found to be needed. It does not make sense to add basic smoke [ management to an already "enhanced" program. (53) [k) DEQ should look at reducing man-made burning, such forestry and agricultural



## ._._._._._....

_ ..._.

__.

_________J

__**.~_l!':1]11}9_1~iJ:!1_I?!...ove Y..Lsibi!!!y...L~s**  this**burni'l9....2fg_~!...§.......clo~~** to**Clas~J...~r.:...~~~J§.~lE~L.** _______

## ._....J Response a) While there are clearlybenefits to visibility by the use of prescribed burning to minimize both the frequency and magnitude ofwildfire, those benefits could be very long-term, and extremely difficult to quantify. DEQ is not aware ofany way to estimate those benefits with anyreasonable accuracy from 

### a regional haze improvement standpoint. The process ofrestoring forest ecosystems through increased use of prescribed fire and other practices may take 50 to 100 years. In theory this will reduce wildfire emissions and improve visibility overthe long run. However, in the near term prescribed burning can have significant visibility impacts in Class I areas. Should any new information come forward that could be used to reasonably estimate visibility

i benefits from this tradeoff, DEQ would include this in future plan updates. 

## I

! b) The methodology described in the plan forconducting this evaluation is general methodology, andas such is consideredpreliminary. The development ofthe "final methodology" will occurin consultation with ODF, federal land managers, and other forest stakeholders. c) As noted in the plan, the reason for evaluatingprescribed burning impacts in the spring and fall months rather than year-round is due to monitoring data thatshows 

### a sizable contribution oforganic and elemental carbon (a strong indicatoroffire sources), and the fact that mostprescribed burning takes place during these two seasons. The need for this evaluation of prescribed burning is to determine ifadditionalsmoke managementprotection is needed for Class I areas. Including an evaluation ofwildfire impacts would notbe the best use ofavailable time and resources, as these are natural events notsubject to smoke managementcontrol. 

### It is DEQ's intention that the evaluation ofprescribed burning, including discussion, conclusions, andpolicychanges, will be conducted in coordination with ODF, federal land managers, and otherstakeholders. 

# If) One ofthe outcomes discussed in the plan is the possible identification ofadditional smoke managementmeasures to protect Class I areas. No decision has been made whether these would be voluntary ormandatorymeasures. DEQ agrees that the language on page 193 should be changed from "can be developed" to "maybe required", andhas made this revision. The focus on prescribed burning overothertypes ofburning is based on the fact that this is the largest man-made source ofvegetative burning in Oregon, and that there are indications it maybe 

### a significant contributorto Class I visibility impacts in the spring and fall. Since it is alreadysubject to 

### a statewide smoke management program, evaluating its contribution, and adopting additional controls iffound to be needed, is a logical step. The nexttwo sections ofthe plan describe how DEQ will be evaluating the contribution ofresidential open burning and rangeland burning. i) A meteorologicalanalysis will be conducted aspart ofthis evaluation. j) The reference on page 203 

### to "basic" smoke management techniques should not be confused with "enhanced" smoke managementprogram criteria, butinstead refers to the application ofthe basicprinciples ofsmoke management (wind direction and speed, mixing height, relative humidity, lighting techniques, etc.) when burning upwind ofan area you are trying to protect from smoke. As stated in the plan, the objectiveAttachment 7.2, pg. 29**f"-"'""""""'-""-~"""----"'''"-** ................**_~_._u·_~_** ...._.N

.........**_'''~'''''''''** ...._ .........._._...,..._"

..,,

___......._ ,......,........ "'><_••••••••

__••••••,_....,,, .......................... ___**.~._** .......

___••

___ .... , ..................._ ._w'm_

....'_'

.._._n""""'

__.»...

. .........._"",

......, ...

__...._.'nn' would be to "avoid burning that could cause 

### a prolonged smoke intrusion andheavy smoke concentrations, resulting in 

### a 20% worst day impact. " This is different from more advanced smoke management techniques, where the primary objective is to avoidcausing anysmoke from entering 

### a smoke protectedarea. DEQ is looking primarily at forestry, as stated above in (h), due to the large amountof this burning that currently takes place nearClass I areas. DEQ will also be evaluating the contribution of residential open burning and rangeland burning.


### i 42. Rangeland 

### ! a) The same evaluation of rangeland burning should be made as is being proposed for 

### ! burnin rescribed burning.**~~}** __________ ____________---' Response Section 12.6.4 on page 205 states that DEQ will conductan evaluation ofrangeland burning. This evaluation willbe different than the prescribed burning evaluation due to the reasons described in this section, related to the currentlack ofsmoke management regulation of this activityand uncertaintyas to the amountof this burning that is occurring. 

## i 43. Area sources 1 a)

. There is no mention in the long-term strategy of how the State intends to address area 

## I oforganic carbon

. sources of organic carbon, which is one ofthe largest contributors to haze, especially in the Oregon Cascades. (50) Response a) In general, fire emissions (both naturalandanthropogenic) are the largestsources of organic carbon affecting haze in Oregon. However, in the northern Cascades, area sources oforganic carbon are largercontributors to haze than fire. This is likely due to the influence ofthe Portland urban area. However, DEQ was unable to conduct an analysis ofthispriorto completing this plan. Moreover, DEQ was not aware ofany measures to addto the Long-Term Strategy that could significantlyreduce area source organic carbon. To the extentresidential woodstove burning in Portland may be the primarycontributorto organic carbon impacts, the Oregon RegionalHaze Plan in Section 12.5.1 describes howDEQ residential woodheating rules are an effective on-going measure in reducing particulate matter, and thus organic carbon as well.

j 44. Crustal material! a) Wind-blown dust is not only a natural source but also an anthropogenic source, and \ (Wind-blown dust) should be addressed under the long-term strategy. (50) Response a) DEQ agrees anthropogenic wind-blown dust is a significantsource. DEQ does describe in Section 12.5.2 ongoing measures and rules currently in place in Oregon to mitigate dustimpacts from construction activities. /n terms ofnewmeasures to address this source, DEQ was unable to identify anynewmeasures to addto the long-term strategy that could significantly reduce emissions from this source category. 

## i 45. Sulfates from \ a) Sulfates from area sources have been implicated as a significant source of haze and 

### !

....**C3!.t?.a.~Qur9~§** 

### ...............

__..**,...._~l1g'::'l<!p.~** 

### ..**~<!qr§§_s.~~f"I<!~r!.!:!~.1Q!!9::~~f!!!§.!E~~.t?.gy:~1~Q)_** 

### ...

_ ................

__**~._** 

### .._...

__.

___.._ ...., Response

. a) DEQ agrees that area sources ofsulfates are significant, and describes in Section 8.2.2 of the plan that off-shore marine shipping emissions maybe 

### a majorcontributor ofsulfates to haze in Oregon. Section 9.2.1 shows that PSATresults showpacific offshore area emissions are likely much greaterthan any otherarea source of sulfates. Forthis reason, Section 12.6.5 ofthe long-term strategy describes efforts DEQ will take to address this source.



### IV. Other Comments and Issues Raised during this proposed Rulemaking 

## I 46. Address more 

## i a) This rulemaking needs to be more comprehensive than regional haze. It should also \ than regional haze 

## I address public health, acid rain, and/or other environmental Impacts.



# , ....

_

...................

___._..................................J

__**1~1(?){~)(§}J(J91(1§K1§1(?'Q){?§)f!..n(~?K1.1§).(.1.§§t** 

### ..__ ..Attachment 7.2, pg. 30

............................ M... • •••••••••••••••, .................................... H

..........................

__•••••••••••••

__ ._.........................

__••••

___ ........................

__ .............. H

..... H

.................

___ ._..... _.

__•••

__ ........... _ ..... H·

.. ••••••• ••

_ •••••

_ ••••••

__ ._._...................... _ ...........................

__•••

___ ..............

__••

_ •••

__, Response 

## i a) DEQ recognizes these concerns. The primarypurpose ofthis rulemaking is to meet the requirements ofthe federal Regional Haze Rule, related to improving visibility in Class I areas. As such, the regulatory scope ofthis rulemaking is narrow bydesign. DEQ's Air Quality Division conducts otherrulemakings directed atprotectingpublic health andmeeting the requirements ofthe Clean AirAct. However, it should be noted thatas a secondarybenefit ofthis rulemaking, DEQ expects that the reduction ofapproximately21,000 tons peryearfrom PGE Boardman will have public health benefits, and reduce acid deposition and otherenvironmental degradation.

: 47. Columbia a) This rulemaking should address visibility problems in the Columbia River Gorge 

### ! River Gorge National Scenic Area. (7)(8)(11 )(17)(19)(21 )(81 )(82)(87)(96)(118)( 147)(163)(168) b) PGE Boardman is the largest single polluter ofthe Columbia Gorge Scenic Area. (17) (19)(21 )(18)(50)(86)(87)(88)(98)(100)(101 )(161) c) Air pollution from this power plant significantly degrades the views in the Gorge that bring local residents and tourists to the area to enjoy its beauty.(80)(81 )(88) d) It is hard to believe that PGE Boardman, being more than 60 miles east ofthe east end ofthe Gorge, could have any effect on the haze in the Gorge. Increasing vehicular traffic, trains, and barges are more likely contributors. (102) e) Steps should be taken to reduce PGE Boardman impacts on tribal cultural resources in the Columbia River Gorge. (1 )(2)(3)(72)(88) f) As a resident ofthe Columbia River Gorge, visible haze within the Gorge is noticeable about 90% ofthe time. (146) Response 

## • As stated above, the primarypurpose ofthis proposed rulemaking is to meet the federal Regional Haze Rule, related to improving visibility in nationalparks and wilderness areas designatedas "Class I areas"by Congress in 1977. Oregon has 12 Class I areas. The Columbia River Gorge is not

### a designated Class I area. However, DEQ modeling analysis shows that the visibility benefits to Oregon's Class I areas will also benefit the Columbia River Gorge. The Mt. Hood Class IArea, which is 25 miles south ofthe Gorge, will see significant visibility benefits as a result ofthe controls for the PGE Boardman plantproposed under thisproposed rulemaking. These controls will reduce Boardman's emissions by21,000 tons peryear. This will not onlyprovided visibility benefits for the Gorge, but will reduce airpollution and acid deposition, and provide otherbenefits to the environmentandpublic health.

: 48. PGE Boardman a) PGE Boardman is major source of mercury emissions and as such a health threat. 

### ! mercury emissions (15)(17)(19)(20)(21)(73) b) The Boardman plant is the second largest mercury emitter in the state and PGE needs to take steps to control mercury emissions (88)(155) c) PGE Boardman's annual mercury release is enough to contaminate 2.6 million acres of lakes, four times the surface area of all the lakes in Oregon. This is unacceptable.(97)(142) d) DEQ should insist that already planned and required mercury pollution reductions occur on schedule. (10)(96)(97)(98)(104)(109)( 113)(118)(125)(126)(132)(142)(155)(161)(167)(168)(169) e) If PGE chooses to shut down rather than clean up, DEQ must require PGE to reduce mercury pollution by 90% by

- or before the regulatory deadline of2012. (135) Response • In 2006, DEQ adopted mercury rules that require PGE Boardman to reduce mercury emissions by 90% in 2012. The regional haze controls that are proposed for the Boardman plant does notchange that compliance date. However, DEQ is proposing to change the compliance extension contingency in the Mercury rule from 1 to 2 years, to align with the installation ofS02 controls. See DEQ response #14.


### I 49. Close PGE a) Close the Boardman coal plant now. (14)(15)(70)(73)(87) 

### ! Boardman (89)(90)(101)(109)(110)(131 )(139)(141)(144)(165)(166) b) Close the Boardman plant as soon as possible and replace with cleaner "green" technologies. (67)(68)(73)(112)(145)(160)Attachment 7.2, pg. 31

........ ..''''''''''_''''

...**~** ......"

...**,,~_..** ..m
...ft_m._"

......**~~ ~"'""~**  ____n

___.'''

.._ ...,, •••

_ ••.•••**m'._'m~'.~** ,••••••••••••••••••••••_""""".""." .••••••••••..•"•..

_ •••••••••**~....** _ •••" •••••""••••

_ ••••••••••••,.••••••••..........

_ •••

__•••• " .0. 

## i c) DEQ should close the Boardman coal plant by 2020 or before, and replace with energy from renewable sources such as wind, solar, and vvave**pow~r.** (143)

..

___-c Response • The decision to close the plant, orreplace it with 

### a more "green" technology is 

### a decision for PGE to make. Having said that, the emission controls beingproposedby DEQ will reduce the plant's emissions by 81 %, orapproximately21,000 tons ofair pollution peryear. This is

### a significant reduction in emissions that will have major benefits to the environment. 

## I 50. Impacts on a) PGE Boardman's emissions are a concern due to their impact on cultural resources**L~Cu='t~u~rn~l~re~s~ou=r~ce=s~** __**~(1~}£(2l}(~3D)( ~50~}~(7~2L}**  

### ___________________________________________**~** Response : a) As mentionedabove, the emission controls beingproposed for PGE Boardman will reduce approximately21,000 tons ofairpollution peryear, which is expected to provide benefits to cultural resources. 

### I 51. PGE Boardman

## I a) The PGE Boardman plant was not "in existence" prior to 1977, and as such is not a

should have 

### I BART source, but rather should have been subject to New Source Review installed "BACT" requirements that apply after 1977, and should have installed BestAvailable Control

; controls ; ; Technology. (17) (145) 

# I b) PGE has undergone modifications that should have triggered NSR and installed BACT controls. (17)(19)(21 )(145) i c) DEQ should take BACT controls into account when deciding on appropriate BART ! controls. (54) On September3D, 2008, Pacific Environmental Advocacy Center filed a lawsuit in the Federal District Court of Oregon against PGE Boardman for violations of the Clean Air Act. (17)(71) Response a) DEQ believes PGEBoardman was in existence priorto 1977, and therefore fell under the basic criteria forbeing evaluated underBART. PGE entered into 

### a contractual obligation to purchase majorcomponents ofthe plant in 1975 andobtained necessary pre-construction permitspriorto August 7, 1977. Therefore, the plant was in existence forpurposes ofthe BARTrule in accordance with Step 2 ofSection /I of Appendix 

### Yto 40 CFR, Part51 (EPA's BARTGuidelines)

. b) Although notrelevant to this rulemaking, DEQ does not believe that PGEhas made modifications to the Boardman plant that would make itsubject to New Source Review. 

## I c) 

### A BACTanalysis is required fornew ormodifiedsources subjectto Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD). DEQ believes that ifCongress hadintended that the BACTanalysis be applied to sources in operation between 1962 and 1977aspart of the regional haze program, BACT would have been specified in the Clean AirAct instead ofBART. Even though BACTwas notspecified by the CAA, many ofthe same types ofcontrol technologies that would qualifyas BACTwere considered in DEQ's BARTanalysis. In regards to the lawsuit citedabove, DEQ does notbelieve it appropriate to comment on this legal matterat this time.

52. Replacement Plan does not address replacement power if Boardman were to shutd9wn. power (38)(40)(60)(69)(

### 114) b) DEQ should evaluate how new rules and regulations may impact Oregon's supply of electricity. (60) c) Coordination between DEQ, the Oregon PUC, and Oregon Dept. of Energy should occur rior to ado tion ofthese rules. Response 

### a) DEQ is required to conduct

### a fiscal and economic impact analysis on the costs related to the rulemaking itproposes. Decisions that PGE may make in the future about replacementpower, should Boardman close, is beyond the scope ofthis rulemaking. b) Decisions that PGEmightmake in the future regarding Oregon's energy supplyneeds is beyond the scope ofthis proposedrulemaking.Attachment 7.2, pg. 32
c) DEQ was involved in discussions with the PUC and PGE during the development of this proposed rulemaking, on the general energyimplications associated with the proposedcontrols for the Boardman plant.

53. Data used in the Plan

Response a)

b) 

### a) The technical data and work products that DEQ relied upon to develop this plan was from the WRAP, however the public was not consulted or included in the WRAP and therefore did not have an opportunity to formally comment on this information. (17) Did DEQ fully consider the contribution to haze from diesel trucks, home woodstoves, and wildfire? (164) There is vast amountofdata and information thatis needed forpreparing 

### a regional hazeplan. DEQ relied on the Western RegionalAirPartnership (WRAP), which is one ofseveralregionalplanning organizations in the country that is providing assistance to Statespreparing regional haze plans. Oregon is one of 13 western states participating in the WRAP. Otherparticipants in the WRAP include regulators, industry, environmentalgroups, scientists, and the generalpublic. The WRAP Technical SupportSystem (TSS) was the source for the majority oftechnical information used in the Oregon RegionalHaze Plan. The TSS summarizes results andconsolidates information aboutairquality monitoring, meteorological and receptormodeling data analyses, emissions inVentories andmodels, andgriddedairqualitylvisibilityregional modeling simulations. This information is available and can be reviewed on the WRAP TSS website, andcan be evaluatedby the public. This approach is similarto other rulemaking where DEQ relies on external data sources, studies, projects, and research. b) Yes, DEQ did considerthe contribution to haze from these sources, under Section 

### 12.5. 1 ofthe Long-Term Strategyofthe Plan. Page 190 discusses state and federal regulations ofdiesel vehicles. Page 191 discusses DEQ's woodheating regulations andpossible benefits to regional haze. In terms ofwildfire, there is considerable data presented to support that wildfire is 

### a significant emissions source andmajor contributorto haze in Oregon. The Long-Term Strategy describes howcontrolled burning is being used to minimize wildfires, andpage 196 describes Enhanced Smoke Management Program requirements to minimize controlledforestryburning impacts on haze.

54. Global Warming a) DEQ should adopt limits on C02 emissions now for PGE Boardman, as part ofthis 

### ! rulemaking. (4)(17)(64) 

# I b) Boardman is the largest stationary source of air pollution and greenhouse gases in the state of Oregon yet the plant has no modern pollution control devices. (64)(97) c) PGE Boardman is one ofthe largest industrial sources of air pollution in the State, including greenhouse gases. (10)(14)(15)(17)(55)(101)(141) d) This plant should be closed down unless it can capture and store carbon dioxide. (141 ) e) A Harvard study estimates that 180 billion tons/yr of C02 comes from natural sources, while only 6 billion tons/yr comes from human activity. Even the most aggressive rules for limiting industrial C02 will have negligible effect on global warming. (164) Response • As notedabove, this rulemaking is intendedto meet the requirements ofthe federal RegionalHaze Rule. DEQ will be addressing global warming in the nearfuture, as state andnational efforts to develop carbon regulations progress.
a) There is no such thing as "clean coal". (10)(15)(164) 

# ! coal burning b) The future of energy is changing and now isn't the time to spend millions of dollars on another coal plant. Take this opportunity to say no to coal. (154) , 55. Comments on

, d) Coal plants like PGE Boardman are out of date. Please make moves to replace it with

# i"""""",.",,~•••••••

_ •••...•_._ .•. _._.... c) There is no real technology that will make coal a viable "clean" option for energy. (83) renewable energy. (137) e) Coal is plentiful and very economical compared to other fuels, and is reliable for base

_--,-

__load applicatiQns.

### Emis~2!!s**fr0r1l~0~L~.~!ning~c:Jr,l~E:l.~ffE:lctiv~!y'PQQ!r:~lled:.-1~~1.......** .......

# JAttachment 7.2, pg. 33

.",.**,."~** ••••••_.__ ••**_.~'"** __ ,. ••• n ••••••**""."'''~'''''' "'''''''_~~ff_~_'''**  ___**'_''~''''''''''''''''''''_''U_''''''** ___''''

..........**_".'''.".~'''~'''''''''''._** .........._ """"_""'''''''',,, ,,""""".""" ....•. ,._"••••••**_~** ....._ ......_ ......**_"~~** .._,.. '"

.......

______...._"', 

## i f) Coal is a low cost energy source that provides a solid economic benefit to all Oregonians. (150) j g) Coal is important to our future, as alternative power sources are not enough. (66)(111)
: h) Wasco County voters rejected a proposal two years to invest in new coal power plants by a whopping 81% "no" vote. (126) Response • DEQ agrees there are othercleanersources ofelectricity than coal, such as natural gas, wind, andsolarenergy. Decisions regarding the future ofcoal use, orthe continued operation ofthe PGE Boardman plant, are beyond the scope ofthis rulemaking.

: 56. Fly ash bi- i a) The coal fly ash is an important by-product from PGE Boardman that is beneficial to

### L~().~.l}g!._.....~~ ...

### L.~.~I:1L~9.!,cr~~~PE9.~gtion**o'per?!!i9.I.:l.~:..(§§l** __....

_ ...........

_ .......

### ~._ ..

__._................................................._ ........._ ............._

. Response! 

### a) DEQ is aware that coal fly ash is 

### a valuable by-product that is sold formaking concrete. Contamination ofthis fly ash is recognized as a potential issue in this proposed rulemaking. As a result, DEQ has added fly ash contamination as a reason forgranting this extension. See DEQ Response #14.



### V. Miscellaneous Comments

• PGE should pursue more diverse, "greener" technologies for energy production. (4}(5)(7)(67(68}(73)

• We can take that money we are using to create pollution and funnel it into alternative energies that will reduce pollution.(89)

• Time for corporations to do match or exceed our obligation. Prevention is the only cure. (13)

• Now is the time for real change in energy options that will not endanger the planet any further. (83)

• Need to look beyond nuclear and coal power at alternatives, and take more comprehensive approach to at energy production and environmental protection. (82)

• The Boardman plant is old, outdated and does not fit into the future of clean renewable energy. (90)

• Maintaining a fuel mix that allows one fuel to take up the slack if another fuel is under supply limitations should be a prime consideration. (99)

• Please consider looking at options to increase the cost of heavily polluting forms ofenergy generation to help develop alternative, less polluting forms of generation. (107)
• I support renewable energy like wind and solar power, over coal and oil, even at a fairly high economic cost. Renewable energy has a low cost once the plants orwindmills are built.(112)

• C02 emissions from coal plants are several times higher than emissions from all other power generating sources, and coal mining is environmentally destructive, and massive rail shipments to the plant from remote mining operations is grossly inefficient. (146)

• This rulemaking should reflect not only the visibility and air quality, but also the quality of life, the financial impact, the stability of electric transmission in the Northwest, and keep in mind the individual consumer, automobile traffic, and general public involvement in environmental stewardShip. (116)

• The policies ofthe regulatory agencies should be reviewed and they should be prosecuted for their negligence. (87)

• Autism rates in the Columbia Gorge autism rates are higher than average. and emissions from PGE Boardman could be why. (75)

• The economics ofelectricity production generally need to be predictable and relatively stable.(99)

• Our air and water has been polluted by this plant and it has had serious health consequences for many in this area.(92)

• Please force this company to operate legally so that we all might breathe cleaner air and worry a little less about the amount of mercury in our water supply. (152)

• There are always unknowns and it is hard to predict the future, but when it comes to pollution and its effectsAttachment 7.2, pg. 34

on life. we need to do what's right today and not wait for something better or different to turn up. (86, 125)

• We have haze now and then, but it is not a problem, and most of the haze is caused by forest fires, not any other predominant source. (121)

• Please help these guys, a compromise will require a better pollution standard, better filter and converting from coal to wood burning, carbon sustainable. (124)

• PGE is a big asset to Morrow County with a fairly big tax base. I have worked for PGE for 29 years and in those years PGE has continuously upgraded this plant to the newer standards. (1S3)

• If PGE can't see their way clear to do the right thing, then it's time to get serious about a CUB.(135)

• This kind of blatant and excessive pollution belongs in our past. There is no reason, other than greed for profit, to be dumping this much coal smoke into our air. (136)

• Operating with no pollution control devices because of its construction priorto the Clean Air Act, I resent the plant's detrimental impact on the air I breathe. (146)

• DEQ has not adequately assessed or provided the public with the complete picture of PGE Boardman's compliance history. (145)

• DEQ has a fiduciary obligation to all Oregonians to protect this airshed. DEQ should begin regulating the plant pursuant to the Mass. v. EPA authority.(141)
• It goes not make sense to wait to clean upthe biggest source ofair pollution in the state of Oregon. Do the biggest first and then do the rest successively from largest to smallest until the process is complete. (149)

• Our family supports tough environmental laws regarding the Boardman coal-fired plant owned by PGE. I write this as both a concerned citizen and as a stockholder of PGE.(151)Attachment 7.2, pg. 35



### I 

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

Letters Letters includes written comments received by mail, at public hearings, and attached to emails.

I Ref. Submit No. Name Location Affiliation or Organization Date

1. Ralph Sampson, Jr. Pendleton Confederated Tribes and Bands ofthe 1/30/2009 Tribal Council Chairman Yakima Nation 2. Samuel N. Penney i Lapwai,ID ! Nez Perce Tribal Executive Committee 1/30/2009
I Chairman 3. Antone Minthorn Toppenish, ! Confederated Tribes ofthe Umatilla 1/3012009 ! 

# K. John Cox WA Indian Nation Jurgen A. Hess Hood River 1113/2009 Tom Garefalo (not stated) 1/26/2009 6. Emily S. St. John Lake Oswego 1/07/2009 7. Cynthia Hovezak Carson, WA 1/23/2009 8. Tom Wood The Dalles 1/23/2009 9. Tassy Mack Hood River 1/23/2009 10. Robin Bloomgarden Portland 1/07/2009 11. Susan Gabay Mosier 1/26/2009 ! 12. Arlen 

### L. Sheldrake Portland 1/27/2009 13. John Wood Hood River 1/26/2009 14. Hugh B. McMahan Mount Hood 1/29/2009 15. Judith Werner Oswego 1/30/2009 16. Phil Swaim & Sheila Dooley he Dalles 1/28/2009 I 17. Aubrey 

### E. Baldwin L Portland Pacific Environmental Advocacy Group 1/30/2009 

## I Allison LaPlante Tom Buchele 18. Joyce Reinig, Chair White Columbia River Gorge Commission 1/29/2009

I Salmon, WA 19. Peter Cornelison, President Hood River Hood River Valley Residents Committee 1/13/2009 20. Maye Thompson Portland Oregon Physicians for Social 1/26/2009 

## I Responsibility 21. Michael Lang Portland Friends ofthe Columbia Gorge 1/612009 I 22. i Arya Behbehani-Divers**~** . Portland Portland General Electric Company 12/17/2008 I Ray Hendricks 113012009 23. Sandra McDonough Portland Portland Business Alliance 1/26/2009 

### ! President & CEO 24. John Ledger Salem Associated Oregon Industries 112912009 Vice President i 25. Ted Ferrioli Salem Oregon State Senate 1/2212009 State Senator 26. David Nelson Salem Oregon State Senate 1/26/2009 State Senator 27. Gary Neal Boardman Port of Morrow 1/12/2009 General Manager 28. Lee Beyer, Chairman Salem Public Utilities Commission 1/2712009 John Savage, Commissioner I Ray Baum, Commissioner 29. Jean DeMaster I Portland Human Solutions, Inc. 1/30/2009
I Executive Director 30. Jack Scott Portland Eagle Foundry Company 1/23/2009Attachment 7.2, pg. 36

General Manager 31. Raymond Burstedt Portland SEDCOR 1/21/2009 President Portland International Brotherhood of Electrical 1/26/2009 ager 125 33. Robert Ford Portland 1/26/2009 President & CEO 34. Corky Collier Portland Columbia Corridor Association 1/28/2009 Executive Director 35. Brian Konen West Linn West Linn Paper Company 1/28/2009 Plant Manager 36. John M. Endicott Portland Building & Construction Trades Council 

## I 1/29/2009 President 37. Clif Davis Portland International Brotherhood of Electrical 1/29/2009 Business Manager Workers, Local 48 38

. Carla McLane Irrigon Morrow County Planning Department

• Planning Director 39. Tom Chamberlain Salem Oregon AFL-CIO 1/29/2009 t 40. Portland Westside Economic Alliance 1/28/2009

41. Ryan Deckert Tigard Oregon Business Association 1/29/2009 President 42. Bob Jenks Portland Board of Oregon 1/30/2009 Executive Director 43. Michael T. McLaran Salem ofCommerce CEO 44. Michael B. Early Portland Industrial Customers of Northwest Utilities 1/3 Executive Director 

# m 45. Jim Trost Salem Oregon Department of Forestry 46. Mike Dykzeul Salem Oregon Forest Industries Council Director Forest. Protection 47. Richard Albright Seattle, WA EPA Region 10 12/11/2008 Director Mahbubullslam 1/30/2009 Director 48. Jean M. Hadley Mosier City of Mosier 1/25/2009
r Babitz Hood River City of Hood River 1/27/2009
r I 50. Wagner Portland U.S. Forest Service Pacific Northwest 1/29/2009 Forester ReQion 51. Robert D. Elliot Vancouver, Southwest Clean Air Agency 1/6/2009 Executive Director WA 52. John Bunyak'" Denver, CO National Park Service 1/30/2009 Chief, Policy, Planning and Permit Review Branch 53. Christine 

### L. Shaver' Denver, CO National Park Service 1/30/2009 Chief, Air Resources Division Sandra V. Silva U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Chief, Branch ofAir Quality 54. Kevin Lynch' Boulder, CO Environmental Defense Fund 11/30/2009 Stephanie Kodish Knoxville, TN National Parks Conservation Assoc' 55. Sallie Schullinger-Krause Portland Oregon Environmental Council 1/30/2009 Program Director 56. Keith Peal Beaverton Baker Rock Resources 1/27/2009 57. Lee Elwood (not stated) 1/1212009Attachment 7.2, pg. 37

58. Scott Starr Wilsonville Wilsonville Chamber of Commerce 1/27/2009 59. Deanna Palm Hillsboro Greater Hillsboro Area Chamber of 112712009 Commerce 60. Tamra J. Mabbott Hermiston 1/29/2009 61. Roger W. Rees Tualatin Oregon Home Energy Assistance Team 1/29/2009 Executive Director (HEAT)
Oral Testimony Location represents the site ofthe public hearing. Those who provided written and oral testimony are listed under Letters. For complete list of all who testified, see Attachment C DEQ Hearing Officers Report on Public Hearings.
62. Tom Wood Portland Associated Oregon Industries 1/6/2009 63. Andrew Hawley Portland Northwest Environmental Defense 1/6/2009 Council 64. Brian Pasko Portland Sierra Club 1/6/2009

! 65. Alan T. Edwards Portland 1/6/2009

66. Gordon Fulks Portland 1/6/2009 67. Jan Groh Portland 1/6/2009 68. David Rupar Portland 1/6/2009 69. Terry Tallman Hermiston Morrow County Judge 1/12/2009 70. Joseph Kelsey The Dalles 1/13/2009 71. Lauren Goldberg The Dalles Columbia Riverkeeper 1/13/2009 72. Rachael Pecore The Dalles Columbia Riverkeeper 1/13/2009 73. David Berger The Dalles Oregon Conservancy Foundation 1/13/2009 74. Dan Richardson The Dalles 1/13/2009 75. Jodi Tepoel The Dalles 1/13/2009 76. John Carstensen The Dalles Idaho Power Company 1/13/2009 

### 77. Jules Burton The Dalles 1/13/2009 78. Mark Nelson The Dalles 

### I 1/13/2009 79. Jessica Kinder The Dalles 1/13/2009 80. Rosemary Ross The Dalles 1/13/2009 81. John Nelson I The Dalles 1/13/2009 82. Joel Kabakov The Dalles 1/13/2009
Emails I 

## I Those who provided written testimony along with an email are listed above under Letters.
83. Aleita Hass-Holcombe 12/26/2008 84. Anne Moore 1/3012009 ! 85. Brent Brelje 116/2009

# ~ Carol Crawford 1120/2009 ! 87. Carole 

### L. Myers 1/25/2009 88. Chris Carvalho 1/12/2009 89. Cindy Allen 1/23/2009 90. Colleen O'Donnell 1/21/2009 i 91. Daniel Curtis 1/20/2009 92. Darlene Wood 1/23/2009 93. Darryl Usher 1/20/2009 94. Dave Bronson 1/19/2009 95. David Breen 1/412009 96. Dr. David Farrell 1/20/2009 97. David Mildrexler 1/19/2009 98. David Shapiro 1/20/2009

i 99. Dean Mason 1/29/2009

100. Dean Myerson 1/28/2009Attachment 7.2, pg. 38

101. Dinda Evans 1/5/2009 102. Don Coats 1/13/2009 103. Don Hall 1/19/2009 104. Don Hill 1/412009 105. Elke Geiger 1/26/2009 106. Eric Swehla 12/23/2008 107. Erik Westerholm 1/6/2009 108. Gary J. Imbrie 1/23/2009 109. Geert Aerts 1/19/2009 110. George W. & Margo Earley 1/23/2009 111. Granella Thompson 1/13/2009 112. Heather Moore 1/22/2009 113. Jack and Cindy Williams 1/10/2009 114. James Wells 1/19/2009 115. Jason Cheek 1/29/2009 116. Jason Stillman 1/29/2009 117. Jay W. Russell 1/612009 118. Jeffrey Block 1/19/2009 119. Jennifer Sturm 1/29/2009 120. Jerry & Diane Cheek 1/24/2009 121. JerryWaters 12/23/2008 122. Jim Minick 1/2812009 123. John E. McCann 12/25/2008 124. John Gogol 1/2812009 125. Judith Arcana 1/19/2009 126. Kath leen Fitzpatrick 1/312009 127. Kent Buhl 1/29/2009 128. Kris Gann 1/13/2009 129. Kristin Anderson 1/21/2009 130. Larry Bartlemay 1/30/2009 131. Levin Nock 12/23/2008 132. Louise Squire 1/1212009 133. Lynn Bergeron 1/27/2009 134. Margaret Murdock 12/23/2008 135. Marion Hansen 1/1912009 136. Mark Mason 1/28/2009 137. Mary McCracken 1/912009 138. Melody Shapiro 1/28/2009 139. Michael D. Holcomb 1/29/2009 140. Mildred Estrin 12/23/2008 141. Mimsi Fox 1/1912009 142. Natalie Arndt 1/10/2009 143. Nick Engelfried 12/26/2008 144. Nick Kraemer 1/1512009 145. Nick Littlejohn 1/27/2009 146. North Cheatham 1/29/2009 147. Paul Woolery 1/17/2009 148. Pat Hazlett 1/13/2009 149. 

### R. Moulton 1/28/2009 150. Randy Curtis 1/29/2009 151. Robert Hamm 1/312009 152. Ron Mager 1/9/2009 153. Ronald S Bray 1/29/2009 154. Rose Engelfried 12/24/2008 155. Sandra Coulson 1/1412009Attachment 7.2. pg. 39

156. Sandra Lilligren 1/8/2009 157. Shelley Oates 1/24/2009 158. Steve Amy 1/28/2009 159. Steve Locke 1/612009
• 160. Steve Snyder 1/5/2009

### ~susanDrew 1/29/2009 Teri Miller 1/812009

. Tiffany Brown 1/20/2009 164. Tim Davidson 165. Tina Castal'iares 1/17/2009 166. Tina Engelfried 12123/2008 167. Tony Veldhuizen 119/2009 168. Group 1 - (1028 form letters);j



## - 169. Group 2 - (7 form letters)"



## - 170. Group 3 - (15 form letters)**~** 

## -

2 Commenters Who provided attachments (available upon request)

3 For the list ofcommenters in this group, see Attachment 1 (available upon request). Numbers in bold reflect more than one commenter.