Department of Environmental Quality regon Headquarters 

811 SW Sixth Avenue Theodore R. Kulongoski, Governor 

Portland, OR 97204-1390 

Received (503) 229-5696

FAX (503) 229-6124 

JUL 162009 1JIY 1-800-735-2900 

July 13, 2009 Office Of Air, 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 of Environmental Quality (DEQ) requests approval of revisions to the 

Oregon State Implementation Plan (SIP) from the Office ofAir, Waste, and Toxics, State and 

Tribal Air Programs Unit of the 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 EPA as part ofthe SIP and pursuant 

to 40 CFR 51.104. 

I certify that a public notice was published in six newspapers of general circulation on December 

5, December 7, and December 10,2008, respectively, and in the Secretary of State'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 power plant, 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 staff contact 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, 

Deputy 

JOC1U:~~ 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: 

Attachment 3: 

3.1 

3.2 

3.3 

3.4 

3.5 

Attachment 4: 

4.1 

4.2 

Attachment 5: 

5.l 

5.2 

5.3 

5.4 

5.5 

Evidence the State has Adopted the Revision 


Staff Report, Agenda Item J of the June 18-19,2009 EQC Meeting 


Also see Certificate and Order for Filing Permanent Administrative Rules 


in Attachment 4.2 


Evidence the State has the Necessary Legal Authority 


See Attachment 1.1 "Commission Authority" (page #9 of Staff Report, 


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) of the Regional Haze Rule. Effective June 19,2009. 


Smoke Management: OAR 629-048-0001 through OAR 629-048-0500. 


Effective June 19,2009. 


Redline/strikeout version of adopted, 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 of State's Oregon Bulletin, December 1, 


2008. 


Certificate and Order for Filing Permanent Administrative Rules, filed and 


effective June 30,2009. 


Evidence of Adequate Public Notice 


Affidavit of Publication: The Oregonian, December 5,2008 pUblication. 


Affidavit of Publication: The Register-Guard, December 7,2008 


publication. 


Affidavit of Publication: Medford Mail Tribune, December 7, 2008 


publication. 


Affidavit of Publication: Hermiston Herald, December 10, 2008 


publication. 


Affidavit of Publication: 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 of Public Hearing 

See paragraph #3 of cover letter and A ttachrnent 7.1 

Compilation of Public Comments and Department's Response 

Presiding Officer's Report for Rulemaking Hearings, dated January 26, 


2009. 


Summary of Public 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 of the 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) of the 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 Staff Report, Agenda Item J of the June 18-19,2009 EQC Meeting 


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


Attachment 1.1, pg. 1 

State of Oregon 

. Department ofEnvironmental Quality 	 Memorandum 

/ 

Date: May 22, 2009 V 

To: EnVirOnmental. Quaijly Conf\issi\?r..L 

From: Dick Pedersen, Director fJ/' 

Subject: • Agenda Item J, Action Item: 2008 Oregon Regional Haze Plan and new controls for 

. POE Boardman coal-fired power plant proposed rulemaking 

June 18-19,2009EQC Meeting 

Wbythis is 

Important 

DEQ 

Recommendation 

and EQC Motion 

Air pollution in the form ofhaze can travel hundreds ofmiles, affecting. the quality 

ofthe viewing experience in scenic areas like Crater Lake National Park. To address 

this problem, the Environmental Protection Agency adopted the regionai haze rule 

in 1999 to improve and protect visibility in 156 national parks and wilderness areas 

across the country. This rule requires states to adopt regional haze plans. To address 

the problem ofregional haze in Oregon, DEQ has developed the 2008 Oregon 

Regional Haze Plan, which includes new controls for the POE Boardman power plant. . 	 . 

The Department ofEnvironmental Quality recommends that the Environmental 

Quality Commission adopt the following proposed plans and rules as revisions to 

the Oregon State Implementation Plan: 

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

A-I; 

• 	 Oregon Smoke Management Plan, Division 629, as presented in Attachment 

A-2; and 

• 	 The "Oregon Regional Haze Plan for Implementing Section 308 ofthe 

Regional Haze Rule," as presented in Attachment A-3. 

DEQ also recommends that the EQC adopt the following related rule 

amendments: 

I 

• 	 Proposed changes to the compliance extension contingency provision in the 

mercury rules, Division 228, as presented in Attachment A-4. 

After extensive review and consideration of over 1200 public comments, DEQ is 

recommending adoption ofits initial Dec. 2008 rule proposal that includes new 

emission control requirements for the POE Boardman power plant with one· 

change, which would allow POE to formally request a rule change to aVQid 

installing S02 or Selective Catalytic Reduction controls, ifand when PGE decides 

to pennanently close the Boardman coal-fired power plant.! 

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

Item J 000001 
Attachment 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. Currently there are 156 

Class I areas in the country. Oregon has 12 Class I areas, including Crater Lake 

National Park and 11 wilderness areas. Under the federal regional haze rule, states 

must develop plans that will improve Class 1 area visibility on the haziest days, 

the worst 20 percent, and ensure no degradation on the" clearest days, the best 20 . 

percent, over the next 60 years. This long time frame recognizes the many 

challenges faced in reducing haze across the country. This inCludes the need for 

very complex technical analysis covering thousands ofdifferent emissions 

sources, and the need for multi-jurisdictional coordination among states, :federal 

land managers such as the US Forest Service and National Park Service, EPA, 

Native American tribes, and many other stakeholders. The goal ofthe regional 

haze rule is to return visibility in Class I areas to natural background levels by the 

year 2064. 

The purpose ofthis rulemaking is to adopt the first in a series ofregional haze 

•plans for Oregon's 12 Class I areas. The largest and most significant part ofthe 

regional haze rule is the requirement to evaluate best available retrofit technology, 

known as BART, for older industiial sources built before· 197'7, when federal 

rules were adopted to protect visibility in Class I areas frOm new industrial " 

sources. Some ofthese older sources are still uncontrolled and have significant 

visibility impacts in Class I areas. In addition to the BART requirement, the 

regional haze rule requires states to show how reasonable progress is being made 

to reduce haze by a benchmark called the 2018 Milestone. Regional haze plans 

must include a long-term strategy to identify actions the state will take to reduc~ . 

haze over the next ten years. 

Thirteen western states coordinated regional haze planning efforts through an 

organization called the Western Regional Air Partnership2, and through individual 

consultation with neighboring states. DEQ consulted with Washington, 

California.. Nevada. and Idaho air agencies, as well as the US Forest Service and. 

the National Park Service. At five year intervals states will develop updates to 

their regional haze plans, showing the latest visibility analysis, the current status 

for meeting reasonable progress milestones and proposed emission reduction 

stl1rtegies for making incremental progress in haze reduction. I 

Overview of the Oregon Regional Haze Phin and Requirements for PGE 


Boardman 


I) 	Comprehensive review of visibility conditions in each ofOregon's 12 Class I 

areas, showing major pollutants and sources causing haze, and. a projection of 

statewide emissions and visibility conditions in 2018; . 

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

Item J 000002 
Attachment 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's BART evaluation ofthe PGE Boardman coal-fired power 

plant and other sources potentially subject to BART, including new rules for 

emission controls for PGE Boardman; 

3) 	Reasonable progress demonstration for the best and worst visibility days. 

related to the 2018 Milestone benchmark; 

4) Umg-term strategy that describes sources that will be evaluated in the next 10 

years to make visibility improvements; and 

5) 	 Summary ofthe consultation and coordination process with neighbm;ing 

states, Tribes, and federal land managers. 

Additional information on parts 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 Oregon Regional Haze Plan. See also Attachment A-5:Executive 

Summary from the Oregon Regional Haze Plan. 

The most significant action associated with the 2008 Oregon Regional Haze Plan 

. is DEQ's proposed rule requiring emission controls at the Boardman coal-fired· 

power plant. This proposed action would provide the largest envirorunental 

benefit ofany strategy in the plan, and have the largest fiscal impact. 

Summary ofDEQ's BART Evaluation 

Under BART, states must evaluate pre-l 977 major industrial sources to determine 

which have significant visibility impacts, and would therefore need to reduce 

emissions through changes in plant operations or by retrofitting with new 

pollution controls. DEQ evaluated over 100 sources and found ten to be BARTeligible by meeting 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 PGE Boardman plant caused considerably greater 

visibility degradation t~n any other BART-eligible source. Four other sources, 

listed on page 6, had visibility impacts just over the significant impact level, 

while the remaining five did not. The Boardman plant.was evaluated for BART 

controls, while the other four sources chose to reduce their emissions by making 

, 	 ohanges to their operations and taking enforceable permit limits. The proposed 

rules accompanying the Oregon Regional Haze Plan apply to PGE Boardman and 

the four other sources taking permit limits . 

. DEQ's air quality assessment ofPGE Boardman coal-fired power plant 

The POE Boardman plant is a 600 megawatt coal-fired electric generating plant. 

Originally permitted in 1977, PGE Boardman is Oregon's only coal-fired power· 

. plant, and represents approximately 20 percent ofPGE's total energy generating 

capacity. The facility currently emits about 25,000 tons of air pollution per year. 

Item J 000003 
Attachment 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's visibility modeling analysis shows that 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 Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area and contribute to acid 

deposition, which can threaten important Native American cultural resources such 

as ancient rock images. DEQ's modeling analysis shows that the highest visibility 

degradation occurs atthe Mt. Hood Class I Area and in the Columbia River 

Gorge. DEQ's modeling analysis can be found at t 

http://wwW.deg.state.or.us/aqlhaze/docs/modelingAnalysis.pdf 

Based on this 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's NOx and S02 emissions to help Oregon demonstrate 

that reasonable progress is being made toward the 2018 Milestone; and 

3) 	 Minimize Boardman's NOx and S02 emissions to improve visibility and better 

protect Native American cultural resources in the Cohimbia River Gorge. 

While the first priority meets the federal requirements for BART, the other two 

priorities go beyond BART to provide extra environmental protection. As 

described below, this is expected to provide significant visibility improvements 

and a general benefit to public health. 

DEQ's emission control proposal for PGE Boardman 

Based on DEQ's assessment ofvisibility impacts from the PGE Boardman 

facility, a two-phased approach for installing controls was developed that would. 

reduce total emissions by81 percent, or about 21,000 tons per year, and reduce 

peak visibility impacts in the 14 Class I areas by an average of83 percent. Phase 

one controls would cut sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, and particulate matter 

emissions by about 17,000 tons per year, while the phase two controls would 

provide additional reduction of4,000 tons per year ofNOx. The total cost ofthese 

controls would be approximately $471 million. The following summarizes DEQ's 

proposed controls: \ 

• 	 Phase one NOx controls: New 10w-NOx burners with modified overfire air 

control system, at a cost of$32.6 million, which would cut NOx emissions by 

A,800 tons per. year, for a46 percent reduction: These controls must be . 

installed by July 2011.3 

1 Tbe proposed niles wQuld allow DEQ to grant an extension to July 2014, ifit is demonstnLted that the proposed 

emission limit cannot be achieved with these combustion 'controls. If an extension is granted, POE Boardman would 

nee(i additional time to install other controls (which can meet this limit),/which accounts for the 2014 installation date. 

However, even ifan extension is granted, the low NOx Burners and.modified overfire air system would still be 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 

• 	 S02 controls: 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 by July 2014. These controls are 

compatible with the mercury controls required by 2012. See the mercury rule 

amendments described on page 7. 

• 	 Particnlate matter controls: Pulse jet fabric filter. These controls are a side 

ben,ept and part of installing the S02 controls and would supplement the 

existing electrostatic precipitator. This installation would cut particulate 

matter emissions by 122 tons per year for a 29 percent reduction. These 

controls must be installed by July 2014. 

Th~ combination Of the above controls meets BART requirements. 

In addition, DEQ recommends phase two NOx controls. 

Phase two NOx control is selective catalytic reduction, at a cost of $191 million, 

, which would cut NOx emissions by an additional 4,000 tons per year for an 

additional 38 percent reduction. These controls must be installed by July 2017. 

The phase two NOx controls go beyond BART and were recommended for several 

reasons. The controls would reduce the magnitude ofPGE Boardman's visibility 

impacts in 14 Class I areas, as described above, and would increase the total NOx 

reduction from 46 to 84 percent, which is a significant reduction and consistent with 

the 80 percent reduction from the proposed SOz controls. There is\also a need for 

demonstrating reasonable progress and greater visibility improvement by the 2018 

regional haze milestone. Additionally, these controls would reduce acid deposition 

and improve visibility in the Columbia River Gorge, and provide general benefits to 

air quality and public health. 

BART-eJigible sourc,es taking federally enforceable permit limits 

AB mentioned above, there were four BART -eligible sources that had much 

smaller visibility impacts than PGE Boar.dman, yet were still over the significant 

impact level. EPA guidance allows BART-eligible sources to take a federally 

enforceable permit limit ifthey permanently lower their emissions so that the 

ambient concentration stays below this significant impact level. The federal' 

regional haze rule requires enforceable limits to be in place before submitting the 

sQlte regional haze plan to EPA. Sources that take these enforceable limits are notsubjectto further evaluatio~ for BART controls; however, as with other emission 

sources, they will 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 meet these emission limits. 

• 	 PGE Beaver power plant is a 558 megawatt electric generating plant located 

in Clatskanie, Oregon. This plant is reducing its emissions by using a cleaner 

Item J 000005 
Attachment 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 sulfur diesel fuel1;>lend as a backup fuel in its steam gas turbines, 

and by limiting the amount ofultra-low sulfur diesel fuel it can, bum in any 

given day. 

• 	 IntemationalPaper (formerly Weyerhaeuser) is a containerboard plant 

located in Springfield, Oregon .. The plant will soon begin work onrepairs that 

will reduce its emissions. and show compliance tlirough operational limits and 

. monitoring. In the interim, limits on both operation and oil use will apply" 

especially during periods ofinspection and maintenance of damaged 

equipment when emissions can vary. 

• 	 Amalgamated Sugar is a sugar beet processing plant located in Nyssa, 

Oregon, near the Idaho border, which is currently closed. 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. 

• 	 Georgia Pacific, Wauna Mill is a pulp and paper manufacturing plant located 

near Clatskanie, Oregon. The mill is reducing its emissions by taking a permit 

limit based on permanently reducing oil usage, reconfiguring an emission 

control system to eliminate an incinerator biter this year and applying 

production limits before and after the incinerator is eliminated. 

The reasonable progress demonstration for regional haze 

The first regional haze plan must show reasonable progress in meeting the 2018 

Milestone.as a benchinark towards achieving natural conditions by 2064. DEQ 

relied on regional modeling conducted by the Western Regional Air Partnership 

. 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 and the region, future estimates offire emissions and other factors. In 

terms ofmeeting the 2018 Milestone;inost'Oregon Class I areas show a slower 

rate ofprogress for the 20 percent worst days, but meet the objecti ve for no 

degradation for the 20 percent best days. The primary contributor to the slower 

rate ofprogress for the worst days was natural fire or wildfires and windblown 

dust. Another large Colltributor to the worSt days in western Oregon Class I areas 

was commercial offshore shipping, for which few regulations have yet been 

developed. DEQ suspects forestry and other outdoor burning sources may also be 

contributing to the worse dilys, and will'evaluate these sources under the longterm strategy, as described below. The phase two selective catalytic reduction 

'CoritrolSlorPGRBoardIDan\1iillresuffin'greafervisibility improvement arid 

. reasonable progress by the 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 important part of the 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 

rules for 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. In terms of new measilres, the longtenn strategy contains work commitments for DEQ to evaluate other industrial 

sources not covered by the BART rules, forestry prescribed burning, residential 

and rangeland burning, offshore commercial shipping and ammonia sources in 

order to 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 plan update. 

Other actions proposed with this rulemaking 

1. Amendments to the mercury rule compliance extension contingency for 

PGE Boardman 

There are two changes related to this proposed rulemaking modifying existing 

rules that require PGE to reduce mercury emissions at the Boardman plan. These 

2006 rules allowed DEQ to grant a one-year extension to 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 

reflect the timeframe for installing S02 controls for BART in 2014. Since the S02 

and mercury controls share some ofthe same control equipment, it is advantageous 

for them to be installed at the same time. PGE Boardman may use an existing 

electrostatic precipitator to control mercury emissions until the S~ controls are 

installed. However, it is possible this could result in contamination ofthe fly ash, 

which is a valuable byproduct sold for making concrete. As a result, DEQ is also 

proposing to add fly ash contamination as a reason for granting a two-year extension 

to 2014. ' 

2. Incorporates changes made to the Oregon Smoke Management Plan into 

the State Implementation Plan 

This proposed rulemaking also incorporates changes made to 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 

in November 2007 and included new visibility protection provisions. These are 

referenced in the Oregon Regional Haze Plan, and include voluntary measures to 

protect Oregon Class I areas when burning inside or upwind of a Class I area. No 

,cqanges to the updated Oregon Smoke Management Plan were made as part of 

this 'regional haze rulemaking, but any change t6 Oregon Smoke Management 

Plan requires a State hnplementation Plan revision. 

Item J 000007 
Attachment 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 PGE Boardman plant. Reduces PGE Boardman's 

peak visibility impacts by 83 percent among other improvements. DEQ would 

revise the plant's air permit after adoption ofthis proposed rulemaking. 

2. Include enforceable permit limits for four BART-eligible sources. Reduces 

the emissions from these sources permanently, to below a level that would cause a 

significant visibility impact. These sources have already had their air permit 

revised in order to take this option, except for Amalgamated Sugar, which is 

_currently shutdown. 

3. Adopt the Oregon Regional Haze Plan as part ofthe State Implementation 

Plan. DEQ would submit this plan and all the associated rulemaking to EPA for 

approval as a State Implementation Plan revision. This plan serves as a legal 

commitment, similar to other rules and plans submitted to EPA, on how Oregon is 

going to meet this federal rule. 

4. Amend the mercury rules to align the installation ofmercury controls to S(h. 

controls for PGE Boardman. Ibis r:ule change would not be submitted to EPA, as 

it is not a State Implementation Plan revision and would take effect immediately. 

However, as described above, this is only a change to a contingency measure that 

is triggered ifPGE requests an extension to the proposed 2012 compHance date._ 

5. Incorporate the Oregon Smoke Management Plan into the State 

Implementation Plan. This plan is an appendix in the Oregon Regional Haze Plan, 

and would be submitted to EPA for approval as a State Implementation Plan 

revision with the rest ofthis proposed rulemaking. 

Fiscal Impact: 

• 	 Installing new pollution control technology on the facility will represent a major 

capital investment and cost to the owners ofthe Boardman power plant Total 

I 	capital costs for the full suite ofNOx and S02 controls are estimated at 

approximately $471 million by 2018. It is possible that these costs would be 

passed on to customers served by the Boardman plant through increased electric 

rates which DEQ estimates will average about three to four percent by 2018. 

This potential rate increase will be contingent on future actions taken by the 

Oregon Pubiic Utility Commission. Pending Public Utility Commission 

approval, these rate increases would likely phase in over time, beginning with 

rate increases averaging 0.2 to 0.3 percent between 2011 and 2014, two to three 

percent between 2014 and 2017, with amaximum ofthree to four percent by 

20.18. 

Item J 000008 
Attachment 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 significant fiscal impact to the four other BART-eligible 


industrial sources that have accepted federally enforceable penn it limits or their 


customers from the proposed new emission limits, because these limits do not 


. require any significant capital investment in these facilities. These sources did 

not identify any significant fiscal impacts duririg the comment period or at the 

. time their air permits were modified. 

• 	 No other fiscal or economic impacts are expected from the rest ofthe proposed 


regional haze plan. . 


• 	 DEQ's ·fiscal advisory committee agreed that there will be a general positive 


economic Impact to public health and the environment re~ulting from the 


reduction of21,000 tons per year ofair pollution from POE Boardman. Even 


though these benefits cannot be quantified, the committee agreed they should be 


acknowledged in principle. 


For a more detailed summary ofthe fiscal and economic effects ofthis proposal see . 

Attachment E: Statement ofNeed and Fiscal and Economic Impact. 

The commission has authority to take this action under ORS 468.020, 468A.025, 


468A.035, 468A.310 and 477.013. 


A regional hazelBART workshop was held in Portland in 2007, and was attended by . 

industry, environmental representatives and the public. During 2007 and 2008 DEQ 

met with environmental andindiIStry groups to discuss various aspects ofthe BART 

requirements. DEQ also met with EPA and federal land managers during the 

. preparation ofthe Oregon Regional Haze Plan, and participated in numerous 

Western Regional Air Partnership meetings with neighboring states preparing 

similar regional haze plans. DEQ met with several tribes in addition to the tribal 

nations in the Western Regional Air Partnership. During this time, DEQ also 

worked with Oregon Department ofForestry to adopt, through a public process,· 

regional haze-related provisions into the Oregon Smoke Management Plan. 

In October 2008, DEQ convened a fiscal advisory committee to review the 

economic impacts associated with this proposed rulemaking, with emphasis on the • costs related to the proposed controls for POE Boardman. The committee had a wide 

range ofmembership; from utility, power and energy organizations, to small 

business groups, environmental, health, and tribal interests. The committee met in 

October 2008, as described above, and again in January 2009 after DEQ received 

comments from POE proposing alternatives to DEQ's proposal for BART and 

reasonable progress. 

Public Comment 	 The public comment period began December 1.2008, and ended January 30, 

2009. This 60-day comment period was twice the length of most DEQ 

rulemakings. In response to PGE's proposal described below~ which DEQ 

Item J 000009 
Attachment 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 public comment, DEQ extended the public comment period by two 

weeks.· 	 . 

There were five public hearings held in Portland, Eugene-Springfield, Medford, 

Hermiston and The Dalles. A total of 111 persons attended the hearings, and 45 

. provided testimony_ DEQreceived over 1200 comments, mostly via email, with 

61 written comments received. As-a result ofthe extensive public 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 

June 2009 EQC meeting. 

Summary ofthe prtblic comments 

The summary ofcomments and DEQ's responses can be found in Attachment B: 

Summary o(Public Comments and Agency Responses, and Attachment C: 

Hearing Officer's Report on Public Hearings. 

POE's pr?posed decision points: 

On December 17, 2008, POE submitted comments on this rulemaking requesting 

DEQ consider adding two decision points or closure options to the proposed 

rules, which would allow POE the option of decommissioning the Boardman 

plant rather than investing in additional air pollution controls. The first decision 

point in 2012 would allow POE to decide to close the plant and operate it without 

additioqal controls unti12020. and the second in 2015 would allow POE to decide 

.. to close the plant and operate it without additional controls until 2029. PGE cited 

the need for these two closure options as being primarily related to the impact and 

costs ofupcoming carbon regulations to address global warming. PGE noted that 

these closure options would: (1) provide needed flexibility in making critical 

planning decisions about the future oftheplant~ (2) allow sound economic 

decisions to be made for PGE's custOmers; and (3) satisfy DEQ's regulatory 

needs as alternate ways ofmeeting the BART and reasonable progress 

requirements: . 

Summary of key comlpents and DEQ responses . . I 

The following represents some ofthe key comments DEQ received on this 

rulemaking~ DEQ's detailed response to these cOmments can be found in 

Attachment B: Summary ofPublic Comments and DEQ Responses. Several of 

the topil::~. r~lsed in ~econ1mel1tsbeloW.!u."~.<lls<? di~~Il~~Qjl1:th.e Is:_~yj~sues 

section on page 12 ofthis report. 

• 	 PGE's deci~ion point proposal. Most ofthe comments in favor· ofPOE's 

decision point closure options cited the importance of giving PGE the 

flexibility to make sound economic decisions in the future when carbon 

regulations are known. POE and others also commented that these decision 

Item J 000010 
Attachment 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 in Attachment B. 

• 	 Overall stringency and installation timeline ofDEQ's proposed 

controls for PGE Boardman. Those in favor of more stringency stated 

that the proposed NOx and S02 emission limits did not reflect the lowest 

levels achievable using this control technology. There were also many 

comments advocating faster installation of controls than proposed, such as 

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 of requiring 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. . 

• 	 Overall cost ofthe proposed controls for PGE Boardman is too 

expensive. Many comments cited selective catalytic reduction controls as 

being too expensive, and that the overall estimated cost of$471 million 

would have major impacts on the economy. energy supply, and electricity 

rates, which could ultimately force the plant to shutdown. See DEQ 

responses #11,13.15,18,52. 

• 	 . Proposed compliance date extension contingency measures for phase 

one NOx and mercury. There was some opposition to allowing DEQ to 

grant compliance date extensions for installing phase one NOx controls 

and mercury controls via contingencymeasures~ See DEQ responses #3, 

14,48. 

• 	 Adequacy ofDEQ's BART evaluation for other industrial sources. There 

were a nwnber ofcomments on the BART evaluation of other industrial 

sources bes~des PGE Boardman. mostly related to modeling and selection of 

sources to be evaluated for BART controls. See DEQ responses #35-37. 

• 	 Adequacy of the reasonable progress demonstration. Several comments 

noted that since most Oregon Class I areas showed a slower rate ofprogress 

than the 2018 Milestone more controls should be ·required. See DEQ response 

#38. 

• 	 Comments on DEQ's proposed evaluation of fire sources under the longter:m strategy. There were several comments and questions on the proposed 

evaluation of forestry prescribed burning. and how DEQ would address fire 

sources in generaL See DEQ response #41. 

Item J 000011 
Attachment 1.1, pg. 12 

. Agenda Iteni 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 12 of 16 

• 	 Failure of the plan to address other issues besides Class I visibility. There 

were many comments from the general public that this rulemaking was too 

limited in scope, and should be addressing visibility in the Columbia River 

Gorge, general air quality impacts, public health and global warming. See 

DEQ responses #46-50,54. 

Key Issues Has DEQ identified tbe appropriate controls for PGE Boardman? 

As described in this report, DEQ's visibility modeiing for POE Boardman 

showed this plant to be one ofthe most significant single sources ofhaze 

pollution in Oregon, impacting 14 Class I areas in Oregon and Washington; 

within a 200 mile radius ofthe plant, and accounting for half ofthe Class 1 

visibility impacts from the five BART s~urces thatwere modeled. Its highest 

impact at the Mt. Hood Class I Area is approximately nine times the significant 

impact level, and about seven times this level at the Columbia River Gorge. In 

· addition, the NOx and S02 emissions from PGE Boardman contribute to acid 

deposition in these 14 Class I areas and the Columbia River Gorge. 

· As noted above, during the public comment period there were many comments 

on the stringency and overall estimated cost of$471 million for the proposed 

controls for PGE Boardman. Some argued the costs were too 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 recent retrofits 

across the country for similar power plants.DEQ also hired an independent 

consultant, Eastern Research Group, with extensive expertise in coal plant 

control technology, to assist jn the contrpl evaluation. DEQ staffreviewed over 

30 different types and combinations ofcontrol technologies, evaluating the 

cOst and control efficiencies ofeach, and the engineering requirements for 

retrofitting the Boardman plant and worked closely with PGE plant engineers 

during this evaluation. DEQ made additional assessments on the shortest time 

feasible for installation, and set.emission limits that were the highest 

achievable, yet reflect the use ofproper averaging times, and account for· . 

normal fluctuations in emissions that would ensure compliance with permit 

limits. The end result was a suite ofemission controls 'for PGE Boardman that 

is both stringent and cost-effective, and complies with the regulatory 

requirements for BART and reasonable progress . 

. , In addition togeneral comments on the stringency and cost;there were specific 

comments on the proPosed phase two selective catalytic reduction controls. 

· Some argued that selective catalytic reduction controls should be included as 

part ofthe BART controls and required by 2014, while others strongly 'opposed 

these controls as being too stringent and expensive. not providing enough 

visibility improvement to be justified or that DEQ was unfairly singling out 

PGE Boardman for additional controls. 

Item J 000012 
Attachment 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 ofPGE Boardman's visibility impacts in 14 Class I areas was a 

key factor in DEQ recommending selective catalytic reduction controls. 

Without the selective catalytic reduction controls, the NOx reduction is only 46 

percent, and the combined total emission reduction only 66 percent. With 

selective catalytic reduction controls, the total NOx reduction increases to 84 

percent, and the combined total emission reduction to 81 percent The overall 

cost-effectiveness of selective catalytic reduction,. combined with phase one 

NOx controls, is nearly the same as the S02 controls on a cost per ton basis. 

Additionally, there is more vIsibility improvement from reducing NOx than" 

S02 due to the fact that NOx contributes slightly more to haze formation than " 

S0 2. 

DEQ did not recommend selective catalytic reduction controls as BART due to 

cost and implementation concerns. Although selective catalytic reduction is " 

considered cost effective, the cost is about six :times more than the phase one 

NOx controls, yet only provide about twice as much visibility improvement. 

DEQ also determined that installation ofselective catalytic reduction would 

take longer than the five years allowed under the BART rules, due to the time 

needed for engineering, procurement, and construction and additional time 

needed for extensive modifications to the boiler to accommodate this retrofit. 

Overall, DEQ believes the phase one NOx controls combined with the S02 

controls to be the best approach to meet BART, and adding the phase two 

selective catalytic reduction controls are both necessary and justified. Over the 

next eight years the combination ofthese controls will reduce the plant's 

emissions by approximately 21,000 tons per year, reduce peak visibility 

impacts at the 14 Class I areas by an average of 83 percent, improve visibility 

by the 2018 Milestone, reduce visibility degradation in the Columbia River 

Gorge and provide general air quality and public health benefits. These controls 

will also help reduce the risk to important Native American cultural resources 

in the Gorge. The proposed controls are cost-effective and are realistically 

achievable for PGE. 

Should the proposed controls for Boardman" include the closure option 

decisio/a points proposed by PGE? 

DEQ does not support PGE's closure options proposal. The preferred approach 

would be for PGE to request an alternate compliance path at a future time 

when the full extent ofcarbon regulations is known, when costs and tradeoffs 

have been evaluated and when a decision has been made on the future ofthe 

Boardman plant. 

EPA and federal land managers also questioned ifPGE's proposallegal1y 

satisfies the BART and reasonable progress requirements. Their comments 

cited the lack ofan evaluation ofother BART controls that might be costItem J 000013 
Attachment 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 controls might provide, prior to 

the proposed clo'sure dates. The federal BART rules require that all control 

technologies be evaluated with 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, prior to the 2029 closure date. DEQ agrees these factors were 

not fully addressed in PGE's proposal for the 2012 decision point and thatthe 

proposal does not address the required 2018 Milestone and necessary visibility , improvements. 

Proposed change: In response to PGE's proposal, DEQ has added provisions 

to the proposed Oregon Regional Haze Plan that would allow PGE to formally 

request a rule change to avoid installing S02 or selective catalytic reduction 

controls, ifand when PGE decides to' permanently close the Boardman coal- . 

fired power plant.4 PGE would'have to make this request well in advance of 

the required installation dates for these controls, allowing sufficient time for a 

full public process. In considering a request, DEQ would initiate a public 

rulemaking process involving participation by a fiscal advisory committee, 

stakeholder interests, tribal nations and the public. An opportune time for PGE 

to consider this option would be as part ofDEQ's 2013 regional haze plan 

update; although PGE could request a rule change at any time the decision has 

been made to close the Boardman faciHty. See Attachment A -6 for the 

proposed language. 

Should DEQ allow extensions to compliance dates for phase one NOx .aud 

mercury coutrols? 

There were many comments on the proposed compliance date extension 

contingency measures for phase one NOx and mercury controls. DEQ 

recommends retaining these measures as proposed. 

DEQ has proposed a stringent phase one NOx emission limit for the boiler at 

Boardman. PGE must combustion controls to meet these limits by July 2011 

and no extension would be granted for the instaIiation of combustion controls. 

However, due to the unique design ofthe Boardman boiler, it is possible these 

, combustion controls may not achieve the proposed limit. IfPGE fails to meet • 

the required limit, there is a contingency measure in the proposed rules that 

will require PGE to install more costly pollution controls~ known as a selective 

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

. ' .. 	necessary,DEQwillextend.the.phase one.NOx,compliance date to 2014 to 

allow for the engineering; fabrication arid installation 'ofthese controls. The 

selective non-catalytic reduction system would be temporary, and would be 

eitber replaced or used in conjunction with the selective catalytic reduction 

controls required in pbase two. 

4 This proposed change can be found on pages 155 and 202 ofihe proposed Oregon Regional Haze Plan 

Item J 000014 
Attachment 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 to tWo years. This 

proposal is not changing the default 2012 compliance date for installing 

mercury controls and existing rules allow DEQ to grant a one year extension if 

there are circumstances preventing compliance by that date. DEQ recommends 

changing this 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 Boardman may be able. to use activated carbon 

injection with an existing electrostatic precipitator to control mercUry emissions 

until the S~ controls are installed. There is a possibflity that this process could 

contaminate the 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. 

• 	 If approved, DEQ will submit the Oregon Regional Haze Plan and 

accompanying regional haze rules, and Oregon Smoke Management Plan, 

to EPA as a revision to the Oregon State Clean Air Act Implementation 

Plan. 

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

A. 	Proposed Rulemaking 

1. Proposed new regional haze rules, Division 223 

2. Oregon Smoke Management Plan, Division 629 

3. 2008 Oregon Regional Haze Plan (electronic copy, see attached disc) 

4. Proposed amendments to mercury rules, Division 228 

5. Executive Summary from the Oregon Regional Haze Plan 

6. Proposed changes to Plan to address POE decision points proposal 

(excerpt from the revised Plan) 

B. 	Summary ofPublic Comments and Agency Responses 

C. 	 Hearing Officer's Report on Public Hearings 

D. 	Relationship to Federal Requirements Questions 

E. 	 Statement ofNeed and Fiscal and Economic Impact 

F. 	 Land Use Evaluation Statembnt 

1. 	 DEQ's Fiscal Impact Report 

2. 	 DEQ Visibility and Acid Deposition Modeling Analysis ofthe PGE 

Boardman Power Plant 

3. 	 Proposed Rulemaking Announcement 

4. 	 Written comments received 

5. 	 December 17,2008 "decision points" comment letter from POE 

6. 	 DEQ's BART Report for POE Boardman 

7. 	 Rule Implementation Plan 

8. 	 Legal Notice ofHearing 

Item J 000015 
Attachment 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; Air Quality Plaiullng Section 

Manager '. 

Section: t.A i'--"'" 

Linda;Hliyes-Go an, Eastern Region Air 

Quali~ Manager ""7. J 

Division: 9C -& '.. ~~~----+-~~~--------~=

Andy Oins Ur, Air Quality A~inistrator 

Report prepared by: Brian Finheranand Mark Fishet 

, . :phone: 503-229-6278 

---..---.. 

Item J 00001 f;i 
Attachment 2 


Evidence that the State has the Necessary Legal Authority 


See Attachment 1.1 "Commission Authority" (page #9 of Staff Report, 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/strikeout version of adopted, 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 


PROCEDURES AND DEFINITIONS 


General 


340-200-0040 

State-of Oregon Clean Air Act Implementation Plan 

(1) This implementation plan, consisting of Volumes 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 pursuant to the 

Commission's rulemaking procedures in division 11 ofthis chapter and any other requirements 

contained in the SIP and will be submitted to the United States Environmental Protection Agency 

for approval. The State Implementation Plan was last modified by the Commission on June 19, 

2009. 

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

(a) Submit to the Environmental Protection Agency any permit condition implementing a rule 

that is part ofthe federally-approved SIP as a source-specific SIP revision after the Department 

has complied with the public hearings provisions of 40 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 Commission has adopted, and submit the 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. If any 

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 

air pollutants that reduce visibility and contribute to regional haze in Class I areas, for the 

purpose of implementing Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART) requirements and other 

requirements associated with the federal Regional Haze Rules in 40 § CFR 51.308, as in effect 

on June 19,2009. 

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

adopted by the Environmental Quality Commission under OAR 340-200-0040. 

Stat. Auth.: ORS 468 & 468A 

Stats. Implemented: ORS 468A.025 

340-223-0020 

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 with the 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 of reduction achievable through the application of the best system of continuous emission 

reduction for each pollutant that is emitted by an existing stationary facility. The emission 

limitation must be established, on a case-by-case basis, taking into consideration the technology 

available, the costs of compliance, the energy and nonair quality environmental impacts of 

compliance, any pollution control equipment in use or in existence at the source or unit, the 

remaining useful life of the source or unit, and the degree of improvement in visibility which 

may reasonably be anticipated to result from the use of such technology. 

(3) "Deciview" means a measurement of visibility impairment. A deciview is a haze index 

derived from calculated light extinction, such that uniform changes in haziness correspond to 

uniform incremental changes in perception across the entire range of conditions, from pristine to 

highly impaired. The deciview haze index is calculated based on the following equation (for the 

purposes of calculating deciview, the atmospheric light extinction coefficient must be calculated 

from aerosol measurements): 

Deciview haze index=lO Ine (bexl10 Mm'I) 


Where bext= 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-year period. 

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

adopted by the Environmental Quality Commission under OAR 340~200-0040. 

Stat. Auth.: ORS 468 & 468A 

Stats. Implemented: ORS 468A.025 

340-223-0030 

BART Requirements for the Foster-Wheeler boiler at the Boardman Coal-Fired Power 

Plant (Federal Acid rain program facility ORISPL code 6106) 

(1) Emissions limits: 

(a) 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) Ifit is demonstrated by July 1,2012 that the emission limits in (a) cannot be achieved with 

combustion controls, the Department may grant an extension of compliance to July 1,2014. 

(B) If an extension is granted, the nitrogen oxides emissions must not exceed 0.23 lb/mm Btu 

heat input as a 30-day rolling average on and after July 1, 2014. 

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

input as a 30-day rolling average. 

(c) On and after July 1,2014, particulate matter emissions must not 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) of this rule: 

(a) Compliance with a 30-day rolling average limit must be demonstrated within 180 days of the 

compliance date specified in section (1) of this rule. 

(b) Compliance with a 12-month rolling average must be demonstrated within 12 months of the 

compliance date specified in section (1) of this rule. 

(3) Compliance Monitoring and Testing 

(a) Compliance with the emissions limits in (1)(a) and (b) must be determined with a continuous 

emissions monitoring system (CEMS) installed, operated, calibrated, and maintained in 

accordance with the acid rain monitoring requirements in 40 CFR Part 75 as in effect on June 19, 

2009. 

(A) The hourly emission rate in terms oflb/mmBtu heat input must be recorded each operating 

hour, including periods of startup and shutdown. 

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

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

(C) 30-day rolling averages must be determined using all daily average emissions rates recorded 

in (B) whether or not the days are consecutive. 

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

daily averages during the calendar month. 

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

Methods 5 and 19 as in effect on June 19,2009. 

(A) An initial test must be 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, but not less than once every 5 years. 

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

as in effect on June 19,2009. 

(4) Notifications and Reports 

(a) The Department must be notified in writing within 7 days after any control equipment 

(including combustion controls) used to comply with emissions limits in section (1) begin 

operation. 

(b) For NOx 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) If applicable, a compliance status report for the 12-month rolling average NOx limit in section 

(l)(a) must be submitted by August 1,2012. 

(d) For particulate matter, a compliance status report, including a source test report, must be 

submitted within 60 days of completing the initial compliance test specified in section (3)(b). 

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

adopted by the Environmental Quality Commission under OAR 340-200-0040. 

Stat. Auth.: ORS 468 & 468A 

Stats. Implemented: ORS 468A.025 

340-223-0040 

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 after July 1,2017, nitrogen oxides emissions must not exceed 0.070 Ib/mmBtu heat 

input, excluding periods of startup 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 with the emission limit begins operation. 

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

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 

340-223-0050 

Federally Enforceable Permit Limits 

(1) Any BART-eligible source that causes visibility impairment less than 0.5 deciview in all 

Class I areas, at the 98th percentile for both a three-year period and one-year period, based on a 

federally enforceable permit limit or limits, is not subject to BART. 

(2) Ifa BART-eligible source's federally enforceable permit limit will be terminated, and as a 

result the source will be subject to BART, the source is required to submit a BART analysis and 

install BART as determined by the Department prior to terminating the federally enforceable 

permit limit. 

(3) The Foster-Wheeler b()iler at The Amalgamated Sugar Company plant in Nyssa, Oregon 

(Title V permit number 23-0002) is a BART-eligible source, and air quality dispersion modeling 
Attachment 3.2, pg. 4 

demonstrates that it would be subject to BART while operating. However, it is not operating as 

ofJune 19,2009, and therefore is not subject to BART. Prior to resuming operation, the owner 

or operator ofthe source must either: 

(a) Submit a BART analysis and install BART as detennined by the Department by no later than 

July 1,2014 or before resuming operation, whichever is later; or 

(b) Obtain and comply with a federally enforceable pennit limit assuring that the source's 

emissions will not cause the source to be subject to BART. 

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

adopted by the Environmental Quality Commission under OAR 340-200-0040. 

Stat. Auth.: ORS 468 & 468A 

Stats. Implemented: ORS 468A.025 
Attachment 3.3 

Placeholder - See attached binder for: 


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


Regional Haze Rule. Effective June 19,2009. 


Attachment 3.4, pg. 1 

DEPARTMENT OF FORESTRY 


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 of forest 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 of Forestry. 

(2) "Bum boss" 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) "Bum registration" means the act or product of notifYing the forester to the required level 

ofdetail, of intent 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 Air Act. 

(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 for joint use for timber production and the 

grazing of livestock, as a pennanent or semi-pennanent joint use, or as a temporary joint 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 of Multnomah, 

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 of Land Management, 

National Park Service, Fish and Wildlife Service, or Bureau of Indian Affairs; or any other federal 

agency that may conduct prescribed burning within a forest protection district. 

(12) "Field administrator" means an employee of the 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 or be 

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 other plant 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) "Forest protection district" means an area of forestland 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 such that smoke at "ground 

level" could be inhaled by persons going about their normal business, in or out of doors. 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 

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). 

(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 bum registration (OAR 

629-048-0300) and reporting of accomplishments (OAR 629-048-0320). 

(19) "Mop-up" means action, usually involving the application ofwater or other means to 

eliminate heat, remove fuel or reduce the supply of oxygen, 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 of heavy 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 1 to September 15), defined in the Oregon Visibility Protection Plan (OAR 

340-020-0040, Section 5.2). 

(21) "Prescribed burning" means the use of fire ignited as a planned management activity on 

forestland to meet specific objectives involving the reduction or removal 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 of smoke from prescribed burning into a 

smoke sensitive receptor area at ground level. 

(25) "Smoke management forecast unit" means any or all of the 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 

of protection 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 of fuels in the understory of a forest stand while maintaining the overstory stand 

characteristi cs. 

(28) "Verified smoke incident" means an entrance of prescribed 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 of it, 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 of prescribed 

burning and the measures being taken to protect air quality, public health and visibility; and to 

provide enforceable mechanisms to ensure the requirements of the 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 of State. 

(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 of emissions by encouraging cost effective utilization of forestland 

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 of Prescribed Burning 

(1) All ofOregon's forestlands are flammable under the right conditions of fuel dryness, heat 

and wind. 

(2) As a part ofthe natural ecology offorestlands, wildfire is neither necessarily good nor bad, 

however, there are a number of characteristics of unplanned, uncontrolled fires that are usually 

regarded by humans as undesirable. Among these are threats to public safety, destruction of 

natural resources, destruction of property and the adverse health effects that can occur from 

breathing a significant amount of fine particulate matter associated with wildfire smoke. 

(3) When areas do not experience fire or other means of reducing forest fuels for extended 

periods, there is a greater wildfire hazard and the likelihood increases that if unplanned 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 of atmospheric 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 of grazing, and underburning 

of open forest stands for forest health purposes; 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 of people. 

(6) When adequate forest fuel reduction can be achieved economically without the use of 

prescribed burning, because of other 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 of pests and disease that may not be achieved by 

simply removing the forest fuels. For all of the reasons described above, the Legislative Assembly 

(ORS 477.552) and the Board of Forestry have found it necessary to maintain the viability 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), 

526.016,526.041 
Attachment 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 of whether or not classified, within a forest protection 

district, are subject to regulation of prescribed burning pursuant 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, but not 

limited to, private forestlands in eastern Oregon and Class 3 private forestland in western Oregon 

is subject to bum registration (OAR 629-048-0300) and reporting of accomplishments (OAR 629­

048-0320) but is not subject to 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 of Smoke Incidents or Intrusions 

(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 of populated area affected (in square miles 

or acres) and an estimate ofthe number of people present during the incident or intrusion. 

(b) As used in the smoke management rules, "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 of any 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 of greater than or equal to 1.8 x 10-4 B-scat but less than or equal to 4.9 x 10-4 Bscat; and 

(c) A heavy intensity incident or intrusion is characterized by a light scattering measurement of 

greater than 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 standard National 

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 greater than or equal to 11.4 miles; a moderate intensity incident or intrusion 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.: DOF 4-2007, 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 management plan is no 

smoke intrusions into the SSRA. 

(2) When prescribed burning is conducted inside a smoke sensitive receptor area, the smoke 

management plan objective is to use best bum 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 ofprescribed burning it is the intent under the smoke management 

plan to minimize the amount and duration ofsmoke that comes in contact with humans at their 

places of residence or at other places where they normally gather in numbers such as to work, 

conduct commerce or participate in public events. 

(4) The first element in minimizing smoke contact is encouraging forestland owners to burn 

only those units which cannot otherwise meet forest management objectives in cost effective 

alternative ways such as wood or biomass utilization. 

(5) When prescribed burning is used, owners are further encouraged to employ the 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 of the bum permit required under ORS 477.515, bum bosses 

and field administrators are encouraged to closely observe local conditions at the bum site and to 

light, manage, suspend lighting if necessary, and mop-up bums, when appropriate, in a manner 
Attachment 3.4, pg. 7 

that takes into consideration the possible smoke effects from the main smoke plume or significant 

residual smoke on residences or businesses 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 of protecting Class I Area visibility. These ESMP 

criteria include: 

(a) Actions to minimize emissions; 

(b) Evaluation of smoke 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 1 to September 15), an objective ofthe smoke management plan 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 smoke plume up and out of the 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 of Class I Areas, in addition to compliance with smoke management 

instructions issued in the 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 of Environmental Quality, that is provided the highest level of protection under the 

smoke management plan because of its past history of smoke incidents, density of popUlation or 

other special legal status related to visibility such as the Columbia River Gorge Scenic Area. The 

following are smoke sensitive receptor areas: 

(1) The area within the State of Oregon commonly understood to be the Willamette Valley 

that: 

(a) Lies east of the forest protection district boundaries of the Northwest Oregon, West Oregon 

and Western Lane Forest Protection Districts, west of the forest protection district boundaries of 

the North Cascade and South Cascade Forest Protection Districts and north of where 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 of the 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 Bear Creek and Rogue River Valleys described in OAR 629-048-0160, 

including the cities of Ashland, 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 of Smoke Sensitive Receptor Areas 

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 per calendar year, the board must consider additional SSRA listings if: 

(a) The department recommends consideration of a community for SSRA listing based on 

observations of repeated verified smoke incidents as described in section (5) of this rule; 

(b) The Department of Environmental Quality recommends consideration of a community for 

SSRA listing based on evidence of airborne particulate concentrations in the community at levels 

that make periodic exceedance of ambient air quality standards a significant possibility; or 

(c) The governing body of a city, or county for an unincorporated area, requests by official 

action consideration of a community for SSRA listing, and cites the reasons for its request upon: 

(A) The occurrence of a 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) of this 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 of verified smoke incidents; 

(B) Population of the community; 

(C) The results, if any, of mechanical or systematic monitoring of airborne particulate 

concentrations, or other verifiable information regarding existing air quality problems in the 

community under consideration; 

(D) The nature and performance of any 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 of smoke incidents; 

(0) Evaluation of the local and regional effect that listing the community as an SSRA will 

have on the smoke management plan's objectives of maintaining air quality and accomplishing 

necessary prescribed burning; 

(H) The reasons cited in a request received under subsection (l)(c) of this rule; 

(I) The joint recommendations of the 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) Ifjoint recommendations 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) of this rule, 

the board may take anyone ofthe following actions: 

(a) Reject the recommendation or request; 

(b) Acknowledge that smoke incidents have occurred, but direct the department to pursue an 

alternate course of further information gathering, monitoring, operational modifications or other 

efforts aimed at reducing the likelihood of continuing 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 of actions shall be limited to those described in either subsections (b) 

or (c) of this section, if it finds that all of the 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 

preceding the request or recommendation 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 of continuing frequent use of prescribed burning as a forest 

management activity on forestland within 30 miles ofthe city limits. 

(b) For communities with no air quality monitoring data, the board may delay a final action 

determining whether to list the community as an SSRA if monitoring equipment is installed in the 

community to gather information leading to a final determination; or 

(c) The board may define the applicable boundaries of the 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 of verified 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 of any combination ofintensity for a combined duration of 

at least three hours (using the intensity parameters described in OAR 629-04S-0110 for all of the 

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 of Eagle Point, 

Jackson County, Oregon, at the NE comer of Section 36, T35S, RIW; thence south along the 

Willamette Meridian to the SE comer of Section 25, T37S, Rl W; 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 comer of Section 27, T39S, R2E; thence SW to the SE comer of Section 33, T39S, R2E; 

thence west to the SW comer of Section 31, T39S, R2E; thence NW to the NW comer of Section 

36, T39S, RIE; thence west to the SW comer of Section 26, T39S, RIE; thence NW to the SE 

comer of Section 7, T39S, RIE; thence west to the SW comer of Section 12, T39S, Rl W; thence 

NW to the SW comer of Section 20, T3SS, Rl W; thence west to the SW comer of Section 24, 

T3SS, R2W; thence NW to the SW comer of Section 4, T3SS, R2W; thence west to the SW comer 

of Section 5, T3SS, R2W; thence NW to the SW comer of Section 31, T37S, R2W; thence north 

to the Rogue River, thence north and east along the Rogue River to the north boundary of Section 

32, T35S, R1 W; thence east to the point of beginning. 

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 of prescribed burning necessary to meet their management objectives. Some practices 

to consider include, but are not limited to: 

(a) Maximizing the cost-effective use of woody material for manufacture of products; 

(b) Where cost-effective, using wood or other biomass for energy production or mulch; 

(c) Lopping and scattering limbs and other woody material, or operating heavy machinery over 

the wood to maximize contact with the soil in order to 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 of heavy fuel concentrations 

or where soil moistures are not conducive to breakdown of fuels). 

(2) When prescribed burning is determined to be necessary to achieve forest management 

objectives, owners are encouraged to 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 on Wildlands 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) "Best bum 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 of fire or protection offorest resources. 

(2) In general, best bum practices 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) Bum prescriptions, particularly for broadcast bums, that recognize and utilize the natural 

differences in fuel moistures of larger and smaller pieces of woody material; or 

(c) Covering of piles sufficient to facilitate ignition and complete combustion, and then 

burning them at times of the year when all other fuels are damp, when it is raining or there is snow 

on the ground. 

(3) Rapid combustion is well served by rapid ignition which may involve the use of petroleum 

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 of soil, 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 or properly 

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 other plastics are prohibited; 

(b) The size of each polyethylene cover must not exceed 100 square feet. For small piles, 

covering only an area necessary to achieve rapid ignition and combustion, instead of the 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 "best burn 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 of prescribed burning is not needed to meet the objectives ofthe 

prescribed bum and protect air quality, however, in instances of prescribed 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 bum permits 

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 of accomplishing 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 

management plan objectives, designed to maximize opportunities for accomplishing burning while 

minimizing the likelihood of public health effects or visibility impairment in Class I Areas. The 

following sections of this rule attempt to explain some of these concepts. 

(2) The basic underlying mechanism in smoke management is the use of an understanding of 

atmospheric dynamics and combustion processes, in concert with current weather forecasts, to 

ensure that the bulk of emissions from prescribed burning are transported to areas of low or no 

adverse effect by: 

(a) In the case of broadcast 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 of minimal 

impact; or 

(B) Mix with the moisture in clouds and fall back to earth as precipitation; or 

(b) In the case of low intensity underbuming or small piles under the forest canopy, managing 

the volume of material burned per unit oftime and paying eareful attention to surface winds to 

keep total emissions low and disperse the smoke to unpopulated areas. 

(3) For each 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 of pollutants may already be present 

in a given area, the meteorologists determine if and 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 of fuel 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 predict how 

much smoke, and at what locations, can be 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 of bums, 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, if necessary; and 

(d) How the bum will 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 may require that a written bum plan be prepared for approval under OAR 629­

043-0026(4), prior to issuance of a bum pennit. 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 or more) or bums 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) For prescription bum units on forestland subject to level 1 regulation, 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 of burning, and fuel 

loading tonnages by 5 :00 p.m. on the day before the bum. 

(5)(a) Before ignition of any 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 of any 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 1 forestland in western Oregon at any time of the year. 

(c) Under ORS 477.515(1)(a), the forester may waive the requirement for a burn permit in 

instances of burning other than described in subsections (a) and (b) of this section, so burn bosses 

should check with the forester locally to detennine whether penn its are required outside fire 

sea<;on. 

(6) Before ignition of any prescribed burning on forestland subject to level 1 regulation, 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 of communication and adhere strictly to the conditions of 

the variance. 

(7) For prescribed burn operations with large tonnages (greater than 2000 tons) or burns that 

will occur over multiple 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 of a special forecast and instructions will be solely within the discretion 

of the 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 of other 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 of burns. 

(10) A burn boss is required to tenninate ignition, in a manner that does not compromise 

worker safety or the ability to prevent escape of the burn, if either 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 of Environmental Quality, that air in the entire 

state or portion thereof is, or would likely become adversely affected by smoke. 

(11) Upon tennination of ignition required by section (10) of this 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 of Intent to Burn 

(I) In all instances of prescribed 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 1 regulation, bum 

registration must be completed at least seven days before the first day of ignition. Mandatory 

registration of prescribed 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) of this rule 

contingent upon the forester's approval of a bum plan or conditions offederally prescribed fire 

policies having already been met. 

(3) Information provided for bum registration must be complete and recorded in a standard 

format approved by the forester. 

(4) No operator, federal land management agency, landowner or timber owner shall be allowed 

to register additional forestland for burning if payment for their previous registration or burning, 

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 of a non-refundable registration fee of $.50/acre and upon accomplishment (see 

section (3) ofthis rule), a bum fee as further described in sections (2), (3), (5), (6) and (8) below. 

(2) Bum fees for all forms of prescribed burning, including but not limited to, broadcast 

burning and burning of piles (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 bum registration. 

(3) The first time that fire is applied to a prescribed bum unit, regardless of actual 

accomplishment, payment of a bum fee is required. Bum fees shall be charged according to the 

following schedule: 

(a) If only landing or right-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) If subsequent to burning only landing or right-of-way piles, the first time fire is applied to 

any other portion of a registered unit (typically broadcast or in-unit pile burning), an additional 

bum fee of$2.60 per acre shall be required. 

(c) Ifthe 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 or right-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 or the 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 of road construction after appropriate utilization. 

(5) Areas burned as a result of escaped fires that are outside the description ofthe registered 

bum area shall not be assessed fees if the fire outside of the described area is immediately attacked 

for wildfire suppression. If the fire outside of the 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 per acre. 

(6) Notwithstanding section (3) of this rule, forest health maintenance burning on forestland 

subject to level 1 regulation, 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 or timber owner whose name is recorded 

on the registration form for billing purposes. 

(8) Notwithstanding sections (1) and (3) ofthis rule, each bum unit 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 of registration 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 of the rate based on actual experience. 

(10) Notwithstanding section (7) ofthis rule, any person or entity 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 of registration and bum fees 

provided all payments equal no less than the registration rate described in section (1) of this rule 

times the number of acres registered plus the bum fee rate in sections (3) or (6) of this rule, as 

appropriate, times the number of acres 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 of Accomplishments 

(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 of burning and emissions produced for each day of burning 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 1 regulation 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 effective January 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 of wildfire 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 of such 

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 Other RegUlating Jurisdictions and for Other Pollutants 

(1) In order to meet the 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 local jurisdictions that authorize open burning or monitor air 

quality so that all parties may be adequately informed of planned 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, if any, to the Department of Environmental 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 or federal 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 in the surrounding states for the purpose of coordination 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 of the prescribed burning 

operations conducted under the smoke management plan. 

(2) Reports summarizing annual activities of the program shall be published by the department 

addressing: 

(a) The level of burning activity; 

(b) Results with regard to avoiding entrance of smoke into SSRAs and other areas sensitive to 

smoke and reports of any smoke intrusions; 

(c) Accomplishment of alternatives to burning and the use of emission reduction techniques; 

(d) Evaluation of overall smoke management plan accomplishment; 

(e) Evaluation of adequacy of listed SSRAs and protection measures; 

(f) Any other pertinent information related to smoke management plan evaluation and 

improvement; and 

(g) Revenues generated from bum fees and related 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 of a report in accordance with section (2) ofthis rule, the forester will 

consult at least annually with the Smoke Management Advisory Committee created under ORS 

477.556. Topics will include, but are not limited to, smoke management plan implementation, 

status of the Oregon Forest Smoke Management Account (ORS 477.560), and any fee changes 

that may be appropriate based on the 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 of the forest practice rules 

(ORS 527.680 to 527.690 and 527.990 to 527.992). 

(2)(a) When, in the judgment ofthe forester, a violation is related primarily to an act or 
Attachment 3.4, pg. 20 

omission that has caused or might cause fire to burn uncontrolled, enforcement under the 

provisions of the fire prevention statutes and rules is appropriate. 

(b) When, in the judgment ofthe forester, a violation is related primarily to an act or omission 

that has caused or might cause deterioration of air 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 of polyethylene 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 of the federal Clean Air Act provides for enforcement of state air quality 

regulations against federal agencies. It will be the policy ofthe Board of Forestry, in the event of a 

failure of a federal land management agency to comply with the smoke management plan, that the 

forester will first inform the responsible agency of the failure and coordinate efforts to ensure 

timely correction of any breakdowns in procedure that may have resulted in the failure. However, 

ifthis method does not appear in the judgment ofthe State Forester to result in necessary 

correction of procedures, or under other circumstances that in the judgment 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 by ch. 213, OL 2007, 


Enrolled HB 2973) 


Hist.: DOF 4-2007, f. 12-31-07, cert. ef. 1-1-08 

Attachment 3.5, pg. 1 

DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY 

DIVISION 200 

GENERAL AIR POLLUTION 


PROCEDURES AND DEFINITIONS 


General 


340-200-0040 

State of Oregon 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) of the State of 

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

(2) Except as provided in section (3), revisions to the SIP will be made pursuant to the 

Commission's rulemaking procedures in division 11 of this chapter and any other requirements 

contained in the SIP and will be submitted to the United States Environmental Protection Agency 

for approval. The State Implementation Plan was last modified by the Commission on June 19. 

2009Deeember ] 2, 2008. 

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

(a) Submit to the Environmental Protection Agency any permit condition implementing a rule 

that is part of the federally-approved SIP as a source-specific SIP revision after the Department 

has complied with the public hearings provisions of40 CFR 51.102 (July 1, 2002); and 

(b) Approve the standards submitted by a regional authority if the regional authority adopts 

verbatim any standard that the Commission has adopted, and submit the standards to EPA for 

approval as a SIP revision. 

NOTE: Revisions to the State of Oregon Clean Air Act Implementation Plan become federally 

enforceable upon approval by the United States Environmental Protection Agency. If any 

provision 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 of State's Oregon Bulletin December 1,2008 

4.2 Certificate and Order for Filing Permanent Administrative Rules, filed and 


effective June 30, 2009 


Attachment 4.1, pg. 1 

' eoo Surnmer St NE Salem OR 97310 Oregon State ArchIves 503373 07011 Moo.f"n a.m-44Spm 

Oregon Administrative Rules 

alpha links Inumerical links I bulieUns Ifiling resources I rules coordinators Il'-lloutoars Isearch oars Ibuy oars Iors 

Oregon Bulletin 

December 1,2008 

NOTICES OF PROPOSED RULEMAKING AND 


PROPOSED RULEMAKING HEARINGS 


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

or views on proposed rulemaking activity. To expedite the rulemaking process, many agencies have set the time and place for a 

hearing in the notice. Copies of rulemaking materials may be obtained from the Rules Coordinator at the address and telephone 

number indicated. 

Public comment may be submitted in writing directly to an agency or presented orally or in writing at the rulemaking hearing. 

Written comment must be submitted to an agency by 5:00 p.m. on the Last Day for Comment listed, unless a different time of 

day is specified. Written and oral comments may be submitted at the appropriate time during a rulemaking hearing as outlined in 

OAR 137-001-0030. 

Agencies providing notice request public comment on whether other options should be considered for achieving a proposed 

administrative rule's substantive goals while reducing negative economic impact ofthe rule on business. 

In Notices ofProposed Rulemaking where no hearing has been set, a hearing may be requested by 10 or more people or by an 

association with 10 or more members. Agencies must receive requests for a public rulemaking hearing in writing within 21 days 

following notice publication in the Oregon Bulletin or 28 days from the date notice was sent to people on the agency mailing list, 

whichever is later. Ifsufficient hearing requests are received by an agency, notice ofthe date and time of the ru lemaking hearing 

must be published in the Oregon Bulletin at least 14 days before the hearing. 

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

the notice information. 

Department of Environmental 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 6th Ave. 

Portland, OR 97204 

1-7-09 6p.m. Lane Regional 
Attachment 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 Stewart Ave. 

Medford, OR 9750 I 

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.31 0 

Stats. Implemented: ORS 468A.025 

Proposed Adoptions: 340-223-00 I 0, 340-223-0020, 340-223-0030, 340-223-0040, 340-223-0050 

Proposed Amend ments: 340-200-0040, 340-228-0671, 340-228-0673 

Last Date for Comment: 1-16-09,5 p.m. 

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. 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 of any 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 of expected haze levels in 

2018, and an analysis of how 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 BART requirements mentioned above; 

3. It 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. 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 of mercury 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 reporting to 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] 1 SW Sixth Ave., Portland, OR 97204 

Telephone: (503) 229-6412 
Attachment 4.2, pg. 1 0-50 

Secretary of State 


Certificate and Order for Filing 


PERMANENT ADMINISTRATIVE RULES 


I certify that the artached copies* are true, full and correct copies of the PERMANENT Rule(s) adopted on June 19,2009 by the 


Date prior to or same as filing datc< 


Environmental Ouality Commission to be administered by DEQ _________< OAR Chapter 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, OR 97204 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.31 0 

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 how well 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 of visibility impairing 

pollutants from four other industrial facilities in Oregon that were 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 

[2-27-05 
Attachment 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 

·Copies include a photocopy of this certificate witb paper and declmnic copies ofeach rule listed in the Rutemaking Action. 


·-The Oregon Bullet'" is published on the 1st of each month and updates the rule text found in the Oregon Administrative Rules Compilation. Notice forms must be submitted to the 


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 preceding workday 


12-27-OS 2 
Attachment 5 

Evidence ofAdequate Public Notice 

5.1 Affidavit of Publication: The Oregonian, December 5,2008 publication. 


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


5.3 Affidavit of Publication: Medford Mail Tribune, December 7,2008 


publication. 


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


5.5 Affidavit of Publication: East Oregonian, December 10, 2008 publication. 


5.6 Affidavit of Publication: 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 Ce6 die.; 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 by ORS 193.010 and 193.020, published in the city ofPortland. in 

Multnomah County, Oregon; that the advertisement was published without interruption in the entire and regular issue ofThe 

Oregonian or the issue on the 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 

rule making 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 of the most significant actions of the plan is the establishment of tighter 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 by the Oregon Department of Forestry. as part of the 

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, at the DEQ Medford Office, 221 Stewart Ave, Medford, 

Oregon; 

January 12, 2009, at 6:00 p.m. at the Hermiston Conference Center, Rotary Altrusa Room, at 415 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/. or on 

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, or at 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, by email at 

regionalhaze@deq.state.or.us, by fax at (503) 229-5675 (attention Brian Finneran), or at any of the public hearings. All 

comments must be received no later than 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 say that 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 newspaper for 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 . 

. The Oepirirtmem (If En~auallty Is proposing that the EnWonmental Quality 

COmmililSlOrledopt the 0regt;lfl200S Regional Haze PIan.to reduce haze causlrig poIIuII?!; In national patks I!lld wHQerness areas. plan and as:soc~ted rulemaking is a 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 over the n!lld 60 y.ear'S. CIas:s.1 areas such as Crater 

lake NatiOnal Park often haveirOpalreii"itlsibility dlie'to··I1..ze·, that Is transported hLihdretIs of miles fTom cars,lndystry•.Outdoor burOing, and inanYotI1er SQUrces•. 

One of the most ~tac:6Or)s of the plan Is t!le estabns~nt of tighter 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..eligible facirltjeS reduce their erniss!orls and change their permits to ensUl1! they will not cause a slgnificl!mt Im~ qn visibility in Oregon ClaI!S I are­ as; Inc;luded wi1h these niles ror roE BOardrrian is lin' adjustment to the schedule for Installing.mercury emil!Slon controls at the BoGrdman plant In addition, the Department Is 

proeos1np to adopt r~nt revis!ons.~ to the O/1!gon.Smoke Management Plan by the Oregon Department pf Forestry, ss part of the 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 of t/)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, or at this address: OED Alr Qual­

)f Oregon, 

(of Jackson 

Affidavit of Publication 

) 

) ss. 

) 

yI A.Curtis, being first duly sworn, depose and say that I am 

ncipal Clerk of Medford Mail Tribune newspaper of general 

tion, printed and published at Medford in the aforesaid county 

ate; that the 

,I Notice Of Public Hearing 

ity DIvIsion, 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 newspaper for 1 Insertion in the following issues: 

Brian Finneran). or at the public hearing. All comments must be received no I!lter then nber 7,2008 , 5:00 p.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 of September 2011. 

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

Advertising East Oregonian 

Hermiston Herald 


211 SE Byers Ave 


Pendleton, OR 97801 
 Receipt Phone: (541)276-2211 


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 

Ad taker: 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 adopt the 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 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 of the most significant actions of the plan is the establishment of tighter 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; that the 

#4511- OF PUBLIC HEARING 

to which a printed copy of which is hereto annexed; ~as put: 

entire issue of said newspaper for --'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 


MY COMMISSlDN EXPIRES AUGUST 13, 2012 

Notary Public of 

PnblicB~g 

on Proposed 2008 Dregon Regional Haze 

Plan 

!he Department of 'Enviromnental Quality 

IS proposing that the Environmental QualiCo~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 national parks and wilderness 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 to make incremental progress in reducing !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 of the 'moSt significant actions of the . 

~lan is the establishment of tighter pollution controls for the POE Boardman coalfired power plant, in response to the fe4eral 

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 

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 the Oregon Smoke 

Management Plan by the. Oregon Department of Forestry. as part of the Oregon Regio~a1 Haze Plan. . 

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 ofthe proposed rule package '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: DEQ Air 

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 Received Hermiston Herald 

211 SE Byers Ave 

Pendleton, OR 97801 Receipt [lEC 18 20DB Phone: (541)276-2211. 

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 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 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 of the 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 J 
ED-3648.j 

PUBLleHl!!1IftlriG 

Attachment on Proposed 200B Oregon Regional Haze Plan 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 unFOR 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. • 

STATE OF OREGON One of the most significant actions of·lhe plan 

the establishment of tighter pollution controls fOI 

the PGE Boardman coal-fired ppwer plant. in re­ County of Umatilfa} 55 sponse to the federal requirement for 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 

say that I am the principal clerk of the publisher of the East Oregoniar to adopt recent revislo!,!s made to the Ore go 

a newspaper of general 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 of which is hereto annexed; was published in the www.deq.state.or.uslaqlhazel. or on DEQ's pul 

IIc notice : website entire issue of said newspaper for_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 Sixth Avenue, 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, 2008 December 10, 200B 

[]¥gu~ OFFICIAL SEAL 

TERRI BRIGGS 

NOTARY PUBUC·OREGON 

COMMISSION NO. 431621 

MY COMMISSION EXPIRES AUGUST 13. 2012 

Notary Public of Oregon 
200B PUBIJC OREGON HEARING REGIONAL ON HAZE PROPOSED:.c PLAN I -I' da'v' -I t, 0'f

The Pep~nvlronmentaf Quality , Publication

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~ being first duly sworn, depose and say that 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 I areas in, rsonal knowledge that the Haze Plan, a pnnted copy ofwhich IS hereto 

Oregon (11 wilderness araes, and Crater ed was published in the entire issue of said newspaper once in each ofone 

Leks National Park). The federal ,rule re- '. • ' • • ' . 

quires each state to rnakeincremenlal mtive weeks ill the follOWlllg Issues: 


progress 

areas CJIIer 

In 

the 

raducilg 

next 60 

air 

years. 

pollution 

Class 

In 

I 

the~e 

areas Iber 10 ' , 

2008 ~ 

• ~ 

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 sworn to before me 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 Bast Available RetrolltTechnol·' COMMJSSIONNO.424826 

ogy (BART). The Depertment:I~~~~ MY COMMISSION EXPIRES JANUARY 9, 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'.: 


pact on 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 Departrrillnt will hold 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 proposed rule pacfl!!ge can 


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, or at this 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 iater than 5:00 p.m., January 16, 


2009. 


Dec. 10, 200B 

13632 

Attachment 6 


Certification of Public Hearing 


See paragraph #3 of cover letter and Attachment 7.1 

Attachment 7 


Compilation of Public Comments and Department's Response 


7.1 Pre~iding Officer's Report for Rulemaking Hearings, dated January 26, 2009 

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

Attachment 7.1, pg. 1 

State of Oregon 

Department of Environmental Quality Memorandum 

Date: January 26, 2009 

To: Environmental Quality Commission 

From: Brian Finneran, DEQ Air Quality Division 

Subject: Presiding Officer's Report for Rulemaking Hearings 

Title of Proposal: Adoption of2008 Oregon Regional Haze Plan and 

New Controls for PGE Boardman Power Plant 

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 Air Pollution Authority 

3. Medford OR, DEQ Regional Office 

4. Hermiston OR, Conference Center 

5. The Dalles OR, Columbia Gorge Community College 

The Department held five public hearings on the proposed rulemaking at the locations noted 

above. The following is a summary of each 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, and DEQ Director Dick Pedersen. The hearing 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 

informed the audience that the EQC was very interested to hear comments on this proposed 

rulemaking, and mentioned PGE submitted comments proposing "decision points" or options for 

shutting down the Boardman plan in the future. He said that to ensure the public had the 

opportunity to comment on the proposed rulemaking and PGE's proposal, the public comment 

period was extended by two weeks until January 30th. Ken added that the EQC would not be 

making any decisions tonight, just listening to the testimony. Linda introduced Brian Finneran 

from DEQ, who gave a presentation summarizing the proposed rulemaking. A question and 

answer period followed the presentation. 

Linda then announced at 6:47 p.m. she would like to begin the formal hearing on the proposed 

rulemaking hearing. She informed people that the hearing would be recorded and that testimony 
Attachment 7.1, pg. 2 

would become part of the public record for the rule making. Linda explained her role was to take 

testimony on behalf of the EQC and prepare a report summarizing the written and verbal 

comments. She asked that people interested in providing oral testimony fill out a witness 

registration form, and would call people to testify in the order they turned in the form. She stated 

that written comments would be given the same weight as oral comments. 

Linda reminded the audience that the deadline date for receipt of written comments on the 

proposed rules is Friday, January 30th, 2009, at 5 p.m. She stated that after reviewing the 

comments, the department may consider revisions to the proposed rules. She added that the 

department's final recommendation for rule adoption will be made at the EQC meeting scheduled 

for 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 of the proposed rules, postpone adoption, or hold 

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 on the PGE Boardman power plant, and how it fits into PGE 

resource mix. She said the proposed "decision points" being recommended by PGE in their 

December 17,2009 comment letter represents a fine tuning ofDEQ proposed Best Available 

Retrofit Technology (BART) rules, and ensures environmental protection, as well as addressing 

the uncertainty of upcoming 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 decision points 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's proposed 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 Boardman plant 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 

BART proposal, 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 power plant in Washington, where similar S02 controls were 

installed within 4 years. He said PGE' proposal would undermine efforts to develop a protection 
Attachment 7.1, pg. 3 

strategy in the Gorge, and have adverse and unacceptable impacts until at least 2020. In 

supporting DEQ proposed 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. The proposed 

Phase 1 NOx 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 Boardman plant as soon as possible, and that other 

technologies should be pursued for power generation. The costs for the proposed controls are 

very high, and because of upcoming global warming regulations, she would rather see Boardman 

shutdown by 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 if the only choice was 

between the $471 million to keep Boardman in operation, or the PGE proposal, his choice would 

be the PGE proposal, 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 of the Columbia Gorge 

Michael noted that his organization has about 5,000 members, and PGE Boardman is the largest 

stationary source of air pollution 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 of Class 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 good job in 

proposing controls for PGE Boardman as a first step, but it does not go far enough. He supports 

new low NOx burners by 2011 which 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 of mercury 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 shown to 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 PGE that they should be not required to install expensive 

controls that could be scrapped in the near future, but disagrees that global wanning is a real 

problem. He questioned DEQ's use ofthe "deciview" measurement to show visibility 

improvements, as it is on a logarithmic scale, which compared to a linear scale, exaggerates the 

amount of improvement. 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 management plans to reduce the impact of forest fires. Gordon said DEQ 

should not pick on PGE Boardman just because 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 power needs. He said he would like to see how the estimated emission reduction from 

DEQ's proposed Boardman controls 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 Boardman plant has operated uncontrolled since 

1980. She stated that her coalition does not disagree with DEQ's technical 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 other coal plants can achieve 90% S02 emission reduction, and 

that SCR controls for NOx is should be able to achieve 93% reduction. Aubrey said her coalition 

supports July 2011 decision point for PGE to decide on plant shutdown, and for deciding on 

whether to install both S02 controls and SCR controls. She said 2020 should be latest shutdown 

date, and does not support the proposed 2 year extension for mercury controls. She said PGE is 

now at a crossroads to pour money in old, inefficient technologies, or provide 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 of clear and enforceable 

timelines and specific emission limits are needed which will result in actual emission reductions 

and improvement to air quality. He stated that coal-burning plants are the nations' largest 

sources of air pollution and global warming, and PGE Boardman is no exception. He said 

impacts on visibility 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 threat to 

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 BART and 

the regional haze regulations. 

Tom Wood, Associated Oregon Industries 

Tom said that he is the chair of the Energy and Environment Committee ofAOI and it is in that 

capacity that he is offering testimony. He said that while DEQ did a good job on the 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 way to bring in flexibility to the process, in order to 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 on their 

own merit. Tom said that PGE's presentation showed that the aggregate emissions associated 

with the different closure options, and DEQ proposed controls, are essentially the same. He 

added that he thinks it will take a longer time 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's proposed decision points included. 

Brian Pasko, Sierra Club 

Brian stated that the PGE Boardman plant 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 of greenhouse gas 

emissions in Oregon, and that the outcome ofthis regional haze rulemaking will have a 

substantial impact on Oregon's efforts to continue to lead in reducing the impacts of global 

warming, by investing in energy efficiency and renewable energy, and phasing out use of coal. 

He said the Sierra Club supports giving PGE regulatory flexibility options to make informed 

decisions on whether it would be more prudent close the plant ahead ofschedule or to invest 

millions of dollars 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 Boardman plant in a shorter timeframe, and that PGE should make 

this decision by July 1, 2011. 

There was no other testimony provided. The hearing was adjourned at 8:07 p.m. 
Attachment 7.1, pg. 6 

2. January 7, 2009, Lane Regional Air Pollution Authority, LRAPA Meeting Room, 1010 

Main Street, Springfield. The hearing officer was Brian Finneran from DEQ. The hearing 

began at 6:10 p.m. 

5 people attended the hearing. 1 person testified. 

Brian Finneran announced he would like to start by providing a presentation summarizing the 

proposed rulemaking. A brief question and answer period followed the presentation. 

Brian began 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 of the public record for the 

rulemaking. He explained his role was to take testimony on behalf of the EQC and prepare a 

report summarizing the written and verbal comments. He asked that people interested in 

providing oral testimony fill out a witness registration form, and would call people to testify in 

the order they turned in the form. Brian stated that written comments would be given the same 

weight as oral comments. 

Brian mentioned that the deadline date for receipt of written comments on the 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 own discretion in deciding whether to 

adopt all, part or none of the proposed rules, 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 of the December 17,2009 comment letter submitted to DEQ. He gave 

some background information on the POE Boardman power plant, and how it fits into POE 

resource mix. He mentioned that this coal plant is about a half to 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's rulemaking 

process. He stated that pending climate change legislation poses many uncertainties for POE. 

He said POE agrees with DEQ proposed BART controls for nitrogen oxides (NOx), and controls 

for sulfur dioxide (S02), only if the life operates beyond 2040. Ray added that POE 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 POE is 

only recommending minor changes to the proposed controls requirements. He pointed out that 

each of POE 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 POE'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 POE's proposal allows flexibility to achieve the best 
Attachment 7.1, pg. 7 

economic and environmental outcomes, and if looking at aggregate emissions or visibility 

improvement, PGE's decision points proposal is as good or better than DEQ's proposed 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 

Commissioner Judy Uherbelau. The hearing began at 6: 15 p.m. 

4 people attended the hearing. 1 person testified. 

Tom Peterson announced that Brian Finneran would be providing a presentation summarizing 

the proposed rulemaking. A brief question and answer period 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 of the public record for the 

rulemaking. He explained his role was to take testimony on behalf of the EQC and prepare a 

report summarizing the written and verbal comments. He asked that people interested in 

providing oral testimony fill out a witness registration form, and would call people to testify in 

the order they turned in the form. Tom stated that written comments would be given the same 

weight as oral comments. 

Tom mentioned that 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 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 own discretion in deciding whether to 

adopt all, part or none of the proposed rules, postpone adoption, or hold additional public 

hearings. 

• Summary of Oral Testimony: 

One person turned in a witness registration form. 

Ray Hendricks from Portland Gas and Electric (PGE) Company 

Ray provided highlights of the 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 half to 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's rulemaking 

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 if the 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 if looking at aggregate emissions or visibility 

improvement, PGE's decision points proposal is as good or better than DEQ's proposed 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 proposed rulemaking. A question and answer period followed the presentation. 

Linda began 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 of the public record for the 

rulemaking. She explained his role was to take testimony on behalf ofthe EQC and prepare a 

report summarizing the written and verbal comments. She asked that people interested in 

providing oral testimony fill out a witness registration form, and would call people to testify in 

the order they turned in the form. Linda stated that written comments would be given the same 

weight as oral comments. 

Linda mentioned that the deadline date for receipt of written comments on the proposed rules is 

Friday, January 30th, 2009, at 5 p.m. She stated that after reviewing the comments, the 

department may consider revisions to the proposed rules. She added that the department's final 

recommendation for rule adoption will be made at the EQC meeting scheduled for 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 of the proposed rules, postpone adoption, or hold 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 of the 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 half to 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's rulemaking 

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 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 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 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'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 plant had to shutdown prematurely. She said 

she was surprised to learn that the State of Oregon does not have an energy supply plan and that 

this year the Oregon Department of Energy is requesting funding for such a plan. She said that if 

DEQ is proposing rules that could lead to a premature shutdown ofthe PGE Boardman plant, she 

questions where would the replacement power 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 if EPA is 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 at just new ones. She commented on the lack offull analysis of land use 

impacts, especially for replacement power should the plant shutdown. She encouraged DEQ to 

look at other precedents 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 important rulemaking decision that requires a very thoughtful and 

comprehensive analysis, which includes looking at the unavoided and unintended consequences, 

such as increasing the rate base, the land use impacts, other environmental impacts, and the 

economic and social impacts. 
Attachment 7.1, pg. 1 0 

Gary Neal, Port of Morrow 

Gary stated that the Power of Morrow recognizes the PGE Boardman plant is an important part 

ofthe local economy. He said the Port supports DEQ's proposed 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 BART requirements. 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's proposed 

rules to reflect PGE's decision points proposal, for the reasons PGE has provided. 

Terry Tallman, Morrow County Judge 

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 if the plant had to shutdown, where would the replacement 

power come from. He added that this could affect economic development and have other 

consequences, and that the plant provides 2100 jobs. He agreed with Tamra's comments about 

the importance for state and local government consultation. Terry added that a major concern is 

the potential impact on PGE'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 of the Umatilla Indian Reservation 

John stated that tribal people are very close the land, and respect the natural resources, including 

visibility, air and water quality. 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 other testimony provided. The hearing was adjourned at 8:15 p.m. 

S. January 13, 2009, Columbia Gorge Community College, Lecture Hall, Building Two, 

Room 2.384, 400 E. Scenic Drive, The Dalles. The hearing officer was Linda Hayes-Gorman 

from DEQ. The hearing began at 6:07 p.m. 

46 people attended the hearing. 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 on the proposed rulemaking hearing at 7:20 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 behalfof the EQC and prepare a 

report summarizing the written and verbal comments. She asked that people interested in 

providing oral testimony fill out a witness registration form, and would call people to testify in 

the order they turned in the form. 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 of written comments on the proposed rules is 

Friday, January 30th, 2009, at 5 p.m. She stated that after reviewing the comments, the 

department may consider revisions to the proposed rules. She added that the department's final 

recommendation for rule adoption will be made at the EQC meeting scheduled for 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, or hold additional public 

hearings. 

• Summary of Oral 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 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 half to 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's rulemaking 

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 if the 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'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 if looking at aggregate emissions or visibility 

improvement, PGE's decision points proposal is as good or better 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 of controls being proposed for the PGE Boardman plant. 
Attachment 7.1, pg. 12 

Lauren Goldberg, Columbia Riverkeeper 

Lauren stated the Columbia Riverkeeper is part of a coalition of environmental groups that has 

filed a federal lawsuit claiming PGE Boardman has been violating the law by not meeting the 

Clean Air Act. She said she's concerned about the impact of Boardman's S02 and NOx 

emissions on aquatic systems. She commented that PGE's demand for regulatory flexibility 

must not interfere with achieving DEQ's regional haze and policy goals. She said DEQ should 

provide PGE with flexibility to cease emissions entirely instead of spending hundreds of millions 

on some pollutants, but PGE's proposed timeline allows them to continue to pollute for too long. 

She indicated under no circumstances should PGE be allowed to emit more under their proposal 

than under DEQ's, or weaken DEQ's proposed rules, which are already too lenient. Lauren said 

DEQ should give PGE until 20 II to decide whether install controls or cease 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 should not 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 in November, the worst month for haze, 50% ofthe haze can be directly attributable to 

PGE Boardman. She encouraged DEQ to require that PGE Boardman comply with reasonable 

and technologically achievable limits. She added that the NOx controls required by DEQ in 

201 1 should 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's regional haze and policy goals. 

Peter Cornelison, Hood River Valley Residents Committee 

Peter stated that his organization supports more stringent regulation of PGE 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 of air pollution, which causes acid rain, and which also emits 

mercury, and thus poses significant health risks. 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 of the 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 of renewable 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 of non-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's testimony in supporting the BART controls 

being proposed, but not the Reasonable Progress controls. He also supports PGE's decision 

points proposal, given the uncertainty of future carbon regulations. He said he encourages DEQ 

to continue to use common sense and sound economic judgment 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. 

Mark Nelson, citizen 
Attachment 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 Burner with 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 of this Comment and Response Document 3 

How to 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 of the 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 28 
Attachment 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 of the public record and have been reviewed by 

DEQ. In addition to this summary, the full record of individual comments will be made available to 

the Environmental Quality Commission. A copy of the full public comment record is available for 

the DEQ Headquarters, 811 SW 6th Ave. Portland. Photocopies of the record are available for a 

fee. This summary is also available on the agency website: http://www.deq.state.or.us/aq/haze/. 

Overview of this 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 of grouping 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.) of the 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 number that 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 

of those who commented by form letter email. 

General Guide to Comments 

To assist in finding your comments, the following is a summary of the different groups that 

commented on this rulemaking, and notes where in this document the responses can be found. 

This is intended to be a general guide to finding most of the comments, but not all. 

1. 	 Comments provided by EPA, National Park Service, U. S Fish & Wildlife Service, U. S. Forest 

Service, and the Southwest Clean Air Agency. 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 of the 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 of the 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 provided primarily by environmental groups. Most of these 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 general public. Most of these 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, categories 1 9-23, 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 of the criteria and 

methodology for conducting this evaluation. The comments urged coordination with appropriate 

forestry agencies, representatives and stakeholders in all steps of the evaluation, including the 

review of findings 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 of operation (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 air is dependent upon the design of the boiler and 

the type of coal burned. The Foster-Wheeler boiler at the Boardman plant is a wall-fired 

dry bottom boiler, but has unique design features that will affect the performance of low 

NOx burners. One significant difference between the boiler at the Boardman plant and 

other wall-fired dry bottom boilers are the wing walls that are installed in the upper 

region of the furnace zone for heat transfer. These wing walls reduce the effective 

mixing zone of the gases that would otherwise be available in other boilers. Since low 

NOx burners rely on staged combustion, reducing the mixing zone will reduce the 

effectiveness of the burner and overfire air system. 

The Ultra-Low NOx burner cited in the comments was installed on a B&W boiler (Unit 6 

at the w.A. Parish facility in Texas). B&W boilers have a different internal design 

configuration than the Foster Wheeler boiler at the Boardman plant. 

DEQ did not find that a 66% reduction (at a limit of 0.15 Ibs/mmBtu) was achievable. 

There are approximately 230 wal/-fired dry bottom boilers in the US, but DEQ could 

only identify one other boiler that is comparable to the boiler at the Boardman plant and 

that has relatively new low NOx burners (Unit 1 at the Gerald Gentleman Station in 

Nebraska). In 2008 the annual average NOx emissions were 0.223 Ib/mmBtu. Only 32 

of the 230 wall-fired dry bottom boilers with low NOx burners had better emission rates 

in 2008. The few that had lower emissions rates have different designs or bum 

different types of coals than the boiler at the Boardman plant. 

Based on the performance of Unit 1 at the GGS facility in Nebraska, DEQ believes that 

a limit of 0.23 Ib/mmBtu would be difficult to meet with low NOx burners on a 30-day 

roiling average, but should be achievable as an annual rolling average. 

The annual limit enforceable during the first year of operation. Annual emissions will 

be monitored with a certified continuous emissions monitoring system (GEMS). GEMS 

are the most reliable compliance monitoring method available. 

The Department agrees that dry bottom wall-fired units with low NOx burners and 

overfire air will not achieve the same emission rates as tangentially fired units with low 

NOx burners and overfire air. The presumptive BART limits proposed by EPA are 0.23 

and O. 15lb/mmBtu heat input for dry bottom wall-fired units and tangentially fired units; 

respectively. Actual emissions data shows a difference between the two types of boiler 

designs, but there is considerable scatter in the data suggesting that the emission 

performance is not just dependant on the general design category, but it is also 

dependent upon the specific design of the units within in the general categories, as 

discussed above. 
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 only precise 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 or dry 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 802BART limit determination. 22 

The control effectiveness of the wet scrubber that DEQ used in its BART analysis was 

based on actual emissions representative of the best performing systems in the U. S, 

taking into consideration normal fluctuations in emissions. For example, unit BW22 at 

the Centralia Plant in WaShington had an annual average emission rate of 0.036 

IblmmBtu in 2008. However, when the 30-day rolling averages are evaluated, the 95% 

confidence level is about O. 1 IblmmBtu. Some of the difference between the annual 

and short term emission rate may be due to start-up or shutdown emissions, but DEQ 

believes it is important to base the control effectiveness for the BART analysis 

on emission limits that can be achieved in practice. Based on the data, DEQ 

believes that a control effectiveness of O. 07 IblmmBtu is appropriate. 

b) 	 DEQ does not agree that a wet scrubber should be required for BART. DEQ agrees 

that a wet scrubber can achieve lower emission rates than a dry scrubber, but the two 

control technologies produce about the same visibility protection. DEQ used an 

emission rate of O. 07 IblmmBtu for the wet scrubber and O. 12 IblmmBtu for the dry 

scrubber in the BART analysis. Even though a wet scrubber can achieve lower 

emission rates, the wet scrubber does not provide more visibility improvement than a 

dry scrubber because of the plume characteristics (e.g., wet plume with much lower 

temperatures) and the wet scrubber is $135 million dollars more than·a dry scrubber. 

Therefore, DEQ determined that BART is a dry scrubber rather than a wet scrubber. 

c) 	 Stanton #10 in North Dakota is only about 100 MW, and the Rawhide Unit 101 in 

Colorado is about 280 MW, which are both much smaller than the Boardman plant at 

about 600 MW The control effectiveness of the dry scrubber that DEQ used in its 

BART analysis was based on the performance of emission units similar to the boiler at 

the Boardman plant. Although the S02 controls are less sensitive to boiler design, the 

type of coal and the size of the unit can have significant effects on the control 

effectiveness. Analysis of existing dry scrubber systems indicates that smaller electric 

generating units generally are capable of achieving lower emission rates than larger 

units probably because there is less stack gas to treat in the scrubber. In addition, 

when a detailed analysis of the emissions data is conducted, the emission levels that 

can be achieved for compliance purposes are higher than the annual average emission 

rates recommended in the comments. 

In terms of meeting 0.07 /blmmBtu on a 30-day rolling average with either a wet or dry 

scrubber, DEQ's response in (b) above describes why a dry scrubber 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 dry scrubbers. Of these, more than half had annual average 

emission rates greater than O. 12 IblmmBtu in 2008. Of the ones that had lower 

emission rates than 0.12 IblmmBtu, most are much smaller units than at the Boardman 

plant. 

f) 	 DEQ does not believe that a 90% reduction in S02 is achievable in practice due to the 

relatively low sulfur content of the coal burned at the Boardman plant. There is a point 

ofdiminishing returns when the addition of more lime will not continue to significantly 

reduce the S02 emissions. This phenomenon has always been addressed in 

regulations dealing with systems that rely on reagents to control pollutant emissions. 

For example, the New Source Performance Standard for electric generating units has a 

requirement to reduce S02 emission by 90% if the emissions are greater than 0.6 

IblmmBtu and 70% if the emissions are less than 0.6 IblmmBtu. 

g) 	 As discussed above, DEQ believes that the appropriate emission limit for the dry 

scrubber controls 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 generally only precise to two significant digits. Establishing 

limits with 2 significant digits is consistent with most New Source Performance 

Standards promulgated by EPA. 

i) 	 DEQ appreciates the support for the S02 BART limit. 

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 I a) DEQ has proposed a provision for extending the BART compliance date for NOx to

. 	 2014 because there is some uncertainty as to whether LNBlMOFA can achieve a limit 

of 0.23IblmmBtu. Although not specifically required by the regional haze rules, DEQ 

believes that it is important to at least try to achieve the presumptive limits provided in 

EPA's guidance document for national consistency. The BART limit proposed for 2011 

satisfies the intent of the guidelines for installing LNBlMOFA. However, due to the 

unique deSign ofthe Boardman boiler, it may not be possible to meet the limit. DEQ 

could only identify one other unit in the United States that has the same design as the 

Boardman boiler and already has new LNBlMOFA 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 and average emissions from 

previous years, DEQ believes that it is possible for the Boardman boiler to meet an 

annual limit of 0.23 IblmmBtu with LNBIMOFA. However, if it is not possible, DEQ 

proposes an extension to 2014 to allow PGE to install a Selective Non-Catalytic 

Reduction (SNCR) system. Although SNCR is not recommended as BART for the 

various reasons provided in the BART report, it is a reasonable add-on for a limited 

amount of time to meet the presumptive BART limits, again for national consistency. 

The SNCR system will only be temporary because it will be replaced by the SCR 

system in 2017 or it will be used in conjunction with the SCR system, but there won't be 

nearly as much excess ammonia emissions once the SCR is installed. PGE won't 

know whether the new LNBIMOFA system will achieve the proposed limit until 2012 

because the limit is an annual limit and the equipment won't be installed until 2011. If 

I 	 the limit can't be met, DEQ's proposal allows 2 additional years for PGE to design, 

I 	 procure, and install the SNCR system, which is a relatively aggressive schedule. 

i 4. DEQ's 802 ! a) PGE should install the 802 controls 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 of the retrofit project as well as the potential for competition ' 
Attachment 7.2, pg. 9 

'"-------"-·"----r---;;.;Iiii-other BAFifrefrofii-projects nationally,ijEQdoesnotiJeiie~e thaiit is reasonable 

I 

I b) 

II 


I

I
 

I 

to require the S02 controls be installed by July1, 2013. 

The Centralia Plant was required to install wet scrubbers as a result of a Reasonably 

Available Control Technology (RACT) determination and order in 1997. According to 

the Acid Rain Program emissions data, the controls were installed in 2001 for one unit 

and 2002 for the other unit. DEQ believes the schedule for the Boardman Plant is 

consistent with the Centralia Plant; especially considering that the Boardman Plant will 

have competition with other BART projects. 

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 for installing the BART controls 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, and construction ofthe 

specific control technologies and coordination with the normal maintenance outage that 

occurs each year in the late spring. However, the schedule does not take into 

consideration final approval of the SIP by EPA. According to the regional haze rules, 

the BART controls are to be installed no later than 5 years from approval of the SIP. 

Therefore, the proposed schedule is more stringent than required because the SIP 

approval will probably not occur until the beginning of 2010 at the earliest. In 

establishing the schedule, DEQ also considered it unreasonable to expect PGE to 

commit resources to the retrofit projects until they are certain what requirements must 

be met. DEQ is sensitive to the fact that there will be numerous other retrofit projects 

occurring at the same time throughout the country, and these projects will be in direct 

competition for the necessary equipment and resources, which was not necessarily the 

case when retrofit controls were added to the Centralia coal plant. 

I 6. DEO's Phase 1 

I NOx controls 

i should include 

SCR 

. 

-:-'-Response-'-T-aTOEQagreesSCRcontro/s woui2iprovide-slgniflcantvisiiJi,iiy7mprovemen"is, buTdoes·----"-< 

not agree SCR should be BART, because its annual costs are about 6 times more than 

LNBIMOFA, yet provides about 2 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 improvement than 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 BART was 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 could be installed within the 5-year period allowed by the BART rules due to 

the significant boiler modifications that will be necessary for the retrofit. 

b) 	 DEQ agrees that when compared to each other, SCR is more cost effective and 

provides more visibility improvement than the S02 dry scrubber controls. However, 

BART must be evaluated for each pollutant separately. Similar costs are not . 

necessarily an indicator that two control options are equal. DEQ concluded that 

LNBlMOFA better fits the concept of BART than SCR, and that SCR is cost-effective 

for providing additional NOx control. This was not the case when comparing the dry 

scrubber to the wet scrubber, where visibility improvement was about the same, yet the 

cost for the wet scrubber was much higher. 

c) 	 In response to the comment that DEQ overestimated the cost of SCR, DEQ believes 

that the costs used in the analysis reflect real world costs of complex retrofit projects. 

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 probably 20% high. ERG's conclusion was based on an assessment of 

retrofits projects that have occurred primarily in the eastern U. S. and may represent 

easier retrofit projects, as companies were inclined to get as much emissions reduction 

as soon as possible at the lowest cost. The retrofit at the Boardman plant is 

considered to be complex because of the extensive modifications to the boiler that are 

necessary to reduce the temperature of the exhaust gases entering the SCR. 

In terms ofthe cost of a combined system, DEQ believes it is appropriate to add the 

annual costs for LNB and SCR together to arrive at a total cost for the entire package. 

The only savings as a result of having the LNB in front ofthe SCR is the amount of 

reagent used in the SCR system each year and that is not a significant portion ofthe 

total annualized cost. Assuming that only half as much reagent is required when LNB 

is installed ahead of the SCR, the annual cost of the SCR system with LNG would be 

$22.7 million, versus $23.1 million without LNB. 

d) 	 In terms ofthe reductions achievable by SCR, 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 of the 190 units had an 

annual average emission rate less than 0.07 Ib/mmBtu and only three of the 17 were 

dry bottom wall-fired units. The lowest emission rate for the dry bottom 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 BART analysis 

represents the best control/ed dry bottom wall-fired unit in the U. S. 

e) 	 DEQ's estimate of emission reductions used in the calculation ofcost effectiveness 

was based on the difference between the maximum hourly emission rate in Ib/mmBtu 

during the period of 2003 and 2005 and the control effectiveness/emission limit in 

Ib/mmBtu for the 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 heat input during the 2003 to 2005 

period, assuming that the unit will be operated at the same levels in the future. For 

both the pre and post control emission calculations, the annual emissions 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 actual emissions should 

be less than the allowable emissions calculated using the control 

effectiveness/emission limit for the control optiOn. Since the pre-controlled emissions 

are based on the maximum hourly emissions, it is more accurate to determine the 

emission reduction using the allowable emissions after the controls are added because 

the allowable emissions are more representative of maximum emissions, making this 

an apples-to-apples comparison. 

f) 	 The exhaust gas going to the ESP has to remain about the same before and after the 

redesign of the lower economizer. As a result, it is anticipated that the increased 

thermal efficiency of a larger economizer prior to the SCR will be offset by a decrease 
Attachment 7.2, pg. 11 

in thermal efficiency due to cooler combustion air after the SCR. More heat will be 

extracted from the hot gases in the economizer to get the temperature down to the 

desired level before the SCR but this means that the temperature of the gases will be 

cooler at the pre heater so 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 of SCR by itself ($191 million) is about 6 times as much as 

the cost of LNBlMOFA ($32.7 million), not 8 times as much as stated in the BART 

report. 

h) SNCR is considered BART only as a contingency due to other factors besides cost and 

visibility protection. As a result, DEQ did not consider the relative costs of SNCR and 

SCR. However, there is a substantial difference in costs. The capital cost of SNCR is 

$17.4 million dollars versus $191 million for SCR. 

f i) BART represents emission limits that can be achieved using control technologies that 

I meet the BART criteria. However, BART does not require that a certain type of control 

be installed to meet the limits. Some other type of control may be installed to satisfy 

the BART requirement if the alternative or innovative control technology can achieve 

i 

I

!j) 

the emission limit established for BART. The only test for acceptance is whether the 

control technology meets the limit. 

DEQ does not believe that controls established as the result of an enforcement action 

should be considered BART unless they meet the BART criteria. 

I 

i 7. EPA SIP I a) DEQ has set a deadline for installing S02 controls of July 1, 2014, without knowing how 

i approval and long EPA approval of the 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 of the 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 of the 


! rulemaking. and not start 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) Under BART, the controls must be instal/ed "as expeditiously as possible, but no later 

i than five years". 

I b) DEQ has every expectation EPA will approve the SIP and these rules. DEQ as a 

i matter ofpolicy does not adopt rules with conditional provisions 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 

early 2010, the time/ine for installing Phase 2 NOx is about 7 years. This was 

determined by DEQ to be reasonable timeline, given the need for engineering, 

procurement, and construction, as well as additional time to make boiler modifications 

to accommodate the retrofit. 

e) 	 Under the BART requirements, the timeline for installing controls does not officially 

start until EPA approval of the SIP. For both the Phase 1 NOx and S02 controls, DEQ 

has established a timeline (2011 for NOx, 2014 for SO~ that is shorter than the 5-year 

maximum period. 

f) 	 As stated above, the timeline for installing BART controls for PGE Boardman was 

determined by DEQ to be "as expeditiously as possible". 

g) 	 Except for the compliance extension contingency for Phase 1 NOx controls, DEQ does 

not support adding other provisions that could 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 difficult to evaluate the 

cost effectiveness. (47) 

Response a) DEQ did rely on EPA's Control Cost Manual as a tool for estimating cost, but also 

researched "real world" costs as part ofour evaluation ofcontrol costs. DEQ believes it 

is important to use the best available information and to provide the best estimate of 

the true costs. 

b) Incremental cost-effectiveness is an important metric to consider for retrofit projects to 

ensure that the additional cost of controls is justified by corresponding environmental 

improvement. 

c) DEQ does not believe that the intent ofthe BART regulations was to compare the cost 

effectiveness of controls for one pollutant to the cost effectiveness of controls for 

another pollutant. In fact, the BART guidelines specifically state that BART should be 

evaluated on a pollutant by pollutant basis. The costs of controls will vary dramatically 

from pollutant to pollutant, depending on the degree of difficulty associated with 

reducing the pollutant emissions. 

d) DEQ apologizes for the errors in tables 15 and 16. However, the cost effectiveness 

and incremental cost effectiveness in terms of $lton in Table 15 are correct. The 

annual costs should have been $3.7 million for LNBlMOFA, $7.1 million for 

LNBIMOFAlSNCR, $23.1 million for SCR, and $26.8 million for LNBIMOFAISCR. In 

table 16, the baseline emissions were not included 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 posted on the rulemaking web 

page. Notice of the revised report was provided to all interested persons at the time 

that DEQ provided notice for extending the comment period. In addition, the 

spreadsheets supporting the data in the tables were provided on the rule making 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 better than 0.23Ib/mmBtu on a dry bottom wall-fired boiler in the size 

range of the boiler at the Boardman plant. There are 87 coal-fired electric generating 

units with SNCR controls and most of them are combined with low NOx burners and 

overfire air. Only eight ofthe 87 boilers are larger than 400 MW The largest dry 

bottom wall-fired unit is 541 MW and the annual average emission rate in 2008 was 

0.28Ib/mmBtu. The next largest is 437 MW and the annual average 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 BART analysis. 

b) DEQ concluded that in general, LNBIMOFA controls can meet the proposed Phase 1 

NOx emission limit. However, due to the design of the boiler at PGE Boardman, it is 

possible these controls may not quite achieve the proposed limit, which is why SNCR 

was added as a contingency measure to the proposed rules. The cost of SNCR is 

considerably higher than LNB/MOFA, and SNCR not only has ammonia Slip 

drawbacks, but also slag issues and storage and handling safety concerns, which are 

the reasons it was not recommended as BART. 

c) The contingency will be added to the Title V permit along with a requirement that PGE 

submit a request for the contingency if the limit cannot be met after installing the low 

NOx burners. The Department will evaluate the request and either approve or 

disapprove the compliance extension. Under the authority of the Highest and Best 

Practicable Treatment and Control regulations in OAR 340, Division 226, the Title V 

permit will include requirements for operating the LNBlOFA system as effectively as 

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 not believe that an exemption should be provided for malfunctions because 

that is exactly the type of excess emissions that should be 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 enforcement discretion, but it 

should not be automatic for each malfunction. 

b) DEQ believes that the BART emission limits should not apply during startups and 

shutdowns if it is not possible to operate the controls during these periods. The low 

NOx burners will not be effective until the combustion process is stabilized and the S02 

controls cannot be operated until the exhaust temperature is at least greater than the 

moisture dew point to prevent clogging and/or damage of the bag filters. DEQ's excess 

emissions rules require startup and shutdown plans to minimize emissions during these 

periods to the extent practicable. 

! 11. Phase 2 NOx 

I controls comments Ionly 

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 limit proposed for SCR is 

as stringent as possible, but still achievable by PGE Boardman. 

c) For the reasons described in this group of DEQ 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 of the most significant 

single sources of haze pollution in Oregon, impacting 14 Class I areas in Oregon and 

Washington, with the highest impact at the Mt. Hood Class I Area, at about nine times 

the significant visibility impact level, and accounting for half of the Class I visibility 

impacts from the BART sources that were modeled. The proposed Phase 1 NOx and 

S02 controls reduce the impact from PGE Boardman at the 14 Class I areas by an 

average of 52%. The addition of Phase 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, 

will provide 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 of PGE Boardman's visibility impacts in the 14 Class I areas cited in d) above 

justifies requiring these controls at this time. 

f) DEQ is not proposing Phase 2 SCR controls for BART, but rather for reasonable 

progress purposes. SCR controls will provide significant visibility benefits and help 

achieve the reasonable progress goals, and are consistent with the reasonable 

progress requirements under the federal Regional Haze rule Moreover, the Phase 2 

SCR controls will provide additional improvements, such as reducing acid deposition, 

improving visibility in the Columbia Gorge, and general benefits to air quality and public 

health, that the EQC may consider under its state authority. 

g) Prior to the next SIP submittal (plan update) in five years, DEQ will be evaluating other 

industrial sources besides PGE Boardman as part of the evaluation of non-BART 

sources in the Long-term Strategy for making reasonable progress. In terms of 

delaying SCR controls for PGE Boardman, as noted above, DEQ's visibility modeling 

showed that PGE Boardman is one of the most significant single sources of haze 

pollution in Oregon. Requiring SCR controls now will result in significant visibility 

improvements, and is needed to make reasonable progress in meeting the 2018 

Milestone. It will also provide regulatory certainty now, in terms of being able to plan 

for these controls in the upcoming years. For these reasons, DEQ does not support 

delaying adoption of Phase 2 controls. In terms of EPA SIP review and approval, DEQ 

expects this process will be expedited, due to EPA's involvement and coordination with 

DEQ in this rulemaking effort, and based on EPA's comments during the public 

comment period that indicate general support of this rulemaking as proposed. 

h) 	 DEQ agrees that the Boardman Plant should be 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 BART limit should be 0.012 as specified in the 

BART Report. The rule has been revised to reflect this change. 

b) 	 The proposed PM10 emission limits are based on DEQ's BART evaluation, which 

involves retrofitting existing facilities. This is different than the Best Available Control 

Technology (BACT) requirements for a new source. The limit for a retrofit project under 

BART should be based on what is demonstrated in practice for similar types of controls 

and emission units. Also, limits for new plants that are identified under a BACT 

analysis are not always achieved in practice. The difference between the proposed 

limit of 0.012 and 0.010 is not significant when considering the reference test methods 

for PM are generally only accurate to plus or minus 20%. 

c) 	 DEQ does not agree that a continuous emissions monitoring system (CEMS) for 

measuring particulate matter emissions is necessary to assure compliance with the 

BART limit. CEMS for particulate matter are expensive and require extensive 

maintenance to ensure they remain accurate. DEQ does not believe that the extra cost 

ofa CEMS is warranted for systems that that rely on fabric filters for meeting the 

standards. Fabric filters are generally very reliable control devices. The Title V permit 

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 parameter operating levels to be monitored to 

ensure that the control device is operating properly on a continuous basis. 

Response 

13. Cost of DEQ's I a) DEQ's proposed rules may lead to closing of the 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 2100 jobs 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 of the 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 impact analysis on the proposed controls for PGE 

Boardman determined the costs are cost-effective and realistically achievable for PGE. 

DEQ's Fiscal Advisory Committee reviewed the cost estimates associated with the 

proposed controls and concluded they were reasonable. DEQ anticipates that PGE 

and other owners of the Boardman plant will seek to pass along compliance costs to 

customers by increasing electricity rates. Any rate increase will be subject to the 

approval ofthe Oregon Public Utility Commission. DEQ's analysiS concluded that the 

average rate increase for PGE customers would be approximately 2.8 percent in 2014. 

and 4.1 percent by 2018. Between 2010 and 2014. rate increases could range from 

0.2 percent to 0.3 percent. In terms ofthe economic impact on low-income Oregonians, 
Attachment 7.2, 	pg. 16 

DEQ cannot quantify the significance of a rate increase of 3-4 percent over 11 years. 

Any assessment on the economic impact regarding a possible future shutdown of this 

facility cannot be made by DEQ at this time, and would be a decision made by PGE 

and the other plant co-owners. 

I 14. Mercury 

. controls compliance 

I extension 

I contingency 

i Response 

15. Supporting 

docu mentation 

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 Mercury rules that require PGE Boardman to reduce mercury 

emissions by 90% in 2012. Included in that rulemaking was a one-year compliance 

extension contingency, if there were circumstances preventing compliance by 2012. 

DEQ's proposed S02 controls to meet BART are required by July 2014. Since the 

mercury and S02 control technologies are integral to each other, DEQ is proposing to 

change the compliance extension contingency to 2 years, to align the installation of 

these controls. PGE is still required to comply with the mercury standard by 2012 using 

existing equipment, ifpossible. However, the activated carbon used for controlling 

mercury emissions may contaminate the fly ash collected in the ESP to the extent that 

the material could not be used as a concrete additive and would have to be disposed in 

a) 

year 

a 

While 

landfill. 

extension. 

the 

This 

monthly 

rulemaking 

cost increase 

adds fly 

to 

ash 

the 

contamination 

average residential 

as a reason 

rate payer 

for granting 

is relatively 

a twosmall, 

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 if this 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 consider the 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 

not have a direct economic impact on small business, but could have a significant 

indirect impact through increased electricity rates. If approved by the PUC, DEQ 

estimates that rates could increase 0.3 percent in 2011, 2.9 to 3.4 percent by 2014, 

and 4.2 to 5 percent by 201B. These rates increases could be less if the small 

business is charged at the residential rate class, and would only affect small 

businesses that are customers of PGE and the other companies that own the 

Boardman plant. 

b) 	 DEQ believes its Land Use Evaluation Statement appropriately addresses the impact 

on land use. The consequences of whether this action will cause PGE Boardman to 

shutdown cannot be ascertained at this time. DEQ believes the proposed controls are 

realistically achievable and cost-effective for PGE Boardman. 

c) 	 DEQ is not required to provide a LUCS with this proposed rulemaking. DEQ has met 

all the legal requirements regarding land use impacts associated with this proposed 
Attachment 7.2, pg. 17 

rulemaking. The LUCS are required for new sources when they submit their 

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

of an existing source if the change will involve a physical expansion on the property or 

proposed use of additional land, or if the change results in a net significant 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 of regulations (such as carbon rules) that have not been adopted yet. Any 

attempt to do so would be speculation. 

e) 	 DEQ believes the Fiscal Impact Report is correct in stating no direct fiscal or economic 

impact is anticipated on local govemment from the proposed rules. The Fiscal Impact 

Report did acknowledge the proposed rules could have an indirect impact on local 

government in terms of increased electricity rates, if approved by the Oregon Public 

Utility Commission. DEQ cannot estimate at this time any economic impact on local 

government if PGE chose to close the plant in the future. 

i f) 	 The Environmental Quality Commission has the authority to adopt rules for specific 

! 	 sources when mandated by the federal government or when necessary to protect the 

environment. Once a rule is adopted for a specific source, it becomes an applicable 

requirement under the Oregon Title V Operating Permit program and the permit must 

be revised to include the requirement in the permit. (ORS 468A.025(4) and (5) and 

OAR Chapter 340, Division 218) 

DEQ would consider comments addressing impacts on the Site Certificate; especially if 

they pointed out an inconsistency. However, DEQ did not receive any comments 

pertaining to any inconsistency with the Site Certificate. 

DEQ evaluated all control technologies that have been demonstrated in practice for 

coal plants similar to Boardman. Innovative controls, such as the "cloud chamber 

scrubber" were not considered because they are not available and applicable controls 

according to the BART guidelines. Although innovative control technologies were not 

evaluated for BART, PGE may use any control technology that will meet the BART 

limits to satisfy the BART requirements. 

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

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)(1 04)(118)(156)(161 )(168)(169) 

! c) DEQ should require substantial reductions in emissions. These reductions should be 

' the greatest allowed by law. (113) 

,d) I DEQ's proposed emission limits should be strengthened to reflect what the proposed 

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 of the 

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-year evaluation ofthe appropriate controls for this 

facility. The end result was a suite of emission controls for PGE Boardman which is 

. both stringent and cost-effective, and complies with the regulatory requirements for 

BART and Reasonable Progress. Over the next eight years these controls will reduce 

the plant's emissions by approximately 21,000 tons per year, thereby reducing peak 

visibility impacts at all 14 Class I areas by an average of 83 percent, improving visibility 

by the 2018 Milestone, reducing visibility degradation and acid deposition in the 
Attachment 7.2, pg. 18 

Columbia Gorge, and providing general air quality and public health benefits. Given 

the extent and magnitude of PGE Boardman's current visibility impacts, and the 

requirements ofthe regional haze rule, DEQ believes the proposed controls represent 

the appropdate level of stringency 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 of the SIP before PGE has to spend any money related to costs 

of installing controls. (159)(170) 

Response • DEQ agrees that strong pollution controls are needed for the PGE Boardman plant 

given the extent of its visibility impacts, and as stated in #16 above, has recommended 

controls that will have significant environmental benefits. 

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 power plant to be one of the 

most significant single sources of haze pollution in Oregon, impacting 14 Class I areas 

in Oregon and Washington, within a 200 mile radius of the plant, and accounting for 

halfofthe Class I visibility impacts from the five BART sources. Given the magnitude 

of PGE Boardman impacts, the need for additional visibility improvement for 

Reasonable Progress, and other air quality benefits that could be achieved, the 
Attachment 7.2, pg. 19 

.__.'. 	 ""._ _............. ............ rl~.............. "'"....,.........,.......m_._.... _", ........__ ........._... ~ .....,,' ..........",,'.._....M ................ ••_m... .........,'.m...._.._"m__•• __•___•...•••••••__•·•·· ___·_~_·...,.... 


proposed controls for PGE Boardman are justified. It should be noted that the other 

four BART sources that showed significant visibility impacts (although much less than 

PGE Boardman) have lowered their emissions as well, by taking a federally 

i 

i 	 enforceable permit limit. 

I c) 	 Although the Regional Haze rule is over 60 years, 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 of an exhaustive three-year evaluation in which many options were considered. I 

effectiveness, 

They represent 

given 

DEQ's 

the 

determination 

extent of the plants' 

of the appropriate 

regional haze 

stringency 

impacts, 

and 

and 

costthe need to 

meet the regulatory requirements for BART and 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 if the 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 if the DEQ plan 

is accepted. (40) 

h) I believe it would be in the best interests of the residents of Oregon 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. If the 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 only be based on incomplete information and speculation. As a 

regulatory matter DEQ has additional concerns, which are described below in detail in 

DEQ response #20 a), 

• 	 The preferred approach would be for PGE to submit a written request to DEQ for a 

rule change at a time when the full extent of carbon regulations is known, when costs 

and tradeoffs have been evaluated, and when a decision has been made on the future 

of the 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 proposed closure options, DEQ has revised the Oregon 

Regional Haze Plan to add provisions that would allow PGE to make a formal request 
Attachment 7.2, pg. 20 

20. Meets 

regulatory 

requirements 

Response 

for a rule change to DEQ, if PGE determines that the impact and cost of carbon 

regulations will require the closure of the PGE Boardman plant. These provisions can 

be found on pages 155 and 202 of the proposed Oregon Regional Haze Plan. This 

action could be included in the 2013 regional haze plan update. The decision by DEQ 

to consider any rule changes would reflect the need to conduct this action in an 

expeditious manner, yet with the full involvement of the public, stakeholders, and the 

fiscal advisory committee process. An ideal time for PGE to present such a request 

would be as part of the 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 of 2040). 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 BART and 

Reasonable Progress requirements. DEQ agrees with the comments submitted by 

EPA and federal land managers that PGE's proposal lacks an evaluation of alternate 

controls that might be cost-effective and feasible (and the visibility improvements that 

such controls might provide) prior to the proposed closure dates. EPA's BART rules 

require that all control technologies be evaluated with specific emphasis on the 

expected visibility improvements. There is also a requirement for full public review and 

comment of any BART determination. These factors were not fully addressed in 

PGE's proposal for the 2012 decision point. PGE also concluded that no additional 

NOx controls (i.e. no SCR or other controls) were needed prior to the 2029 closure 

date if PGE made a closure decision in 2015. This critically overlooks the need for 

visibility improvements prior to the 201 BMilestone. Timely air quality improvements in 

Class I areas is a key reason for DEQ 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 not defined an upper limit to the cost of BART, and States can 

use discretion in determining the cost effectiveness for controls based on reasonable 

guidelines. Even assuming a theoretical closure date of 2020 or 2029 and the 

associated shorter remaining useful life of the pollution control equipment, DEQ would 

consider costs in the range of $5, 000 to $7,000 per ton to be cost-effective for the 

PGE Boardman facility, and well below control costs of $10,000 to $15,000Iton typical 

for Best Available Control Technology (BACT) required for new or expanding 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 benefit as 

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 of the plant would result in a significant total reduction 

in air pollution (i.e., PGE's "aggregate emissions" comparison) over the long run. 

However, this would come 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 or 2029 is not beneficial to Class I areas, nor to 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 of closing 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'all at·-----· i i 	 once, but rather in three separate time periods (compliance dates of 2011, 2014, and 

i 	 ! 2017). It is anticipated that any decision PGE makes to close the plant early will be 

I made conSidering numerous factors, including but not limited to the overall 

I investment. 

B. 	 Support of alternate "decision points" or closure 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 of the 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 of time. (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 for several reasons. However. DEQ is proposing an alternative process 

in which DEQ could revise its rules at a future date if PGE 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 theI .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 of Washington and Idaho, 

~_,., ______:.--i'et there has been no consultation with these states, and how it will affect their 
Attachment 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 higher than DEQ proposed 

controls. (50)(53) 

g) PGE's use of aggregate emissions to show the "benefits" of their 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 of the comments above. The closure dates would result 

in higher short-term emissions, which would have a greater impact on the ecosystem 

and cultural resources than DEQ's proposed rules. The use of aggregate emissions 

does not address visibility impacts. PGE's proposal is a significant change to the 

proposed rules, and would need further review by the public, as well as by neighboring 

states, in terms ofhow it would affect their regional haze plans. An enforceable 

mechanism to ensure plant closure would be addressed by an enforceable permit 

condition established in the source's air permit. However, as noted above, DEQ does 

not support 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 point changes DEQ's BART evaluation, and represents an 

alternate BART analysis based on using a shorter remaining life ofthe equipment 

associated with plant shutdown in 2020. DEQ's understanding of the federal BART 

rule is that it allows a facility to use a shorter useful life ofthe equipment if it obtains a 

federally enforceable permit condition in which it commits to a specific shutdown date. 

Whether PGE's proposal is inconsistent with BART in terms of going beyond the 5 

years for installing BART controls is not the issue here, but rather that PGE's proposal 

does not fully meet BART for the reasons stated above in DEQ response #20 a). 

b) DEQ agrees PGE has not provided a sufficient BART analysis reflecting the 2012 

closure option, and the proposal does not fully meet BART due 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 of the 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 of the 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 other emission controls that might be feasible prior to 

2029. 

b) DEQ also agrees the 2029 shutdown option does not address the review of 

Reasonable Progress in plan reviews in 2018 and 2028. 

c) DEQ acknowledges that PGE's proposed 2029 closure date is a long period of time, 

and that a shorter closer date would be preferable. 

d) DEQ agrees the cost-effectiveness of SCR would be less if made part of the Phase 1 

controls. 

e) DEQ agrees controls are needed, based on the schedule it has proposed. 

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 now to shut down the plant ASAP. (4) 

Response 	 • The decision to shut down the plant is a decision for PGE to make. This facility has a 

legal permit to operate at its current emission levels. DEQ's proposed controls for this 

facility will reduce its emissions by 21,000 tons, which is expected to benefit public 

health. While the extent of the 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 

other considerations. 

27. Option to shut 

down in 5 years 

Response 

a) 

a) 

PGE has the option to shutdown within 5 years of EPA approval of the SIP, and still be 

in compliance with BART. (47)(50)(53) 

It is clear that shutting down PGE Boardman in the 5 years period allowed under 

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) 

Under DEQ's rules, an owner or operator which voluntarily chooses to shutdown a 

process, activity, or equipment at a source, may use the emission reductions to offset 

emissions from new or modified equipment at the source without being subject to New 

Source Review provided the netting basis is sufficient for the change. If the shutdQwn 

is required by rule, the emission reductions would not be available for offsets after the 

date of the required shutdown. (See definition of "netting basis" and "major 

modification" in Division 200 and the rules for Emission 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 #4 7) 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 impact both visibility and air quality in 

the Columbia Gorge. 

b) The proposed controls under this rulemaking will reduce total plant 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 conduct an analysis ofthis area. It showed that the proposed 

controls, when fully installed by 2017, will reduce PGE Boardman's visibility impacts by 

78%, and provide significant reductions in acid deposition. 

c) 	 Under PGE's proposal, the short-term emissions prior to the proposed 2020 and 2028 

closure dates would be higher than DEQ's proposed controls. DEQ agrees this would 

be counter-productive to efforts over recent years 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 of the 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 uida!!.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 

under the Regional Haze Rule" for obtaining values representative of natural 

conditions for the 20% worst and 20% best days. DEQ agrees with the comment that 

a State can "refine" these estimates based on its own analysis of natural conditions for 

the Class I areas within its borders. DEQ chose not to consider any refinement to 

these estimates for several reasons: (1) DEQ believes EPA's estimates are 

SCientifically 

plan, 

the 

of 

manmade 

natural 

technical 

using 

conditions 

impairment" 

the 

sound 

expertise 

EPA 

and 

"default 

would 

to 

visibility 

generally 

conduct 

be 

values" 

a 

conditions, 

major 

accurate, 

such 

is 

scientific 

acceptable 

an analysis; 

(2) 

given 

DEQ 

studY,(4) 

the 

to 

acknowledges 

(3) 

DEQ, 

limitations 

re-evaluating 

for 

and 

the 

(5) 

in 

first 

estimating 

as 

it does 

regional 

EPA's 

regional 

not 

estimates 

haze 

have 

"prehaze 

plan updates are made over the next 60 years, it's likely new science and estimation 

techniques may lead to revisions of these estimates of natural 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 chapter reflect the emissions information available at the 

time the Oregon Regional Haze Plan was being developed. Oregon, similar to other 

Western states, used the emissions inventory from the WRAP Technical Support 

System, which consisted of Plan 02d emissions (200()"'2004 baseline) and PRP18a 

(2018 projection). PRP18a reflects emission estimates from national "on-the-books" 

regulations and the future year 2018 projected emissions, and included estimated 

emission reductions for BART, but for electric generating units (power plants) only, 

and only S02 controls, no other pollutant. The WRAP is preparing a PRP18b 

emissions update, which will reflect BART emission reductions across the West, 

including Oregon. DEQ will add this information as part ofits 2013 plan update, as 

well as any other relevant emission inventory adjustments. It should be 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 chapter that ammonia emissions playa key role in the formation of 

haze. However, as stated on page 87, estimates of ammonia emissions have a high 

degree of uncertainty, and as a result not much is known on the extent ammonia 

sources currently contribute to regional haze in Oregon. DEQ has been studying 
Attachment 7.2, pg. 25 

ammonia emissions from animal feeding operations through the Oregon Dairy Task 

Force, which may lead to possible Best Management Practices (BMPs) to reduce 

these emissions. Improvements and refinements to ammonia emission inventories 

are expected in the future. The next regional haze progress report in 2013 will provide 

an update on efforts to improve ammonia emission inventories and ammonia source 

contributions to regional haze. 

i C. Chapter 9 - Source Apportionment. 

l 33. Biogenic i a) Include a discussion of the 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 of the contribution of 

natural sources (biogenics and wildfire) to high organic carbon levels in the summer 

months. However, DEQ had to make certain decisions on what information could 

reasonably be included in this plan, and placed greater priority on addressing manmade (anthropogenic) sources, which are "controllable", instead ofnatural sources, 

which are mostly uncontrollable. Future updates to the regional haze plan will attempt 

to add this information to the plan. 

I 34. PSAT VS. WEP a) Sulfate and nitrate contributions to haze are summarized using PM Source 

Itechniques ,Apportionment Technology (PSAT) tool. DEQ should include Weighted Emissions 

l-.---.--",..-.-----t---- Pote"r!!i..?l~!;..El!~~,_,as ~eIL. (53)_"_...._,.._",,,.,,______....._.......,___.____.__.......___.___""_."..."..__...__"".__..____."._,_~ I Response I a) DEQ believes PSAT is a better tool than WEP for identifying the contribution of 

i sulfates and nitrates to Oregon Class I areas, because (1) PSAT accounts for 

atmospheric chemistry and deposition, while WEP does not, (2) PSAT is better at 

identifying the regional contribution of sources from outside the WRAP region, and (3) 

PSAT is the better tool for identifying anthropogenic sources. The results from the 

WEP analysis were used primarily to identify the pollutants more commonly 

associated with non-anthropogenic (natural) sources. Appendix B of the plan does 

include some WEP information for sulfates and nitrates in the form of maps which 

show the location and transport of each pollutant and its potential contribution to the 

20% worst days at each Class I area. 

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 BART rules were adopted to address older sources that came into operation 

priorto 1977 when New Source Review (NSR) rules were adopted. The BART rules 

and EPA guidance identify a 3-step process for evaluating these older sources: (1) 

determining BART-eligibility; (2) modeling Class I area visibility impacts; and (3) 

conducting a BART control evaluation for sources 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 for BART However, DEQ believes that 

prior to evaluating BART controls for a source, it is important to first determine the 

extent ofthe visibility impact in any Class I area. This approach is nearly identical with 

NSR rules that require similar visibility impact modeling. While it is correct DEQ had 

the choice to subject all BART-eligible sources to a BART evaluation, we decided not 

to pursue this option. This "3-step" approach to BART is consistent with actions taken 

by other States across the country for evaluating BART sources. 

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 of the 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· (171) .. "t d I' d t t 

s use 0 e maximum - our ac ua emiSSions In I S mo e Ing un ers a es 

potential haze impacts. DEQ should have modeled the sources at the permitted level, 

taking into account periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction. (17}__...,.....,..--,--.___ 

Response i a) DEQ used a BART Modeling Protocol that was developed jointly 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 under the Regional Haze Rule (Appendix Y). The development of 

technical protocol is normally not a public process. The opportunity for comment on 

the technical aspects ofDEQ's work (in this case, dispersion modeling) is when the 

i 

I b) 

results of that work is made available to the public for review. 

DEQ chose 0.5 dv as the metric for the "significance level", consistent with EPA's 

BART modeling guidance. This decision was based on several factors: (1) it equates 

to the 5% extinction threshold for new sources under NSR rules, (2) is consistent with 

the threshold selected by other States across the country, (3) it represents the limit of 

perceptible change, and (4) there was no clear rationale orjustification for selecting a 

lower level. 

I c) The use of the 98th percentile follows EPA's recommended approach for modeling 

BART sources. The 98th percentile is a frequently used cutoff in modeling where there 

are measurement limitations, and certain model assumptions and uncertainties 

involved. 

d) Use of the maximum 24-hour actual emissions, similar to the 9Sh percentile, was 

based on the above BART Modeling Protocol . 

. 37. BART-eligibility i a) 	 OEQ excluded Oregon Steel Mills from the BART-eligible list as a "reconstructed 

source", without indicating if the 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" under EPA's 

. 	 guidelines for identifying BART-eligible sources (40 CFR 51.308, Appendix Y, II, How 

to Identify BART-Eligible Sources). The guidance defines reconstruction as when "the 

fixed capital cost of the new component exceeds 50 percent of the fixed capital cost of 

a comparable entirely new source," In the case of Oregon Steel Mills, the emission 

unit that was being reviewed for BART-eligibility went through a reconstruction as 

defined above. However, this reconstruction resulted in a net decrease in emissions, 

and did not represent a major modification, which would have triggered New Source 

Review (NSR). The specific emission unit is also currently shut down. It should be 

noted the definition of a reconstructed source does not cite NSR as a prerequisite in 

meeting this definition for determining BART-eligibility. This is in contrast to the 

definition of a "modification" in the next section ofAppendix 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/,y sa es a any emisSions um ,or w IC recons ruc Ion 

i 	 commenced after August 7, 1977, is not BART-eligible. " This is in contrast to the 

definition of a "modification" in the next section of Appendix Y, which does reference 

New Source Review as a factor in defining this term. 

I c) 	 EPA's guidelines for identifying BART-eligible sources allow VOC sources to be 

excluded from BART due to the difficulty to model VOC emissions. The SFPP 

terminal meets the BART criteria for only VOC. Rather than chOOSing to immediately 

exclude the source, DEQ applied a screening model that treated 50% of the VOC 

emissions as being greater than six carbon atoms and equivalent to organic carbon 

(OC) for visibility modeling purposes. Results of the conservative modeling analysis 

showed visibility impact well under the significant visibility impact level of O. 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 or source categories should be 

included in the analysis, and what additional control measures are reasonable. DEQ's 

analysis provided 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-BART sources will take place as part of the LongTerm Strategy of the plan. The first step in this evaluation will be to develop guidance 

for conducting a comprehensive review ofthese sources. The 2013 plan update will 

contain a report summarizing the development of the guidance and its application to 

non-BART sources, including estimates of additional emission reductions that may 

result from installation of new controls 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 at greater, lesser or 

equivalent visibility improvement than the uniform rate ofprogress to meet natural 

conditions in 2064. In cases where the RPG results in a slower rate of improvement by 

2018, the State must demonstrate why the uniform rate of progress "is not 

achievable", and then show how many years it would take to attain natural conditions. 

However, DEQ concluded it would be premature to assume that uniform rate of 

progress is not achievable, based solely on the initial estimates ofprogress in the first 

regional haze plan. New measures contained in the Long-Term Strategy may produce 

significant visibility improvements by 2018, including the evaluations of non-BART 

sources and forestry prescribed burning. Further analysis ofthe RPGs in this plan will 

be included as part of the 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 of the 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 of the plan, the list offactors to be considered in developing the 

guidance for evaluating non-BART sources includes cumulative impacts (see #4). 

b) DEQ will be developing comprehensive guidance to conduct this evaluation, and 

intends to include the USFS and other key stakeholders. 

a} 	 The plan should acknowledge and include an assessment of the benefits or "tradeoff 

value" of forestry prescribed burning in reducing wildfires and their impacts on 

visibility. (45)(46}{50}(53) 

b) 	 The methodology proposed to evaluate the contribution of forestry burning has some 

inherent biases and uncertainties that may result in artificial attribution to this source. 

(45) 

c) The analysiS should look at year-round impacts rather than spring and fall months. 

(46) 

d) Should include an evaluation of wildfire 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, if deemed necessary upon 
1 

i 

Attachment 7.2, pg. 28 

g) 	 Page 193 states that the evaluation of prescribed burning will determine "if additional 

smoke management techniques "can be developed". This should say instead "may be 

required". (45) 

[h) 	 The evaluation of prescribed burning should not just 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 clearly benefits to visibility by the use ofprescribed burning to 


minimize both the frequency and magnitude of wildfire, those benefits could be very 


long-term, and extremely difficult to quantify. DEQ is not aware of any way to estimate 


those benefits with any reasonable accuracy from a regional haze improvement 


standpoint. The process of restoring 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 over the 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 for conducting this evaluation is general 

methodology, and as such is considered preliminary. The development of the "final 

methodology" will occur in consultation with ODF, federal land managers, and other 

forest stakeholders. 

c) 	 As noted in the plan, the reason for evaluating prescribed burning impacts in the 

spring and fall months rather than year-round is due to monitoring data that shows a 

sizable contribution of organic and elemental carbon (a strong indicator of fire 

sources), and the fact that most prescribed burning takes place during these two 

seasons. 

The need for this evaluation ofprescribed burning is to determine if additional smoke 

management protection is needed for Class I areas. Including an evaluation of wildfire 

impacts would not be the best use of available time and resources, as these are 

natural events not subject to smoke management control. 

It is DEQ's intention that the evaluation ofprescribed burning, including discussion, 

conclusions, and policy changes, will be conducted in coordination with ODF, federal 

land managers, and other stakeholders. If) 	 One of the outcomes discussed in the plan is the possible identification of additional 

smoke management measures to protect Class I areas. No decision has been made 

whether these would be voluntary or mandatory measures. 

DEQ agrees that the language on page 193 should be changed from "can be 

developed" to "may be required", and has made this revision. 

The focus on prescribed burning over other types of burning is based on the fact that 

this is the largest man-made source of vegetative burning in Oregon, and that there 

are indications it may be a significant contributor to Class I visibility impacts in the 

spring and fall. Since it is already subject to a statewide smoke management 

program, evaluating its contribution, and adopting additional controls if found to be 

needed, is a logical step. The next two sections of the plan describe how DEQ will be 

evaluating the contribution of residential open burning and rangeland burning. 

i) 	 A meteorological analysis will be conducted as part of this evaluation. 

j) 	 The reference on page 203 to "basic" smoke management techniques should not be 

confused with "enhanced" smoke management program criteria, but instead refers to 

the application of the basic principles of smoke management (wind direction and 

speed, mixing height, relative humidity, lighting techniques, etc.) when burning upwind 

of an area you are trying to protect from smoke. As stated in the plan, the objective 
Attachment 7.2, pg. 29 

f"-"'""""""'-""-~"""----"'''"- ................_~_._u·_~_...._.N ........._'''~'''''''''...._ .........._._...,..._" ..,,___......._ ,......,........"'><_••••••••__••••••,_....,,, ..........................___ .~._.......___••___ .... , ..................._ ._w'm_....'_'.. _._n""""'__.»... ..........._"",......,...__...._.'nn' 


would be to "avoid burning that could cause a prolonged smoke intrusion and heavy 

smoke concentrations, resulting in a 20% worst day impact. " This is different from 

more advanced smoke management techniques, where the primary objective is to 

avoid causing any smoke from entering a smoke protected area. 

DEQ is looking primarily at forestry, as stated above in (h), due to the large amount of 

this burning that currently takes place near Class I areas. DEQ will also be evaluating 

the contribution ofresidential 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 conduct an evaluation of rangeland 

burning. This evaluation will be different than the prescribed burning evaluation due to 

the reasons described in this section, related to the current lack of smoke 

management regulation of this activity and uncertainty as to the amount of 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 of organic carbon . 	 sources of organic carbon, which is one of the largest contributors to haze, especially 

in the Oregon Cascades. (50) 

Response a) 	 In general, fire emissions (both natural and anthropogenic) are the largest sources of 

organic carbon affecting haze in Oregon. However, in the northern Cascades, area 

sources of organic carbon are larger contributors to haze than fire. This is likely due to 

the influence ofthe Portland urban area. However, DEQ was unable to conduct an 

analysis of this prior to completing this plan. Moreover, DEQ was not aware ofany 

measures to add to the Long-Term Strategy that could significantly reduce area 

source organic carbon. To the extent residential woodstove burning in Portland may 

be the primary contributor to organic carbon impacts, the Oregon Regional Haze Plan 

in Section 12.5.1 describes how DEQ 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 significant source. DEQ does 

describe in Section 12.5.2 ongoing measures and rules currently in place in Oregon to 

mitigate dust impacts from construction activities. /n terms of new measures to 

address this source, DEQ was unable to identify any new measures to add to 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 of sulfates are significant, and describes in Section 

8.2.2 ofthe plan that off-shore marine shipping emissions may be a major contributor 

of sulfates to haze in Oregon. Section 9.2.1 shows that PSAT results show pacific 

offshore area emissions are likely much greater than any other area source of 

sulfates. For this reason, Section 12.6.5 of the 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 primary purpose of this rulemaking is to meet 


the requirements of the federal Regional Haze Rule, related to improving visibility in 


Class I areas. As such, the regulatory scope of this rulemaking is narrow by design. 


DEQ's Air Quality Division conducts other rulemakings directed at protecting public 


health and meeting the requirements of the Clean Air Act. However, it should be 


noted that as a secondary benefit of this rulemaking, DEQ expects that the reduction 


of approximately 21,000 tons per year from PGE Boardman will have public health 


benefits, and reduce acid deposition and other environmental 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 of the 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 of the east 

end of the 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 of the Columbia River Gorge, visible haze within the Gorge is noticeable 

about 90% of the time. (146) 

Response • As stated above, the primary purpose of this proposed rulemaking is to meet the 

federal Regional Haze Rule, related to improving visibility in national parks and 

wilderness areas designated as "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 I Area, which is 25 miles 

south of the Gorge, will see significant visibility benefits as a result of the controls for 

the PGE Boardman plant proposed under thisproposed rulemaking. These controls 

will reduce Boardman's emissions by 21,000 tons per year. This will not only provided 

visibility benefits for the Gorge, but will reduce air pollution and acid deposition, and 

provide other benefits to the environment and public 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 of 2012. (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 not change 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 of S02 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, or replace it with a more "green" technology is a 

decision for PGE to make. Having said that, the emission controls being proposed by 

DEQ will reduce the plant's emissions by 81 %, or approximately 21,000 tons ofair 

pollution per year. 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 mentioned above, the emission controls being proposed for PGE Boardman will 

reduce approximately 21,000 tons of air pollution per year, 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 Best Available 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 September 3D, 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 PGE Boardman was in existence prior to 1977, and therefore fell under 

the basic criteria for being evaluated under BART. PGE entered into a contractual 

obligation to purchase major components of the plant in 1975 and obtained necessary 

pre-construction permits prior to August 7, 1977. Therefore, the plant was in 

existence for purposes ofthe BART rule in accordance with Step 2 of Section /I of 

Appendix Yto 40 CFR, Part 51 (EPA's BART Guidelines) . 

b) Although not relevant to this rulemaking, DEQ does not believe that PGE has made 

modifications to the Boardman plant that would make it subject to New Source 

Review. 

I c) A BACT analysis is required for new or modified sources subject to Prevention of 

Significant Deterioration (PSD). DEQ believes that if Congress had intended that the 

BACT analysis be applied to sources in operation between 1962 and 1977 as part of 

the regional haze program, BACT would have been specified in the Clean Air Act 

instead ofBART. Even though BACT was not specified by the CAA, many ofthe 

same types of control technologies that would qualify as BACT were considered in 

DEQ's BART analysis. 

In regards to the lawsuit cited above, DEQ does not believe it appropriate to comment 

on this legal matter at 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 of these rules. 

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

to the rule making it proposes. Decisions that PGE may make in the future about 

replacement power, should Boardman close, is beyond the scope of this rulemaking. 

b) Decisions that PGE might make in the future regarding Oregon's energy supply needs 

is beyond the scope of this proposed rule making. 
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 energy implications associated with the 

proposed controls 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 amount of data and information that is needed for preparing a regional 

haze plan. DEQ relied on the Western Regional Air Partnership (WRAP), which is one 

of several regional planning organizations in the country that is providing assistance to 

States preparing regional haze plans. Oregon is one of 13 western states participating 

in the WRAP. Other participants in the WRAP include regulators, industry, 

environmental groups, scientists, and the general public. The WRAP Technical 

Support System (TSS) was the source for the majority of technical information used in 

the Oregon Regional Haze Plan. The TSS summarizes results and consolidates 

information about air quality monitoring, meteorological and receptor modeling data 

analyses, emissions inVentories and models, and gridded air qualitylvisibility regional 

modeling simulations. This information is available and can be reviewed on the WRAP 

TSS website, and can be evaluated by the public. This approach is similar to other 

rulemaking where DEQ relies on external data sources, studies, projects, and 

research. 

b) Yes, DEQ did consider the contribution to haze from these sources, under Section 

12.5. 1 of the Long-Term Strategy of the Plan. Page 190 discusses state and federal 

regulations of diesel vehicles. Page 191 discusses DEQ's woodheating regulations 

and possible benefits to regional haze. In terms of wildfire, there is considerable data 

presented to support that wildfire is a significant emissions source and major 

contributor to haze in Oregon. The Long-Term Strategy describes how controlled 

burning is being used to minimize wildfires, and page 196 describes Enhanced Smoke 

Management Program requirements to minimize controlled forestry burning impacts 

on haze. 

54. Global Warming a) DEQ should adopt limits on C02 emissions now for PGE Boardman, as part of this 

! 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 of the 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 noted above, this rulemaking is intended to meet the requirements of the federal 

Regional Haze Rule. DEQ will be addressing global warming in the near future, as 

state and national 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 

, 

i"""""",.",,~ d) Coal plants like PGE Boardman are out of date. Please make moves to replace it with •••••••_ •••...•_._.•._._.... 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....... .......J 
Attachment 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 other cleaner sources of electricity than coal, such as natural 

gas, wind, and solar energy. Decisions regarding the future of coal use, or the 

continued operation of the PGE Boardman plant, are beyond the scope of this 

rulemaking. 

: 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 for making 

concrete. Contamination of this fly ash is recognized as a potential issue in this 

proposed rulemaking. As a result, DEQ has added fly ash contamination as a reason 

for granting 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 of energy 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 or windmills 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 of the 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 of electricity 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 effects 
Attachment 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 prior to 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 up the biggest source of air 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 of the 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 of the 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 

Salmon, WA I

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 

Responsibility I

21. Michael Lang Portland Friends of the 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 

Ray Baum, Commissioner I

29. Jean DeMaster I Portland Human Solutions, Inc. 1/30/2009 

Executive Director I

30. Jack Scott Portland Eagle Foundry Company 1/23/2009 
Attachment 7.2, pg. 36 

General Manager 

31. Raymond Burstedt Portland SED COR 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 of Commerce 

CEO 

44. Michael B. Early Portland Industrial Customers of Northwest Utilities 1/3 

46. 

45. 

47. 

Jim 

Richard 

Director 

Mike 

Executive 

Trost 

Dykzeul 

Albright 

Forest. 

Director 

Protection 

Salem 

Seattle, 

Salem 

WA 

Oregon 

Oregon 

EPA Region 

Forest 

Department 

10 

Industries 

of Forestry 

Council m

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 of Air 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) 1/1212009 
Attachment 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 of the 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 1/28/2009 
Attachment 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. Jerry Waters 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 1/1412009 
Attachment 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 of commenters in this group, see Attachment 1 (available upon request). Numbers in bold 

reflect more than one commenter.