1

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R10-OAR-2011-0035, FRL- ]

Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; State of Oregon; 

Regional Haze State Implementation Plan

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve a State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision, 

submitted by the State of Oregon on December 20, 2010, with supplemental information 

submitted February 1, 2011, as meeting the requirements of Clean Air Act (CAA) section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) as it applies to visibility for the 1997 8-hour ozone and 1997 particulate 

matter (PM2.5) National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). EPA is also proposing to 

approve a portion of the SIP submittal, as meeting certain requirements of the regional haze 

program, including the Federal regulations for best available retrofit technology (BART).

DATES: Written comments must be received at the address below on or before [insert date 30 

days from the date of publication in the Federal Register]
2

 ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R10-OAR2011-0035, by one of the following methods:

 www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments.

 E-mail: Keith Rose at R10-Public_Comments@epa.gov

 Mail: Keith Rose, EPA Region 10, Office of Air, Waste and Toxics, AWT-107, 

1200 Sixth Avenue, Suite 900, Seattle, WA 98101

 Hand Delivery/Courier: EPA Region 10, 1200 Sixth Avenue, Suite 900, Seattle, 

WA 98101. Attention: Keith Rose, Office of Air, Waste and Toxics, AWT-107. 

Such deliveries are only accepted during normal hours of operation, and special 

arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R10-OAR-2011-0035. EPA's policy 

is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change and may be 

made available online at http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information 

provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential Business 

Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit 

information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through 

http://www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The http://www.regulations.gov Web site is an 

“anonymous access” system, which means EPA will not know your identity or contact 

information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an e-mail comment 

directly to EPA, without going through http://www.regulations.gov, your e-mail address will be 

automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket 

and made available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that 

you include your name and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any 
3

disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and 

cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic 

files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any 

defects or viruses. For additional information about EPA's public docket visit the EPA Docket 

Center homepage at http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm.

Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the http://www.regulations.gov index. 

Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available (e.g., CBI or other 

information whose disclosure is restricted by statute). Certain other material, such as copyrighted 

material, will be publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials 

are available either electronically at http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Office of 

Air, Waste and Toxics, EPA Region 10, 1200 Sixth Avenue, Seattle, WA 98101. EPA requests 

that if at all possible, you contact the individual listed below to view the hard copy of the docket. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Keith Rose at telephone number (206) 

553-1949, rose.keith@epa.gov or the above EPA, Region 10 address.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document whenever “we,” “us,” or 

“our” is used, we mean the EPA. Information is organized as follows:

Table of Contents

I. Background for EPA’s Proposed Action 

A. Definition of Regional Haze 

B. Regional Haze Rules and Regulations
4

C. Roles of Agencies in Addressing Regional Haze 

D. Interstate Transport for Visibility

II. Requirements for Regional Haze SIPs

A. The CAA and the Regional Haze Rule 

B. Determination of Baseline, Natural, and Current Visibility Conditions

C. Consultation with States and Federal Land Managers 

D. Best Available Retrofit Technology 

III. EPA’s Analysis of Oregon’s Regional Haze SIP 

A. Affected Class I Areas 

B. Baseline and Natural Conditions and Uniform Rate of Progress

C. Oregon Emissions Inventories

D. Sources of Visibility Impairment in Oregon Class I Areas 

E. Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART) 

IV. EPA’s Analysis of Oregon’s Regional Haze Rules

V. EPA’s Analysis of Whether the Oregon Regional Haze SIP Submittal Meets Interstate 

Transport Requirements 

VI. What Action is EPA Proposing?

VII. Oregon Notice Provision

VIII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. Background for EPA’s Proposed Action
5

In the CAA Amendments of 1977, Congress established a program to protect and 

improve visibility in the national parks and wilderness areas. See CAA section 169(A). 

Congress amended the visibility provisions in the CAA in 1990 to focus attention on the problem 

of regional haze. See CAA section 169(B). EPA promulgated regulations in 1999 to implement 

sections 169A and 169B of the Act. These regulations require states to develop and implement 

plans to ensure reasonable progress toward improving visibility in mandatory Class I Federal 

areas1(Class I areas). 64 FR 35714 (July 1, 1999); see also 70 FR 39104 (July 6, 2005) and 71 

FR 60612 (October 13, 2006). 

In this action, EPA is proposing to approve certain provisions of Oregon‟s Regional 

Haze SIP submission addressing the requirements for best available retrofit technology (BART), 

the calculation of baseline and natural visibility conditions, and the statewide inventory of 

visibility-impairing pollutants. EPA is also proposing to approve the provisions of Oregon‟s SIP 

submittal addressing BART as meeting Oregon‟s obligations under section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) of 

the CAA for visibility. EPA is not taking action today on those provisions of the Regional Haze 

SIP submittal related to reasonable progress goals and the long term strategy. 

A. Definition of Regional Haze 

 

1Areas designated as mandatory Class I Federal areas consist of national parks exceeding 6000 acres, wilderness 

areas and national memorial parks exceeding 5000 acres, and all international parks that were in existence on 

August 7, 1977. 42 U.S.C. 7472(a). In accordance with section 169A of the CAA, EPA, in consultation with the 

Department of Interior, promulgated a list of 156 areas where visibility is identified as an important value. 44 FR 

69122 (November 30, 1979). The extent of a mandatory Class I area includes subsequent changes in boundaries, 

such as park expansions. 42 U.S.C. 7472(a). Although states and tribes may designate as Class I additional areas 

which they consider to have visibility as an important value, the requirements of the visibility program set forth in 

section 169A of the CAA apply only to „„mandatory Class I Federal areas.” Each mandatory Class I Federal area is 

the responsibility of a „„Federal Land Manager.‟‟ 42 U.S.C. 7602(i). When we use the term “Class I area” in this 

action, we mean a “mandatory Class I Federal area.”
6

Regional haze is impairment of visual range or colorization caused by emission of air 

pollution produced by numerous sources and activities, located across a broad regional area. The 

sources include but are not limited to, major and minor stationary sources, mobile sources, and 

area sources including non-anthropogenic sources. Visibility impairment is primarily caused by 

fine particulate matter (PM2.5) or secondary aerosol formed in the atmosphere from precursor 

gasses (e.g., sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, and in some cases, ammonia and volatile organic

compounds). Atmospheric fine particulate reduces clarity, color, and visual range of visual 

scenes. Visibility-reducing fine particulates are primarily composed of sulfate, nitrate, organic 

carbon compounds, elemental carbon, and soil dust, and impair visibility by scattering and 

absorbing light. Fine particulate can also cause serious health effects and mortality in humans, 

and contributes to environmental effects such as acid deposition and eutrophication.

2

 

Data from the existing visibility monitoring network, the “Interagency Monitoring of 

Protected Visual Environments” (IMPROVE) monitoring network, show that visibility 

impairment caused by air pollution occurs virtually all the time at most national parks and 

wilderness areas. Average visual range in many Class I areas in the Western United States is 

100-150 kilometers, or about one-half to two-thirds the visual range that would exist without 

anthropogenic air pollution.3 Visibility impairment also varies day-to-day and by season 

depending on variation in meteorology and emission rates.

 

2

See 64 FR at 35715.

3

Id.
7

B. Regional Haze Rules and Regulations

In section 169A of the 1977 CAA Amendments, Congress created a program for 

protecting visibility in the nation‟s national parks and wilderness areas. This section of the CAA 

establishes as a national goal the “prevention of any future, and the remedying of any existing, 

impairment of visibility in Class I areas which impairment results from manmade air pollution.” 

CAA section 169A(a)(1). On December 2, 1980, EPA promulgated regulations to address 

visibility impairment in Class I areas that is “reasonably attributable” to a single source or small 

group of sources, i.e., “reasonably attributable visibility impairment”. See 45 FR 80084. These 

regulations represented the first phase in addressing visibility impairment. EPA deferred action 

on regional haze that emanates from a variety of sources until monitoring, modeling, and 

scientific knowledge about the relationships between pollutants and visibility impairment were 

improved. 

Congress added section 169B to the CAA in 1990 to address regional haze issues. EPA 

promulgated a rule to address regional haze on July 1, 1999 (64 FR 35713) (the RHR). The 

RHR revised the existing visibility regulations to integrate into the regulation provisions 

addressing regional haze impairment and established a comprehensive visibility protection 

program for Class I areas. The requirements for regional haze, found at 40 CFR 51.308 and 

51.309, are included in EPA‟s visibility protection regulations at 40 CFR 51.300-309. Some of 

the main elements of the regional haze requirements are summarized in section III of this 

rulemaking. The requirement to submit a regional haze SIP applies to all 50 states, the District 
8

of Columbia and the Virgin Islands.4 40 CFR 51.308(b) requires states to submit the first 

implementation plan addressing regional haze visibility impairment no later than December 17, 

2007. 

C. Roles of Agencies in Addressing Regional Haze 

Successful implementation of the Regional Haze Program will require long-term regional 

coordination among states, tribal governments, and various Federal agencies. As noted above, 

pollution affecting the air quality in Class I areas can be transported over long distances, even 

hundreds of kilometers. Therefore, to effectively address the problem of visibility impairment in 

Class I areas, States need to develop strategies in coordination with one another, taking into 

account the effect of emissions from one jurisdiction on the air quality in another. 

Because the pollutants that lead to regional haze impairment can originate from across 

state lines, EPA has encouraged the States and Tribes to address visibility impairment from a 

regional perspective. Five regional planning organizations 5(RPOs) were created nationally to 

address regional haze and related issues. One of the main objectives of the RPOs is to develop 

and analyze data and conduct pollutant transport modeling to assist the States or Tribes in 

developing their regional haze plans. 

 

4Albuquerque/Bernalillo County in New Mexico must also submit a regional haze SIP to completely satisfy the 

requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D) of the CAA for the entire State of New Mexico under the New Mexico Air 

Quality Control Act (section 74-2-4).

5

 See http://www.epa.gov/air/visibility/regional.html for description of the regional planning organizations.
9

The Western Regional Air Partnership (WRAP)6, one of the five RPOs nationally, is a 

voluntary partnership of State, Tribal, Federal, and local air agencies dealing with air quality in 

the West. WRAP member States include: Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, 

Montana, New Mexico, North Dakota, Oregon, South Dakota, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming. 

WRAP Tribal members include Campo Band of Kumeyaay Indians, Confederated Salish and 

Kootenai Tribes, Cortina Indian Rancheria, Hopi Tribe, Hualapai Nation of the Grand Canyon, 

Native Village of Shungnak, Nez Perce Tribe, Northern Cheyenne Tribe, Pueblo of Acoma, 

Pueblo of San Felipe, and Shoshone-Bannock Tribes of Fort Hall.

D. Interstate Transport for Visibility

On July 18, 1997, EPA promulgated new NAAQS for 8-hour ozone and for PM2.5. 62 

FR 38652. Section 110(a)(1) of the CAA requires states to submit a plan to address certain 

requirements for a new or revised NAAQS within three years after promulgation of such 

standards, or within such shorter time as EPA may prescribe. Section 110(a)(2) of the CAA lists 

the elements that such new plan submissions must address, as applicable, including section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i), which pertains to the interstate transport of certain emissions.

On April 25, 2005, EPA published a “Finding of Failure to Submit SIPs for Interstate 

Transport for the 8-hour Ozone and PM2.5 NAAQS.” 70 FR 21147. This included a finding 

that Oregon and other States had failed to submit SIPs to address interstate transport of emissions 

affecting visibility and started a 2-year clock for the promulgation of Federal Implementation 

 

6 The WRAP website can be found at http://www.wrapair.org.
10

Plans (FIPs) by EPA, unless the States made submissions to meet the requirements of section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i) and EPA approves such submissions. Id. 

On August 15, 2006, EPA issued guidance on this topic entitled “Guidance for State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) Submissions to Meet Current Outstanding Obligations Under section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 8-Hour Ozone and PM2.5 National Ambient Air Quality Standards” 

(2006 Guidance). We developed the 2006 Guidance to make recommendations to states for 

making submissions to meet the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 1997 8-hour 

ozone standards and the 1997 PM2.5 standards.

As identified in the 2006 Guidance, the “good neighbor” provisions in section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i) of the CAA require each state to have a SIP that prohibits emissions that 

adversely affect other states in ways contemplated in the statute. Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) 

contains four distinct requirements related to the impacts of interstate transport. The SIP must 

prevent sources in the state from emitting pollutants in amounts which will: (1) contribute 

significantly to nonattainment of the NAAQS in other states; (2) interfere with maintenance of 

the NAAQS in other states; (3) interfere with provisions to prevent significant deterioration of air 

quality in other states; or (4) interfere with efforts to protect visibility in other states.

With respect to establishing that emissions from sources in the state would not interfere 

with measures in other states to protect visibility, the 2006 Guidance recommended that states 

make a submission indicating that it was premature, at that time, to determine whether there 

would be any interference with measures in the applicable SIP for another state designed to 
11

“protect visibility” until the submission and approval of regional haze SIPs. Regional haze SIPs 

were required to be submitted by December 17, 2007. See 74 FR 2392. At this later point in 

time, however, EPA believes it is now necessary to evaluate such 110(a)(2)(D)(i) submissions 

from a state to ensure that the existing SIP, or the SIP as modified by the submission, contains 

adequate provisions to prevent interference with the visibility programs of other states, such as 

for consistency with the assumptions for controls relied upon by other states in establishing 

reasonable progress goals to address regional haze.

The Regional Haze Program, as reflected in the RHR, recognizes the importance of 

addressing the long-range transport of pollutants for visibility and encourages states to work 

together to develop plans to address haze. The regulations explicitly require each state to address 

its “share” of the emission reductions needed to meet the reasonable progress goals for 

neighboring Class I areas. States, working together through a regional planning process, are 

required to address an agreed-upon share of their contribution to visibility impairment in the 

Class I areas of their neighbors. 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3)(ii). Given these requirements, we 

anticipate that regional haze SIPs will contain measures that will achieve these emissions 

reductions, and that these measures will meet the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i).

As a result of the regional planning efforts in the West, all states in the WRAP region 

contributed information to a Technical Support System (TSS) which provides an analysis of the 

causes of haze, and the levels of contribution from all sources within each state to the visibility 

degradation of each Class I area. The WRAP States consulted in the development of reasonable 

progress goals, using the products of this technical consultation process to co-develop their 
12

reasonable progress goals for the Western Class I areas. The modeling done by the WRAP relied 

on assumptions regarding emissions over the relevant planning period and embedded in these 

assumptions were anticipated emissions reductions in each of the States in the WRAP, including 

reductions from BART and other measures to be adopted as part of the State‟s long term strategy 

for addressing regional haze. The reasonable progress goals in the draft and final regional haze 

SIPs that have now been prepared by States in the West accordingly are based, in part, on the 

emissions reductions from nearby States that were agreed on through the WRAP process. 

Oregon submitted a Regional Haze SIP on July 16, 2009 to address the requirements of the 

RHR. On September 11, 2009, EPA determined that this SIP submission was complete. Oregon 

submitted a revised Regional Haze SIP on December 20, 2010, replacing the July 2009 

submission. On February 1, 2011, Oregon provided EPA additional information to address the 

requirements of the RHR and the good neighbor provisions of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II)) of the 

Act, regarding visibility for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS and the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS. EPA 

has reviewed the submittal and concluded at this time to propose to take action on only certain 

elements of Oregon‟s Regional Haze SIP. EPA is required to take final action either to approve 

Oregon‟s SIP submittal, or otherwise to take action to meet the requirements of section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) regarding visibility on or before June 21, 2011.7 EPA is proposing to find 

that certain elements of Oregon‟s Regional Haze SIP submittal meet these requirements. In 

particular, as explained in section V of this action, EPA is proposing to find that the BART 

measures in Oregon‟s Regional Haze SIP submittal, which EPA is proposing to approve in this 

 

7 Wildearth Guardians v. Jackson, Case No. 4:09-CV-02453-CW (N.D. Calif) (as modified by Jan 14, 2011 Order 

Granting Motion to Modify Consent Decree).
13

action, will also mean that the Oregon SIP meets the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) 

regarding visibility for the 1997 8-hour ozone and 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS.

II. Requirements for Regional Haze SIPs

A. The CAA and the Regional Haze Rule

Regional haze SIPs must assure reasonable progress towards the national goal of 

achieving natural visibility conditions in Class I areas. Section 169A of the CAA and EPA‟s 

implementing regulations require states to establish long-term strategies for making reasonable 

progress toward meeting this goal. Implementation plans must also give specific attention to 

certain stationary sources that were in existence on August 7, 1977, but were not in operation 

before August 7, 1962, and require these sources, where appropriate, to install BART controls 

for the purpose of eliminating or reducing visibility impairment. The specific regional haze SIP 

requirements are discussed in further detail below.

B. Determination of Baseline, Natural, and Current Visibility Conditions

The RHR establishes the deciview (dv) as the principal metric for measuring visibility. 

This visibility metric expresses uniform changes in haziness in terms of common increments 

across the entire range of visibility conditions, from pristine to extremely hazy conditions. 

Visibility is determined by measuring the visual range (or deciview), which is the greatest 

distance, in kilometers or miles, at which a dark object can be viewed against the sky. The 
14

deciview is a useful measure for tracking progress in improving visibility, because each deciview 

change is an equal incremental change in visibility perceived by the human eye. Most people 

can detect a change in visibility at one deciview.8

The deciview is used in expressing reasonable progress goals (which are interim visibility 

goals towards meeting the national visibility goal), defining baseline, current, and natural 

conditions, and tracking changes in visibility. The regional haze SIPs must contain measures 

that ensure “reasonable progress” toward the national goal of preventing and remedying visibility 

impairment in Class I areas caused by manmade air pollution by reducing anthropogenic 

emissions that cause regional haze. The national goal is a return to natural conditions, i.e., 

anthropogenic sources of air pollution would no longer impair visibility in Class I areas. 

To track changes in visibility over time at each of the 156 Class I areas covered by the 

visibility program (40 CFR 81.401-437), and as part of the process for determining reasonable 

progress, states must calculate the degree of existing visibility impairment at each Class I area at 

the time of each regional haze SIP submittal and periodically review progress every five years 

midway through each 10-year implementation period. To do this, the RHR requires states to 

determine the degree of impairment (in deciviews) for the average of the 20% least impaired 

(“best”) and 20% most impaired (“worst”) visibility days over a specified time period at each of 

their Class I areas. In addition, states must also develop an estimate of natural visibility 

conditions for the purpose of comparing progress toward the national goal. Natural visibility is 

determined by estimating the natural concentrations of pollutants that cause visibility 

impairment, and then calculating total light extinction based on those estimates. EPA has 

 

8The preamble to the RHR provides additional details about the deciview. 64 FR 35714, 35725 (July 1,1999).
15

provided guidance to states regarding how to calculate baseline, natural and current visibility 

conditions in documents titled, EPA‟s Guidance for Estimating Natural Visibility Conditions 

Under the Regional Haze Rule, September 2003, (EPA-454/B-03-005 located at 

http://www.epa.gov/ttncaaa1/t1/memoranda/rh_envcurhr_gd.pdf), (hereinafter referred to as

“EPA‟s 2003 Natural Visibility Guidance”), and Guidance for Tracking Progress Under the 

Regional Haze Rule (EPA-454/B-03-004 September 2003 located at 

http://www.epa.gov/ttncaaa1/t1/memoranda/rh_tpurhr_gd.pdf)), (hereinafter referred to as 

“EPA‟s 2003 Tracking Progress Guidance”).

For the first regional haze SIPs that were due by December 17, 2007, “baseline visibility 

conditions” were the starting points for assessing “current” visibility impairment. Baseline 

visibility conditions represent the degree of visibility impairment for the 20% least impaired days 

and 20% most impaired days for each calendar year from 2000 to 2004. Using monitoring data 

for 2000 through 2004, States are required to calculate the average degree of visibility 

impairment for each Class I area, based on the average of annual values over the five-year 

period. The comparison of initial baseline visibility conditions to natural visibility conditions 

indicates the amount of improvement necessary to attain natural visibility, while the future 

comparison of baseline conditions to the then-current conditions will indicate the amount of 

progress made. In general, the 2000-2004 baseline time period is considered the time from 

which improvement in visibility is measured.

C. Consultation with States and Federal Land Managers
16

The RHR requires that States consult with Federal Land Managers (FLMs) before 

adopting and submitting their SIPs. See 40 CFR 51.308(i). States must provide FLMs an 

opportunity for consultation, in person and at least 60 days prior to holding any public hearing on 

the SIP. This consultation must include the opportunity for the FLMs to discuss their assessment 

of visibility impairment in any Class I area and to offer recommendations on the development of 

the reasonable progress goals and on the development and implementation of strategies to 

address visibility impairment. Further, a state must include in its SIP a description of how it 

addressed any comments provided by the FLMs. Finally, a SIP must provide procedures for 

continuing consultation between the State and FLMs regarding the State‟s visibility protection 

program, including development and review of SIP revisions, five-year progress reports, and the 

implementation of other programs having the potential to contribute to impairment of visibility 

in Class I areas. 

D. Best Available Retrofit Technology

Section 169A of the CAA directs states to evaluate the use of retrofit controls at certain 

larger, often uncontrolled, older stationary sources in order to address visibility impacts from 

these sources. Specifically, section 169A(b)(2)(A) of the CAA requires States to revise their 

SIPs to contain such measures as may be necessary to make reasonable progress towards the 

natural visibility goal, including a requirement that certain categories of existing major stationary 

sources9built between 1962 and 1977 procure, install, and operate the “Best Available Retrofit 

Technology” as determined by the state.  States are directed to conduct BART determinations 

for such sources that may be anticipated to cause or contribute to any visibility impairment in a 

 

9The set of “major stationary sources” potentially subject to BART is listed in CAA section 169A(g)(7).
17

Class I area. Rather than requiring source-specific BART controls, states also have the 

flexibility to adopt an emissions trading program or other alternative program as long as the 

alternative provides greater reasonable progress towards improving visibility than BART. 

On July 6, 2005, EPA published the Guidelines for BART Determinations Under the 

Regional Haze Rule at appendix Y to 40 CFR Part 51 (hereinafter referred to as the “BART 

Guidelines”) to assist states in determining which of their sources should be subject to the BART 

requirements and in determining appropriate emission limits for each applicable source. In 

making a BART applicability determination for a fossil fuel-fired electric generating plant with a 

total generating capacity in excess of 750 megawatts, a state must use the approach set forth in 

the BART Guidelines. A State is encouraged, but not required, to follow the BART Guidelines 

in making BART determinations for other types of sources. 

States must address all visibility-impairing pollutants emitted by a source in the BART 

determination process. The most significant visibility-impairing pollutants are sulfur dioxide, 

nitrogen oxides, and fine particulate matter. EPA has indicated that states should use their best 

judgment in determining whether volatile organic compounds or ammonia compounds impair 

visibility in Class I areas. 

 Under the BART Guidelines, States may select an exemption threshold value for their 

BART modeling, below which a BART-eligible source would not be expected to cause or 

contribute to visibility impairment in any Class I area. The State must document this exemption 

threshold value in the SIP and must state the basis for its selection of that value. Any source 
18

with emissions that model above the threshold value would be subject to a BART determination 

review. The BART Guidelines acknowledge varying circumstances affecting different Class I 

areas. States should consider the number of emission sources affecting the Class I areas at issue 

and the magnitude of the individual sources‟ impacts. Generally, an exemption threshold set by 

the State should not be higher than 0.5 deciview. 

In their SIPs, States must identify potential BART sources, described as “BART-eligible 

sources” in the RHR, and document their BART control determination analyses. The term 

“BART-eligible source” used in the BART Guidelines means the collection of individual 

emission units at a facility that together comprises the BART-eligible source. In making BART

determinations, section 169A(g)(2) of the CAA requires that States consider the following 

factors: (1) the costs of compliance, (2) the energy and non-air quality environmental impacts of 

compliance, (3) any existing pollution control technology in use at the source, (4) the remaining 

useful life of the source, and (5) the degree of improvement in visibility which may reasonably 

be anticipated to result from the use of such technology. States are free to determine the weight 

and significance to be assigned to each factor. 

A regional haze SIP must include source-specific BART emission limits and compliance 

schedules for each source subject to BART. Once a State has made its BART determination, the 

BART controls must be installed and in operation as expeditiously as practicable, but no later 

than five years after the date EPA approves the regional haze SIP. CAA section 169(g)(4)). 40 

CFR 51.308(e)(1)(iv). In addition to what is required by the RHR, general SIP requirements 

mandate that the SIP must also include all regulatory requirements related to monitoring, 
19

recordkeeping, and reporting for the BART controls on the source. States have the flexibility to

choose the type of control measures they will use to meet the requirements of BART.

III. EPA’s Analysis of Oregon’s Regional Haze SIP 

A. Affected Class I Areas 

There are 12 mandatory Class I areas, or portions of such areas within Oregon: Mt. Hood 

Wilderness Area, Mt. Jefferson Wilderness Area, Mt Washington Wilderness Area, Kalmiopsis 

Wilderness Area, Mountain Lakes Wilderness Area, Gearhart Mountain Wilderness Area, Crater 

Lake National Park, Diamond Peak Wilderness Area, Three Sisters Wilderness Area, Strawberry 

Mountain Wilderness Area, Eagle Cap Wilderness Area, and Hells Canyon Wilderness Area. 

Hells Canyon Wilderness Area is shared with the State of Idaho. See 40 CFR 81.425. Oregon is 

responsible for developing reasonable progress goals (RPGs) for these 12 Class I areas. Oregon 

Department of Environmental Quality (ODEQ) consulted with the appropriate state air quality 

agency in Washington, Idaho, California, and Nevada to determine Oregon‟s contribution to 

haze in neighboring states‟ Class I areas. See chapter 13, section 13.2 of the Oregon Regional 

Haze SIP submittal. See also the WRAP Technical Support Document, February 28, 2011 

(WRAP TSD) supporting this action.10

B. Baseline and Natural Conditions and Uniform Rate of Progress

 

10

 EPA evaluated the technical work products of the WRAP used by Oregon in support of this Regional Haze SIP 

submittal. The results of that evaluation are included in the WRAP Technical Support Document. 
20

Oregon, using data from the IMPROVE monitoring network and analyzed by WRAP, 

established baseline and natural visibility conditions as well as the uniform rate of progress 

(URP) to achieve natural visibility conditions by 2064 for all Oregon Class I areas within its 

borders. 

Baseline visibility for the most-impaired (20% worst) days and the least-impaired (20% 

best) days was calculated from monitoring data collected by IMPROVE monitors. Not every 

Class I area has an IMPROVE monitor, rather a monitor in a Class I area may represent the air 

quality and visibility conditions for more than a single Class I area. The Class I areas that are 

represented by a monitor in a near-by Class I area were determined by the States and the 

IMPROVE Steering Committee. This decision was based on the Class I areas in a group having 

the same general visibility conditions. IMPROVE monitors are located in six Oregon Class I 

areas and represent all 12 Oregon Class I areas. Specifically, the Oregon Class I areas are 

segregated into six groups. These groups and Class I areas are: 

 North Cascades: Mt. Hood Wilderness Area

 Central Cascades: Mt. Jefferson, Mt. Washington, and Three Sisters Wilderness Areas 

 Southern Cascades: Crater Lake National Park, Diamond Peak, Mountain Lakes, and 

Gearhart Wilderness Areas 

 Coast Range: Kalmiopsis Wilderness Area 

 Eastern Oregon: Strawberry Mountain and Eagle Cap Wilderness Areas

 Eastern Oregon/Western Idaho: Hells Canyon Wilderness Area 
21

In general, WRAP based their estimates of natural conditions on EPA guidance, 

Guidance for Estimating Natural Visibility Conditions Under the Regional Haze Program (EPA45/B-03-0005 September 2003) but incorporated refinements which EPA believes provides 

results more appropriate for western states than the general EPA default approach. See section 

2.D and 2.E of the WRAP TSD, supporting this action.

Visibility on 20% worst days during the 2000-04 baseline period for each group of 

Oregon Class I areas is: 

 North Cascades - 14.9 dv 

 Central Cascades – 15.3 dv 

 Southern Cascades – 13.7 dv 

 Coast Range – 15.5 dv

 Eastern Oregon – 18.6 dv 

 Eastern Oregon/Western Idaho – 18.6 dv 

Visibility on 20% best days during the 2000-04 baseline period for each group of Oregon 

Class I areas is:

 North Cascades - 2.2 dv 

 Central Cascades – 3.0 dv 

 Southern Cascades – 1.7 dv 

 Coast Range – 6.3 dv 

 Eastern Oregon – 4.5 dv 

 Eastern Oregon/Western Idaho – 5.5 dv 
22

Natural visibility conditions on the 20% worst days for each group of Class I areas are: 

 Northern Cascades – 8.4 dv 

 Central Cascades – 8.8 dv 

 Southern Cascades – 7.6 dv 

 Coast Range – 9.4 dv 

 Eastern Oregon – 8.9 dv 

 Eastern Oregon/Western Idaho –8.3 dv 

The 2018 Uniform Rate of Progress (URP) goal for the 20% worst days in each group of 

Class I areas is: 

 North Cascades – 13.4 dv 

 Central Cascades – 13.8 dv 

 Southern Cascades – 12.3 dv 

 Coast Range – 14.1 dv 

 Eastern Oregon –16.3 dv

 Eastern Oregon/Western Idaho – 16.2 dv 

Baseline visibility conditions, 2064 natural conditions, and reductions needed to achieve 

the 2018 URP for the 20% worst days for each group of Oregon Class I areas are identified in 

table 6-1 of chapter 6 of the Oregon Regional Haze Plan.
23

Based on our evaluation of the State‟s baseline and natural conditions analysis, EPA is 

proposing to find that Oregon has appropriately determined baseline visibility for the average 

20% worst and 20% best days, and natural visibility conditions for the average 20% worst days 

in each Oregon Class I area. See sections 2.D and 2.E of the WRAP TSD supporting this action.

C. Oregon Emissions Inventories

There are three main categories of air pollution emission sources: point sources, area 

sources, and mobile sources. Point sources are larger stationary sources that emit air pollutants.

Area sources are large numbers of small sources that are widely distributed across an area, such

as residential heating units, re-entrained dust from unpaved roads or windblown dust from 

agricultural fields. Mobile sources are sources such as motor vehicles, locomotives and aircraft. 

EPA‟s Regional Haze Rule requires a statewide emission inventory of pollutants that are 

reasonably anticipated to cause or contribute to visibility impairment in any mandatory Class I 

area. 40 CFR 51.308(d)(4)(v). The WRAP, with data supplied by the States, compiled emission 

inventories for all major source categories in Oregon and estimated the 2002 baseline year (based 

on an average of 2000-2004). Oregon also compiled an emission inventory for 2018. Emission 

estimates for 2018 were generated from anticipated population growth, growth in industrial 

activity, and emission reductions from implementation of control measures, e.g., implementation 

of BART limitations and motor vehicle tailpipe emissions. 
24

Chapter 8 of the Oregon Regional Haze SIP submittal discusses how emission estimates 

were determined for statewide emission inventories by pollutant and source category. Appendix 

A of the Oregon Regional Haze Plan identifies the Oregon emission inventory by county. 

Detailed estimates of the emissions used in the modeling conducted by the WRAP for Oregon 

can be found at the WRAP website: http://vista.cira.colostate.edu/TSS/Results/Emissions.aspx. 

The Oregon Regional Haze SIP submittal identifies total emissions for all visibilityimpairing pollutants including sulfur dioxide (SO2), nitrogen oxides (NOx), volatile organic 

compounds (VOC), organic carbon (OC), elemental carbon, (EC), other fine particulate (PM2.5), 

coarse particulate matter (PM coarse), and ammonia (NH3). These emission estimates were 

partitioned into nine emission source categories: point source, area source, on-road mobile, offroad mobile, anthropogenic fire (prescribed fire and agricultural field burning), natural fire, road 

dust, and fugitive dust. See chapter 8.1 of the Oregon Regional Haze SIP submittal for 

additional detail on how the statewide emission inventory was developed, and for tables showing 

the emissions inventory for each pollutant by source category. The methods that WRAP used to 

develop these emission inventories are described in more detail in the WRAP TSD. As explained 

in the WRAP TSD, emissions were calculated using best available data and approved EPA 

methods. See WRAP TSD section 3.

Point sources in Oregon account for 39% (18,493 tons/year) of total state-wide SO2 

emissions. The most significant point sources are coal-fired electrical generation units. Area 

sources (such as Pacific offshore shipping, wood combustion, and natural gas combustion)

contribute about 21% (9,932 tons/year) to Oregon statewide SO2 emissions. On-road mobile 
25

and off-road mobile sources contribute a combined total of 21% (9,981 tons/year) of the Oregon 

SO2 emissions. In the Oregon Regional Haze SIP submittal, the State projected SO2 reductions 

of 57% in point sources, 15% in area sources, 94% combined reduction in on-road and off-road 

mobile source emissions, and 17% in anthropogenic fire emissions by 2018 (see Chapter 8 of the 

Oregon Regional Haze Plan).

Upon further review, EPA determined that the 57% reduction in point source emissions 

was partially based on WRAP‟s assumption of an SO2 emission rate of 0.15 lb/mmBtu 

(presumptive limit for utility boilers identified in the BART Guidelines, see Section IV. E.4.) 

from the PGE Boardman coal fired power plant by 2018. The remaining SO2 point emission 

reductions in Oregon would be achieved through ongoing and new industrial control 

requirements, and projected source retirements and shutdowns. However, the BART 

determination for PGE Boardman based on a 2020 plant lifetime, which EPA proposes to 

approve in this rulemaking (see section III. E.4 below), achieves an SO2 emission limit of 0.30 

lb/mmBtu by 2018, or about 4,000 ton/year less SO2 reductions than assumed by WRAP. Thus, 

statewide point source emission reductions of SO2 are estimated by EPA to be 35% by 2018. 

However, if PGE Boardman ceases to burn coal by 2020, as it would under the proposed 

approved BART determination, there will be an estimated 76% reduction is SO2 from point 

sources by 2020 which will provide a substantial improvement at that time in visibility in all 14 

Class I areas currently impacted by PGE Boardman. 

On-road mobile sources account for 43% (111,646 tons/year) of the total NOx statewide 

emissions in Oregon. Off-road mobile sources account for 21% (53,896 tons/year), natural fire 
26

accounts for 11% (27,397 tons/year), and point sources account for 10% (26,160 tons/year) of 

the statewide NOx emissions. The State expects on-road and off-road mobile source emissions

to decline by 62% and 40%, respectively, by 2018, due to federally mandated emission standards 

for mobile sources. The State also projects NOx emissions from point sources will decrease by 

5% (or 1,213 tons/year). After evaluating the assumptions on which this 5% reduction was 

based, it appears that the 5% reduction does not include presumptive NOx emission reductions 

from the PGE Boardman facility by 2018. The presumptive NOx emission limit for utility 

boilers, like PGE Boardman boiler, is 0.23 lb/mmBtu. EPA BART Guidelines (Section IV 

(E)(5)). The current NOx emission limit for the PGE Boardman is 0.43 lb/ mmBtu, which 

results in emissions of about 10,300 tons/year (based on 2007 actual emissions). The BART 

determination for PGE Boardman based on it ceasing to burn coal by 2020, which EPA proposes 

to approve in this rulemaking (see section III. E.4 below), achieves a NOx emission limit of 0.23 

lb/mmBtu, or annual emissions of about 5,500 tons/year (a 47% reduction) by 2013. Thus, in 

EPA‟s estimation, there will be about a 23% reduction in NOx emissions from all Oregon point 

sources by 2018. The State expects emissions from natural fire to remain unchanged by 2018. 

The net effect of these projected emissions results in a 37% overall reduction in NOx emissions 

in Oregon by 2018. 

Most of the organic carbon emissions in Oregon are from natural fire, which fluctuate 

greatly from year to year. For 2002, about 68% of statewide organic carbon emissions in Oregon 

were due to natural fire. Anthropogenic fire (prescribed fire, agricultural field burning, and 

outdoor residential burning) accounts for 9% of the statewide organic carbon emissions. A 

variety of other area sources contribute a total of 19% of the statewide organic carbon, with 
27

residential wood combustion being a significant component. The State expects area source

emissions to increase slightly (7%) by 2018, due mostly to population increases. The State 

projects the most significant reductions in organic carbon by 2018 will be from point sources 

(80%) due to anticipated emission controls, off-road mobile (36%) due to implementation of the 

federal mobile source regulations, and anthropogenic fire (28%) due to stricter Oregon rules 

controlling prescribed burning, agricultural burning, and residential burning. However, because 

natural fire emissions are expected to remain unchanged, total organic carbon emissions are 

estimated to decline by only 3% by 2018.

Elemental carbon is associated with incomplete combustion. Like organic carbon, the 

primary source of elemental carbon in Oregon is natural fire (61%), area sources (such as wood 

combustion) (15%), and off-road mobile sources (12%). The State projects an increase of 

elemental carbon area source emissions by 6% due to population growth. Oregon estimates a 

decrease of combined on-road and off-road mobile source elemental carbon by about 65% by 

2018. This reduction in mobile source emissions results from new federal mobile source 

emission regulations. However, because elemental carbon emissions are dominated by natural 

fire, which are expected to remain unchanged, the State projects only an 11% reduction in state 

wide elemental carbon emissions by 2018. 

Other fine particulates, particles with an aerodynamic diameter of less than 2.5 

micrometers (PM2.5), are emitted directly from a variety of area sources. Area sources are 

responsible for 34% of all directly-emitted PM2.5 emissions in Oregon. Wind-blown dust from 

agriculture, mining, construction, and roads contribute about 25% to the total statewide PM2.5 
28

emissions. The State projects a 12% increase in area source emissions due to population and 

economic growth, and wind-blown dust emissions to remain unchanged by 2018, resulting in a 

statewide 2% reduction in total PM2.5 by 2018. 

Coarse particulate matter (PM coarse) is particulate matter within the size range of 2.5-10 

micrometers. PM coarse emission sources include windblown dust, rock crushing and 

processing, material transfer, and open pit mining. Windblown dust is the dominant source of 

PM coarse emissions in Oregon at 104,274 tons/year (60%). Statewide PM coarse emissions are 

estimated to increase by 17% in 2018, primarily because emissions from fugitive dust sources 

(construction, paved roads, and unpaved roads) are expected to increase 106% due to population 

growth, and windblown dust will remain unchanged.

Volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions are dominated by biogenic emissions from 

forests and vegetation, which account for about 70% of statewide Oregon VOC emissions. In 

Oregon, agricultural crops and urban vegetation are also significant sources. Other sources of 

VOCs are mobile sources at 8%, and area sources (industrial and commercial facilities, and 

residential solvent use) at 15%. Oregon projects that statewide area source emissions will 

increase by 36% by 2018, primarily due to population growth. As a result, the State estimates 

that total Oregon VOC emissions will increase by 2% by 2018.

Ammonia (NH3) does not directly impair visibility but can be a precursor to the 

formation of particulate in the atmosphere through chemical reaction with SO2 and NOx to form 

“secondary aerosol” sulfate and nitrate. About 80% of the NH3 emissions in Oregon come from 
29

agricultural-related activities, primarily livestock operations and farm fertilizer applications. 

Since the NH3 emissions from these agricultural sources are expected to remain unchanged by 

2018, and mobile source emissions of NH3 are projected to increase by 45% (1,463 tons/year) by 

2018, Oregon projects that there will be a total 2% increase of NH3 emissions by 2018. 

D. Sources of Visibility Impairment in Oregon Class I Areas 

Each pollutant species has its own visibility impairing property; 1 ug/m3 of sulfate at 

high humidity, for example, is more effective in scattering light than 1 ug/m3 of organic carbon 

and therefore impairs visibility more than organic carbon. Following the approach 

recommended by the WRAP, and as explained more fully below, Oregon used a two step process 

to identify the contribution of each source or source category to existing visibility impairment. 

First, ambient pollutant concentration by species (such as sulfate, nitrate, organic carbon, and 

elemental carbon) was determined from the IMPROVE data collected for each group of Class I 

areas. These concentrations were then converted into deciview values to distribute existing 

impairment among the measured pollutant species. The deciview value for each pollutant 

species was calculated by using the “revised IMPROVE equation” (See Section 2.C of the 

WRAP TSD) to calculate extinction from each pollutant species concentration. Extinction, in 

inverse megameters, was then converted to deciview using the equation defining deciview. 

Second, the Comprehensive Air Quality Model with Extensions (CAMx) and PM Source 

Apportionment Technology (PSAT) models were used to determine which sources and source 

categories contributed to the ambient concentration of each pollutant species. Thus, impairment 

was distributed by source and source category.
30

After considering the available models, the WRAP and Western States selected two 

source apportionment analysis tools. The first source apportionment tool was the Comprehensive 

Air Quality Model with Extensions (CAMx) in conjunction with PM Source Apportionment 

Technology (PSAT). This model uses emission source characterization, meteorology and 

atmospheric chemistry for aerosol formation to predict pollutant concentrations in the Class I 

area. The predicted results are compared to measured concentrations to assess accuracy of 

model output. CAMx PSAT modeling was used to determine source contribution to ambient 

sulfate and nitrate concentrations. The WRAP used state-of-the-science source apportionment 

tools within a widely used photochemical model. EPA has reviewed the PSAT analysis and 

considers the modeling, methodology, and analysis acceptable. See section 6.A of the WRAP 

TSD.

The second tool was the Weighted Emissions Potential (WEP) model, used primarily as a 

screening tool to decide which geographic source regions have the potential to contribute to haze 

at specific Class I areas. WEP does not account for atmospheric chemistry (secondary aerosol 

formation) or removal processes, and thus is used for estimating inert particulate concentrations. 

The model uses back trajectory wind flow calculations and resident time of an air parcel to 

determine source and source category and location for ambient organic carbon, elemental carbon, 

PM2.5, and coarse PM concentrations. These modeling tools were the state-of-the-science and 

EPA has determined that these tools were appropriately used by WRAP for regional haze 

planning. Description of these tools and our evaluation of them are described in more detail in 

section 6 of the WRAP TSD. 
31

Section 9.2.1 of the Oregon SIP submittal explains that sources in areas outside of the 

modeling domain (i.e., portions of northern Canada, southern Mexico, Pacific offshore, and 

global sources) contribute between 40% to 60% of the sulfate that impairs visibility in all of 

Oregon‟s Class I areas on the 20% worst days. SO2 sources within the WRAP region contribute 

about 33% of sulfate that impairs visibility in Oregon Class I areas. Of the SO2 contribution 

from WRAP States, about 50% of the SO2 comes from point, area, and mobile sources in 

Oregon. 

The PSAT results also show that between 15 to 33% of the nitrate impairing visibility in 

all of Oregon‟s Class I areas comes from sources outside of the modeling domain, with the 

remainder from sources within the WRAP region. 

North and Central Cascades Class I Areas:

The PSAT results for sulfate show that for the 20% worst days during 2000-2004 the 

North and Central Cascades Class I areas are mostly impacted by sulfate from a combination of 

SO2 point, area and mobile sources in Washington, Oregon, and marine shipping in the Pacific 

offshore region (see Oregon Regional Haze SIP submittal Figures 9.2.1-1 through Figures 9.2.1-

6). The mobile source contribution to sulfate pollution is expected to decline significantly by 

2018 due to the implementation of the federal low sulfur diesel fuel rule, which went into effect 

in 2006 for on-road mobile sources, and took effect for non-road mobile sources in 2010. 
32

The PSAT results for nitrate show that a majority of the nitrate impacting the North and

Central Cascades Class I areas is from mobile sources in Oregon and Washington (see Oregon 

Regional Haze SIP submittal Figures 9.2.2-1 through Figures 9.2.2-6). PSAT results predict 

about a 50% reduction in nitrate concentrations in these area by 2018 due to a 50% reduction in 

NOx emissions from Oregon and Washington mobile sources. 

Based on the WEP model results, the organic carbon in the North Cascades on the 20% 

worst visibility days comes mostly from area sources and natural fires in Oregon, with a small 

contribution from areas sources in Washington. On the 20% worst visibility days at North 

Cascades, most of the primary PM2.5 contributions come from area and fugitive dust sources in 

Oregon, and to a lesser extent area and point sources in Washington. 

For the 20% worst visibility days in the Central Cascades, most of the organic carbon 

comes from a combination of area source emissions and natural and anthropogenic fire in 

Oregon. For the 20% worst visibility days in the Central Cascades, the OC comes primarily from 

Oregon area sources. For the 20% worst visibility days in the Central Cascades, most of the 

PM2.5 comes from area sources in Oregon.

Southern Cascades Class I Areas:

For the 20% worst days in the three Class I areas in the Southern Cascades, overall 

visibility impairment due to sulfate are lower compared to the Northern and Central Cascade 

Class I areas. Most of the sulfate impacting these Southern Cascade Class I areas is from point 
33

sources in Oregon, Washington, California, and Canada. Pacific offshore shipping is also a 

substantial contributor of sulfate to this area. 

For the 20% worst days in Southern Cascades, the most significant sources of nitrate are 

mobile sources in Oregon and Washington. The impact from these sources is expected to 

decrease by about 50% by 2018 due to Federal mobile source emission control measures.

For the 20% worst visibility days in the Southern Cascades, approximately 90% of the 

organic carbon contribution came from natural fires in 2002. Emissions from natural fires are 

expected to be unchanged by 2018. 

Coast Range Class I Area:

The only Class I area in the Coast Range group is the Kalmiopsis Wilderness Area. The 

most significant sources of sulfate to the Kalmiopsis Wilderness Area are natural fires in Oregon, 

and marine shipping in the Pacific Ocean. Both of these sources are expected to be unchanged 

by 2018. 

A majority of the nitrate impacting the Kalmiopsis Wilderness Area is from mobile 

sources in Oregon and from marine shipping in the Pacific Ocean. Smaller contributions come 

from Washington and California mobile sources. Mobile source contributions to this area are 

expected to decrease by about 50% by 2018. 
34

For the 20% worst visibility days in the Kalmiopsis Wilderness, almost all of organic 

carbon for the 2002 base year came from natural fire. For the 20% worst visibility days in the 

Kalmiopsis, the PM2.5 contributions were mostly from natural fire in Oregon. 

For the 20% worst days in the Kalmiopsis Wilderness Area, the contribution from point 

sources is relatively small. For the 20% of worst days in the Kalmiopsis Wilderness Area, the 

vast majority of nitrate comes from Oregon mobile sources, with smaller contributions from 

Washington and California mobile sources. There is also a substantial nitrate contribution from 

Pacific offshore shipping, due primarily to the close proximity of the Kalmiopsis Wilderness 

Area to the Pacific Ocean. 

Eastern Oregon Class I Areas:

For the 20% worst days in Strawberry Mountain Wilderness and Eagle Cap Wilderness 

Areas, the contribution of sulfates from each geographical area is relatively low (less than 0.12 

micrograms per cubic meter), with the largest contribution being from point sources from 

Canada, Washington, and Oregon. However, the visibility on the 20% worst days in this area is 

significantly impacted (greater than 0.20 micrograms per cubic meter) by a combination of point, 

area, and mobile NOx sources in Oregon, Washington, and Idaho. 

For the 20% worst visibility days in the Strawberry Mountain Wilderness and Eagle Cap 

Wilderness Areas, about 80% of the organic carbon contribution came from a combination of 

natural fires and anthropogenic sources in Oregon. For the 20% worst visibility days there is also 
35

a dominant PM2.5 contribution from windblown dust, and some fugitive and road dust area and 

fire sources in Oregon. The contribution of this mixture of source from Washington is about half 

of the Oregon level. 

Eastern Oregon/Western Idaho Class I Area:

For the 20% worst days in the Hells Canyon Wilderness Area, the contribution of sulfates 

from each geographical area is relatively low (less than 0.06 micrograms per cubic meter), with 

the largest contribution being from point sources from Canada, Idaho, and Oregon. However, 

the visibility on the 20% worst days in this area is significantly impacted (greater than 0.35 

micrograms per cubic meter) by a combination of mobile and area NOx sources in Idaho, and to 

a lesser degree, point and mobile sources in Oregon. 

For the 20% worst visibility days in the Hells Canyon Wilderness Area, the majority of 

the organic carbon contribution comes from a combination of Oregon natural and anthropogenic 

fire sources and to a lesser extent from anthropogenic and natural fire sources in Oregon. For the 

20% worst visibility days in the Hells Canyon Wilderness Area, most of the contribution of 

PM2.5 comes from a combination of windblown, fugitive and road dust sources in Idaho and to a 

lesser degree, the same mix of sources in Oregon. 

EPA is proposing to find that Oregon has appropriately identified the primary pollutants 

impacting its Class I areas. EPA is also proposing to find that the SIP contains an appropriate 

analysis of the impact of these pollutants in nearby Class I areas. 
36

E. Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART)

1. BART-Eligible Sources in Oregon

The first step of a BART evaluation is to identify all the BART-eligible sources within 

the State‟s boundaries. Table 10.2-1 in the Oregon Regional Haze SIP submittal presents the list 

of ten BART-eligible sources located in Oregon. These sources are: Amalgamated Sugar 

(Nyssa), Portland Gas and Electric (PGE) power plant (Boardman), Boise Paper Solutions (St. 

Helens), Georgia Pacific Wauna pulp mill (Clatskanie), PGE Beaver power plant (Clatskanie), 

Georgia Pacific pulp mill (Toledo), Pope and Talbot pulp mills (Halsey), SP Newsprint 

(Newberg), International Paper pulp mill (Springfield), and Kingsford charcoal production 

(Springfield).

2. BART-Subject Sources in Oregon

The second step of a BART evaluation is to identify those BART-eligible sources that 

may reasonably be anticipated to cause or contribute to any impairment of visibility at any Class 

I area and are, therefore, subject to BART. As explained above, EPA has issued guidelines that 

provide states with guidance for addressing the BART requirements. 40 CFR Part 51 Appendix 

Y-Guidelines for BART determinations under the regional Haze Rule (BART Guidelines); see 

also 70 FR 39104 (July 6, 2005). The BART Guidelines describe how states may consider 

exempting some BART-eligible sources from further BART review based on dispersion 
37

modeling showing that the source contributes to impairment below a certain threshold amount. 

Oregon conducted dispersion modeling for the BART-eligible sources to determine the visibility 

impacts of these sources on Class I areas. 

The BART Guidelines require States to set a contribution threshold to assess whether the 

impact of a single source is sufficient to cause or contribute to visibility impairment at a Class I 

area. Generally, States may not establish a contribution threshold that exceeds 0.5 dv impact. 

70 FR at 39161. Oregon established a contribution threshold of 0.5 dv through negotiated 

rulemaking with industry, FLMs, and the public. In its SIP submittal, Oregon notes that the 0.5 

dv threshold is also consistent with the threshold used by all other states in the WRAP. Any 

source with an impact of greater than 0.5 dv in any Class I area, including Class I areas in other 

states, would be subject to a BART analysis and BART emission limitations.

 Oregon established a contribution threshold of 0.5 dv based on the following reasons;

(1) it equates to the 5% extinction threshold for new sources under the PSD New Source Review 

rules, (2) it is consistent with the threshold selected by other States in the West, (3) it represents 

the limit of perceptible change, and (4) there was no clear rationale or justification for selecting a 

lower level. EPA finds that these reasons alone do not provide sufficient basis for concluding 

that such a threshold is appropriate for Oregon. Nevertheless, based on the additional 

information described below, EPA proposes to approve the list of subject-to-BART sources in 

this SIP submittal.
38

In the BART Guidelines, EPA recommended that States “consider the number of BART 

sources affecting the Class I areas at issue and the magnitude of the individual sources‟ impacts. 

In general, a larger number of BART sources causing impacts in a Class I area may warrant a 

lower contribution threshold.” 70 FR 39104, 39161 July 6, 2005. In developing its regional 

haze SIP, Oregon modeled the individual impacts of ten BART-eligible sources on Class I areas 

within a 300 km radius. (See Table 10-3.2-1 of the SIP submittal). EPA‟s review of modeled 

impacts of the BART-eligible sources in Oregon finds there is only one group of Oregon BARTeligible sources, that collectively impact visibility at the same Class I area (Mt. Hood Wilderness 

Area), with a total impact greater that 1.0 dv (level defined as „causing‟ visibility impairment). 

This group of sources consists of the Georgia Pacific Wauna pulp mill and PGE Beaver power 

plant in Clatskanie and Boise Paper Solutions in St. Helens. Two of these facilities, Georgia 

Pacific Wauna and PGE Beaver, have taken Federally Enforceable Permit Limits to limit their 

visibility impacts to 0.344 dv and to 0.357 dv, respectively at the Mt. Hood Wilderness Area. 

The remaining facility, Boise Paper Solutions, has a maximum of 0.367 dv impact at the Mt. 

Hood Wilderness Area. Since the combined contribution of these three sources will now be 

1.068 dv, which is only slightly above the threshold of „causing‟ visibility impairment, EPA is 

proposing to approve the 0.5 dv contribution threshold adopted by Oregon in its Regional Haze 

Plan. 

To determine those sources subject-to-BART, Oregon used the CALPUFF dispersion 

model. The dispersion modeling was conducted in accord with the BART Modeling Protocol7. 

This Protocol was jointly developed by the states of Idaho, Washington, Oregon and EPA and 

has undergone public review. The Protocol was used by all three states in determining which 
39

BART-eligible sources are subject to BART. See appendix D.4 of the SIP submission for details 

of the modeling protocol, its application and results. 

The following BART-eligible sources, based on CALPUFF modeling of 2003-2005 

emissions, demonstrate impacts greater than 0.5 dv in one or more Class I areas, and were 

identified as subject to BART:

1. PGE Beaver Power Plant, Clatskanie 

2. Georgia Pacific, Wauna Facility, Clatskanie

3. International Paper (formally Weyerhaeuser), Springfield

4. Amalgamated Sugar, Nyssa

5. PGE Boardman Power Plant, Boardman 

3. Federally Enforceable Permit Limits on Oregon Sources Otherwise Subject- to-BART 

The following sources elected to be regulated by a federally enforceable permit limit to 

reduce visibility impacts below the 0.5 dv impact threshold and thus are not subject-to-BART:

a. PGE Beaver Power Plant 

PGE Beaver Power Plant is a 558 megawatt fossil fuel-fired, electrical-generating plant 

located in Clatskanie, Oregon. Visibility modeling for this facility shows an impact on three 

Class I areas over the 0.5 dv, with the highest impact of 0.68 dv at Olympic National Park in 

Washington. Condition 340-224-0070 of the Title V permit (#05-2520) for this facility, 
40

modified by the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (ODEQ) on January 21, 2009, 

and included in the SIP submittal, establishes emission limits and the control technology to 

achieve these limits, so that the impact of emissions from this facility remain below a 0.5 dv at 

Olympic National Park and all other Class I areas. 

To achieve the emission limits established in the Title V permit, the facility must use 

ultra-low sulfur diesel (ULSD) fuel (with no more than 0.0015% sulfur) in its oil-fired BART 

eligible units. The source must use only “pipe line quality” natural gas in the gas-fueled PWEU1 

unit.

Compliance with emission limits will be determined by a combination of continuous 

emission monitors and other record keeping and reporting requirements. Based on the fuel use 

restrictions established in the permit, the predicted maximum impact for this facility, based on 

visibility modeling, will be 0.414 dv at Mt. Rainier National Park (the most impacted Class I 

area) (See section 10.3.2, table 10.3.2-1, and Oregon‟s supplemental submittal, February 1, 

2011). EPA proposes to find that in light of the federally enforceable permit limit, this source is 

not subject-to-BART. 

b. Georgia Pacific Wauna Mill

The Georgia Pacific Wauna Mill is a pulp and paper manufacturing plant located in 

Clatskanie, Oregon. Modeling conducted for this facility shows an impact at Olympic National 

Park of 0.57 dv. This facility elected to be regulated by an FEPL to limit its emission so that 
41

visibility impacts in any Class I area remain below 0.5 dv. The section titled “Emission Unit 

Specific Limits – Regional Haze Requirements” of Title V permit (#208850) for this facility, 

modified by ODEQ on December 2, 2010, and included in the SIP submittal, identifies emission 

limits and the methods for achieving these limits, so that emissions from this facility will not 

cause impairment above 0.5 dv. 

To achieve the emission limits established by the permit, the mill has reduced its SO2 

emissions by (1) permanently reducing use of fuel oil in the Power Boiler, (2) discontinuing the 

use of fuel oil in the Lime Kiln until the Non-Condensable Gas Incinerator (NCGI) unit is shut 

down, and (3) limiting pulp production rate to 1,030 tons per day until the NCGI unit is shut 

down, at which time production rate will be limited to 1,350 tons per day. Compliance with 

emission limits will be determined by visible emission monitoring and source testing. 

The maximum predicted impact for this facility will be 0.45 dv at Olympic National Park 

(See section 10.3.2, table 10.3.2-1, and Oregon‟s supplemental submittal, February 1, 2011). 

EPA proposes to find that in light of the FEPL, this source is not subject-to-BART.

c. International Paper

International Paper is a containerboard plant located in Springfield, Oregon. Modeling 

conducted for this facility shows an impact in nine Class I areas over the 0.5 dv. The highest 

impact of 1.45 dv occurs at the Three Sisters Wilderness Area. Condition 210 of Title V permit 

(#208850) for this facility, modified by Lane Regional Air Protection Agency on April 7, 2009, 
42

and included in the SIP submittal, identifies emission limits and the methods for achieving these 

limits, so that the impact of emissions from this facility remain below a 0.5 dv impact. 

To achieve the emission limits established by the permit, the plant has reduced its 

emissions of SO2, NOx, and PM by accepting limits on fuel usage and operation, and meeting a 

combined SO2 and NOx daily emission limit based on a plant fuel use specific formula. The 

permit requires this facility to include the package boiler (EU-150B) emissions when 

demonstrating compliance with condition 210 of the permit until the source submits a notice of 

completion of No. 4 recovery boiler mud and steam drum replacement. Compliance with 

emission limits will be determined by testing the sulfur concentrations in the natural gas and fuel 

oil used by this facility at specified frequencies, and using the appropriate emission factors for 

these fuels to calculate estimate daily SO2 and NOx emissions. With the federally enforceable 

permit limit, the maximum predicted impact for this facility will be 0.44 dv at Three Sisters 

Wilderness Area (See section 10.3.2, table 10.3.2-1, and Oregon‟s supplemental submittal, 

February 1, 2011).

EPA proposes to find that in light of the federally enforceable permit limit this source is 

not subject-to-BART. 

d. Amalgamated Sugar Plant

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

Oregon, near the Idaho border. This plant is currently shutdown and has no identified date to 
43

resume operations. However, since its air quality permit is still valid, BART modeling was 

conducted for the plant and an impact of 0.514 dv was identified at the Eagle Cap Wilderness

Area. In the event this source resumes operation in the future, Oregon Department of 

Environmental Quality (ODEQ) will require that this facility be subject to a federally 

enforceable permit limit in its Title V permit, or conduct a BART analysis and install BART 

prior to resuming operation. The federally enforceable permit limit will consist of an emission 

limit on the Foster-Wheeler boiler at this facility, which will ensure visibility impact remains 

under the 0.5 dv threshold. See OAR 340-223-0040. EPA proposes to find that in light of these 

provisions, this source is not currently subject- to-BART. 

4. BART for PGE Boardman 

The PGE power plant near Boardman, Oregon, (PGE Boardman) is a 584 MW coal-fired

electric utility and is BART-eligible because it is was constructed between 1962 and 1977, is a 

fossil-fuel fired steam electric generating plant of more than 250 million British thermal units 

(mm/Btu) per hour heat input, and has potential emissions greater than 250 tons per year of 

sulfur dioxide (SO2), nitrogen oxides (NOx), and particulate matter (PM). PGE Boardman 

commenced construction in 1975 and began operation in 1980. The PGE Boardman boiler is a 

Foster Wheeler dry bottom, opposing-wall fired design, controlled with first generation low NOx 

burners and overfire air. An electrostatic participator currently controls PM emissions. 

In July 2009, ODEQ conducted a BART analysis and determined that BART for PGE 

Boardman, was a combination of new low-NOx burners/modified overfire air (NLNB/MOFA) 
44

for NOx and Semi-Dry Flue Gas Desulfurization (SDFGD) for SO2, with a pulse jet fabric filter 

for PM. ODEQ also determined that Selective Catalytic Reduction (SCR) would increase control 

efficiency for NOx emissions and was reasonable to assure further reasonable progress. Based on 

the assumption that the facility would operate for at least 30 years (until 2040), this BART 

analysis determined these controls would be cost effective. Oregon included this BART 

determination in the Regional Haze Plan it submitted to EPA in July 2009. See Oregon Regional 

Haze Plan dated July 16, 2009, and OAR 340-223-0010 through OAR 340-223-0050, dated June 

30, 2009. On September 11, 2009, EPA informed ODEQ that this SIP submission was complete,

In a letter from PGE to ODEQ dated October 22, 2010, PGE requested that ODEQ 

reopen the Regional Haze BART rulemaking to consider an alternative BART approach for PGE 

Boardman. This alternative approach would allow PGE Boardman to commit to cease burning 

coal by December 31, 2020, and in the interim operate with less expensive control technology. 

This alternative shortens the expected useful life of the coal-burning Foster Wheeler boiler by 20 

years compared to the life expectancy relied on in the original BART determination. This 

alternative would also allow the boiler to be restarted using an alternative fuel at a future date. 

(A re-start of the boiler with an alternate fuel source would then require PGE to comply with all 

relevant requirements, including as applicable the requirement to apply for a Prevention of 

Significant Deterioration (PSD) construction permit which will require an analysis and permitted 

emission limits that represent Best Available Control Technology (BACT) before construction 

could commence.) Based on PGE‟s request, ODEQ performed an additional BART analysis for 

PGE Boardman assuming a shorter life expectancy. ODEQ evaluated visibility improvements in 

Class I areas of all technically feasible emission control technologies and determined the cost 
45

effectiveness of each technology assuming operation until 2020. See BART Guidelines Section 

IV. D. 4.(k) (explaining how to take into account the project‟s remaining useful life when 

calculating control costs).

ODEQ‟s BART analysis for all technically feasible control technologies for the FosterWheeler boiler is described in Appendices D-6 and D-7 of the revised Oregon Regional Haze 

SIP submitted December 2010. ODEQ determined that the technically feasible controls for 

NOx were the following: new low-NOx burners with modified overfire air (NLNB/MOFA); 

selective non-catalytic reduction (SNCR) with NLNB/MOFA; and selective catalytic reduction 

(SCR). ODEQ determined that the technically feasible controls for SO2 for were the following: 

reduced-sulfur coal restriction (RSCR); Direct Sorbent Injection (DSI); semi-dry flue gas 

desulfurization (SDFGD); and wet flue gas desulfurization (WFGD). The technically feasible 

controls evaluated for PM emission control were the following: pulsed jet fabric filter (PJFF) and 

electrostatic precipitation (ESP). An ESP is already installed and operating at PGE Boardman.

After identifying all technically feasible technologies to control the various pollutants ODEQ 

determined the emission limits achievable by each technology. The following results (for NOx, 

SO2 and PM) are shown in the Control Effectiveness table in Appendix D-7 of the SIP submittal. 

The emission limits for NOx would be:

 NLNB/MOFA – 0.23 lb/mmBtu 

 SNCR – 0.19 lb/mmBtu 

 SCR – 0.07 lb/mmBtu
46

The emission limits for SO2 would be: 

 RSCR - 0.6 lb/mmBtu 

 DSI – 0.4 lb/mmBtu 

 SDFGD – 0.12 lb/mmBtu 

 WFGD – 0.09 lb/mmBtu

The emission limits for PM would be:

 PJFF – 0.012 lb/mmBtu 

 ESP - 0.017 lb/mmBtu 

ODEQ next evaluated the cost effectiveness, the energy impacts, and non-air quality 

environmental impacts of each technically feasible control. The cost effectiveness of NOx 

control alternatives were: 

 NLNB/MOFA - $1,263/ton

 NLNB/MOFA/SNCR - $1,816/ton

 NLNB/MOFA/SCR - $8,337/ton

The cost effectiveness of SO2 control alternatives were: 

 DSI-1 (referred to as the initial phase of DSI operation) - $2,458/ton

 SDFGD - $5,535/ton (including the cost of installing a PJFF)

 WFGD - $7,631/ton
47

Included in the cost effectiveness values presented above are the direct energy and nonair costs. The direct energy impacts for each control technology were based on the auxiliary 

power consumption of the control technology and the additional draft system power consumption 

necessary to overcome the control technology resistance in the flue gas flow path. Indirect 

energy impacts, such as the energy to produce raw materials used for the control technology 

were not included in the cost estimates. 

ODEQ identified and considered the following potential non-air quality concerns for each 

technology: NLNB/MOFA - increased carbon monoxide air emissions and boiler tube slagging; 

SNCR - ammonia option has potential safety issues, urea option produces CO2, ammonia slip, 

and ammonia bisulfate formation (air preheater fouling); SCR - ammonia handling safety, SO2

to SO3 conversion and air preheater corrosion, ammonium bisulfate formation (air preheater 

fouling), soot blowing to manage ash deposition in the catalyst, reliability of catalyst in high 

temperature application, and ammonia slip; DSI - potential interference with mercury control 

system, creation of hazardous waste, requirement for increased maintenance of the ducts and 

ESP, and increase in particulate emissions; SDFGD - fugitive emissions from raw material and 

byproduct handling; WFGD - fugitive emissions from raw material and byproduct handling, 

persistent water plume from stack, material corrosion, dewatering, and addition of PJFF for 

mercury control. ODEQ concluded that in spite of the potential concerns identified, each of 

these control technologies are proven in use at other coal-fired boilers and that these concerns 

could be adequately addressed with a well-designed system. The only exception is SNCR in 

combination with DSI, which may result in additional PM emissions due to ammonia slip.
48

ODEQ then determined the visibility improvements that could be achieved over current 

conditions with each combination of technically feasible emission control technologies in 

the Mt. Hood Wilderness Area, the Class I area most impacted by PGE Boardman. (See

the Control Effectiveness table in Appendix D-7 of the SIP submittal.) The visibility 

improvements were: 

 NLNB/MOFA – 1.44 dv 

 NLNB/MOFA/SNCR – 1.62 dv 

 NLNB/MOFA/SCR -2.17 dv 

 RSCR – 0.43 dv 

 DSI-1 – 0.84 dv 

 SDFGD – 1.24 dv 

 WFGD – 1.19 dv 

 PJFF - <0.1 dv 

As explained in the 2010 revised BART analysis, and after full public notice and 

comment, ODEQ determined BART emission limits appropriate for the PGE Boardman facility 

based on it ceasing to burn coal by December 31, 2020. The specific emission limits and 

associated control technologies are explained below. 

Specifically ODEQ determined that BART for NOx is 0.23 lbs/mmBtu based on 

NLNB/MOFA. ODEQ found that the technology is cost effective and provides significant 

visibility improvement (>1.0 dv in Mt. Hood wilderness area), as well as significant 

improvement in 11 other Class I areas. Although the technology option of NLNB/MOFA plus 
49

selective non-catalytic reduction (SNCR) was cost effective ($1,816/ton), ODEQ rejected this 

technology option because adding SNCR only provided an additional 0.18 dv of visibility 

improvement over NLNB/MOFA at the Mt. Hood Wilderness Area, and because of concerns 

about excess ammonia emissions (commonly referred to as ammonia slip) which may result in 

increased rates of secondary particulate matter in the form of ammonium sulfate. As shown in 

the Control Effectiveness table in Appendix D-7, the NOx emission reduction attributed to 

SNCR was only 17% better than that achieved with NLNB/MOFA alone. 

ODEQ determined BART for SO2 is 0.40 lbs/mmBtu based on initial operational 

efficiency of DSI (DSI -1). This determination was made because DSI-1 is cost effective at 

$3,370/ton, will provide significant visibility improvement (>0.5dv) in the Mt. Hood Wilderness 

Area, and provide significant improvement in 11 other Class I areas. The cost effectiveness 

value that ODEQ calculated for SDFGD was $5,535/ton. The incremental cost effectiveness of 

SDFGD compared to DSI-1 is about $7,200/ton. ODEQ stated that SDFGD is not considered to 

be BART because it is not cost effective when considering a useful life expectancy of 2020. 

ODEQ determined BART for PM is 0.40 lb/mmBtu, which is the current PM emission 

limit for PGE Boardman with the existing ESP system. ODEQ‟s analysis concluded that the 

alternative PM control technology, PJFF, would only reduce PM emissions by 122 ton/year 

compared to 2007 actual PM emissions, and would not be cost effective at $186,102/ton (see 

Addendum to DEQ BART Report for the Boardman Power Plant, dated November 11, 2010). 
50

ODEQ also determined that further operational refinements to the DSI system or the use 

of improved sorbent (called DSI-2) could be achieved by 2018, resulting in further reductions in 

SO2 emissions at that time. Therefore, ODEQ identified a goal of 0.30 lbs/mmBtu for SO2 

emissions to achieve further reasonable progress by July 1, 2018. This goal would be achieved 

with operational refinements to the DSI system or the use of an improved sorbent that may be 

available in the future. 

EPA reviewed the BART determination for PGE Boardman and found that ODEQ 

appropriately followed the required steps for determining BART as described in the BART 

Guidelines Section IV. D. These steps are: 1) identify all available retrofit control technologies; 

2) eliminate technically infeasible options; 3) evaluate control effectiveness of remaining control 

technologies; 4) evaluate impacts and document results; and 5) evaluate visibility impacts. EPA 

proposes to find that the methods used by ODEQ for determining cost, cost effectiveness, energy 

and non air quality impacts, and visibility improvement of BART controls for the Foster Wheeler 

boiler at the PGE Boardman facility for a 2020 plant lifetime are consistent with the RHR and 

EPA guidance. ODEQ has also used an acceptable methodology for determining the impacts of 

remaining useful facility life on the cost and cost effectiveness of BART controls for the 2020 

plant lifetime. The emission limits, and schedules for meeting them, are identified in the Oregon 

Regional Haze Rules, OAR 340-223-0030. (State effective December 9, 2010). Therefore, EPA 

proposes to approve Oregon‟s BART determination for PGE Boardman.

IV. EPA’s Analysis of Oregon’s Regional Haze Rules
51

Oregon included in its Regional Haze SIP submittal revisions to the Oregon Regional 

Haze Rules (OAR 340-223-0010 through 340-223-0080), adopted by the State on December 9, 

2010. These rules, among other things, establish emission limits on certain sources that 

significantly contribute to visibility impairment in Oregon Class I areas. Additionally, these 

rules establish the BART emission limits analyzed and described in section II.D.4. above for the 

PGE Boardman facility. As explained in more detail below, the rules related to PGE Boardman 

establish a scenario whereby PGE would cease burning coal in the Boardman Foster Wheeler 

boiler no later than 2020 and perhaps as early as 2014. Additionally, pursuant to OAR 340-223-

0050, upon EPA‟s approval of the rules, the provisions containing alternative BART emission 

limits based on the facility continuing to burn coal until at least 2040 would be repealed as a 

matter of law. See Oregon Regional Haze SIP Submittal Attachment 1.1 pgs 5-6. 

www.deq.state.or.us/aq/pge.htm (ODEQ web page describing the new regulations for PGE 

Boardman).

OAR 340-223-0010

This rule explains that the purpose of OAR 340-223-0020 through 340 223-0080 is to 

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 requirements and other requirements associated with the federal Regional 

Haze Rules in 40 CFR 51.308.

OAR 340-223-0020
52

This rule includes the following definitions, “BART-eligible source”, “Beat Available 

Retrofit Technology (BART)”, “Deciview”, and “Subject to BART”. These definitions are 

consistent with their definitions in the federal RHR. Two additional definitions, “Dry sorbent 

injection pollution control system” and “Ultra-low sulfur coal” are consistent with industry 

practices. 

OAR 340-223-0030

This rule identifies BART emission limits, and other requirements pursuant to the federal 

regional haze rule, and the schedule for meeting these limits for the Foster Wheeler boiler at the 

PGE Boardman facility. This rule also includes the requirement that the Foster Wheeler boiler 

facility permanently cease burning coal by no later than December 31, 2020. OAR 340-223-

0030(1)(e). In this rule, the specific emission limits and schedule for these limits are: 

1. NOx- Between July 1, 2011 and December 31, 2020, NOx emissions must not 

exceed 0.23 lbs/mmBtu (pounds per million British thermal units) on a 30-day 

rolling average. However, if PGE demonstrates to ODEQ by December 31, 2011, 

that the 0.23 lbs/mmBtu cannot be achieved with combustion controls, ODEQ 

may, by order, grant an extension to July 1, 2013.

2. SO2- Between July 1, 2014 and June 30, 2018, SO2 emissions must not exceed 

0.4 lbs/mmBtu and between July 1, 2018 and December 31, 2020, SO2 emissions 

must not exceed 0.30 lb/mmBtu. However, if PGE cannot achieve 0.4 lbs/mmBtu 
53

by July 1, 2014, based on the reduction of SO2 emissions to the maximum extent 

feasible through the use of dry sorbent injection, the limits would be the lowest 

achievable with DSI, but no higher than 0.55 lbs/mmBtu by July 1, 2014. The 

SO2 emission limit is lowered to 0.30 lb/mmBtu by July 1, 2018. This limit is 

more stringent than the 0.40 lb/mmBtu BART limit and was adopted to achieve 

further reasonable progress in Class I areas. ODEQ believes that this limit could 

be met by further refinements to the DSI system (called “DSI-2”), or DSI 

refinements in combination with ultra-low sulfur coal.

3. PM- Between July 1, 2014 and December 31, 2020, PM emissions must not 

exceed 0.040lb/mmBtu heat input. 

OAR 340-223-0030 also explains that notwithstanding the definition of netting basis in 

OAR 340-200-0020, and the process for reducing plant site emission limits in OAR 340-222-

0043, the netting basis and the plant site emission limitations (PSELs) for the Foster Wheeler 

boiler are reduced to zero upon the date on which the boiler permanently ceases burning coal. 

Prior to that date the netting basis and PSELs for the boiler apply only to physical changes or 

changes in the method of operation of the source for the purposes of complying with the 

emission limits applicable to the boiler. 

OAR 340-223-0040
54

This rule explains that a BART-eligible source, which would be subject-to-BART based 

on visibility modeling, may accept a federally enforceable permit limit to reduce the source‟s 

emissions and prevent the source from being subject-to-BART. It also explains that any source 

that accepts a federal enforceable permit limit and subsequently proposes to terminate this limit, 

such that an increase in emissions would make the source subject-to-BART, must submit a 

BART analysis to ODEQ and install BART as determined by ODEQ prior to terminating the 

federally enforceable permit limits. This rule also explains that the Foster Wheeler boiler at the 

Amalgamated Sugar Company in Nyssa, Oregon, is currently not operating, and that prior to 

resuming operation the owner or operator must either 1) submit a BART analysis and install 

BART as determined by ODEQ, or 2) obtain and comply with a federally enforceable permit 

limit to ensure that the source‟s emissions will not cause the source to be subject-to-BART. 

OAR 340-223-0050

OAR 340-223-0050(1) provides that the owner and operator of the Foster Wheeler boiler 

at the PGE Boardman facility may elect to comply with OAR 340-223-0060 and OAR 340-223-

0070, or with OAR 340-223-0080, in lieu of OAR 340-223-0030. OAR 340-223-0060 and 0070 

provide emission limits based on coal operation until 2040, and OAR 340-223-0080 provides 

emission limits based on PGE Boardman permanently ceasing to burn coal within five years of 

EPA‟s approval of OAR chapter 340, division 223. Any of these alternatives are available only 

if the owner or operator provides written notification to the ODEQ Director by July 1, 2014 of 

which alternative it has chosen to comply with. Additionally, as provided in OAR 340-223-

0050(4), if EPA approves a SIP revision incorporating OAR 340-223-0030 (discussed above 
55

concerning BART requirements based on PGE permanently ceasing to burn coal in the Foster 

Wheeler boiler by December 31, 2020) compliance with OAR 340-223-0060 and 0070 is no 

longer an alternative. Accordingly, EPA‟s approval of OAR 340-223-0030, as proposed in this 

action, would eliminate the alternative BART requirements allowed under OAR 340-223-0060 

and 340-223-0070. 

OAR 340-223-0060 and OAR 340-223-0070

OAR 340-223-0060 identifies the SO2, NOx, and PM BART emission limits and the 

schedules for meeting these limits based upon coal operation of the Foster Wheeler boiler at the 

PGE Boardman facility until 2040. OAR 340-223-0070 identifies additional NOx emission limits 

that must be met by July 1, 2017 to achieve further reasonable progress for the PGE Boardman 

facility based on operation of the Foster Wheeler boiler until 2040. In this action, EPA is

proposing to approve a SIP revision incorporating OAR 340-223-0030. Thus, if or when this 

proposal is finalized, as provided in OAR 340-223-0050 and explained above, OAR 340-223-

0060 and -0070 would be repealed as a matter of law and compliance with them would no longer 

be an alternative.

OAR 340-0080

This rule, which is an alternative to OAR 340-223-0030, sets NOx emission limits and 

schedules for meeting these limits for the Foster Wheeler boiler at the PGE Boardman facility. 

As explained above, pursuant to OAR 340-223-0050(2), this alternative is based on the boiler 
56

permanently ceasing to burn coal no later than five years after EPA‟s approval of the Oregon 

Regional Haze Plan that incorporates OAR chapter 340, division 223. As in described above for 

OAR-340-223-0030, this provision also describes the process for establishing the netting basis if 

this alternative is chosen.

 In summary, EPA is proposing to find that Oregon‟s use of federal enforceable permit 

limits to reduce emissions of four sources below the 0.5 dv visibility impact contribution 

threshold, is an acceptable means of exempting a source from being subject- to-BART. 

Additionally, based on the analysis described in section III.E. 4. above, EPA proposes to find

that the rules relating to PGE Boardman are approvable. EPA proposes to approve OAR 340-

223-0010 through 340-223-0080. 

V. EPA’s Analysis of Whether the Oregon Regional Haze SIP Submittal Meets Interstate 

Transport Requirements

Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) of the Act requires SIP revisions to “contain “adequate 

provisions ...prohibiting ...any source or other types of emission activity within the State from 

emitting any air pollutant in amounts which will ...interfere with measures required to be 

included in the applicable implementation plan for any other State ... to protect visibility.” EPA 

is proposing to find that the Oregon SIP submittal of December 2010, and the supplemental SIP 

submittal dated February 1, 2011, to address regional haze contain adequate provisions to meet 

these “good neighbor” provisions of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) with respect to visibility.
57

As an initial matter, EPA notes that section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) does not explicitly specify 

how EPA should ascertain whether a state‟s SIP contains adequate provisions to prevent 

emissions from sources in that state from interfering with measures required in another state to 

protect visibility. Thus, the statute is ambiguous on its face, and EPA must interpret that 

provision.

Our 2006 Guidance recommended that a state could meet the visibility prong of the 

transport requirements for section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) by submission of the regional haze SIP, 

due in December 2007. EPA‟s reasoning was that the development of the regional haze SIPs 

was intended to occur in a collaborative environment among the states, and that through this 

process states would coordinate on emissions controls to protect visibility on an interstate basis. 

In fact, in developing their respective reasonable progress goals, WRAP States consulted with 

each other through the WRAP‟s work groups. As a result of this process, the common 

understanding was that each state would take action to achieve the emissions reductions relied 

upon by other states in their reasonable progress demonstrations under the RHR. This 

interpretation is consistent with the requirement in the regional haze rule that a state participating 

in a regional planning process must include “all measures needed to achieve its apportionment of 

emission reduction obligations agreed upon through that process.” 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3)(ii). 

We believe that with approval of the portions of the Oregon SIP that we are proposing to 

take action on today, Oregon‟s SIP will also contain adequate provisions to prevent interstate 

transport that would interfere with the measures required in other states to protect visibility. 

Chapter 13 of the Oregon SIP submittal explains the consultation process followed by Oregon 
58

and its neighboring states to meet the requirements in the regional haze rule to address the 

interstate transport of visibility impairing pollutants, and the outcome of that process. Section 

13.2.3 indicates that Oregon and neighboring states agreed that “no major contributions were 

identified that supported developing new interstate strategies, mitigation measures, or emissions 

reductions obligations,” and that each state could achieve its share of emission reductions 

through the implementation of BART and other existing measures in state regional haze plans. 

Additionally, when ODEQ subsequently revised its BART determination for PGE Boardman in 

2010, it specifically consulted with Idaho and Washington, the two states with Class I areas 

identified as impacted by the PGE Boardman plant. These states confirmed that they support the 

revisions and indicated that they did not anticipate the difference in emissions between the 2009 

BART determination for Boardman and the 2010 BART determination to have any material 

adverse effect on the State‟s reasonable progress goals for 2018. See Oregon Supplemental SIP 

Submittal. Oregon also agreed that future consultation would address any new strategies or 

measures needed. The measures addressing BART in the Oregon SIP submittal accordingly 

would appear to be adequate to prevent emissions from sources in Oregon from interfering with 

the measures required to be in the regional haze SIPs of its neighbors. 

This conclusion is consistent with the analysis conducted by the WRAP, an analysis that 

provides an appropriate means for further evaluating whether emissions from sources in a state 

are interfering with the visibility programs of other states, as contemplated in section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II). As described below, EPA‟s evaluation shows that the BART measures of 

the Regional Haze SIP submittal, that we are proposing to approve today, are generally 

consistent with the emissions reductions assumptions of the WRAP modeling from Oregon 
59

sources. Accordingly, EPA is proposing to approve Oregon‟s SIP as ensuring that emissions 

from Oregon do not interfere with the reasonable progress goals of other states.

In developing their visibility projections using photochemical grid modeling, the WRAP 

states assumed a certain level of emissions from sources within Oregon. The visibility projection 

modeling was in turn used by the states to establish their own reasonable progress goals. We 

have reviewed the WRAP photochemical modeling emissions projections used in the 

demonstration of reasonable progress towards natural visibility conditions and compared them to 

the emissions limits that will result from the imposition of BART on sources in Oregon. We 

have concluded that with the emissions reductions achieved by these measures, the emissions 

from Oregon sources in the projected inventory for 2018 (which included both reductions and 

increases) will be approximately equal to that assumed in the WRAP analysis. 

As a result of the foregoing determination, EPA is proposing to find that the Oregon 

Regional Haze SIP submission contains the emission reductions needed to achieve Oregon‟s 

share of emission reductions agreed upon through the regional planning process. As reflected in 

its Regional Haze SIP submittal, Oregon committed to achieve these emission reductions to 

address impacts on visibility on Class I areas in surrounding states. The portions of the Oregon 

Regional Haze SIP that we are proposing to approve ensure that emissions from Oregon will not 

interfere with the reasonable progress goals for neighboring state‟s Class I areas. EPA is 

accordingly proposing to find that these emission reductions also meet the requirements of 

section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) of the Act with respect to the visibility prong for the 1997 8-hour 

ozone and 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS.
60

VI. What Action is EPA Proposing?

EPA is proposing to approve portions of the Oregon Regional Haze plan, submitted on 

December 20, 2010, and as supplemented on February 1, 2011, as meeting the requirements set 

forth in section 169A of the Act and in 40 CFR 51.308(e) regarding BART. EPA is also 

proposing to approve the Oregon submittal as meeting the requirements of 51.308(d)(2) and 

(4)(v) regarding the calculation of baseline and natural conditions for all 12 Class I areas in 

Oregon, and the statewide inventory of emissions of pollutants that are reasonably anticipated to 

cause or contribute to visibility impairment in any mandatory Class I Federal Area. In addition, 

EPA is proposing to find that the BART measures in the Oregon Regional Haze plan meet the 

requirements of section 110(a)(D)(ii)(II) of the CAA with respect to the 1997 8-hour ozone and 

1997 PM2.5 NAAQS. Finally, EPA is proposing to approve OAR 340-223-0010 through 340-

223-0080 [Regional Haze Rules]. 

VII. Oregon Notice Provision

Oregon Revised Statute 468.126, prohibits ODEQ from imposing a penalty for violation 

of an air, water, or solid waste permit unless the source has been provided five days‟ advanced 

written notice of the violation and has not come into compliance or submitted a compliance 

schedule within that five-day period. By its terms, the statute does not apply to Oregon‟s Title V 

program or to any program if application of the notice provision would disqualify the program 

from Federal delegation. Oregon has previously confirmed that, because application of the notice 
61

provision would preclude EPA approval of the Oregon SIP, no advance notice is required for 

violation of SIP requirements. 

EPA is taking no action on chapter 340, division 200, section 0040, State of Oregon 

Clean Air Act Implementation Plan, because this section simply describes the State's procedures 

for adopting its SIP and incorporates by reference all of the revisions adopted by the 

Environmental Quality Council for approval into the Oregon SIP (as a matter of state law). 

VIII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that 

complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 

40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA‟s role is to approve state choices, 

provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. Accordingly, this proposed action 

merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and does not impose additional 

requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this proposed action:

 is not a "significant regulatory action” subject to review by the Office of Management 

and Budget under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993); 

 does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork 

Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);

 is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small 

entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.); 
62

 does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small 

governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Public Law 

104-4);

 does not have Federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 

43255, August 10, 1999);

 is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject 

to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997); 

 is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, 

May 22, 2001); 

 is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those 

requirements would be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act; and 

 does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as appropriate, 

disproportionate human health or environmental effects, using practicable and legally 

permissible methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).

In addition, this rule does not have tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 

FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country 

located in the state, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal 

governments or preempt tribal law.
63

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen 

dioxide, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides, visibility, 

and Volatile organic compounds.

Date: ____2/28/11___ ___Dennis McLerran______

Regional Administrator

Region 10