April 7, 2011

Via email: Keith Rose EPA Region 10 Office of Air, Waste and Toxics, AWT

- 107 1200 Sixth Avenue, Suite 900 Seattle, WA 98101

Re: Comments: EPA Proposed Approval of Oregon’s SIP Submittal for Regional Haze and Best Available Retrofit Techn ology, Docket ID No. EPA

- R10

- OAR

- 2011

- 0035

Dear Mr. Rose:

These comments are submitted on behalf of Sierra Club , Friends of the Columbia Gorge, Northwest Environmental Defense Center, Columbia Riverkeeper and Hells Canyon Preservation Council (the “Coali tion”). The Coalition asks EPA to correct factual statements made in EPA’s proposed approval of Oregon’s State Implementation Plan (“SIP”) submission. The Coalition also urges EPA to reevaluate the reductions Oregon has proposed because of the uncertainty in Oregon’s proposed best available retrofit technology (“BART”) for the Portland General Electric Boardman coal plant (“PGE Boardman”).

On March 8, 2011, EPA proposed approving a SIP submission by Oregon that would address the requirements of the Region al Haze program and the implementation of BART requirements for sources in Oregon. 76 Fed. Reg. 12651. While the Coalition generally applauds Oregon’s ability to secur e the permanent closure of PGE Boardman, this should not be purchased at the cost of foll owing the law. T he Coalition agrees that the closure of PGE Boardman at the end of 2020 will provide marked improvement at all of the 14 Class I sites that are impacted by PGE Boardman . However
, this improvement should not excuse the impact on public healt h and regional haze that PGE Boardman will have in the intervening decade.

I. EPA SHOULD CORRECT FACTUAL STATEMENTS IN ANY FINAL APPROVAL

The Coalition asks that

, if EPA approve s Oregon’s SIP submission for Regiona l Haze and BART, EPA correct or remove cer tain factual statements in its final approval. AUBREY BALDWIN Staff Attorney & Clinical Professor

10015 SW Terwilliger Blvd Portland, OR 97219 (503) 768

- 6929 (503) 768

- 6642 abaldwin@lclark.edu

www .peaclaw.orgIn EPA’s proposed approval, EPA describes PGE Boardman as “a 584 MW coal

- fired electric utility.” 76 Fed. Reg. 12,651, 12,660 (Mar. 8, 2011). This is inconsistent with the description of the facility that O regon provided and how the facility has been previously described. Oregon ’s SIP submittal described PGE Boardman as a “617 Megawatt electric steam plant, coal burning.” Oregon Regional Haze Plan for Implementing Section 308 (40 C.F.R. 51.308) of the Region al Haze Rule , §10.4.2 p.149 (Dec. 9, 2010). In a prior filing with the Securities & Exchange Commission , PGE described the facility as having a capacity of 600 MW. 69 Fed. Reg. 61,065, 61,065 (Oct. 14, 2004). The discrepancy likely lies in the limitation on the amount of energy Boardman can supply to the power grid (600 MW), versus the physical capacity of the plant (617 MW). Both values exceed the 584 MW value that EPA uses . EPA should correct any final approval of Oregon’s SIP submittal to contain the pr oper capacity of PGE Boardman or simply remove the reference if the actual capacity of Boardman

In addition, EPA states that PGE Boardman commenced construction in 1975. EPA should change this date to December 6, 1979, the date that PGE Boardman actuall y commenced construction, 1 or simply remove the reference altogether.

II. OREGON HAS IMPROPERLY GRANTED AN EXCEPTION TO BART

Oregon’s SIP submittal proposes that BART for sulfur dioxide for PGE Boardman will be direct sorbent injection with an emission limi tation of 0.4 lb/mmBtu (DSI

- 1). In addition, Oregon’s SIP proposes that reasonable further progress can be met through a more stringent 0.3 lb/mmBtu limit (DSI

- 2). However, Oregon has condition ed the application of th ese emission l imitation s and allows PGE Boardman to comply with an alternative limit of 0.55 lb/mmBtu limit

. The most concerning of the conditions is that PGE Boardman is excused from meeting the BART emission limitation if it s emissions of particulate matter would increase above a certain l evel

. This condition allows PGE Boardman to avoid the 0.4 lb/mmBtu or 0.3lb/mmBtu emission limitation if compliance would result in a “ significant air quality impact ” in PM 2.5 or PM 10 emissions. OAR 340

- 223

- 0030(3)(b)(C) (proposed). In describing the purpo se of this condition to the Environmental Quality Commission (“EQC”), the Oregon D epartment of E nvironmental Q uality (“DEQ”) phrased this condition as excusing PGE Boardman from these limits if it would “violate particulate standards.” 2 However, even if a source has a “significant air quality impact,” it is not in violation simply because of its emissions. All this finding would do is trigger the applicability of the Oregon Prevention of Significant Deterioration ( “ PSD ” ) program for PM 10 or PM 2.5
. See OAR 3 40

- 224

- 0070 (4) (requiring a facility that is significantly impacting an area, defined by reference to a “significant air quality impact,” to meet certain requirements of

1 On December 6, 1979, PGE received its final permit authorizing construction and operation of GE Boardman and thus commenced construction. The Coalition believes that PGE Boardman is not a BART eligible source, but rather is subject to the Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) program. This is currently at issue in ongoing federal litigation in Sierra Club v. Portland General Electric , Civil No. 08

- 1136

- HA (Dist. Or

. ).
2 Staff Report to Oregon Env ironmental Quality Commission, from Dick Pedersen, Director Oregon DEQ, at 6 (2010) (Attachment 1.1) (Item K 000006).the Oregon PSD program)

. 3 In other words, i f the use of DSI

- 1 or DSI

- 2 would increase particulate emissions by as little as ten tons per year, 4 PGE Boardman does not have to meet the emissions limitations that Oregon has proposed as BART.

This condition is inconsistent with the Clean Air Act. While Oregon could excuse the application of co ntrol equipment that is technologically infeasible

— and has provided a condition to cover this situation

— Oregon cannot exempt the application of technology simply because it triggers additional legal obligations. Oregon cannot excuse PGE Boardman from compl iance with one requirement of the Clean Air Act (BART), in order to avoid another (PSD). The Act demands that PGE Boardman comply with all of its requirements

, and that includes compliance with both of these programs. The trigger ing of the PSD program does not make the use of DSI

- 1 or DSI

- 2 technologically infeasible; the facility is still allowed to operate even if a full PSD review is necessary . And t here is no practical problem with complying with both of these requirements. If the application of control technology to meet BART triggers the application of PSD, PGE Boardman will simply need to go through the process of getting a PSD permit. Even if more stringent technology is re quired, such as a bag house, Oregon has not provided any reason why this would be in feasible. This condi tion therefore cannot properly be based on the availability, technological feasibility, or control effectiveness of the DSI systems.

This exception that Oregon has provided for PGE Boardman to exceed the BART and reasonable further progress emissions lim itations is not based on either the BART analysis of EPA’s regulations or the factors outlined in the Clean Air Act.

III. OREGON HAS NOT PROVIDED A SUFFICIENT BASIS FOR NOT CONSIDERING DSI

- 2 AS BAR T

In Oregon’s SIP submitt al, Oregon did not consider the lowe r emission limitation of 0.3 lb/mmBtu (DSI

- 2) as part of its BART requirements, but instead only considered it to meet reasonable further progress after 2018

. The DSI

- 2 limitation was not identified as technologically infeasible or cost prohibitive for BAR T

. Oregon has allowed PGE Boardman to conduct studies into the feasibility of both DSI

- 1 and DSI

- 2 . However , Oregon has provided no reason why the study of DSI

- 2 cannot be conducted “as expeditiously as practicable” but no later than five years after EPA a pproves the state SIP

, as required for BART. In fact, there were no reasons provided as to why analysis of DSI

- 2 could not occur concurrently with the analysis of DSI

- 1. The implementation of DSI

- 2 will require no additional capital investment at PGE Board man and only entails slightly higher operating costs for additional reagent. Oregon has failed to provide a practical or legal reason to delay the implementation of the more stringent DSI

- 2 limitation. Oregon’s failure to consider DSI

- 2 as BACT is arbitrar y.

3 In DEQ’s actual analysis this is spelled out much a bit more clarity, as DEQ addresses PGE’s concern with triggering the PSD program; ev en here however, DEQ is less than clear on the reason why this exception has been adopted. Oregon Regional Haze Plan for Implementing Section 308 (40 C.F.R. 51.308) of the Regional Haze Rule , §10.5 p.155

– 56 (Dec. 9, 2010).
4 The triggering levels

— 15 tons f or PM 10 and 10 tons for PM 2.5 — amount to approximately a 2% and 5% increase, respectfully, over PGE Boardman’s 2005 actual emissions of 696 tons of PM 10 and 181 tons of PM 2.5
.IV. EPA SHOULD ONLY ACCOUNT FOR REDUCTIONS THAT ARE GUARANTEED BY THE SIP.

The Coalition asks EPA to reevaluate the environmental benefits from Oregon’s SIP submittal based only the reductions that EPA approval of the SIP would actually require. In the alternative, the Coalitions asks that in approving Oregon’s SIP submittal, EPA interpret the conditions contained in OAR 340

- 223

- 0030(3) as requiring EPA approval or concurrence with DEQ’s determinations prior to implementation of relaxed standards.

Both Oregon and EPA have analyzed reductions of sulfur dioxides from PGE Boardman based on the implementation of both the DSI

- 1 and DSI

- 2 emissions limitations. However, Oregon’s SIP submittal is very clear that these benefits are contingent on the pilot studies that are proposed as part of the SIP. In other words, by approving Oregon’s SIP submittal, EPA is not guaranteeing the environmental benefits described. These benefits are possible ; but equally possible is that PGE Boardman will be allowed to oper ate at a higher emission level, reducing the benefits of Oregon’s SIP. In deciding whether or not Oregon’s SIP submittal meets the requirements of the Clean Air Act, EPA should evaluate the minimum protections that this SIP will provide.

This is consiste nt with how analysis is conducted for the benefits of other SIP provisions . For instance, in evaluating the environmental benefits from the reductions in nitrogen oxides through the application of BART , EPA would not consider whether PGE Boardman will actu ally operate at below the required emission limit (or for that matter at less than full permitted capacity). This is eminently reasonable as the only benefits that can and should be evaluated are those actually required by the SIP.

EPA should therefore c onsider the environmental benefits of Oregon’s SIP submittal based on what emission factor the SIP actually require s for sulfur dioxide : 0.55 lb/mmBtu . Oregon’s SIP submittal does require this minimum level of reduction to be met, regardless of the results of the pilot studies. This

, therefore

, is the minimum level of protection Oregon’s SIP would provide

. EPA’s analysis of the environmental benefits should be based on these emissions, not the conditional limits of 0.3 or 0.4lb/mmBtu.

Alternatively, or in addition, EPA should interpret the determinations contained in OAR 340

- 223

- 0030(3)(b) as requiring explicit EPA approval or concurrence. As it currently is written, it is unclear whether Oregon’s SIP submittal would require or allow any public comment on D EQ’s determination that DSI

- 1 or DSI

- 2 is technologically infeasible, would inhibit compliance with Oregon’s mercury rules, or would trigger PSD applicability. 5 Interpreting this provision to require EPA involvement would help safeguard the public from pot entially arbitrary decisions excusing compliance with the requirements of BART. The Coalition does not believe that Oregon intends to remove these decisions from public scrutiny, but because they will be

5 While the SIP submittal do es require a modification of PGE Boardman’s Title V permit, EPA only reviews to determine, and can only object, if the Title V permit does not meet the requirements of the Clean Air Act. Because these conditions would be incorporated into the SIP and becom e part of the Act, any determination by DEQ would meet the requirements of the Act,

no matter how arbitrary.incorporated into Oregon’s SIP, the Coalition believ es safeguards are necessary to protect the public.