1. WRAP States BART Status Lee Gribovicz Implementation Workgroup Meeting Denver, Colorado August 28-29, 2007

2. What is BART?

4. B est A vailable R etrofit T echnology

5. BART is Applied To: stationary sources of air pollution constructed in a 15 year window between August 7, 1962 and August 7, 1977 …….….. having the potential to emit more than 250 TPY of any air pollutant …….….. and belonging to one of 26 categories of industrial operations (ie/ fossil fuel power plants, petroleum refineries, large industrial boilers, cement plants, sulfur recovery plants & etc.) Meeting these three criteria makes a source “BART-Eligible”

6. BART Definition BART is a permit emission limitation not control technology itself, but the resulting emission rate (ie/ lb/MM Btu, pph, etc) §308 (e)(1)(ii)(A) requires that this limitation incorporate: the best system of continuous emission control technology available ……considering

7. BART Factors the control technology available the costs of compliance the energy & non-air quality environmental impacts any pollution control equipment in use at the source the remaining useful life of the source

8. BART Factors §308 (e)(1)(ii)(B) also requires BART to consider …… VISIBILITY Impact –the degree of visibility improvement that would be achieved in each mandatory Class I Federal area as a result of the emission reductions achievable from all sources subject to BART located within the region that contribute to visibility impairment in the Class I area Modeling is required to determine the visibility impact – -Defined Threshold: Source is “Contributing” to Visibility Impairment at a level of 0.5 dV impact (could be less if state elects to consider a cumulative analysis) -If a source is contributing to Visibility Impairment, then it is: “Subject to BART”

9. Given the definitions and factors states must: 1 Assure that they have the Authority (BART rule) to regulate BART sources for visibility (appx: 6 months, more?) 2 Identify a list of BART-Eligible Sources in their state (using the definitions of age, emissions, source category) (appx: 6 months, could overlap w/ BART Rule) 3 Determine if they are “Subject to BART” using Visibility Modeling of individual source impact on one or more Class I areas (appx: 6 months) 4 Require sources to conduct an engineering analysis of emission control options to propose a BART control scenario using the six BART factors (appx: 6 months) 5 Review the BART application (similar to an NSR BACT permit review) and make a proposed determination on BART controls (appx: 3 months) 6 Go through Public Notice and Review to formally set BART Emission Limits (appx: 3 months)

10. Thus the BART Determination Process could stretch out over TWO YEARS (or more) Don’t think all the states fully appreciated the timeframe for completing this analysis

11. BART Status: Alaska RMC completed “Subject to BART” modeling for 7 AK sources April 6, 2007 (Chugach Beluga Plant subsequently NOT BART-Eligible) all sources showed impacts above the 0.5 dV threshold, but some of the companies are remodeling with revised meteorological data to see whether they can convince Alaska that they are not “Subject” to the BART requirements Alaska still must adopt a “BART Rule” into regulation before they can officially determine that any source is “Subject to BART” the BART rule has been adopted by DEC, but must be reviewed and accepted by the Alaska Department of Law – expected early Fall ‘08 formal determination on “Subject to BART” sources will then be made BART control applications will be submitted after engineering analyses are completed (+/- six months) therefore BART determinations will not be made until sometime in the middle of 2008

12. WRAP BART Clearinghouse 8/31/2007 Sources that have been officially determined to be "Subject to BART" Sources that have been formally exempted as not "Subject to BART" StatePlant NameUnit BART Eligible? (yes, potential) AKAgrium U.S. Inc. (a.k.a. Unocal Urea Plant)50 UnitsY AKAlyeska Pipeline Service Company Valdez Marine Terminal16 UnitsY AKAnchorage MLP Sullivan Power PlantUnits 5 and 7Y AKChugach Beluga Power PlantUnits 6 and 7N AKConoco-Phillips Kenai LNG Plant5 UnitsY AKGVEA Healy Coal Fired Power PlantUnits 1 and 3Y AKTesoro Refinery11 UnitsY

13. BART Status: Arizona RMC completed “Subject to BART” modeling for 14 AZ sources May 25, 2007 –(4) Apache Nitrogen, Chemical Lime Douglas, Phelps Dodge Morenci & Salt River Project San Tan plants exempt –(9) Abitibi Pulp Mill, Arizona Portland Cement Plant, Chemical Lime Nelson, ASARCO Hayden & Phelps Dodge Miami Copper smelters are the non-EGU’s “Subject to BART”. Coal fired power plants at AEP Apache, APS Cholla, West Phoenix & SRP Coronado are also Subject Arizona notified the 9 “Subject to BART” sources of their inclusion in the BART program on July 13 th BART control applications are to be submitted no later than December 14 th review time and public notice will push the formal BART determination schedule into mid-2008 regarding the Tucson Electric Irvington Plant, Arizona DEQ is in negotiations with the company as to whether the facility is BART-Eligible

14. WRAP BART Clearinghouse 8/31/2007 Sources that have been officially determined to be "Subject to BART" Sources that have been formally exempted as not "Subject to BART" StatePlant NameUnit Subject to BART? (yes/no) AZAbitibi Consolodated Sales Corp - Snowflake Pulp MillPower Boiler 2Y AZApache Nitrogen Products Nitric Acid PlantAOPs 3-4N AZArizona Electric Power Coop - Apache Power PlantUnits 1-3Y AZArizona Portland Cement CompanyKiln 4Y AZArizona Public Service - Cholla Power PlantUnits 1-4Y AZArizona Public Service - West Phoenix Power PlantCC 1-3Y AZChemical Lime Company - Douglas Lime PlantKilns 4-5N AZChemical Lime Company - Nelson Lime PlantKilns 1-2Y AZKennecott (ASARCO) - Hayden Coper SmelterConverters 1-5, Anode Furnaces 1-3Y AZPhelps Dodge Corporation - Morenci PlantGas Turbine 1-2, Gas Boiler 1-2, Boiler 4N AZPhelps Dodge Miami Copper Smelter Hoboken Converters 1-5, Remelt Furnace, Shaft FurnaceY AZSalt River Project - Coronado Power PlantUnits 1-2Y AZSalt River Project - Santan Power PlantUnits 1-4N AZTucson Electric Power - Irvington Power PlantSteam Unit 4N

15. BART Status: California has determined that a number of originally determined BART- eligible sources were mis-characterized in the clearinghouse in that they did not meet one or more of the BART factors (age, emissions or source category) (“N” for eligibility – green) has determined that a number of BART-eligible sources won’t require further control because of strict existing/planned emission limitations (blue) will conduct “Subject to BART” modeling for a limited number of sources (complete list yet to be defined – 11 possible) has a number of special BART implementation questions due to the fact that CARB doesn’t regulate stationary point sources at the state level (local Air Pollution Control Districts have that function) BART emission limitations will likely be coordinated through the Districts in their Title V renewal process no established date for BART determinations at this point

16. WRAP BART Clearinghouse 8/31/2007 Sources that have been officially determined to be "Subject to BART" Sources that have been formally exempted as not "Subject to BART" StatePlant NameUnit BART Eligible? (yes, potential) CAACE Cogeneration Company (Mojave Desert - Trona) N CACABRILLO POWER I LLC ENCINA PO (San Diego) Y (see note) CACONOCO-PHILLIPS Santa Maria Refinery (formerly TOSCO - San Luis Obispo) Y CACONOCO-PHILLIPS Rodeo Plant (formerly TOSCO; formerly Phillips 66; formerly Unocal) Y CACALIFORNIA PORTLAND CEMENT CO. (eastern Kern) N CACEMEX - River Plant (Mojave Desert - Victorville) N CACEMEX - (Mojave Desert - Black Mountain Quarry Plant - AppleValley) Y CACHEVRON USA Inc -(Bay Area - Richmond - Contra Costa)) Y CADUKE ENERGY MORRO BAY (SLO) Y (see note) CADUKE ENERGY MOSS LANDING, LLC (Monterey) Y (see note) CADUKE ENERGY-SOUTH BAY POWER PL (San Diego) Y (see note) CA EVERGREEN PULP, INC. (formerly Samoa Pacific Cellulose, LLC; formerly LP Samoa) (North Coast - Humboldt) Y CAJOHNS-MANVILLE (Glenn) N CALEHIGH SOUTHWEST CEMENT CO. (Eastern Kern) N CALEHIGH SOUTHWEST (formerly Calaveras Cement Company - Shasta) N CAMARTINEZ REFINING COMPANY (Shell - Martinez - Bay Area - Contra Costa)) Y

17. WRAP BART Clearinghouse 8/31/2007 Sources that have been officially determined to be "Subject to BART" Sources that have been formally exempted as not "Subject to BART" StatePlant NameUnit BART Eligible? (yes, potential) CAMIRANT DELTA (formerly Southern Energy California Co.; formerly PG&E Antioch - Contra Costa) Y (see note) CAMIRANT DELTA, LLC (Pittsburg - Bay Area - Contra Costa) Y (see note) CAMIRANT POTRERO LLC (San Francisco - Potrero) Y (see note) CAMitsubishi Cement 2000 (Mojave Desert - Lucerne) N CANATIONAL CEMENT CO (eastern Kern) N CAPACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC CO - HUMBOLDT BAY (Eureka) N CAPacific Lumber Company Max-Am Corporation (Scotia) N CAReliant Energy Coolwater, LLC ALTA (Mojave Desert - Daggett) Y CAReliant Energy Ormond Beach Generating Facility LLC (Ventura) Y (see note) CARHODIA INC (Bay Area - Martinez - Contra Costa) Y CASearles Valley Mineral Utilities aka IMC Chemicals Inc. (Mojave Desert: Trona/Argus/Westend) Y CASIERRA PACIFIC INDUSTRIES - Standard (Tuolumne County) N CATXI Riverside Cement Company (Mojave Desert - Oro Grande) Y (see note) CATESORO Marketing and Refining (formerly ULTRAMAR) (Martinez - Contra Costa) Y CAVALERO REFINING COMPANY - CALI (formerly Exxon-Mobil) Y

18. BART Status: Colorado DONE !! Colorado Regional Haze SIP available at: http://www.cdphe.state.co.us/ap/regionalhaze.html Coal Fired Utility Rates (except CENC [Coors Brewery]): –SO2 between 0.10 & 0.13 lb/MM Btu –NOx between 0.15 & 0.39 lb/MM Btu –PM at 0.03 lb/MM Btu One Cement Kiln –Kiln: 20% reduction NOx, Process Control SO2, 0.3 lb/Ton feed PM [Clinker Cooler same except 0.1 PM] Established a 10,500 ton bubble for SO2 at Xcel Energy’s Metro Denver Plants: Cherokee 1-4, Valmont 5..&.. Arapahoe 3-4 [non-BART] Units (Arapahoe 1&2 retired)

19. WRAP BART Clearinghouse 8/31/2007 Sources that have been officially determined to be "Subject to BART" Sources that have been formally exempted as not "Subject to BART" StatePlant NameUnit Subject to BART? (yes/no) COCEMEX, INC. - LYONS CEMENT PLANT Y COCOLORADO REFINING CO TOTAL PETROLEUM N COCOLORADO SPRINGS UTILITIES - NIXON PLTUnit 1N COCOLORADO SPRINGS UTILITIES-DRAKE PLTUnits 5-7Y COCONOCO INC DENVER REFINERY N COLAMAR UTILITIES BOARDUnit 6N COPUBLIC SERVICE CO - VALMONTUnit 5Y COPUBLIC SERVICE CO CHEROKEE PLTUnit 4Y COPUBLIC SERVICE CO COMANCHE PLTUnits 1-2Y COPUBLIC SERVICE CO HAYDEN PLTUnits 1-2Y COPUBLIC SERVICE CO PAWNEE PLTUnit 1Y COTRI STATE GENERATION CRAIGUnits 1-2Y COTRIGEN-NATIONS ENERGY CO - Trigen ColoradoUnits 4-5Y

20. BART Status: Hawaii Hawaii has 8 sources listed as BART-Eligible They haven’t completed a “Subject to BART” modeling protocol as yet, therefore no further analysis of BART has occurred The modeling protocol is “imminent”, but the “Subject to BART” modeling, the BART control engineering analysis, the review and notice will likely push BART determinations into late 2008

21. WRAP BART Clearinghouse 8/31/2007 Sources that have been officially determined to be "Subject to BART" Sources that have been formally exempted as not "Subject to BART" StatePlant NameUnit BART Eligible? (yes, potential) HIHawaiian Commercial & Sugar Company Y HIHECO-Kahe Power Plant Y HIHECO-Waiau Power Plant Y HIHELCO-Kanoelehua Power Plant Y HIHilo Coast Power Company Y HIKIUC-Port Allen Generating Station Y HIMECO-Kahului Power Plant Y HITesoro Refinery Y

22. BART Status: Idaho Idaho completed “Subject to BART” modeling internally, with the issuance of July ’07 reports all modeled sources exempt except for a coal fired industrial boiler at Amalgamated Sugar (TASCO) Nampa plant TASCO control analysis due in September – BART control determination expected November P4 Production’s Soda Springs Plant has also been determined to be Subject to BART, but they will meet BART level control through retrofits installed under a permit revision (to address NAAQS violations)

23. WRAP BART Clearinghouse 8/31/2007 Sources that have been officially determined to be "Subject to BART" Sources that have been formally exempted as not "Subject to BART" StatePlant NameUnit BART Eligible? (yes, potential) Subject to BART? (yes/no) IDJR Simplot Company Don Siding Complex see column NN IDNu West Industries (Agrium) see column NN IDP4 Production LLC Soda Springs Plant (aka: Monsanto) Y (see note) IDPotlatch Corp - Potlatch Idaho see column NN IDTASCO (Amalgamated Sugar), Nampa see column NY IDTASCO (Amalgamated Sugar), Paul see column NN IDTASCO (Amalgamated Sugar), Twin Falls see column NN

24. BART Status: Montana RMC completed “Subject to BART” modeling for 9 MT sources May 30, 2007 –(3) Cenex, Exxon, Montana Sulfur & Smurfit Stone exempt –(5) Columbia Falls Aluminum, Ash Grove & Holcim Cement, PP&L Corette & Colstrip Plants are “Subject to BART” Montana DEQ bowed out of RH in June 2006, therefore EPA is now responsible for the Montana Regional Haze FIP BART control applications are submitted for the Ash Grove & Holcim Cement, and the PP&L Corette & Colstrip Plants – Columbia Falls Aluminum has a 90 day extension to submit their application EPA has contracted with EC/R to complete the BART evaluations -- but there is no schedule for completing the review EPA expects to make BART determinations in late Fall ’07 The ASARCO Helena lead smelter has been decommissioned and has been notified that it will require a NSR BACT permit to resume operations

25. WRAP BART Clearinghouse 8/31/2007 Sources that have been officially determined to be "Subject to BART" Sources that have been formally exempted as not "Subject to BART" StatePlant NameUnit Subject to BART? (yes/no) MTASARCO (Helena Plant) N MTAsh Grove Cement (Clancy) Y MTCENEX-Laurel Refinery N MTCOLUMBIA FALLS ALUMINUM Y MTEXXON CO USA - Billings Refinery N MTHolcim Cement (Three Forks) Y MTMontana Sulfur & Chemical (Billings) N MTPP&L MONTANA LLC - J E CORETTE SESUnit 2Y MTPPL, MONTANA COLSTRIP PlantUnits 1-2Y MTSmurfit-Stone Container Corp - Missoula Mill N

26. BART Status: Nevada RMC completed “Subject to BART” modeling for 5 NV sources May 14, 2007 –(2) Chemical Lime & Nevada Power Sunrise exempt –(3) Nevada Power Reid Gardner & Sierra Power Ft. Churchill & Tracy are “Subject to BART” So. Cal Edison Mojave is also “Subject”, but the plant is not currently operating: NV is waiting on a pending sale decision before taking action Nevada Cement is re-doing their “Subject to BART Modeling to see whether they can convince Nevada that they are not “Subject” to the BART requirements BART control evaluations are under way, but there is no deadline for completion BART determinations not expected until mid-2008

27. WRAP BART Clearinghouse 8/31/2007 Sources that have been officially determined to be "Subject to BART" Sources that have been formally exempted as not "Subject to BART" StatePlant NameUnit BART Eligible? (yes, potential) Subject to BART? (yes/no) NVChemical Lime Company (Apex)Kiln 3see column NN NVNevada Cement Co. (Fernley)Kilns 1-2Y NVNEVADA POWER CO - REID GARDNERUnits 1-3see column NY NVNEVADA POWER CO - SUNRISEUnit 1see column NN NVSIERRA PACIFIC POWER CO - FORT CHURCHILLUnits 1-2see column NY NVSIERRA PACIFIC POWER CO. - TRACY GENERATING STATIONUnits 1-3see column NY NVSOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON CO - MOHAVEUnits 1-2see column NY

28. BART Status: New Mexico RMC completed “Subject to BART” modeling for 10 NM sources April 21, 2007 –(9) Amoco Abo, SWPS Cunningham & Maddox, Duke Artesia & Linam Ranch, Dynegy Saunders, Giant San Juan & Ciniza, and Marathon Indian Basin plants are exempt –(1) PNM Reeves Station was subsequently found to have begun operation prior to the August 1962 BART timeframe Public Service of New Mexico San Juan coal fired power plant is “Subject to BART”, but is also under a Consent Decree mandating improved controls PNM submitted a BART control application June 6 th, with evaluation currently under way to determine whether the Consent Decree controls also meet BART a determination on whether any additional BART control is required, is expected in September

29. WRAP BART Clearinghouse 8/31/2007 Sources that have been officially determined to be "Subject to BART" Sources that have been formally exempted as not "Subject to BART" StatePlant NameUnit Subject to BART? (yes/no) NDTesoro Marketing and Refining Co. N NMAmoco Empire AboSRU OnlyN NMSWPS Cunningham Station (Xcel Energy)One UnitN NMDuke Energy Artesia Gas PlantSRU OnlyN NMDuke Energy Linam Ranch Gas PlantSRU OnlyN NMDynegy SaundersSRU OnlyN NMGiant Refining San Juan RefineryUnit #1 FCCP ESP stackN NMGiant Refining, Ciniza Refinery4 B&W CO boilerN NMSWPS Maddox Station (Xcel Energy)One UnitN NMMarathon Indian Basin Gas PlantSRU OnlyN NMPNM, San JuanUnits 1-4Y NMReeves Station N NMRio Grande StationOne UnitN NMWestern Gas Resources San Juan River Gas PlantSRU OnlyN

30. BART Status: North Dakota ND completed “Subject to BART” modeling their 7 sources in the Spring of 2006 –(3) American Sugar, MDU Heskett & Tesoro Refining exempt –(4) Basin Leland Olds, Great River Coal Creek & Stanton, and Minnkota Milton Young Coal Plants are “Subject to BART” BART control applications submitted in July ‘06 ND has essentially completed their determinations for SO2 & PM, but NOx control still has the decisions deadlocked over whether SCR can be used effectively with ND lignite coal BART determinations are still targeted for Fall ’07, but the NOx issue may push that back

31. WRAP BART Clearinghouse 8/31/2007 Sources that have been officially determined to be "Subject to BART" Sources that have been formally exempted as not "Subject to BART" StatePlant NameUnit Subject to BART? (yes/no) NDAMERICAN CRYSTAL SUGAR - Drayton N NDBASIN ELECTRIC POWER COOP - LELAND OLDSUnits 1-2Y NDGREAT RIVER ENERGY - COAL CREEKUnits 1-2Y NDGREAT RIVER ENERGY - STANTONUnit 1Y NDMDU Resources Group Inc - R M HeskettUnit 2N NDMINNKOTA POWER COOP INC - MILTON R YOUNGUnits 1-2Y NDTesoro Marketing and Refining Co. N

32. BART Status: Oregon Oregon completed “Subject to BART” modeling in February 2007 –(3) Georgia Pacific in Toledo, and the Kingsford & Smurfit plants in Springfield are exempt Oregon initially found that 6 plants were “Subject to BART”, but all of these six are in negotiation with Oregon DEQ to adopt federally enforceable emission limits which would reduce their Class I impact below the 0.5 dV impact threshold, and remove them from BART requirements And Oregon is looking at defining a “Cumulative Impact” criteria for some Oregon BART-Eligible Sources in addition, the PGE Boardman coal fired power plant has also been found to be “Subject” and will go through BART review the deadline for Boardman to submit their control analysis is August 31 st ; review & BART determination date unknown There is no deadline for the other 6 plants to complete their alternative plans and re-demonstration of visibility impact

33. WRAP BART Clearinghouse 8/31/2007 Sources that have been officially determined to be "Subject to BART" Sources that have been formally exempted as not "Subject to BART" StatePlant NameUnit Subject to BART? (yes/no) ORAmalgamated Sugar Co LLC - Amalgamated Sugar Nyssa Y ORBoise Cascade (aka Boise Paper Solutions) St. Helens Pulp Mill Y ORFort James Operating Company (Wauna Mill) Y ORGeorgia-Pacific West, Inc. (Toledo) N ORKingsford Manufacturing Charcoal Briquette Plant (Springfield) N ORPope & Talbot, Inc. (Halsey Mill) Y ORPortland General Electric Company - Boardman Y ORPortland General Electric Company - Beaver Plant @ Clatskanie) Y ORSmurfit Newsprint Corporation (aka SP Newsprint - Springfield) N ORWeyerhaeuser - Springfield Y

34. BART Status: South Dakota RMC completed “Subject to BART” modeling for 2 SD sources August 15, 2007. Results indicate: –Pete Lien does not have a 0.5 dV impact on any Class I area –Otter Tail Power Big Stone Plant does have a 0.5 dV impact on several Class I areas in the region “Subject to BART” SD is in negotiations with Otter Tail over these modeling results, and has not made a formal determination that the Big Stone Plant is “Subject to BART”. There is currently no deadline for completing this determination. once a determination is made, engineering evaluation of potential BART control options, and review of the selected proposal will push BART determinations well into mid-2008

35. WRAP BART Clearinghouse 8/31/2007 Sources that have been officially determined to be "Subject to BART" Sources that have been formally exempted as not "Subject to BART" StatePlant NameUnit BART Eligible? (yes, potential) SDOTTER TAIL POWER CO - BIG STONEUnit 1Y SDPETE LIEN AND SONS, INC. P

36. BART Status: Utah only two BART-Eligible Sources in Utah: Pacificorp Hunter & Huntington Plants RMC completed “Subject to BART” modeling for 2 UT sources April 21, 2007, which indicated both Pacificorp plants do exceed the 0.5 dV Class I area impact threshold Pacificorp made commitments to meet or exceed presumptive BART limits at these plants under their MidAmerican buyout agreement (installation of wet-lime FGD’s, baghouse’s and low-NOx combustion controls) Utah issued permits for Huntington 2 in April ’05 and for Hunter 1-3 in April ’07 for legally enforceable limits –0.12 lb/MM Btu SO2 // 0.26 lb/MM Btu NOx the Huntington 1 permit application is expected in Dec ’07

37. WRAP BART Clearinghouse 8/31/2007 Sources that have been officially determined to be "Subject to BART" Sources that have been formally exempted as not "Subject to BART" StatePlant NameUnit Subject to BART? (yes/no) UTPACIFICORP - Hunter Power PlantUnits 1-2Y UTPACIFICORP - Huntington Power PlantUnits 1-2Y

38. BART Status: Washington Washington requested that each of the 14 BART-Eligible facilities in the state conduct “Subject to BART” modeling in early 2007 –Goldendale Aluminum, Phillips 66, Puget Sound Refining & Simpson Kraft were found to be exempt Three plants (ALCOA, Ft. James & Longview Fibre) are re- modeling with revised ozone data to see if their initial modeled impact will be reduced below the 0.5 dV threshold, with determinations expected in early Fall ‘07 Washington has found that 7 plants are “Subject to BART” DEC will issue an order for these 7 plants (& the other 3, if found to be “Subject”) to prepare BART control applications, with submittal deadlines ranging from November ’07 through March ’08 review time and public notice will push the formal BART determination schedule into mid-2008

39. WRAP BART Clearinghouse 8/31/2007 Sources that have been officially determined to be "Subject to BART" Sources that have been formally exempted as not "Subject to BART" StatePlant NameUnit BART Eligible? (yes, potential) Subject to BART? (yes/no) WAALUMINUM CO OF AMERICA WENATCHEE WORKS2 UnitsY WABP CHERRY POINT REFINERY26 Unitssee column NY WACENTRALIA (TransAlta Centrailia Generation, LLC)Units 1-2see column NY WAFORT JAMES CAMAS LLC (now Georgia Pacific)4 UnitsY WAGOLDENDALE ALUMINUM2 Unitssee column NN WAINTALCO ALUMINUM CORP (FERNDALE)19 Unitssee column NY WALafarge Corporation Cement Plant (Seattle)2 Unitssee column NY WALongview Fibre Co - Longview Fibre6 UnitsY WAPHILLIPS 66 COMPANY (Ferndale)8 Unitssee column NN WAPort Townsend Paper Co4 Unitssee column NY WAPuget Sound Refining Company (aka: Shell)9 Unitssee column NN WASIMPSON TACOMA KRAFT3 Unitssee column NN WATESORO NORTHWEST COMPANY12 Unitssee column NY WAWeyerhaeuser Co - Longview WA3 Unitssee column NY

40. BART Status: Wyoming Wyoming contracted out “Subject to BART” modeling for 14 facilities in early 2006 –Black Hills Neil Simpson I, Dyno Nobel, P4 Production Coking, Sinclair Oil Casper and Sinclair Refineries were exempt –OCI Trona was eventually determined to be not BART-Eligible Wyoming determined that 8 Facilities were “Subject to BART” in June ’06 (General Chemical, FMC Granger & Green River industrial boilers, along with Basin Electric Laramie River & Pacificorp EGU’s at Dave Johnston, Jim Bridger, Naughton and Wyodak plants) BART control applications were submitted in January & February ’07 for Pacificorp EGU’s, March & April ’07 for industrial boilers at the FMC and General Chemical Trona Plants. Wyoming has not yet received the application from the Basin Electric Laramie River EGU. Review of the BART proposals is currently under way for the applications that have been received, with BART determinations expected sometime in the Fall ’07.

41. WRAP BART Clearinghouse 8/31/2007 Sources that have been officially determined to be "Subject to BART" Sources that have been formally exempted as not "Subject to BART" StatePlant NameUnit Subject to BART? (yes/no) WYBASIN ELECTRIC POWER COOP - LARAMIE RIVERUnits 1-3Y WYBLACK HILLS POWER & LIGHT - NEIL SIMPSON 1Unit 1N WYDyno Nobel (formerly Coastal Chemical)9 UnitsN WYFMC CORP - GREEN RIVER SODA ASH PLANT3 UnitsY WYFMC WYOMING CORP - GRANGER SODA ASH PLANT (Formerly Texasgulf)2 UnitsY WYGENERAL CHEMICAL - GREEN RIVER SODA ASH PLANT2 UnitsY WYP4 PRODUCTION - ROCK SPRINGS COKING PLANT1 UnitN WYPACIFICORP - DAVE JOHNSTONUnits 3-4Y WYPACIFICORP - JIM BRIDGERUnits 1-4Y WYPACIFICORP - NAUGHTONUnits 1-3Y WYPACIFICORP - WYODAKUnit 1 (335MW)Y WYSINCLAIR OIL CORP-SINCLAIR REFINERY16 UnitsN WYSINCLAIR REFINERY - CASPER1 UnitN

42. BART Status: Tribal Sources EPA is responsible for completing BART analyses for sources located on Tribal lands the Region 9 EPA Office is responsible for: –APS Four Corners power plant (FCPP) located in northwest New Mexico & SRP Navajo Generating Station (NGS) located at Page in northern Arizona, both BART-Eligible sources situated on the Navajo Indian Reservation Region 9 EPA made a direct determination that these two plants are “Subject to BART”, bypassing the modeling demonstration as their high emission totals and proximity to Class I areas gave strong indication that modeling would show over 0.5 dV impact Region 9 EPA requested BART control plans from the plant operators and now expects to receive the NGS plan in September, with the FCPP plan due in November ’07 review time and public notice will push the formal BART determination schedule into mid-2008

43. BART Status: Tribal Sources The Graymont Western Lime/Calcium Carbonate Plant is located on tribal land under the control of the Puyallup Indians near Tacoma, Washington As a result of a provision of a federal law concerning a claims settlement for the tribe, the plant is not subject to EPA jurisdiction, but is subject to air pollution regulation by Washington local air pollution control district authorities and by state law Washington DEC’s request for “Subject to BART” modeling included this plant, and their review of the results showed that Graymont Western is exempt from BART regulations

44. WRAP BART Clearinghouse 8/31/2007 Sources that have been officially determined to be "Subject to BART" Sources that have been formally exempted as not "Subject to BART" StatePlant NameUnit Subject to BART? (yes/no) Tribal (AZ)Salt River Project - Navajo Power PlantUnits 1-3Y Tribal (NM)Arizona Public Service - Four Corners Power PlantUnits 1-5Y Tribal (WA)Graymont Western Lime/Calcium Carbonate Plant (Tacoma)1 UnitN

45. Probable BART Completion Matrix State BART Completion Date Fall 2007Mid 2008Other Alaska X Arizona X California Later ? Colorado DONE Hawaii Later ? IdahoX MontanaX Nevada X New MexicoX North DakotaX Oregon X South Dakota X UtahX Washington X WyomingX Tribal X