### UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REGION 8 999 18TH STREET

- SUITE 300

DENVER, CO 80202-2466 http://www.epa.gov/region08 

### AUG - 8 2001

Ref 8P-AR
Mr. DougLempke, Technical Secretary Colorado Air Quality Control Commission APCD-CC-B1 4300 Cherry CreekDrive South Denver, CO 80246-1530
Ms. Margie Perkins, Director Air Pollution Control Division ColoradoDepartment ofPublic Health and Environment 4300 Cherry CreekDrive South Denver, CO 80246-1530
RE EPA'sreview ofthe State's changes toRegulationNO.1

- ParticuJate Matter, Smoke, CarbonMonoxide and Sulfur Oxides \
Dear Mr. Lempke and Ms. Perkins,
We have reviewed the proposed changes toRegulation 1 and offer the following comments. The revisions are scheduled for public hearing at an August 16, 2001 Commission hearing. The comments are based on a review ofan electronic version ofRegulation 1 sent to us by Phyllis Woodford, Colorado Air Pollution ControlDivision (Division), on July 31, 2001. They are also based on our discussions with the State and interested parties during the pre-hearing meeting onJuly 27,2001. Comments are arranged to correspond withthe order ofthe sections as they appear in the regulation.



### Section ID. ParticulateMatter 

### c.l. In a recent review ofa Colorado operating permit, we raninto confusion regarding the applicability ofeach subsection ofReg 1, III.C.I. The problem stems from whether the categorization ofa source as either above orbelow 30 tons per hour process weight rate is based uponthe actual process weight rate at a given time for the unit, orbased uponthe maximum or design process weight rate for thatunit. The Division indicated that, while it interprets the regulation to read as theformer, it is considering a revision to the design rate interpretation. Itwould be appropriate and timely for the Division to include this change nowwiththe extensive Reg 1updates it is making. The Divisionwould be 

# o Printedon RecycledPaperrequired to provide reasoning that showsthat the change does notrelax the SIP requirements.
Section VI. SulfurDioxideEmission Regulations
A.l This part seemsto indicate that the emission limit averaging time for sources using fuel sampling will be the frequency offuel sampling specified in a fuel sampling plan submitted pursuantto sectionIV.B.2. Wehave two concerns with this requirement. First, the averaging time ofthe emission limit should not vary based onthe frequency offuel sampling. Among otherthings, the fuel sampling plan should describe thetest method used to sample the fuel as well as the frequency at which the fuel should be sampled. The frequency ofsampling should depend onwhether ornotthe sulfur in the fuel is expected to remain constant. Ifitis not constant, it should be sampled more frequently than ifit does remain constant. The amount ofsulfur in the fuel will be considered a constant until thefuel is resampled. If, for example, a fuel is sampled once/day, that measured concentration ofsulfur in thefuel will be assumed to remain constant for all time periods ofthe day. Compliance withthe emission limit is then based onthe concentration ofsulfur in the fuel and the feed rate ofthe fuel to the source. Second, sectionIYB.2 applies only to fossil fuel fired steam generators greaterthan 250 mmBTU/hour heat input, whereas the S02 emission limits in the section apply to different types ofsources including sources less than 250 mm/BTU/hour heat input. Referencing sectionIV.B.2limits section VI.A I. Therefore, we believe the section should be revised as follows: Averaging time

- Unless otherwise specified in the other sections ofthis regulation, the averaging time for all sulfur dioxide emissions standards for SOUlces which utilize a CEM shall be a three hourrolling average. and the frequency offuel sampling for sources which utilize a 

### fuel sampling plan approved pursuant to Section IYD.2 shaH be as specified in the plaIt.
A.3 The end ofthe first paragraph inPart f - CementManufacture

- discusses "new sources." We question why this paragraph mentions new sources since section VI.Aapplies to "existing sources"? Additionally, section VI.B, which applies to new sources, does not contain emission limits for Cement Manufacture. Did you intend the emission limits for existing CementManufacture to apply to new sources?

A&B.l These sections are writtento make it seemthat an existing permitted source (Le., permitted before August 11, 1977) which makes a modification would not be required to meet either sections VI.A orVI.B. SectionVI.A only applies to sources constructed ormodifiedprior to August 11, 1977. Section VI.B. does not apply to sourceswhich constructed or modified and have notbeen issued a permit prior to August 11, 1977. Usually regulations are written so that existing sources which modify have to meet more stringent requirements, in this case sectionVI.B. Is it your intent that existing permitted sources (i.e., permitted beforeAugust 11,1977) which make modifications should not be subject to either section VI.A or VI.B?
B.4 Comments here are onParts e and g pertaining to emission limit relaxation. The existing SIP-approved rules limit S02 emissions to 0.3 lbs/day. The State has revised the daily limit to 0.7lbs/day. We view this as a relaxation to the SIP. Section 110(1) ofthe Act provides that we cannot approve a revision to a SIP ifthe revision would interfere with any applicable requirement concerning attainment and reasonable further progress, or any other applicable requirement ofthe Act. Section 110(1) applies to both attainment or unc1assifiable areas, as well as nonattainment areas. The revisions may be a relaxation of existing requirements at sources that impact PM-1 0 nonattainment areas. As a result, the revisions may aggravate ambient air quality problems in the nonattainment area. The State should submit an analysis indicating whether the relaxation in the emissions limit will impact the nonattainment area. Also, the State should evaluate whether ornot the emission limit relaxation would cause or contribute to a violation ofthe S02 increments. Finally, the State should investigate whether section 193 ofthe Act would apply to the relaxed emission limitations. To the extent section 193 does apply, the SIP revision would have to provide equivalent orgreater emission reductions to offset any emissions mcreases. Second, we do notunderstand why therules indicate that "TheDivision shall not limit the determination ofbarrels processed per day to 24 hour period." What is the purpose ofthis sentence? This sentence is also found in section VI.A3.e. 

### B.5 The State deleted this section, which limited emissions ofany new source not specifically regulated by the rule to 2 tons per day ofS02 and to utilize BACT. The same concerns we have in our comment in SectionB 4 e and g above also apply here.
C&D. Several places in the two sections contain provisions that allow the Division to approve alternative compliance methods. We interpret these provisions as being inconsistent with section 110(i) ofthe Act, which prohibits States and EPA, except in certain limited circumstances, from taking an action modifying a requirement ofa SIP except by SIP revision. It appears that the State added section VI.F. to address earlier concerns we had withthese director discretion provisions. Wehave additional comments on section IV.F. Even though the State has added sectionVI.F. webelieve sections VI.C and D should be revised as follows:
C. Fuel Sampling
1. All fuel sampling plans must be approved by the Division. The appropriate ASTM test methods or other equivalent method approved by the Division and EPA, pursuant to sectionVI.F shall be used for all fuel sampling plans.
D. Performance TestsPriorto granting final approval ofa permit or amending a permit, when an emission source or control equipment device is altered, or at any time whenthere is reason to believe that emission standards are being violated, the Division may require the owner or operator of any facility subject to the emission standards under Section VIto conductperformance tests, as measured by EPAMethods 1-4, Methods 6, 6a, 6b, 6c, and Method 8 (40 CFR 60.275, Appendix 

### A, Part 60), and any other method which theDivision 

### andEPA, pursuant to section VI.F., finds appropriate to determine compliance with this subsection ofthis regulation.
1. The owner or operator ofan existing source ofsulfur dioxide shall, upon request ofthe Division, conduct performance testes) and furnish the Division a writtenreport of the results ofsuch performance testes) to determine compliance withthis regulation.
2. Performance testes) shall be conducted and data reduced and recorded in accordance with the test methods and procedures specified above unless theDivision 

### and EPA, pursuant to section 

### VI.F.:

a. approve the use ofan alternative method the results ofwhich the Division

### and EPA has

### have determined to be adequate for indicating whether a specific source is in compliance, or b. waive the requirement for performance testes) because the owner or operator ofa source has demonstrated by other means to theDivisionis 

### andEPA's satisfaction that the affected facility is in compliance with the standard. Nothing in this paragraph C 

### paragraphD shall be construed to abrogate the Commission's orDivision's authority to require testing under Article 7 ofTitle 25, Colorado Revised Statute 1973, and regulations ofthe Commission promulgated thereunder.
3. The owner or operator ofan affected facility shall provide theDivision thirty (30) days prior notice ofthe performance test to afford the Division the opportunity to have an observer present. 

### E. The performance specifications appearto apply to only the equipment installed pursuant to section ry.D.2. It appears that section ry.E. should apply to sections ry.B-D and section VII and notjust section ry.D.2. In addition, with these revisions, the State is deleting section ry.D.2. Section ry.D.2 should remain in Regulation 1.
F.3. As indicated above, we interpret provisions that allow the state to modifY the SIP, i.e., DirectorDiscretion provisions, as being inconsistent with section 110(i) ofthe Act. Alternatives to the SIP may require revisions to the SIP. rn addition, some revisions to test methods may requireEPAHeadquarters approval. Therefore, because the alternatives mentioned in section VI.F.1 may require EPA approval (e.g., approval through a SIP revision) rather thanjustEPAconcurrence, section VI.F.3 should be revised as follows:3. TheDivision Director shall obtain concurrence from EPAprior to approving an alternative. However, in some cases, EPA mayneedto approve the alternative asa revision to the Colorado State Implementationplan.
General Comments on Section VI.
Several sections ofthe S02 regulations contain compliance determining methods that we find troubling. Specifically, sections VI.A.3.e and 

### f, Petroleum Refining and Cement Manufacture, and sections VI.B.4.e. and g., 

### Petroleum Refining and Refining ofOil 

### from Shale indicate that sources will submit a plan which defines how compliance with the emission limits will be demonstrated. The plan shall be approved by theDivision. We find these provisions troubling for several reasons. First, it doesn't appear thatEPAorthe public have an opportunity to comment onhow compliance with the limits will be demonstrated. Second, it is not clearwhether approval ofthe plan by the Division then incorporates the plan into the SIP. Ifso, the DirectorDiscretion provisions identified above also apply here. Third, we are not certain whether the plan is ever incorporated into a federally enforceable document.
Webelieve the Division should be able to standardize the compliance determining methods for all source and incorporate the methods in the S02 regulations. Alternatively, we believe the new ormodified compliance plans should be made available for public review and comment and incorporated into a federally enforceable document.


### Section VII. Emission Regulations for CertainElectric Generating Stations

..... A Bullets listed in parts 1,2, and 3 showthe date given for the required installation ofCEMs (January 1, 1995) as being deleted. While weunderstand that this date is obsolete, we want to note that this change was not made in the version ofRegulation 1recently approved by the AQCC as part ofthe DenverPMlO maintenance plan. Please note that the comments presented here are based on a draft ofRegulation 1received July 31, 200l. Conversations with Phyllis Woodford, Colorado APCD, tell us that changes are already being made to remove this inconsistency.
InParts 1a and 2a, the third bullet and fourth bullets respectively: The recent AQCC approval ofthe Denver PMlO maintenance plan included language for both ofthese sections explaining that the CEMs need to be operated, "

...inaccordance with 40 CFR Part 60.13 for measuring opacity

..." This change was made based onEPA comments and should be reflected in this version ofthe regulation as well.
InPart 2a, the third bullet: the DenverPMlO maintenance plan includes only the first sentence ofthis paragraph. This part ofregulation 1 should be consistent with the maintenance planunless the State plans to change this section ofthe regulation.



### Statement ofBasesThe Statement ofBasis should provide the reasoning for the State's removal of substantial portions ofRegulation 1. It only discusses the issues affecting the PMI0 maintenance plan for Denver (that is, removal ofpermits that were incorporated by reference from the SIP and codification ofportions ofthe PSCO voluntary agreement into the regulation). Sections ofthe regulation that discuss iron and steel plant operations are removed. The Statement ofBasis should also discuss why removal ofthis portion ofthe regulation is not a relaxation ofthe SIP Of, in lieu ofthese sources being subject to regulation, what review by theDivision would apply to these sources . ForYour Information
Section ll. Smoke and Opacity
D. Military Smokes and Obscurants Training Exercises. We have identified some issues with this sectionthat were explained in my March 19, 2001 letter to Margie Perkins. We have also discussed the issue withyou after the letter was sent. We only note here that this section ofRegulation 1has yet to be federally approved into the SIP.
Please contact MarkKomp at (303) 312-6022 ifyou have any questions regarding the comments in this letter.