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. Doug Lempke, Technical Secretary 

Colorado Air Quality Control Commission 

APCD-CC-B1 

4300 Cherry Creek Drive South 

Denver, CO 80246-1530 

Ms. Margie Perkins, Director 

Air Pollution Control Division 

Colorado Department ofPublic Health and Environment 

4300 Cherry Creek Drive South 

Denver, CO 80246-1530 

RE	 EPA's review ofthe State's changes to Regulation NO.1 - ParticuJate Matter, Smoke, 

Carbon Monoxide and Sulfur Oxides \ 

Dear Mr. Lempke and Ms. Perkins, 

We have reviewed the proposed changes to Regulation 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 of an electronic version ofRegulation 1 sent to us 

by Phyllis Woodford, Colorado Air Pollution Control Division (Division), on July 31, 2001. 

They are also based on our discussions with the State and interested parties during the pre-hearing 

meeting on July 27,2001. Comments are arranged to correspond with the order ofthe sections as 

they appear in the regulation. 

Section ID. Particulate Matter 

c.l.	 In a recent review of a Colorado operating permit, we ran into confusion regarding the 

applicability of each subsection ofReg 1, III.C.I. The problem stems from whether the 

categorization of a source as either above or below 30 tons per hour process weight rate is 

based upon the actual process weight rate at a given time for the unit, or based upon the 

maximum or design process weight rate for that unit. The Division indicated that, while it 

interprets the regulation to read as the former, it is considering a revision to the design 

rate interpretation. It would be appropriate and timely for the Division to include this 

change now with the extensive Reg 1 updates it is making. The Division would be 

oPrinted on Recycled Paper 
required to provide reasoning that shows that the change does not relax the SIP 

requirements. 

Section VI.	 Sulfur Dioxide Emission Regulations 

A.l	 This part seems to 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 

pursuant to section IV.B.2. We have two concerns with this requirement. First, the 

averaging time ofthe emission limit should not vary based on the frequency offuel 

sampling. Among other things, the fuel sampling plan should describe the test method 

used to sample the fuel as well as the frequency at which the fuel should be sampled. The 

frequency of sampling should depend on whether or not the sulfur in the fuel is expected 

to remain constant. Ifit is not constant, it should be sampled more frequently than ifit 

does remain constant. The amount of sulfur in the fuel will be considered a constant until 

the fuel is resampled. If, for example, a fuel is sampled once/day, that measured 

concentration of sulfur in the fuel will be assumed to remain constant for all time periods 

ofthe day. Compliance with the emission limit is then based on the concentration of sulfur 

in the fuel and the feed rate ofthe fuel to the source. Second, section IYB.2 applies only 

to fossil fuel fired steam generators greater than 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 section IV.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 SOUl ces which utilize a CEM 

shall be a three hour rolling 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 in Part f - Cement Manufacture - discusses "new sources." 

We question why this paragraph mentions new sources since section VI.A applies 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 Cement Manufacture to apply to new sources? 

A&B.l	 These sections are written to make it seem that an existing permitted source (Le., 

permitted before August 11, 1977) which makes a modification would not be 

required to meet either sections VI.A or VI.B. Section VI.A only applies to 

sources constructed or modified prior to August 11, 1977. Section VI.B. does not 

apply to sources which constructed or modified and have not been 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 section VI.B. 

Is it your intent that existing permitted sources (i.e., permitted before August 11, 
1977) which make modifications should not be subject to either section VI.A or 

VI.B? 

B.4	 Comments here are on Parts 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 or not 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 or greater emission reductions to offset any emissions 

mcreases. 

Second, we do not understand why the rules indicate that "The Division 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 of any new source not specifically 

regulated by the rule to 2 tons per day of S02 and to utilize BACT. The same concerns 

we have in our comment in Section B 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 of a SIP except by SIP 

revision. It appears that the State added section VI.F. to address earlier concerns we had 

with these director discretion provisions. We have additional comments on section IV.F. 

Even though the State has added section VI.F. we believe 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 

section VI.F shall be used for all fuel sampling plans. 

D.	 Performance Tests 
Prior to granting final approval of a permit or amending a permit, when an emission source 

or control equipment device is altered, or at any time when there 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 VI to conduct performance 

tests, as measured by EPA Methods 1-4, Methods 6, 6a, 6b, 6c, and Method 8 (40 CFR 

60.275, Appendix A, Part 60), and any other method which the Division andEPA, 

pursuant to section VI.F., finds appropriate to determine compliance with this subsection 

of this regulation. 

1. The owner or operator of an existing source of sulfur dioxide shall, upon request 

ofthe Division, conduct performance testes) and furnish the Division a written report of 

the results of such performance testes) to determine compliance with this regulation. 

2. Performance testes) shall be conducted and data reduced and recorded in 

accordance with the test methods and procedures specified above unless the Division and 

EPA, pursuant to section VI.F.: 

a. approve the use of an alternative method the results of which 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 of a 

source has demonstrated by other means to the Divisionis andEPA's satisfaction that the 

affected facility is in compliance with the standard. Nothing in this paragraph C 

paragraph D shall be construed to abrogate the Commission's or Division's authority to 

require testing under Article 7 of Title 25, Colorado Revised Statute 1973, and regulations 

of the Commission promulgated thereunder. 

3. The owner or operator of an affected facility shall provide the Division thirty (30) 

days prior notice ofthe performance test to afford the Division the opportunity to have an 

observer present. 

E.	 The performance specifications appear to 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 not just 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., 

Director Discretion provisions, as being inconsistent with section 110(i) of the Act. 

Alternatives to the SIP may require revisions to the SIP. rn addition, some revisions to 

test methods may require EPA Headquarters approval. Therefore, because the 

alternatives mentioned in section VI.F.1 may require EPA approval (e.g., approval 

through a SIP revision) rather than just EPA concurrence, section VI.F. 3 should be 

revised as follows: 
3. The Division Director shall obtain concurrence from EPA prior to approving an 

alternative. However, in some cases, EPA may need to approve the alternative as a 

revision to the Colorado State Implementation plan. 

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 of Oil 

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 the Division. We 

find these provisions troubling for several reasons. First, it doesn't appear that EPA or the 

public have an opportunity to comment on how compliance with the limits will be 

demonstrated. Second, it is not clear whether approval ofthe plan by the Division then 

incorporates the plan into the SIP. If so, the Director Discretion provisions identified 

above also apply here. Third, we are not certain whether the plan is ever incorporated into 

a federally enforceable document. 

We believe 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 or modified compliance plans should be made available for public review 

and comment and incorporated into a federally enforceable document. 

Section VII. Emission Regulations for Certain Electric Generating Stations ..... 

A	 Bullets listed in parts 1,2, and 3 show the date given for the required installation ofCEMs 

(January 1, 1995) as being deleted. While we understand that this date is obsolete, we 

want to note that this change was not made in the version ofRegulation 1 recently 

approved by the AQCC as part ofthe Denver PMlO maintenance plan. Please note that the 

comments presented here are based on a draft ofRegulation 1 received July 31, 200l. 

Conversations with Phyllis Woodford, Colorado APCD, tell us that changes are already 

being made to remove this inconsistency. 

In Parts 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, " .. .in accordance with 40 CFR 

Part 60.13 for measuring opacity..." This change was made based on EPA comments and 

should be reflected in this version ofthe regulation as well. 

In Part 2a, the third bullet: the Denver PMlO maintenance plan includes only the first 

sentence ofthis paragraph. This part ofregulation 1 should be consistent with the 

maintenance plan unless the State plans to change this section ofthe regulation. 

Statement of Bases 
The 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 of permits that were incorporated by reference from the SIP and 

codification of portions 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 the Division would apply to 

these sources . 

For Your Information 

Section ll. Smoke and Opacity 

D.	 Military Smokes and Obscurants Training Exercises. We have identified some issues with 

this section that were explained in my March 19, 2001 letter to Margie Perkins. We have 

also discussed the issue with you after the letter was sent. We only note here that this 

section ofRegulation 1 has yet to be federally approved into the SIP. 

Please contact Mark Komp at (303) 312-6022 if you have any questions regarding the 

comments in this letter.