PART F – BEST AVAILABLE RETROFIT TECHNOLOGY (BART) 

The provisions of Part 51, Appendix Y, Title 40, of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), promulgated 

by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency listed in this Section are hereby incorporated by reference 

by the Air Quality Control Commission and made a part of the Colorado Air Quality Control Commission 

Regulations as modified by the following Regulation Number 3, Part F. Materials incorporated by 

reference are those in existence as July 6, 2005 and do not include later amendments. The material 

incorporated by reference is available for public inspection during regular business hours at the Office of 

the Commission, located at 4300 Cherry Creek Drive South, Denver, Colorado 80246, or may be 

examined at any state publications depository library. Parties wishing to inspect these materials should 

contact the Technical Secretary of the Commission, located at the Office of the Commission. 

I. Applicability 

The provisions of this regulation apply to existing stationary facilities, as defined in Section II.I. of this 

regulation. Existing stationary facilities shall be BART-eligible sources. 

II. Definitions 

II.A. Adverse impact on visibility 

Means visibility impairment that interferes with the management, protection, preservation, or 

enjoyment of the visitor’s visual experience of the Federal Class I area. This determination must 

be made on a case-by-case basis taking into account the geographic extent, intensity, duration, 

frequency and time of visibility impairments, and how these factors correlate with (1) times of 

visitor use of the Federal Class I area, and (2) the frequency and timing of natural conditions that 

reduce visibility. This term does not include effects on integral vistas. 

II.B. Available Technology 

Means that a technology is licensed and available through commercial sales. 

II.C. Applicable Technology 

Means a commercially available control option that has been or is soon to be deployed (e.g., is 

specified in a permit) on the same or a similar source type or a technology that has been used on 

a pollutant-bearing gas stream that is the same or similar to the gas stream characteristics of the 

source. 

II.D. Average Cost Effectiveness 

Means the total annualized costs of control divided by annual emissions reductions (the 

difference between baseline annual emissions and the estimate of emissions after controls). For 

the purposes of calculating average cost effectiveness, baseline annual emissions means a realistic 

depiction of anticipated annual emissions for the source. The source or the Division may use state or 

federally enforceable permit limits or estimate the anticipated annual emissions based upon actual 

emissions from a representative baseline period. 

II.E. BART Alternative 

Means an alternative measure to the installation, operation, and maintenance of BART that will 

achieve greater reasonable progress toward national visibility goals than would have resulted 

from the installation, operation, and maintenance of BART at BART-eligible sources within 

industry source categories subject to BART requirements. 
II.F. BART-eligible source 

Means an existing stationary facility as defined in Section II.I. 

II.G. Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART) 

Means an emission limitation based on the degree of reduction achievable through the 

application of the best system of continuous emission reduction for each pollutant that is emitted 

by an existing stationary facility. The emission limitation must be established, on a case-by-case 

basis, taking into consideration the technology available, the costs of compliance, the energy and 

non-air quality environmental impacts of compliance, any pollution control equipment in use or in 

existence at the source or unit, the remaining useful life of the source or unit, and the degree of 

improvement in visibility which may reasonably be anticipated to result from the use of such 

technology. 

II.H. Deciview 

Means a measurement of visibility impairment. A deciview is a haze index derived from calculated 

light extinction, such that uniform changes in haziness correspond to uniform incremental 

changes in perception across the entire range of conditions, from pristine to highly impaired. The 

deciview haze index is calculated based on the following equation (for the purposes of calculating 

deciview, the atmospheric light extinction coefficient must be calculated from aerosol 

measurements): 

Deciview haze index=10 lne (bext/10 Mm-1) 

Where bext= the atmospheric light extinction coefficient, expressed in inverse 

megameters (Mm-1). 

II.I. Existing stationary facility 

Means any of the following stationary sources of air pollutants, including any reconstructed 

source, which was not in operation prior to August 7, 1962, and was in existence on August 7, 

1977, and has the potential to emit 250 tons per year or more of any visibility impairing air 

pollutant. In determining potential to emit, fugitive emissions, to the extent quantifiable, must be 

counted. 

II.I.1. Fossil-fuel fired steam electric plants of more than 250 million British thermal units 

(BTU) per hour heat input that generate electricity for sale 

II.I.1.a. Boiler capacities shall be aggregated to determine the heat input of a 

plant 

II.I.1.b. Includes plants that co-generate steam and electricity and combined 

cycle turbines 

II.I.2. Coal cleaning plants (thermal dryers) 

II.I.3. Kraft pulp mills 

II.I.4. Portland cement plants 

II.I.5. Primary zinc smelters 
II.I.6. Iron and steel mill plants 

II.I.7. Primary aluminum ore reduction plants 

II.I.8. Primary copper smelters 

II.I.9. Municipal incinerators capable of charging more than 250 tons of refuse per day 

II.I.10. Hydrofluoric, sulfuric, and nitric acid plants 

II.I.11. Petroleum refineries 

II.I.12. Lime plants 

II.I.13. Phosphate rock processing plants 

Includes all types of phosphate rock processing facilities, including elemental 

phosphorous plants as well as fertilizer production plants 

II.I.14. Coke oven batteries 

II.I.15. Sulfur recovery plants 

II.I.16. Carbon black plants (furnace process) 

II.I.17. Primary lead smelters 

II.I.18. Fuel conversion plants 

II.I.19. Sintering plants 

II.I.20. Secondary metal production facilities 

Includes nonferrous metal facilities included within Standard Industrial Classification code 

3341, and secondary ferrous metal facilities in the category ‘‘iron and steel mill plants.’’ 

II.I.21. Chemical process plants 

Includes those facilities within the 2-digit Standard Industrial Classification 28, including 

pharmaceutical manufacturing facilities 

II.I.22. Fossil-fuel boilers of more than 250 million BTUs per hour heat input 

II.I.22.a. Individual boilers greater than 250 million BTU/hr, considering federally 

enforceable operational limits 

II.I.22.b. Includes multi-fuel boilers that burn at least fifty percent fossil fuels 

II.I.23. Petroleum storage and transfer facilities with a capacity exceeding 300,000 barrels 

II.I.23.a. 300,000 barrels refers to total facility-wide tank capacity for tanks put in 

place after August 7, 1962 and in existence on August 7, 1977 

II.I.23.b. Includes gasoline and other petroleum-derived liquids. 
II.I.24. Taconite ore processing facilities 

II.I.25. Glass fiber processing plants 

II.I.26. Charcoal production facilities 

Includes charcoal briquette manufacturing and activated carbon production 

II.J. Incremental Cost Effectiveness 

Means the comparison of the costs and emissions performance level of a control option to those 

of the next most stringent option, as shown in the following formula: 

Incremental Cost Effectiveness (dollars per incremental ton removed) = [(Total annualized costs 

of control option) - (Total annualized costs of next control option)] ÷ [(Next Control option annual 

emissions) - (control option annual emissions)] 

II.K. In existence 

Means that the owner or operator has obtained all necessary preconstruction approvals or 

permits required by Federal, State, or local air pollution emissions and air quality laws or 

regulations and either has (1) begun, or caused to begin, a continuous program of physical onsite construction of the facility or (2) entered into binding agreements or contractual obligations, 

which cannot be cancelled or modified without substantial loss to the owner or operator, to 

undertake a program of construction of the facility to be completed in a reasonable time. 

II.L. In operation 

Means engaged in activity related to the primary design function of the source. 

II.M. Integral vista 

Means a view perceived from within the mandatory Class I Federal area of a specific landmark or 

panorama located outside the boundary of the mandatory Class I Federal area. 

II.N. Natural conditions 

Means naturally occurring phenomena that reduce visibility as measured in terms of light 

extinction, visual range, contrast, or coloration. 

II.O Plant 

Means all emissions units at a stationary source. 

II.P. Visibility-Impairing Air Pollutant 

Includes the following: 

II.P.1. Sulfur dioxide (SO2), 

II.P.2. Nitrogen oxides (NOx) and 

II.P.3. Particulate matter. (PM10 will be used as the indicator for particulate matter. 

Emissions of PM10 include the components of PM2.5 as a subset.). 
III. Sources required to Perform a BART Analysis 

Each source that the Division determines is BART-eligible and subject to BART shall complete a BART 

analysis under Section IV. The Division shall provide written notice to each source determined to be 

subject to BART. Within twenty calendar days of the mailing of such notice a source may appeal such 

determination to the Commission by filing a petition for a hearing with the Commission. Any such hearing 

shall be subject to Section 1.6.0 of the Procedural Rules. 

III.A. Determining Potential to Emit for a BART Source 

For the purposes of determining whether the potential to emit of an existing stationary source is 

greater than 250 TPY the potential emissions of visibility impairing pollutants from the existing 

stationary source shall include the emissions from all BART-eligible units which belong to the 

same industrial grouping, are located on one or more contiguous or adjacent properties, and are 

under the control of the same person (or persons under common control). Pollutant-emitting 

activities shall be considered as part of the same industrial grouping if they belong to the same 

Major Group (i.e., which have the same two-digit code) as described in the Standard Industrial 

Classification Manual. 

III.B. Identification of sources subject to BART 

III.B.1. Identification of sources subject to BART shall be performed in accordance with 

EPA’s guidelines for BART determinations under the regional haze rule 40 CFR 

Part 51, Appendix Y. A BART-eligible source described in Section III.A, above, is 

subject to BART unless valid air quality dispersion modeling demonstrates that 

the source will not cause or contribute to visibility impairment in any Class I area. 

III.B.1.a. A single source that is responsible for a 1.0 deciview change or more is 

considered to “cause” visibility impairment in any Class I area. 

III.B.1.b. A single source that is responsible for a 0.5 deciview change or more is 

considered to “contribute” visibility impairment in any Class I area. 

III.B.1.c. A single source is exempt from BART if the 98th percentile daily change 

in visibility, as compared against natural background conditions, is less 

than 0.5 deciviews at all Class I federal areas for each year modeled and 

for the entire multi-year modeling period. 

III.B.2. The Division will perform air quality dispersion modeling for each source identified 

as BART-eligible, for all visibility impairing pollutants, for class I areas. The 

modeling results will be provided to each source. 

IV. BART Analysis 

IV.A. Presumptive BART for Coal Fired Power Plants 

IV.A.1. Plants with a Generating Capacity of 750MW or Greater 

BART-eligible coal fired power plants with a generating capacity of 750 MW OR 

GREATER is presumed to be able to meet the presumptive limits. Regardless of 

whether or not a unit can meet the presumptive BART limits the source must complete a 

BART analysis. 

IV.A.2. Other Coal Fired Power Plants 
The Division shall use the presumptive BART limits as guidelines and may establish a 

BART level for the unit either above or below the presumptive BART level based on the 

BART determination. coal-fired power plants that meet, or will meet with proposed 

controls, the presumptive limits set forth in iv.a.3, and have submitted an analysis 

demonstrating the appropriateness of applying these limits shall be presumed to meet the 

BART analysis requirements, absent a contrary showing. 

IV.A.3. Coal-Fired Electric Generating Units 

 IV.A.3.a. Sulfur Dioxide 

Coal-Fired Electric Generating Units: 95 percent reduction or 0.15 lb 

SO2/mmBTU. 

 IV.A.3.b. Nitrogen Oxides 

Unit Type Coal Type NOX limit (lb/mm BTU) 

Dry bottom Wall fired Bituminous 

Sub-bituminous 

Lignite 

0.39 

0.23 

0.29 

Tangential Fired Bituminous 

Sub-bituminous 

Lignite 

0.28 

0.15 

0.17 

Cell Burners Bituminous 

Sub-bituminous 

0.40 

0.45 

Dry-turbo-fired Bituminous 

Sub-bituminous 

0.32 

0.23 

Wet-bottom tangentialfired Bituminous 0.62 

IV.B. Each source subject to BART pursuant to Section III shall submit a BART application for 

a construction permit, which shall include a BART analysis, a proposal for BART at the 

source and a justification for the BART proposal to the Division by August 1, 2006. 

Electric Generating Units and Fossil Fuel Boilers do not need to consider post 

combustion controls for NOx purposes in the BART analysis and the Division may not 

require post combustion controls for NOx purposes for Electric Generating Units and 

Fossil Fuel Boilers. Sources required to analyze post combustion NOx controls shall 

submit a permit application including the analysis of post combustion NOx controls to the 

Division by September 1, 2008. 

IV.B.1. The BART analysis must include, at a minimum: 

IV.B.1.a. A list of the demonstrated and potentially applicable retrofit control 

options for the units subject to BART. Sources are not required to 

evaluate control options, which are less effective than the controls 

currently installed on the BART subject source or unit. 

IV.B.1.b. A discussion of the technical feasibility of each of the technologies 

identified in Section IV.B.1.a. This discussion should include an analysis 

of whether the proposed technology is available and applicable. If the 

source determines that a technology is not technically feasible the 

discussion shall include a factual demonstration that the option is not 

commercially available or that unusual circumstances preclude its 

application to the emission unit. 
IV.B.1.c. A ranking of all the technically feasible technologies identified in Section 

IV.B.1.b. The ranking shall take into account various emission 

performance characteristics of the technologies. The technologies 

should be ranked from lowest emissions to highest emissions for each 

pollutant and each emissions unit. The ranking should include a 

discussion of pollution control equipment in use at the unit, including 

upgrading existing equipment if technically feasible. 

IV.B.1.d. An evaluation of the impacts of the technically feasible BART 

options. The impact evaluation shall include: 

IV.B.1.d.(i). An estimate of the Average Cost Effectiveness of each of the 

control technologies identified as technically feasible in Section 

IV.B.1.b. This analysis shall specify the emissions unit being 

controlled, the design parameters for the emission controls and 

cost estimates based on those design parameters. The 

remaining useful life of the source or unit may be taken into 

account in the cost of the technologies. The remaining useful life 

is the difference between: (1) The date that controls will be put in 

place (capital and other construction costs incurred before 

controls are put in place can be rolled into the first year); and (2) 

The date the facility permanently stops operations. Where this 

affects the BART determination, this date should be assured by 

a federally- or State-enforceable restriction preventing further 

operation. The analysis must also include the energy and non-air 

quality environmental impacts of control options. 

IV.B.1.d.(ii). An analysis of the incremental cost effectiveness. Before a 

control technology can be eliminated the source shall evaluate 

the incremental cost effectiveness in combination with the total 

cost effectiveness in order to justify elimination of a control 

option. 

IV.B.1.d.(iii). An evaluation of the visibility impacts for each BART option 

according to modeling guidance provided by the Division. 

IV.B.1.d.(iv). An evaluation of non-air quality impacts. The non-air 

quality impacts may include water use increases, solid waste 

disposal, or other adverse environmental impacts. 

IV.B.1.d.(v). An evaluation of the energy impacts. The energy impact 

analysis should look at the energy requirements of the control 

technology and any energy penalties or benefits associated with 

the control. The analysis should also consider direct energy 

consumption and may address concerns over the use of locally 

scarce fuels or the use of locally or regionally available coal. 

IV.B.1.d.(v).(1). The energy impacts analysis may consider 

whether there are relative differences between 

alternatives regarding the use of locally or regionally 

available coal, and whether a given alternative would 

result in significant economic disruption or 

unemployment. 

IV.B.1.e. An evaluation and justification of the proposed averaging time to 

evaluate compliance with the proposed emission limitations. 
IV.B.1.f. Coal-fired power plants may, in their discretion, include in the BART 

analysis an evaluation of representative characteristics (including 

nitrogen content) of coal from sources they reasonably expect to use, to 

the extent such characteristics tend to result in higher NOx emissions 

than coals of the same classification from alternative sources. The 

analysis also may consider whether a particular BART limit might lead 

the power plant not to use coal from a particular mine due to such coal 

characteristics, and the extent to which such a decision might result in 

economic disruption or unemployment at the mine or in nearby 

communities. 

IV.B.1.g. Sources subject to a MACT standard may limit the analysis for those 

pollutants covered by the MACT to a discussion of new technologies that 

have become available since the promulgation of the MACT. 

IV.B.2. Sources with a potential to emit of less than 40 tons per year of SO2 and NOx 

and less than 15 TPY of PM10 may exclude those pollutants from the BART 

determination. 

IV.B.3. Selecting a best alternative 

The source shall submit a proposal for BART at the source or unit(s), including a 

justification for selecting the technology proposed. The justification shall be based on the 

following factors: (1) the technology available; (2) the costs of compliance; (3) the energy 

and non-air environmental impacts of compliance; (4) any pollution control equipment in 

use at the source or unit(s); (5) the remaining useful life of the source or unit(s) and; (6) 

the degree of improvement in visibility which may reasonably be anticipated to result from 

the use of such technology. 

 IV.B.4. Schedules to install and operate BART

 IV.B.4.a. The technology analysis shall include a schedule to install and 

operate BART or a BART alternative as expeditiously as practicable 

following EPA approval of the state implementation plan for regional 

haze that incorporates such BART requirements. The source must 

install BART or a BART alternative no later than 5 years after approval of 

the state implementation plan by EPA for regional haze. 

IV.B.4.b. A source or unit subject to BART may implement a BART 

alternative in lieu of BART if such BART alternative is authorized by the 

Division. 

IV.C. BART Alternative 

As an alternative to the installation of BART for a source or sources, the Division may approve a 

BART Alternative. If the Division approves source grouping as a BART Alternative, only sources 

(including BART-eligible and non-BART eligible sources) within the same source category (as 

defined by SIC or NAICS code) within the same airshed may be grouped together.

IV.C.1. If a Source (s) proposes a BART Alternative, the resultant emissions reduction 

and visibility impacts must be compared with those that would result from the 

BART options evaluated for the source(s). 
IV.C.2. Source (s) proposing a BART alternative shall include in the BART analysis an 

analysis and justification of the averaging period and method of evaluating 

compliance with the proposed emission limitation. 

IV.D. Emission limits 

IV.D.1. Coal-Fired Electric Generating Units 

Compliance with the emission limitation is determined on a 30-day rolling average basis 

for SOx and NOx, or may be determined by the Division based on the BART analysis 

submitted by the source. The emission limit shall be included in the construction permit. 

IV.D.2. Other Sources Subject to BART 

The Division will establish emission limits with averaging times consistent with 

established reference methods and include the limit in the construction permit. 

IV.E. A source that has installed BART for regional haze or implemented a Division approved 

BART alternative for regional haze is exempted from the imposition of further controls 

pursuant to regional haze BART with respect to those pollutants that are controlled 

through BART or the BART alternative for Regional Haze. Sources may be subject to 

additional controls or emission reductions based on reasonable further progress 

requirements under the regional haze State Implementation Plan. 

IV.F. Division Review and Approval 

IV.F.1. The Division shall review and approve, disapprove or amend the proposed BART 

technology or BART alternative, including the schedule for compliance for the 

facility, and averaging period. The Division may place such findings in the 

construction permit for the facility, and may include such findings and associated 

requirements in an enforceable agreement between the Division and the source. 

IV.F.2. If two or more sources are grouped together pursuant to Section IV.C. the 

Division shall establish recordkeeping and reporting requirements sufficient to 

determine that the sources meet the BART alternative emission limits. 

IV.F.3. Any source seeking to modify the BART determination for that facility must 

submit a new BART analysis for review by the Division. 

IV.F.4. Public Comment. Division approval of a construction permit or an enforceable 

agreement under Section IV.F.1 shall be subject to public comment pursuant to 

Regulation Number 3, Part B. Section III.C. 

IV.F.5. Public Comment Hearing 

If within thirty calendar days of publication of public notice pursuant to Regulation 

Number 3, Part B, Section III.C.4, the source or an interested person submits a written 

request for public hearing to the Division, the Division’s preliminary decision respecting a 

construction permit or an enforceable agreement under Section IV.E that is the subject of 

such request shall be subject to a public comment hearing held pursuant to Section 25-7-

114.5(6)(b), C.R.S. and the Air Quality Control Commission Procedural Rules (5 CCR 

1001-1), Section 1.7.0. 

V. Challenge of Division BART Determinations and Enforceable Agreements. 
V.A. Sources. The owner or operator of a source or unit subject to a Division BART 

determination established as a permit condition may request a hearing pursuant to 

Section 25-7-114.5(8), C.R.S and the Air Quality Control Commission Procedural Rules 

(5CCR 1001-1) Section 1.6.0. The owner or operator of a source subject to such a BART 

determination may challenge the decision of the Commission pursuant to Article 4 of Title 

24, C.R.S. 

V.B. Other Interested Persons. Other interested persons seeking to challenge a BART 

determination or enforceable agreement may request a public comment hearing pursuant 

to IV.F.5 of this regulation Number 3 Part F, or may challenge a decision of the 

Commission pursuant to Article 4 of Title 24, C.R.S. 

VI. BART Determinations 

 VI.A. The provisions of this Section VI of Regulation 3, Part EF shall be incorporated into 

Colorado’s Regional Haze State Implementation Plan.

 VI.B. The sources listed below shall not emit or cause to be emitted nitrogen oxides (NOx), 

sulfur dioxide (SO2), or particulate in excess of the following limits: 

UNIT NOx 

CONTROL 

TYPE 

NOx 

EMISSION 

LIMIT 

SO2 

CONTROL 

TYPE 

SO2

EMISSION 

LIMIT 

PARTICULATE 

TYPE AND 

LIMIT 

CENC 

4 

 

Low NOx 

burners w/ 

overfire air 

115 lb/hr 

(rolling 30-

day average) 

None 1.2 

lb/MMBtu 

(3-hour 

average) 

Fabric Filter 

Baghouse* 

0.07 lbs/MMBtu

CENC 

5 

 

Low NOx 

burners w/ 

overfire air 

182 lb/hr 

(rolling 30-

day average) 

None 1.2 

lb/MMBtu 

(3-hour 

average) 

Fabric Filter 

Baghouse* 

0.07 lbs/MMBtu

Craig 

1 

 

Low NOx 

burners w/ 

overfire air 

(already 

installed)* 

0.39 

lbs/MMBtu 

(30-day 

rolling 

average) 

 

0.30 

lbs/MMBtu 

(calendar 

annual 

average) 

Wet 

Limestone 

scrubber* 

0.15 

lbs/MMBtu 

(30-day 

rolling 

average) 

 

0.13 

lbs/MMBtu 

(90-day 

rolling 

average) 

Fabric Filter 

Baghouse* 

0.03 lbs/MMBtu 
Craig 

2 

 

Low NOx 

burners w/ 

overfire air 

(already 

installed)* 

0.39 

lbs/MMBtu 

(30-day 

rolling 

average) 

 

0.30 

lbs/MMBtu 

(calendar 

annual 

average) 

Wet 

Limestone 

scrubber* 

0.15 

lbs/MMBtu 

(30-day 

rolling 

average) 

 

0.13 

lbs/MMBtu 

(90-day 

rolling 

average) 

Fabric Filter 

Baghouse* 

0.03 lbs/MMBtu 

* Controls are already operating 

 

Unit NOx 

CONTROL 

TYPE 

NOx 

EMISSION 

LIMIT 

SO2 

CONTROL 

TYPE 

SO2 

EMISSION 

LIMIT 

PARTICULATE 

TYPE AND 

LIMIT 

Comanche 

Unit 1 

Low NOx 

Burners 

0.20 

lbs/MMBtu 

(30-day 

average) 

 

0.15 

lbs/MMBtu 

(combined 

annual 

average for 

units 1 & 2) 

Lime Spray 

Dryer 

0.12 

lbs/MMBtu 

(individual 

unit 30-day 

average) 

 

0.10 

lbs/MMBtu 

(combined 

unit annual 

average) 

Fabric Filter 

Baghouse* 

0.03 lbs/MMBtu 

Comanche 

Unit 2 

Low NOx 

Burners 

0.20 

lbs/MMBtu 

(30-day 

average) 

 

0.15 

lbs/MMBtu 

(combined 

annual 

average for 

units 1 & 2) 

Lime Spray 

Dryer 

0.12 

lbs/MMBtu 

(individual 

unit 30-day 

average) 

 

0.10 

lbs/MMBtu 

(combined 

unit annual 

average) 

Fabric Filter 

Baghouse* 

0.03 lbs/MMBtu 

Cherokee 

Unit 4 

Modify 

existing low 

NOx burner 

and overfire 

air systems or 

install new 

burners 

0.28 

lbs/MMBtu 

(30-day 

average) 

Lime Spray 

Dryer* 

10,500 tons 

per year, or 70 

percent 

removal, as 

determined on 

a calendar year 

annual basis 

for the Metro 

Facilities, 

combined 

Fabric Filter 

Baghouse* 

0.03 lbs/MMBtu 

Hayden 

Unit 1 

Modify 

existing low 

NOx burner 

and overfire 

air systems or 

install new 

0.39 

lbs/MMBtu 

(30-day 

average) 

Lime Spray 

Dryer* 

0.160 

lbs/MMBtu 

(30-day 

average) 

 

0.13 

Fabric Filter 

Baghouse* 

0.03 lbs/MMBtu 
burners lbs/MMBtu 

(90-day 

average) 

Hayden 

Unit 2 

Modify 

existing low 

NOx burner 

and overfire 

air systems or 

install new 

burners 

0.28 

lbs/MMBtu 

(30-day 

average) 

Lime Spray 

Dryer* 

0.160 

lbs/MMBtu 

(30-day 

average) 

 

0.13 

lbs/MMBtu 

(90-day 

average) 

Fabric Filter 

Baghouse* 

0.03 lbs/MMBtu 

Pawnee 

Unit 1 

Modify 

existing low 

NOx burner 

and overfire 

air systems or 

install new 

burners 

0.23 

lbs/MMBtu 

(30-day 

average) 

Lime Spray 

Dryer 

0.15 

lbs/MMBtu 

(30-day 

average) 

 

0.12 

lbs/MMBtu 

(annual 

average) 

Fabric Filter 

Baghouse* 

0.03 lbs/MMBtu 

Valmont 

Unit 5 

Modify 

existing low 

NOx burner 

and overfire 

air systems or 

install new 

burners 

0.28 

lbs/MMBtu 

(30-day 

average) 

Lime Spray 

Dryer* 

10,500 tons 

per year, or 70 

percent 

removal, as 

determined on 

a calendar year 

annual basis 

for the Metro 

Facilities, 

combined 

Fabric Filter 

Baghouse* 

0.03 lbs/MMBtu 

Drake 

Unit 5 

Install 

overfire air 

systems 

0.39 

lbs/MMBtu 

(30-day 

rolling 

average) 

0.35 

lbs/MMBtu 

(rolling 12-

month 

average) 

No control 1.2 

lbs/MMBtu 

(3-hour 

average) 

Regulation 1 

Fabric Filter 

Baghouse* 

0.03 lbs/MMBtu 

Drake 

Unit 6 

Install 

overfire air 

systems 

0.39 

lbs/MMBtu 

(30-day 

rolling 

average) 

0.35 

lbs/MMBtu 

(rolling 12-

month 

average) 

Lime Spray 

Dryer 

0.150 

lbs/MMBtu 

(30-day rolling 

average) 

Fabric Filter 

Baghouse* 

0.03 lbs/MMBtu 
Drake 

Unit 7 

Install 

overfire air 

systems 

0.39 

lbs/MMBtu 

(30-day 

rolling 

average) 

0.35 

lbs/MMBtu 

(rolling 12-

month 

average) 

Lime Spray 

Dryer 

0.150 

lbs/MMBtu 

(30-day rolling 

average) 

Fabric Filter 

Baghouse* 

0.03 lbs/MMBtu 

CEMEX Install SNCR 268 lb 

NOx/hr (30-

day rolling 

average) 

No control Fabric Filter 

Baghouse* 

* Controls are already operating VI.C. Each source listed in the above tables must install the control 

VI.D. The sources shall submit to the Division a proposed compliance schedule within sixty 

PART G STATEMENTS OF BASIS, SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORITY AND PURPOSE 

I.SS. Adopted December 11, 2008 

Revisions to Regulation Number 3, Part F 

equipment required to comply with the above limits and averaging times (if not already 

installed) as expeditiously as practicable, but in no event later than five years after EPA

approval of Colorado’s state implementation plan for regional haze, or relevant 

component thereof. Each source listed in the above tables must maintain the control 

equipment required to comply with the above limits and averaging times, and establish 

procedures to ensure that such equipment is properly operated and maintained. These 

sources shall comply with monitoring, record keeping, and reporting requirements as 

applicable under Regulation No. 3, Regulation No. 1 or federal regulations to ensure 

compliance with the limits and averaging times listed in the above tables. 

days after EPA approves the BART portion of the Regional Haze SIP. The Division shall

publish these proposed schedules and provide for a thirty-day public comment period 

following publication. The Division shall publish its final determinations regarding the 

proposed schedules for compliance within sixty days after the close of the public 

comment period and will respond to all public comments received.