---------------- --

Colorado Petroleum Association
 

-
BEFORE THE AIR QUALITY CONTROL COMMISSION STATE OF COLORADO 

qr:CE~Vf;: '. 

IN THE MAITER OF PROPOSED REVISIONS TO COMMON PROVISIONS =. t 

REGULATION REGARDING UPSET PROVISIONS :'/!h: Ij 1~1iJ~

o\lH iJlMln 'r 

PRELIMINARY PREHEARING STATEMENT OF COLORADO PETROtf~IS!iK),'

ASSOCIATION 

Executive Summary 

Colorado Petroleum Association ("CPA") is a non-profit trade organization that 

represents the oil and gas industry before state, regional and federal governmental entities. CPA 

and several of its members that are subject to regulation under the Clean Air Act have a vested 

interest in the outcome of this rulemaking. 

CPA questions the need for a change in the existing upset provisions as these 

provisions have been a part ofthe Colorado State Implementation ("SIP") for over thirty (30) 

years and Colorado is in attairunent with all of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards 

(''NAAQS''), However, CPA understands that the Air Pollution Control Division has decided to 

work with the United States Envirorunental Protection Agency to resolve concerns regarding the 

existing upset conditions. CPA does not support Option I-drafted by the EPA. CPA has 

worked with the Air Pollution Control Division (APCD) to develop Option 2, which is fully 

protective of public health, provides reasonable certainty to industry on the upset fl:J,ctors (Option 

I has ten (10) factors which provide uncertainty and vagueness), and provides consistency with 

the five (5)existing upset conditions and factors. 

Specifically, CPA suggests that: 

•	 The Division retain (and incorporate into the new regulation) the five (5) specific factors 

that the Division has used for the past ten years in determining whether an upset occurs as 

these are reasonable, effective and certain factors that have worked in practice; 

•	 The Division continue to provide relief from enforcement when a valid upset occurs; 

•	 The upset provisions do not negate or supersede any applicable regulation or permit 

requirement, including any malfunction exemptions contained within the National 

Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants C"NESHAP"), New Source 

Performance Standards ("NSPS") or other provisions ofthe Clean Air Act; 

•	 The Division only use injunctive relief in those rare circumstances where an upset might 

cause adverse air quality such that injunctive re1iefis warranted. 

•	 The Commission not approve Option 1 and its ten (10) vague factors at it will lead to 

uncertainty and greater litigation due to that uncertainty. The APCD and Commission 

will lose control ofits air program to the courts due to expanded citizen suits to resolve 

this uncertainty. 

"'DE· 020840_3· !02614v1 
BEFORE THE AIR QUALITY CONTROL COMMISSION STATE OF COLORADO
 

IN THE MAITER OF PROPOSED REVISIONS TO COMMON PROVISIONS
 

REGULAnON REGARDING UPSET PROVISIONS
 

PRELIMINARY PREHEARING STATEMENT OF COLORADO PETROLEUM
 

ASSOCIATION
 

Pursuant to Rule 1.5.5(5)(c) of the Colorado Air Quality Control Commission's 

Procedural Rules, this Preliminary Prehearing Statement is submitted on behalf of Colorado 

Petroleum Association ("CPA"). CPA is a non-profit trade organization that represents the oil 

and gas industry before state, regional and federal governmental entities. CPA and several of its 

members that are subject to regulation under the Clean Air Act have a vested interest in the 

outcome of this rulemaking. 

CPA questions the need for a change in the existing upset provisions as these 

provisions have been a part ofthe Colorado State Implementation ("SIP") for over thirty (30) 

years and Colorado is in attainment with all of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards 

("NAAQS"). However, CPA understands that the Air Pollution Control Division (APCD) has 

decided to work with the United States Environmental Protection Agency to resolve concerns 

regarding the existing upset conditions. CPA supports Option 2 as drafted by the APCD and 

believes it keeps the framework of the existing upset factors, clearly accommodates the EPA and 

citizen concerns by allowing injunctive relief, and fully protects ambient air quality and the 

attairunent of the NAAQS. 

1. Factual and Legal Issues 

CPA's primary issue is to ensure that the upset provisions as revised are adequately 

protective of public health, provide reasonable certainty to industry and provide as much 

consistency as possible with the existing upset regulations. The five (5) specific factors that the 

Division has used as guidance for the past ten years are reasonable, effective and viable factors 

for determining the validity of reported upsets. These factors should be incorporated into the 

new regulation to provide guidance to the operators and establish certainty, as well as 

transparency, as to the methods that the Division will use to analyze a reported upset. CPA will 

present testimony that the ten (10) factors in Option I are vague and uncertain. 

a.	 The proposed language of Option 2 of the Revisions to the Upset Provisions (Common 

Provisions Regulation 1.0 and II.E). Changes to Option 2 may be discussed and a new 

Exhibit A presented. 

b.	 The proposed language ofthe Statement of Basis, Specific Statutory Authority, and 

Pwpose for Option 2 of the Revisions to Common Provisions Regulation September 14, 

2006. Changes to Option 2 SOBP may be discussed and Exhibit B offered. 

\\\DE· 02D.40J000003· 302614 vI 

2 
2.	 List of Issues To Be Resolved 

•	 FACTORS: The Division should continue to use (and the Commission should 

incorporate into the new regulation) the five (5) specific factors that the Division has used 

as guidance for the past ten years to evaluate whether an upset has occurred as these are 

reasonable, effective and viable factors and establish certainty, as well as transparency, 

for the state and for industry; 

•	 ENFORCEMENT DISCRETION: The Division should continue to provide relief from 

enforcement of regulation when a true upset occurs and the public health and welfare has 

not been impacted; 

•	 CURRENT PERMIT & REGULATIONS SHOULD NOT BE SUPERCEDED: 

Currently numerous federal regulations and approved permits provide an exemption for 

malfunctions. This revised upset regulation should not negate or supersede any 

applicable regulation or permit requirement, including any malfunction exemptions 

contained within the National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants 

("NESHAP"), New Source Performance Standards ("NSPS") or other provisions ofthe 

Clean Air Act; 

•	 ENFORCEMENT & INJUNCTIVE RELIEF: The Division (and EPA and citizens if the 

state does not act) should use injunctive relief in those rare circumstances where an upset 

might cause adverse air quality such that injW1ctive relief is warranted. 

3.	 Exhibits 

No Exhibits are intended at this time, but revisions to Option 2 may be discussed with the APCD 

and offered at the hearing. 

4.	 Witnesses. 

Dennis Arfmann or Jennifer Morris of Hogan & Hartson, counsel to CPA, John Clouse of Wind 

River Environmental Group, andlor Stan Dempsey, President of CPA, may testify regarding the 

factual and legal issues described above. CPA requests 60 minutes for its presentation. 

5.	 Alternative Proposals. 

CPA has no alternative proposals, but reserves the right to work with APCD to develop 

variations on either Option 1 or Option 2. 

6.	 Written Testimony. 

CPA may have a Power Point or a handout t~ facilitate its presentation before the Commission. 

7.	 Final Economic Impact Analysis. 

We anticipate no revisions to the Final Economic Impact Analysis based on our issues and 

revisions. 

"'\DE. OZ08401OOOOO3· 302614 vl 

3 
Respectfully submitted thi~.2th day of November, 2006 by Dennis L. Arfmann and Jennifer L. 

Morris, attorneys for Colorado Petroleum Association .. ' ~.,./-! .; /---! /1~ / 

/' ,e--­ - C. ~~~~ L. fmann, BA #17561 

.'	 Jennifer L. Morris, CBA # 35963
 

Hogan & Hartson'
 

1470 Walnut Street, Suite 200
 

Boulder, CO 80302
 

\ "DE· 020840I000OO3 . 302614 v I
 

4
 
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certify that on this 13 day ofNovember, 2006, an original and twenty (20) 

copies of the foregoing Preliminary Prehearing Statement was sent via pre-paid, hand delivery 

service to the Colorado Department of Public Health & Environment, Air Quality Control 

Commission at the address below, and I hereby further certify that on this Uday of November, 

2006 a copy of the foregoing Preliminary Prehearing Statement was sent via electronic mail to 

all of the recipients listed below: 

NAME 

Colorado Department of Public Health & 

Environment 

Air Quality Control Commission 

Theresa L. Martin 

EDO-AQCC-A5 

Garry Kaufman 

APCD-B1 

Steve Brown 

Attorney for the Commission 

Thomas Roan 

Attorney for the Division 

Rocky Mountain Clean Air Action 

Environmental Integrity Project 

St. Vrain Valley Community Watchdogs 

Mothers Against Burning Tires 

Friends of the St. Vrain River Valley 

REPRESENTED BY/ADDRESS 

4300 Cherry Creek Drive South
 

Denver, CO 80246-1530
 

Ph: (303) 692-1530
 

Fax: (303) 692-0278
 

4300 Cherry Creek Drive South
 

Denver, CO 80246
 

Ph: (303) 692-3111
 

Attorney General's Office
 

1525 Shennan Street
 

Denver, CO 80203
 

Ph: (303) 866-5039
 

Fax: (303) 866-3558
 

Attorney General's Office
 

1525 Shennan Street
 

Denver, CO 80203
 

Ph: (303) 866-5039
 

Fax: (303) 866-3558
 

Jeremy Nichols
 

Director
 

1536 Wynkoop, Suite B501
 

Denver, CO 80202
 

\\\DE . 0208401000003 • 302614 .1
 
Colorado Petroleum Association (CPA) 

Colorado Utilities Coalition for Clean Air 

(CUC) 

- Platte River Power Authority 

- Tri·State Generation and Transmission 

Association Inc. 

- Public Service Company of Colorado doing 

business as Xcel Energy 

Rocky Mountain Steel Mills d/b/a CF&I 

Colorado Association of Commerce and 

Industry (CACI) 

Colorado Ready Mixed Concrete Association 

and The Colorado Rock Products Association 

DeIUlis L. Arfmann 

Jennifer L. Morris 

Hogan & Hartson 

1470 Walnut Street, Suite 200 

Boulder, CO 80302 

H. Stanley Dempsey, Jr. 

1580 Lincoln Street, Suite 1125 

Denver, CO 80203 

James W. Sanderson 

Ryley Carlock & Applewhite 

1775 Shennan Street, Twenty-First Floor 

Denver, CO 80203 

Eugene F. Megyesy, Jr. 

Dufford & Brown, P.C. 

1700 Broadway, Suite 2100 

Denver, CO 80290·2101 

Dennis L. Arfmann 

JeIUlifer L. Morris 

Hogan & Hartson 

1470 Walnut Street, Suite 200 

Boulder, CO 80302 

Donald K. Shandy 

Ryan, Whaley & Coldiron P.C. 

900 Robinson Renaissance 

119 North Robinson Avenue 

Oklahoma City, OK 73102 

Melissa I. Young 

6855 South Havana Street, Suite 540 

Centennial,. /8~ 12 

.. // 

\\"\DE· 020114011l00003· 30:&14 vI 
BEFORE THE AIR QUALITY CONTROL COMMISSION STATE OF
 

COLORADO
 

rN THE MATTER OF PROPOSED REVISIONS TO COMMON PROVISIONS 

REGULATION REGARDING UPSET PROVISIONS 

REBUTTAL STATEMENT OF
 

COLORADO PETROLEUM ASSOCIATION ("CPA")
 

Executive Summary 

Colorado Petroleum Association ("CPA") is a non-profit trade organization that 

represents the oil and gas industry before state, regional and federal governmental entities. 

CPA and several of its members that are subject to regulation under the Clean Air Act have 

a vested interest in the outcome of this rulemaking. 

CPA questions the need for a change in the existing upset provisions as these provisions 

have been a part of the Colorado State Implementation ("SIP") for over thirty (30) years 

and Colorado is in attainment with all of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards 

("NAAQS"). However, as CPA Wlderstands that the Air Pollution Control Division has 

decided to work with the United States Environmental Protection Agency to resolve 

concerns regarding the existing upset conditions. As noted in its Prehearing Statement, 

CPA does not support Option l~afted by the EPA. Accordingly, CPA has worked with 

the Air Pollution Control Division (Division) to develop Option 2, which is fully protective 

of public health, provides reasonable certainty to industry on the upset factors. CPA 

disagrees with factual and legal statements that the Rocky Mountain Clean Air Action 

("RMCAA") made in its Prehearing Statement, particularly those statements regarding 

ambient air quality in the State of Colorado and those statements regarding Option 2. 

Accordingly, CPA has prepared this Rebuttal Statement to refute many of the arguments 

set forth by RMCAA. A more detail analysis is contained herein. 

I'.'J)E . O:lOWQIcooo01 • 10<19]7 .1 
BEFORE THE AIR QUALITY CONTROL COMMISSION STATE OF
 

COLORADO
 

IN THE MAITER OF PROPOSED REVISIONS TO COMMON PROVISIONS
 

REGULATION REGARDING UPSET PROVISIONS
 

REBUTTAL STATEMENT OF
 

COLORADO PETROLEUM ASSOCIATION ("CPA")
 

Colorado Petroleum Association ("CPA") is a non-profit trade organization that 

represents the oil and gas industry before state, regional and federal governmental entities. 

CPA and several of its members that are subject to regulation under the Clean Air Act have 

a vested interest in the outcome of this rulemaking. CPA disagrees with factual and legal 

statements that the Rocky Mountain Clean Air Action ("RMCAA") made in its Prehearing 

Statement, particularly those statements regarding ambient air quality in the State of 

Colorado and those statements regarding Option 2. Accordingly, CPA has prepared this 

Rebunal Statement to refute many ofthe arguments set forth by RMCAA. 

I.	 CURRENT UPSET PROVISIONS DO NOT VIOLATE CLEAN AIR 

ACT 

Rocky Mountain Clean Air Action ("RMCAA,,)I first argues that the current upset 

provision is contrary to the federal Clean Air Act ("CAA,').2 Though RMCAA cites to 

EPA guidance and policies on upset provisions, Colorado's upset provision, though 

potentially inconsistent with EPA's current guidance on upset provisions, is not contrary to 

the CAA. 

1) The Eleventh Circuit recently addressed this issue in Sierra Club v. Georgia Power 

Company, 443 F.3d 1346 (1 Itil Cir. 2006). 

•	 The court evaluated Georgia's SSM rule (a rule very similar to Colorado's). 

•	 Sierra Club brought suit for exceeding pennit limits and Georgia Power wanted to 

utilize the affirmative defense available in Georgia's SSM rule. 

I RMCAA is generally referred to in this rebuttal. The RMCAA Prehearing Statement was also filed on
 

behalfof Environmenta/lntegrity Project, St. Vrain Valley Community Watchdogs, Mothers Against
 

Burning Tires, and Friends ofthe St. Vrain River Yalley.
 

2 42 U.S.C.A. § 7401, ct. seq.
 

\\\Dtt 02Ol~3 • 3049'7 vJ 2
•	 Sierra Club contended that because Georgia's SSM rule provided a broader SSM 

defense than now allowed by EPA, Georgia Power could not avail itself of the 

affinnative defense. 

•	 The court disagreed and noted that EPA's 2001 clarification explains that EPA's 

1999 Guidance did not alter the status of any existing SSM provision in a SIP that 

has been approved by EPA. It applied only prospectively. 

•	 The court note distinguished the decision of the 6th Circuit in Michigan Dept. of 

Envtl. Quality v. Browner, 230 F.3d 181 (6th Cir. 2000), as irrelevant in 

detennining the validity of an existing upset provision.3 

•	 The court also determined that EPA's guidance is not due the same level of 

deference as a fonnally adopted rule such as a SIP. 

2) Contrary to RMCAA's claims, the federal courts have not specifically determined or 

endorsed the idea that an upset provision such as Colorado's violates the Clean Air Act 

("CAA"). 

•	 In fact, it seems that the Georgia Power court detennined that at least Georgia's 

SSM provisions were not violations ofthe CAA as it allowed Georgia Power to 

attempt to utilize the affirmative defense available under those provisions. 

•	 The court would not likely have allowed that defense if it violated the CAA. 

3) CPA and its members support a change to the current upset rule-we support Option 2 

which complies with the intent ofEPA's new guidance and should be adopted by this 

Commission and approved by EPA. 

II.	 CURRENT UPSET PROVISIONS DO NOT THREATEN AIR QUALITY 

AND HUMAN HEALTH IN COLORADO 

RMCAA also claims that the current upset provisions threaten air quality and hwnan 

health in Colorado. While RMCAA may have gone to great lengths to discuss upsets in 

Colorado, it has not provided any evidence supporting its claim that the current upset 

provisions have threatened air quality and human health in Colorado over the last 30 years. 

I) First, during the time from 1999 - 2005 that RMCAA focuses on, the State of Colorado 

has moved from non-attainment into attainment for PM\o and CO. 

2) Second, contrary to RMCAA's claims, the number of upsets does not necessarily 

provide information about the amount of excess emissions, the duration of the events or the 

effect on air quality. RMCAA has not prpvided support its claims. 

3) The State of Colorado, in the long and complicated process ofdeveloped a State 

Implementation Plan, does not rely on pennit limits alone to protect the NAAQS and PSD 

1 The court found this to be true because in the Browner case. Michigan sought EPA approval for a SIP 

revision that included a new SSM provision. M. at 1354. 

\\\DE .020140I000OO). JO.49]7 wI	 3 
increments. The SIP addresses numerous sources, including industrial sources, mobile 

sources and area source activities by the public that contribute to air pollution. In 

considering the emissions from these sources, the State of Colorado consider all emissions, 

including upset, startup and shutdown emissions, in preparing a plan to protect the air 

quality standards. 

4) The State ofColorado is in attainment for all pollutants across the state, and only the 8­

hour ozone standard in the Denver metro area is threatened. The industry cites this 

evidence not because it believes the State of Colorado should wait for a NAAQS violation 

to occur before taking action; but because this information evidences that the Regional Air 

Quality Council, the Air Quality Control Commission, and Colorado's SIPs are working 

and have taken Denver from nonattainment to attainment for aU po})utants (the first major 

city in the United States to accomplish this feat). 

5) RMCAA argues that because ozone pollution in the Denver metro area is linked to 

VOC emissions, RMCAA concludes that upsets ofVOCs from the BP Wattenberg natural 

gas plant and the Suncor Denver Refinery have contributed to violations ofthe NAAQS in 

that case. RMCAA has no support for this conclusion. 

•	 First, the types ofVOCs and structure of the VOCs significantly affect the 

likelihood that those VOCs will form Olone. RMCAA has provided no information 

on the type and structure ofVOC emissions from the upsets at the BP Wattenberg 

and Suncor Denver Refinery, and cannot automatically conclude that those VOCs 

significantly contributed to the fonnation of ozone. 

•	 Second, a review of BP records at the Division suggest that virtually aJl the upset 

reports touted by RMCAA as VOC "exceedances" were not reported as such by BP 

Wattenburg. It appears that such w;ere inadvertently placed in database by the 

Division. The Division has since reconciled its database to accurately reflect BP 

Wattenburg's upset reports. 

•	 Third, BP Wattenberg has submitted numerous upset condition reports to the 

Division since 2003. The majority ofthese submittals, (75%), were required as a 

pennit condition within its Title V Permit when the Thermal Oxidizer is off-line. 

In this case, the upset reporting is arguably administrative in nature since emissions 

occurring as a result ofthis "pennit defined upset condition" are insignificant. 

•	 Finally, the State ofColorado has focused on mobile sources and oil and gas 

condensate tank emissions as the primary entities that must reduce VOC emissions 

to protect the 8·hour ozone standard - not limited upsets from these plants. 

III.	 OPTION 2 COMPLIES WITH EPA GUIDANCE ON UPSET 

CONDITIONS AND SHOULD BE APPROVED BY THIS COMMISSION 

AND EPA 

I) Both Options 1 and 2 have both been deemed compliant with the CAA by the Colorado 

State Attorney General's office. 

\\"DE -ln~l. l04911 v,	 4 
2) Option I is not the best choice for very pragmatic reasons as it does not promote greater 

compliance and does not provide the regulated community certainty in terms of what is 

necessary to insure compliance. Option 2 will insure greater compliance because it 

provide five specific factors for which definitions and descriptions are provided where 

necessary. In contrast, Option I provides a laundry list of ten factors that must be satisfied 

before an entity can qualify for an affinnative defense a list that is cumbersome with 

factors that are ambiguous and lack adequate definition. The Commission should not adopt 

Option 1. 

3) RMCAA argues that Option 2 does not comply with the CAA and will be rejected by 

the EPA and lead to a SIP call. RMCAA does nol support its argwnents and provides 

rebuttal on certain ofRMCAA's statements: 

•	 Option 2 does not aHow single sources or small groups ofsources to cause
 

exceedances of the NAAQS or PSD requirements with immunity.
 

•	 Option 2 does Dot allow the owner/operator to define what constitutes poor 

maintenance, instead it relies on independent decisionmakers such as the Division 

and the courts to determine whether an owner/operators' actions were reasonable. 

•	 Option 2 only allows an upset condition to be unpredictable at the point in time 

when it is unpredictable. Once it has occurred, is predictable and can be prevented, 

future reoccurrence would not likely qualify as an upset. 

•	 Option 2 does not allow an affinnative defense when the owner or operator could 

have prevented an upset condition. Again, it is not the owner/operator's 

determination of reasonable that determines whether an upset has occurred. 

•	 Finally, Option 2 does not preclude injunctive relief under federal law. The 

language does nothing of the sort. It simply affirms the right to pursue injunctive 

relief under Colorado law. 

In conclusion, RMCAA's concerns with Option 2 are unfounded. Option 2 provides a 

workable solution for the State of Colorado, EPA, industry and the citizens of Colorado. It 

1470 Walnut Street, Suite 200 

Boulder, CO 80302 

(720) 406-5374 (Telephone) 

(720) 406-5301 (Fascirnile) 

protects ambient air quality while providing certainty and flexibility for 0 rs. 

Respectfully SUbm~

,.",,,­

D s 

..--Jennifer L. Morris 

Hogan & Hartson 

'.\IDE. C2ll14Q'UOOOOJ. 304937 vi	 5 
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certify that on the 28th day of November, 2006, an original and fifteen (15) 

copies of the foregoing Rebuttal Statement of The Colorado Petroleum Association was 

sent via pre-paid, hand delivery service to the Colorado Department of Public Health & 

Environment, Air Quality Control Commission at the address below, and I hereby further 

certify that on this 28th day ofNovember, 2006 a copy ofthe foregoing RebuttaJ Statement 

of Colorado PetroJewn Association was sent via electronic mail to all of the recipients 

listed below: 

Colorado Department of Public Health & 

Environment 

Air Quality Control Commission 

Theresa L. Martin 

EDQ-AQCC-A5 

Garry Kaufman 

APCD-BI 

Steve Brown 

Attorney for the Commission 

Thomas Roan 

Attorney for the Division 

Rocky Mountain Clean Air Action 

Environmental Integrity Project 

St. Vrain Valley Community Watchdogs 

Mothers Against Burning Tires 

Friends of the St, Vrain River Valley 

Colorado Association for Industry and 

Commerce (CACI) 

4300 Cherry Creek Drive South 

Denver, CO 80246-1530 

(303) 692-1530 (Telephone) 

(303) 692-0278 (Fascimile) 

4300 Cherry Creek Drive South 

Denver, CO 80246 

(303) 692-3111 (Telephone) 

Attorney GeneraJ's Office 

1525 Sherman Street 

Denver, CO 80203 

(303) 866-5039 (Telephone) 

(303) 866-3558 (Fascimile) 

Attorney General's Office 

1525 Sherman Street 

Denver, C080203 

(303) 866-5039 (Telephone) 

(303) 866-3558 (Fascimile) 

Jeremy Nichols 

Director 

1536 Wynkoop, Suite B501 

Denver, CO 80202 

Dennis Arfmann 

Jennifer L. Morris 

Hogan & Hartson 

1470 Walnut Street, Suite 200 

Boulder, CO 80302 

',I\DE . 02_1· 100917 _. 7 
Products Association Centennial, CO 80112 

Colorado Utilities Coalition for Clean Air 

(CUe) 

Platte River Power Authority 

Tri·State Generation and 

Transmission Association Inc. 

Public Service Company of 

Colorado doing business as Xcel 

Energy 

Rocky Mountain Steel MiHs d/b/a CF&I 

Colorado Ready Mixed Concrete 

Association and The Colorado Rock 

Don Shandy 

Donald K. Shandy, OBA # 11511 

Ryan, Whaley, & Coldiron, P.C. 

119 North Robinson 

Oklahoma City, OK 73102 

James W. Sanderson 

Ryley Carlock & Applewhite 

1775 Shennan Street, Twenty-First Floor 

Denver, CO 80203 

Eugene F. Megyesy, Jr. 

Dufford & Brown, P.C. 

1700 Broadway, Suite 2100 

Denver, CO 80290-2101 

Melissa I. Young 

6855 South Havana Street, Suite 540 

\\'lIE • 020&40lO0OOO3 • 3_37 .1 8