# STATE OF COLORADO

Bill Ritter, Jr., Governor James B. Marlin, Executive Director Dedicated to protecting and improving the health and environment ofthe people of Colorado 4300 Cherry Creek Dr. S. Laboratory Services Division Denver, Colorado 80246-1530 8100 Lowry Blvd. Phone (303) 692-2000 Denver, Colorado 80230-6928 TDD Line (303) 691-7700 (303) 692-3090 

### ColoradoDepartment Located in Glendale, Colorado 

### ofPublicHealth http://www.cdphe.state.co.us 

### andEnvironment 

# AUG - 3 2007 August 1, 2007 

# RECEIVEI) Robert Roberts Regional Administrator 

# AUG 03 L 

### US EPA RegionVIn 999 18th 

### Street, Suite 500 

# USEPARNSOFFICE Denver, Colorado 80202 Dear Mr. Roberts: The following actions are submittedto EPAfor final approval and incorporation into the Colorado StateImplementationPlan. Two copies ofthe materials needed for yourreview ofeach actionare includedwith this letter.

• RegulationNumber4: NewWood Stoves andtheUse ofCertain WoodburningAppliance During HighPollutionDays regarding atestingprotocol for masonryheaters, to adda definition for exemptdevices, to clarifydefinitions in theregulation, andto correct grammatical and typographical errors.

• RegulationNumber3: Stationary Source PermittingandAirPollutantEmissionNotice Requirementsregarding issues identifiedbythe U.S. Environmental ProtectionAgency (EPA) during reviewofColorado's state implementationplan (SIP) in 2005, to incorporate federal changesto the NewSource Reviewprogram, to revisethe definition ofvolatile organic compounds andthe list ofhazardous airpollutants consistentwithfederal actions, and to maketechnical corrections.

• CommonProvisions Regulationregarding issues thatthe United States Environmental ProtectionAgency (EPA) has raised withthe regulation; specifically whether ornotthe regulationcomplies withEPA guidance requirements for determiningthatupsets and breakdowns as violations ofthe federal program.Air Quality Control Commission State Implementation Revisions August],2007 Robert Roberts Page 2



### • RegulationNumber 1: EmissionControls for Particulate Matter, Smoke, CarbonMonoxide, and Sulfur Oxides regardingchangesto the federal program inrecent months and for RegulationNumber 1to considerproposedrevisions to the performancetesting requirements for aircurtain destructors.

• RegulationNumber 3: Stationary SourcePermitting and AirPollutant EmissionNotice Requirements, PartA - Concerningthe Increase ofStationary Source EmissionFees.

• CommonProvisions Regulationregarding issues thatthe US EPAhas raised with the regulation; specifically, whetherornotthe regulation complies with EPA guidance onwhat is ap.upset,and/or malfunction andwhetherornotEPAand members ofthepublic canpursue injtinctiverelieffor upsets as violations ofthe law.

• RegulationNumber7: Emissions ofVolatile Organic Compoundsregarding increased controlrequirements for emissions ofvolatile organic compounds and oxides ofnitrogen from oil and gas exploration andproduction activities inthe nine county deferred ozone nonattainment area and on a statewidebasis. We look forward to yourtimely reviewand approval ofthis request. The Office ofthe Colorado Air Quality Control Commissionmay submit any additional technical supportdocumentation or informationthatyoumay needfor reviewdirectly to the EPA. Shouldthere be any questions regardingthesematerials, please contactme atthe CommissionOffice at 303-692-3478. Thankyou. Sincerely,

Jam s 

### B.

# Marti~·**'#..~**

cc. MarthaRudolph, CDPHEEnvironmental Programs Director Doug Lempke, Air Quality Control CommissionAdministrator

# .ADMINISTRATIVE MATERIALS Copies ofthe following administrative materials are included in this submittal ofrevisions to Regulation 6 & 

### 1: New SourcePerformance Standards. Hearingheld on September21, 2006.

• HearingNotice as published in the CCR • Agenda • AgendaItem Control Sheet (and attachments) • Parties, EPAand Public Comments ifany. • StatementofBasis, Specific StatutoryAuthority and Purpose for eachregulation. • Opinion ofthe AttorneyGeneral • Regulation as publishedintheCCR • Notice offinal adoption

# HearingNotice as Publishedinthe CCRAgenda

## ~7'73 

# STATE OF COLORADO

Bill Owens, Governor Dennis E. Ellis. Execulive Director Dedicated 10protecting and improving the health and environment ofthepeopleofColorado 

### COLORADOAIR 

### QUALITYCONTROL**COM1~4:I§S~9N**

# i'\.7 F 

# 0 http://www.cdphe.stale.co.US 

### ,_or. ,f"" .,1,i=- 

### i l "._.. '

.... 1._ c > "'- _. EDO-AQCC·A5 4300 Cherry Creek Drive South Denver, Colorado 80246·1530 

# \;) JUN 16 2006 Phone (303) 692-3 100 Fax (303) 691-7702 TDD (303) 691-7700 

## :::.::(;·'lONS/LICENSING**~cCRETARY** 

## OF STATE 

# NOTICE OFWRITTENCOMMENT ONLY RULEMAKINGHEARING BEFORETHE COLORADOAIRQUALITYCONTROLCOMMISSION Regardingproposedrevisionsto: 

## RegulationNumber6 STANDARDSOFPERFORMANCEFORNEWSTATIONARYSOURCES and 

## RegulationNumber 1 EMISSIONCONTROLFORPARTICULATES,SMOKES,CARBON MONOXIDEAND SULFUROXIDES

SUBJECT: The AirQualityControl Commissionwill hold awrittencommentonlyrulemakinghearingto considerarequestbytheDivisionto set apublicrulemakinghearingdate to consideraproposal forRegulationNumber6to adoptbyreference a setofprovisionsto incorporatechangestothe federal programinrecentmonthsandforRegulationNumber 1to considerproposedrevisionsto theperfonnancetestingrequirementsfor aircurtaindestructors. 

### FEDERALREQUIREMENTS: The federal actdoes requiretheCommission to maketherulerevisions that arethe subjectof this Notice ofPublicRulemakingHearing. Theserevisionsarerequiredbythe federal actand arenotmore stringentthantherequirements ofthe federal act. 

### HEARINGSCHEDULE: DATE: September21,2006 TIME: 9:00AM PLACE ColoradoDepartmentofPublic Health & 

### Environment 4300 CherryCreekDrive South, SabinRoom Denver,CO 80246 The hearingmaybe continuedatsuchplacesandtimeas the Commission mayannounce.

Page 1of3 CR 29-1461

### The Commission shall deliberate uponthe evidence;testimonyand written submissions presented at this hearing, as well as anyrelated matters properlysubmitted beforethehearing record is closed. PUBLIC COMMENT: This is a written comment onlyrule-makinghearing. The Commission encourages all interested personsto providetheirviews inwritingpriorto the hearing. Written commentsmustbe submittedbySeptember6, 2006. The Commission especiallysolicits comments and analyses from persons who will incurdirectlysome cost orbenefit from the proposed revisions. No testimonywill betaken at the hearingexcept for good cause shown. Written submission should bemailed to the Commission Office at the address listed in thehearing schedule. PARTYSTATUS: In orderto obtainpartystatus at the hearing compliancewith several requirements as defined in the Commission'sProcedural Rules is necessary. An 

### original and three (3) copies ofawritten petition for party statusmust be filed with the Office ofthe AirQualityControl Commissionno laterthan 5:00p.m. July20, 2006. Thepetitionmust: 1) identifythe applicant; 2) providethe name, address, and telephone and facsimile numbers ofthe applicants representative; and3) brieflysummarizewhat, ifany, policy, factual, and legal issuesthe applicanthaswith the proposal(s) as ofthe time offiling the application. Copies ofthepetition for party statusmust also bereceived, bythis same date, bytheDivisionstaffperson and the Assistant Attorneys General representingtheDivisionand the Commissionidentifiedbelow. Individualsmayalso obtainpartystatusthroughthe submittal ofan initial alternativerule tothe proposedrule. Thesubmittal ofanalternativeproposalmustbe accompaniedbytwenty(20) copies oftheinitial alternativeproposedrule and all otherassociated documentsbythedate specified for partystatusrequests. Initial alternativerulesmust also befiled withtheDivision staffperson and withthe AssistantAttorneys General. AirQualityControl Commission AirPollution Control Division Theresa L. 

### Martin DenaM. Wojtach EDO-AQCC-A5 APCD-Bl 4300CherryCreekDrive South 4300CherryCreekDrive South Denver, CO 80246 Denver, CO 80246 SteveBrown MikeElliott Attorneyforthe Commission Attorney for the Division AttorneyGeneral's Office AttorneyGeneral's Office 1525 Sherman St., 5th

### Floor 1525 ShermanSt., 5th 

### Floor Denver, CO 80203 Denver, CO 80203 Requestsreceivedbeyondthe above stateddeadline shall onlybeconsideredupon awritten motionfor good causeshown. TheCommissionreserves therightto denypartystatusto anyone that does notcomplywiththe Commissionsproceduralrules. STATUS CONFERENCE: A statusconferencewill beheld ifnecessaryto ascertain and discuss theissues involved, and to ensurethat parties aremaking all necessary efforts to discuss andresolve suchissuespriorto the submissionofprehearing statements. Attendance at this status conferenceismandatoryfor anyonewho hasrequestedparty status. Page 2

# on

CR 29-1462

### PREHEARING CONFERENCE/PREHEARINGSTATEMENTS: 

### A prehearingconference will be held ifnecessary to ascertain and discuss the issues involved, and to ensurethatparties are making all necessary effortsto discuss and resolve such issuesprior

.to the hearing. Attendance atthe prehearingconference is mandatory for anyone who has requestedpartystatus. PROCEDURALMATTERS: 

### Written comments will be accepted prior to the hearing and at the hearing. The Commission encourages the submission of written recommendations. Written comments received at the Commission Office by September 6, 2006 will be distributed to the Commission for review prior to the hearing. The Commission requests that twenty (15) copies ofall written statements be submitted. STATUTORYAUTHORITYFORTHE COMMISSION'S ACTIONS: 

### The rule-making authorityofthe Commission can be found in sections 25-7-105-109 c.R.S. and 25-7-114 c.R.S. as amended. This list ofstatutory authorityis not intended as an exhaustivelist ofthe Commission'sstatutoryauthorityto actin this matter. Dated this 

# I

# )'~ay of 

# J atDenver,Colorado 

# C04Z**QZZ"r"-4.1~~~~A" DOUgla~mPke,**  Administra or

Page 3 of3 CR 29-1463

# Agenda

# STATEOFCOLORADO

Bill Owens, Governor Dennis Ellis, Executive Director 

### COLORADOAIR 

### QUALITYCONTROLCOMMISSION http://Vl.-\vw.cdphe.staleco.us 4300 Cherry Creek Dl"lve South OED-OLRA-A5 Denver, Colorado 80246-1530 Phone (303) 692-3100 Colorado Department Fax (303) 691-7702 ofPublic Health TOO (303) 691-7700 and Environment 

# Notice ofMeetingandAgenda AirQualityControlCommission & 

# BoardofHealth September21,2006 ColoradoDepartmentofPublicHealth & Environment SabinRoom 4300 CherryCreekDriveSouth Denver,Colorado



# 10:00a.m.

Note: Board ofHealth members shaHjointheCommission to discuss theCommission'sAnnualReporttothePubicin fulfillment of the requirementsof25-7-105(4)(a) CalltoOrder: Determinationofa Quorum ApprovalofMinutes: Review/Approval ofthe August 17, 2006 meeting minutes ofthe Air QualityControl Commission. PublicComment: The public is invited to comment on any airpollution issue not on the agenda. The Commission will 

### not take action on issues discussed under this agenda item today; however, items may be scheduled for furtherdiscussionoraction.RULEMAKING HEARING 

### 1. Regulation Number 6 & 

### 1: New Source PerformanceStandards (5 

### minutes presentation, 10 

### minutes discussion) The Division will present to the Commission a proposal to revise Part A ofthe regulation to incorporate by reference additions and changes the U.S. EPA has made to 40 CFRPart 60. The Division has also proposed that the Commission make corresponding changes to clarify provisions ofRegulation Number I, 

### Section lILB regarding the provisions for air curtain destructors to meet a grain loading standard.

BRIEFINGS, REpORTS AND COMMISSION DISCUSSIONS 

### 2. Requirements for StackTestingNew Equipment (5 

### minutes presentation, 15 

### minutes discussion) The Division will respond to questions askedby amemberofthepublic at the August 17th 

### meetingregarding the requirements to conducttesting on stack emissions for newprocess equipment specifically a small incineratorcharging lessthan 200poundsperhour. 3. Annual Reportto the Public (10 

### minutespresentation, 15 

### minutes discussion) The Commission's Administrator will review the annual report to the public and discuss air quality in the various regions ofthe state. The Commissionwill provide an opportunity for public comment. 4. SummertimeOzoneUpdate (10 

### minutespresentation, 10 

### minutes discussion) The Division will review the sumniertime ozone monitoring data for the Denver metropolitan andNorthern Front Range areas andreport on any exceedences orviolations of the ozone standards. The Division will also review the historical data and project future values that will be needed to remain below the national standard in next years summer season. 5. EnergyDevelopment, Use, RenewableEnergyandEnergy Efficiency (40 minutespresentation, 20 minutes discussion) The Department's SustainabilityProgramandthe Colorado Office ofEnergyManagement and Conservation (OEMC)will discuss withthe Commissionthehistory and future of energydevelopment inColorado andthose sourcesimpacts to airquality across the State. The SustainabilityProgram& the OEMC will discusshowthey are workingtogetherto identifyand quantify opportunities for achieving air qualitybenefits inthedevelopment of renewable energyand energyefficiencyprojects and how they are workingtogetherto minimizeenvironmental impacts from future energydevelopment. 6. CommissionerInformationalItems Commissioners will discuss among themselves activities that they have participated in over the past month that theybelieve other Commissioners and/or members ofthe public may be interested in hearing about. 7. Division Director'sReport

- Margie Perkins Monthlyactivitiesreport

2

### 8. Attorney General's Report

- Steve Brown Update ofanyrecent court actions on air quality issues 

### 9. Administrator's Report

- DougLempke Octobermeeting agendaitemsreview 

### 10. Regional Haze SIP Development Public Hearing (120 minutes presentation, 120 minutes discussion) The Commissionwill considerthe presentations and discussions oftheDivision and interestedmembersofthe public regardingthe determination ofbaseline and natural conditions for visibilityin each ofthe Class Iareas inColorado that are impactedbythe regional hazerule requirements.

The Commissionwill considerthe determination ofthe uniform rateofprogressthat is necessaryfor determiningcompliancewiththeprovisionofthe regional hazerule and the amountofprogress necessaryto achieve forthe first planningperiod oftheprogram in 2018. The Commissionwill also considerthemonitoringnetwork and howitwill berelied upon to characterizevisibilityconditions ineach ofthe Class I 

### areas. The Commission solicits and encouragesinterested members ofthepublic to participate and makecommentatthe meeting. The Commissionintendsto provide direction to the Division to use specificbaseline and natural conditions and to setrates ofprogress for eachofthe class I 

### areas as aresultofthisworkshop. Adjourn

3

# AgendaItem Control 

# Sheet (AICS) (andattachments)

- Memorandum ofNotice (MON)

- Proposal ofRulemaking Language

- Issue ofFact Sheet (normally attached to the AleS)

- Economic ImpactAnalysis (EIA)

- initial & final statutoryrequirement

## COLORADOAIRQUALITYCONTROLCOMNIISSION AGENDAITEM CONTROLSHEET



### ItemTitle: Revisions to RegulationNo.6,PartA and RegulationNo.1 Meetingdate: September21,2006

TYPES OFACTION NON-HEARINGACTIONS



### _ Administrative

_ Briefing _Policy _AreaDesignations REQUESTFOR HEARING



### _PublicRulemaking Infonnational HEARING 

## -..X-PublicRulemaking Infonnational



## -..X- Adoption RECOMMENDEDACTION

_ Approval

_ Denial



# X Required MOTION

_ Attached

_ Not applicable

STATUTORYAUTHORITY General Specific 

## ---.X

EPASUBMITTAL Is this issue considered aSIPrevision? Yes. Which SIP? RegulationNo. 1portionofColorado SIP EPA submissiondeadline: None Is this adelegatedprogram? Yes. (RequiresEPA approvalanddelegation of authorityto Colorado to implementNSPSprograms)

### ISSUE: The Colorado Department ofPublic Health and Environment, Air Pollution Control Division (Division) requests that the Colorado Air Quality Control Commission (AQCC) revise Regulation No. 6, PartA to incorporate byreference additions and changes the U.S. Environmental ProtectionAgency (EPA) made to its New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) in 40 C.F.R. Part 60. Additionally, the Divisionrequests thattheAQCC make acorresponding, clarifyingchangeto RegulationNo.1.



### I. IncorporationbyReferenceofFederalAmendmentsto 40 C.F.R. Part60 Regulation No.6,PartA, SubpartCb 40 C.F.R. Part 60, Subpart Cb 69 FR42117 (July 14, 2004) This action amendsthe largemunicipal waste combustor(MWC) emissionguidelinesto add a carbonmonoxide emission limitfor onetypeofMWCtechnologythat was notpreviously addressed. There are no known sources in Colorado that maybe affectedbythisrulemaking. 

### Regulation No.6,PartA, SubpartDa 40 C.F.R. Part60, SubpartDa 70 FR28605 (May 18, 2005) This action amends the standards for electric utility steam generating units to include mercury emissionlimits for unitsthat commenceconstruction orreconstruction afterJanuary30, 2004. This amendment to 40 CFR Part 60, Subpart Da was promulgated as one piece ofa broader rulemakingto address mercuryemissions from coal-fired electricutility steam generatingunits. The AQCC has historically incorporated New Source Performance Standards in 40 CFR Part 60, such as this action, by reference into Regulation No.6, Part A. 

### Other portions ofthe federal rulemaking require policy decisions to be made bythe AQCC and, therefore, are being presentedto theAQCC in a separaterulemakingpackage. AND 

### 40 C.F.R. Part 60, SubpartDa 70FR51266 (August30,2005) This action corrects section designations withinthe subpart. It

### does not affect the substance of theregulation. AND 40 C.F.R. Part 60, SubpartDa 71 FR9867 (February27,2006) This actionrevisesthe existing standards forparticulatematter, nitrogen oxide, and sulfur oxide emissions. This action also adds technical clarifications andcompliance alternativesto the existingrequirements. There are three sourcesinColoradothat maybe affectedbythisrulemaking.

### RegulationNo.6,PartA, SubpartDb 40 C.F.R. Part 60, SubpartDb 71 FR9867 (February27,2006) This actionrevises the existing standards forparticulatematter, nitrogenoxide, and sulfur oxide emissions. This action also addstechnical clarifications and compliancealternatives to the existingrequirements. There are seven sources in Coloradothatmaybeaffected bythis rulemaking. 

### Regulation No.6, PartA, SubpartDc 40 C.F.R. Part60, SubpartDc 70FR74679 (December 16, 2005) This action corrects the definitionof"annual capacity factor" and expandsthe definitionto address steam generating units thatarerentedorleased. AND 

### 40 C.F.R. Part60, SubpartDc 71 FR9867 (February27,2006) This actionrevisesthe existingstandardsfor particulatematter, nitrogenoxide, and sulfur oxide emissions. This action also adds technical clarifications and compliancealternatives to the existingrequirements. There are 78 sources in Coloradothatmaybe affected bythisrulemaking. 

### Regulation No.6,PartA, SubpartAA andAAa 40 C.F.R. Part 60, SubpartAA andAAa 70 FR 8523 (February22, 2005) This action adds alternativerequirements formonitoring emissions from furnace exhausts and makesminoreditorial corrections. There is one sourceinColoradothatmaybe affectedbythis rulemaking. 

### Regulation No, 6, PartA, SubpartGG 40 C.F.R. Part 60, Subpart GG 69FR41346 (July 8,2004) This actioncodifies several alternativetesting andmonitoringproceduresthathaveroutinely been approvedbyEPAandreflectschangesinnitrogenoxides emissioncontrol technologies andturbine design sincethe standardswerepromulgated. AND

### 40 C.F.R. Part 60, Subpart GG 71 FR9453 (February24,2006) This actionestablishes and clarifiescompliancemonitoringoptions, includingclarificationthat continuous emissionmonitors arenotrequiredfor turbines that donot use steam orwater injectionto controlnitrogen oxideemissions. This also includes minorrevisions tobiannual reportingrequirements. There are 28 sourcesinColoradothatmaybe affectedbythisrulemaking. 

### Regulation No.6,PartA, AppendixB 40 C.F.R. Part 60, Appendix B 70FR28605 (May 18, 2005) This action adds anewPerformance Specification l2Afor mercuryemissionmeasurement from coal-fired electric steam generatingunits. This amendmentto 40 CFRPart 60, AppendixB 

### waspromulgatedas onepiece ofabroader rulemakingto address mercuryemissions from coal-firedelectric utility steamgeneratingunits. TheAQCChashistoricallyincorporatedNewSourcePerformance Standardsin40CFRPart 60, suchasthis action, byreferenceintoRegulationNo.6,PartA. Otherportions ofthe federal rulemakingrequirepolicydecisionsto bemadebytheAQCC and, therefore, arebeing presentedto the AQCCin a separaterulemakingpackage. There are 13 sourcesinColoradothat maybeaffectedbythisrulemaking.



### II. IncorporationbyReference ofNew FederalStandardsin 40 C.F.R. Part60 Regulation No.6,PartA, SubpartEEEE 40C.F.R. Part 60, SubpartEEEE 70FR74870 (December 16,2005) This actionpromulgates standardsofperformance fornew othersolidwasteincinerationunits (OSWI). There are noknown sources inColorado affectedbythisrulemaking.



### III. RevisiontoRegulation No.1,SectionIII.B. This action ensures that air curtain destructors that are subject to 40 C.F.R. Part 60, Subparts CCCC and EEEE are not subjected to inconsistent and infeasible state requirements. This proposedchangedoesnotdifferfrom federal requirements. RegulationNo.1 SectionIII.B. currentlyprovides that all incinerators exceptbiomedicalwaste incinerators meet certain particulate matter grain-loading standards. To establish compliance with these standards the regulation provides for performance testing. Under the definition set forth inthe AQCC's Common Provisions Regulation, air curtain destructors that are subjectto a federal NSPS are consideredincinerators. At the time Section III.B was enacted there were no federal NSPS governing air curtain destructors. On December 1, 2000, however, EPA promulgated New Source Performance

### Standards (NSPS) for Commercial and Industrial Solid Waste Incineration Units at 40 C.F.R. Part 60, Subpart CCCe. On December 16, 2005, EPA promulgated NSPS for Other Solid WasteIncinerationUnits at40e.F.R. Part 60, SubpartEEEE (see SectionII. 

### ofthis document). Both standards apply to air curtain destructors meeting limited applicability criteria and establish opacity standards and appropriate performance testing requirements for those units. Neither standard establishes particulatemattergrain-loadingrequirements. As currently worded, Regulation No.1, Section III.B. 

### requires that air curtain destructors subject to Subparts CCCC and EEEE meet the state grain-loading standards and conduct performance testing to demonstrate compliance with these standards. It 

### is not feasible, however, to conduct such performance tests on air curtain destructors due to their lack ofa distinct stack. Therefore, the Divisionrequests that the AQCC revise Section III.B. 

### to exclude air curtain destructors subject to 40 e.F.R. Part 60. This revision would result in the requirement for air curtain destructors subject to a NSPS to meet standards and conduct performancetesting as providedinthe NSPS, whichis more appropriate for those units. This revision would be a change to Colorado's State Implementation Plan. EPA has indicated that it would not consider this change "backsliding" because EPA did not consider air curtain destructors to be "incinerators" at the time Section III.B. 

### was approved into the SIP. EPA has provided·a letter to the Division setting forth this determination prior to the hearing, and the letteris included inthis final hearingpackage.

ATTACHMENTS: 

### 1. MemorandumofNotice 2. Regulation No.6, Part A - Proposed Rule (including the Statement of Basis and Specific StatutoryAuthorityand Purpose) 3. Regulation No. 1 - Proposed Rule (including the Statement ofBasis and Specific Statutory Authorityand Purpose) 4. InitialEconomic Impact Analysis 5. NegativeDeclarationLetter for 40 e.P.R. Part 60, Subpart FPFPSIGNATURES:



### 1.

# ~O-A-~**G~""",",~=-- ~'b_-** **----:...\1-~-O=--..::~_** Preparer

# ~~\S Date

2. 

### Supervisor Date

3.

# Pt~rana~erc

# (.

# T '.,**\."~**

# ,,,,,i ".,\,'tc \. ( ,. Date

# ~!) I

# Itt.

. 

## '1.(.. 

# 1£ I 

# 1.(" 1\.. 

### 4.**---.:.:.....-....:::...:..-..:....l,,-----!b.Lf---I-------!-----!'------'--~~_I,....l..--~..:....-~-.=...-"** 1 

### DivisionDirector Date

## ProposedLanguagefor Regulation No.1 Requestfor Hearing June 15,2006

1&8. Incinerators III.B.2.Standard of Performancefor all incinerators otherthan biomedical waste incinerators AND AIR CURTAIN DESTRUCTORS SUBJECT TO

### 40 CFR 60.

CR29-1473

# STATE OF COLORADO

Bill Owens, Governor Dennis E. Ellis, Executive Director Dedicated to protecting and improving the health and environment of the people of Colorado 4300 Cherry Creek Dr. S. Laboratory SeNices Division Denver, Colorado 80246-1530 8100 Lowry Blvd. Phone (303) 692-2000 Denver, Colorado 80230-6928 TDD Line (303) 691-7700 (303) 692-3090 

### ColoradoDepartment Located in Glendale, Colorado 

### ofPublicHealth http://www.cdphe.state.co.us 

### andEnvironment 

# MEMORANDUMofNOTICE
Date: September21, 2006 

## To: Colorado Air Quality Control Commission 

### Subject: Revisions to RegulationNo.6,PartA and RegulationNo. 1

The Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment, Air Pollution Control Division (Division) requests that the Colorado Air Quality Control Commission (AQCC) revise Regulation No.6, Part A to incorporatebyreference additions and changesthe U.S. Environmental ProtectionAgency (EPA)madeto its New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) in 40 C.F.R. Part 60. The Division requests that the AQCC make acorresponding, clarifyingchangetoRegulationNo.1. 

## What'sin thisPackage? This package includes the language ofthe proposed changes to Regulation Nos. 1 and 6 (including the StatementsofBasis and Specific StatutoryAuthority and Purpose), EPA'snon-backsliding determinationfor theRegulationNo.1 changes, and the NegativeDeclarationLetterfor 40 C.F.R. Part 60, SubpartFFFF. 

## ExplanationoftheProposedRule TheDivisionproposesto incorporatebyreferenceintoRegulationNo.6,PartAthemostrecentpublication of40 C.F.R. Part 60 (July 1,2005) and any amendmentspublishedintheFederalRegisterafterthat date. TheDivisionalso proposesto revise the applicabilityprovisions for incineratorperformancetesting requirementsinRegulationNo.1. 

## MaterialsContainedintheProposedRule Theseproposedrule changes incorporatebyreference federal amendments to existing standards and new federal standards in 40 C.F.R. Part 60 into Regulation No.6, Part A by incorporating by reference the most recent publicationof40 C.F.R. Part 60 (July 1,2005) and any amendments publishedinthe Federal Register after that date.

### INITIAL 

## ECONOMIC IMPACTANALYSIS for AQCCRegulation No.6,PartA StandardsofPerformanceforNew StationarySources and AQCCRegulation No.1 ParticulateMatter, Smoke,CarbonMonoxide and SulfurOxides June 15,2006

I. RequirementsforEIA Section25-7-110.5 (4)(a), c.R.S. sets forththe requirements for initial and final Economic ImpactAnalysis, as statedbelow: "Beforeanypermanentrule is proposedpursuantto this section, aninitialeconomic impact analysis shallbeconductedincompliancewiththis subsection(4) oftheproposed rule oralternativeproposedrules. Sucheconomic impact analysis shall be inwriting, developedbytheproponent, ortheDivisionincooperationwiththeproponent and made availableto thepublic atthetime anyrequest for hearingonaproposedrule is heardbythe commission. Afinal economic impact analysis shallbein writinganddeliveredto the technical secretaryand to allparties ofrecord five workingdayspriorto theprehearing conference. Ifno prehearingconferenceis scheduled, the economic impactanalysis shall besubmittedat leasttenworkingdays beforethedateoftherule-makinghearing. The proponentofanalternativeproposalwillprovide, inconjunctionwiththeDivision, afinal economic impact analysis five workingdays priortotheprehearingconference. The economic impact analyses shallbebaseduponreasonablyavailable data. Except where dataisnotreasonably available, oras otherwiseprovidedinthis section, the failure to provide an economic impact analysis ofanynoticedproposedruleoranyalternative proposedrulewillpreclude suchproposedrule oralternativeproposedrulefrom being consideredbytheCommission. Nothinginthis sectionshallbeconstruedtorestrict the Commission's authorityto consideralternativeproposals and alternative economic impact analysesthathavenotbeensubmittedpriorto theprehearingconferencefor goodcause and so long as partieshave adequatetimeto reviewthem." Further, the statute liststhose situations whenno Economic Impact Analysis is needed. These canbe found inCRS, section25-7-110.5 (2), which states: "Therequirementsofsections (1)

### (c) to (1) (f), 

### (3) (g), and (4) ofthis section shallnot applyto anyrule-makingpacketfor anyCommissionrule, and the requirements of subsections (3) (g) and (4) ofthis sectionshall not applyto anyCommissionrule, which adoptsbyreference applicablefederal rules orwhichrule is adopted to implement prescriptive state statutoryrequirements, where theCommissionis allowedno significant policy-makingoptions, orwhichrule willhave no regulatoryimpacton anyperson, facility, oractivity."

### 2 

### II. Discussion The AirPollutionControl Division ("theDivision")is requesting thatthe Colorado Air Quality ControlCommission(AQCC) set ahearingto considerrevisions to RegulationNos. 1and 6. TheDivisionis proposingto adoptbyreference amendmentsto andnew federal standards in40 CFRPart 60. InDecember2000,theU.S. EnvironmentalProtectionAgency(EPA)promulgated aNew SourcePerformance Standard (NSPS) for Commercial and Industrial SolidWaste Incinerators at 40 CFRPart 60, SubpartCCCC that applies to new aircurtainincineratorsinlimited circumstances. TheAQCC adopted the standardbyreference inFebruary2002. InDecember 2005, the EPApromulgated aNSPS at 40 CFRPart 60, SubpartEEEE for OtherSolid Waste Incineratorsthat also applies to new aircurtainincineratorsinlimited circumstances. Both standards containperformancetestingrequirements for affected aircurtainincinerators. Duringtheprocessofdeveloping arule proposal for theAQCCto adoptthis new standard, the Divisionidentifiedanissueregardingtheperformancetestingrequirements for incineratorsin RegulationNo.1, SectionIH.B. Basedonthe definitionofanincineratorinthe AQCC's CommonProvisionsregulation, aircurtainincinerators subjectto aNSPS in40 CFRPart 60 wouldalsobe subjectto additionalperformancetestingrequirements inRegulationNo.1, SectionIH.B. It

### is not feasible, however, to conduct aperformancetest asrequiredbySection TILB. on an aircurtainincinerator. Retentionofthisrequirementwouldresultin animpossible compliancerequirement for owners andoperators ofaircurtainincinerators subjectto 40 CFR Part60, Subparts CCCCandEEEE. TheDivisionisproposingto reviseRegulationNo.1, Section 1II.B. to specifythatthe performancetestingrequirements inthat sectiondo not applyto aircurtain incinerators subjectto a standardin40 CFRPart 60. Thisproposedrevisionwillmakerequirements for aircurtain incinerators consistentwith federal provisions and will, therefore, have no economic impact beyondthat ofthe federal requirements.

# Parties, EPA andPublic Comments

# StatementofBasis, Specific Statutory Authorityand Purpose

### StatementofBasis, Specific StatutoryAuthority, and Purpose Revision to Regulation No.1 September 21, 2006

THIS STATEMENTOF BASIS, SPECIFIC STATUTORYAUTHORITY AND PURPOSE COMPLIES WITH THEREQUIREMENTS OF THE COLORADOADMINISTRATIVEPROCEDURES ACT, 

### § 24-4­ 103, C.R.S., ANDTHE COLORADOAIRPOLLUTION PREVENTION AND CONTROL ACT, 

### §§ 25-7-110 AND 25-7-110.5, C.R.S ("THE ACT").

SPECIFIC STATUTORYAUTHORITY

THECOLORADOAIRPOLLUTION PREVENTION AND CONTROLACT, SECTION 25-7-109, C.R.S., PROVIDES THE COMMISSION THE AUTHORITYTO ADOPT AND REVISE RULES AND REGULATIONS THAT ARE CONSISTENT WITH STATE POLICY REGARDING AIR POLLUTIONAND WITH FEDERALRECOMMENDATIONS AND REQUIREMENTS.

BASIS AND PURPOSE THEU.S. ENVIRONMENTALPROTECTION AGENCY (EPA) PROMULGATED ANEW SOURCE PERFORMANCE STANDARDFOR COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL SOLID WASTE INCINERATORS (CISWI) AT40 CFR PART 60, SUBPARTCCCC ON DECEMBER 1, 2000. THECOMMISSION INCORPORATED THE NEW STANDARDBY REFERENCE INTO REGULATION No.6, PARTA IN FEBRUARY 2002. ATTHATTIME, THERE WERE NO SOURCES IN COLORADO SUBJECTTO SUBPARTCCCC. IN SEPTEMBER2005 ANEW UNIT SUBJECTTO SUBPARTCCCC COMMENCED CONSTRUCTION, WHICH RAISED AN ISSUE REGARDING PERFORMANCE TESTINGREQUIREMENTS FORTHATUNIT. SUBPARTCCCC OF 40 CFRPART60 APPLIES TOAIR CURTAIN DESTRUCTORS THAT COMBUSTWOOD ORYARD WASTES AT A COMMERCIALOR INDUSTRIALFACILITY. SUBPART CCCC INCLUDES PERFORMANCE TESTING REQUIREMENTS FOR SUCH UNITS. THE COMMISSION'S COMMONPROVISIONS REGULATION DEFINES AIR CURTAIN DESTRUCTORS SUBJECTTO 40 CFRPART60 AS INCINERATORS, WHICH ALSO SUBJECTS THEM TO GRAIN LOADING STANDARDS AND PERFORMANCE TESTING REQUIREMENTS UNDERREGULATION No.1, SECTION III.B. ITIS NOTFEASIBLE, HOWEVER, TO CONDUCTPERFORMANCE TESTING ON AIR CURTAIN DESTRUCTORS FOR GRAIN LOADING EMISSIONS AS SPECIFIED IN SECTION III.B. DUE TO THEIR LACKOF A STACK. IN ORDERTO ENSURE THAT APPROPRIATE AND REASONABLEEMISSION STANDARDS AND PERFORMANCE TESTING REQUIREMENTS ARE APPLIED TO AIR CURTAIN INCINERATORS, THE COMMISSIONHAS ADOPTED REVISIONS TO REGULATIONNo.1, SECTIONIII.B. CLARIFYING THAT AIR CURTAIN INCINERATORS SUBJECTTO 40 CFRPART60 ARE NOT SUBJECTTO SECTION III.B.

# Opinion ofthe AttorneyGeneral

### JOHNW. SUTHERS Attorney General 

### CYNTHIAH. COFFMAN 

## STATEOFCOLORADO DEPARTMENTOFLAW 

### STATE SERVICESBUILDING 1525 Sherman Street

- 5th Floor ChiefDeputy AttorneyGeneral 

### Denver, Colorado 80203 DANIELD. DOMENICO OFFICE OFTHEATTORNEYGENERAL Phone (303) 866-4500 SolicitorGeneral 

### Fax (303) 866-5691

TrackingNumber: 2006-00264

OPINION OFTHEATTORNEYGENERAL RENDEREDIN

CONNECTIONWITHTHERULESADOPTEDBY THE 

### AirQualityControlCommission ON09/21/2006

5 CCR 1001-8 REGULATIONNo.6STANDARDSOFPERFORMANCEFORNEWSTATlONARYSOURCES


### The above-referencedrules were submittedto this office on 09/22/2006 as requiredby section24-4-103, CR.S.This officehasreviewedthem andfinds no apparentconstitutionalorlegal deficiency intheirform or substance.

October 10, 200608:15:23 MST



### JOHN

### W.SUTHERS Attorney General byDANIEL D. DOMENICO SolicitorGeneral

29 AG Nov 1001-8

# Regulation as Publishedin the CCR

## DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENT Air Quality Control Commission REGULATION NO.1 EMISSION CONTROL FOR PARTICULATE MATTER, SMOKE, CARBON MONOXIDE, AND SULFUR OXIDES 5 CCR 1001·3 Regulation No.1 EPAtest methods 1, 2, 3,4, 5, 6, 6a, 6b, 6c, 8 and method 9 (40 CFR 60.275, Appendix A, Part 60) are hereby incorporated by reference by the Air Quality Control Commission and made a part ofthe Colorado Air Quality Control Commission Regulations. Materials incorporated by reference are those in existence as ofthe date ofthis regulation and do not include later amendments. The material incorporated by reference is available for public inspection during regular business hours at the Office ofthe 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 ofthe Commission, located at the Office ofthe commission. Definitions

American Societyfor Testing and Materials

United States Environmental Protection Agency Fugitive Emissions Emissions that cannot be reasonably collected and passed through a stack, chimney, vent or otherequivalent opening.

Grains per dry standard cubic foot Haul Roads Roads which are used for commercial, industrial or governmental hauling of materials and which the general public does not have a right to use. Intermittent Sources Those stationary sources ofair pollution which do not operate on a continuous basis for a period oftime sufficient to allowforopacity observations in accordance with EPA Method 9.Particulate Matter Roadways Roads, otherthan haul roads, used for motorized vehicular traffic. WelfareAs used in these regulations, effects on public welfare include, but are not limited to, effects on soils, water, crops, vegetation, manmade materials, animals, wildlife, weather, visibility, and climate, damage to and deterioration of property, and hazards to transportation, as well as effects on economic values and on personal comfort and well being. REGULATION NO.1 Emission Control Regulations for Particulate Matter, Smoke, Carbon Monoxide, and Sulfur Oxides forthe State of Colorado. I. APPLICABILITY: REFERENCED FEDERAL REGULATIONS LA. The provisions ofthis Regulation NO.1 are applicable to both new and existing sources and without regard to whether a source has been issued an emission permit. Except where specifically made applicable to attainment, attainmenUmaintenance or non-attainment areas, the requirements set forth herein apply statewide. (Areas designated as unclassifiable shall be treated as attainment). The provisions ofthis regulation apply to a source even though it may also be subject to other regulations ofthe commission; and in the event the requirements ofthis regulation conflict or are inconsistent with the requirements ofany other regulation ofthe commission, the more stringent emission limitations shall apply except that a specific emission limitation for a particular source shall take precedence over a general emission limitation which is inconsistent. LB. At several places in this regulation various federal regulations, performance standards, and procedures that have been previously pUblished in the Federal Register and/orthe Code of Federal Regulations have been incorporated by reference. This regulation provides appropriate citations to such materials and incorporates them as they are published. Amendments to such regulations, standards and procedures made afterthe effective date ofthis regulation are not incorporated herein. Copies ofsaid materials may be obtained for a nominal copying fee from the Technical Secretary to the commission at the Air Quality Control Commission office at 4300 Cherry Creek Drive South, B-1, Denver, CO 80246. Copies are also available at the commission office for public inspection at no cost. II. SMOKE AND OPACITY II.A. StationarySources 11.A.1. Except as provided in paragraphs 2 through 6 below, no owner or operator ofa source shall allow or cause the emission into the atmosphere ofany air pollutant that is in excess of20% opacity. This standard is based on 24 consecutive opacity readings taken at 15-second intervals for six minutes. The approved reference test method for visible emissions measurement is EPA Method 9 (40 CFR, Part 60, Appendix A (july, 1992)) in all subsections of Section II. A and B ofthis regulation. II.A.2. Intermittent Sources Except as provided in paragraphs 3 through 6 below, no owner or operator ofan intermittent source shall allow or cause the emission into the atmosphere ofany pollutant that is in excess of 20% opacity. If EPA Method 9 (40 CFR, Part 60, Appendix A (july, 1992)), a continuous

### emissions monitor, or other credible method is used and 24 consecutive opacity readings taken at 15-second intervals cannot be taken because such a source does not operate continuously for six minutes, the readings shall be taken at 15-second intervals during periods ofoperation until 24 readings have been made or for a period ofthirty minutes, whichever is sooner, and the source shall be deemed in violation ifthe average opacity of such readings exceed 20%. 1l.A.3. Pilot Plants and Experimental Operations No owner or operator ofa process unit ofa pilot plant or experimental operation shall emit or cause to be emitted into the atmosphere from any such process unit particulate matterfor a period or periods aggregating more than six minutes in any sixty consecutive minutes which is in excess of30% opacity. Except as otherwise provided in this paragraph this emission standard for pilot plants and experimental operations shall be applicable for a period not to exceed 180-operating days cumulative total from the date operation ofsuch a process unit commences; thereafterthe 20% opacity limitation provided in Section ILA.1 or 2 ofthese regulations shall apply to emissions from such a process unit ofa pilot plant or experimental operation. For the purpose ofthis Section 1I.A3 "Operating Days" shall mean any calendar day during which the process unit is operated and air pollutants are emitted (without regard to the length of period oftime operated or amount of pollutants emitted). For good cause shown, the division may extend the period of relaxed operation beyond 180 operating daysfor the operation of a process unit, but in no event to greater than 365 operating days without the concurrence ofthe commission. ILAA. Fire Building, Cleaning of Fire Boxes, Soot Blowing, Start-up, Process Modification or Adjustment of Control Equipment Except as provided in Sections 1I.A.6, no owner or operator of a source shall allow or cause to be emitted into the atmosphere any air pollutant resulting from the building of a new fire, cleaning offire boxes, soot blowing, start-up, any process modification, or adjustment or occasional cleaning ofcontrol equipment, which is in excess of30% opacityfor a period or periods aggregating more than six minutes in any sixty consecutive minutes. 1l.A.5. Smokeless Flare or Flares for the Combustion ofWaste Gases No owner or operatorofa smokeless flare or otherflare for the combustion ofwaste gases shall allow or cause emissions into the atmosphere of any air pollutant which is in excess of30% opacityfor a period or periods aggregating more than six minutes in any sixty consecutive minutes. ILA.B. Exemptions The requirements ofSection ILA.1 and 2 ofthis regulation shall not applyto the following sources ortypes ofemissions: ILA.B.a. Emissionsfrom fireplaces, fireplace inserts and stoves, provided such devices are burning only clean drywood orwood products and are used for noncommercial or recreational purposes. II.AB.b. Fugitive dust: As used in this Regulation No.1, "fugitive dust" means airborne particulate matter, which is not a direct or proximate result ofman's activities. II.A.B.c. Fugitive particulate emissions: As used in this Regulation No.1, "fugitive particulate emissions" mean fugitive emissions ofparticulate matterthat are the direct or proximate result of man's activities, (e.g., Materials left by man exposed to the wind or lateracted upon by anotherforce as the wind orautomobile traffic,or particulate matter being thrown into the atmosphere by the operation ofa bulldozer.) II.B. Diesel Powered Locomotives II.B.1. Except as provided in paragraph 2 below, no owner or operator shall emit or cause to be emitted into the atmosphere from any diesel-powered locomotive any air pollutant which is in excess of 20% opacity while being operated below 6,000 feet (mean sea level) and 30% opacitywhile being operated above 6,000 feet (mean sea level). II.B.2. Exceptions II.B.2.a. Emissions that exceed the opacity limits of Section II.B.1. as a result of a cold engine start-up, not to exceed thirty consecutive minutes and provided the locomotive is in a stationary position. II.B.2.b. Emissions for nonconsecutive periods ofthree minutes with an aggregate of not more than ten minutes in any consecutive sixty minutes when a locomotive engine is being tested, adjusted, rebuilt, or repaired in the maintenance yards. II.B.2.c. Emissions for periods of up to four minutes when a locomotive is accelerated after standing still. II.B.3. The owner or operator ofany diesel-powered locomotive that has been cited for violation of Section II.B.1. ofthis regulation, but which is not available for compliance inspection shall submit to the division an affidavit attesting to those abatement measures which have been completed and shall state in that affidavit that the vehicles cited have achieved compliance with this regulation. II.C. Open Burning II.C.1. Except as provided in paragraph 2 below, no person shall burn or allow the burning of rubbish, wastepaper, wood or otherflammable material on any open premises, or on any public street, alley, or other land adjacent to such premises, unless an open burning permit is first obtained from the division. In granting or denying such permits the division shall base its decision on the location and proximity ofsuch burning to any building or other structure, the potential contribution ofsuch burning to air pollution in the area, climactic conditions on the day or days of such burning, and compliance by the applicantfor the permit with applicable fire protection and safety requirements ofthe local authority. The division mayconsider: (A) Whetherthere is any practical alternative method for the disposal ofthe material to by burn and (B) Whether burning will be conducted so as to minimize emissions. Methods for minimizing emissions may include, but are not necessarily limited to, the use of permitted incinerators or air curtain destructors, the use of clean auxiliaryfuel, drying the material prior to ignition and separating out for alternative disposal: Rubber, tires, plastic, insulated wire, insulation, and other materials which produce more smoke than clean combustible materials. Sources subject to the open burning provisions in this regulation NO.1 mayalso be subject to state only Regulation NO.9. II.C.1.A.Whether there is any practical alternative method for the disposal ofthe material to be burned. II.C.2. Sources Exempted from obtaining open burning permits II.C.2.a. The non-commercial burning of private household trash in PM attainment areas unless local ordinances or rules prohibit such burning.II.C.2.b. Fires used for non-commercial cooking offood for human beings, for instructional purposes, or recreational purposes. II.C.2.c. Flares used to indicate some danger to the public. II.C.2.d. Agricultural open burning

- The open burning of covervegetation for the purpose ofpreparing the soil for crop production, weed control, and other agricultural cultivation purposes. The open burning ofanimal parts or carcasses is not included in the exemption. Except that, ifthe State Agricultural commission declares a public health emergency or a contagious or infectious disease outbreak that imperilsthe livestock ofthe statethat requires the burning of diseased animal carcasses after providing telephone notice to the division and the relevant local health department office by leaving a voice mail message. All necessary safeguards shall be utilized during such non-permitted open burning to minimize any public health or welfare impacts. In addition, the owner or operator shall take steps to ensure that all surrounding and potentially impacted residents, businesses, schools and churches are notified prior to beginning the open burn. II.C.2.e. Noncommercial burning oftrash in the unincorporated areas ofcounties ofless than 25,000 population according to the latestfederal census provided such open burning is subject to regulations ofthe board ofcounty commissioners for such countyadopted by resolution and such regulations include, among other things, permit provisions and prohibit any such burning that would result in the exceedence of any NMQS. II.C.3. Nothing herein shall be construed as relieving any person conducting open burning from meeting the requirements ofany applicable federal, state or local requirements concerning disposal of waste materials. 11.0. Smoke and Obscurants for MilitaryTraining Exercises Emissions associated with the generation ofsmoke or obscurants on Fort Carson and Pinon Canyon maneuver site (hereafter, referred together as Fort Carson) by United States militaryforces, orallied forces in a combined training exercise with the United States, shall be exempt from the opacity limits specified in Regulation No.1, sections II. and III. provided that all ofthe following conditions are met: 11.0.1. All participants in the training shall follow all applicable Department of Defense training manuals and guidance regarding Department of Defense-approved smokes and obscurants. 11.0.2. No off-property transport ofvisible emissions from any smoke or obscurants used on Fort Carson shall occur. 111.0.3. Smoke or obscurants generation shall cease immediately in the eventthat anysuch visible emissions cross orhas a reasonable probability ofcrossing the installation property boundary. 11.0.4. The commander in charge of anytraining involving smoke orobscurants will ensure the following precautionary measures are implemented. II.D.4.a. When planning and conducting training, prevailing meteorological conditions will be analyzed, both before and on the day of training, to determine ifthey meet established training criteria forthe use of smoke or obscurants and to allow compliance with the requirements of paragraph 3 above. Ifthe meteorological conditions do not meetthose criteria, then smoke or obscurants will not be employed.IIDA.b. Prior to using smoke or obscurants, inspect and validate the training site and the training mission. IIDA.c. Upon initiation ofsmoke orobscurant generation, observe the initial smoke or obscurant plume to verify that it conforms to established training criteria and to allow compliance with the requirements of paragraph 3 above. Ifthe wind direction and speed is notfavorable for the exercise, then the location will be adjusted or the smoke mission will be postponed or canceled. IIDA.d. Post one or more trained smoke observers to provide direct observation ofthe smoke/obscurant plume at all times while smoke or obscurants are used during the training. Smoke observers will remain alert for visible smoke that has a reasonable probability ofdrifting across the installation property boundary, in which case the smoke observer shall have the authority to immediately halt smoke generation operations. The smoke observer(s) must maintain capability for immediate communication with the officer commanding the use ofsmoke or obscurants used in the training exercise. IIDA.e. Units conducting training using smoke or obscurants on Fort Carson must perform necessary checks with Fort Carson range division to assure immediate communication capability, including capability to request or obtain meteorological updates. In the event offailure to maintain such capability, the training exercise will be halted. 11.0.5. In the event visible emissions from smoke or obscurant use drift across the installation property boundary, Fort Carson shall implement necessary response measures to minimize impacts and shall inform the state as soon as possible, but no later than 

### 24 hours or the next business day afterthe event. A written notice shall follow this notification within 48 hours to the state detailing the circumstances ofthe occurrence and stating whether additional measures will be adopted to prevent such visible emissions from drifting across the boundary in the future. II.D.6. Installation commander, Fort Carson, shall be responsible to ensure compliance with this section by all personnel employing smoke or obscurants at Fort Carson. III. PARTICULATE MATTER liLA. Fuel Burning Equipment 1I1.A.1. No owner or operator shall cause or permit to be emitted into the atmosphere from anyfuelburning equipment, particulate matter in the flue gaseswhich exceeds thefollowing: 1I1.A.1.a. O.S Ibs. per 106BTU heat input for fuel burning equipment of less than or equal to 1x106BTU/hrtotal heat input design capacity. 11I.A.1.b. Forfuel burning equipmentwith designed heat inputs greaterthan 1x106BTU per hour, but less than or equal to SOOx106BTU per hour, the following equation will be used to determinethe allowable particulate emission limitation. PE=0.S(FI)-Q26 Where: PE = Particulate Emission in Pounds per million BTU heat input. FI = Fuel Input in Million BTU per hour.III.A.1.c. 0.1 lbs.fer 105 BTU heat inputforfuel burning equipment ofgreaterthan 500x10 BTU per houror more. III.A.1.d. If two (2) or more fuel burning units connect to any opening, the maximum allowable emission rate shall be calculated on a lb/ hour basis as calculated from a weighted average ofthe individual allowable limits for each unit ducting to the common stack. III.A.2. Performance Tests Priorto granting ofa final approval permit oramending a permit, when an emission source or control equipment is altered, or at anytime when there is reason to believe that emission standards are being violated, the division may require the owner or operatorofanyfuel burning equipment to conduct performance tests, as measured by EPA Methods 1-4and the front half of EPA Method 5 (40 CFR 60.275, Appendix A, Part 60), or other credible method approved by the division, to determine compliance with this subsection of this regulation. The particulate emission standards contained in this subsection do not include condensable particulate matter, orthe back halfemissions of EPA Method 5. III.B. Incinerators III.B.1. No owner or operatorofan incinerator shall operate any incineratorwithout a permit from the division. III.B.2. Standard of Performance for all incinerators other than biomedical waste incinerators;C;nd air curtain destructors subjectto 40 CFR

## 60J v III.B.2.a. In areas designated as non-attainment orattainment/maintenance for particulate matter, no owner or operator ofan incinerator shall cause or permit emissions of morethan 0.10 grain of particulate matter per standard cubicfoot. (Dryflue gas corrected to 12 percent carbon dioxide.) III.B.2.b. In areas designated as attainmentfor particulate matter, no owner or operator of an incinerator shall cause or permit emissions ofmore than 0.15 grain of particulate matter per standard cubicfoot. (Dry Flue gas corrected to 12 percent carbon dioxide.) III.B.3. PerformanceTests Prior to granting a final approval permit or amending a permit, when an emission source or control equipment is altered, or at anytime when there is reason to believe that emission standards are being violated, the division may require the owner or operator ofan incineratorto conduct performance test(s) in accordance with 40 CFR 60 Appendix A. III.B.4. Standard of Performance for Biomedical Waste Incinerators. The owner or operator of an existing incinerator used for the disposal of biomedical waste shall complywith Part B, Section V of Regulation NO.6. Standard of Performance For New Biomedical Waste Incinerators as follows: III.B.4.a. All incinerators, existing as ofthe effective date of Part B, Section V of Regulation No.6, with a design rate offour hundred pounds per hour and greater must complywith the requirements ofthis regulation.III.B.4.b. All incinerators, existing as ofthe effective date of Part B, Section V of Regulation No.6, with a design capacity of less than four hundred pounds per hour mustcomply with the requirements ofthis regulation as applicable; except incinerators with a design capacity of less than 200 pounds per hourshall be permitted and allowed to operate only so long as the units continue to meetthe particulate and visible emission standards existing prior to the effective date of Part B, Section V of Regulation No.6, the manufacturer's design specifications and any other applicable safetystandards. (The standards existing prior to the effective date ofthis regulation are: a) For sources existing prior to January 30, 1979: 20% opacity and 0.10 grains per dry standard cubic foot (gr/dscf) of PM for PM non-attainment areas and 0.15 gr/dscfof PM for PM attainment areas; b) 20% opacity and 0.10 gr/dscfof PM for sources constructed afterJanuary 30, 1979.) III.C. Manufacturing Processes III.C.1. Except as provided in paragraphs 2 ofthis subsection C., no owner or operator ofa manufacturing process unit shall cause or permit emission of any particulate matter into the atmosphere during any consecutive sixty minute period which is in excess ofthe following. III.C.1.a. For process equipment having design rates of30 tons per hour or less, the allowable emission rate shall be determined by the use ofthe equation: PE 

### = 3.59(P)062 Where: PE 

### = Particulate Emission in lbs. per hour P 

### = Process weight rate in tons per hour III.C.1.b. For process equipment having design rates ofgreaterthan 30 tons per hour, the allowable emission rate shall be determined by use ofthe equation: PE 

### = 17.31(P)016 Where: PE 

### = Particulate Emission rate in Ibs. per hour P 

### = Process weight rate in tons per hour III.C.1.c. Iftwo or more process units are connected to the same opening, the maximum allowable emission rate shall be computed by summing the allowable emissions for the units being operated. III.C.2. Exceptions Fugitive dust and fugitive particulate emissions as defined in Section II.A.6 ofthis Regulation. III.C.3. Performance Tests Prior to granting of a final approval permit or amending a permit, when an emission source or control equipment 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 ofany manufacturingprocess to conduct performance tests, as measured by EPA Methods 1-4 and the front half of EPA Method 5 (40 CFR 60.275, Appendix A, Part 60), or other credible method approved by the division, to determine compliancewith this subsection ofthis regulation. The particulate emission standards contained in this subsection do not include condensable particulate matter, orthe back halfemissions of EPA Method 5 (40 CFR 60.275, Appendix A, Part 60). 1/1.0. Fugitive Particulate Emissions I11.0.1. General Requirements 1II.D.1.a. Existing Sources III.D.1.a.(i). Every owner oroperatorofa source or activity that is subject to this Section 111.0. shall employ such control measures and operating procedures as are necessaryto minimize fugitive particulate emissions into the atmosphere through the use ofall available practical methods which aretechnologicallyfeasible and economically reasonable and which reduce, prevent and control emissions so as tofacilitate the achievement ofthe maximum practical degree ofair purity in every portion ofthe State. III.D.1.a.(ii). In determining what control methods are available, practical, economically reasonable and technologically feasible, the following factors shall be considered: effects on the health, welfare (as defined in Section I.G. ofthe Common Provisions regUlation), convenience, and comfort ofthe inhabitants ofthe State of Colorado; effects on the enjoymentand use ofthe scenic and natural resources of the State; the impact on normal operating procedures; altitude, topography, climate, and anticipated meteorological conditions (inclUding wind and precipitation); soil conditions; the degree to which a type of emission to be controlled is significant; the continuous, intermittent, or seasonal nature ofthe emission, the economic, environmental, and energy impacts and other costs ofcompliance; the proximity ofthe source or activity to populated areas; and the nature, scope and duration ofthe source or activity. III.D.1.a.(iii). This Section 111.0. shall be enforceable onlythrough the procedures specified below in Section 1II.D.1.b. through 1I1.0.1.e. 1II.D.1.b. New Sources Every owner or operator of a new source oractivity that is subject to this Section 111.0. and which is required to obtain an emission permit under Regulation No.3 shall submit a fugitive particulate emission control plan meeting the requirements ofthis Section 111.0. at such time as, and as part of, the required permit application. Such plan shall be approved or disapproved by the division in the course ofacting to approve or disapprovethe permit application and no emission permit shall be issued until a fugitive particulate emission control plan has been approved. 1II.D.1.c. Emission Limitation Guidelines for Submission ofControl Plan. Ifthe division determines that a source ofactivity which is subjectto this Section 111.0. (whether new or eXisting) is operating with emissions in excess of20% opacity and such source is subjectto the 20% emissionlimitation guideline; or if it determines that the source oractivity which is subjectto this Section 

### 111.0. is operating with visible emissions that are being transported offthe propertyon which the source is located and such source is subject is to the no off property transport emission limitation guideline; or if it determines that any source or activity which is subjectto this Section 

### 111.0. is operating with emissions that create a nuisance; it shall require the owner or operator ofthat source or activity to submit a written plan to the division for the control offugitive particulate emissions within the time period specified in Section 

### 111.0. Provided, however, that in the case ofa source oractivity which already has a control plan, the division shall review said control plan and if it determines the plan does not meet the requirements ofthis Section 

### 111.0., it shall require the submission ofa revised control plan. (As used herein, "nuisance" shall mean the emission offugitive particulates that constitutes a private or public nuisance as defined in common law, the essence of which is that such emissions are unreasonable interfering with another person's use and enjoyment of his property. Such interference must be "substantial" in its nature as measured by a standard that it would be ofdefinite offensiveness, inconvenience, or annoyance to a normal person in the community.) [Cross Reference: Appendices A and B] IIID.1.d. Control Plans IIID.1.d.(i). With respect to operations or activities that have morethan one source offugitive particulate emissions, submissions ofcontrol plans or plan revisions pursuant to Section 

### 111.0. shall be required onlywith respect to those individual sources for which there does not exist a currently approvable control plan and which are not being operated in accordance with the requirements ofthis Section III.D., provided, however, that control plans required by Section III.D:I.bfor newsources and activities shall contain provisions for control offugitive particulate emissions from all significant sources ofsuch emissions. III.D.1.d.(ii). Sources required to submit control plans for revisions to the division shall do so within sixtydays ofthe date such plan or revision is requested; provided, however, that the division, in its discretion, maywhere appropriate establish a differenttime period for submittal, taking into consideration such factors as the duration ofthe operation ofthe source oractivity, the significance and nature ofthe emissions, and the relative complexity ofthe operation and applicable control methods. III.D.1.d.(iii). Each control plan shall include all available practical methods which are technologicallyfeasible and economically reasonable and which reduce, prevent and control fugitive particulate emissions from the source or activity into the atmosphere. For those materials, equipment, services or other resources (such as waterfor abatement and control purposes), which are likely to be scarce at any given time, an alternative control method must be included in the control plan. Any source required to submit a control plan may ask for a "control plan conference" with the division, and ifso requested the division shall hold such a conference for the purpose ofadvising whattypes ofcontrol measures and/or operating procedures will meetthe requirements ofthis section.[Cross Reference: Sections 111.0.2.a. through 1I1.0.2.k.] IIID.1.d.(iv). The division shall approve any plan submitted under this Section 111.0., unless the division determines that the plan does not meetthe requirements of Section 111.0. Ifa control plan is not approvable in its entirety, the division shall approve those portions, which meet the requirements of this section and disapprove those portions, which fail to meetthe requirements ofthis section. 1I1.0.1.e. Enforcement IIID.1.e.(i). It shall be a violation ofthis regulation and the division maytake enforcement action pursuant to C.R.S. 1973.25-7-115, as amended, if the owner or operator: 111.0.1.e.(ii).(A). Fails to submit a control plan (or revision ofan existing plan) within sixty days (or other time period specified by the division) after being notified by the division that such submittal is required unless operation ofsuch source is discontinued so as to permanently eliminate the cause of fugitive particulate emissions there from; or IIID.1.e.(ii).(B). Owns or operates a source or activity for which the division has disapproved a control plan or a revised control plan unless operation of such source is discontinued so as to permanently eliminate the cause of fugitive particulate emissions there from; or IIID.1.e.(ii).(C). Fails to comply with the provisions ofan approved control plan. 111.0.1.e.(iii). The 20% opacity, no off-propertytransport, and nuisance emission limitation guidelines of this Section 111.0. are not enforceable standards and no person shall be cited forviolation thereof pursuantto C.R.S. 1973,25-7-115as amended. 111.0.2. Sources Subject to Section 111.0. The control measures and operating procedures listed in Sections IIID.2.a. through 1I1.0.2.k. are generallyconsidered appropriate for the specifictypes ofsources underwhich they are listed

- at least as applied individually. Whether they remain appropriate when used in combination with other measures and procedures, must be determined on a case-by-case basis. 1I1.0.2.a. Roadways 1I1.0.2.a.(i). Unpaved f11.0.2.a.(i).(A). Applicability

- Attainment and Non-attainmentAreas 1I1.0.2.a.(i).(B). General Requirement Any owner or operator responsible for construction or maintenance of any (existing or new) unpaved roadway which has vehicle traffic exceeding 200 vehicles per day in attainment areas or 150vehicles per day in non-attainment areas (averaged over anyconsecutive 3-day period) from which fugitive particulate emissions will be emitted shall be required to use all available, practical methods which are technologically feasible and economically reasonable in orderto minimize emissionsresulting from the use ofsuch roadway in accordance with the requirements of Section 111.0. ofthis regulation. III.D.2.a.(i).(C). Applicable Emission Limitation Guideline The nuisance emission limitation guideline shall applyto unpaved roadways. Abatement and control plans submitted for unpaved roadways shall be evaluated for compliance with the requirements of Section 111.0. ofthis regulation. III.D.2.a.(i).(D). Control Measures and Operating Procedures Control measures or operations procedures to be employed may include but are not necessarily limited to, watering, chemical stabilization, road carpeting, paving, suggested speed restrictions and other methods or techniques approved by the division. IIID.2.a.(i).(E). Ifthe division receives a complaint that any new or existing unpaved roadway is creating a nuisance, it may require persons owning or operating or maintaining such roadways to supplyvehicle traffic count information by any reasonable available means for the purpose of determining ifthey have sufficient traffic to subject them to the requirements ofthis Section 111.0. III.D.2.a.(ii). Paved III.D.2.a.(ii).(A). Applicability

- Attainment and Non-attainmentAreas III.D.2.a.(ii).(B). General Requirement Any person who through operations or activities repeatedly deposits materialswhich may create fugitive particulate emissions on a public or private paved roadway is required to submit a control and abatement plan upon request bythe division which provides forthe removal ofsuch deposits and appropriate measures to prevent future deposits such that fugitive particulate emissions which may result are minimized; except that sand, salt or other materials may be dropped on snowor ice covered roadways for the purpose ofsafety and such deposits shall not be required to be removed on a morefrequent basis than the community's normal street cleaning schedule except as otherwise provided in an applicable SIP provision. III.D.2.a.(ii).(C). Applicable Emission Limitation Guideline The nuisance emission limitation guideline shall apply to paved roadways. Abatement and control plans submitted for paved roadways shall be evaluated for compliance with the requirements ofsection III.D. ofthis regulation. III.D.2.a.(ii).(D). Control Measures and Operating Procedures Control measures or operational procedures to be employed may include but are not necessarily limited to, covering the loaded haul truck, washing or otherwise treating the exterior ofthe vehicle, limiting the size ofthe load and the vehicle speed, watering ortreating the load withchemical suppressants, keeping the roadway access point free of materials that may be carried onto the roadway, removal of materials from the roadway and other methods or techniques approved bythe division. III.D.2.b. Construction Activities 111.0.2.b.(i). Applicability

- Attainment and Non-attainmentAreas 1I1.0.2.b.(ii). General Requirement Any owner or operator engaged in clearing or leveling of land orowner or operator of land that has been cleared ofgreater than five acres in attainment areas orone (1) acre in non-attainment areas from which fugitive particulate emissions will be emitted shall be required to use all available and practical methods which are technologically feasible and economically reasonable in order to minimize such emissions in accordance with the requirements of Section 111.0. ofthis regulation. 1I1.0.2.b.(iii). Applicable Emission Limitation Guideline Both the 20% opacityand the no off-propertytransport emission limitation guidelines shall apply to construction activities; except that with respect to sources or activities associated with construction for which there are separate requirements setforth in this regulation, the emission limitation guidelines there specified as applicable to such sources and activities shall apply. Abatement and control plans submitted for construction activities shall be evaluatedfor compliance with the requirements of Section 111.0. ofthis regulation. [Cross Reference: Subsections e. and f. of Section 111.0.2. ofthis regulation.] 1I1.0.2.b.(iv). Control Measures and Operating Procedures Control measures or operational proceduresto be employed may include, but are not necessarily limited to, planting vegetation cover, providing synthetic cover, watering, chemical stabilization, furrows, compacting, minimizing disturbed area in the winter, wind breaks and other methods ortechniques approved by the division. 1I1.0.2.c. Storage and Handling ofMaterials 1I1.0.2.c.(i). Applicability

- Attainment and Non-attainmentAreas 1II.D.2.c.(ii). General Requirement Anyowner or operator orany new or existing materials storage and handling operation from which fugitive particulate emissions will be emitted shall be required to use all available practical methods which are technologically feasible and economically reasonable in orderto minimize such emissions in accordance with the requirements ofSection 111.0. ofthis regulation. 1I1.0.2.c.(iii). Applicable Emission Limitation Guideline Both the 20% opacity and the no off-propertytransport emission limitation guidelines shall apply to storage and handling operations. Abatement and controlplans submitted for storage and handling operations shall be evaluated for compliance with the requirements of Section 111.0. ofthis regulation. 1II.D.2.c.(iv). Control Measures And Operating Procedures Control measures or operational procedures to be employed may include, but are not necessarily limited to, the use ofenclosures, covers, stabilization, compacting, watering, limitation offines and other methods ortechniques approved by the division. 111.0.2.d. Mining Activities 1II.D.2.d.(i). Applicability

- Attainment and Non-attainmentAreas 1I1.0.2.d.(ii). General Requirements Any owner or operator ofany new or existing mining operation from which fugitive particulate emissions will be emitted shall be required to use all available practical methods which are technologicallyfeasible and economically reasonable in orderto minimize such emissions in accordance with the requirements of Section 111.0. ofthis regulation. III.0.2.d.(iii). Applicable Emission Limitation Guideline Both the 20% opacity and the no off-property transport emission limitation guidelines shall apply to mining activities' except that with respect to sources or activities associated with mining for which there are separate requirements set forth in this regUlation, the emission limitation guidelines there specified as applicable to such sources and activities shall apply. Abatement and control plans submitted for mining activities shall be evaluated for compliance with the requirements of Section 111.0. ofthis regUlation. 1I1.0.2.(iv). Control Measures and Operating Procedures Control measures or operating procedures to be employed may include, but are not necessarily limited to: 1I1.0.2.d.(iv).(A).watering or chemical stabilization of unpaved roads as often as necessaryto minimize re-entrainment offugitive particulate matterfrom the road surface, or paving of roads; 111.0.2.d.(iv).(B). prompt removal ofcoal, rock minerals, soil, and other dustforming debris from paved roads and scraping and compaction of unpaved roads to stabilize the road surface as often as necessary to minimize re-entrainment offugitive particulate matterfrom the road surface; 1I1.0.2.d.(iv).(C).**restric~ing** the speed ofvehicles in and around the mining operation; 111.0.2.d.(iv).(O).revegetating, mulching, or otherwise stabilizing the surface ofall areas adjoining roads that are a source offugitive particulate emissions; 1I1.0.2.d.(iv).(E).to the extent practicable restricting vehicular travel vehicles to established roads;IIID.2.d.(iv).(F). enclosing, covering, watering, or otherwise treating loaded haul trucks and railroad cars, or limiting size of load, to minimize loss of material to wind and spillage; 111.0.2.d.(iv).(G).substitution ofconveyor systems for haul trucks; 1I1.0.2.d.(iv).(H).minimizing the area ofdisturbed land; IIID.2.d.(iv).(I). prompt revegetation ofdisturbed surface areas; 1I1.0.2.d.(iv).(J). planting of special windbreak vegetation at critical points; IIID.2.d.(iv).(K). restricting the areas to be blasted at anyone time; 11I.0.2.d.(iv).(L). reducing the period oftime between initially disturbing the soil and revegetating or other surface stabilization; 111.0.2.d.(iv).(M).control offugitive particulate emissions from storage piles through use ofenclosures, covers, or stabilization, minimizing the slope ofthe upwind face ofthe pile, confining as much pile activity as possible to the downwind side ofthe pile and other methods or techniques as approved by the division. [Cross Reference: Subsections a., b., c., e., f., g., and Lof Section 111.0.2. ofthis regulation.] III.D.2.e. Haul Roads III.D.2.e.(i). Applicability

- Attainment and Non-attainmentAreas III.D.2.e.(ii). General Requirement Any owner oroperator ofany new orexisting haul road which has vehicle traffic exceeding 40 haul vehicles or200 total vehicles per day (averaged over any consecutive 3-day period) from which fugitive particulate emissions will be emitted shall be required to use all available practical methodswhich are technologicallyfeasible and economically reasonable in orderto minimizesuch emissions in accordance with the requirements ofSection III.D. ofthis regulation. III.D.2.e.(iii). Applicable Emission Limitation Guideline The no off-property transport emission limitation guideline shall apply to on-site haul roads (Le., those located on and abutted by the property owned or under control ofthe owneror operator ofthe haul road) and the nuisance guideline shall apply to off-site haul roads (i.e., those abutted on both sides by property not owned or underthe control ofthe owneroroperator ofthe haul road). Abatement and control plans submitted for haul roads shall be evaluated for compliance with the requirements of Section III.D. ofthis regulation. III.D.2.e.(iv). Control Measures and Operating Procedures Control measures and operational procedures to be employed may include, but are not necessarily limited to, the use ofvehicular speed reduction, watering, chemical stabilization. road carpeting and other methods oftechniques approved by the division.IIID.2.e.(v). The division may require persons owning or operating or maintaining any new or existing haul roads to supply vehicle traffic count information by any reasonable available means for the purpose ofdetermining ifthey have sufficient traffic to subjectthem to the requirements ofthis Section 111.0. III.D.2.f. Haul Trucks IIID.2.f.(i) Applicability

- Attainment and Non-attainmentAreas III.D.2.f.(ii). General Requirement Any owner or operator ofany new or existing haul trucks from which fugitive particulate emissions will be emitted shall be required to use all available practical methodswhich are technologicallyfeasible and economically reasonable in orderto minimize such emissions in accordance with the requirements of Section 111.0. ofthis regulation. III.D.2.f.(iii). Applicable Emission Limitation Guideline The no off-propertytransport emission limitation guideline shall apply to haul trucks; except thatwhen operating offthe property ofthe owneror operator, the applicable guideline shall be no off-vehicle transport ofvisible emissions. Abatement and control plans submitted for haul trucks shall be evaluated for compliance with the requirements of Section 111.0. ofthis regulation. 111.0.2.f.(iv). Control Measures and Operating Procedures Control measures or operation procedures to be employed may include but are not necessarily limited to, covering the materials, washing orotherwise treating loaded haul trucks to remove materials from the exterior ofthe vehicle prior to transporting materials, limiting load size, wetting the load and other methods or techniques approved by the division. [Cross Reference: C.R.S. 1973, Section 42-4-1208] 111.0.2.g. Tailings Piles and Ponds III.D.2.g.(i). Applicability

- Attainment and Non-attainmentAreas III.D.2.g.(ii). General Requirement Any owner or operator ofany newor existing tailings piles and ponds from which fugitive particulate emissions will be emitted shall be required to use all available practical methodswhich are technologicallyfeasible and economically reasonable in orderto minimize such emissions in accordancewith the requirements ofSection III.D. ofthis regulation. III.D.2.g.(iii). Applicable Emission Limitation Guideline Both the 20% opacity and the no off-property transport emission limitation guidelines shall apply to tailings piles and ponds. Abatement and control plans submitted fortailings piles and ponds shall be evaluated forcompliance with the requirements of Section 111.0. ofthis regulation.111.0.2.g.(iv). Control Measures and Operating Procedures Control measures or operational procedures to be employed may include, but are not necessarily limited to: III.D.2.g.(iv).(A).watering and/or chemical stabilization, IIID.2.g.(iv).(B). synthetic and/or revegetative covers, III.D.2.g.(iv).(C). windbreaks, III.D.2.g.(iv).(D) minimizing the area of disturbed tailings, IIID.2.g.(iv).(E). restricting the speed ofvehicles in and around the tailings operation, and/or, III.D.2.g.(iv).(F). other equivalent methods or techniques approved by the division. III.D.2.h. Demolition Activities III.D.2.h.(i). Applicability

- Non-attainmentAreas III.D.2.h.(ii) General Requirements Any owner or operator ofany new demolition activities from which fugitive particulate emissions will be emitted shall be required to use all available practical methods which are technologicallyfeasible and economically reasonable in order to minimize such emissions in accordance with the requirements of Section 111.0. ofthis regulation. III.

### 0 .2.h.(iii). Applicable Emission Limitation Guideline Onlythe no off-property transport emission limitation guideline shall applyto demolition activities. Abatement and control plans submitted for demolition activities shall be evaluated for compliance with the requirements of Section 111.0. ofthis regulation. III.D.2.h.(iv). Control Measures and Operating Procedures Control measures or operational procedures to be employed may include, but are not limited to: III.D.2.h.(iv).(A).wetting down, including pre-watering ofwork surface, 1I/.D.2.h.(iv).(B). removal ofdirt and mud deposited on improved streets and roads, III.D.2.h.(iv).(C).wetting down, washing, or covering haulage equipmentwhen necessaryto minimize fugitive dust emissions during loading and transit. III.D.2.h.(v) Any demolition or renovation activity that has materials insulated or fireproofed with friable asbestos will also be subjectto the provisions ofthe Air Quality Control commission's Regulation No.8, Part B.III.D.2.i. Blasting Activities III.D.2.i.(i). Applicability

- Attainment and Non-attainmentAreas III.D.2.i.(ii). General Requirement Any owner or operator ofany new or existing blasting activities from which fugitive particulate emissions will be emitted shall be required to use all available practical methods which are technicallyfeasible and economically reasonable in orderto minimize such emissions in accordance with the requirements of Section II/D. ofthis regulation. III.D.2.i.(iii). Applicable Emission Limitation Guideline Only the no off-property transport emission limitation guideline shall apply to blasting activities. Abatement and control plans submitted for blasting activities shall be evaluated for compliance with the requirements of Section III.D. ofthis regulation. III.D.2.i.(iv). Control Measures and Operating Procedures Control measures or operational procedures to be employed may include, but are not limited to, the use of: I/I.D.2.i.(iv).(A). the removal ofoverburden prior to blasting, III.D.2.i.(iv).(B). watering down the blasted area as soon as practicable after blasting, IIID.2.j.(iv).(C). other equivalent methods or techniques approved bythe division. III.D.2.j. Sandblasting Operations III.D.2.j.(i). Applicability

- Attainment and Non-attainment Areas III.D.2.j.(ii). General Requirement Anyowner or operatorofany new or eXisting sandblasting activities from which fugitive particulate emissions will be emitted shall be required to use all available practical methods which are technologicallyfeasible and economically reasonable in order to minimize such emissions in accordance with the requirements of Section 111.0. ofthis regulation. 1II.D.2.j.(iii). Applicable Emission Limitation Guideline Only the 20% opacity emission limitation guideline shall apply to sandblasting operations. Abatement and control plans submitted for sandblasting operations shall be evaluated for compliance with the requirements of Section III.D. ofthis regulation. III.D.2.j.(iv). Control Measures and Operating Procedures Control measures and operating procedures to be employed may include, but are not limited to the use ofenclosures with necessary dust collecting equipment,using wet sandblasting methods, and other methods or techniques approved by the division. III.D.2.k. Livestock Confinement Operations III.D.2.k.(i). Applicability

- Attainment and Non-attainment Areas III.D.2.k.(ii). General Requirement Any owner or operator of any new or existing livestock confinement operations from which fugitive particulate emissions will be emitted shall be required to use all available practical methods which are technologicallyfeasible and economically reasonable in orderto minimize such emissions in accordance with the requirements of Section 

### 111.0. ofthis regulation. III.D.2.k.(iii). Applicable Emission Limitation Guideline Only the no off-propertytransport guideline shall apply to livestock confinement operations. Abatement and control plans submitted for livestock confinement operations shall be evaluated for compliance with the requirements of Section 

### 111.0. ofthis regulation. IIID.2.k.(iv). Control Measures and Operating Procedures Control measures or operating procedures to be employed may include, but are not limited to the use ofsprinkler systems and/or other equivalent methods or techniques as approved bythe division. 

### IV. CONTINUOUS EMISSION MONITORING REQUIREMENTS FOR NEW OR EXISTING SOURCES IVA Sources which are required to install, calibrate, certify and maintain continuous emission monitoring (CEM) systems for opacity, and/or sulfur dioxide and/or carbon monoxide (listed in Sections B, C, and 0, ofthis Section IV and in Section VII.) shall have such equipment installed in a location which in accord with sound engineering practice will providefor accurate opacity and/or sulfur dioxide, and/or carbon monoxide emission readings. The averaging times for these monitors shall correspond to the averaging times for the appropriate emission standard. IV.B. Fossil Fuel-fired Steam Generators IV.B.1. A continuous emission monitoring system for the measurement ofopacity shall be installed, calibrated, maintained and operated bythe owner oroperator ofany steam generator ofa total rated capacity of or greaterthan 250 million 

### BTU per hour heat input except where: IV.B.1.a. Gaseous fuel is the onlyfuel burned or, IV.B.1.b. Oil or a mixture ofgas and oil are the onlyfuels burned and the source is able to complywith the applicable particulate matter and opacity regulation without utilization ofparticulate matter collection eqUipment, IV.B.1.c. The source demonstratesthat a continuous monitoring system would not provide accurate determinations ofthe opacity ofemissions (e.g., condensed, uncombined watervapor in the emissions would preventaccurate readings) and an alternative method of determining opacity approved bythe division is employed. IV.B.2. Either a continuous emission monitoring system for the measurement ofsulfur dioxide shall be installed, calibrated, maintained and operated or a division approved sampling plan shall be developed and implemented for determining the amount ofsulfur in the fuel in order to calculate sulfur oxide emissions on anyfossil fuel fired steam generator of a total rated capacity ofor greater than 250 million BTU per hour heat input. IV.B.3. If an owner or operator is required to install a continuous monitoring system for sulfur oxides, a continuous monitoring system for measuring either oxygen or carbon dioxide is also required. IV.C. Sulfuric Acid Plant IV.C 1. The owner or operator ofeach sulfuric acid plant of or greaterthan 300 tons per day production capacity (the production capacity being expressed as 100 percent acid) shall install, calibrate, maintain and operate a continuous emission monitoring system for the measurement of sulfur dioxide for each sulfuric acid producing unit within such plant. IV.D. Fluid Bed Catalytic Cracking Unit at Petroleum Refineries IV.D.1. The owneror operatorofeach catalyst regenerator for fluid bed catalytic cracking units of or greaterthan 20,000 barrels per dayfresh feed capacity shall install, calibrate. maintain and operate a continuous emission monitoring system for the measurement ofopacity. IV.D.2. The owner or operator ofeach fluid bed catalytic cracking unitof 5,000 barrels per dayor greaterfresh feed capacity, located in a carbon monoxide (CO) non-attainment area shall install, calibrate, maintain, and operate a continuous emission monitoring system forthe measurement ofcarbon monoxide. IV.D.3. Exemptions: IVD.3.a. The owneror operator of afluid bed catalytic cracking unit described in IVD.2. may applyto the division for an exemption from continuous emission monitoring requirements listed in subsection IV.D.2. In order for an exemption to be granted, the following requirements must be met: IV.D.3.a.(i). The owner or operator of a source must conduct aflue gas emission test for carbon monoxide concentration. The test protocol must be approved at least 30 days in advance bythe division and emissions during the test must not exceed 250 ppm byvolume on a one hour average; and IVD.3.a.(ii). Source owners or operators must establish a consistent relationship between carbon monoxide flue gas concentration and indicator parameter(s) such as flue gas oxygen content, orflue gas temperature, through a division approved test program; and IVD.3.a.(iii). Source owners or operators must maintain records ofCO indicator parameter(s), as described above, for a period of at least two years which shall be made available for division review upon request.IV.E. Performance Specifications The performance specifications used to determine the acceptability of monitoring equipment installed pursuant to Section IVD.2. shall conform to those referenced in Appendix B of Part 60, Title 40, Code of Federal Regulations, or other specifications approved by the division. IV.F. Calibration of Equipment Owners or operators ofall continuous monitoring systems subject to Section IV. ofthis regulation shall check the zero and span drift ofthe system at least once perday and at such other times as designated by the division, according to procedures approved by the division. The division may also make such determinations in order to assure proper quality assurance. IV.G. Notification and Recordkeeping The owner or operator of a facility required to install, maintain, and calibrate continuous monitoring equipment shall submit to the division within 30 days following the end of each calendar quarter, a report of excess emissions for all pollutants monitored for that quarter. This report shall consist ofthe following information and/or other reporting requirements as specified by the division. IV.G.1. The magnitude of excess emissions computed in accordance with division guidelines, any conversion factor(s) used, and the date and time ofcommencement and completion ofeach time period ofexcess emissions. IV.G.2. The nature and cause ofthe excess emissions, if known. IV.G.3. The date and time identifying each period ofequipment malfunction and the nature ofthe system repairs or adjustments, ifany, made to correct the malfunction. IV.GA. A schedule ofthe calibration and maintenance ofthe continuous monitoring system. IV.G.5. Compliance with the reporting requirements ofthis Section IV.G. shall not relieve the owner or operatorofthe reporting requirements of Section II.E. ofthe Common Provisions Regulation concerning upset conditions and breakdowns. IV.H. A file ofall data collected relating to the preceding two- year period shall be maintained by the owner or operator ofan affected source. Theformat in which the required information is submitted shall be determined by the division. IV.1. The owner or operatorof afacility utilizing fuel sampling as an alternative to continuous emission monitoring shall report fuel analysis data as specified in the sampling plan to the division within 30 days following the end of each calendar half in aformat prescribed by the division. The purpose ofsuch report shall be to disclose emissions that would exceed S02 emission standards. 

### V. EMISSION STANDARDS FOR EXISTING IRON AND STEEL PLANT OPERATIONS VA ElectricArc Furnaces VA1. Visible emissions from the gas-cleaning device orfrom uncaptured emissions escaping the Electric Arc Furnace shop, shall not exceed twenty percent (20%) opacity at any time. The approved reference test method for visible emissions measurement on which these standards are based is EPA Method 9 (40 CFR, Part 60, Appendix A (July, 1992)).V.A.2. Emissions from the gas-cleaning device shall not exceed a mass emission rate of 0.00520 gr/dscf of filterable particulates maximum two-hour average, as measured by EPA Methods 1-4and the front half of Method 5 (40 CFR 60.275, and Appendix A, Part 60), or by othercredible method approved bythe division. This particulate emissions standard does not include condensable emissions, orthe back-half emissions of Method 5. V.B. Sources of particulate emissions at iron and steel plants not subject to specific emission limitations set forth in Section V shall comply with applicable emission limitations setforth elsewhere in this regulation. V.B.1. Smoke Emissions and Opacity Requirements [Cross-reference: Section II, subsections A.1., A.2 and A.6.i and A.6.iii] V.B.2. Particulate Emission Requirements [Cross-reference: Section III, subsection A.1, A.2, C.1 and C.3] V.C. A statement ofthe basis and purposeforthe revisions to this Section adopted March 11, 1982 is hereby incorporated by reference, and a copy ofthe statement is available from the Air Quality Control commission office. 

### VI. SULFUR DIOXIDE EMISSION REGULATIONS VIA Sources constructed or modified priorto August 11, 1977 shall be considered an existing source. All existing sources ofsulfur dioxide emissions, exceptfor sources listed in Section VII, shall comply with the following: VIA1. Averaging time

- Unless otherwise specified in othersections ofthis regulation, the averaging time for all sulfur dioxide emissions standards shall be a three-hour rolling average. VI.A.2. Ifthe sum ofsulfur dioxide emission rates for all sources located on a contiguous site is less than three tons per day potential uncontrolled S02emissions, and if all federal and state ambient air quality standards are met no process based S02 emission standard shall apply. VI.A.3. Existing sources of sulfur dioxide shall not emitsulfur dioxide in excess ofthe following process-specific limitations. (Heat input rates shall be the manufacturer's guaranteed maximum heat input rates). VI.A.3.a. Coal-fired operations including coal-fired steam generation: (These standards are also applicable to the use of coal-based by-productfuels.) VI.A.3.a.(i). Units with a heat inputfrom coal or coal-based by-productfuels of less than 300 million BTU per hour: 1.8 pounds ofsulfur dioxide per million BTU ofheat input. VI.A.3.a.(ii). Units with a heat inputfrom coal or coal-based by-productfuels equal to or greater than 300 million BTU per hour: 1.2 pounds ofsulfur dioxide per million BTU of heat input.VI.A.3.b. Oil-fired Operations Including Oil-Fired Steam Generation VI.A.3.b.(i) Units with a heat input from oil of less than 300 million BTU per hour: 1.5 pounds of sulfur dioxide per million BTU of heating input. VI.A.3.b.(ii). Units with a heat input from oil equal to or greater than 300 million BTU per hour: 0.8 pounds ofsulfur dioxide per million BTU of heating input. VI.A.3.c. Combustion Turbines VI.A.3.c.(i). Combustion Turbines with a heat input of less than 300 million BTU per hour: 1.2 pounds of sulfur dioxide per million BTU of heating input. VI.A.3.c.(ii) Combustion Turbines with a heat input equal to or greaterthan 300 million BTU per hour: 0.8 pounds of sulfur dioxide per million BTU of heating input. VI.A.3.d. Natural Gas Desulfurization Desulfurization Plants emitting more than five tons of sulfur dioxide per day: 2 pounds of sulfur dioxide per 1,000 cubic feet of (actual) delivered gas. VI.A.3.e. Petroleum Refining 0.7 pounds sulfur dioxide for the sum ofall S02 emissions from a given Refinery, per barrel ofoil processed, per day. This emission limit shall be calculated over each 24-hour period that commences at midnight. Ifthe refinery does not operate for the entire 24-hour period, the actual hours of operation shall be used as the averaging time. At no time shall the averaging time be greaterthan 24 hours. Refineries in operation on or before August 1, 1995, which are covered by this regulation, shall submit a plan for division approval no later than February 1, 1996. Sources constructed afterAugust 1, 1995 shall submit a plan for division approval along with construction permit applications. The plan shall define how compliance with this limitation will be demonstrated. This plan shall address both how the S02 value is calculated, Le. mass balance, monitors, and howthe barrels ofoil processed value is derived, taking into account intermediate storage. The division shall not limit the determination ofbarrels processed per dayto a 24-hour period. All data used to show compliance with this emission standard shall be maintained bythe owner or operator ofthe affected source for a period oftwo years for sources that are not subject to the operating permit program, and five years for sources that are subject to the operating permit program. This data shall be available for inspection by the division upon request. VI.A.3.f.Cement ManufactureSeven pounds ofsulfur dioxide per ton of material (including fuel) processed. This emission limit shall be calculated over each 24-hour period that commences at midnight. Ifthe source does not operate for the entire 24-hour period, the actual hours ofoperation shall be used as the averaging time. At no time shall the averaging time be greater than 24 hours. All data used to show compliance with this emission standard shall be maintained by the owner or operator ofthe affected source for a period oftwo years for sources not subject to the operating permit program and five years for sources subject to the operating permit program. This data shall be available for inspection by the division upon request. VI.A.3.g. Sources Not Specifically Listed Above Application ofall available practical methods ofcontrol, which are technologically feasible and economically reasonable. This is to be determined by the division. VI.AA. Recordkeeping and Reporting

- All sources that have record keeping and reporting requirements shall comply with Sections IV.G. and IV.I ofthis regulation. VIA5. Data Retention

- All sources that have recordkeeping and reporting requirements shall retain emission data for the preceding two-year period as referenced in Section IV.H. of this regulation orfor a longer period if required under other applicable regulations. VI.B. All new sources ofsulfur dioxide emissions shall comply with emission limitations as specifically provided by this subsection B. VI.B.1. For purposes ofthis Section VI.B. a new source is defined as a newly constructed or modified source ofsulfur dioxide emissions that has not been issued an Emission Permit (in accord with Regulation NO.3 ofthis commission) prior to the August 11, 1977 effective date ofthis amended regulation. VI.B.2. The averaging time for all new source emissions standardsfor sulfur dioxide shall be three hours. and any three-hour rolling average ofemission rates which exceeds these standards is a violation ofthis regulation. VI.B.3. The term "modification" is as defined in the Common Provisions Regulation, Section I.G. exceptthat any source of sulfur dioxide subject to an emission standard which measures the sum ofall sulfur dioxide emissionsfrom a given facility shall not be considered "modified" forthe purposes ofthis regulation unless the alteration may cause an increase in the sum ofall sulfur dioxide emissions from such facility. VI.BA. New sources ofsulfurdioxide shall not emitor cause to be emitted sulfur dioxide in excess ofthefollowing process-specific limitations (Heat input rates shall be the manufacturer's guaranteed maximum heat input rates.) VI.BA.a. All Coal-Fired Operations, Including Coal-Fired Steam Generators VI.BA.a.(i). Units converted from otherfuels to coal: 1.2 Ibs. S02/million BTU ofcoal heat input. VI.BA.a.(ii). Units with a coal heat input of less than 250 million BTU per hour:1.2 Ibs. S02/million BTU coal heat input. VI.BA.a.(iii). Units with a coal heat input of250 million BTU per hour or greater: OA Ibs. S02/million BTU coal heat input. VI.BA.b. All Oil-fired Operations, Including Oil-Fired Steam Generation. VI.B.4.b.(i). Units with an oil heat input of less than 250 million BTU per hour: 0.8 pounds ofsulfur dioxide per million BTU ofoil heat input. VI.BA.b.(ii). Units with an oil heat input of250 million BTU per hour or greater: 0.3 Ibs. S02/million BTU ofoil heat input. VI.B.4.c. Combustion Turbines VI.BA.c.(i). Combustion Turbines with a heat input of less than 250 million BTU per hour: 0.8 pounds ofsulfur dioxide per million BTU of heat input. VI.B.4.c.(ii). Combustion Turbines with heat input of250 million BTU per hour or greater: 0.35 Ibs. S02/million BTU of heat input. IV.BA.d. Natural Gas Desulfurization (As employed in this section, the term "delivered" means (a quantity ofgas) delivered to the transmission pipeline). VI.B.4.d.(i). Desulfurization Plants emitting less than three tons per dayof S02: 2.0 lbs. S02/1000 cubic feet of (actual) delivered natural gas. VI.B.4.d.(ii). Sources emitting three or more tons per day ofS02: 0.8 Ibs. S02/1000 cubic feet of (actual) delivered natural gas. VI.B.4.e. Petroleum Refining 0.3 Ibs. sulfur dioxide, for the sum of all S02 emissions from a given refinery per barrel of oil processed. (Averaged over a daily24-hour period, I.E. Midnight through 23:59.) VI.B.4.f. Production ofOil from Shale Production ofoil from shale shall be subject to the emission limitations provided in Colorado Air Quality Control commission Regulation No.6, SUbpart B (Nonfederal New Source Performance Standards (NSPS), Section IV.C.3.)VI.B.4.g. Refining ofOil Produced from Shale VI.B.4.g.(i). Refineries processing less than 1,000 barrels per day: No process emission standard. VI.BA.g.(ii). Refineries processing 1,000 or more barrels per day: 0.3 Ibs. sulfur dioxide, for the sum ofall Sulfur dioxide emissions from a given refinery, per barrel ofoil processed. VI.BA.h. Sulfuric Acid Production 4.0 Ibs. sulfur dioxide/ton of acid produced and 0.15 Ibs. H2S04 mist/ton ofacid produced. VI.B.5. Any new source of sulfur dioxide not specifically regulated above shall: VI.B.5.a. Limit emissions to not more than two (2) tons per day ofsulfur dioxide, or VI.B.5.b. Utilize best available control technology as determined by the division subjectto review by the commission. VI.B.6. Recordkeeping and Reporting

- All sources that have recordkeeping and reporting requirements shall complywith Sections IV.G. and IV.I ofthis regulation. V.I.B.7. Data Retention

- All sources that have recordkeeping and reporting requirements shall retain emission data for the preceding two-year period as referenced in Section IV.H. of this regulation or for a longer period if required under other applicable regulations. V.1.B.8.Awritten statement ofthe basis and purpose ofthis new source emission control regulation, which includes a detailed analytical evaluation ofthe scientific and technical rationalejustifying this regulation has been prepared and adopted by the commission on August 11, 1977. This written statement entitled, "Rationale for the Promulgation ofa New Source Emission Control Regulation and AmbientAir Quality Standards for Sulfur Dioxide", is hereby incorporated in this regulation by reference, in accord with C.R.S. 1973,24-4-103 as amended. 

### VI.C. Fuel Sampling The division mustapprove all fuel sampling plans. The appropriate ASTM test methods or other equivalent method approved by the division shall be used for all fuel sampling plans. 

### VI.D. Performance Tests Priorto granting of a final approval permit or amending a permit, when an emission source or control equipment is altered, or at anytime when there is reason to believethat emission standards are being violated, the division may require the owner or operator ofanyfacility subject to the emission standards under Section VI to conduct performance tests, as measured by EPA Methods 1-4 Methods 6, 6a, 6b, 6cand Method 8 (40 CFR 60.275, Appendix A, Part 60), or any other method which the divisionfinds appropriate to determine compliance with this subsection of this regulation. VI.D.1. The owner or operator ofan existing source ofsulfur dioxide shall, upon request of the division, conduct performance test(s) and furnish the division a written report of the results ofsuch performancetest(s) to determine compliance with this regulation.VI.D.2. Performance test(s) shall be conducted and data reduced and recorded in accordance with the test methods and procedures specified above unless the division: VID.2.a. Approves the use ofan alternative method the results ofwhich the division has determined to be adequate for indicating whether a specific source is in compliance, or VID.2.b. Waives the requirementfor performance test(s) because the owner or operator of a source has demonstrated by other means to the division's satisfaction that the affected facility is in compliance with the standard. Nothing in this paragraph C. shall be construed to abrogate the commission's or division's authority to require testing under Article 7ofTitle 25, Colorado Revised Statute 1973, and regulations ofthe commission promulgated there under. VID.3. The owner oroperator of an affected facility shall provide the division thirty days prior notice ofthe performance test to afford the division the opportunity to have an observer present. VI.E. Related Compounds Containing Sulfur in Oxidized States: VI.E.1. Forthe purposes ofthis regulation, all oxidized forms ofsulfur (including, but not restricted to sulfur trioxide (S03), trionyl chloride (SOCI 2), and sulfuric acid mist (H 2S04)) shall be considered as sulfurdioxide. VI.E.2. Quantities ofsuch oxidized sulfur compounds shall be converted on a molar basis to an equivalent quantity of sulfur dioxide. The total of all such quantities, (expressed in parts per million byvolume sulfur-dioxide-equivalents ofotheroxidized forms) shall be interpreted as "parts per million by volume sulfurdioxide" as used in Section B. above. VI.F. Alternative Compliance Procedures VI.F.1. Any person may apply to the division Directorfor approval of an alternative: VI.F.1.a. Test method, VI.F.1.b. Method ofcontrol, VI.F.1.c. Compliance period, VI.F.1.d. Emission limit, or VI.F.1.e. Monitoring schedule. VI.F.2. The application shall include a demonstration that the proposed alternative produces: VI.F.1.a. An equal or greaterair quality benefit than that required in this subsection VI, or VI.F.2.b. The alternative test method is equivalent to that required bythese regulations. VI.F.3. The division Director shall obtain concurrence from EPA prior to approving an alternative. VII. EMISSION REGULATIONS FOR CERTAIN ELECTRIC GENERATING STATIONS OWNED AND OPERATED BY THE PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF COLORADOVI/A The electric generating stations owned and operated by the Public Service Company of Colorado listed below shall not emit or cause to be emitted nitrogen oxides (NOx) or sulfur dioxide (S02) in excess ofthe following limits. The emission rates for NOxand S02 are measured in terms of pounds of pollutant per million British Thermal Units offuel fired in the unit (lb/mmBTU). VIIA1. Cherokee Electric Generating Station, 6198 North Franklin Street, Denver, CO VI/A1.a. NOx and S02limits:

NOx (lb/mmBTU) S02 (lb/mmBTU) Unit 1



## - 1.1 Unit 2



## - 1 .1 Unit 3 0.60 1.1 Unit 4 0.45 1.1 The NOx limitwill be calculated based on a 30-day rolling average, and is effective November 1,1994. The S02 limitwill be calculated as a three-hour rolling average, and is effective November 1, 1994. Public Service Company of Colorado shall install, certify and operate continuous emission monitoring equipment in accordance with 40 CFR Part 60.13, for measuring opacity, S02, NOx, and either O2or CO2on Units 1, 2, 3 and 4. VI/Ab. Effective January 1,2005, the NOx limit for Unit 1shall be 0.60 Ib/mm BTU, provided EPA approves the designation ofthe Denver area as a PM-10 attainmenUmaintenance area. Such limit shall be calculated based on a 30-day rolling average. VII.A.c. Upon EPA approval ofthe designation ofthe Denverarea as a PM-10 attainmenUmaintenance area, the S02 emission rate from units 1 and 4 shall not exceed 0.88 Ib/mm BTU, calculated separately for each unit, based on a 30-day rolling average. Such emission limit shall apply seasonallyfrom November 1 through March 1. The additional S02 limit set out in this subsection VIIA1.c. shall not apply unless EPA repeals the incorporation ofS02 permit limits into the SIP at 40 CFR 52.320(c)(82)(i)(E). VII.A.2. Arapahoe Electric Generating Station, 2601 South Platte River Drive, Denver, CO VI/A2.a. Nox and S02 limits:

NOx (lb/mmBTU) S02 (lb/mmBTU)NOx (lb/mmBTU) S02 (lb/mmBTU) Unit 1



## - 1.1 Unit 2

- 1 .1 Unit 3

- 1.1 Unit 4 0.60 1.1 +20% annual tonnage reduction The NOx limit will be calculated based on a 30-day rolling average, and is effective November 1, 1994. The S02 limit will be calculated as a three-hour rolling average, and is effective January 1, 1995. The 20% S02limitfrom Unit 4 shall be calculated on a calendar year, total annual tonnage basis.

- Public Service Company ofColorado shall install, certify and operate continuous emission monitoring equipment in accordance with 40 CFR Part 60.13, for measuring opacity, S02, NOx, and either O2or CO2on Units 1, 2, 3 and 4. VII.A.2.b. Upon EPA approval ofthe designation ofthe Denver area as a PM-10 attainment/maintenance area, the S02 emission rate from unit 4 shall not exceed 0.88 Ib/mm BTU, calculated on a 30-day rolling average. Such emission limit shall apply seasonallyfrom November 1through March 1. VII.A.2.c. Retirement ofunits 1 and 2 VII.A.2.c.(i). Units 1and 2 shall be permanently retired byJanuary 1, 2003. This section VII.A.2.c. shall become effective upon EPAapproval ofthe designation ofthe Denver area as a PM-10 attainment/maintenance area. VII.A.2.(ii). This section VII.A.2.c shall not be construed to prevent the construction or operation ofa new source on the site ofsuch units, provided anysuch new source complies with all laws and regulations applicable to new sources. VII.A.3. Valmont Electric Generating Station, 1800 North 63rd Street, Boulder, CO

NOx (lb/mmBTU) S02 (lb/mmBTU) Unit 5 0.45 1 .1 The NOx limitwill be calculated based on a 30-day rolling average, and is effective November 1, 1994. The S02 limitwill be calculated as a three-hour rolling average, and is effective November 1, 1994.Public Service Company of Colorado shall install, certify and operate continuous emission monitoring equipment in accordance with 40 CFR Part 60.13, for measuring opacity, S02, NOx, and either O2or CO2on Unit 5. VIII. RESTRICTIONS ON THE USE OF OIL AS A BACKUP FUEL VillA Applicability The provisions ofthis section are applicable to all points at the following stationary sources in the Denver PM10 Attainment/Maintenance area that use oil as a backup fuel for natural gas, which is the primary process fuel: VIII.A.1.Public Service Company ofColorado, Zuni Electric Generating Station; VIII.A.2.Public Service Company of Colorado, Valmont Electric Generating Station; VIII.A.3. Public Service Company ofColorado, Delgany Steam Generating Station; VIII.A.4.UniversityofColorado Health Science Center (Fitzsimmons); and VIIIA5.Trigen-Colorado Energy, Golden, CO. VIILB. Requirements Beginning November 1, 1993, natural gas shall be the onlyfuel used from November 1to March 1of each year, except underthe following circumstances: VIII.B.1.The supplier or transporter ofnatural gas imposes a curtailment or an interruption of service; VIII.B.2.For necessarytesting ofequipment used to operate the unit on oil, testing offuel and training of personnel; or VIII.B.3.When an equipment malfunction atthe facility makes it impossible or unsafefor the unit to operate on natural gas. VIILC. Recordkeeping Each stationary source subject to these provisions shall maintain records for a period oftwo years, which include the following information: VIII.C.1.dates and number of hour's fuel oil are burned; VIII.C.2. percent sulfur analysis ofthe fuel oil that is burned; VIII.C.3. number ofgallons burned each day; and VIII.CA. reason(s) for the use ofthe fuel oil. VIII.D. Reporting Beginning April 1, 1994 and byApril 1of each year thereafter, each stationary source subject to these provisions shall submitto the division a report containing the information listed in Section VIII.C. VilLE. Alternate Recordkeeping and ReportingWhere the information required under subsections C and D above is otherwise made available to the division, for example in Air Pollution Emission Notice (APEN) reports submitted by the source or pursuant to operating permit requirements or analogous information is maintained by the source in a credible form approved by the division, the requirements ofsubsections C and D ofthis Section VIII are satisfied. IX. EMISSION REGULATIONS CONCERNING AREAS WHICH ARE NONATTAINMENT OR ATTAINMENT/MAINTENANCE FOR CARBON MONOXIDE

- REFINERY FLUID BED CATALYTIC CRACKING UNITS: No later than nine months after the effective date ofthis revision (January 30, 1987) no source which has emitted 1,000 or more tons ofcarbon monoxide during any 12 month period, nor any sourcewhich can reasonably be expected to emit 1,000 or more tons ofcarbon monoxide during any future 12-month period, shall emit any gas in which carbon monoxide constitutes 0.050% (500 ppm) or more ofthe volume ofthe gas, based on a one hour average. X. STATEMENTS OF BASIS AND PURPOSE Sections Ithrough IV and minor revisions to Section VI (Adopted April 8, 1982) Regulation NO.1 sets forth emission limitations, equipment requirements, and work practices (abatement and control measures) intended to control the emissions of particulates, smokes and sulfur oxides from new and existing stationary sources. Control measures specified in this regulation are designed to limit emissions into the atmosphere and thereby minimize the ambient concentrations of particulates and sulfur oxides. The regulation is primarily aimed at control of particulates of 1O-micron size and smaller (i.e. "inhalable" particles). However, in recognition ofthe fact that larger particles

- especially which may settle on roads, be ground into smaller sizes and later reintroduced into the atmosphere

- larger size particles have also been controlled where control seemed appropriate. Section 11.A.1

- Smoke and Opacity. The previous opacity regulations have made any exceedence of20% opacity a violation. To conform to the method ofopacity measurement used by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the commission has switched to the 6-minute averaging method of measuring opacity contained in EPA Method 9 (40 CFR, Part 60, Appendix A (July, 1992)). The testimony presented by division representatives indicated investigators in the field have in effect been averaging opacity. The commission encourages the division to continue its practice ofallowing non-agency personnel to attend smoke school and receive certification. Section 1l.A.2

- Intermittent Sources. The switch in methods ofmeasuring opacity (see comments on Section 1I.A.1 above) made it necessary to devise a modified method to measure opacity from those sources, which do not operate continuously for at least six minutes. EPA Method 9 (40 CFR, Part 60, AppendixA (July, 1992))was amended to accommodate this situation. Section ll.A.3

- Pilot Plants and Experimental Operations. The previous regulation excerpted pilot plants and experimental operations from its 20% opacity standard to the extent ofallowing emissions ofup to 40% opacity for no more than 3 minutes in any60-minute period (see previous Section 11.A.2.b.). Because ofthe switch in methods of measuring opacity (i.e., now averaging for six minutes) this exception has been changed to now allow up to 30% opacity (as measured by EPA Method 9 (40 CFR, Part 60, Appendix A (July, 1992))for no more than 6 minutes in any 60­ minute period. This revised exception represents an equivalent relaxation. This relaxed opacity limitation applied only for 180 operating days, after which the 20% opacity limitation of Sections 11.A.1 and 2 againapplied. The regulation, however, provides that the division may extend the maximum 180 -day period on good cause shown. For clarification, the phase "operating day" has now been defined and the exception made applicable to "process units" of a pilot plant orexperimental operation to more accurately reflect the commission's intent. Section IIA4

- Fire Building, Cleaning of Fire Boxes, Soot Blowing, Start-Up, Process Malfunction or Adjustments ofControl Equipment. On the same rationale that the limited exception for pilot plants was amended (see comments on IIA3. above), the limited exceptions for these sources has also been changed from up to three minutes in a 60­ minute period at no more than 40% opacityto up to six minutes at 30% opacity (averaged). Section IIA5

- Smokeless Flares. Smokeless flares were not previously exempted in any wayfrom the 20% opacity standard. The commission has now allowed a limited exception of up to six minutes in a 60-minute period at 30% opacity (averaged) to reduce the burden of upset reporting on operations ofsmokeless flares. Section 11.A.6.

- Alfalfa Dehydrating Plants. This section remains the same as the previous Regulation NO.1 and requires compliance with 20% opacity by January 1, 1985. Section IIA7

- Wigwam Burners. House Bill 1366 (1977) added Section 25-7-108(3)(e) to the Air Pollution Control Act of 1970. It provided: "that the provisions ofany commission Regulation concerning Wigwam Burners shall not apply prior to July 1, 1982, to anysuch burner located within seventy-five air miles of the border of any state bordering on Colorado ifthe regulations concerning wigwam wood waste burners ofthe bordering state are less stringent that those ofthe commission. Said exemption shall not applyto wigwam wood waste burners located within a twenty mile radius ofanycity, town, or municipality having a population of fifty thousand persons as determined by the 1970 Federal Census." House Bill 1109 (1979) repealed the Air Pollution Control Act of 1970 including Section 25-7-108(3)(e). The Colorado Air Quality Control Act established by House Bill 1109did not contain the above quoted exemption in the new Section 25-7-109(3)(e) which gavethe authority to adopt emission regulations for Wigwam wood waste burners to the commission. The commission has therefore promulgated emission standards for newand existing wigwam burners in this Regulation NO.1. Newwigwam burners are subject to 20% opacity at all times. Effective January 1, 1983, existing wigwam burners are subjectto a 40% opacity ceiling (i.e., no emissions in excess of40% are allowed) exceptfor 1 hour ofstart-up (ignition of a newfire after a period ofnon-operation). Additionally, existing wigwam burners must submit a plan to control their emission by the same date. As was provided for in HB 1090 and HB 1109 (1979), the regulation recognizes exemption from state regulation for certain wigwam wood waste burners subjectto county regulation. Section IIA8.

- Exemptions. As with the previous regulation, certain sources have been exempted from the opacity limitations in Sections 11.A.1. and 11.A.2. In some instances the exemptions are based on a determination that control of opacity is not economically reasonable ortechnically feasible (e.g., "fugitive dust" and noncommercial fireplaces burning clean wood); in others because the sources are subject to more appropriate emission limitations elsewhere in the regulation (e.g., iron and steel plants and "fugitive particulate emissions") the commission realizes that woodburning in fireplaces, fireplace inserts and stoves may cause severe air pollution problems and has appointed a committee to evaluate the problems and plans, if necessary, to recommend changes to the regulation regarding smoke sources when adequate data is developed. Definitions of"Fugitive Dust" and "Fugitive Particulate Emissions."In connection with its decisions on exemptions from Section 11.A.1. and 11.A.2. and for the purposes of Regulation NO.1 only, the commission has developed new definitions for "fugitive dust" (which is not subject to regulation) and "fugitive particulate emissions" (subject to the provisions ofSection 111.0.) to help distinguish between fugitive particulate pollution subjected to and exempted from regulation. Section 11.8.

- Diesel Powered Locomotives. This section has provisions for Diesel Powered Locomotives only and they are the same as the previous Regulation NO.1. Provisions for other motorvehicles have been deleted primarily because ofthe amendment ofC.RS. 1973, Section 18-13-110 in 1979. The previous restrictions on emissions from offhighway heavy duty diesel-powered vehicles was not carried forward to the current regulation because it was felt no significant reduction in emissions could be achieved in lightofthe exemption for such vehicles for nonconsecutive periods of 15 seconds (see former Section I.B.3.c-2). Section II.C.

- Open Burning. This section was reorganized by the commission and contains few substantive changes. The exemption for burning in municipalities with less than 3,500 population has been replaced with an exemption created by HB1090 (1979) for the unincorporated areas of counties with less than 25,000 population where the Board of County commissioners has adopted regulations to control open burning. As was provided for in HB 1090 (1978), the regulation recognizes a limited exemption from state regulation for certain burning subject to county regulation. Section IliA

- Fuel Burning Equipment. This section has been reorganized and contains the same provisions as the previous Regulation NO.1 except that the periormance test method has been changed from the American Society of Mechanical Engineer's Power Test Codes-PTC-27 dated 1957 entitled "Determining Dust Concentrations in A Gas Stream" to EPA Methods 1-4 and the front half of EPA Method 5 (40 C.F.R 60.275, AppendixA. part 60). The change in test methodswas made because of division testimony that the latter method is the more widely used and recognized test procedure. Sources subjectto Section V (iron and steel plants) ofthis RegUlation NO.1 are exemptfrom this section. Section III.B. -Incinerators. This section was changed onlywith respectto the periormance test method. The new methods to be used are EPA Methods 1-4 and the front half of EPA Method 5 (C.F.R 60.275, Appendix A, Part 60). The change in test methods was made because of division testimony that the latter method is the more widely used and recognized test procedure. Section III.C.

- Manufacturing Processes. This section is a reorganization ofthe previous Regulation NO.1 and also contains provisions for existing alfalfa dehydration plants (alsofound in Air Quality Control commission Regulation No.5). Specific exemptions for Section V and forfugitive particulate emissions have been included in this section. Section 111.0.1

- (Fugitive Particulate Emissions) General Requirements. In its 1981 opinion 

### in CF&I Steel Corporation v. ColoradoAir Pollution Control commission (Case No. 77­ 804), the Colorado Court ofAppeals expressed reservations about appropriateness of applying an opacity test to non-point sources, stating it saw "a significant numberor problems" attributable to the fact the testwas developed for application to stack or point sources. Although the court's reservations were expressed in dicta and the commission hasfound that the opacity test can be applied to area sources (and the State Supreme Court has agreed to review the Court ofAppeals decision), the commission nonetheless realizes that opacity readings may be made on point sources more readily than on certain"area sources" Accordingly, the new regulation has shifted the use ofopacity (and off property transport) observations from an enforceable standard for area sources to a guideline in determining when the adequacy of applied control methods should be reviewed. The "general requirements" provisions of Section 

### 111.0. explain when control plans (or revisions to existing control plans) must be submitted and set forth the criteria for approvability of such plans. Under this new approach, enforcement action under C.R.S. 1973,25-7-115will be taken only when an owner or operator (a) fails to comply with the approved emission control plan for its source, (b) the source fails to submit a plan within the time prescribed for submittal, or (c) continues to operate after a control plan (or portion thereof) has been disapproved. A source will not, however, be deemed in violation if operation ofsuch source is discontinued so as to permanently eliminate the cause offugitive particulate emissions there from. Pursuant to C.R.S. 1973, 25-7-114(f) and 25-7-115(5), if a newsource is denied a permit forfailure to provide an adequate control plan or an existing source cited for operation in violation ofthe regulation, the owner/operator is afforded the opportunity to contest the division's action before the Air Quality Hearings Board. The lists of control and abatement measures contained in the regulation represent measures that are generally considered to be available, practical, economically reasonable and technically feasible. This determination is based on several factors, including the division's observation that the same measures contained in the previous version ofthe regUlation generallywere both effective in controlling emissions of particulates and sulfur oxides and affordable. With few exceptions, (e.g., road carpeting), no new measures have been added to the list of suggested control and abatement measures beyond those which were listed in Section 

### 2.0.9. ofthe previous Regulation NO.1. To the extent cost data could be obtained from affected sources 1

, or by the commission, or its staff, a cost-benefit analysis was done for controls offugitive particulate emissions on the basis ofdollar cost of control per ton of emissions reduced. The commission also considered, but did not quantify in dollars, other benefits to public health and welfare from controlling fugitive particulates such as aesthetics (e.g., elimination ofvisible plumeswhich obstructviews), elimination of"nuisance" conditions which frequently result in citizen complaints (e.g., dustfrom feedlots, construction activities and roadways), and possible adverse effects on certain industries

- such as ski and tourist industries which benefit from clean air. The regulation requires employmentof**"~** available practical methods that are technologicallyfeasible and economically reasonable." This requirement does not necessarily mean a source must employ all control measures and practices listed. For example, it obviously would not be economically reasonable to employ paving, road carpeting, dust suppressants and watering to control fugitive particulate emissions from unpaved roadways. Although the commission has determined that the control and abatement measures listed in the regulation are generally economically reasonable for the types ofsources to which they apply, it is recognized that in particular instances some ofthe listed measures are ineffective, redundant or otherwise inappropriate. On the other hand, there may be control measures or practices not listed in the regulation for a type ofsource which are available, practical, technologicallyfeasible and By Order ofAugust 7,1981, the commission ordered its staffand the parties to the rulemaking proceeding to conduct an "informal discovery process" for the purpose, among others, ofsecuring information on the cost to owners and operators offugitive particulate emission sources of implementing the various control and abatement measures specified in the regulation. Discovery was to proceed in two phases ofwritten inquiries and responses. The results ofthe process were disappointing. Some ofthe parties fully cooperated and submitted requested cost data including adequate information to substantiate the claimed costs. Despite receipt ofwritten inquiries from commission staff, requests made to parties during the hearings for additional information, and the commission's follow-up letters to parties (dated November 6 and December 10, 1981) again requesting submittal of requested data; several parties failed to respond, others submitted unsubstantiated cost data, and others only partially responded. The commission therefore, proceeded on the assumption that control and abatement measures that have been successfully employed in the past, continue to represent available, practical, economically reasonable and technologicallyfeasible methods ofcontrol unless substantive evidence to the contrary was received. The regulation therefore requires submission and evaluation ofemission control plans on a source-bysource basis to allow the division to evaluate the plan for each source in light of its particularcircumstances. At such time, the owner or operator and the division may determine that some ofthe listed measures are not appropriate as applied to a particular source or that others not listed are. This approach of a separate control plan for each source allows maximum flexibility in developing an enforceable control plan which represents an appropriate approach to control

- in some instances more, in other instances less stringentthan the listed controls. As control technology advances and other relevant circumstances change, it is expected that control methods meeting the requirements of Section 

### 111.0. will also change and that control plans previously approvable may have to be amended. Sections III.D.1.c. and d. (Amended October 28, 1982) Regulation No.1, sections IIlD.1.c. and d. were amended in response to the Attorney General's rule opinion ofApril 19, 1982 (disapproving, in part, section 

### 111.0. of Regulation NO.1 as adopted on April 8, 1982) and the objections ofthe Air Pollution Control division ofthe Colorado Department of Health that the regulation did not allow it to require fugitive particulate emission control plans in all appropriate situations. Evidence presented by the division at the hearing demonstrated that in many instances the emission limitation guidelines ("triggers") could be met by use of emission controls significantly less stringent than "all available practical methods of control that are technologically feasible and economically reasonable" (hereafter "all practical controls"). The attorney general's primary concern was that virtually identical sources could therefore be subjected to these differing "standards"

- i.e., one required to apply "all practical controls"; the otheronly having to avoid exceeding a less stringent triggerwith the division being unable to require a control plan. The division also testified that, in some instances, the 20% opacity and no-off-property-transport guidelines would be inadequate because use ofthose triggers to require submission ofa control plan required an observation be made at the time the particulates were being emitted and also that the observations be made underspecific circumstances. The division would therefore be unable to require a control plan, even though one may be appropriate, if an inspectordid not actually observe the exceedence ofthe guideline or ifall requirements for making the observation were not present (e.g., the winds exceeded 30 mph). First ofall the regUlation does not necessarily require that a division inspector personally observes emissions exceeding one ofthe triggers. The division may require a control plan prOVided there is adequate, reliable evidence that atrigger has been exceeded. The revisions to the regulation further address the problems the division has raised. The nuisance trigger (which was preViously applicable only to unpaved roads and haul roads) has been made applicable to all regulated sources. This will allowthe division to require a control plan from a source creating a nuisance even when an inspector is unable to use the 20% opacity or no off-property transport guideline (e.g., because of high winds). The language adopted is literally less comprehensive than that proposed in the rulemaking notice. The revised regulation, however, (a) at a minimum addresses those sources offugitive particulate emissions where the need for specific control plans is clearest and (b) provides more concrete (less vague) guidance to persons subject to the regulation ofwhat level ofcontrol is required absent a specific control plan. The commission expects that this will facilitate voluntary compliance by sources without plans. Although theoretically situations could still arise whereby similar sources are subjected to different standards, it is the determination ofthe commission that in practice, as revised, the regulation with its now broader nuisance triggerwill subject virtually all significant sources offugitive particulate emissions to the requirement ofapplying "all practical controls". In the eventthe regulation fails to achieve this intended objective, the regUlation will be viewed as a "first step" towards its achievement and further revisions will be made.Nothing in the regulation is intended as, norshould it be construed as, prohibiting the division from conducting inspections as required by C.R.S. 1973, 25-7-115

- whether on an annual or other periodic basis, in response to complaints, or otherwise. Section 1I1.0.2.a.

- Roadways. This section provides a list ofappropriate control measures for controlling dust from unpaved roadways. The commission initially had to determine which unpaved roadways warranted control based on the amount offugitive particulate emissions resulting from their use. The amount of25 tons per year (TPY) per mile was chosen as an appropriate figure based on the fact that 25TPY is the figure in commission Regulation No.3 deemed "significant" for the purpose oftriggering the special non-attainment area permit requirements (eg., offsets, LAER) for major modifications. Regulation No.3, Section IV.0.2.b.(v). (Emissions of25 TPY or more is also one ofthe triggering factors that would require a new emission permit application be subjected to public comment. Regulation No.3, Section IV.C.1.) Using 25TPY (per mile) as the point at which an unpaved road should be required to control emissions, it was calculated using representative figures for the otherfactors that unpaved roads with traffic counts of 150 vehicles in non-attainment areas and 200 vehicles in attainment areas would cause emissions requiring control. The commission included the traffic count of 150vehicles per day (averaged over anyconsecutive 3-day period) for unpaved roadways in non-attainment areas as a result ofthe calculated emissions from an average weight passenger car (2800 Ibs.), traveling at a speed of30 miles per hour, over a one mile stretch of unpaved road and with the assumption of30% ofthose emissions remaining suspended. Using the following equations:

EF= 5.9 (.§)**(~)** 

### (Q) 12 30 

### 3 365

EMISSIONS 

### = .3(EF)x(Y)x 365 days/yr 

### =25 tons/yr

. 2000lbs./ton S

# =silt content 

# v

# =vehicle speed W

# =weight ofvehicle d

# =dry days per year EF

## =emission factor expressed in terms of Ibs. per vehicle miles traveled Y

# =Vehicle miles traveled per day The highertraffic count in attainment areas can be accounted for by examining the difference in the factor "number ofdry days peryear" between attainment and non-attainment areas (215 and 285 respectively). (Because the non-attainment areas are basically all east ofthe mountains "dry day" figures for Colorado eastern plains were used for non-attainment areas; and north-central mountain figures were used for attainment areas.)

### In response to the Colorado Court ofAppeals' decision in CF&I Steel Corporation vs. AQCC (cited above), the regulation no longer has separate sections concerning publicly owned and privately owned unpaved roadways. The provisions for control ofemissions from unpaved roadways apply to all unpaved roadways and reference to ownership has been eliminated. There was discussion at the rulemaking hearing about whether dust emissions from unpaved roadways were inhalable and therefore presented a hazard to public health. It 

### is the commission's conclusion that 65% ofthe emissions [expressed as a percentage of suspended particulate (i.e. less than 30 microns)] from unpaved roadways are less than 10 microns in size and less (improved emission factors for fugitive dustfrom western surface coal mining sourcesVol. II) and that they therefore do warrant control forthe protection ofpublic health. Various persons, including local governments and the Colorado General Assembly, expressed concern about the cost of controlling emissions from unpaved roadways and urged that local officials are generally in a better position to determine and exercise appropriate control over roadways. Especially in light ofthe limited personnel resources ofthe division, the commission would therefore encourage the division to exercise its authority under C.R.S. 1973, Section 25-7-111(2)(f) in designating local agencies willing and able to enforce the regulation as agents ofthe division in concurrently enforcing this regulation

- and especiallywith respect to air pollution problems which can be evaluated by such local agencies. Neitherthe 20% opacity northe no off-property transport emission limitations guidelines seemed appropriatefor application to unpaved roadways. To focus the limited personnel resources on the more serious problems a "nuisance" emission limitation guideline has been employed. Investigations will be initiated in response to citizen's complaints of nuisances created by excess emissions from unpaved roadways. Section III.D.2.b.

- Construction Activities. Large percentages (54% from dozers, 49% from scrapers, 48% from graders, 67% from exposed areas) ofthe fugitive particulate emissions from construction activities are inhalable (Improved Emission Factors for Fugitive Dust from Western Surface Coal Mining Sources, Vol. II) and therefore need controls. Thus the commission has established a list of potential control measures for this activity. The smallest size of disturbed acreage requiring control in non-attainment areas was reduced from 5 acres to 1acre in size in orderthatthose smaller sources - determined to be significant source ofemissions in non-attainment areas because ofthe great amount of construction activities occurring on smaller sites

- could be controlled. The 5acres remains as the size cutoff in attainmentareas. Section III D.2.c.

- Storage and Handling of Materials. The commission established a listof potential control measures for this activityfor inclusion in a requested control plan. The percentage of inhalable particulates from storage and handling activities is presented in Improved Emission Factors for Fugitive Dustfrom Western Coal Mining Sources. Vol. II (listed as 30% loading, 49% dozer, 61 % storage piles) are significant emissions and therefore the commission has concluded that such emissions should be controlled. Section III.D.2.d.

- Mining Activities. A large percentage offugitive particulate emissions from mining activities are inhalable. The information in Table 12-2 from Improved Emission Factors for Fugitive Dustfrom Western Coal Mining Sources. Vol. 

## !!, shows inhalable particulates for several mining related activities in a range of30%

- 67%. The commission has concluded that these are significant emissions and should therefore be controlled. Thus the commission has established the list of potential control measures for this activityfor inclusion in a control plan. Underground mining activities are exempt from the provisions ofSection III.D.2.d. However, if emissions from underground mining activities are vented to the atmosphere, they are subject to the opacity provisions ofSection II.A.1.Section III.D.2.e

- Haul Roads. The commission determined that a substantial amount offugitive particulate emissions come from haul roads. For example, the percentage of inhalable particulates created by haul trucks traveling on such roads is listed as 52% in a table from Improved Emission Factors for Fugitive Dustfrom Western Surface Coal Mining Sources Vol., II. The commission has concluded that these emissions are significant and should be controlled. Thus, the commission established the list of potential control measures for this activity. The commission included a traffic count of40 haul vehicles or 200 total vehicles per day (averaged over anyconsecutive 3-day period) for haul roads as a result of the calculated emissions using the following formula:

EF 

## = SV 60 365 4 S

## =silt content (if unknown assume 15%) V

## =vehicle speed in mph (average) W

# =mean annual numberof days with .01 inches or more rainfall N

# =number ofwheels on vehicle Assumptions: 40 mph (average speed)

# =V 6 wheels on vehicles

# =N 80 days (West Slope condition)

# =W

EF

# = 15 x 40 365 -80 §= 11.71bNMT 60 365 4

Emissions

# = .3 (EF) x "Y" x 365 Days IYr 25 Tons/Year 

## = 2000 Ib Per Ton

E= 25 x 2000 

# = 40 vehicle miles per day .3(11.7)(365)EF 

### = Emission factor expressed in terms of Ibs. Per vehicle mile traveled

"Y" = Vehicle miles traveled per day Recognizing that a haul road could have significant emissions even without hauling 40 haul vehicles per day because ofothervehicular traffic, haul roads are subject to the regulation when their traffic count exceeds either 40 haul vehicles or 200total vehicles per day (200 light weight vehicles representing emissions of25 tons per yearfor unpaved roadways

- see comments on Section 1II.o.2.a. above.) As with roadways and for the same reasons, a nuisance emission limitation gUideline has been adopted as an inspection "trigger" for "off-site" haul roads. The no off-property transport emission limitation guideline applies to "on-site" haul roads. Section III.D.2.f.

- Haul Trucks. A list ofalternative control measures has been established by the commission for this activity for inclusion in a requested control plan. There were no emission factors for determining the emissions from the load ofa loaded haul truck. Section 1II.o.2.g.

- Tailings Piles and Ponds. The commission established the listofabatement and control measures for this activity for inclusion in any requested control plan. "exposed areas" are listed in a table as being 67% inhalable particulates. This is found in Improved Emission Factors for Fugitive Dust from Western Surface Coal Mining Sources, Vol. 

## 11. The commission concluded thatthese emissions are significantand therefore should be controlled. Section III.D.2.h

- Demolition Activities. A significant amount ofthis activity does occur in the non-attainment areas and necessitates control. The commission established the listofcontrol measures for this activity for inclusion in a control plan submittal. Cross-reference is made to the requirements of Regulation NO.8 regarding asbestos materials. Section III.D.2.i

- Blasting Activities. The commission provided a listofpotential control measuresfor inclusion in any requested control plan. The percentage of inhalable particulates from blasting is listed as 44% in a table from Improved Emission Factors for Fugitive Dust from Western Surface Coal Mining Sources, Vol. II. The commission concluded that these emissions are significant and should therefore be controlled. Section III.D.2.j.

- Sandblasting Operations. The commission established a list ofpotential control measuresfor inclusion in any requested control plan. Section III.D.2.k

- Livestock Confinement Operations.·The commission established a list of potential control measures for inclusion in any requested control plan. These measures will provide an economic benefit to the operator of livestock confinement operations (i.e., there should be fewer incidents ofdust pneumonia in livestock). Agriculture Activities: The commission determined that fugitive particulate emissions from agricultural activities (e.g., plowing, ordicing) cannot be controlled by methods that are economically reasonable and feasible

- such as watering. The commission further determined that the great majority of emissions from agricultural activities were not from activities such as plowing, butfrom the action ofthe wind on exposed soil. The commission therefore reviewed the provisions ofthe Colorado Soil Erosion and Dust Blowing Act of 1954, C.R.S. 1973 Section 35-72-101, and determined that statute adequately addresses the problem offugitive particulate emissions from agricultural activities. Agricultural activities are therefore not subject to the provisions ofSection 

### 111.0. Agricultural activities have been specifically exempted from the open burning requirements of Section II.C. The exemption is viewed as an economic necessityto commercial agricultural operations. Section IV.

- Continuous Emission Monitoring Requirements for Existing Sources. The commission has included Continuous Emission Monitoring Requirements forfour types ofsources: Fossil Fuel-Fired Steam Generators; Sulfuric Acid Plants; Fluid Bed Catalyst Regenerators at Petroleum Refineries. However, CEM units for the measurement of NOxemissions from existing sources of NOx were considered unnecessary as there is no NOx standard for existing sources. As a substituteto CEM an approved coal-sampling program to determine the sulfur content ofthe coal being fired in the steam generators may be employed. With such data, S02 emissions can be calculated. Performance specifications, calibration requirements, notification and recordkeeping have been included for the evaluation ofany such CEM system that is required by this section. This part meets and exceeds the requirements of40 CFR, Part 51, Appendix P, Volume40, No. 194 Fed. Reg. 46247 (October 6, 1975). The commission has determined that continuous emission monitoring for carbon monoxide (CO) is necessary for fluidized-bed catalytic cracking unit regenerators at petroleum refineries. Continuous Emission Monitoring will ensure the emission standard is being metat these sources that are the largest CO emitters in the state. (March 20, 1986) Section V.

- (Adopted March 11, 1982) See below. Section VI.

- Sulfur Dioxide Emission Regulations: The commission made no substantive changes to the provisions ofthe previous Regulation NO.1. The commission revised the regulation to makeexisting sources subject to meeting specific emission standards when their emissions exceed three tons per dayofsulfur dioxide rather than the previous five tons per day. The new level is to ensure that major sources of sulfur dioxide in Colorado are well controlled such that ambient impacts and potential air quality related value impacts are reduced. (March 20,1986) Section IX. Emission Regulations Concerning Areas that are Non-attainmentfor Carbon Monoxide. Carbon Monoxide Emission Regulation: The Denver Metro Area has a serious Carbon MonoxideAir Pollution Problem. Air quality monitoring conducted in 1980 indicated that the Denver MetroArea exceeded the standard by almost 58% (for the second worst case). Air quality modeling performed in support ofthe 1982 State Implementation Plan (SIP) shows that the predicted maximum concentration of CO in 1987 will still exceed the national Air Quality Standard by 25%. IfDenverdoes not come into compliance by 1987 it faces possible economic sanctions or imposed measures, which will decrease carbon monoxide levels sufficiently so that the standard will be met.EPA reviewed Colorado's 1982 SIP submittal and expressed concern regarding the CO problem and the division's plans to deal with it. One strategy EPA has stated Colorado must employ is the requirement that all major stationary sources of CO (greater than 1,000 TPY) in non-attainment areas use "Reasonably Available Control Technology" (RACT) to reduce emissions. Though EPA has not specifically defined what RACT is for major CO sources, the commission herein defines RACT as any control device approved bythe division that will reduce CO emissions to a level less than or equal to 0.050% of exhaust gases by volume. The only CO sources located in non-attainment areas of Colorado, which emit greater than 1,000TPY are fluidized-bed catalytic cracking units (FCC) at Petroleum refineries. Uncontrolled emissions from these units can approach 10% (100,000 ppm). Control technology is readily available for use in FCC units. According to EPA publication AP-42, carbon monoxide boilers can reduce emissions to "negligible levels". Similarly, the use of combustion promoters can reduce CO emissions to less than 0.050%, according to the Encyclopedia of Chemical Technology. The requirement to apply RACT to carbon monoxide emission sources at refineries will reduce reported emissions, as used in the 1982 SIP Revision, from 125tons per dayto 11 tons per day, an improvement of about 91%. This will result in a 4% reduction in the Denver Metro CO inventory, thus demonstrating further progress towards attainment ofthe National Ambient Air Quality Standards. (March 20, 1986) APPENDIXA Method of Measuring Opacityfrom Fugitive Particulate Emission Sources. Also in response to the referenced dicta in the Court ofAppeal's CF&I decision, the commission has included a specified method for measuring opacity offugitive particulate emissions from non-point sources. Although this may not be as precise as Method 9 (40 CFR. Part 60, Appendix A (July, 1992)) as applied to stacks since this is a guideline and not an enforceable standard the commission determined it to be quite adequate for these purposes. The method is a modified version of EPA Method 9 (40 CFR, Part 60, Appendix A (July, 1992)). Terminologywas changed to reflect this method's applicability to fugitive particulate emission sources covered by Section III.DA ofthis regulation. Additional procedures are established forthe positioning ofthe observer and the observing of emissions (at a point of release to the atmosphere). These procedures will become part ofthe training at "smoke schools" conducted by the Colorado Department of Health for certification of smoke and opacity observers. APPENDIX B. Method of Measurement of Off-PropertyTransport of Fugitive Particulate Emissions. The commission included this method of measurement offugitive particulate emissions in orderthat the "Off-Property Transport" guideline is uniformly applied by observers. This method generally employs the same criteria for the positioning ofan observer as the method of measurement of opacity in Section 111.0.2. of this Regulation NO.1. This method will also be included in the "smoke school" training forthe certification ofsmoke and opacityobservers.

a. Section V. (Adopted March 11, 1982) This rationale complies with the requirement ofthe Administrative Procedure Act, C.R.S. 1973,24-4­ 103(4)that the Air Quality Control commission (commission) prepare a statement of basis and purpose for these amendments. The statutory authorityfor these amendments is in the Air Quality Control Act at C.R.S. 1973.25-7-102,25-7-105,25-7-106, and 25-7-109. The general purpose ofthe amendmentswas to require reasonably available control technology (RACT) be applied to particulate emission sources at existing iron and steel plants. The CF&I Steel Corporation (CF&I) and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) were the only parties to the rulemaking. The Air Pollution Control division (division) acted as stafffor and advised the commission during the proceeding.The parties and the commission addressed two major areas of controversy: whether the use of clean water for coke quenching operations represents RACT and which methods of emission control for cast houses represents RACT. Coke quenching is considered by the commission to be a major source of particulate emissionsfrom iron and steel plants and development of emission controls for coke quenching should be encouraged. As originally proposed, RACTfor coke quenching would have required the use ofwater having no more than 700 rng/I oftotal dissolved solids (TDS). However, upon review ofthe rulemaking record, the commission has determined that it has insufficient information to adopt an emission control regulation for coke quenching. Therefore, the commission is requiring the submission of reports on the capabilities of wastewatertreatment facilities, the generation rates ofwastewater, the relationship between TDS levels in coke quench water and other variables, the particulate-removing efficiency ofexisting baffling systems, and the costs of installation ofalternative baffling systems. Based on these reports and information relating to the effectiveness of powder activated carbon in wastewater treatment facilities, the effectiveness of baffling systems at other iron and steel plants, the relationship ofTDS levels to particulate emissions, and other relevant information, the commission will reconsider the issue of RACT for coke quenching. The commission has determined that non-capture technology (for example, shrouding and suppression) constitutes RACT for cast house particulate emissions, exceptfor emissions from the iron notch, ladle and spouts. Due to the developing and proprietary nature ofsuch technology, the commission has adopted a general requirementfor use ofsuch technology thatwill permit iron and steel plants to determine its mostcost and pollution control effective application at such plants. Iron and steel plants will be allowed a period oftwoyears to develop, evaluate and apply a non-capture technologyat one of its cast houses. It is not considered feasible to apply such technology in a lessertime period. Based on the experience with this initial application, the commission expects to develop a more specific standard for the use ofsuch technology at additional cast houses. Becausethere is not a basis in the record for concluding that capture technology is cost effective or RACT, the commission has determined notto require such technology. b. Amended Sections VA5.c. and V.B.5.a. (Adopted: February 24, 1983). This rationale complies with the requirement ofthe Administrative Procedure Act, C.R.S. 1973,24-4­ 103(4) that the Air Quality Control commission (commission) prepare a statement of basis and purpose for these amendments. The statutory authorityfor these amendments are in the Air Quality Control Act at C.R.S. 1973,25-7-102,25-7-105,25-7-106, and 25-7-109. The commission has determined that the effective dates for meeting the requirements for coke quenching and cast houses as described above in paragraph B should be postponed for the following reasons: (1) Due to economic conditions the coke plant and blast furnaces at the iron and steel plants are currently not in operation. The studies and control measures outlined in Section V were to be conducted and implemented whilethose sources were in operation (with the exception of a study outlining the costs of installing and operating existing quench towers with alternative baffling system(s)). (2) With regard to the study outlining the costs of installing and operating existing quench towers with alternative baffling systems, the commission determined that (due to the current economic conditions and reduced workforce at iron and steel plants) a postponement until "normal rate of production" at coke plants is again reached would result in more useful data being submitted. In regard to quenching ofcoke the time period for submittal of reports shall befifteen months from the time that production levels return to 128 ovens per day. With regard to cast houses, the time period for implementing controls shall be determined from the date of return to service ofone blastfurnace.

### Regarding the issue of reasonably available control technology ("RACT"), for the iron notch, the iron ladle and the iron spout required to be addressed by Section V.B.5., the commission adopts the division's and CF&I's agreement that RACT is not currently available in non-capture emission controls forthe iron spout and the iron ladle. However, there is reason to believe that U.S. Steel Corporation will soon be publicly revealing its non-capture technology for iron and steel plants. The division should review the available technology, and if RACT exists, return to the commission with a recommendation for rulemaking. Forthese reasons, the commission believes that emissions from iron and steel plants will be controlled as expeditiously as practicable underthese delayed schedules.

c. Written statements ofthe basis and purpose for the various provisions in Section VI ofthis regulation were prepared and adopted by the commission at the times such provisions were adopted. These written statements were incorporated in this regulation by reference and in accord with C.R.S. 1973,24-4-103 as amended. Copies are available at the office of the Air Quality Control commission. RATIONALE FOR THE PROMULGATION OF A NEW SOURCE EMISSION CONTROL REGULATION The Air Pollution Control commission of the State of Colorado has reviewed the oral testimony and documentary evidence submitted in the course of its rulemaking proceedings on proposed new ambient airstandards for sulfur dioxide and new source emission standards for sulfur dioxide. The attached amendments to the existing Colorado ambient air quality standards for sulfur dioxide and the existing Regulation NO.1 ofthe Colorado Air Pollution Control commission are a result of study, analysis and technical evaluation by the commission and its staffand, in the judgment ofthe commission, represent those standards which will most effectivelyfoster the welfare, convenience and comfort ofColorado residents in facilitating the enjoyment of nature, scenery, and other related resources ofthe State. In every respect, this commission's deliberations and determinations have been guided by the legislative declaration ofthe policy ofthe Colorado Air Pollution Control Act of 1970: to achieve the maximum practical degree of air purity in every portion ofour State. New Source Emission Standardsfor Sulfur Dioxide It 

### was evident throughout the course of public hearings and is obvious to the commission that the hazardous effects of sulfur dioxide are measured by its concentration in the ambient air. It is the quantity emitted per unit time that determines this ambient concentration rather than the concentration in any particular effluent stream. Emission rates are significantwith respect to effects on the environment and on human population and vegetation, but ambient air concentrations are the primary consideration in terms ofthese effects and for that reason ambient air standards that are reasonably related to existing conditions in Colorado have been established. These new ambient standards and emission rates have been developed to reflect a consistent basis. The commission in the course of establishing these new sulfur dioxide standards has considered three general themes. (1) Best practical control technology must, in general, be employed. (2) For some industries the cost ofsuch control technology might be prohibitive for certain small sources. Since the total emissions from such sources are not large and do not have a substantial effect on ambient concentrations, the commission has adopted emission standards which reflect economic considerations for small sources. (3) In response to overwhelming testimonyfrom industry, from technical experts, and from the general public, the commission has acknowledged that emission standards should not be based on volumetric concentrations in the effluent stream but rather on the weight ofsulfur dioxide emitted per energy input or unit ofproduct as processed. Manywitnesses representing industry and users ofelectrical powersuggested that Colorado should adopt the EPA New Source Performance Standards (NSPS). The commission has considered this suggestion. However, it is the conclusion ofthe commission that EPA New Source Performance Standards are based on the use of high-sulfur coal as well as the application of best external control technology to the effluent gases. Given the availability of low-sulfur western coal for industrial usage inthis state, it has been concluded thatthe application of best practical control technology should result in considerably lower emissions for Colorado sources than those specified in EPA New Source Performance Standards. Logically, the more stringent emissions standards are possible and desirable if low sulfurcoal is employed. Testimony to support this conclusion was presented at the hearings. The commission has adopted certain features ofthe New Source Performance Standards: (1) The commission has established a two-hour averaging time for emission standards identical to that setforth in the NSPS. (2) The commission has recognized that small sources should not be subject to the substantial cost of external sulfur dioxide removal equipment, which is proportionately more costlyfor small industrial operations. The hazard to ambient air quality may be satisfactorily minimized in most instances by the use of low-sulfur fuels for these smaller sources. Where a distinction is made, the cut-offpoint for small sources is identical to that employed in the NSPS (250 million BTU per hour). Coal-Fired Operations Including Coal-Fired Steam Generation Take as a reference point the information supplied in the application for an emission permit for the proposed Pawnee 500 megawatt steam generating station. A heat input of 5,430 Million BTU per hour produces 500 megawatts ofelectrical power. The overall thermal efficiency is 31 % and 10.9 million BTU per hourare required per megawatt of power. Some eastern high-sulfur coals have caloric values on the order of 12,000 BTU per pound and sulfur contents on the order of2.5%. If it is assumed that 5% ofthe sulfur is retained in the ash, the emission rate ofan operation using this coal would be 3.96 pounds ofsulfur dioxide per million BTU. Compliance with the New Source Performance Standards of 1.2 pounds per million BTU would require a sulfur dioxide removal efficiency of70%. It is the finding ofthis commission, based in part upon testimonyfrom industrial and non-industrial sources, that control efficiencies on the order of 70% sulfur dioxide removal may be attained without undue financial burden on large newsources. This 70% removal efficiency may be taken as a measure ofthe application of best practical control technology. Testimony presented before the commission indicated that steam coal readily available for use in Colorado had a caloric content on the order of8,000 BTU per pound and a sulfur content of0.5%. Uncontrolled emissions from the use of such coal would be 1.19 pounds ofsulfurdioxide per million BTU. The best practical control technology, operating at an efficiency of70% would reduce the emission rate to 0.36 pounds ofsulfur dioxide per million BTU. The commission, therefore, adopted an emission standard of0.4 pounds ofsulfur dioxide per million BTU. The required removal efficiencies are shown as a function ofcoal parameters in Table I. For smallersources an emission limitwas set identical to the NSPS large source values. This standard may be met bythe use of high quality low-sulfurwestern coal. The maximum emission underthis standard would be 3.6 tons of sulfur dioxide perdayand could result in the production of23 megawatts of electrical power. Table II contains some information regarding the quality ofcoal required to meet this standard. Ofspecial concern to the commission was the problem ofconversion offacilities from otherfuels to coal. This issue wasfrequently raised in the testimony. It was clearly indicated that the cost of installing external sulfurdioxide control equipmentwould be prohibitive in terms ofthe necessary modifications to eXisting equipment: lack ofspace in which to install the control equipmentwastermed an almost insurmountable obstacle. The commission therefore concluded that the sulfur dioxide emissions standard for operations converted to coal-firing from the use ofotherfuels would be the NSPS; namely, 1.2 pounds ofsulfur dioxide per million BTU. This standard can be metthrough the use ofavailable high quality coal. The maximum emission from such a converted 100-megawattfacility would be approximately 16 tons per day, or equivalent to the emissions from a 300-megawatt installation operating atan emission rate of0.4 pounds of sulfur dioxide per million BTU. The nature ofthe required coal quality is indicated in Table II.TABLE I REMOVAL EFFICIENCIES REQUIRED TO MEET AN EMISSION STANDARD OF

Caloric Content Efficiency 

### (%) (BTU/lb.) 

### 8.000

9,000

10,000

11,000 0.4 POUNDS PER MILLION BTU (Assumes 

### 5% sulfur retention in ash) Percent Sulfur Removal



### 0.4 58 0.5 66 0.6 72 

### 0.8 79 0.9 81 0.5 62 0.6 69 0.8 76 1.0 81 0.6 65 0.7 70 0.9 77 

### 1.1 81 0.6 62 0.7 67 0.9 74 1.1 79

TABLE II SULFUR DIOXIDE EMISSION FROM COAL (Assumes 

### 5% sulfur retention in coal) BTU/pound



### 8.000 Maximum Sulfur Content to Meet Emission Standard of 

### 1.2 pounds per million BTU 

### 0.50%TABLE II SULFUR DIOXIDE EMISSION FROM COAL (Assumes 5% sulfur retention in coal) 9,000 0.57% 10,000 0.63% 11,000 0.69% Under certain circumstances the emission standards may be limiting; underother circumstances, the ambient air quality standards may govern the issuance of permits to new coal-fired sources. In anyevent, impact on ambient air quality is the ultimate concern and siting maythus become an importantfactor for new sources. Several Rocky Mountain States have adopted sulfur dioxide emission standards more restrictive than the Federal standards and in some cases, more restrictive than these Colorado Standards. Oil-Fired Operations Including Oil-Fired Steam Generation The New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) for oil-fired operations with a heat input greaterthan 250 million BTU per hour is 0.8 pounds ofsulfur dioxide per million BTU. In line with the philosophy of higher emission rates per unit ofenergy input for small sources and in linewith the adoption of NSPS for newcoal-fired sources of less than 250 million BTU input per hour, the commission adopted an emission standard of0.8 pounds ofsulfur dioxide per million BTU for sourceswith a heat input less than 250 million BTU per hour. The required degree ofoil quality is shown in Table III, and oil ofthe quality necessary to meetthese standards is available. For larger oil-fired operations (greater than 250 million BTU per hour) the commission again decided to require best practical control technology. The standard adopted is calculated from the ration ofthe NSPS standards for coal and oil applied to the adopted 0.4 pounds per million BTU standard for coal-fired operations. The standard for large new oil-fired operations thus becomes 0.3 pounds ofsulfur dioxide per million BTU. At present, there is little expectation that large newoil-fired facilities will be constructed. No industry provided testimony at the hearings regarding its intent to construct a large oil-fired facility in Colorado.

TABLE III SULFUR DIOXIDE EMISSIONS FROM FUEL OIL Percent sulfur Pounds per million BTU 0.1 0.11 0.2 0.21 0.28* 0.30

0.4 0.42 0.6 0.42 0.7 0.75

### TABLE '" SULFUR DIOXIDE EMISSIONS FROM FUEL OIL Percent sulfur Pounds per million BTU 0.75** 0.80

0.9 0.95 1.0 1.05

• Maximum sulfur content required to meet standard of0.3 Ibs/million BTU

•• Maximum sulfur content required to meetstandard of 0.8 Ibs/million BTU 

### The standard of0.8 pounds ofsulfur dioxide per million BTU would be applied to emissions forfacilities converted from other fuels to oil. The rationale follows that given above for coal-fired operations. Combustion Turbines These are used largelyfor peaking operations. There is little likelihood that natural gas will be used as a fuel for such sources in the near future. The majorfuel will be oil for new sources and sources converted from natural gas use. The commission adopted the same standards for emissions from combustion turbines as for emissions from oil-fired operations. High quality distillate will be required. Little testimony was presented on this issue. Natural Gas Desulfurization Natural gas (primarily methane) is a clean and desirable fuel for household use. It is considerably more efficient for such use than electrical energy obtained from coal combustion. The conversion efficiencyfor the conversion of coal to electrical energy is on the orderof30%; the conversion ofthe chemical energy of natural gas to thermal energy is on the order of 80%. Much natural gas as it comes from the well is "sour"; i.e. contains significant and varying concentrations of hydrogen sulfide. This substance must be removed before the gas is put into the pipeline. Forsmaller sources, the waste hydrogen sulfide may be "flared" and converted into sulfur dioxide and emitted as such. For larger sources, the gas is desulfurized by means ofa process which converts the hydrogen sulfide into elemental sulfur. Sulfurdioxide is emitted as a by-product in such a process. Control technology exists for reduction of all such sulfurdioxide emissions. The caloric content of natural gas is on the order of one million BTU per 1,000 cubic feet. Small coal-fired electrical generating facilities have been assigned an emission standard of 1.2 pounds per million BTU. Considering the greater efficiency ofnatural gas in its usage (byfactor of80/30) 

### it is reasonable to adopt a higher emission rate per unit ofenergyfor natural gas desulfurization. However, the stacks employed in such desulfurization are lowerthan those normally used in coal-fired generation operations and hence, contribute significantlyto increased ambient levels. A balancing process for establishment ofthese emission standards has therefore become necessary. Application ofhighly efficient sulfurdioxide removal equipment may be prohibitively expensive for small sources. The commission has, after review ofthe short stack considerations, decided to adopt a break point between large and small sources of 3 tons ofsulfur dioxide emissions per day. The applicable standard for such small sources is set at 2 pounds ofsulfurdioxide per 1,000 cubic feet (one million BTU). This recognizes the greaterthermal efficiency ofnatural gas while minimizing impacton ambient air quality.For largersources, the emission standard of 0.8 pounds ofsulfur dioxide per 1,000 cubic feet ofgas delivered to the pipeline gives weight to the increased energy efficiency of natural gas, as compared to coal, for the generation of applicable power. (This standard is roughly twice thatfor coal-fired operation.) Suitable technology is available for control in such large sources. Again little testimony was presented at the hearings. Table IV contains some pertinent data with respect to natural gas desulfurization.

TABLE IV NATURAL GAS DESULFURIZATION Vol. % CO2 Vol. % H2 S Ibs. S02/1 ,000 % Removal (2.0 % Removal (0.8 Cubic feet Ibs.) Ibs.) 10 16 38.6 95 98 14 32.9 94 98 12 27.5 93 97 10 22.3 91 96 8 17.4 89 95 6 12.8 84 94 4 8.3 76 90 2 4.1 51 80 2.0 60 0.5 1.0 20 0 16 34.0 94 98 12 24.3 92 97 8 15.5 87 95 4 7.4 73 89 1.8 56 0.5 0.9 11 Permitted Production per day in Cubic Feet at Uncontrolled 3 tons of Sulfur Dioxide per day (Million cubic feet) 16 0.177 12 0.247 8 0.387TABLE IV NATURAL GAS DESULFURIZATION Vol. 

### % CO2 Ibs. S02/1,OOO Cubicfeet % Removal (2.0 Ibs.) % Removal (0.8 lbs.) 4 0.811 3.334 0.5 6.666 Petroleum Refining The prediction and analysis ofsulfur dioxide emissions from the refining ofcrude oil presents a complex problem. The sulfur content ofthe crude oil varies; the sulfur content ofthe various portions of refined products varies as does the mix ofthese products; the emissions are from several processes. The refineries now in operation in Colorado range in capacity from 6,000 to 35,000 barrels per day. The largest refinery processes crude oil with an average sulfurcontent of 0.9% and a range of about a factor of2. This crude is considered "sour"; i.e. containing a significant concentration ofelemental sulfur. Some sulfurdioxide escapes in this process as well as from other operations in the refining cycle. It is estimated that the total emissions from this refinery range from 10 to perhaps 15 tons per day. With a 35,000 barrel a daycapacitythe emission rate is thus 0.57

- 0.86 pounds of sulfur dioxide per barrel of oil processed. Little evidence was presented to the commission regarding technical aspects of new petroleum refining facilities. Further study bythe commission and staff indicate that (1) emission standards should be setfor the overall operation rather than on standards for the separate process units dueto the complexity ofthis operation (2) thattechnology for new operations is available (tail-gas scrubbing) that would lowerthe emissions by at least a factor ofthree, and (3) such technology is economicallyfeasible for new construction. The commission therefore adopted an emission standard of0.3 pounds of sulfur dioxide per barrel ofoil processed. Underthis standard a 40,000 barrel a day plant would emit per day 6 tons of sulfurdioxide, equivalentto the emissions from a controlled 140 megawatt electrical generating facility. Production of Oil from Shale Due to the complexity ofsulfur dioxide emission sources in a shale oil production facility, whether it involve surface retorting or "in situ" production, the commission adopted an emission standard which relates the permitted sulfur dioxide emission to the operation as a whole (in terms ofquantityof oil produced). Some conflicting evidencewas presented to the commission on this issue. The proposed Union Oil Plant would purportedlyemit 6 tons of sulfur dioxide per dayand produce 71,000 barrels a day; the emission rate would be 0.17 pounds ofsulfur dioxide per barrel ofoil produced. The proposed Colony surface retorting facility was described as emitting 3.9 tons per daywith production of43,000 barrels a day. The emission rate will be 0.18 pounds per barrel. Testimonyfrom Standard Oil of Indiana projected an emission rate for a modified "in situ" process ofclose to a full pound ofsulfur dioxide per barrel. This latter figure has, however, been significantly reduced, in the detailed development plan for this project, to 0.3 pounds ofsulfur dioxide per barrel of oil. The "in situ" process may offer othersignificant advantages in environmental impact over surface retorting. It was the decision ofthe commission, therefore, to adopt an emission standard for large oil shale production facilities of0.3 pounds of sulfur dioxide per barrel ofoil produced. This standard is to be applied to the total ofsuch emissions from the production facility. The commission anticipates the construction ofsmall experimental units to test new methodsfor the production ofoil from shale. The natureofsulfur dioxide emissions from such sources would not be precisely known, norwould the total emissions be large. The commission has therefore decided to exempt sources with a production rate less than 1,000 barrels a dayfrom process emission standards.Under these standards, the emission rate for a 50,000 barrel a dayoperation would be 75tons a day which is equivalent to the emissions from a controlled 130 megawatt electrical generating plant. Refining ofOil Produced from Shale It appears that the sulfur content ofthe shale oil delivered to the refineries will be on the order ofone percent. This is similar to the oil now being processed in the Conoco refinery in Denver. The same argument would therefore apply here as was advanced for the refining ofconventional crude oil. The emission standard for large operations is thus set at 0.3 pounds ofsulfur dioxide per barrel ofoil refined. Again the commission has decided to exempt small experimental operations from process standards. The cut-off has been set at 1,000 barrels per day. Taking an extreme point ofview (all the sulfur is emitted as sulfur dioxide and none retained in the product) the dailyemissions from a 1,000 barrel a dayoperation would be 2.8 tons ofsulfur dioxide per daywhich is equivalent to the emissions from a controlled 50 megawatt electrical facility. Sulfuric Acid Production These are the EPA NewSource Performance Standards and will require installation ofcontrol devices that are available. Any Sulfur Dioxide Source Not Specifically Regulated Above No evidence was introduced concerning such emissions. The commission is not aware of plans for construction ofsuch sources or the nature ofthe sources. It is proposed, consistent with the general philosophy concerning small sources, to exempt sources with an emission rate of less than two tons per day (equivalent to the emissions from a controlled 36 megawatt installation) from process standards. For new large sources the application ofbest practical control technologywill be required. Due to the unknown nature of these newsources, it is impossible to specify process emission rates, the nature ofthe control technology, and its efficiency. The Air Pollution Control division in its evaluation ofthe permit application is charged with determining whether best practical control technology will be utilized. The commission reserves the right to review such decisions.**Ado~ed:August11,** 1977 COLORADO AIR POLLUTION CONTROL COMMISSION RATIONALE AND JUSTIFICATION FOR THEAMENDMENT OF AIR QUALITY CONTROL COMMISSION REGULATION NO.1, SECTION IV, BYADDING A NEW SUBSECTION D. On April 9,1981 the Air Quality Control commission adopted an Amendment to Air Quality Control commission Regulation No.1, Section IV. concerning Limitation on Emissions from Sinter Plant 

### Windboxes at Existing Iron and Steel Plant Operations. Colorado'S only existing sinter plants at iron and steel facilities are located at the CF&I plant in Pueblo, Colorado. The Pueblo area is currently designated bythe U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) as non-attainment with respect to the National AmbientAir Quality Standards (NMQS) for total suspended particulates. Section 172(b)(3) ofthe Federal Clean Air Act requires that State Implementation Plans for nonattainment areas require reduction ofemissions from existing sources through adoption, at a minimum, of ReasonablyAvailable Control Technology (RACT). EPA has proposed conditional approval ofthe Pueblo element ofthe Colorado State Implementation Plan in the December 12, 1980 Federal Register (45 Fed. Reg. 81789). In that proposed rulemaking notice,EPA indicated that the Air Quality Control commission's existing emission limitations for various sources at existing iron and steel plants do not represent ReasonablyAvailable Control Technology and proposed approval ofthe Pueblo element ofthe SIP on condition, among others, that the Air QualityControl commission emission control regulations for existing iron and steel plants be revised to represent RACT. In response to the requirement ofsection 172 ofthe Clean Air Act and EPA's proposed conditional approval ofthe Pueblo element ofthe SIP, the commission is conducting public hearings to review and revise as appropriate, emission control regulations for sources at existing iron and steel plants. Because ofan existing compliance order issued by the Air Pollution Control division and affirmed by the Air Quality Hearings Board, requiring CF&I to bring its sinter plant into compliance with existing standards, the commission decided to conduct rule making with respect to sinter plants as early as possible. With respect to the interpretation ofthe numerical standard "0.03 gr/dscf', such standard is intended to be interpreted as an absolute standard such that any emissions in excess of 0.03 gr/dscf, no matter how minimal, shall constitute a violation. In other words, the commission is approving the Air Pollution Control division's past and continuing interpretation of numerical standards as ifthey were followed by an unlimited number ofzeros. This interpretation by the Air Pollution Control division is approved on the understanding that the Air Pollution Control division would normally not initiate enforcement action for extremely minimal violations (e.g., 0.0301). The Air Quality Control commission determined that there was no legal basis for adoption as part ofthe regulation ofan exemption for CF&I from enforcement ofthe applicable existing, less stringent emission limitation (.037 gr/dscfequivalent) while CF&I implements the new, more stringent 0.03 gr/dscfstandard. The Air Quality Control commission acknowledges that the Air Pollution Control division, not the Air Quality Control commission, is charged bystatute (C.R.S. 1973,25-7-115)with enforcement ofemission control regulations and trusts all relevant factors (including CF&I's efforts and success in complying with existing standards) will be considered by the Air Pollution Control division in exercising its enforcement authority. AIR QUALITY CONTROL COMMISSION ADOPTED: April 9, 1981 STATEMENT OF BASIS AND PURPOSE EmergencyAmendment to Regulation No.1 Section 111.0.1. (Fugitive Particulate Emissions) On April 8, 1982, the Air Quality Control commission adopted a new Regulation NO.1 which was scheduled to become effective May 30, 1982. On April 19, 1982, the Attorney General for the State of Colorado, in accordance with the provisions ofC.R.S. 1973, 24-4-103(8)(b), issued an opinion as to the legality and constitutionality ofthe new regulation and disapproved in part Section 111.0. ofthe regulation (concerning control offugitive particulate emissions). Recognizing that the Attorney General's opinion raises a substantial question as to the validity of portions ofSection 111.0. ofthe regulation (and poses significant problems with respect to enforcement of said regulation; finding that having an enforceable regulation forthe control offugitive particulate emissions necessaryto the preservation ofthe public health and welfare; and in orderto avoid the circumstance of not having an enforceable regulation for the control offugitive particulate emissions for any significant period oftime [as would result if the normal rulemaking procedures were followed]); the Air Quality Control commission has determined adoption ofamendmentto Section 111.0. ofthe Air Quality Control commission Regulation No.1 is imperatively necessaryforthe preservation ofthe public health and welfare and that compliance with the normal rulemaking procedural requirements ofC.R.S. 1973,24-4­ 103 would be contraryto the public interest. Air Quality Control commissionAdopted: August 26,1982 STATEMENT OF BASIS, SPECIFIC STATUTORYAUTHORITY AND PURPOSE for REVISIONS TO REGULATION NO.5 concerning Alfalfa Dehydration Plants "Regulation NO.5" and sections 11.A.6 and III.C. of "Regulation NO.1" have previously exempted, until January 1, 1985, existing alfalfa dehydration plants from the 20 percent opacity standard otherwise applicable to sources ofair pollution. In these amendments to "RegUlation NO.5" and sections 11.A.6. and III.C. of "Regulation NO.1" the commission has extended that exemption until January 1, 1987, in order to give the one existing alfalfa dehydration plant in Colorado an opportunityto come into compliance with the 20 percent standard. The commission expects compliance to be achieved bythat date, and does not intend, through these amendments, to indicate that it will accept a permanent exemption from the 20 percent standard. ADOPTED: January 19, 1985 COLORADO AIR QUALITY CONTROL COMMISSION STATEMENT OF BASIS, SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORITY AND PURPOSE REGULATIONS 1 and 5 concerning Alfalfa Dehydration Plant Drum Dryers The revisions to Regulations 1and 5 described below were adopted bythe Air Quality Control Commission of the State ofColorado on January 15, 1987. This Statement of Basis, Specific Statutory Authority and Purpose is required by Section 24-4-103, C.R.S

.. The specific statutory authorityfor these changes is Sections 25-7-105, -106, and -110, C.R.S

.. The Air Quality Control commission's Regulation 1and the recently expired Regulation NO.5 provided that existing alfalfa-dehydrating plants must operate so as notto exceed 40% opacity. This extension was adopted in January of 1985 and extended this exemption (40% opacity limit) until January 1, 1987, at which time Regulation NO.5terminated. Existing alfalfa dehydrators then fell underthe provisions of Regulation NO.1. The effect ofthis is to require existing alfalfa dehydrators to meet 20% opacity limits; thus treating existing plants the same as new plants. Mr. Graves claims to be the only operator ofan existing plant which is subjectto these requirements. Mr. Graves has asked the commission to establish a 30% opacityas the standard for existing plants. In making this request, Mr. Graves has indicated he intends to install reasonably available control equipment as it is made known and to take other steps in revising his process in order to minimize emissions. ADOPTED: January 15,1987 COLORADO AIR QUALITY CONTROL COMMISSION STATEMENT OF BASIS, SPECIFIC STATUTORYAUTHORITY, AND PURPOSE for revision to Regulation No.1 Adding a new Paragraph A.9. to Section II.A. Opacity Requirement Exemption The Pueblo Army Depot has made application for an air pollution emission permit to disposeof Pershing rocket motors in accordance with the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty, as ratified. From the test static firing ofone Pershing rocket motor on May 31, 1988, the division has determined, by qualified observer, thatthe opacityofthe plume from this activity would exceed the standard of20% set forth in the Air Quality Control commission's Regulation NO.1. Therefore, the Pueblo Army Depot, in orderto obtain a permit for the destruction ofthe remaining rocket motors, mustobtain a waiverfrom the above opacity standard, or the permit will be denied. This waiver would be necessary due to the fact that there are no presently available methods to reduce opacity to compliance levels for this source.The commission takes this action pursuant to their regulatory authority in Section 25-7-109 CRS. The commission has adopted this rule in orderto exempt the static firing of intermediate range and shorter range Pershing Missile systems from the opacity limits contained in Regulation No.1, so long as such static firing results in emissions less than 250 tons per year of anyone pollutant, adequate monitoring is conducted, and air pollutants are not emitted in dangerous quantities. Specific statutory authority for limiting the total emissions to 250 tons per year is provided by Section 25­ 7-109 CRS. Specific statutory authority for the requirement that the source conduct air monitoring is provided by Section 26-7-106(6) CRS; authorityfor requiring the source to provide the division with the results of such monitoring is provided by 25-7-111(2) CRS; specific statutory authorityfor prohibiting potentially dangerous quantities ofany air pollutant is provided by Section 26-7-109(3) CRS. COLORADO AIR QUALITY CONTROL COMMISSION Adopted: September 15, 1988 Effective: October 30, 1988 STATEMENT OF BASIS, SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORITY, AND PURPOSE Sections VII and VIII Adopted: August 19, 1993 This Statement of Basis, Specific Statutory Authority, and Purpose complies with the requirements ofthe Administrative Procedures Act, CRS 1973, Section 24-4-103 (4) for adopted or modified regulations. The Colorado Attorney General's Office had determined that any control strategyfor a non-attainment area must be adopted as a State regulation in orderfor the control strategy to be enforceable by the State ofColorado. Sections 25-7-105 and -109 ofthe Colorado Air Pollution Prevention and Control Act provides the specific statutory authority to adopt the emission control regulations necessary to assure attainment and maintenance ofthe National Ambient Air Quality Standards. The purpose ofthe revised regulation is to reduce the allowable emission from the affected facilities in the Denver PM10 non-attainment area so that future attainment and maintenance ofthe PM10 National Ambient Air Quality Standard can be demonstrated. As committed in the Denver PM10 State Implementation Plan (SIP) Element, Regulation NO.1 is being revised to include the stationary source control measures adopted by the Colorado Air Quality Control commission on May 20,1993. These revisions establish emission limits for PM10 precursors at Public Service Company's Cherokee, Arapahoe, and Valmont stations. These revisions also require that oil be restricted as a back-up fuel for natural gas at the following facilities: Public Service Company's Zuni, Valmont, and Defgany stations, Fitzsimmons Army Medical Center, US Department of Energy's Rocky Flats Plant, Gates Rubber company, and Coors Brewery (Golden, CO). COLORADOAIR QUALITY CONTROL COMMISSION Statement of Basis, Specific Statutory Authority, and Purpose Revisions to Regulation No.1, Section II.

### A. 1, 4 and 10; Regulation No.6, Part B, Section II.C.3.a (Regarding opacity limitations and sulfur dioxide averaging provisions for coal-fired electric utility boilers during periods ofstartup, shutdown and upset.) Adopted:'December 23, 1996 This Statement of Basis, Specific Statutory Authority and Purpose complies with the requirements ofthe Colorado Administrative Procedures Act, section 24-4-103, C.R.S. and the Colorado Air Pollution Prevention and Control Act, sections 25-7-110 and 25-7-110.5, C.R.S.Regulations 1 and 6 deal with opacity and sulfur dioxide emissions from various sources. This rule change addresses only coal-fired electric utility boilers. The Colorado Utilities Coalition ("CUC") requested that the commission modify the existing regulations to provide additional flexibility in meeting the opacity requirements and sulfur dioxide averaging, for coal-fired electric utility boilers during periods ofstart-up, shutdown, upset, process modification and adjustment ofcontrol equipment. Specific Statutory Authority The Colorado Air Pollution Prevention and Control Act, section 25-7-109(2), C.R.S., provides the authority for the commission to adopt and modifyemissions control regulations pertaining to visible pollutants, particulates and sulfur oxides. Section 25-7-109(5) authorizes the commission to grant a rule change it feels is appropriate for periods ofstart-up, shutdown or malfunction or other conditions which justify temporary relieffrom controls. Section 25-7-105(1) provides the authorityfor the commission to make SIP revisions. Section 25-7-133(4)(a) provides the commission with the flexibility to determinewhat are necessary elements for the SIP. The commission's action is taken pursuant to authority granted and procedures set forth in sections 25-7-105, 25-7-109, and 25-7-110, C.R.S. Purpose The revisions to Regulation NO.1 and NO.6 are intended to provide a specific amount offlexibility related to compliance with opacity limitations and sulfurdioxide averaging provisions for coal-fired electric utility boilers during periods ofstartup, shutdown and upset. These revisions replace what is believed to be a problematic standard for these specific sources. CUC has demonstrated that there are instances during which these sources cannot complywith the 30% opacity limit and the S02 emissions limit during startups and shutdowns. Although these sources may exceed the opacity limit, CUC has presented the commission with a study prepared by Radian Corporation, which concludes that removing the 30% opacity limitfor these sources will not result in such an increase in emissions that Colorado will likely violate the National Ambient Air Quality Standards orother federal requirements. CUC proposed replacement ofthe 30% limit with a standard that more closely mimics the federal standard, and which these sources will have more certaintycomplying with, particularlyfor Title V compliance certification requirements. CUC also provided an ambient air analysis related to S02 emissions which concluded that allowing a modification ofS02 limitations for the periods ofstartup, shutdown and malfunction would have no adverse impact on related federal requirements. The division agreed that some flexibility in complying with the 30% opacity limitwas appropriatefor these sources. The division also proposed replacing the 30% opacity limit. Action Taken The commission concludes that a rule change is appropriate for this category ofsources and is removing the application ofthe 30% opacity limitation to these sources during periods ofstart -up, shutdown and upset. In addition, the commission agrees that a rule change is merited from the current treatment ofS02 emissions during periods ofstart-up, shutdown and malfunction. The commission also concludes that this rule can be made clearer and easierto implement through the changes adopted. The commission adopts language substantially similar to the federal New Source Performance Standard requirement that, during periods ofstartup, shutdown and malfunction, these sources, to the extent practicable, shall maintain and operate associated air pollution control equipment in a manner consistent with good air pollution control practice for minimizing emissions. In the commission's view, incorporating this standard will provide an important balance to the removal ofthe 30% limit. The federal New Source Performance Standard refers to "malfunctions", while the commission has adopted an upset provision. The commission finds that these two terms are substantially similar, with the exception that an upset must be properly reported to the division to be excused. In orderto avoidconfusion, the commission decided to use the term upset consistent with the Common Provisions Regulation. The division expressed concern that the "good practices" standard is subjective and requires substantially more resources to enforce than a numerical limit. In addition, without the 30% limit, opacity from these facilities could be at very high levels periods oftime. The commission concurs and in this regulation adopts the division's proposed measures to limitthe overall time during which a source may exceed the underlying 20% opacity restriction. Good Air Pollution Control Practices The revisions to Regulation NO.1 were developed bythe Regional Air Quality Council and the Colorado Air Pollution Control division. Comments from the affected facilities, the Colorado Attorney General's Office and the US Environmental Protection Agency were utilized in further developing the regulation. The submittal ofthese revisions to the commission demonstrates the Commitmentfrom industry, and local and state governments, and the citizens that they represent, to implement control measures and improve the air quality in the Denver area. The revised Regulation NO.1 will be submitted to the EPA as part ofthe Denver PM1

### 0 SIP Element. This regulation sets overall limits, by percentage ofoperating time, during which opacity may exceed 20% and S02 emissions mayexceed regulatory maximums. In the commission's view, this will allow more flexibility for the utilities without leaving them free of reasonable restriction. The percentages were determined based on a percentile ofthe exceedence times for all such sources within the state. Exceedence times were calculated based on the excess emissions reports submitted by each ofthe utilities over the last several years. These times included the periods ofexcess emissions due to the events listed in Regulation No.1, section II.AA [fire building, cleaning offire boxes, soot blowing, start-up, process modification and adjustment or occasional cleaning ofcontrol equipment], as well as shutdowns and upsets. Accordingly, the data upon which the commission based its adoption ofthe percentages used to define good air pollution control practices included all times during which a source exceeded the applicable opacity limitation. In turn, the percentages adopted as the definition of good air pollution control practices include all times during which a source exceeds the 20% opacity limitation. Thus, all periods of start-up, shutdown, upset, fire building, process modification and adjustment or occasional cleaning of control equipmentwill be counted against the unit's compliance with the percentages. This general rule does not apply in two circumstances. First, start-ups following planned maintenance outages which require significant changes at the facility are treated separately, because the commission concluded that these infrequent events posed particular difficultiesfor the utilities. It appears that the duration ofthese events cannot be reasonably predicted and they are not to be included in the calculation ofthe source's compliance percentages. However, in order to ensure accountability ofthese sources during planned outages, the commission is imposing requirements for advance notice to the division. Advance notice will ensure that these are, indeed, planned outages. The notice must include a plan for minimizing emissions and an estimate ofthe time during which controls will not be operable while the unit is in operation, both in orderto prevent inordinate startups beyond reasonable limits. During start-ups, the source must still use good air pollution control practices. An additional definition ofstart-up is provided to add certaintyfor all concerned about the duration ofthese significant planned outage start-ups. 

### In addition, the commission restricts the application ofthe planned maintenance outage exception to events requiring significant changes at the facility, such as replacement ofmajorfacility components or installation of new processes (e.g., installation of low NOx burners). This exception addresses changes from which the resulting impact on plant operations cannot accurately be predicted. The exception is not intended to allow exclusion ofexcess emissions resulting from routine maintenance outages, such as annual replacement ofstandard equipment, from calculation ofthe exceedence percentage time allowance. Second, opacity emissions which are not a result ofthe combustion offuel in the steam-generating unit are excluded from the calculation ofthe compliance percentage. This approach is consistent with thefederal New Source Performance Standard found at 40 CFR Part 60, Subpart D. The commission concludes that these emissions control measures are not intended to limit emissions from cleaning offire boxes, soot blowing and other activities when a unit is off-line, i.e., when no fuel is being fed to the unit. In addition, there are technical concerns related to the ability of monitoring devices to operate accurately when the unit is off-line. The commission agrees that all ofthese sources can perform somewhat better and intends that the percentages will serve as an as an achievable measure ofgood air pollution control practices during these specific periods. This approach will also force poorer-performing facilities to improve their operations and maintenance practices and bring their exceedence levels down to one more consistent with that at otherfacilities. For baghouse-equipped boilers, a single percentage will suffice for the indefinite future. However, utility units using electrostatic precipitators to control particulate emissions present more complicated issues. Accordingly, the commission elected to provide an interim period of approximately three years during which these units will have a higher allowance percentage. The commission does not impose at this time a requirementfor electrostatic precipitator -equipped facilities to achieve the same exceedence percentage time allowance as baghouses. However, the commission's ultimate goal is for ESP-equipped facilities to meet the same compliance standard as is today imposed on baghouses. The commission endorses the concept that the utilities conduct a studyto evaluate operations and maintenance practices and equipment modifications at ESP-equipped facilities. The purpose for this study is to improve understanding ofthe operators, the division and the commission related to ESP operations and potential improvements. The results ofthis study are not intended for use as evidence that pre-study operations do not constitute good air pollution control practices. The commission did not agree with the CUC proposal for limitations on the duration of individual incidents of start-up and shutdown because this approach also is subjective and would require more resources to enforce. The Sierra Club proposal, although substantially similar to that presented by the division, would require enforcementwith exceedence allowances calculated for each ESP-equipped facility. The commission is not convinced that the benefits ofa more specific exceedence allowancejustifythe resources required to enforce these percentages. The allowance percentages will give both sources and the division a clear definition and reasonable limits to the concept of "good air pollution control practices." This definition limits sources from arguing that longer periods ofexceedenceare good practices. The definition is also intended to allow the division to investigate the source's practices and determinewhether, in light oftheir compliance history, process and control equipment and operations and maintenance procedures, the source is using good practices. This treatment ofgood practices will in no way prevent the division from initiating an enforcement action ifthe division determines that a source is not using "good air pollution control practices," regardless ofthe amount oftime the source has been in violation ofthe 20% opacity standard. The division may use any available information in orderto evaluate whether the source is using good practices. Federal and State Statutory, and State Implementation Plan, Issues The commission is cognizantthat section 193 ofthe federal Clean Air Act precludes revisions to the state implementation plan relating to non-attainment areas which do not provide equivalent or greater emissions reductions to the existing provisions ofthe plan. Even underthis federal law, however, the commission is entitled to modify its plan to make it more cost-effective and to improve overall compliance and implementation. The commission concludes that the division's proposal does not represent a relaxation ofthe existing rule. The regulatory change removing application ofthe 30% opacity limit appears on first impression to relax requirements for these units. However, by limiting the overall time during which the units may exceed the 20% opacity limit, the commission believes this approach will result in at least the same levels ofcompliance with the opacity standard and will likely result in lower overall emissions.The commission is also aware that section 110 ofthe federal Clean Air Act imposes additional limitations on revisions to the state implementation plan. CUC presented information relating to the impact of its proposal on ambient air concentrations. The commission relied on this information, although it did not adopt the CUC proposal for defining and limiting "good air pollution practices." The commission concludes that the changes made in this rulemaking will not lead to increased emissions in amounts substantial enough to interfere with the state's programs to attain and maintain the NAAQS or any otherfederal requirements. The commission also has evaluated the proposal adopted pursuant to the standards ofsection 25-7­ 105.1, C.R.S. This rule change and the compliance levels adopted todayfor these limited periods for coal-fired electric utility boilers clarifythe federal narrative standard adopted, providing both the utilities and the division with greater levels ofcertainty. The levels also put a practical limit on excursions by these sources above the opacity and S02 emissions limits and aid in ensuring that the NAAQS are attained or maintained and that no other applicable requirements are adversely affected. The commission has determined that continued enforcement ofthe Regulation NO.1 opacity provisions were relied on in development ofthe Denver PM10 element ofthe state implementation plan. The provisions deleted from Regulation NO.1 pertaining to electric power plants therefore must be replaced with substantially equivalent requirements. In the past, the division's enforcement discretion has been exercised to effectively allow5% noncompliance bythese sources. Substantial regulatory ambiguity in the opacity limitations applicable to startup and other periods also led to uncertaintyand lowercompliance levels. These revisions are substantially equivalent or better in their impact on emissionsto the results of current law and practice because that past practice led to lower compliance than the anticipated compliance levels which will result from these changes. The commission finds that these modifications are necessary as parts ofthe state implementation plan. The commission also concludes that these revisions are not more stringent than federal requirements, considering the historical "5% policy" used by the division and EPA. Accordingly, the commission concludes that these changes should be forwarded to the General Assemblyfor review and then to EPAfor inclusion in the state implementation plan. Finally, the commission adopts these rule changes subject to a delayed effective date insofaras the revisions apply to sources within the Denver PM10 non-attainment area. The Environmental Protection Agency has expressed concerns about the potential effectofthis rule change on the pending approval of the PM10 element ofthe state implementation plan for the Denver non-attainment area. In orderto ensure that the proposed approval ofthe PM10 elementfor the Denver non-attainment area is not endangered, the commission designates the effective dateforthese revisions as they applyto sources within this non-attainment area as the date on which EPA approves these changes as a revision to the state implementation plan. The commission hastaken into consideration the items enumerated in section 25-7-109(1)(b), C.R.S. The commission also makes the following**findin~ls** regarding the adoption ofthese rule changes: 1. The commission has considered, and has based its decision, on the reasonably available, validated, reviewed and sound scientific methodologies and information made available bythe parties. 2. Where these revisions are not administrative in nature, the record supports the conclusion that the provisions adopted will result in a demonstrable reduction in air pollution. This reduction is accomplished because the overall exceedence levels ofthe facilities will be lowered underthe proposal adopted. 3. The revisions selected maximize the air quality benefits ofthe emissions standards that apply. The revisions selected are the most cost-effective based on the documents submitted bythe parties under section 25-7-110.5, ard provide the regulated community with fleXibility in meeting emissions limitations. Although the overall level of exceedences should be reduced underthis rule change, operators ofthe units affected will have greaterflexibility in start-up and shutdown of the facilities without incurring a violation. In addition, the greater levels ofcertainty provided bythese changes will allow operators ofaffectedfacilities to more readily certify compliance with these applicable requirements underthe Title V operating permit program. 

### STATEMENT OF BASIS, 

### SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORITY, AND PURPOSE Revisions to Regulation No.1, Section II Adopted: July 17,1998 The Fort Carson Army Installation has made application for an exemption to the opacity requirements in Regulation NO.1 during training exercises at Fort Carson and the Pinon Canon Maneuver Site that involve the generation offog oil smoke and the use ofother obscurants. Because the purpose in using obscurants is to train troops in situations of limited visibility, the opacity ofthe smoke generated is close to 100%, which exceeds the 20% standard in the Air Quality Control commissions Regulation NO.1. As Fort Carson's training relies, in part, on smoke and obscurant usage, the potential for base closure increases if an exemption is not granted. Ifclosed, projected economic impact within a 50-mile radius of the Installation is estimated at $621 million annually. The US Army and the division have used dispersion models to estimate the air quality impacts from fog oil generation. The impact levels for various averaging periods have been compared to National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS)for particulate matter and the National Research Council's (NRC) 1997 guideline values forfog oil exposure. The Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment's Disease Control and Epidemiology division has reviewed the toxicological data for fog oil and compared that data to the National Research Council (NRC) guidelinevalues. Based on this review the division feels that under current operating practices fog oil generation is unlikely to cause a serious public health problem. The modeling analysis suggests that fog oil generation can cause impacts exceeding the NAAQS or !\IRC guidelinevalues within 3 kilometers ofthe fog oil generators. Modeled impacts greaterthan the NAAQS or NRC guidelinevalues may occur at distances of up to ten kilometers depending on the meteorological conditions and the configuration of the fog oil generators. For example, modeling suggests that fog oil generation at a usage rate of 1540 gallons offog oil over a four-hour period could cause or contribute to a NAAQS exceedence at distances of up to ten kilometers ifthe plume is transported in the same direction for several hours. Typical U. S. Armyfog oil generation requires mobile, as opposed to stationary, source operations. This might limitthe potential for such extensive off-site impacts. The division has determined that impacts in ambient air should be below the NAAQS and NRC values if standard U. S. Army fog oil generatoroperations and the mitigation measures in the exemption are followed. These mitigation measures should also address concerns from the United States Environmental Protection Agency that this exemption might lead to a violation ofthe federal National Ambient Air Quality Standard for PM 2.5. The commission determines, pursuantto section 25-7-117, C.R.S., thatthe smoke generation for the training in question is purposefully intended to be at or near 100% opacity and therefore cannot occur in compliance with the 20% opacity limitation in Regulation NO.1. Accordingly, control techniques are not desirablefor this emission ofair pollutants. This proposed revision to the state implementation plan is consistent with the legislative policy setforth in section 25-7-102; and adoption of this limited exception is consistent with the requirements ofsection 110 ofthefederal act. Regarding this element, the commission concludes, based on the modeling information presented, that the generation of fog oil smokewill not cause orcontribute to a NAAQS violation at the reservation boundary ifthe proponent operates in compliance with the limitations placed on this exemption. As additional toxicological data on fog oil is expected overthe nextfew years, the Air Quality Control commission will revisit this exemption based on an evaluation ofthe Fort Leonard Wood fog oil study, but will not be limited to this report. This report should evaluate the Fort Carson fog oil exemption in Air Quality Control commission's Regulation NO.1 with regard to the protection ofthe public health in Colorado.The commission takes this action pursuant to their regulatory authority in section 25-7-109 and section 25-7-117. Findings This limited exception to the opacity restriction in Regulation NO.1 is not intended to reduce air pollution; accordingly, the commission makes no findings pursuant to section 25-7-110.8, C.RS. Pursuant to section 25-7-133(3), C.RS., the commission concludes that this limited exemption is not required by federal law nor is it more stringent than federal law. Statement of Basis, Specific StatutoryAuthority, and Purpose Revisions to Regulation No.1, Section VII, concerning emission limits for electric generating stations The April 19, 2001 amendments to Regulation No.1, section VII were adopted to support the redesignation ofthe Denver metropolitan area to an attainment area for particulate matter. The rule amendments codify emission limitations and shut down requirements for the purpose of incorporating such limitations and requirements into the federally enforceable SIP. Basis and Purpose One ofthe emission limitations used to show maintenance ofthe NAAQS (the 20% S02 limit for the Public Service Company of Colorado Cherokeefacility) was previouslyfound only in a state permit; it was not in a regulation. (Public Service Company is now doing business as Xcel Energy.) In 1997 EPA incorporated the permit for the Cherokee facility, together with the permits for several other stationary sources, into the SIP by reference. The EPAasserts that such incorporation is necessary to the extent the State relies on emission limits in the permits to demonstrate attainment ofthe PM-10 NAAQS. The incorporation ofthe permits into the SIP meansthat any revision to such permits must go through the extensive SIP revision process. The maintenance demonstration also relies on NOx limitations at the plant. NOx emissions are already subject to federal regulations that achieve the same result, albeit with a different averaging time and calculation method. EPA, however, has asserted that the limitation must be expressed as a short-term limit incorporated into the SIP. The division disagrees with EPA's interpretation offederal law, but does not believe that the circumstances warrant challenging EPA's position. Public Service Company has consented to the inclusion ofcertain S02 and NOxemission limitations (calculated on a rolling thirty-day average basis) in the regulation and the SIP in orderto resolve the matterwith EPA. EPA has indicated thatthese limitations are adequate to resolve its concerns and, with them as a substitute, will agree that the Cherokee and all other permits may be removed from the SIP. Therefore, all permit limits and conditions contained in permits forthefollowing facilities are specifically removed from the SIP: Trigen-Colorado Energy; Public Service Company; Purina Mills; Electron Corporation; Ultramar Diamond Shamrock; Conoco Refinery; Rocky Mountain Bottle; and Robinson Brick. A SIP revision shall not be required to modify permit limits and conditions for these facilities. Any increases in emission limits contained in Regulation NO.1 that are also incorporated into the SIP would require a SIP revision. For these reasons, the commission has determined that it is appropriate to include the requirements in the SIP and the regulation. Public Service Company has asked, and the commission agrees, that these new emission limitations should not become effective unless and until EPAapproves the SIP. In 1998, the commission approved a voluntary emission reduction agreement between Public Service Company and the division pursuant to C.RS. §25-7-1201et seq. Underthat agreement as amended, Public Service Companyagreed, among otherthings, that itwould permanently shutdown and retire Arapahoe Units 1and 2 on January 1, 2003. This retirement ofthese two units was also used to show maintenance ofthe NAAQS. Despite the fact that the retirement is an enforceable commitment ofthe company under state law, EPA objected to the assumption that Arapahoe Units 1 and 2 will shutdown in2003. The EPA asserts that the maintenance plan must include a federally enforceable provision mandating the closures. Again, the division disagrees with the EPA's position and believes that it may properly rely upon the provisions ofthe voluntary agreement to demonstrate maintenance ofthe standard. However, again in order to resolve the disagreementwith the EPA, the Public Service Company consented to the inclusion ofthe shutdown requirements in the State regulations and the federally enforceable SIP. In the voluntary agreement, the retirement ofArapahoe Units 1and 2 does not forbid Public Service Company (or some other person) from reusing the Arapahoe 1 and 2 plant site or equipment, provided that such reuse is subject to new source permitting requirements. The Company, as is its right under C.RS. §25-7-1203(6), consented to the EPA's desire to include the retirement in the SIP only ifthe SIP and the state regulations recognize that such reuse is allowed subject to the new source permitting requirements. Therefore, the commission has determined that language in the proposed regulation allowing for such reuse is necessary and appropriate. This language will allow PSCO or some other party to use the Arapahoe Unit 1 or2 equipmentor plant site for the construction and operation ofa new source, provided that, depending on its level ofemissions, the new source obtains the applicable minor or major source permit. The Company also asked that the regulatory SIP provision should not apply if EPAdisapproves the maintenance plan and redesignation request. Therefore, the regulation expressly states that it will take effect upon EPA approval ofthe redesignation request. This provision in the regulation is notto be construed to mean that approval of redesignation request is required in order for the voluntary agreement between the State and the Public Service Companyto take effect. The regulation is not intended to supercede or modifythe agreement. The agreement shall be effective whether or not the regulation takes effect. The commission adopted the regulation in orderto satisfy EPA's demand to incorporate the shutdown requirement in the SIP, without incorporating the entire agreement into the SIP. Onlythe provisions applicable to the Arapahoe 1 and 2 retirement described in the regulation have been incorporated into the SIP. 

### StatutoryAuthority Specific statutory authority to redesignate areas to attainment is provided in section 25-7-107, C.RS. (1999). The authorityto adoptthe regulations necessaryto maintain the NAAQS is set out at section 25­ 7-105(1)(a)(I). C.RS. The authority to control particulate emissions is set out in section 25-7-109(2)(b), C.RS. 

### Findings pursuantto section 25-7-110.8 Section 25-7-110.8 requires the commissionto make specificfindings concerning any regulation intended to reduce air pollution. The April 2001 amendments to Regulation No.1 put into regulation pre-existing requirements. Although the regulations change the averaging time for S02 and NOx limitations, and thus appearto makethe existing requirements more stringent, the units were already in compliance with the revised standards based on the shorter averaging times. Thus, some ofthe determinations required by section 25-7-110.8 are irrelevant. To address the remaining, applicable requirements of25-7-110.8, the commission determines that: (1) all validated, reviewed and sound scientific methodologies and information made available by interested parties has been considered; and (2) the amendments adopted represent the most cost-effective option. Adopted April 19, 2001 COLORADO AIR QUALITY CONTROL COMMISSION 

### Statement of Basis, Specific Statutory Authority, and PurposeRevisions to Regulation No.1: Sections II.A. 1-10; II.B.3., II.C.2.d.; Sections III.A.1.d., A.3.; III.BA.a. 

### & b.; III.C.2-4; Section IV.I.; Section V; Section VI.A.f.; Section VI.B.2. and VI.BA.(iv); VI.C.1.; Sections VII.A.1, A.2. 

### & A.3.; Sections VillA 

### & E. Adopted: August 16, 2001 This Statement of Basis, Specific Statutory Authority and Purpose complies with the requirements ofthe Colorado Administrative Procedures Act, section 24-4-103, C.RS., and the Colorado Air Pollution Prevention and Control Act, sections 25-7-110 and 25-7-110.5, C.RS. ("the Act"). SpecificStatutoryAuthority The Act, section 25-7-109, C.RS., provides the commission the authority to adopt and revise rules and regulations that are consistent with state policy regarding air pollution and with federal recommendations and requirements.

Regulation NO.1 deals with opacity, particulate, and sulfur dioxide emissions from various sources. This rule revises the title ofthe regulation, deletes obsolete parts ofthis regulation and conforms the regulation to the "Credible Evidence" rule adopted by the commission on April 19, 2001 (referto Common Provisions Regulation, section 

### 11.1.). The rule also deletes section II.A.10. and related provisions concerning good air pollution practices for coal-fired utility boilers. Finally, the rule revises the methodology and calculation for emissions from multiple fuel burning units ducted through a common stack in section III.A.1.d. Purpose In April 2001, the commission adopted the "Credible Evidence" rule into its Common Provisions Regulation, section 

### 11.1. That rule allows for the use ofany credible evidence for the purpose ofsubmitting Title V compliance certifications or establishing whether a source has violated or is in violation ofany emissions standard contained in any regulation that has been submitted to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. The revisions to Regulation NO.1 remove conflicting language from Regulation No.1, and clarify that the EPA Method 9 is the approved visible emissions reference test method for the credible evidence rule. The opacity requirements in Regulation NO.1 were adopted based on the use of Method 9 for determining compliance with such requirements. This action also clarifies that, for purposes of compliance determinations, the particulate emissions standards found in Regulation NO.1 do not include the condensable or "back half' portion ofthe emissions train. In 1992, section 25-7-109(8), C.RS., was added to the Act to prohibitthe regulation of most agricultural activities. In some circumstances, however, agricultural open burning may be subjected to commission regulation (section 25-7-123, C.RS.). In order to address the confusion regarding open burning ofanimal parts and carcasses, the rule nowexpressly states that the open burning ofanimal parts and carcasses is not exempt from permit requirements. A special allowance to conduct open burning activities without a permit is provided where the State Agricultural commission declares a public health emergency or a contagious or infectious outbreak ofa diseasethat imperils livestock and diseased carcasses must be destroyed on weekends or holidays. In this case, voice mail messages must be left with the division and any local health department, and adequate notice must be provided to neighboring residences, schools, and businesses priorto burning. This allows the division to promptly respond to complaints about smoke from these activities and provides an opportunityfor the neighboring communityto take steps to minimize smoke exposure, e.g., close windows and schedule indoor activities. Certain provisions that regulate "grandfathered" sources that do notexist in Colorado, such as wigwam burners, static firing of Pershing missiles at the Pueblo Army Depot. and standards for iron and steel plant operations, are removed. Rocky Mountain Steel Mills is the only iron and steel plant in Colorado, and onlythose provisions that are relevant to this operation have been retained. Provisions regulating coke ovens at steel mills, blast ovens, basic oxygen furnaces, and sinter plants have been removed as obsolete. Section IIA1O, and related provisions found in II.A.4. and VI.B., concerning emissions from coal-fired utility boilers, is removed. These provisions were added in 1996, and have never been approved by the U.S. EPA. However, the commission reaffirms the findings in the Statement of Basis, Specific Statutory Authority and Purpose associated with the 1996 rulemaking. There are technical concerns related to the ability of continuous opacity monitors to obtain accurate readings during periods when the boilers, fans and process equipment atcoal-fired electric utility plants are off. As an alternative approach, the commission has proposed adoption ofAffirmative Defense Provisions to be added to the Common Provisions Regulation to recognize the issues related to periods of excess emissions during startup and shutdown conditions of coal-fired utility boilers and other sources. Consequently, leaving these provisions in Regulation NO.1 renders coal-fired utility boilers subjectto federal opacity requirements and conflicting and confusing state-only requirements. The commission wishes to remove such conflict and confusion. The rule revises section 111.A.1.d. to more accurately calculate emissions from multiple fuel burning units ducting to a common stack (because it is not possible to sum the pounds per 106 British thermal units, as is currently reflected in the regulation). Regarding the approval ofalternative performance test methods in sections 111.A.2. and 111.C.3., the commission intends that the existing practice ofthe division in consulting with the owner or operator of a source regarding appropriate alternative test methods will continue. Those consultations should include discussions why the reference method or other alternative methods are inappropriate. The commission recognizes that the division must approve any alternative test method but that the owner or operator of a source mayappeal that determination to the commission. In section VII.,A.1., A.2. and A.3., the Public Service Compliance date ofJanuary 1, 1995 has been deleted as obsolete. In addition, emissions limitations are placed on the Valmont Electric Generating Station in Boulder, Colorado, Units 1, 2, 3, and 4. In reality, Valmont only has a Unit 5, and thus revisions are made to reflect this reality. 

### In section VIII, fuel restrictions are placed on specified sources. The regulation is revised to reflect a name change ofa source and to revise the example ofa reporting tool referenced in this section. The Regulation NO.1 revisions adopted bythe Air Quality Control commission as described above will be submitted to the EPAas part ofthe State Implementation Plan. COLORADO AIR QUALITY CONTROL COMMISSION ADOPTED: August 16, 2001 APPENDIX A Method for Measuring Opacityfrom Fugitive Particulate Emission Sources

a. Principle and Applicability (i) Principle. The opacityofemissions from fugitive particulate emission sources is determined visually by a qualified observer. (ii) Applicability. This method is applicable for the determination ofthe opacity ofemissions from fugitive particulate emission sources and for qualifying observers for visually determining opacity of emissions; provided, however, this method shall not be used when wind velocities exceed 30 m.p.h. as determined by records from the nearest official station ofthe U.S. Weather Service, by interpretation ofsurface weather maps by aqualified meteorologist, or by use ofone or more anemometers at the site. The division shall use anemometers where practicable. b. Procedures. The observer qualified in accordance with Section c. ofthis method shall use the following procedures forvisually determining the opacity ofemissions: (i) Position. The qualified observer shall stand at a distance sufficient to provide a clearview ofthe emissions with the sun oriented in the 140 0 sector to his back. Consistentwith maintaining the above requirement, the observer shall, as much as possible, make his observations from a position such that his line ofvision is approximately perpendicular to the plume direction. The observer's line ofsight should not include more than one plume at a time. Where the plumes from more than one source have been combined such that it is not possible to observe the emissions from a subject source alone this method shall not be applied to the "combined plume" to determine the opacity ofemissions from any of the contributing sources. Emissions from rock or mineral drilling, crushing, conveying, screening, and storing are evaluated in the following manner: (A) Drilling. Emissions from drilling operations are evaluated at the point at which they are released from the drilling device orfrom the drill hole. (8) Crushing. Emissions included at this evaluation point are released as material is discharged from the primary and secondary crushing machines. Observations are performed on the same elevation as the discharge if possible. (C) Conveying. Visible emissions are evaluated as material is discharged at conveyer belt transfer points and loading points. Evaluation shall occuratthe same elevation as the discharge if possible. (D) Screening. Visible emissions are evaluated as material is discharged from the screen into the chutes. The observer shall obtain an observation point as close to the same elevation ofthe screens as possible. (E) Storage. Observations are performed at ground level. (F) In operations involving rock or mineral drilling, moisture content ofthe material plays an important part in type and quantityofvisible emissions. Therefore, any moisture in thefeedstock oraddition of moisture to the process should be noted on the field data sheet. (G) Emissions from all other sources offugitive particulate emissions SUbject to this regulation shall be evaluated in a mannerconsistent with the above procedures. (ii) Field Records. The observer shall record the name ofthe plant, emission location, type facility, observer's name and affiliation, and the date on a field data sheet. The time, estimated distanceto the emission location, approximate wind direction, estimated wind speed, description ofthe sky condition (presence and color ofclouds), and plume background are recorded on a field data sheet at the time opacity readings are initiated and completed. (iii) Observations. Opacityobservations shall be made at the point of greatest opacity in the plume and with a background ofcontrasting color. The observershall not look continuously at the plume, but instead shall observe the plume momentarily at 15-second intervals. The observer shall record the approximate distance from the emission outlet to the point in the plume at which the observations are made.(iv) Recording Observations. Opacity observations shall be recorded to the nearest 5 percent at 15-second intervals on an observational record sheet. A minimum of24 observations shall be recorded. Each momentaryobservation recorded shall be deemed to represent the average opacity ofemissions for a 15-second period. (v) Data Reduction. Opacity shall be determined as an average of24 consecutive observations recorded at 15-second intervals. Divide the observations recorded on the record sheet into sets of24 consecutive observations. A set is composed ofany 24 consecutive observations. Sets need not be consecutive in time and in no case shall two sets overlap. For each set of24 observations, calculate the average bysumming the opacity ofthe 24 observations and dividing this sum by 24. If an applicable standard specifies an averaging time requiring more or less than 24 observations, calculate the average for all observations made during the specified time period. Record the average opacity on a record sheet.

c. Qualifications and Testing (i) Certification requirements. To receive certification as a qualified observer, a candidate must be tested and demonstrate the abilityto assign opacity readings in 5 percent increments to 25 different black plumes and 25 differentwhite plumes, with an error not to exceed 15 percent opacity on anyone reading and an average error not to exceed 7.5 percent opacity in each category. Candidates shall be tested according to the procedures described in paragraph c. (ij). Smoke generators used pursuant to this paragraph shall be equipped with a smoke meterwhich meets the requirements of paragraph c.(iii). The certification shall bevalid for a period ofsix months, atwhich time the qualification procedure must be repeated bythe observer in orderto retain certification. (ii) Certification Procedure. The certification test consists ofshowing the candidate a complete run of50 plumes

- 25 black plumes and 25 white plumes

- produced by a smoke generator. Plumes within each set of25 black and 25 white runs shall be presented in random order. The candidate assigns an opacityvalue to each plume and records his observation on a suitable form. At the completion of each run of50 readings, the score of the candidate is determined. If a candidate fails to qualify, the complete run of50 readings must be repeated in any retest. The smoketest may be administered as part of a smoke school or training program, and maybe preceded by training or familiarization runs ofthe smoke generatorduring which candidates are shown black and white plumes of known opacity. (iii) Smoke Generator Specifications. Any smoke generator used for the purposes of paragraph c. (ii) shall be equipped with a smoke meter installed to measureopacity across the diameter ofthe smoke generator stack. The smoke meteroutput shall display in stack opacity based upon a path length equal to the stack exit diameter, on a full 0 to 100 percent chart recorder scale. The smoke meteroptional design and performance shall meetthe specifications shown in Table 1. The smoke meter shall be calibrated as prescribed in paragraph c. (iii)(A) priorto the conduct ofeach smoke reading test. At the completion of each test, the zero and span drift shall be checked and ifthe drift exceeds 1 percent opacity, the condition shall be corrected prior to conducting any subsequent test runs. The smoke metershall be demonstrated, at the time of installation, to meetthe specifications listed in Table 1. This demonstration shall be repeated following any subsequent repair or replacement ofthe photocell or associated electronic circuitry including the chart recorder or output meter, orevery6 months, whichever occurs first. (A) Calibration. The smoke meter is calibrated after allowing a minimum of30 minutes warm-up by alternately producing simulated opacityof 0 percent and 100 percent. When stable responses at 0 percent or 100 percent is noted, the smoke meter isadjusted to produce an output of

# apercent or 100 percent, as appropriate. This calibration shall be repeated until stable

# a percent or 100 percent readings are produced without adjustment. Simulated 0 percent and 100 percent opacityvalues may be produced by alternately switching the powerto the light source on and off while the smoke generator is not producing smoke.

Table 1 Smoke Meter Design and Performance Specifications Parameter Specification

a. Light Source Incandescent lamp operated at nominal rate voltage b. Spectral Photopic (daylight Response of spectral response

Photocell ofthe human eye ­ reference d(iii))



### c. Angle ofView 15° maximum total angle d. Angle of Projection 15° maximum total Angle



### e. Calibration Error 3% opacity, maximum f. Zero and Span 1% opacity, maximum g. Response Time Five seconds S. Smoke Meter Evaluation. The smoke meter design and performance are to be evaluated as follows: (1) Light Source. Verify from manufacturer's data and from voltage measurements made at the lamp, as installed, that the lamp is operated within 6 percent ofthe nominal rated voltage. (2) Spectral Response of Photocell. Verify from manufacturer's data that the photocell has a photopic response; i.e., the spectral sensitivity ofthe cell shall closely approximate this standard spectral-luminosity curve for photopic vision which is referenced in (b) ofTable 1. (3) Angle ofView. Check construction geometry to ensure that the total angle ofview ofthe smoke plume, as seen by the photocell, does not exceed 15°. The total angle ofview may be calculated from: ?=2 tan d/2L where ?=total angle ofview; d=the sum ofthe photocell diameter + the diameter ofthe limiting aperture; and L=the distancefrom the photocellto the limiting aperture. The limiting aperture is the point in the path between the photocell and the smoke plume where the angle ofview is most restricted. In smoke generator smoke meters this is normally an orifice plate. (4) Angle of Projection. Check construction geometry to ensure that the total angle of projection ofthe lamp on the smoke plume does not exceed 15°. The total angle of projection may be calculated from: ?=2 tan-' d/2L, where ?=total angle of projection; d=the sum ofthe length ofthe lamp filament and the diameterofthe limiting aperture; and L=the distance from the lamp to the limiting aperture. (5) Calibration Error. Using neutral-densityfilters of known opacity, check the error between the actual response and the theoretical linear response ofthe smoke meter. This check is accomplished by first calibrating the smoke meter according to (1) and then inserting a series of three neutral-densityfilters of nominal opacity of20, 50, and 75 percent in the smoke meter path length. Filters calibrated within 2 percent shall be used. Care should be taken when inserting the filters to prevent stray light from affecting the meter. Make a total offive nonconsecutive readings for each filter. The maximum error on anyone reading shall be 3 percent opacity. (6) Zero and Span Drift. Determine the zero and span drift by calibrating and operating the smoke generator in a normal manner over a 1-hour period. The drift is measured by checking the zero and span at the end ofthis period. (7) ResponseTime. Determine the response time by producing the series of five simulated 0 percent and 100 percent opacity values and observing the time required to reach stable response. Opacity values of 0 percent and 100 percent may be simulated by alternately switching the powerto the light source offand on while the smoke generator is not operating. References (i) Air Pollution Control District Rules and Regulations, Los Angeles County Air Pollution Control District, Regulation IV Prohibitions, Rule 50. (ii) Wefsburd, Melving L., Field Operations and Enforcement Manual forAir, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, N.C., APTD-1100, August 1972, pp. 4.1-4.36. (iii) Condon, E. U., and Oldshaw, H., Handbook of Physics, McGraw Hill Co., N.Y., N.Y. 1958, Table 3.1, p. 6-52. (iv) EPA Visible Emission Inspection Procedures, August 1975. APPENDIX B Method of Measurement of Off-PropertyTransport of Fugitive Particulate Emissions

a. Applicability. This method is applicable for the determination ofthe off-propertytransport of fugitive particulate emissions sources covered by Section III.D.2 ofthis regulation; provided, however, this method shall not be used when wind velocities exceed 30 m.p.h. as determined by records from the nearest official station ofthe U.S. Weather Service, by interpretation ofsurfaceweather maps by a qualified meteorologist, or by use ofone or more anemometers at the site. The division shall use anemometers where practicable. b. Procedure 

### (i) Position. The observer shall stand at a distance sufficient to provide a clearview ofthe emissions with the sun oriented in the 140 0 sectorto his back. The observershall position himselfoff said property so as to be able to sight along a line which does not cross the property of emission origination. Consistent with maintaining the above requirements, the observer shall, to the extent possible, make his observations from a position such that his line ofvision is approximately perpendicularto the plume direction. (ii) Field Records. The observer shall record the name ofthe plant, emission location, type facility, observer's name and affiliation, and the date on a field data sheet. Thetime, estimated distance and the emission location, approximate wind direction, estimated wind speed, description ofthe sky condition (presence and color of clouds), and plume background are recorded on a field data sheet at the time readings are initiated and completed. (iii) Observations. Observations shall be made in accordance with the provisions ofthis Appendix B sighting along a line which does notcross the property of emission origination and two such observations offugitive particulate emissions transported offthe property ofat least 15 seconds in duration [within 24 hours] must be made and must be separated byat leastfifteen (15) minutes. 

### Statementof Basis, Specific Statutory Authority And Purpose Revisions to Colorado Air Quality Control commission Regulation No.1 January 17, 2002 This Statement of Basis, Specific Statutory Authority and Purpose complies with the requirements ofthe Colorado Administrative ProceduresAct, section 24-4-103, C.RS. and the Colorado Air Pollution Prevention and Control Act, sections 25-7-110 and 25-7-110.5 and implements parts ofsections 25-7­ 106(7)and (8),25-7-114.7 and 25-7-123, C.RS.

These rule revisions implementthe provisions ofSenate Bill 01-214 and relocate, update and reorganize existing provisions of RegUlation NO.1 relating to open burning into Regulation No.9. Regulation NO.9 deals solelywith open burning activities. This new regulation contains permitting, monitoring, reporting and fee provisions, as well as requirements particular to significant users of prescribed fire. 

### Specific Statutory Authoritv The Colorado Air Pollution Prevention and Control Act, sections 25-7-109(2)(e) and 25-7-123, C.R.S., provides the authorityforthe commission to adopt and modifya program including emissions control regulations to control burning activities. Sections 25-7-106(7) and 25-7-106(8), 25-7-114.7(2)(a)(III) and 25-7-123, C.RS., setforth specific requirements relating to activities by significant users of prescribed fire, inclUding open burning activities byfederal land managers. The commission's action is taken pursuant to procedures set forth in sections 25-7-105,25-7-110 and 25-7-110.5, C.RS. 

### Purpose Open BurningThefocus of SB 01-214 is on open burning activities by significant users of prescribed fire. Addressing open burning issues is necessary in orderto address emissions from natural and prescribed fires. The Grand Canyon Visibility Transport commission identified these fires as having enough episodic impact on visibility at class I areas to overwhelm progress made through other emission control measures. The commission views reduction ofvisibility impairmentfrom fires as an important component in achieving federal and state visibility goals. This regulation should ensure that users of prescribed fire consider air pollution impacts in making determinations whether, and underwhat conditions, to use fire for grassland orforest management. Permitting The regulation continues the existing prohibition on open burning absent a permitfrom the division or a local agency. The exemptions from this requirement also remain largely the same. In particular, agricultural open burning activity does not require a permit. The regulation specifies factors that the division must consider in deciding whether, and underwhat conditions, to issue a burning permit. Thesefactors differ depending on thetype of permit applicable to the proposed activity. General open burning permits arethe basic permits for most burning activities. General permits require that an applicant use best smoke management techniques to reduce or eliminate smoke impacts on the health and welfare ofthe public. Although the regulation includes a partial listing ofmethods to minimize fire emissions and smoke impacts, the commission intends thatthe division will exercise its discretion to achieve the goals ofthis regulation without imposing unreasonable conditions. General open burning may be delegated bythe division to local counties. The next category offire addressed bythis regulation is planned ignition fires, which are a subset of prescribed fires for grassland and forestland management. The commission decided to establish an emissions and smoke de minimus threshold belowwhich a permit applicant mustonly obtain a general open burning permit. Forfires that will exceed thatthreshold, applicants intending to initiate afire must obtain a permit fora planned ignition fire. Permits for this type offire must address additional concerns beyond those applicable to general open burning activities. The commission listed factors for division consideration in determining whether, and underwhat conditions, to issue a permit. This list is not exclusive and the division may incorporate in permits additional conditions if it finds them necessary to minimize the impacts offire on visibility and on public health and welfare. These factors focus on identifying and minimizing impacts to smoke-sensitive receptors. In addition, planned ignition permit conditions should ensure thatthe permitteewill take appropriate action to ensure that the fire remains within the terms ofthe permit or is managed so as to return it within those terms, orthatthe permittee will suppress the fire ifcompliance with permitterms cannot otherwise be achieved. Unplanned ignition fire permits offer persons a mechanism to usefire for grassland orforest management even though the precise time and location ofa particular prescribed fire cannot be anticipated. These permits generallywill applyto larger parcels of land, in some portion ofwhich unplanned ignition may occur. The purpose ofthis permit type is to determine before ignition the conditions underwhich the fire may be used for resource benefit. As with planned ignition fires, permit conditions should ensure that the permittee will take appropriate action to ensure thatthe fire remains within theterms ofthe permit or is managed so as to return it within those terms, or that the permitteewill suppress the fire ifcompliance with permitterms cannot otherwise be achieved. This regulation focuses on fires that a person intends to use for a beneficial purpose, such as grassland or forest management. The commission distinguished between those fires and wildfires. Wildfires are beyond the scope ofthis regulation and no permitting requirements apply to a land managerwithin whose jurisdiction a wildfire occurs. The commission also concluded that a public comment opportunity should be available regarding fires with a high smoke risk. The commission intends that a high smoke risk rating be equivalentto a rating of41 or greater from the draft Smoke Risk Rating Worksheet prepared bythe division in conjunction with some users ofprescribed fire and attached tothis Statement of Basis and Purpose as Attachment A. The commission recognizes thatthe division and users of prescribed fire mayfind it appropriateto revise the smoke risk rating methodology in the future. Ifthis is done, the commission intends that what constitutes a high smoke risk burn will consider at least the samefactors as in AttachmentA, and the point at which a fire becomes a high smoke risk should be equivalent to a rating of41 on Attachment A. The division will determine which fires have a high smoke risk through consideration ofthe factors reflected in Attachment A. If, after considering these factors, the division concludes that the fire has a high smoke risk, it will allow the publicthirty days in which to submit comments regarding whether a permit should be issued and what conditions are appropriate for inclusion in the permit. For planned ignition prescribed fires, the notice will include information about location ofthefire, expected burn dates, expected duration ofthe fire, potential emissions, and potential air quality and visibility impacts at smoke sensitive receptors. The commission intends that the division either add appropriate conditions or combine permits to prevent circumvention ofthe public comment requirement, should a permitapplicant submit separate applications that may have the effectof dividing burns that are more appropriately considered together. This comment opportunity is subject to the commission's Procedural Rules and includes the rights to a public comment hearing provided in those Rules. The comment opportunity does not include a right to an adjudicatory hearing to appeal issuance of a permit, as only the permit applicant may request such a hearing. Persons would still have recourse to seekjudicial review of permits pursuant to the Administrative Procedures Act. 

### Significant users ofprescribedfire Senate Bill 01-214 imposes on significant users of prescribed fire additional requirements to ensure that that those users consider air quality impacts in making decisions about when, and under what conditions, theywill use fire for grassland orforest management. Senate Bill 01-214 defined a significant user of prescribed fire as a person or agencythat collectively manages or owns more than 10,000 acres ofland and that uses prescribed fire. The commission enlarged on the part ofthis definition dealing with use of prescribed fire by establishing a minimum activity level based on PM 10 emissions during a calendar year. The commission concludes that users of prescribed fire at levels belowthis threshold do not have significant enough an impact on visibility and air qualitytojustifytheir inclusion in this partofthe smoke management program. This provision will focus the regulatory requirements and the resources ofthe division and others on the prescribed fires with the greatest potential impacton visibility and human health and welfare. The commission did not establish a de minimus threshold for other open burns, as even small fires intended to dispose oftrash, rubbish and similar materials may have disproportionate impacts on local air quality. The regulation imposes additional duties on significant users of prescribed fire, consistent with specific requirements in SB 01-214. Section 25-7-106(8)(b), C.R.S., requires that significant users submit planning documents to the commission for comment and recommendations. This section also anticipates a hearing on the plans to allow public input. This public hearing requirement is similar to public hearing options applicable to major stationary source permitting. Public input on regulatory compliance and permits for major sources is importantto public confidence in air pollution control efforts, particularlyfor long-term planning documents. The commission will hold public hearings to review the planning documents and may make comments and recommendations regarding the plans. Open burning permits for general, planned and unplanned ignition fires can only be issued to significant users ofprescribed fire ifthe permit is consistent with the comments and recommendations ofthe commission. The commission intends that, wherever possible, the division will issue a permitwith appropriate conditions in order to meetthis requirement, rather than denying the permit altogether. This approach recognizes the value of prescribed fire in grassland and forestland management, but ensures that the air quality goals of SB 01-214 and this regUlation are adequately protected.The commission defined planning documents and tailored the applicable regulatory requirements to focus submittals and commission review on the process used by a significant userof prescribed fire, rather than on the results ofthat process in a specific instance. The commission does not intend to challenge land use decisions made bythe land manager. The purpose of the commission comments and recommendations will be to ensure that the land manager adequately considers air quality impacts when making decisions whether, and underwhat conditions, to use prescribed fire. The commission planning document review will focus on howa significant user of prescribed fire will meet the state air quality protection standard expressed in section 25-7-106(7)(e), C.R.S Planning documents should summarize the decision process by which the land manager identifies and selects among alternative treatment methods forfuel reduction. The documents should provide a specific description relevant to accomplishment ofthe state air quality goal expressed in § 25-7-106(7)(e), C.R.S. This requirement will focus the land managerdecision-making process on the goals ofSenate Bill 01-214. The commission recognizes that planning documents will vary in their level ofdetail and sophistication in describing decision mechanisms used by land managers, particularly during the initial set ofcommission reviews. commission comments and recommendations mayextend to beneficial changes in planning documents as well as improvements in the land manager planning process related to consideration ofthe state air quality goal. Specific permit conditions may be excluded from a permit ifa federal land manager asserts that a federal statute specifically prohibits the compliance with the condition. In adopting this regulation, the commission made no evaluation whether any particularfederal statute or permit condition mayjustify exclusion ofa permit condition Nevertheless, section 118 ofthe federal Clean AirAct, 42 U.S.C. §7418, subjects federal agencies engaging in activities resulting, orwhich may result, in discharge ofair pollutants to state requirements on control and abatement ofair pollution "in the same manner, and to the same extent as any nongovernmental entity." This waiver offederal sovereign immunity allows states to subjectfederal agencies to any substantive, procedural, permitting, fee or any other requirement. The Colorado General Assembly enacted §25-7-106(7), C.R.S., pursuant to §118 and directed that this subsection be construed to exercise the full extent of the state's authority regarding pollution from federal facilities. The commission intends these revisions to comport with §118 and to exercise the state's authority to its full extent. The division should considerthis intent in deciding whether a federal statute specifically prohibits imposition ofa particular permit condition. The rule also establishes a meansfor dealing with outdated plans or documents. The commission chose to view a plan as being outdated upon expiration ofthe period for which the plan itselfstates it is applicable, up to ten years. The commission may make comments or recommendations in the review process that urge a shorter applicable period than anticipated in the planning document. Any such comments will recognize applicable constraints on preparation of updated documents, such as the provisions ofthe National Environmental PolicyAct. The regulation establishes a means for dealing with lands acquired by a significant userof prescribed fire afterthe commission reviews an initial or laterversion ofa planning document. The commission concluded that requiring changes and further review of planning documents whenever a significant user acquires land would unduly increase the burdens ofthe review process on the commission, the division and the land managers. In general, the commission anticipates addressing planning documents for these lands at the next regular review, so long as the acquired lands will be managed in largely the same way as those already addressed by the commission. Where there will be a substantial difference in management ofthe acquired lands, the commission concluded that the land manager must submit planning documents to address the anticipated management. 

### Fees andMonitoring Senate Bill 01-214 directed the commission to include within its smoke management program provisions for fees necessaryto payfor administration ofthe program. Since the General Assembly granted the direct authority to develop afee program for the smoke management program, the commission is notrequired to utilize the fee mechanism applicable to traditional stationary sources. The commission chose to apportion the cost of administering the program among users of prescribed fire ratherthan relying on traditional emissions fees. In part, this conclusion was due to the unique characteristics ofthis emission source category including highly variable emissions from one yearto the next. Therefore, the commission .concluded that the traditional emission fee approach would result in substantially greater administrative burdens for both the division and for users of prescribed fire. The methodology adopted combines the proportion ofthe total number of permits and total PM 10 emissions of a particular userto determine the appropriate fraction ofthe program cost payable by that user. This approach will provide an equitable distribution ofthe costs ofadministering the common elements ofthe program. The commission intends that fees paid by stationary sources will not be used to pay any portion ofthe smoke management program costs. The total administrative cost of$129,646.45 at the outset is specified in an appendix to the regulation and the commission intends that any change to it or the distribution methodology occur only through a properly noticed public rule-making hearing before the commission. To that end, the cost is included in the regulation as the regulatory "fee." The division cost for program administration will be recalculated annually and reported to the commission each August. If the total cumulative dollar difference between the cost reflected in the regulation and the division's annual calculation exceeds five percent, the division will seek afee change through a commission rulemaking. The "total cumulative dollardifference" between the regulatory fee and the annual cost will be calculated considering personnel and indirect and operating costs associated with the program, and the cumulative dollar difference from the previous year. This calculation will be performed substantially in accordance with the Colorado Smoke Management Program Cost and Fee Calculation Template (Attachment B). The commission also intends that the actual revenue collected be reported annually. If collections are consistently below projections, the division shall seek an appropriate fee adjustment consistent with the shortfall in revenue. In addition, the commission imposed afee pursuant to section 25-7-114.7(2)(A)(III), C.R.S., to cover the direct and indirect costs ofevaluating planning documents submitted to the commission. In orderto reduce the administrative burden on the division and permittees, both the evaluation fees and the administration fee will be billed annually. The rule revisions adopted address the procedural mechanismsfor accomplishing the mandatory requirements ofSenate Bill 01-214. The general structure ofthe smoke management program has been established by statute. The commission's rule implementsthat legislative prescription; the revisions adopted set a de minimus level for significant users of prescribed fire, establish afee mechanism and delineate the specifics ofthe program anticipated by the statute. The commission concludes that these rule revisions are adopted to implement prescriptive state statutory requirements, where the commission is allowed no significant policy-making options, forthe purposes of

### § 25-7-110.5, C.RS. The commission also concludes it has no discretion under state law to adopt alternative rules that differ significantlyfrom these revisions, forthe purposes of

### § 25-7-110.8(1), C.RS. Accordingly, the commission did not include in the record some ofthe portions ofthe rulemaking prerequisites addressed in 

### § 25-7-110.5, C.R.S., and did not make specific determinations regarding the factors listed in 

### § 25-7-110.8(1), C.R.S. The commission took into consideration the appropriate items enumerated in section 25-7-1 09(1)(b), C.RS. COLORADO AIR QUALITY CONTROL COMMISSION ADOPTED: JANUARY 17, 2002 Statementof Basis, Specific StatutoryAuthority, and Purpose Revision to Regulation No.1: Section VIII.A Adopted June 19,2003This Statement of Basis, Specific Statutory Authority and Purpose complies with the requirements ofthe Colorado Administrative Procedures Act, 

### § 24-4-103, C.RS., and the Colorado Air Pollution Prevention and Control Act, 

### §§ 25-7-110 and 25-7-110.5, C.R S ("the Act"). Specific StatutoryAuthority Section 25-7-107, C.RS., provides the commission authority to review the current classification ofany attainment, non-attainment, or unclassifiable area within the State. In addition, 

### § 25-7-109, C.RS., provides the commission authority to adopt, promulgate, modify and/or repeal emission control regulations that require the use ofair pollution controls, including those regulations pertaining to particulates [§ 25-7-1 09(2)(b), C.RS.]. Basis and Purpose Regulation NO.1 deals with opacity, particulate, and sulfur dioxide emissions from various sources. This amendmentto Regulation No.1 revises Section VIII.A, wherein a clerical error, which inadvertently materialized subsequentto the adoption of unrelated revisions to Regulation NO.1 during the August 2001 hearing, misrepresents the Denver area's PM-1 0 attainment/maintenance status. Section VIII.A erroneously referred to the Denver PM-10 non-attainment area, even though the area has been redesignated to "attainment/maintenance" for PM-10 (50 CFR 81.306). The EPA noted the discrepancy and asked the State to fix it when it approved the Denver PM-10 maintenance plan in September2002 (40 CFR 52.320(c)(95)(i)(I)). This revision remedies the error. COLORADO AIR QUALITY CONTROL COMMISSION ADOPTED: June 19, 2003 Statement of Basis, Specific StatutoryAuthority, and Purpose Revision to Regulation No.1, Particulate Matter, Smoke, Carbon Monoxide and SulfurOxides July 21, 2005 This Statement of Basis, Specific Statutory Authority and Purpose complies with the requirements ofthe Colorado Administrative Procedures Act, 

### § 24-4-103, C.RS., and the Colorado Air Pollution Prevention and Control Act, 

### §§ 25-7-110 and 25-7-110.5, C.RS ("the Act"). Specific Statutory Authority Section 25-7-109, C.RS., provides the Commission authority to adopt, promulgate, modify and/or repeal emission control regulations that require the use of air pollution controls. [§ 25-7-109(1)(a), C.RS.]. Basis and Purpose Regulation NO.1 generally sets forth emission limitations, equipment requirements, and work practices (abatement and control measures) intended to control the emissions of particulates, smokes, and sulfur oxides from new and existing stationary sources. This revision to Regulation NO.1 is intended to address Ft. Carson's need to use obscurants during training and to respond to EPA's August 8, 2001 letter regarding Regulation No. 1.Ft. Carson Obscurant usage The Commission adopted Regulation No.1, Section II.C. on July 17, 1998, to allow soldiers to train with smoke or obscurants on Fort Carson, while requiring that visible emissions from these sources not cross the Installation boundary. This was accomplished by limiting the generation of smoke and obscurants to training areas at least three kilometers away from the Installation boundary.Section II.A ofthe regulation sets a general standard prohibiting emission into the atmosphere of any air pollutant which is in excess of20% opacity. In recognition that smoke and obscurant generation in training by the United States Army purposefully intends to be at or near 100% opacity, Section II.C was added to Regulation NO.1 in 1998. Section II.C allowed the use of military smokes and obscurants at Fort Carson and the Pinon Canyon Maneuver Site (PCMS) (both ofwhich will be referred to as Fort Carson or the Installation in this document), subject to specified limitations and conditions.

Since the 1998adoption, Ft. Carson has documented that the three-kilometer restriction placed essential training areas, such as drop zones for airborne operations, an urban war-fighting training complex, and a Combined Arms Live Fire Exercise Range, offlimits for smoke or obscuranttraining. Consequently, by reducing the amount ofavailable training area, the size and scope oftraining maneuvers were constrained, which diminished how realistic these battlefield environments were for the soldiers. Due to world events since 1998, and more particularly since September 11, 2001, the training demand at Fort Carson expanded considerably and will likely remain at a high levelfor the foreseeable future, placing even higher demand on limited training areas and threatening an inability to train soldiers to standard in a timely manner. The 1998 version ofthe regulation also restricted the types ofsmoke and obscurants, which did not provide realistic training for soldiers whowould normally use othertypes of materials during combat situations.

Therefore, the Commission has approved an amendmentto the regulation to permit the use of more training acreage on Fort Carson for smoke or obscurants, as well as to allowthe use of current or new Department of Defense- approved materials that create obscurant effects. Such changes to the regulation will allow the flexible and realistic military training that the Army requires to responsively address lessons learned from actual missions. Specifically, the amendment includes the following changes:

• It replaces the specific reference to fog oil with a general reference to smoke or obscurants. This allows the use ofother materials and devices that may be used only after an authorized Department of Defense official has approved them;

• It cites more accurately that the training manuals and guidance for using smoke and obscurants are Department of Defense documents, not solely those from Fort Carson;

• It removes the dailyfog oil limitations. The relationship ofthose limitations to protecting the national ambient air qualitystandards appears nonexistent. In contrast, the additional specific controls on Fort Carson's use ofsmoke and obscurants imposed by the amended regulation provide a clear basis for compliance with the basic requirement of Section II.C, i.e., no transportofemissions from smoke or obscurants off Fort Carson;

• Similarly, the revision replaces the three-kilometer buffer zone, the scientific basis for which has been called into question, with more realistic, yet 

### still effective, planning and operating procedures that are equally or more likelyto prevent visible emissions from crossing the Installation boundary; and

• It imposes on Fort Carson specific, required measures to be executed before and during smoke and obscuranttraining. These measureswill preclude commencement of such training under unsatisfactory conditions and stop such training ifconditions unexpectedly deteriorate. In large part, imposition ofthese measures recognizes the factthat the duty ofthe Commission to protectthe quality ofColorado's air is at one with the goal ofthe Army to provide effective, realistic training. For the Commission, smoke and obscurant use must be closely controlled to avoid off-Fort Carson transport. For the Army, training must replicate combat conditions. Underthose conditions, use of smoke and obscurants must likewise be carefully controlled. If a plume travels too quickly or in unexpected directions, it will be ineffective at best, counter-productive atworst. To complement the specific operational requirements in the amended regulation, Fort Carson will revise its internal training regulations to incorporate those requirements. Thus, violations ofthe requirements of the regulation will be subjectto military disciplinary or adverse administrative action as well as compliance actions underColorado and federal law. Based on discussion between Ft. Carson, the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment, Air Pollution Control Division, and the Environmental Protection Agency, the Commission believes that the NAAQS are protected if no visible emissions cross the Installation boundary. The Commission has concluded that the more comprehensive and practical control measures in the amended regulation provide as great or greater assurances that off-Installation transport will not occur as compared to the limitations and conditions in the 1998version. Thus, the amended regulation comports with section 110(1) ofthe federal Clean Air Act. EPAAugust 2001 letter EPA's August 2001 letter raised several issues concerning Regulation NO.1. Some of EPA's issues concern changes contained in 1996 and 2001 SIP revisions that are currently pending before EPA. Other EPA comments related to provisions of the regulation that are already approved into the SIP. The Commission not only amends Regulation No.1, it also hereby amends the SIP and withdraws some portions ofthe previous SIP submittal as appropriate to respond to EPA's comments. The reasons for such changes are described here. The scope ofthe SIP revision is set out below in the section entitled "Revisions to the Colorado State Implementation Plan". Section III. Particulate Matter EPA concern: In a recent review ofa Colorado operating permit, we ran into confusion regarding the applicability ofeach subsection of Reg. 1, III.C.1. The problem stems from whether the categorization ofa 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 timelyfor the Division to include this change nowwith the extensive Reg. 1 updates it is making. The Division would be required to provide reasoning that shows that the change does not relax the SIP requirements. The Commission agrees and has changed the section to read design rate. The division currently uses design rate for this purpose so this change only clarifies the current practice. Section VI. Sulfur Dioxide

EPA Concern: This part seems to indicate that the emission limit averaging time for sources using fuel sampling will be the frequency ofthe fuel sampling specified in the fuel sampling plan submitted pursuant A.1to section IV.B.2. We have two concerns with this requirement. First, the averaging time ofthe emission limitshould not vary based on the frequency offuel sampling. Among other things, the fuel-sampling plan should describethe test method used to sample the fuel as well as the frequency at which the fuel should be sampled. The frequency ofsampling should depend on whether or not the sulfur in the fuel is expected to remain constant. If it is not constant, it should be sampled more frequently than if it does remain constant. The amount ofsulfur in the fuel will be considered a constant until the fuel is re sampled. If, for example, a fuel is sampled once/day, that measured concentration ofsulfur in the fuel will be assumed to remain constantfor 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 IV.B.2 applies only to fossil fuel fired stem generators greaterthen 250 mm BTU/hour heat input, whereas the S02 emission limits in the section applyto differenttypes ofsources including sources less than 250 mm BTU/hr heat input. Referencing Section IV.B.2 limits section VIA1. The Commission agrees that the fuel sampling needs to be tied to the likelihood of the sulfurcontent in the fuel changing. The sampling should be scheduled so that changes in the fuel sulfur are monitored. A.3.f EPA Concern: The end ofthe first paragraph in Partf - 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 newsources, does not contain emission limits for Cement Manufacture, Did you intend the Emission limits for existing Cement Manufactureto apply to newsources? New cement manufacturing plants will be covered by NSR permits that will include more stringent S02 emissions limitations than are set out in Regulation NO.1. Therefore, the Commission is removing the reference to newcement manufacturing plants in section VI.A.3.fas unnecessary and redundant. A& B.1 EPA Concern: These sections are written to make it seem that an existing permitted source (i.e. permitted before August 11, 1977)which makes a modification would not be required to meet either sections VI.A orVI.B. Section VI.A only applies to sources constructed or modified priorto August 11, 1977. Section VI.B does not apply to sources, which constructed or modified and have not been issued a permit priorto 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 eithersection VI.AorVI.B? The Commission does not believe that there is an issue here. Section VI.A covers sources constructed or modified priorto August 11, 1977. Section VI.B covers new sources defined as newly constructed or modified which have not been issued an Emission Permit priorto August 11, 1977. Thus a source permitted before August 11, 1977 which made a modification would continue to be subject to Section VIA While EPA is correct that this does not subject the source to an increased stringency, the source would be subjectto the regulation.

EPA Concern: B.4B.5 Comments here are on Parts e and g pertaining to emission limit relaxation. The existing SIPapproved rules limit S02 emissions to 0.3 Ibs/day. The State has revised the daily limit to 0.7 Ibs/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 anyother applicable requirement of the Act. Section 110(1) applies to both attainment and unclassifiable areas, as well as nonattainment areas. The revisions may be a relaxation of existing requirements at sources that impact PM-10 non-attainment areas. As a result, the revisions mayaggravate ambient air quality problems in the non-attainment area. The State should submit an analysis indicating whether the relaxation in the emissions limit will impact the non-attainment area. Also, the state should evaluate whether or not the emission limit relaxation would cause or contribute to a violation of the S02 increments. Finally, the State should investigate whether section 193 of the Act would apply to the relaxed emission limitations. To the extent section 193 does apply, the SIP revision would have to provide equivalent or greateremission reductions to offset any emissions increases. Second, we do not understand whythe rules indicate that "the Division shall not limit the determination of barrels processed per dayto 24 hour period." What is the purpose ofthis sentence? This sentence is also found in section VI.A.3.g.ii The division attempted to model compliance with the new standard and found violations ofthe NAAQS. The Commission agrees that the previous language should be reinstated to protect the NAAQS, because the modeling did not support the relaxation ofthe standard. Such changes merely amend the state regulation to match the language alreadycontained in the SIP and, therefore, need not be submitted to EPA as a SIP revision. Accordingly, the Commission is withdrawing the previously submitted language currently pending before EPA as a SIP revision.

EPA Concern: The state deleted this section, which limited emissions of any newsource not specifically regulated bythe 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. The Commission had previously deleted this language because there is similar language in Regulation No.6, Section 

### 111.0. However, Regulation No.6, Section 

### 111.0 is not part ofColorado's SIP. Therefore the Commission will reinstate the language in Regulation NO.1 and delete the state-only language in Regulation NO.6 in a future rule making. Other changes The division is also addressing several clean up and clarifying changes. The open burning provisions of Section II.C are being reinstated in the regulation. Section II.C was removed when the division created Regulation No.9, Open Burning, Prescribed Fire, And Permitting. The Commission never intended that Regulation NO.9 become part ofthe SIP, so to maintain the integrity ofthe SIP the Commission is reinstating the open burning provisions in Regulation No.1. The Commission is removing the Gates and Rocky Flats boilers from Section VilLA because these boilers no longer exist or operate. REVISIONS TO THE COLORADO STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLANThe AQCC hereby revises and updates the SIP to reflect the July 21,2005 amendments to Regulation NO.1. Most of Regulation NO.1 is already in the SIP. Accordingly, onlythe revisions to the provisions listed below adopted on July 21,2005are SIP revisions. For the convenience of EPA, and because the Commission simultaneous made non-substantive numbering changes throughout Regulation No.1, a copy of Regulation No.1, as adopted on July21, 2005, is attached as Appendix A in its entirety. Appendix A shall not be construed to be a SIP revision for any provision that has already been incorporated into the SIP in its current form, exceptthat EPA may adjustthe numbering scheme in the SIP to reflect the new numbering scheme. Only the following provisions are submitted as SIP revisions: The unnumbered introductory paragraph that is the first paragraph ofpage 4 ofAppendix A. Section I.A Section II.A.1 Section II.A.3 Sections II.C Section 11.0 Section III.B.2.a Section III.B.3 Section III.C.1 Section II.C.1.a Section II.C.1.b Section IV.O.2 Section IV.A.1 Section IV.A.3.f Section VI.A.5 Section VI.B.7 Section VI.B.5 Section VI.0.2.b Section VIII.A.5 Section VIII.A.6 Section IX. In addition to submitting the revisions to the twenty-one sections of Regulation NO.1 listed above, the Commission also retracts all previously submitted revisions to sections VI.BA.e. and VI.BA.g.(ii). On July 21, 2005 the Commission revised these two sections of Regulation NO.1 to match thesetwo provisions as already incorporated into SIP verbatim. Thus, the versions ofthese two sections previously submittedas SIP revisions no longer match the state regulation and are hereby retracted as SIP revisions. Since the versions of sections VI.B.4.e and VI.B.g.(ii) adopted on July 21,2005 match the provisions already approved into the SIP, it is not necessaryto resubmit them as SIP revisions. In effect, the Commission has merely made conforming changes to the state rule to conform to the approved SIP. COLORADO AIR QUALITY CONTROL COMMISSION ADOPTED: JULY 21, 2005 Statement of Basis, Specific Statutory Authority, and Purpose Revision to Regulation No.1 September21,2006 This Statement of Basis, Specific Statutory Authority and Purpose complies with the requirements ofthe Colorado Administrative Procedures Act, 

### § 24-4-103, C.R.S., and the Colorado Air Pollution Prevention and Control Act, 

### §§ 25-7-110 and 25-7-110.5, C.R.S ("theAct") Specific Statutory Authority The Colorado Air Pollution Prevention and Control Act, section 25-7-109, CR.S., provides the commission the authorityto adopt and revise rules and regulations that are consistent with state policy regarding air pollution and with federal recommendations and requirements. Basis and Purpose The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) promulgated a New Source Performance Standardfor Commercial and Industrial Solid Waste Incinerators (CISWI) at 40 CFR Part 60, Subpart CCCC on December 1, 2000. The Commission incorporated the new standard by reference into Regulation No.6, Part A in February 2002. At that time, therewere no sources in Colorado subject to Subpart CCCC. In September 2005 a new unit subject to Subpart CCCC commenced construction, which raised an issue regarding performance-testing requirements for that unit. Subpart CCCC of40 CFR Part 60 applies to air curtain destructors that combustwood or yard wastes at a commercial or industrial facility. Subpart CCCC includes performance-testing requirements for such units. The Commission's Common Provisions regulation defines air curtain destructors sUbjectto 40 CFR Part 60 as incinerators, which also subjects them to grain loading standards and performance testing requirements under Regulation No.1, Section III.B. It is not feasible, however, to conduct performance testing on air curtain destructors for grain loading emissions as specified in Section III.B. due to their lack ofa stack. In order to ensure that appropriate and reasonable emission standards and performancetesting requirements are applied to air curtain incinerators, the Commission has adopted revisions to Regulation No.1, Section III.B. clarifying that air curtain incinerators subject to 40 CFR Part 60 are not subject to Section III.B. Further, these revisions will include anytypographical and grammatical errors throughout the regulation. COLORADO AIR QUALITY CONTROL COMMISSION ADOPTED: SEPTEMBER 21, 2006

# Notice ofFinalAdoption

# STATE 

# OF COLORADO

Bill Owens. Governor Dennis E. Ellis, Execurive Director Dedicllted toprorecting and improving the hea(rh and enVlronmenr ofthepeople ofColorado COLORADOAIR QUALITY CONTROL COMMISSION http://www.cdphe.state.co_us EDO-AQCC-AS 4300 Cherry Creek Drive South Denver, Colorado 80246-1530 Phone (303) 692-3100 Colorado Department Fax (303)691-7702 ofPublicHealth TDD (303) 69/-7700 and Environment



### NOTICE OFFINALADOPTION PURSUANTto theprovisions ofsections 25-7-105, 25-7-105(12), 25-7-114 through 25-7-114,7, 25-7­ 106,25-7-119 and 25-7-132 CR.S. ofthe Colorado PollutionPreventionand Control Act NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVENthat after apublicrulemakinghearing September21, 2006, and in compliancewiththerequirements ofsections 25-7-105, 25-7-110, and 25-7-110.5, CR.S., the Colorado Air QualityControl Commissionmaderevisionsto: RegulationNumber 6 - Standards ofPerformance for New Stationary Sources and RegulationNumber 1 - EmissionControl forParticulateMatter, Smoke, CarbonMonoxide and SulfurOxides The Commissionadoptedrevisions to RegulationNumber 6andRegulationNumber 1. Pursuantto section25-7-105 to 109 and 25-7-1 14, CR.S.the Commissionhereby adopted considerationsfor Regulation 6byreferencea setofprovisions to incorporate changes to thefederal programinrecent months and forRegulationNumber 1revisions to the performance testingrequirements for aircurtain destructors. This actionwas submittedto the SecretaryofState'sOfficewithin 20 days after adoption forpublication inthe ColoradoRegister,pursuantto 24-4-103(5) and (ll)(d),CR.S_, and willbecome effective November 30, 2006. Additionally, pursuantto 24-4-103(8)(d), CR.S.,within 20 days after the date ofthe Attorney General's Opinion, this action willbe submittedtothe Office ofLegislative Legal Services forreview_ Datedthis 2ndday ofOctober2006at Denver, Colorado_

COLORADOAIR QUALITY CONTROLCOMMISSION



### Douglas A. 

### Lempke, Administrator