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

### STREET-SUITE 300

DENVER, CO 80202-2466 Phone 800-227-8917 http://www.epa.gov/region08 

## JUl

- 5 

## 2005
Ref: 8P-AR Margie Perkins, Director Air Pollution Control Division Department ofPublic Health and Environment 4300 Cherry Creek Drive South Denver, CO 80246-1530 LA rr14Yi II.: '0 /' DearMs.**P~kins:** I am forwarding EPA'spreliminary comments on the proposed revisions to Colorado Regulation No.1, Emission Control Regulation for Particulate Matter, Smoke, Carbon Monoxide and Sulfur Oxides. The comments are contained in the enclosure to this letter and identify substantive concerns and clarification issues. In the course ofconducting our review ofthe proposed revisions to RegulationNo.1, we identified some other concerns with other parts ofRegulationNo. 1. We will discuss those other concerns with you separately. Please note that the enclosed comments contain our current views based on a preliminary review ofthe proposed revisions to Regulation No. 

### 1. These views should not be considered our final position, which we will only reach through notice and comment rulemaking after the state has submitted a rule for our approval as a SIP revision. Please contact me at (303) 312-6005, or have you staffcontact Laurie Ostrand at (303) 312-6437, ifyou have any questions regarding this letter.

# 'ZSi/~ ly, ,',
"-­

# ~~., j )

# IL </J 

### t,,, 

# I·**.~._~.,** 

# , .. Rich:rrd ,. Long, i;:::\ Air and Radiation ivision 

### !
, 

### ; EnclosurePRELIMINARY COMMENTS ON COLOROADO REGULATION NO.1, July 1, 2005. Please note that the comments below contain our current views based on a preliminary review ofthe proposed revisions to Regulation No.1. These views should notbe considered our final position, which we will onlyreach through notice and comment rulemaking after the state has submitted a rule for our approval as a SIP revision. A. Substantive Concerns 1. Section ill.A.l.d.

- previously the rule read: "Iftwo (2) ormore fuel burning units connect to any opening, the maximum allowable emissionrate shall be calculated on a lb/million heat input (BTU) basis as calculated from a weighted average ofthe individual allowable limits for eachunit ducting to the common stack." The proposed changes read: "Iftwo (2) ormore 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 eachunit ducting to the common stack." We are not surewhythe rule was changedto ''lb/hourbasis" from ''lb/millionheat input (BTU) basis." Also, we believe the rule should be clearon howthe weighting shouldbe done (e.g., either in the rule itselfor in the Statement of Basis). Additionally, ifyou intendto keep the calculationbased on a "lb/hour basis," the rule should also indicate that testing to determine compliance with the limit will be conducted at maximum load so that a source would need to show compliance with a mass emission rate based on worst-case conditions. 2. Petroleum Refining Limits, Section VI.B.4.e. Webelieve the rule needs to be revised to establish compliance monitoring methods. We are also concerned that the rule limits are not clear and maynot be protective ofthe S02 NAAQS.

- As proposed, Section VLB.4.e. does notindicate how compliance will be determined. SIPs must include compliance determining methods to ensure enforceability ofSIP limits. See 40 CFR 51.212.
. -Limit in Section VI.B.4.e. is not clear

- 0.3 lbs ofsulfur dioxide for the sum ofall S02 emissions from a given refinery, perbarrel ofoil processed. However, in compliance plans we've looked at, the barrels ofoil processed is a dailymonthly average, rather than a true daily average. -Limit does not appearto beprotective ofthe S02 NAAQS. Based on conversations and material submitted, we understand that the S02 limit on the refineries is necessary to protect the S02 NAAQS. First, the state revised the S02 limit for new refineries from 0.3 lbs ofS02/barrel ofoil processed/day to 0.7 lbs ofS02/barrel ofoil processed/day and conducted 2

### modeling to confirm whether or not the 

### SOz NAAQS would be protected at the higher limit. After modeling it was decided to change the 

### SOz limit back to 0.3 lbs ofSOzlbarrel ofoil processed/day. Second, based on past PSDpermitting issues around the refineries, we understand that the area was close to modeled violations ofthe NAAQS. We have several questions regarding these modeling efforts. First

- Regulation No.1 does not limit the amount ofbarrels ofoilprocessed perday at a refinery. The modeling must have assumed a certain amount ofemissions per day from the refineries. Were daily 

### SOz modeled emissions based on aphysical restriction ofbarrels ofoil processedper day at the refineries or some other assumption? Please explain how 

### SOz emissions were modeled, the enforceable limits relied on in the modeling, and ifworst case conditions were considered. Second, we are also wondering ifthe modeling evaluated whether ornot the three hour 

### SOz NAAQS was protected with the daily emission limits. Ifso, what assumptions were made? 3. Cement Manufacture. Section VLA.3.f. and VI.B.4.i. The rule needs to be revised to establish compliance monitoring methods. -These sections do not specify a method to determine compliance with the emission limits. As proposed, Section VLB.4.i. indicates that aplan (presumably for determining compliance) is to be submitted for Division approval. As proposed, Section VLA.3.f. does not indicate how compliance will be determined. SIPs must include compliance determining methods to ensure enforceabilityofSIP limits. See 40 CFR 51.212. 4. Section VI.B.4.g.(ii) Refining ofOil Produced from Shale. The rule needs to be revised to establish compliance monitoringmethods to ensure enforceability of the SIP. See 40 CFR 51.212. 

### B. Clarification Issues

. 1. In

### the Open Burning regulations we note:
a. II.C.1.

- there appear to be two typographical errors: -in the 9th 

### line down it reads: "
... such burning to airpollution in the are, climatic conditions " should read: "
... such burning to airpollution inthe area, climatic conditions " -in the 14th 

### line down it reads: " method ofthe disposal ofthematerial to by bum and (B)
... " should read: " method ofthe disposal ofthe material to be burned and (B)
... "
3b. The version ofthe openburning regulations inthe SIP includes a paragraph n.C.2.e pertaining to the noncommercial burning oftrash and a paragraph II.C.3 indicating that "Nothingherein shall be construed
..... Was it a typographical error to not include these two paragraphs? 2. Section III.C.l.a and b.

- We note that inthe first sentence ofSection m.C.l.a "process weight" is being changed to "design." In an earlierdraft, similar changes were going to be made to the first sentence in Section C.l.b. However, the current draft does not show the changes to Section m.c.1.b. Was it a typographical error to not include the changes to Sectionm.C.l.b? Ifnot, why are you not making section m.C.1.b the same as III.C.1.a.? 3. In Section VIll.A you are removing reference to US Department ofEnergy, Rocky Flats Environmental Technology Site and Gates Rubber Company. We've received copies ofthe sources' letters requesting the removal ofvarious units. The letter from Gates indicates that the last emission unit at 990 S. Broadwayhas been shut down and removed from the site. In reading the RockyFlats letters it is not clear to us ifall the units that bum oil as abackup fuel have beenremoved. Please confirm that there are no units at RockyFlats that use oil as a backup fuel for natural gas.

4