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 of Public Health 

and Environment 

4300 Cherry Creek Drive South 

Denver, CO 80246-1530 

LA rr14Yi II.:'0 /' 

Dear Ms. P~kins:

I am forwarding EPA's preliminary 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 of conducting our review ofthe proposed revisions to Regulation No.1, we 

identified some other concerns with other parts of Regulation No. 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 staff contact Laurie Ostrand at (303) 

312-6437, if you have any questions regarding this letter. 

'ZSi/~ly, ,', 

"-­

j ~~., ) IL </J t,,, I· .~._~., , .. Rich:rrd ,. Long, i;:::\ 

Air and Radiation ivision ! , ; 

Enclosure 
PRELIMINARY 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 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. 

A.	 Substantive Concerns 

1.	 Section ill.A.l.d. - previously the rule read: "Iftwo (2) or more fuel burning 

units connect to any opening, the maximum allowable emission rate shall be 

calculated on a lb/million heat input (BTU) basis as calculated from a weighted 

average of the individual allowable limits for each unit ducting to the common 

stack." The proposed changes read: "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." 

We are not sure why the rule was changed to ''lb/hour basis" from ''lb/million heat 

input (BTU) basis." Also, we believe the rule should be clear on how the 

weighting should be done (e.g., either in the rule itself or in the Statement of 

Basis). Additionally, if you intend to keep the calculation based 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. We believe the rule needs to be 

revised to establish compliance monitoring methods. We are also concerned that 

the rule limits are not clear and may not be protective ofthe S02 NAAQS. 

- As proposed, Section VLB.4.e. does not indicate how compliance will be
 

determined. SIPs must include compliance determining methods to ensure
 

enforceability of SIP limits. See 40 CFR 51.212. .
 

-Limit in Section VI.B.4.e. is not clear - 0.3 lbs ofsulfur dioxide for the
 

sum of all S02 emissions from a given refinery, per barrel ofoil processed.
 

However, in compliance plans we've looked at, the barrels of oil
 

processed is a daily monthly average, rather than a true daily average.
 

-Limit does not appear to be protective 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 of S02/barrel of oil
 

processed/day to 0.7 lbs of S02/barrel of oil 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 of SOzlbarrel ofoil processed/day. Second, based on past 

PSD permitting issues around the refineries, we understand that the area 

was close to modeled violations of the NAAQS. We have several 

questions regarding these modeling efforts. First - Regulation No.1 does 

not limit the amount of barrels of oil processed per day at a refinery. The 

modeling must have assumed a certain amount of emissions per day from 

the refineries. Were daily SOz modeled emissions based on a physical 

restriction of barrels of oil processed per 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 if the modeling 

evaluated whether or not the three hour SOz NAAQS was protected with 

the daily emission limits. If so, 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 a plan 

(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 enforceability of SIP limits. See 40 CFR 

51.212. 

4.	 Section VI.B.4.g.(ii) Refining of Oil Produced from Shale. The rule needs to be 

revised to establish compliance monitoring methods 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 air pollution in the are, climatic 

conditions " should read: " ...such burning to air pollution in the area, climatic 

conditions " 

-in the 14th line down it reads: " method of the disposal ofthe material to by 

bum and (B)... " should read: " method ofthe disposal ofthe material to be 

burned and (B)..." 

3 
b.	 The version ofthe open burning regulations in the SIP includes a paragraph 

n.C.2.e pertaining to the noncommercial burning of trash and a paragraph II.C.3 

indicating that "Nothing herein 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 in the first sentence of Section m.C.l.a 

"process weight" is being changed to "design." In an earlier draft, 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 Section m.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 of Energy, Rocky 

Flats Environmental Technology Site and Gates Rubber Company. We've 

received copies of the sources' letters requesting the removal of various units. 

The letter from Gates indicates that the last emission unit at 990 S. Broadway has 

been shut down and removed from the site. In reading the Rocky Flats letters it is 

not clear to us if all the units that bum oil as a backup fuel have been removed. 

Please confirm that there are no units at Rocky Flats that use oil as a backup fuel 

for natural gas. 

4