DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH
 

AND ENVIRONMENT
 

AIR QUALITY CONTROL COMMISSION 

REGULATION NUMBER 3
 

STATIONARY SOURCE PERMITTING AND AIR
 

POLLUTANT EMISSION NOTICE REQUIREMENTS
 

5 CCR 1001-5 

EDITOR'S NOTES* 

Authority Cited: 

See PartG 

History and Amendments: 

Amended 01/12/78,1 CR 2. Repealed and readopted 12/14/78,2 CR 1. pp. 7-8.01 adopted as an emergency 

regulation 06/07179,2 CR 7. P. 12 approved 07/12179, 2 CR 8. pp. 1-26 repromulgated 06/05/80, EFFECTIVE 

07130/80,3 CR 7. pp. 7-8.25 adopted 05/13/82, EFFECTIVE 06130/82, 5 CR 6. pp. 1-52 adopted 03/10/83, 

EFFECTIVE 04130/83, 6 CR 4. Pp. 34-60 adopted 02/07/85, EFFECTIVE 03130/85, 8 CR 3. Pp. 1-61 adopted 

03/20/86, EFFECTIVE 04130/86, 9 CR 4. pp. 21-22 reissued due to clerical error by Department of Health, 9 . 

CR 7. Pp. 1-58 adopted 03/19/87, EFFECTIVE 04130/87,10 CR 4. pp. 59-63 adopted 11/19/87, EFFECTIVE 

12130/87,10 CR 12. P. 42 adopted as emergency regulation 06116188, EFFECTIVE 06/16/88,11 CR 7. Pp. 1­

74 adopted 08/18/88, EFFECTIVE 09130/88, lJ CR 9. pp. 48-49 adopted 09/15/88, EFFECTIVE 10130/88; p. 

48E adopted as emergency regulation 09/20/88, EFFECTIVE 09/20/88, 11 CR 10. P. 49 adopted as emergency 

regulation 06101189, EFFECTIVE 06101189; p. 50 adopted as emergency regulation 06/15/89, EFFECTIVE 

06/15/89,12 CR 7. P. 50 adopted as emergency regulation 09/21/89, EFFECTIVE 09/21189,12 CR 10. Pp. 1­

74 adopted as emergency regulation 01/18190,13 CR 2. pp. 1-78 adopted 05/17/90, EFFECTIVE 06130/90,13 

CR 6. Pp. 1-75 adopted 10/17/91, EFFECTIVE 11130191,14 CR lJ. . 

A.G. Opinions:
 

1 AG 129; 2 AG 15; 2 AG 162; 3 AG 187; 5 AG 150; 6 AG 110-111; 8 AG 52; 9 AG 88; 9 AG 193; 10 AG
 

101; 10 AG 359; II AG 206; I I AG 271; I I AG 318-319; 12 AG 215-216; 12 AG 341; 13 AG 51-52; 13 AG
 

176; 14 AG 360;
 

Annotations:
 

Colorado-Ute Electric Association v. Air Pollution Control Commission, Colorado Court ofAppeals No. 77­


662, November 27, 1981, held that the Air Pollution Control Commission did not have statutory authority to
 

issue section D.H.I ofAir Pollution Control Commission Regulation No.3 (5 CCR 1001-5) governing the
 

issuance of air contaminant emission permits.
 

Rule IV, H.6, adopted 5IJ7/90, was not extended by H.B. 91-1257 and therefore expired June I, 1991. 

·This Title Page does not constilUle an omeial pan of any regulation. lnfonnation contained on the Title Page Is provided by the Publisher 

from deemed reliable and is solely for infonn81ional and historical pwposes. See eButioruuy nole in Introductory Ma1erials. How to 

Use the CCR. 

Q 2011 Stale ofCo\OflIdo 

All Rights Reserved. (800) 833-9844 
EDITOR'S NOTES (continued) 

History and Amendments: 

pp. 1-36 adopted 08120/92, EFFECTIVE 09/30/92, 15 CR 9. pp. 76-93 adopted as emergency regulation 

10/15192, EFFECTIVE 10/15/92, 15 CR 11. pp. 1-75 adopted 11/19/92, EFFECTIVE 12130192,15 CR 12. Pp. 

1-142 adopted 06/22/93, EFFECTIVE 08130/93,16 CR 8. Pp. 1·236 adopted 07/15/93, EFFECTIVE 09130/93, 

16 CR 9. pp. 11-15,25-31,62-63,67-70,95-97 adopted 02117/94, EFFECTIVE 04/30194; p. 48 adopted 

03/17/94, EFFECTIVE 04/30/94,17 CR 4. pp. 141-142 adopted as emergency regulation 05/19/94, 

EFFECTIVE OS/23/94,17 CR 7. Pp. 1·120 adopted 08/18/94, EFFECTIVE 09130/94,17 CR 9. pp. 48-60 

adopted 10/20/94, EFFECTIVE 12130/94,17 CR 12. Pp. 25-27, 39-43, 125·126, 128-128.02 adopted 11/17/94, 

EFFECTIVE 01/30/95, 18 CR 1. pp. 73, 8Q..81 adopted as emergency regulation 12/15/94, EFFECTIVE 

12/15/94,18 CR 2. pp. 73-74 adopted 02/16195, EFFECTIVE 02116195,18 CR 4. pp. 5-6, 9-14, 16-22,24-25, 

28-30,42-44,49-50,56-56.01,62·66,75-76,78-80, 83-87, 97·98, 10()..100.02 adopted 03116195, EFFECTIVE 

05/30/95,18 CR 5. Pp. 45, 73.01,76-77,78·82, adopted 05/18/95, EFFECTIVE 07130/95,18 CR 7. pp. 1-25, 

46-56,78-95.01,104-106,110-111.01 adopted 08/17/95, EFFECTIVE 10/30/95,18 CIllO. pp. 20-24, 30-31, 

96-98 adopted 12/21/95, EFFECTIVE 03/01/96,19 CR 2. pp. 44-45 adopted 02115/96, EFFECTIVE 04130/96, 

19 CR 4. Pp. 4,41,41.02-45, 75.01-76,80-82,125-128.02 adopted 03/21/96, EFFECTIVE 05130/96,19 CR 5. 

Pp. 3-5, 25-26, 50,64.01-66,76,119,145,147-149,157-158,168-169, 179,184-185,201-202,207-208 

adopted 06/20/96, EFFECTIVE 08/30/96,19 CR 8. Pp. 48-63.05 adopted 10/24/96, EFFECTIVE 12130/96,19 

CR 12. pp. 165-209 adopted 11/21196, EFFECTIVE 01/30/97, 20 CN. 1. pp. 119-157,227-229 adopted 

11/18/99, EFFECTIVE 01/30/00, 23 CR 1. Pp. 118.01-118.02 adopted 11/15/01, EFFECTIVE 12/30/01,24 CR 

12. pp. 73-118.06,144-146.01,230-234 adopted 02121/02, EFFECTIVE 04130/02,25 CR 4. Adopted 7/18/02, 

EFFECTIVE 9130/(}2, 25 CR 9. Adopted 10/17102, EFFECTIVE 12130/02,25 CR 12. Regulation LA adoJlted 

03/21/03, EFFECTIVE 04/30/03, 26 CR 4. Adopted 03/12104, EFFECTIVE 05130/04, 27 CR S. Regulation No. 

3 Adopted 04/16/04, EFFECTIVE 06/30/04, 27 CR 6. Part B adopted by technical correction. 27 CR 12. Part 

A, Part B, Part C, Part D, Part F adopted 12/16/04, EFFECTIVE 03/02/05,28 CR 2. Parts A to F adopted 

7/21/05, EFFECTIVE 10/02/05,28 CR 9. pp 23-27,35,77,111·183,283-285 adopted 12115/06, EFFECTIVE 

03/02/06, 29 CR 2. Regulation 3, Part B, Section m.c adopted by technical correction; Regulation 3, Part 0 

adopted 03/16/06, EFFECTIVE 05130/06, 29 CR S. Rule replaced in its entirety, adopted 08/17/06, 

EFFECTIVE 10/30/06,29 CR 10. Rules VI.D.1. and l.LL. adopted 12115/06, EFFECTIVE 03/04/07, 30 CR 2. 

Part A, Section I.A. and Part D adopted by technical correction, 30 CR 6. Rules VI.D.I and I.MM adopted 

10/18/07, EFFECTIVE 11130/07,30 CR 11. Part E-Best Available Retrofit Technology (BARn, Rules V.B, 

VI (entire section), I.NN adopted 12/21107, EFFECTIVE 03/01/08, 31 CR 2. Rule replaced in its entirety, 

adopted 02121/08, EFFECTIVE 04130/08, 31 CR 4. Part F, Section IVll, Part G, Section I.PP adopted 

05/14/08, EFFECTIVE 06/30/08, 31 CR 6. Part A, Section VI.D.I, Part G, Section I.OO adopted 09/18/08, 

EFFECTIVE 10130/08,31 CR 10. Part A, Section II.D.I, Part B, Section II.D.I, Part C, Section n.E.3 adopted 

12/12/08, EFFECTIVE 01130/09; Part F, Sections VI.B and VI.C, PartG, Sections l.A., I.D.I and I.D.VI, I.RR, 

I.SS adopted 12119/08, EFFECTIVE 01130/09, 32 CR 1. Part E, Part F, Section VI..B. adopted by technical 

correction, 32 CR 8. Regulation replaced in ·its entirety adopted 10121/10, EFFECTIVE 12115/10, 33 CR 23. 

Part D, Section XIV.F, Part F, Sections I, II.C, IV.A.2., IV.B., IV.BA., IV.B.4.a., IV.C., IVD., IV.E., IV.F., V., 

VI., VII., Vn.E. [IN 201 0-00856J adopted 01/07/) I, EFFECTIVE 02/14/1.1, 34 CR 2. 

A.G. Opinions:
 

15 AG 361-36IA; 15 AG 455; 15 AG 508; 16 AG 275; 16 AG 306; 17 AG 140-141; 17 AG 269; P AG 348;
 

17 AG 480; 18 AG 30; 18 AG 77; 18 AG 140; 18 AG 180; 18 AG 251; 18 AG 364; 19 AG 52; 19 AG Ill; 19
 

AG 125-126; 19 AG 236-237; 19 AG 380; 20 AG 19; 23 AG 8; 24.AG 363; 25 AG 120; 25 AG 312; 25 AG
 

. 431; 26 AG 162; 27 AG 170; 27 AG 208; 28 AG 42; 28 AG 225; 29 AG 77-78; 29 AG 174; 29 AG Oct 1001-5; 

30 AG Feb 1001-5; 30 AG Nov 1001·5; 31 AG Feb 1001-5; 31 AG Apr 1001·5; 31 AG Jon 1001-5; 32 AG Oct 

1001-5; 32 AG Jan 1001-5 - 1001-5a; 33 AG Nov 1001-5; 34 AG Jan 1001-5 

Annotations:
 

Air PoUution Control Division did not err by obtaining and reviewing the original visibility data from the
 

National Park Service because the Division reviewed and analyzed that information in ultimately arriving at its
 

own conclusion~ Citizensfor Clean Air & Water v. Colo. Dep't ofPub. Health & Env't. J81 P.3d 393 (2008).
 

6 CCR 1001-5 Page 2 
34 CR 1 and 2, 01·11 

PART A 

PARTB 

PARTC 

PARTD 

PARTE 

PARTF 

PARTG 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

CONCERNING GENERAL PROVISIONS APPLICABLE TO REPORTlNG 

AND PERMITTlNG I 

APPENDIX At Method for Determining De Minimis Levels for Non-Criteria 

Reportable Pollutants 50 

APPENDIX B, Non-criteria Reportable Pollutants (Sorted by BIN) 51 

CONCERNING CONSTRUCTION PERMITS 65 

CONCERNING OPERATING PERMITS 78 

CONCERNING MAJOR STATIONARY SOURCE NEW SOURCE REVIEW 

AND PREVENTION OF SIGNIFICANT DETERlORATION 115 

RESERVED FOR ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS 173 

REGIONAL HAZE LIMITS - BEST AVAILABLE RETROFIT 

TECHNOLOGY (BART) AND REASONABLE PROGRESS (RP) 173 

STATEMENTS OF BASIS, SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORITY AND 

PURPOSE 188.6 

C 2011 Slate of Color1ldo . 6 CCR 1001-5 

All Rights Reserved. (800) 833-9844 
., 201 J Stale ofColorado 34 CR 1 and 2, 01·11 Page 173 

All Rights Reserved 

XV.N.3. Re-validation results 

The owner or operator shall submit to the Division the results of any revalidation test or 

method within three months after completion of such test or method. 

xV.a. If any provision ofthis Section, or the application of such provision to any person or 

circumstance, is held invalid, the remainder of this Section, or the application of such 

. provision to persons or circumstances other than those as to which it is held invalid, shall not 

be affected thereby. 

PARTE RESERVED FOR ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS 

Reserved for Environmental Management Systems 

PART F REGIONAL HAZE LIMITS - BEST AVAILABLE RETROFIT TECHNOLOGY (BART) 

AND REASONABLE PROGRESS (RP) 

The provisions of Section VI (Regional Haze Determinations) and VII (MRR) of RegUlation 3, 

Part F shall be incorporated Into Colorado's Regional Haze State Implementation Plan. All 

other Sections of Regulation 3, Part Fare State-Qnly. 

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

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

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

Quality Control Commission Regulations as modified by the following RegUlation Number 3, Part F. 

Materials incorporated by reference are those in existence as July 6, 2005 and do not Include later 

amendments. The material in"corporated by reference is available for pUblic inspection dUring regular 

business hours at the Office of the Commission, located at 4300 Cherry Creek Drive South, Denver, 

Colorado 80246, or may be examined at any state publications depository library. Parties wishing to 

inspect'these materials should contact the Technical Secretary of the Commission. located at the 

Office of the Commission. 

I. Applicability 

The provisions of this regulation apply to existing stationary facilities (BART-eligible sources), as 

defined in Section 11.1. of this regula!ion, as well as to Reasonable Progress, (RP) sources.. 

II. Definitions 

II.A. Adverse impact on Visibility 

Means Visibility impairment thot interferes with the management, protection, preservation, or 

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

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

.. frequ~ncy' and time of visibility Impairments, and how these factors correlate with (1) times of visitor 

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

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

I/.B. Available Technology 

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

~I.C. Applicable Technology 

CODE OF COLORADO REGULATIONS 5 CCR 1001-5
 
Page 174 

Means a commercially available control option that has been or may soon be deployed on the same 

or a similar source type or a technology that has been used on a pollutant-bearing gas stream that is 

the same or similar to the gas stream characteristics of the source. 

11.0. Average Cost Effectiveness 

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

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

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

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

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

from a representative baseline period. 

/I.E. BART Alternative 

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

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

the installation, operation. and maintenance of BART at BART-eligible sources within industry source 

categories SUbject to BART requirements. 

II.F. BART-eligible source 

Means an existing stationary facility as defined in Section 11./. 

II.G. Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART) 

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

the best system of continuous emission reduction for each pollutant that is emitted by an existing 

stationary facility. The emission limitation must be established, on a cas&-by-case basis, taking into 

consideration thetechnolcigy available, the costs of compliance. the energy and non-air quality 

environmental impacts of compliance, any pollution control equipment in use or in existence at the 

source or unit, the remaining useful life of the source or unit, and the degree of improvement in 

visibility which may reasonably be anticipated to result from the use of such technology. 

/I.H. Deciview 

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

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

perception across the entire range of conditions. from pristine to highly impaired. The deciview haze 

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

atmospheric light extinction coefficient must be calculated from aerosol measurements); 

Deciview haze index=10 Ine (bed10 Mm") 

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

megameters (Mm-'). 

ILl. Existing stationary facility 

Means any of the following stationary sources of air pollutants, inclUding any reconstructed source, 

which was not in operation prior to August 7.1962. and was in eXistence on August 7.1977, and has 

the potential to emit 250 tons per year or more of any visibility impairing air pollutant. In determining 

potential to emit. fugitive emissions. to the extent quantifiable. must be counted. 

6 CCR 1001-5 CODE OF COLORADO REGULATIONS 
C 2011 Stale ofColorado 34 OR 1 and 2, 01-11 Page 175 

All Rigllt.s Reserved 

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

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

11.1.1.a. BoHer capacities shall be aggregated to determine the heat input of a plant
 

11.1.1.b.	 Includes plants that (»-Qenerate steam and electricity and combined cycle
 

turbines
 

11.1.2. Coal cleaning plants (thermal dryers)
 

11.1.3. Kraft pulp mills
 

ILI.4. Portland cement plants
 

11.1.5. Primary zinc smelters
 

11.1.6. Iron and steel mill plants
 

11.1.7. Primary aluminum ore reduction plants
 

11.1.8. Primary copper smelters
 

11.1.9. Municipal incinerators capable of charging more than 250 tons of refuse per day
 

11.1.10. Hydrofluoric, sulfuric. ~nd nitric acid plants
 

11.1.11. Petroleum refineries
 

11.1.12. Lime plants
 

11.1.13. Phosphate rock processing plants
 

Includes all types of phosphate rock processing facilfties. inclUding elemental phosphorous 

plants as well as fertilizer production plants 

11.1.14. Coke oven batteries
 

11.1.15. Sulfur recovery plants
 

11.1.16. Carbon black plants (furnace process)
 

11.1.17. Primary lead smelters
 

11.1.18. Fuel conversion plants
 

11.1.19. Sintering plants
 

11.1.20. Secondary metal production facilities
 

Includes nonferrous metal facilities included within Standard IndustriaJ Classification code 

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

11.1.21. Chemical process plants
 

CODE OF COLORADO REGULATIONS	 5 CCR 1001-5
 
Page 176 

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

pharmaceutical manufacturing facilities
 

11.1.22. Fossil-fuel boilers of more than 250 milHon 8TUs per hour heat input
 

1I.1.22.a. Individual boilers greater than 250 million BTU/hr, considering federally
 

enforceable operational limits 

II.L22.b. Includes multi-fuel boilers that burn at least fifty percent fossil fuels 

11.1.23. PetrOleum storage and transfer facilities with a capacity exceeding 300,000 barrels 

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

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

1t.1.23.b. Includes gasoline and other petroleum--derived liquids. 

11.1.24. Taconite ore processing facilities 

11.1.25. Glass fiber processing plants 

11.1.26. Charcoal production facilities
 

Includes charcoal briquette manufacturing and activated carbon production
 

II.J. Incremental Cost Effectiveness 

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

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

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

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

emissions) - (control option annual emissions)] 

ILK. In existence 

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

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

either has (1) begun, or caused to begin, a continuous program of physical on-site construction of the 

facility or (2) entered into binding agreements or contractual obligations, which cannot be cancelled or 

modified without substantial loss to the owner or operator, to undertake a program of construction of 

the facility to be completed in a reasonable time. 

ILL. In operation 

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

II.M. Integral vista 

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

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

... 

6 CCR 1001-5 CODE OF COLORADO REGULATIONS
 
020JI Slale ofColorado 34 CR 1 and 2, 01·11 Page 177 

All Rights Reserved 

II.N. Natural conditions 

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

visual range. contrast, or co/oralion. 

11.0 Plant
 

Means all emissions units at a stationary source.
 

II.P. Visibility-Impairing Air Pollutant
 

Includes the following:
 

II.P.1. Sulfur dioxide (S02), 

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

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

of PM10 include the components of PM2.5as a sUbset.). 

III. Sources required to Perfonn a BART Analysis 

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

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

to be sUbject to BART. Within twenty calendar days of the mailing of such notice a source may 

appeal such determination to the Commission by filing a pelition for a hearing with the Commission. 

Any such hearing shall be subject to Section 1.6.0 of the Procedural Rules. 

lilA Determining Potential to Emit for a BART Source 

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

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

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

industrial grouping, are located on one or more contiguous or adjacent properties. and are under the 

control of the same person (or persons under common control). PotJutant-emitting activities shall be 

considered as part of the same industrial grouping if they belong to the same Major Group (i.e., which 

have the same twcrdigit code) as described in the Standard Industrial Classification Manual. 

III.B. Identification of sources subject to BART 

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

EPA's guiSielines for BART determinations under the regtonal haze rule 40 CFR Part 

51, Appendix Y. A BART-eligible source described in Section liLA, above, is subject 

to BART unless valid air quality dispersion modeling demonstrates that the source 

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

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

considered to ·cause· visibility impairment in any Class I area. 

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

considered to ·contribute- Visibility impairment in any Class I area. 

III.B.1.c. A single source is exempt from BART if the 981h percentile daily change in 

visibility, as compared against natural background conditions, is less than 0.5 

CODE OF COLORADO REGULATIONS	 5 CCR 1001-5
 
Page 178 

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

entire multi-year modeling period. 

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

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

results will be provided to each source. 

IV. BART Analysis 

IVA	 Presumptive BART for Coal Fired Power Plants 

IVA1.	 Plants with a Generating Capacity of 750 MW or Greater 

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

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

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

complete a BART analysis. 

IV.A.2. Other Coal Fired Power Plants 

,The Division shall use the presumptive BART limits of section IV.A.3. as guidelines 

and may establish a BART level for the unit either above or below the presumptive 

BART level based on the BART determination. 

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

IVA3.a. Sulfur Dioxide 

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

S02/mmBTU.. 

IV.A.3.b. Nitrogen Oxides 

Unit Type CoalTvoe NOx limit (Iblmm BTU) 

Dry bottom Wall fired Bituminous 

Sub-bituminous 

lignite 

0.39 

0.23 

0.29 

Tangential Fired Bituminous 

Sub-bituminous 

lignite 

0.28 

0.15 

0.17 

Cell Burners Bituminous 

Sub-bituminous 

0.40 

0.45 

Dry-turbo-fired Bituminous 

SUb-bituminous 

0.32 

0.23 

Wet-bottom tangentialfired Bituminous 0.62 

IV.B.	 Each source sUbject to BART pursuant to Section 1\1 shall submit a BART application 

for a construction permit. which shall include a BART analysis. a proposal for BART 

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

2006. 

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

5 CCR 1001-5	 CODE OF COLORADO REGULATIONS
 
02011 Stale ofColorado 34 CR 1 and 2,01-11 Page 179 

All Rights Reserved 

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

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

evaluate control options, which are less effective than the controls 

currently installed on the BART sUbject source or unit. 

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

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

analysis of whelher the proposed technology is available and 

applicable. If the source determines that a technology is not 

technically feasible the discussion shall include a factual 

demonstration that the option is not commercially available or that 

unusual circumstances preclude its application to the emission unit. 

IV.B.1.c. A ranking of all the technically feasible technologies identified in 

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

emission performance characteristics of the technologies. The 

technologies should be ranked from lowest emissions to highest 

emissions for each pollutant and each emissions unit. The ranking 

should include a discussion of pollution control equipment in use at 

the unit, Including upgrading existing eqUipment if technically 

feasible. 

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

options. The impact evaluation shall include: 

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

the control technologies identified as technically feasible in 

Section IV.B.1.b. This analysis shall specify the emissions 

unit being controlled, the design parameters for the emission 

controls and cost estimates based on those design parameters. The remaining useful life of the source or unit may be' 

taken into account in the cost of t~e technologies. The remaining useful life is the difference between: (1) The date 

that controls will be put in place (capital and other construction costs incurred before controls are put in place can be 

rolled into the first year); and (2) The date the facility permanently stops operations. Where this affects the BART determination, this date should be assured by a federally- or 

State-enforceable restriction preventing further operation. 

The analysis must also include the energy and non-air Quality environmental impacts of control options. 

IV.B.1.d.(ii). An analysis of the incremental cost effectiveness. Before a control technology can be eliminated the source shall 

evaluate the incremental cost effectiveness in combination 

with the total cost effectiveness in order 10 justify elimination 

of a control option. 

IV.B.1.d.(iii). An evaluation of the visibility impacts for each BART option according to modeling guidance provided by the Division. 

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

quality impacts may include water use increases. solid waste 

disposal, or other adverse environmental impacts. 

CODE OF COLORADO R'EGULATIONS	 5 CCR 1001-5
 
Page 180 

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

analysis should look at the energy requirements of the control technology and any energy penalties or benefits associated with the control. The analysis should also consider direct energy consumption and may address concems over 

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

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

whether there are relative differences between alter~

natives regarding the use of locally or regionally 

available coal, and whether a given altemative 

.......	 WbURnesuIfTrfSigffificanfeCl>rf()fj'fjC(flSrupflon or 

unemployment. 

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

time to evaluate compliance with the proposed emission limitations. 

IV.B.1.f.Coal-fired power plants may, in their discretion, include in the BART 

analysis an evaluation of representative characteristics (induding 

nitrogen content) of coal from sources they reasonably expect to 

use, to the extent such characteristics tend to result in higher NOx 

emissions than coals of the same classification from altemative 

sburces. The analysis also may consider whether a particular BART 

limit might lead the power plant not to use coal from a particular mine 

due to such coal characteristics, and the extent to which such a 

decision might result in economic disruption or unemployment at the 

mine or in nearby communities. . 

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

those poffutants-covered 1>ythe MACT·toadiscussion of new 

technologies that have become available since the promUlgation of 

the MACT. 

IV.B.2. Sources with a potential to emit of less than 40 tons per year of S02 and 

NOx and less than 15 tpy of PM10 may exclude those pollutants from the 

BART determination. 

IV.B.3.	 Selecting a best alternative 

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

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

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

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

equipment in use at the source or unites); (5) the remaining useful lite ot the source or 

unites) and; (6) the degree of improvement in visibility which may reasonably be 

anticipated to result from the use of such technology. 

. '. -.~.

6 CCR 1001-5	 CODE OF COLORADO REGULATIONS
 
C 2011 State ofColorado 34 CR 1 and 2, 01·11 Page 181 

All Rights Resm-ed 

IV.BA. Schedules to comply with BART emissions limits 

IV.BA.a. The technology analysis shall include a schedule to comply 

with BART Of a BART alternative as expeditiously as practicable 

following EPA approval of the state implementation plan for regional 

haze that incorporates such BART requirements. The source must 

comply with BART ot BART alternative ernissions limits no later than 

5 years after approval of the state implementation plan by EPA for 

regional haze. 

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

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

the Division. 

IV.C.	 BART Alternative 

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

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

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

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

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

reduction and visibility impacts must be compared with those that would 

result from the BART options evaluated for the source(s). 

IV.C.2. Source (s) proposing a BART alternative shall include in the BART analysis 

an analysis and justification of the averaging period and methop of evaluating 

compliance with the proposed emission limitation. 

IV.D.	 Emission limits 

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

Compliance with the emission limitation is determined on a 3o-day rolling average 

basis for S02 and NOx. or may be determined by the Division based on the BART 

analysis submitted by the source. The emission limit shall be included in the facility's 

pennit. 

IV.D.2. Other Sources Subject to BART 

The Division will establish emission limits with ~veraging times consistent with 

established reference methods and include the limit in the facility's permit. 

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

approved BART alternative fpr regional haze is exempted from the imposition of 

further controls pursuant to regional haze BART with respect to those pollutants that 

.are controlled through BART or the BART alternative for Regional Haze and is 

exempted from the imposition of further controls necessary for reasonable progress 

during the first reasonable progress planning period. Sources may be subject to 

additional controls or emission reductions based on reasonable progress 

requirements in planning periods beyond the first planning period under the regional 

haze State Implementation Plan. 

CODE OF COLORADO REGULATIONS	 6 CCR 1001-5
 
Page 182 

IV.F. Division Review and Approval 

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

BART technology or BART alternative, Including the emission limit, schedule 

for compliance for the facility, and averaging period. The Division shall 

consider additional information both submitted and not submitted by the 

source that is deemed relevant. The Division shall submit its BART 

determination to the Commission for review and approval. 

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

Division shall establish recordkeeping and reporting requirements sufficient 

to determine that the sources meet the BART alternative emission limits. 

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

submit a new BART analysis for review by the Division. 

V. Challenge of Division BART Determinations and Enforceable Agreements. 

VA	 Persons affected or aggrieved by a BART determination may challenge the decision 

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

VI.	 Regional Haze Determinations 

VIA	 BART Determinations 

VI. A.1. The provisions of this Section VIA of Regulation Number 3. Part F shall be 

incorporated into Colorado's Regional Haze State Implementation Plan. 

VI.A.2. The sources listed below shall not emit or cause to be emitted nitrogen 

oxides (NOx), sulfur dioxide (S02), or particulate in excess of the following 

limits: 

~ART 'Detenninations for Colorado Sources • • .' • "J: 

'EMISSION 

UN 

NOJc I;MlSSION UMIT 

. . . . 0.37 IblMMBtu (30-day rolling 

average) or 0.261b1MMBtu 

Combined Average for Units 4 

and 5 (30-day rolling average) 

I:~:I1EMISSION 'LIM I'" . 

~ARTJCUIAn:

EMissioN 

'LiMit . . . 

,CENC Unit 

4 

1.0 IblMMBtu 

(30-day rolling 

average) 

1.OIb1MMBtu (3D0.07 IblMMBtu 

CENC Unit 0.19 lblMMBtu (3D-day rolling 0.07 IblMMBtu 

5 average) or 0.26 IblMMBtu day rolling 

Combined Average for Units 4 average) 

and 5 (3O-day rolling average) 

0.11 IblMMBtu 

(3O-day rolling 

average) 

0.11 Ib/MMBtu 

(3O-day rolling 

average) 

0.03 Ib/MMBtu 

0.03 fb/MMBtu 

Craig Unit 1 0.28 Ib/MMBtu (3D-day rolling 

average) 

Craig Unit 2 0.08 IblMMBtu (3D-day rolling 

average)· 

• The NOx emiSSion limits for Craig Units 1 and 2 constitute a BART Alternative. 

I 

5 CCR 1001-5	 CODE OF COLORADO REGULATIONS
 
02011 Slate of Colorado 34 CR 1 and 2, 01·11 Page 183 

All Rights Reserved 

_ni' ~~tiIE~:~MIS$IONL~r«, . Ike: 7W\·~·;,:,.j"';:7 .:0:';,:,c· r ' '\' '" 

·$02et.4lSSION<UMIT,,:IL .. . 

':':: > .~:.i >:i~.

:PARTICULATE 

1=MfSSION . 

UMIT 

Comanche 

Unit 1 

0.20 Ib/MMBtu (30-day 

rolling average) 0.15 

Ib/MMBtu (combined 

annual average for units 

1 &2) 

0.121bIMMBtu 

(individual unit 3D-day 

rolling average) 0.10 

IbIMMBtu (combined 

annual average for units 

1 &2) 

0,03 IbIMMBtu 

Comanche 

Unit2 

0.20 IblMMBtu (3o-day 

rolling average) 0.15 

IblMMBtu (combined 

annual average for unlts 

1 &2) 

0.12 Ib/MMBtu 

(individual unit 30-day 

rolling average) 0.10 

IblMMBtu (combirred ' 

annual average for units 

1 &2) 

0.03 Ib/MMBtu 

, 

Hayden 

Unit 1 

0.081b/MMBtu (3D-day 

rolling average) 

0.13 IbIMMBlu (30-day 

rolling average) 

0.03 IblMMBtu 

Hayden 

Unit2 

0.07 IblMMBlu (30-day 

rolling average) 

0.131b/MMBlu (30-day 

rolling average) 

0.03 IblMMBtu 

Martin 

Drake Unit 

5 

0.31 Ib/MMBtu (3D-d~y

rolling average) 

0.261b1MMBtu (30-day 

rolling average) 

0.03 Ib/MMBtu 

Martin 

Drake Unit 

6 

0.311b1MMBtu (3o-day 

rolling average) 

0.131b1MMBtu (3D-day 

rolling average) 

0.03 IblMMBtu 

Martin 

Drake Unit 

7 

0.29 IblMMBtu (3D-day 

rolling average) 

0.131b1MMBtu (3Q-day 

rolling average) 

0.03 IblMMBtu 

CEMEXlyons Kiln 

255.3 Ibs/hr (30-day 

rolling average) 901.0 

tons/year (12-month 

rolling average) 

25.3 Ibslhr (12-month 

rolling average) 95.0 

tons/yr (12-month rolling 

average) 

0.275 Iblton of 

dry feed 20% 

opacity 

Cemexlyons 

Dryer) 

13.9 tons/yr 36.7 tons/yr 22.8 tons/yr 

10% opacity 

VI.A.3.	 Each source listed in the above tables must comply with the above limits and 

averaging times as expeditiously as practicable, but in no event late~ than 

five years after EPA approval of Colorado's state implementation plan for 

regional haze, or relevant component thereof. Each source listed in the 

above tables must maintain control eqUipment or operational practices 

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

procedures to ensure that such equipment or operational practices are 

properly operated and maintained. 

VI.A.4.	 The sources shall submit to the Division a proposed compliance schedule 

within sixty days after EPA approves the BART portion of the Regional Haze 

SIP. The Division shall publish these proposed schedules and provide for a 

thirty-day public comment period following publication. The Division shall 

pUblish its final determinations regarding the proposed schedules for 

compliance within sixty days after the close of the pUblic comment period and 

will respond to all public comments received. 

. 

CODE OF COLORADO REGULATIONS	 6 CCR 1001-6
 
Page 184 

VI.B. Reasonable Progress Determinations 

VI.B.1. The provisions of this Section VI.B. of Regulation Number 3, Part F shall be 

incorporated into Colorado's Regional Haze State Implementation Plan. 

VI.B.2. The sources listed below shall not emit or cause to be emitted nitrogen 

oxides (NOx), sulfur dioxide (S02), or particulate in excess of the following 

limits: 

.-.....l ,,..M,.;f ~"i." ;.,:< 

- '-"Onlt.~ ~18sl
 ft. 

Rawhide 

Unit 101 

CENC 

Unit 3 

Nixon 

Clark 

Units 1 &2 

Shutdown 

12/31/2013 

Holcim - Florence 

Kiln 

Nucla 

0.1451b1MMBtu 

(30-day rolling average) 

246 tons per year 

(12-month rolling total) 

0.21 Ib/MMBtu 

(30-day rolling average) 

Shutdown 12/31/2013 

2.73 Ibs/ton clinker 

(30-day rolling average) 

2.086.8 tons/year 

0.5 Ib/MMBtu 

(30-day rolling average) 

lorado ..~~ '" C"' 'r~~~~' ", ,,~ :',';' i 0;­ " ' r",,' 

.: '''Wo­ .' .p i~ ••>, 

'$02Em .. ·.!l'·m~<: ....!.....fOli J,4riiJt I· .­

0.11 Ib/MMBtu 0.03 Ib/MMBtu ! (30-day rolling average) 

1.2 IblMMBtu 0.07 Ib/MMBtu 

0.11 Ib/MMBtu 0.03 Ib/MMBtu 

(30-day rolling average) 

Shutdown 12131/2013 Shutdown 12/31/2013 

1.30 Ibs/ton clinker 246.3 tons/year 

(30-day rolling average) 

721.4 tons/year 

0.4 Ib/MMBtu (30-day 0.03 Ib/MMBtu 

rolling average) '. 

Craig 

Unit 3 

0.28 Ib/MMBtu 

(3O-day rolling average) 

0.15Ib/MMBtu 

(3o-day rolling average) 

I 0.013 IblMMBtu filterable PM 

0.012 Ib/MMBtu filterable PM1 0 

Cameo 

Shutdown 

12/31/2011 

Shutdown 12/31/2011 Shutdown 12131/2011 Shutdown 12/31/2011 

VI.B.3. Each source listed in the above table must comply with the above limits and 

averaging times as expeditiously as practicable, but in no event later than 

December 31,2017. Each source listed in the above table must maintain 

control equipment or operational practices required to comply with the above 

limits and averaging times, and establish procedures to ensure that such 

equipment or operational practices are properly operated and maintained. 

VI.BA. The sources shall submit to the Division a proposed compliance schedule 

.within sixty days after EPA approves the RP portion of the Regional Haze 

SIP. The Division shall publish these proposed schedules and provide for a 

thirty-day public comment period following publication. The Division shall 

publish its final determinations regarding the proposed schedules for 

5 CCR 1001-5 CODE OF COLORADO REGULATIONS
 
0201 J Stale ofColorado 34 CR 1 and 2, 01·11 Page 185 

A II Rights Reserved 

compliance within sixty days after the close of the public comment period and 

will respond to all public comments received. 

VI.C. Public Service Company of Colorado (PSCo) BART Alternative Program 

VI.C.1. The proVisions of this Section VI.C. of Regulation Number 3, Part F (with the 

exception of the S02 cap of subsection VI.CA.) shall be incorporated into 

Colorado's Regional Haze State Implementation Plan. 

VI.C.2. The sources listed below shall not emit or cause to be emitted nitrogen 

oxides (NOx), sulfur dioxide (S02), or particulate in excess of the following 

limits, after the following compliance dates: 

SAAl.Alternatlve ProaramDetenntriationsforPSCo'Sotirces i . .-"-_ .' -. ;1 

EP,tI~ION	 J H~x EMISSION UMIT '. 802 EMISSIQN UMIT i :P~ICULA1'E' ~1~SION UNIT c' ;4;.,.. .~~ eio	 :'T • ..."" LIMIT. .', -. . 

Cherokee • 0 0 0
 

Unit 1 Shutdown No later than Shutdown No later than Shutdown No later than
 

Shutdown No 7/1/2012 7/112012 7/1/2012
 

later than 

7/1/2012 

Cherokee 0 0 0 

Unit 2 Shutdown 12131/~011 Shutdown 12131/2011 Shutdown 12131/2011 

Shutdown 

12/31/2011 

Cherokee 0 0 0 

Unit 3 Shutdown No later than Shutdown No later than Shutdown No later than 

Shutdown No 12131/2016 12/31/2016 12/3112016 

later than 

12/31/2016 

Cherokee 0.12 IblMMBTU 7.81 tpy (rolling 12 month 0.03 IbslMMBtu 

Unit 4 (30-day rolling average) by average) Natural Gas Operation 

12/31/2017 Natural Gas Operation 12131/2017 

Natural Gas Operation 12/31/2017 

12131/2017 

Valmont 0 0 0 

Unit 5 Shutdown 12131/2017 Shutdown 12131/2017 Shutdown 12131/2017 

Shutdown 

12/3112017 

Pawnee	 0.07 Ib/MMBTU (30-day 0.12 IbsIMMBtu (30-day 0.03lbslMMBtu 

rollingaverage) by rolling average) by 

12131/2014	 12/31/2014 

Arapahoe'" 0 0 0 

Unit 3 Shutdown 12/31/2013 Shutdown 12131/2013 Shutdown 12/31/2013 

Shutdown 

12/31/2013 

Arapahoe	 600 tpy on (rqlling'12 month 1.28 tpy (rolling 12 month 0.03 IbsIMMBtu 

Unit 4	 average) average) Natural Gas operation 

Natural Gas Natural Gas operation 12131/2014 

operation12/31/2014 12/31/2014 

- * 500 tpy NOx WIll be reserved from Cherokee Station for netting or offsets 

** 300 tpy NOx will be reserved from Arapahoe Station for netting or offsets for additional natural gas 

generation 

CODE OF COLORADO REGULATIONS	 5 CCR 1001-5
 
Page 186 

VJ.C.3.	 Each source listed in the above table must either shut down or comply wilh 

the above limits and averaging times no later than the compliance date set 

forth in the above table. Each source listed in the above table must maintain 

any applicable control equipment required to comply with the above limits 

and averaging times, and establish procedures to ensure that such 

equipment is properly operated and maintained. 

VJ.CA. In addition to the above listed emission limits and compliance dates. between 

1/1/2013 and 12/31/2015, Cherokee Units 3 and 4 and Valmont, considered 

as a whole, shall not emit in excess of 4,200 tons of S02 per year as 

determined on a calendar year annual basis. Between 111/2016 and 

12/31/2017 Cherokee Unit4 and Valmont considered as a whole, shall not 

emit in excess of 3,450 tons of S02 per year as determined on a calendar 

year annual basis. 

VII.	 Monitoring, Recordkeeping, and Reporting for Regional Haze Limits 

The provisions of this Section VII of Regulation 3, Part F shall be incorporated into Colorado's
 

Regional Haze State Implementation Plan.
 

Federal Regulations Adopted by Reference 

The following regulations promulgated by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 

were previously adopted by the Colorado Air Quality Control Commission and are thereby already 

incorporated by reference: 

40 CFR Part 60 and Appendices (As incorporated by reference within Commission 

Regulation Number 6, 5 CCR 1001-8) 

40 CFR Part 63, Subpart A - National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants 

General Provisions and Subpart LLL - National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air 

Pollutants From the Portland Cement Manufacturing Industry (As incorporated by reference 

within Commission RegUlation Number 8, Part A. 5 CCR 1001-10). 

40 CFR Part 64 (As incorporated by reference within Commission Regulation Number 3, Part 

C Section XIV., 5 CCR 1001-5) . 

40 CFR Part 75 including Performance Spedfications and Appendices (As incorporated by 

reference within Commission Regulation Number 6, 5 CCR 1001-8) 

VII.A.	 Definitions 

VII.A.1. "BART alternative program unit" means any unit subject to a Regional Haze emission 

limit contained in the Table in Regulation Number 3, Part F, Section VI.C. 

VII.A.2. "BART unir means any unit subject to a Regional Haze emission limit contained in 

the Table in Regulation Number 3, Part F, Section VIA 

VIIA3. ·Continuous emission monitoring system" or ·CEMS" means the equipment reqUired 

by Regulation Number 3, Part F, Section VII. to sample, analyze. measure, and 

provide (using an automated data acquisition and handling system (DAHS», a 

permanent record of S02 or NOx emissions, other pollutant emissions, diluent, or 

stack gas volumetric flow rate. 

Ii CCR 1001-5	 CODE OF COLORADO REGULATIONS . 
o 20 II State ofColorado 34 CR 1 and 2, 01-11 Page 187 

All Rights Reserved 

VILA.4. "Operating day" means any twenty-four-hour period between midnight and the 

following midnight during which any fuel is combusted at any time in a BART unit, 

BART alternative program unit. or Reasonable Progress unit. 

VILA.5. ·Reasonable Progress unit" or "RP unit" means any unit subject to a Regional Haze 

emission limit contained in the Table in Regulation Number 3. Part F, Section VLB. 

VII.A.6. "Regional Haze emissIon limit" means any of the emission limits specified in the 

Tables contained in Regulation Number 3, Part F. Section VI. 

VILB. Monitoring/Compliance Determination: S02 and NOx Regional Haze Limits 

VILB.1. BART, RP. and BART alternative program units with S02 and NOx CEMS. 

VII.B.1.a. All ~oilers. except CENC and Clark boilers. 

The owner or operator of a boiler SUbject to this seclion shall comply with the Part 75 

monitoring and recordkeeplng requirements as incorporated by reference Into this 

regulation with the exception of the continuous emission monitoring system (CEMS) 

data substitution and bias adjustment requirements. 

At all times after the compliance deadline specified in Regulation Number 3. Part F, 

Section VI.A.3., VLB.3. or VI.C.3., the owner/operator of each BART, RP. or BART 

alternative program unit shall maintain, calibrate, and operate a CEMS, in full 

compliance with the requirements found at 40 CFR Part 75 not excluded above, to 

accurately measure from such unit S02, NOx, diluent, and stack gas volumetric flow 

rate as such parameters are relevant to the applicable emission limit. The CEMS 

shall be used to determine compliance with the S02 and NOx Regional Haze 

emission limits for each such unit. Such limits are expressed in units of pounds per 

million Btu. The owner/operator shall calculate emissions in the applicable units. 

In detennining compliance with the S02 and NOx Regional Haze limits, all periods of 

emissions shall be included, inclUding startups, shutdowns, emergencies, and 

malfunctions. 

VII.B.1.a.(i). Pounds Per Million Btu Regional Haze Limits 

For any hour in which fuel is combusted in the BART, RP. or BART 

alternative program unit, owner/operator shall calculate hourly average S02 

and NOx concentrations in pounds per million Btu at the CEMS in 

accordance with the requirements of 40 CFR Part 75 except for Part 75 

requirements excluded by Section VII. B.1.a. These hourly averages shall 

then be used to determine compliance in accordance with the particular 

limit's averaging period. as follows: 

VII.B.1.a.(i).(1). Regional Haze limits with a 3-hour averaging period: 

Emissions shall be calculated on a 3-hour rolling average 

basis. At the end of each operating hour, the owner/operator 

shall calculate and record a new 3-hour average emission 

rate in Ib/MMBtu from the ari'thmetic average of the valid 

hourly emission rates from the CEMS for the previous three 

operating hours. (An operating hour is any hour in which fuel 

is combusted for any time in the unit.) 

CODE OF COLORADO REGULATIONS o CCIt"lOOl-o 
Page 188 

VII.B.1.a.(i).(2). Regional Haze limits with a 3D-day averaging period: 

Before the end of each operating day, the owner/operator 

shall calculate and record the 3D-day rolling average emission rate in Ib/MMBtu from all valid hourly emission values 

from the CEMS for the previous 30 operating days. 

VII.B.1.a.(i).(3). Regional Haze limits with a 90-day averaging period: Before the end of each operating day, the owner/operator shall calculate and record the gD-day rolling average emission rate in IblMMBtu from all valid hourly emission values from the CEMS for the previous 90 operating 

days. 

VII.B.1.a.(i).(4). Regional Haze limits with a 12-month averaging period: Before the end of each month, the owner/operator shall 

calculate and record the 12-month rolling average emission. 

rate in IblMMBtu from all valid hourly emission values from 

the CEMS for the previous 12 months. 

VII.B.1.a.(i).(5). Regional Haze limits with an annual calendar averaging period: Emissions shall be calculated on a calendar 

year basis. Within 30 days after the end of each calendar 

year, the owner/operator shall calculate and record a new 

emission rate in IblMMBtu from the arithmetic average of all 

valid hourly emission rates from the CEMS for the preceding 

year. 

VII.B.1.a.(i).(6). Comanche Units 1 and 2 Regional Haze combined 

annual average limits. The combined annual limitations for 

NOX and S02 are on a 365-operating day rolling average. 

Before the end of each operating day, the owner/operator 

shall calculate and record an annual rolling average using 

data from the previous 365 operating days in accordance 

with the following equation. 

Combined emission rate (lb/MMBtu) =[(ER1 )(HI1) + (ER2)(HI2»)/(HI1 + H12) 

Where: ER1 =average emission rate over the 365 operating day period. 

This is an average of all valid hours within the 365 operating day period for 

Unit 1. 

HI1 =total heat input over the 365 operating day period for Unit 1. 

ER2 =average emission rate over the 365 operating day period. This is an 

average of all valid hours within the 365 operating day period for Unit 2. 

HI2 =total heat input over the 365 operating day period for Unil2. 

5 CCR 1001-5 CODE OF COLORADO REGULATIONS
 
02011 State ofColorado 34 CR 1 and 2.01-11 Page 188.1 

All Rights Reserved 

VII.B.1.b. Portland Cement Kilns and CENC and Clark Boilers: At all times after the 

compliance deadline specified in Regulation Number 3. Part F. Section 

VI.A.3., or VI.B.3., the owner/operator of each BART or RP unit shall 

maintain, calibrate and operate a CEMS in full compliance with the 

requirements in 40 CFR Part 60 Section 60.13 and Part 60 Appendices A, B 

and F to accurately measure S02. NOX and diluent. if diluent is required. 

The CEMS shall be used to determine compliance with the S02 and NOX 

Regional Haze emission limits for each such unit. For particular units, such 

limits are expressed in units of pounds per hour, tons per year, pounds per 

ton clinker or pounds per million Btu. The owner/operator shall calculate 

emissions in the applicable units. In determining compliance with the S02 

and NOX Regional Haze limits, all periods of emissions shall be included, 

including startups, shutdowns, emergencies and malfunctions. 

VII.B.1.b.(i). Pounds per Hour and Tons per Year Regional Haze Limits ~nd
 

Pounds per Million Btu Regional Haze Limits.
 

For any hour in which fuel is combusted in the BART or RP unit, the 

owner/operator shall 'calculate hourly NOx and S02 emissions in the 

appropriate units (Ibslhr) or (lbsIMMbtu) in accordance with the provisions in 

40 CFR Part 60. These hourly values shall be used to determine compliance 

in accordance with the particular limits averaging time. as follows: 

VII.B.1.b.(i).(1). Pounds per Hour or Pounds per Million Btu Regional 

Haze Limits on a 30-day rolling average, Before the end of 

each operating day, the owner/operator shall calculate and 

record the 30-day rolling average emission rate in IblMMBtu 

or Ib/hr from all valid hourly emission values from the CEMS 

for the previous 30 operating days. 

VII.B.1.bJ.(2). Pounds per Hour on.a 12-month rolling average. Before the end of each month. the owner/operator shall calculate and record the 12-month rolling average emission rate in 

Iblhr from all valid hourly emission values from the CEMS for 

the previous 12 months. 

VII.B.1.bJ.(3). Tons per year Regional Haze Limits on a 12-month 

roHing average. Before the end of each month, the owner/operator shall calculate 'and record the total emissions in 

tonslyr from all valid hourly emission values from the CEMS 

for the previous 12 months. 

VII.B.1.b.(ii). 3D-Day Rolling Average Pounds per Ton Clinker Regional Haze 

Limits. Hourly clinker production shall be determined in accordance 

with the requirements In 40 CFR Part 60 Subpart F Section 60.63(b). 

An operating day includes all valid data obtained in any daily 24-hour 

period during which the kiln operates and excludes any 

measurements made.during the daily 24-hour period when the kiln 

was not operating. The 3D-operating day rolling emission rate of 

NOX and SOx shall be calculated and recorded as the total of all 

hourly emissions data for a cement kiln in the preceding 30 operating 

days, diviQed by the total tons of clinker produced In that kiln during 

the same 3O-day operating period in accordance with the equation in 

40 CFR Part 60 Subpart F Section 60.64(c). 

CODE OF COLORADO 'REGULATIONS 6 CCR 1001-6 
Page 188.2 

VII.B.1.b.(iii). CENC Units 4 and 5 NOX Regional Haze limits: 

For any hour in which fuel is combusted in CENC Unit 4 or Unit 5, the 

owner/operator shall calculate hourly NOX emissions in 'the appropriate units 

(lbs/MMbtu) in accordance with the provisions in 40 CFR Part 60. These 

hourly values shall be used to determine compliance with the Regional Haze 

limits, as follows: 

VII.B.1.b.(iii).(1). Individual unit pound per Million Btu on a 3Q-day 

rolling average Regional Haze Limit: Before the end of each 

operating day, the owner/operator shall calculate and record 

the 3Q-day rolling average emission rate In IblMMBtu from all 

valid hourly emission values from the CEMS for the previous 

30 operating days, OR 

VII.B.1.b.(iii).(2). Combined units 4 and 5 IbsIMMbtu 3o-day rolling 

average Regional Haze Limit Before the end of each operating day, the owner/operator shall calculate and record a 3Dday rolling average using data from the previous 30 operating days in accordance with the following equation: 

Average ER = [(ER4)(HI4)+(ER5)(HI5)] / [(HI4)+(HI5)] 

Where: 

ER4 = average NOX emission rate, in pounds per MMbiu over the 30 

day period. This is an average of all valid hours within the 30 

operating day period for Unit 4. 

ER5 =average NOX emission rate, in pounds per MMbtu over the 30 

day period. This is an average of all valid hours within the 30 

operating day period for Unit 5. 

HI4 =Total heat input over the 30 operating day period for Unit 4. 

HI5 =Total heat input over the 30 operating day period for Unit 5. 

VII.B.1.b.(iii).(3). The owner or operator shall Indicate in the excess 

emission reports required by Section VII.E of this Part F, 

which compliance demonstration method has been followed 

for the reporting period. 

VII.B.2. BART and RP Units without NOX and S02 CEMS. 

VII.B.2.a.	 CENC Unit 3. Compliance with the S02 limitations shall be 

determined by sampling and analyzing each shipment of coal for the sulfur 

and heat content using the appropriate ASTM Methods. In lieu of sampling, 

vendor receipts may be used provided the sampling and analysis was 

conducted in accordance with the appropriate ASTM Method. Each sample 

or vendor receipt must indicate compliance with the S02 limitation. 

Compliance with the annual NOx limits shall be monitored by recording fuel 

consumption and calCUlating emissions monthly using the appropriate AP-42 

emission factor. Monthly emissions shall be calculated by the end of the 

subsequent month and shall be used in a rolling twelve month total to 

monitor compliance with the annual limitations. Each month a new twelve 

6 CCR 1001-5	 CODE OF COLORADO REGULATIONS
 
o 2011 Stale of Colorado 34 CR 1 and 2, 01-11 Page 188.3 

All RigIUs Reserved 

month total shall be calculated using the previous 12 months data. [*Note: 

CENC Unit 3 is not subject to annual S02 limits.] 

VIL8.2.b. CEMEX Dryer. Unless performance tests were completed within the 

previous 6 months, within 60 days of the compliance deadline specified in 

Regulation Number3, Part F Section VLA.3, the owner/operator shall conduct 

a stack test to measure NOX and S02 emissions in accordance with the 

appropriate EPA test methods. Frequency of testing thereafter shall be 

every five years. Each test shall consist of three test runs, with each run at 

least 60 minutes in duration. 

In addition to the stack tests described above, compliance with the annual NOx and 

S02 limits shall be monitored by calculating emissions monthly using the emission 

factors (in Ib/hr) determined from the most recent Division-approved stack test and 

hours of operation for the month. Monthly emissions shall be calculated by the end 

of the subsequent month and used in a twelve month rolling total to monitor 

compliance with the annual limitations. Each month a new twelve month total shall 

be calculated using the previous 12 months' data. 

VILC.	 Monitoring/Compliance Determination: Particulate Regional Haze Limits 

VILC.1. Particulate Regional Haze Umits for all boilers except CENC and Clark boilers 

Unless particulate compliance testing was completed within the previous 6 months, within 60 

days of the compliance deadline specified in Regulation Number 3, Part F, Section VI.A.3., 

VI.8.3., or VI.C.3., the owner/operator shall conduct a stack test to measure particulate 

emissions in accordance with the requirements and procedures set forth in EPA Test Method 

5 as set forth in 40 CFR Part 60, Appendix A. Stack testing for particulate matter shall be 

performed annually, except that: (1) if any test results indicate emissions are less than or 

equal to 50% of the emission limit, another test is required within five years; (2) if any test 

results indicate emissions are more than 50%. but less than or equal to 75% of the emission 

limit, another test is required within three years; and (3) If any test results indicate emissions 

are greater than 75% of the emission limit, an annual test is required until the provisions of 

(1) or (2) are met. A test run shall consist of three test runs, with each run at least 120 

minutes in duration. Test results shall be converted to the applicable units and compliance 

will the based on the average of the three test runs. 

In addition, to the stack tests described above, the owner/operator shall monitor compliance 

with the particulate matter limits in accordance with the applicable compliance assurance 

monitoring plan developed and approved in accordance with 40 CFR Part 64. 

VII.C.2. Portland Cement Plant Particulate Regional Haze-Limits. 

VII.C.2.a.	 Kilns. Compliance with the particulate matter limitations shall be 

monitored using a PM CEMS that meets the requirements in 40 CFR Part 63 

Subpart LLL. The owner or operator shall calculate emissions in the 

applicable units. If a PM CEMS is used to monitor compliance with the PM 

limits, the opacity limits specified In this Part F do not apply. 

In the event that the provisions in 40 CFR Part 63 Subpart LLL are revised, stayed or 

vacated, such that a PM CEMS is not required, compliance with the PM limitations 

shall be monitored by conducting stack tests in accordance with the reqUirements of 

-	

Section VII.C,3. except that the results of the test shall be converted to the 

appropriate units (Ib/ton clinker or Iblton dry feed) and compliance will be based on 

the average of three test runs. 

CODE OF COLORADO R~GULATIONS	 5 CCR 1001-5 
Page 188.4 

In addition, if no PM CEMS is required, as discussed in the above paragraph, the 

opacity limits specified in this Part F do apply. In order to monitor compliance with 

the opacity limit, the owner or operator shall install, calibrate, maintain, and 

continuously operate a COM located at Ihe outlet of Ihe PM control device to 

continuously monitor opacity. The COM shall be installed, maintained, calibrated. and 

operated as required by 40 CFR Part 63, SUbpart A; and according to PS-1 of 40 

CFR Part 60. Appendix B 

VII.C.2.b.	 Dryers. Performance tests shall be conducted in accordance with 

Ihe requirements in Section VII.C.3. Opacity monitoring shall be conducted 

in accordance with Ihe requirements in 40 CFR Part 63 Subpart LLL. 

VII.C.3. Particulate Regional Haze Limits for the CENC and Clark boilers and Ihe CEMEX 

dryer: Within 60 days of the compliance deadline specified in RegUlation Number 3, 

Part F, Section VI.A.3. or VI.8.3., the owner/operator shall conduct a stack test to 

measure particulate emissions in accordance with the requirements and procedures 

set forth in EPA Test Method 5, 58, 5D or 17, as appropriate, as set forth in 40 CFR 

Part 60, Appendix A. Stack testing for particulate matter shall be performed annually. 

except that: (1) if any test results indicate emissions are less than or equal to 50% of 

the emission limit. another test is required within five years: (2) if any test results 

indicate emissions are more Ihan 50%. but less than or equal to 75% of the emission 

limit, another lest is required within three years; and (3) if any lest results indicate 

emissions are greater Ihan 75% of the emission limit, an annual test is required until 

the proVisions of (1) or (2) are met. Each test shall consist of three test runs, with 

each run at least 60 minutes in duration. 

In addition, to the stack tests described above. compliance with Ihe annual limitations (ton/yr 

limits) applicable to the Clark boilers and CEMEX dryer shall be monitored by calculating 

emissions monthly using the emission factors (in Ib/hr) delermined from the most recent 

Division-approved stack test and hours of operation for the month. Monthly emissions shall 

be calculated by the end of the subsequent month and used in a twelve month rolling total to 

monitor compliance with the annual limitations. Each month a new twelve month total shall 

be calculated using the previous 12 months' data. 

In addition to the stack tests described above, the owner/operator shall monitor compliance 

with the particulate matter limits in accordance with "the applicable compliance assurance 

monitoring plan developed and approved in accordance with 40 CFR Part 64. 

VII.D.	 Recordkeeping 

Owner/operator shall maintain the follOWing records for at least five years: 

VII.D.1. All CEMS data as required in the applicable regulation, stack test data, and data 

collected pursuant to the CAM plan, including the date, place, and time of sampling, 

measurement. or testing; parameters sampled, measured. or tesled and results: the 

company, enlity, or person that performed the testing, if applicable: and any field data 

sheets from testing. 

VII.D.2. Records of quality assurance and quality control activities for emissions measuring 

systems inclUding, but not limited to, any records required by 40 CFR Part 60, 63, or 

75. 

VII.D.3. Any other records required by 40 CFR parts 60, Subpart F. Section 60.65. 63, 

SUbpart LLL, 64 or 75. 

6 CCR 1001-5	 CODE OF COLORADO REGULATIONS
 
C 20 11 State ofColorado 34 CR 1 and 2, 01·11 Page 188.5 

All Rights Reserved 

VII.E. Reporting requirements 

The owner/operator of a BART, RP or BART alternative program unit shall submit semi-annual 

excess emissions reports noJater than the 30th day following the end of each semi-annual period 

unless more frequent reporting is required. Excess emIssions means emissions that exceed the 

Regional Haze emissions limits. Excess emission reports shall include the information specified in 40 

CFR Part 60, Section 60.7(c). . 

The owner/operator of a BART, RP or BART alternative program unit shall submit reports of any 

required performance stack tests for particulate malter, to the Division within 60 calendar days after 

completion of the test. 

The owner/operator shall also submit semi-annual reports of any excursions under the approved 

compliance assurance monitoring plan in accordance with the schedule specified in the source's Title 

V permit. 

CODE OF COLORADO REGULATIONS 5 CCR 1001-5
 
Page 188.6 

PARTG STATEMENTS OF BASIS, SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORITY AND PURPOSE 

l.A. Adopted June 5. 1980 

Rational and Justification for the Repeal and Repromulgation of Regulation Number 3 and
 

Common Provisions Regulation as Related to Regulation Number 3
 

On December 14,1978, the Air Quality Control Commission revised Regulation Number 3 

(concemlng requirements for filing air pollution emission notices, obtaining emission permits, and 

payment of fees with respect to both) for the primary purpose of bringing Colorado's air pollutant 

emission permit program into conformity with the requirements of the Federal Clean Air Act 

Amendments of 1977 to the extent authorized by the then effective State statutory authority: "The Air 

POllution Control Act of 1970, "C.R.S. 1973, 25-7-101 et seq. The regulation as revised in 1978 and 

which became effective January 3D, 1972. was submitted to the U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency as a revision to the state Implementation Plan ("SIP") pursuant to Subsection 129(c) of the 

Federal Clean Air Act Amendments of 1977. 

Since that SUbmittal, the Colorado General Assembly has repealed and reenacted the State's basic 

air pollution control statute: Article 7 otTitle 25, Colorado Revised Statutes, 1973. The new article, 

known as the "Colorado Air Quality Control Act" (designated House Bill 11 09 in the 1979 legislative 

session), became effective June 20, 1979, and largely brought the State statute into conformity with 

the Federal legislation, mandating the Commission to develop a comprehensive air pollution control 

program meeting the requirements of the Federal Clean Air Act. 

Revisions also respond to the requirements set forth in the October 5, 1979 Federal Register notice 

which conditionally approved portions of the Colorado SIP and set forth certain requirements for 

securing their unconditional approval. E.G., see Section IV.D.2.a.(iv) of revised Regulation Number 3, 

which incorporates the requirements of Section 172(b)(II)(A) of the Clean Air Act. 44 Fed. Reg. 57401, 

57408 (1979). 

The Commission has made an effort to formulate a permit program meeting the reqUirement of and 

paralleling of the provisions EPA policies and rules to the extent authorized by House Bill 1109 and to 

,the extent deemed appropriate by the Commission for Colorado's particular circumstances. This has 

been done in order to meet certain specific requirements expressly set forth in the Federal Clean Air 

Act, to meet certain specific requiremehts EPA has determined are required for compliance with the 

Federal Act, and to avoid subjecting sources of air pollution in Colorado to differing State and Federal 

requirements. The Commission considered the assurance of reasonable further progress toward 

attainment of National Ambient Air Quality Standards as the primary underlying criterion in developing 

permit requirements for sources located in or near nonattainment areas. 

Consideration has also been given to the opinion of the United States Court of appeals for the District 

of Columbia in the case of Alabama Power Company v. Costle F.2d (D.C. Cir., 1979). 

APENs 

In order to reduce the administrative burden on both the Air Pollution Control Division (''the Division") 

and owners and operators of air pollution sources, the filing of revised air pollution emission notices 

for the purpose of reporting significant changes in emissions will be required only on an annual basis, 

rather than whenever a significant change in emissions occurs. In making this revision. the 

Commission relied on the representations of the Division that annual reporting would be sufficient for 

purposes of keeping the emissions inventory current. 

. 5 CCR 1001-5 CODE OF COLORADO REGULATIONS