# Colorado 40 CFR Part 52, Subpart G, Section 52.320 (d)

EPA

-approved source-specific requirements June 1, 2015

Part 1 of 1

U.S. EPA Region 8 Office of Partnership and Regulatory Assistance (OPRA) Air Program 1595 Wynkoop St Denver, CO 80202

-1129

### i Colorado 40 CFR Part 52, Subpart G, 52.320 (d) EPA

-approved source

-specific requirements June 1, 2015 Part 1 of 1 Table of Contents Title State Effective Date EPA Effective Date Final Rule Citation/Date Comments

Long

-Term Strategy Review and Revision of Colorado's State Implementation Plan for Class I Visibility Protection: Part I: Hayden Station Requirements 8/15/1996 2/18/1997 62 FR 2305, 01/16/97

Revision of Colorado's State Implementation Plan for Class I Visibility Protection Craig Station Units 1 and 2 Requirements 4/19/2001 8/6/2001 66 FR 35374, 07/05/01

### mVISION

## OF 

## COLORADO'S STATE 

## IMPLEMENTATION PLAN FOR CLASS

# I VISIBILITY PROTECTION CRAIGSTATION

### UNITS 

# I AND 

## 2 REQUIREMENTS

HEALTHAND

### ENVIRO"T

APRIL 

### 19,2001

PREPARED

### BY: 

## COLORADO Am

## POLLUTION 

## CONTROL DIVISION .

### ..

# c 2
4



### Factors

a- 

# ,.' / *.- I 

### IIL ENFORCEABLE

### PORTION OF

## THE SIP REVISION 19 

### 20 

### 24 33 38 

### 40 

### Definitions Emission Controls and Limitations Continuous Emission Monitors Construction Schedule

Emission Limitation ComplianceDeadlines Reporting

~ 

# h _- -- 

# __-- N. ENDNOTES

### AND REF'ERENCES - 44 

# _- _-

Class 

### I Visibility SIP

### Revision Adopted

### April 19,2001 ll

# m. REQUIREMENTS 

### ENFORCEABLE PORTIONOF 

### THE 

## SIP ]REVISION: WG STATIONUNITS 

### 1AND 

### 2


### The following provisions, which are taken fiom the Craig ConsentDecree, are being adopted as 

### part 

## ofthis revision to the Long-Term Strategy portion ofthe Colorado Visibility 

## SP,shallbe met by the Craig Owners, and are intended tobe enforceable. The Craig Consent Decree numbering scheme has been retainedto avoid confbsion between the Craig ConsentDecree and the 

### SIP, but only

### those sections pertinent

### to visibility, necessary to ensure the enforceability ofthe requirements related to visibility, and to demonstrate reasonableprogress arebeing adopted in 

### this SIPrevision. Also, some changes have been made to the Craig Consent Decree languageto conformthe Craig ConsentDecreerequirements to 

### the 

### SIP regulatory fiamework. 

### All changes arehighlighted in 

### bold. The changesthat have been 

### made to languagein paragraphs 24 

### and 25 

### below which referto the force maieure provisions ofthe Craig Consent Decree have been inserted to ensure that a demonstrationofreasonable progress can be made at this 

### time.



## IL DEFINITIONS 1. 

### Unless otherwise expressly provided herein, ternsused 

### in this 

### SIP component pefined below. 

### “SIP component” replaces Decree wherever it appears] 

### that are 

### defined in the Clean

## Air Act, 42 

### U.S.C. 

# $5 7401, 

### ef 

### seq.,

### or regulations implementing the Clean 

## Air Act, 

### shallhave the meaning set 

### forthin the Act 

### or regulations. 2. 

### Wheneverthe terms set forthbelow are used 

### in this SIP component,

### the following definitions shall apply: (a) “Act”shall 

## mean the Clean

## Air Act, 42 

### U.S.C. 

# $57401, 

### et seq. 

### (b) “Allowance” shall mean an authorization, under Title

## N of the Act, allowing CraigUnits 1

### and 2 

### to emit oneton of SO2 

### in one year (c) “Boiler operating day“ shall mean any calendar day in which coal is cornbusted
19 

### Class

### I Visibility SIPRevision Adopted 

### April 19,2001

### in theboiler of a unit for more than 12

### hours. 

## Ifcoal is combusted for more than 12

### but less than 24 

### hours during a calendar day, the calculation ofthat day's SO2 

### emissionsfor the unit shall be based upon the average ofcoal sampling and hourly CEMS data collected during hours in which coal was combusted in the unit, and shall not include any time in which coal was not combusted. (d) "Business day" shall mean all work days of the week except Saturday, Sunday and all Colorado and federalholidays. (e) "Calendar day" shall mean any 24 

### hour period between 12:OO 

### midnight and the following midnight in 

### Colorado. (f) 

### "CEMS" shall 

### mean continuous emissions monitoring system, which consists of

### the total equipmentused to sample, analyze, and record on a 

### continuousbasis SOz, 

### NO, 

### or any other emissions-relatedparametersthat may berequired. (g) 

### "COMS" shall mean continuous opacity monitoring system, which consists of 

### thetotal equipment used to sample, analyze, and record opacity on a continuousbasis. (h) "Coal" shall mean all

### solid helsclassified as anthracite, bituminous, subbituminous, or 

### ligniteby theAmerican Society ofTesting and Materials, Designation D388- 

### 77. 

## (i) "Colorado" shall mean the State ofColorado and the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment, 

### Air Pollution ControlDivision. (j) 

### "Craig Units 1 and 2" 

### shall mean the fossil-fuel fired steam generatingplant located near the town ofCraig, Colorado, includingthe 

### two boilers and related electricgenerators and all ancillaryprocess and air pollution emission control equipmentknown as Unit 1 

### and Unit 2. 

### Craig Station also includesUnit 3 

### that is not subjectto this SIP component. 20 ClassI Visibility 

### SP Revision 

### AdoptedApril 19,200 1

## (k) "Day" shall mean a calendar day. In 

### computing any period oftime under this SIP component, 

### except in computing compliance with emission limitations,where the last day would fall on a Saturday, Sunday or federal or Colorado holiday, the period shall run until the close ofthe next business day. (1) "Decree" shall mean Consent Decree, and any written modifications of such Consent Decree. (m) "Craig Owners" [replaces ccDefendants" throughout] 

### shall mean Tri-State Generation and Transmission Association, Inc., Public Service Company 

### ofColorado, Salt River Project Agricultural Improvement and Power District, PacifiCorp and Platte RiverPower Authority and successorowners ofthe Craig Station Units 1 

### and 2. 

### (n) "EPA" shaU mean the United StatesEnvironmental ProtectionAgency.
(0) 

### "Excessopacity reading" shallmean 

## each six-minute period of

### time during which the opacity of

### emissions 

### &om Unit 1 

### or Unit 2 

### at the Craig Station exceeds 20 

### percent, regardless of 

### cause or any regulatory exception, as 

### determined by the existing or any EPA and Colorado-approved alternative COMS. (p) 

### "FGD 

### shall mean flue 

### gas desufirization system. 

### (q) "Fossil-fbel" shall mean natural 

### gas, petroleum, coal, and any 

### form of solid, liquid, or gaseoushe1derived from such materials for the purpose ofcreatinguseful heat. (r) "Malfunction" shall mean any sudden, idkequent, and not reasonably preventable failure 

### of 

## airpollution control equipment, process equipment, or 

### of a process to operate 

## in a normal or

## usual manner. Failures that are caused in part by poor maintenance or careless operation are not mafinctions. 21 Class

### I Visibility 

### SIP Revision Adopted

### April 19,2001

## (s) "NO," 

### shall mean 

## all oxides of nitrogen, except nitrous oxide. (t) "Opacity" shall mean the degree to which emissionsreducethe transmission of 

### light and obscurethe view of an 

### object in the background. (u) 

### "Paragraph"shall mean a portion of

### this SIP component 

### identified by an arabicnumeral. 

### (v) [Not applicableto this 

### SIP component] 

### (w) [Not applicableto this 

### SIP component] 

## (x) "Quarter" shall mean a calendar quarter consisting of

### three full 

### months, beginning on 

### the 

## firstday of

### either January, April, July or October. (y) 

### "Rolling average basis" shall mean an average over a period ofhe consisting of

### the last 30 

### or 90 

### boiler operating days, with a new average generated each successive boiler operating day, based on the sum of

### the averagesfor the last 30 

### or 90 

### boiler operating days.
(2) 

### "Section" shall mean a portion ofthis 

### SIP component 

### identified by a capital
roman numeral. 

### (aa) "Shutdown" shall mean the cessation of operation ofUnit 1 

### or Unit 2 

### at Craig Stationfor any purpose orreason. 

## (ab) mot applicable

### to this 

### SIP component] 

### (ac) "Startup" shall mean the setting in operation 

## ofUnit 1 

### or Unit 2 

### at Craig Station for any purpose or reason. 

## (ad) 

## "S02" shall

## mean sulfur dioxide. (ae) "Title

### V" shall mean Title 

### V ofthe Clean

## Air Act, 42 

### U.S.C. 

# 5 7661 through

22 Class

### I Visibility 

### SIPRevision Adopted April 19,200 1

## (af) “Unit 1”shall mean the steam generatingunit and related electric generating and air pollution emission control equipment that commenced commercial operation at the Craig Station in 1980, including 

### all changes made, and to be made, to such equipment thereafter. (ag) 

### Wnit 2” 

### shall mean the steam generatingunit and related electric generating and 

### air pollution emission control equipment that commenced commercial operation at the Craig Station

### in 1979, including all changes made, and to be made, to such equipmentthereafter. 

## (ah) “Upset condition” shall mean an unpredictablefailure of 

### air pollution control
or process equipmentwhich results in 

### the violation 

### ofan emission limit in 

### this 

## SIP component 

### and 

### which is 

### not dueto poor maintenance, improper or careless operations, or is otherwise preventable through exercise ofreasonable care. (ai) “Consent Decree” or“Craig Station Consent Decree’’ shall mean the Consent Decree entered in Sierra Club

### v. Tri-State Generation & 

### Transmission Association, 

### Inc., et 

### al., Civil Action No. 

### 96-N-2368, U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado. (aj) 

## “SIP Component” shall mean the language from the Craig Station Consent Decree, asmodified herein, and included in this section 

### ITI of 

### this April 2001 

### revision of theLong-Term Strategy portion of 

### Colorado’s Class 

### IVisibility Protection Program State

### Implementation Plan. 

### IIL JURISDICTION AND 

## VENUE 3. 4. 

### [Not applicable to this 

## SIB component.] [Not applicable to this 

## SIP component.] 

## N.APPLICABILITY
23 Class

### I Visibility SIP

### Revision Adopted

### April 19,2001

### 5. 

### 6. 

### mot applicable to 

### this 

## SIP component.] [Not

### applicable to this 

### SIP component.] 

### V. EMISSION 

### CONTROLS AND LIMITATIONS 7. 

### Craig Owners shall, at all times including periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction, maintain and operate Craig Units 1

### and 2 

### in a manner consistentwith good air pollution controlpractices for minimizing emissions. 8. 

### Craig Owners shall install the following control equipment, and shall achievethe following emission limitationsfor CraigUnits 1

### and 2 

### in accordancewith the deadlines set forth in 

### SectionsVII and 

### VIU: 

### (a) Particulate Matter (i) 

### Craig Owners 

### shall install and 

### operatefabric filterbaghouses (“baghouses”) on Craig Units 1

### and 2, 

### and make any other capital and operational modifications necessary to 

### meet, by the deadlines in SectionWa; 

### the final particulate matter standardsand limitations described below. 

## (ii) The particulate matter limitationsfor Craig Units 1and 2 

### shall be as 

### follows: (A) 0.03 

### pounds ofparticulate matter per million Btu heat input, Compliance shall

### be establishedby 

### EPA test methods; (B) 

### opacity not in excess of20 

### percent, as averaged over each separate 6-minute period within 

### an hour, 

### beginning each hour 

## on thehour. 

## This limit shall apply at 

### all times when air pollutants arebeing discharged into the atmosphere, but does not apply when the boiler and all fans that move flue gas in the unit 

### are 

### off Under this limit, during periods of Class

### I Visibility 

### SIP Revision Adopted April 

### 1 9,200 

### 1 24

### building a new fire, cleaning offireboxes, startup, soot blowing, any process modification or adjustment or occasionalcleaning of control equipment, 

### Craig Owners shall not cause or allow the emission of

## air pollutants in excess of 30percent opacity for a period or periods aggregating
more than 6 minutes in any 60 consecutiveminutes 

## (SIPlimit from 

### 5 C.C.R. 1001-3, Section II.A.1. and 

## 5 C.C.R. 

# 5 1001-3, 

### II.A4,approved by 

### EPA on December 3, 

### 1986); (1) Craig 

### Owners shall not cause or allow the emission of 

## air pollutants 

### in excess 

## of30 percent opacity during any startup, regardless ofcause or reason, for
a period or periods aggregatingmore than 6 

### minutes in 

### any 60 consecutiveminutes. A startup is


### never an upset condition, however, an

### upset condition can occur afker initiation of a startupin 

### which case 

### only excess emissions caused by suchupset condition may be excused. (2) 

### Craig 

## Owners shall not cause or allow the emission of 

## air pollutants 

### in excess 

### of20 

### percent opacity during any shutdown, unless excusedby an upset condition. (C) opacity no greaterthan 20 

### percent except for one six-minute period per hour ofnot more than 27 

### percent opacity, as averaged over each separate 6-minute period 

## within an hour, beginning each hour on the hour. Emissions during startup, shutdown and malfunction are excused under this opacitylimit. The 

### SIP exceptions at 

## 5 C.C.R. $ 1001-3, 

### EA4 

### (approvedby 

### EPA on December 3, 1986), including “cleaning 

### ofnew fireboxes,” “soot blowing,” and “any processmodification or adjustment 

## or occasional cleaning of control equipment,” are not excused. 

### (NSPS 

### limit from 40 

### C.F.R. 

# 3 60.42(a)(2) and 40 

### C.F.R. 

# 5 60.1l(c)). 

### (iii) An 

### opacity reading in excess ofthe limitations

### in subparagraph 25 Class

### I Visibility 

### SIPRevision 

### Adopted

### April 19,200 1

### 8(a)(ii)(B) may be excused by 

### an upset condition, and 

## an opacityreading 

### in excess 

### ofthe limitations in subparagraph S(a)(ii)(C) may be excusedby a malfunction, [deletion] if Craig Owners 

### demonstrate [deletion] such readingwas the result 

### of an upset condition or malfunction. peletion]. 

### If Craig Owners seek to excuse any opacityreading in excess 

### ofthe limitations above, they must noteColorado as soon 

## as possible by telephone, but no laterthan 

### two hours after the start 

### ofthe next business day. In addition, for purposes of

### this 

### SIP component, any claim of excusemust be made in writing in Craig 

### Owners’next quarterly report following such condition, and must describe: (1) 

### the date and time telephonenotification

### wss given to Colorado, including theperson to whom notification was 

### given either directly or through


### a voice mailbox, (2) 

### the cause ofthe condition, (3) 

### all actions Craig Owners 

### took to 

### correctthe condition, and (4) 

## all actions Craig Owners 

### will 

### take to prevent the condition 

### fiomrecurring. (iv) Craig Owners shall file quarterly excess emission reports 

### (EERs) that set forth all 6-minute 

### average opacity readings in excess of20 

### percent 

### in chronologicalorder. Craig Owners shdindicatein their

### EERs the specific times in which the fans 

### that move fluegas


### are on 

### and off. 

### At Craig Owners’ election, periods of 

### “process off and “process on” may be identified in a separate documentincluded with, or attached to, the

### EER. Sufficientexplanation to support any claim ofupset condition or malfbnction shall beprovided at thetime 

### the 

### EER is 

### filed. (v) Craig Owners shall perform particulate matter stack

### tests at 

### Craig Units 1

### and 2 

### within 100

### calendar days after flue

### gas 

### is firstpassed through the baghouses and thereafter as directed 

### by Colorado or

### EPA, and shall submit 

### all results and a.comgletedescription 

### ofthe teststo Colorado 

### in the next quarterlyreport 

### following Craig Owners’receipt 

## ofthe 26 Class

### I Visibility SIP 

### Revision Adopted

### April 19,200 1

### results. 

## (vi) Compliance with the opacity emission limitations 

### in Section 

### V, subparagraph S(a), shall be determined on a continuousbasis using data fromthe current COMS
or anEPA and Colorado-approved 

### COMS at an alternative location, and may be verified on an intermittentbasis by EPAMethod 9,40 

## C.F.R. Part 60, 

### Appendix 

### A. 

## (vii) Until such time 

## as Craig Owners installbaghouses, 

### Craig Owners shall, at all times, optimally operate the existing electrostaticprecipitators and all otherESPrelated equipmentat CraigUnits 1 

### and 2 

### consistent with good 

## airpollution controlpractices for minimizing 

### opacity and particulate matter emissions. (b) 

### SulfurDioxide 

# (Sod (i) 

### Craig Owners shall treat one hundred percent (100%) 

### of

### the flue gas from Craig Units 1 

### and 2 

### in the respective

### FGDs during all operating conditions except for those timeperiods when 

### anupset condition makes it impossibleto 

### treat 100% 

### of the fluegas. 

### However, upset conditions do 

### not applytothe SO2 

### emission limitations in this Sedonand emissions ofSO2 

### during any suchperiod shall not be excluded fiom 

### the determination of 

### Craig Owners’ compliancewith the SO2 

### emission limitations. 

## (ii) Craig Owners shall enhancethe current

### FGDs for Craig Units 1and 2

### by designing, evaluating, and installing upgradeswhich will reliably treat 100% 

### ofthe flue gas. 

### Craig Owners shallbe generally guided by those enhancementsdescribed as “Option 3”

### in the CraigStation

## FGD System

### Modifications

## -Analyses 

### ofPotential Alternatives; Project 

## Design 

## Basis and 

### CostEstimates, dated August 3 1, 

### 1999. Craig Units 1

### and 2 

### shall be designed to meet 

### at least a 93.7% removal rate aswas calculated in the 

### FGD study. In the eventthat 

### Craig Class

### I Visibility

### SIPRevision Adopted Apd 19,200 1 27

### Owners intend to deviatefiom Option 3, 

### prior to implementation 

### Craig Owners shall submit their complete design plans and required implementation time to 

### [deletion] Colorado and 

### EPA for review. (iii) 

### Craig Owners shallhave the right to evaluatethe reliability and efficiency of

### the enhancementsdescribed 

### as Option 3 and may, in 

### Craig Owners’ sole discretion, replace suchupgrades with technology and operationswhich may better integrate with the current operations ofCraig Units 1

### and 2, 

### includmg the existing

## FGD and other systems, while still designingthe upgradesto meet at least the 93.7% removal rate and reliably treat 100% 

### of

### the flue gas for SO2

### removal. 

### peletion]. (iv) 

### Craig Owners shall design, construct and operate its 

## FGDupgrades and related equipmentto meet the emissionlimitations, including thepercentage reduction requirement, set forth below. (v) 

### The sulfur 

### dioxidemass 

### emissionlimitations for CraigUnits 1

### and 2 shall

### be as 

### follows: (1) 0.160 

### pounds per million 

### Btu heat input on 

### a 30 boiler operating day rolling averagebasis; (2) 0.130 

### pounds per million Btu heat input on a 90 boiler operating day roUig averagebasis. (vi) 

### Compliancewith the SO2 

### mass emission limitationsin subparagraphs (b)(v)(l) 

### and (2) 

### herein shallbe determinedusing data 

### fkomthe SO2 

### CEMS that 

### Craig Owners
are required to operate and maintain pursuant to Sectionvl[. 

### The SO2 

### CEMs shdbe placed in 

## a location 

### to accurately monitor 100% 

### ofthe flue 

### gas, including any periods ofby-pass. 28 Class 

### I VisibilitySIPRevision AdoptedApril 1 9,200 1

### (vii) Sulfkr dioxide controls at Craig Units 1 

### and 2 

### shall achieve a ninety percent (90%) 

### reduction of SO2 on a 90 

### boiler operating day rolling average basis measured 

### from coal to stack as described in subparagraph 

### (viii) below, unless Craig Owners show, for any unit, that the 

### SO2 reduction equipmentwas designed and constructed to meet such limit but that for reasons beyond Craig Owners’ control, despitethe factthat Craig Owners had designed and constructed the 

### SO2 reduction equipmenttomeet the 90 

### percent limit, they could not meet such limit (hereinafter

### show in^'). As part of

### their Showing Craig Owners must establish the maximum SO2 

### reduction attainable, and such maximum amount (minus 2 

### percentage points if 

### Craig Owners elect a 90 

### day rolling average or minus 

### 3 

### percentage points if 

### Craig Owners elect
a 30 

### day rolling average) shall constitute Craig Owners’ final SO?

### reduction lit. If 

### Craig Owners make this Showing, in no event shall the final limit 

### be less than eighty five percent (85%) 

### reduction of SO;? on 

### a 30 

### boiler operating day rolling averagebasis, 

### or less than eighty six percent (86%) 

### reduction 

### ofSO2 

### on a 90 

### boiler operating day rolling averagebasis, measured &omcoal 

### to stack Craig Owners

### must make such Showing 

## on or before the datesby which 

### the 90 

### percent limit must 

### be achieved pursuanttoparagraph 25fb). 

### Inthe event Craig Ownerspresent a Showing that 

### is disputed 

### in accordance with the ConsentDecree, the 90% 

### limit 

### shall be stayed and the issue shallbe decided as 

### set forth in 

### the ConsentDecree. During the pendency of 

### any such stay, the limit shall be Craig Owners’ final SO2 

### reduction limit derived from their Showing
as described above. [Deletion]. 

### (Viii) Compliancewith the SO2 percentage reduction requirement shall be determined as follows: (1) 

### Based on the coal sampling analysis, a daily potential SO2 29 

### Class

### I VisibilitySIP Revision Adopted

### April 1 9,2001

### emissionrate for coal, expressed 

### in lbs/mmBtu, will be established. Using this daily SO2 

### emission rate, for each boiler operating day 

## an arithmetic average ofthe potential SO2 

### emission rates for the last 30 

### or 90 

### successiveboiler operating days (including theboiler operating day for which the calculationis 

### being performed) shall be calculated to 

### establishthe SO2

### rolling averagebasis that is referred to asE, 

### in the equation below. Each dayrs potential S@ 

### emissionrate for coal, before the calculation above is 

### performed, will 

### be provided in the reports required in paragraph 28(c); (2) 

### The rolling average basis SO2 

### stack emission rate 

### will be calculated using CEMS data collected during 

### all operatinghours in a boiler operating day. 

### To establishthe SO2 

### rolling averagebasis, all 

### hourly emission rates, as 

### derived from 

### the CEMS 

### data, and expressed in lbs/mmBtu, for

### the last 30 

### or 90 

### successiveboiler operating days (including the boiler operating day for which the calculationis 

### being performed), will

### be used to calculatethat day’s 

## SO;! rolling averagebasis that is referred to 

### as E,, in the equationbelow. Each day’s SO, 

### stack emissionrate forthe

### hours that the boiler was 

### operating, before the calculation above is performed, 

### will be reported under paragraph 28(c); (3) 

### The 30 

### or 90 

### day rohgaveragebasis percent SO2 

### reduction, referred to herein 

### as %R,shall be calculated for eachboiler operating day asfollows: 

## %R= 100 

### ( 1.0 

# - E&J Coal sampling will 

### follow the most current version of

### ASTM D2234, 

## StanckrdPractice 

### for Collectionof

### a 

## GrossSample of

### Coal. Samplepreparation will 

### follow the 

## most current

version 

### of

### ASTM 2013, 

## StanhrdMethod 

## of Preparing CoalSamples 

## forAnalysis. Sufir analysis

## will followthe 

## most recent version 

## ofASTM D4239, 

## Standard TestMethodsfor SuZficr in 

## the Analysis Sample of 

### Coal

## and Coke UsingHigh Temperature TubeFurnace Combustion Class 

### IVisibility 

### SIPRevision Adopted

### April 1 9,200 1 30

### Mefhodr. (k) 

### Regardless of Craig Owners' compliance with (and without relieving Craig Owners ofthe obligationto comply with) the emission limitationsand other requirements set forth in this Section,in no event shall Craig Owners operate any boiler for more than 72 

### consecutive hours at a unit without an SO2 

### control system achieving somereduction of SO2 

### emissions at that unit. Following shutdownpursuant tothis subparagraph, Craig Owners shall only restart theboiler on a unit when the SO2 

### control equipment 

### is operatingnormally. (c) Nitrogen Oxides (i) Craig Owners shall select, install and operate state-of-the-art lowNO, 

### burners utilizing two 

### stagecombustion with supplementaloverfire 

### air on Craig Units 1 

### and 2. 

### Craig Owners shall design and construct such control equipment to 

### meet the emission limitations set

### forth below. 

## (i) CraigUnits 1 

### and 2 

### shall meet a

### NO, limit 

### of 0.30 

### pounds per million Btu heat 

### input on a calendaryear annual averagebasis. Upset conditions do 

### not apply to 

### this limit and emissions of

### NO, during any suchperiod shall not be excluded &om the determination of 

### Craig Owners' compliancewith theNO, 

### emission limit. Compliance shall be determined on a unit-specific basis using data fromNO, 

### CEMS that Craig Owners are required tomaintain, calibrate and operate. 9. 

### Craig Ownershave the burden 

## ofproof to demonstratethe application of any exceptionto any applicable emission 

### limit, and must provide sufficient demonstration 

### ofthe application of any exceptionin their contemporaneous excess emission reports 

### (EERs). 

## VI. C0IV"UOUS EMISSION 

### MONITORS 31 Class

### I Visibility 

### SIPRevision Adopted

### April 19,200 1

### 10. 

### At all tirnes [deletion] Craig Owners shall maintain, calibrate and operate COMS to measure accurately the opacity 

### of emissions at Craig Units 1 

### and 2 

### in full 

### compliance with the requirements found at 40 

### C.F.R. 

## Part 60, 

### Appendix 

### B, Specification 1, 

### and 

### 5 C.C.R. 1001-3, 

### W.A and 

### B. 11. 

### Craig Owners are currently monitoring opacity with COMS located at the 300 

### foot level in the stacks of CraigUnits 1

### and 2. 

### Craig Owners intend to change the current location 

### of the COMS to a location after the baghouses and before the

### FGDs. Craig Owners shall seek approval fiom

### EPA and Colorado for any such alternative COMS 

### location, and approval 

### from EPA and Colorado to install and thereafter operate a continuous monitoring system to measure pressure differential across

### the mist eliminator that indicates whether FGD 

### generated particulate matter emissions are minimized. Any 

### request for approval described above shall be submitted to EPA 

### and Colorado no laterthan 60 

### days after completion of the FGD design activities 

### set forth at paragraphs24(a)(iii) 

### and 24(b)(Z). 

### li)eletion]. Until EPA 

### and Colorado grant final approval for


### an alternative location, the current COMS will 

### be 

### used for compliance purposes 

## with all opacity standards, and at no time shall CraigUnits 1

### and 2 

### be operated without an approved method of continuous opacity monitoring. In 

### additionto any otherrequirements that may apply to an alternativelocation of opacity monitoring, Craig Owners shall ensure after installation ofthe baghouse and 

### FGD upgradesthat the new systemis reading comparable opacity 

### to what is read by the current COMS under dry stack conditions. Flue 

### gas may beby-passed around the 

### FGD as necessary during the test in order to achieve dry stack conditions. Comparabilitywill

### be determined based on simultaneous readings 

## &om the COMS at the current and new locations duringthe 

### COMS recertification 32 Class

### I Visibility 

### SIP Revision 

### Adopted April 19,2001

### process required at paragraphs 16and 17. 

### This comparability analysis may take into accountthe allowable variation associated with the measurementsof opacity by each COM after each CON is calibratedto minimize any suchvariation. Peletion]. 

### In any request for approval ofan alternative 

### COMS location and FGD monitoring system, Craig Owners 

### shall provide themanufacturer's specified normal operating pressure drop range
acrossthe mist eliminatorat given operating gas

## flow rates and supportingdocumentation that demonstratesthat such range 

### will most effectivelyminimize particulate matter emissionsfkomthe FGD. The pressure drop range submitted by Craig Owners 

### shallbe shown to 

### be consistentwith 

### thenormal range established for 

### other similarmist 

### eliminator systems. Within 180 

### days after

### flue gas first passes through theupgraded FGDs, Craig

## Ownersmay submit to 

### EPA 

### and Colorado for approval [deletion] 

### a revised pressure drop range based on 

### actual testing data from the applicable unit that will

### more effectivelyminimize particulate matter emissions compared tothe manufacturer's specified range. Craig 

### Owners shall continuously and accurately monitor and report to Colorado, 

### pursuant to Section 

## IX, the hourly average pressure drop across the mist eliminator and the hourly averageflow 

### rate for each unit at CraigUnits 1

### and 2. 

### Craig Owners"

### pressure monitoring system shallbe 

## of sufficient sensitivityand reliability to 

### enable consistent, continuous and effective monitoring 

### ofthepressure drop range. Craig Owners 

### shall take 

## alI necessary corrective actionstomaintain the pressure dropwithin the applicablerange. [Deletion]. 

### 12. Craig Owners 

### shall provide to 

### Colorado 

### on a quarterly basis 

### all excess emission reports 

### (EERs) for Craig Units 1 

### and 2 that describe in the form required by this 

## SLP component 

### all excess readings, 

## all claimed exceptions, and all other information required by law. 33 Class 

### I Visibility SIP

### Revision Adopted April 19,2001

### 13. 

### At all times [deletion] Craig Owners shall maintain, calibrate and operate CEMS at Craig Units 1 

### and 2 

### to measure accurately SO2 and NO, emissions &om each unit, as well as flow and COZY 

### in full 

### compliancewith the requirements found at 40 

### C.F.R. Parts 60 

### and 75. 

### Nothing herein shall preclude Craig Owners fiom installing, certifying and operatingintegrated 

### CEMS equipmenttomeasure S02,NO,, C02 or opacity, or any combination thereof 14. 

### Craig Owners shall maintain, calibrate and operate a method ofcoal sampling and analysisto determine accurately, pursuant to methods identified in paragraph S(b)(viii), the potential emissions fiom sufirin the coal entering the boiler reported in pounds of SO2per million Btu heat input. 15. 

### Craig Owners shall ensurethat any modificationsto any COMS or CEMS 

### necessitated by Craig Owners' actionsunder or in fbrtherance of

### this 

## SIP component shall be completedprior tothe completion ofconstruction ofthe SO2, NO,, 

## and particulate control systemsforUnit 1 

### and Unit 2,

### respectively. 16. 

### Craig Owners shall recerti@ all 

### COMS and CEMS or?

### Craig Units 1 

### and 2 

### by the following dates: Opacitv COMS: Within 60 

### boiler operating days after passing flue-gas through the baghouses for each unit, and within 60 

### boiler operating days after passing flue gas through the upgraded scrubber and 

### NO, control systemsfor each unit. 

### SO? CEMS: Within 60 

### boiler operating days afterpassing flue gas through the upgraded scrubber system for each unit. 

### NO, CEMS: Within 60 

### boiler operating days afterthe NO, burner and overfire air upgrades become operationalon each unit. Class

### I Visibility 

### SIP Revision Adopted 

### April 19,200 1 

### 34

### 17. 

### In recertlfjrlng such COMS and 

### CEMS, Craig Owners shall meet all requirements

## in 40 

## C.F.R. Parts 60 

### and 

### 75 for initial certification. In particular, 

### Craig Owners shall demonstrate that the SO2 and 

### NO, CEMS are accuratelymonitoring 100

### percent 

### ofthe flue gas, including any periods ofby-pass, and are accuratelyreflecting SO2 and NO, concentrationsexiting the stack, that the COMS 

### are accurately monitoring the opacity of

### emissions, and that 

### Craig Owners have resolved any problems with laminar or cyclonicflow, uncombined water droplets, or any other problem that may be affectingthe performance of

### the CEMS or COMS. On at least a quarterly basis during the first year after recertificationofthe SO2 

### CEMS, 

### Craig Owners shall contract with aprivate laboratoryto analyze a 

### split sample fiom a 

### composite coal sampleto ensurethat 

### Craig Owners’ coal analysis system is accurately reporting Btu, subrand potential SO2 

### emissions. 

### Craig Owners shall report the results of such analysesin their quarterly reports. 

### Craig Owners 

### shall provide at least 30 

### days prior written noticeto 

### Colorado and EPA 

### ofthe date@)

### Craig Ownersintend to 

### perform the recertification 

### tests required by this paragraph and shall allow 

### Colorado and EPA tobe present for such tests. 18. 

### Beeg 

## within 30 

### and 90 

### boiler operating days (depending on the applicable SO2 

### limit in Section 

### V) 

### fromthe date flue 

### gas is first passed through theupgraded SO2 

### control equipment for eachunit, 

### Craig 

## Owners shall calculatethe following: (a) For eachboiler operatingday, the percentage 

### of SO2 

### removal consistentwith paragraph 

### 8(b)(Viii), and (b) For each boiler operating day, the 

### SO2 mass emission rate for 30 

### and 90 

### boiler operating days calculated consistent with paragraph 8(b)(v&)(2). 19. 

### Craig Owners shall report 

### to Colorado on a quarterlybasis each 30 

### day rolling 35 Class

### IVisibility SIP

### Revision AdoptedApril 19,2001

### average and each 90 

### day rolling average duringthe prior quarter that exceeded or fdedto complywith the SO2 emission limitations contained in this SIP component. 

### Each quarterly report shall include a list of the hours excluded for any reason from the determination of Craig Owners’ 

### compliance with the SO2 

### limits, and a list oftimes in which flue gas 

## is by-passed around the FGD. 20. 

### Beginning within 30 

### boiler operatingdays of the date ofthe first startup of aunit following installation oftheupgradestothe

### NO, reduction systemsfor eachunit, Craig Owners 

### shall calculate hourly averageNO, 

### concentrations in pounds per million Btu, 

### in accordance with 

### the requirements of40 

### C.F.R.Part 75. 

### Craig Owners 

### shalluse the hourly averagesto calculate calendaryear averages in 

### accordancewith the requirements of40 

### C.F.R. 

### Part 75. 

### 21. 

### Craig Owners 

### shall report to Colorado 

### on a quarterly basis Craig Owners’ 

### year-todate averageNO, 

### emission rate for that calendaryear. 22. 

### For any hour that valid, quality-assured continuous emissionmonitor data for 

### a unit is 

### unavailable, SO,NO, 

### and C02 emissions shallbe calculated in 

### accordancewith the missing data substitution procedures contained in 40 

### C.F.R. Part 75. 

### For any day in which daily coal sample data are not available,the averagepotential SO2 emissionrate ofcoal 

### fromthe previous 30 

### days 

### as calculated

### in paragaph 

### S(b)(Viii) shall be substituted. 23. 

### Craig Owners shall 

### be bound by the data from their COMS, SO2 

### CEMs and coal sampling data, and NO, CEMS. Craig Owners 

### may not challengethe accuracy or credibility of their COMS, SO2 CEMs and coal sampling data, and 

### NO, CEMS in any enforcement action unless otherwise expressly allowed by statute or regulation. 

### VIL CONSTRUCTION 

### SCHEDULE 36 

### Class

### I Visibility SIP

### Revision AdoptedApril 19,200 1

### 24. Craig Owners 

### shall design, contract, construct and complete all particulate matter, SOZ,

### and 

### NO, control systems required by this 

## SIP component 

### accordingto the following schedule, subject to a 

### force majeure determination pursuant to the Craig Station Consent Decree, including 

## a decision by the Court to limit force maieure pursuant to paragraph 50 

### ofthe Craig Station Consent Decree. However, if any schedule has been extended orwill be extended pursuant to such 

## a force maieure determination 

## ordeterminations by more than 12

### months beyond the particular deadline, the Division shall request the Commission reopen (with public notice and hearing) theLong-Term Strategy element, of Colorado’s Class 

### IVisibilityProtection Program StateImplementation Plan to reevaluate the demonstration of 

### reasonable progress, and to revise the StateImplementation Plan as may be necessary to ensurethat the emission limitations are 

### met. In no event shall these force maieure provisions be construed to authorize or create any preemption orwaiver of any Stateorfederal airquality law, 

### orof any requirement contained in the Consent Decree and incorporated into this 

## STP.
Activity 

## (i) Initiate design activitiesforbaghouses, 

### FGD and 

### NO, upgrades Deadline 

## l/Ol/O 

### 1 

## (ii) Issuance 

## ofbinding contract 

### to construct, 

### or contracts to 

### design 

## and construct: For baghouses 

### For 

## FGD upgrades 

### For 

### NO, upgrades (iii) Substantial completion of design activities 37 

### Class 

### I Visibility 

### SIPRevision Adopted

### April 19,2001 

### 7/3 1/01 

### 313 1/02 1131/03 1/01/03

### required for commencement of construction 

### ofbaghouses, 

### FGD and 

### NOx control equipment Commencement ofphysical, on-site constructionof baghouse, FGD and NO, upgrades. Dates from contracts described at 

## (i) aboveto be provided by Craig Owners to Colorado.within 15 

### days 

### ofexecution

### ofeach contract, and shallbecome enforceable deadlinesunder this 

## SIP Component. 

### Completion 

### ofConstruction and initiation 

### of startup 

### of

## all upgrades 1 

### 213 

### 1 I03 

### Provide an 

### opportunityfor on-site inspection 12/3 1/03 

## -6/30/04 

### by Colorado and EPA of control equipment installation
ACtiviQ Deadline Initiate design activitiesforbaghouses, FGD andNO, 

### upgrades 110

### 1/01


### Issuance of

### binding contract to construct, or contracts to design and construct: Forbaghouses 713 1/01 ForFGD upgrades 313 1/02 

### For NO, 

### upgrades 1131 I03 

### Substantial completionofdesign activities required for commencement 

## of construction 

### ofbaghouses, 

### FGD and

### NO, control equipment 1/01/03



### Commencement of

### physical, on-site construction 

### of baghouse, 

### FGD and NO, upgrades. Dates 

## from contracts described at (ii) abovetobe provided by Craig Owners 

### to Coloradowithin 15 

### days of execution 

### of each contract, and shall become enforceabledeadlines under this 

### SIP component. 

### Completion ofconstruction and initiationof 

### startup of

### all upgrades 6/3 0/04 38 Class

### I Visibility

### SIPRevision AdoptedApril 19,2001

### (vi) Provide an 

### opportunity for on-site inspection by Colorado and EPA 

### of control equipment installation 6/30/04 

## - 12/3 1/04



## VIIL EMISSION LIMITATION COMPLIANCE DEADLINES 25. 

### Craig Owners' 

### obligationto meet the particulate matter, SOz, 

### and NO, 

### emission limitations set forth 

### in Section V 

### shall commence on the dates listed below, subject to 

### a force maieure determination pursuant to the Craig Station Consent Decree, including a decision by the Court to limit force maieure pursuant to paragraph 50 

### of the 

### Craig Station Consent Decree. However, if any schedulehas been extended or

## will be extended pursuant to such 

### a force maieure determination ordeterminations by more than 

### 12 months beyond the '



### particular deadline, the Division shall request the Commission reopen (with public notice and hearing) theLong-Term Strategy element of Colorado's Class 

### I Visibility Protection Program 

### StateImplementation Plan to reevaluate the demonstration of reasonable progress, and to revise the StateImplementation Plan 

### as may be necessary to ensurethat the emission limitations 

### are met. 

### In no event shall these force maieure provisions be construed to authorize or create any preemption or waiver 

### of any 

### State 

### orfederal 

### air quality law, or 

### of any requirement contained in the Consent Decree and incorporated into this 

### SIP. (a) 

### Particulate Matter: 

## (i) For Unit 1, within 180days after completion 

### of construction

### of baghouse system, orby April 30,2004, 

### whichever date 

### is earlier. 

## (ii) For Unit 

### 2, within 180days after completion 

### of construction of 39 

### Class

### I Visibility 

### SIPRevision AdoptedApril 1 9,200 1

### baghouse system, or by October 3 

### 1,2004,whichever date 

### is earlier. 

## @> 

## s82: (i) For Unit 1,within 180 days after completion 

### of construction 

### ofthe additional SO2 

### control equipment, or by June 30,2004, whichever date is earlier, Craig Owners shall achieve the SO2

### mass emission Iits at paragraph S(b)(v), and shall achieve an 85 

### percent reduction of SO2 

### emissions on a 30 boiler operating day rolling average basis measured from coal to stack. Within 270 days ofthe initial compliance date above, but no laterthan March 3 

### 1,2005, Craig Owners shall achieve the 90 

### percent SO2 

### reduction limit, subjectto the provisions of 

### subparagraph S(b)(vii); 

### and 

## (ii) For Unit 2, within 180days after completion ofconstruction ofthe additional SO2 

### control equipment, or by December 3 1,2004, 

### whichever date is earlier, Craig Owners shall achieve the SO2

### mass emission limits at paragraph S(b)(v), and shall achieve an 85 percent reduction ofSO2 

### emissions on a 30 

### boiler operating day rolling average basis measured from coalto stack. Within 270 days 

### ofthe initial compliance date above, but no laterthan 

### September 30,2005, Craig Owners shall achieve the 90 

### percent SO2 

### reduction limit, subjectto the provisions 

### of subparagraph S(b)(vii). 

### (c) 

## NO,: Design, construction, installation, and testing of overfireupgradesmust be completedby June 30,2004 for 

### Unit 1 and December 3 1,2004for Unit 2. 

### K. REPORTING 26. Within thuty days afterthe end of each quarter, beginning with the report for the first quarter of2001 [deletion], Craig Owners shall provide a quarterly report to Colorado regarding the immediately preceding quarter that contains all of the information this Slop Class

### I Visibility 

### SIPRevision AdoptedApril 1 9,200 1 40

### componentrequires 

### Craig Owners to report on a quarterlybasis. 

### 27. 28. 

### In specific, each quarterlyreport shall include:

. 

### [Notapplicable to this 

### SIP component.%

(a) 

### A description of

### construction deadlines achieved, progress made toward meetkg fbture deadlines, and any actual, expected or reasonably likely delays; @) 

## AU elements ofthe opacity, SO2 

### and NO, 

### quarterly excess emission and monitoring report 

### [deletion]; (c) 

### After installation 

### ofthe SO2 

### control equipment upgrades, ‘the required quarterlyreports for SO2 

### emissions (including emissions during alI 

### excluded periods aswell as SO2 

### content calculated fiom 

### coal for each day, the 

## SO;! stack emissionsfor each day, and each day’s SQ2

### percent removal rate), 

### coal s&r analyses, pressure drop and flow datarelating to the mist eliminators, and quarterly reports required under 40 

## C.F.R. Part 60 

### containing CEMS 

### quality assurance information; 

## (d) After installation 

### oftheNO, control equipmentupgrades, therequired yearto-date quarterly reportsforNO, emissions; and, (e) 

### [Not applicable to this 

## SIP component] 29. 

### pot

### applicableto 

### this 

### SIP component,] 30. Craig Owners’ requirement toprovide quarterly reports is in addition

### to any other notification orreport required by 

## this SIP component, unless such notitication orreport is 

### required on 

## a quarterlybasis. Furthermore,nothing 

## in this 

## SIP component shall be interpreted

### to either excuse or diminish 

### Craig Owners’ obligationto provide any otherreports, notices 

## or other documentsto the public, orlocal, state or federal officials. ClassI Visibility 

### SIPRevision Adopted

### April 19,2001 41Rule : State Colorado State Agency Department of Publi c Health and Environment Affected Area EPA-approved sou rce specific requ irements Regulation Visibility Rule Number Rule Title Long-Term Strategy Review and Revision of Colorado's State Implementation Plan for Class I Visibility Protection : Part 1 : Hayden Station Requirements State Effective Date 08/15/1996 State Adoption Date 08/15/1996

EPA Effective Date 02/18/1997 Notice of Final Rule Date 01/16/1997 Notice of Final Rule Citation 62 FR 2305 Comments**~** Hayden Station .12S!t

## NOTICE 

# OF 

# lF*INAL

PollutionPrevention

### and 

## C NOTICE 

## IS HEREBY 

## GIVENthat 2001, 

### and 

### incomplianceWith the 

### re the 

### Colorado

### Air QualityControl Co 

### aking

### hearing

### washeld 

### onApd 

### 19, 

### ns 25-7-105(1), 

### 109, and 1002 

## C.R.S., ‘TcIass

## I Visiiility

### Prot emat

### ofthe 

### State 

### Implementation

### Plan”. Theamendmeatsadopted

### by 

## th decreethat 

## will limit the 

### emissi ten

### microns 

### andless. 

## The ofate 

### the

### rquirements 

### ofa

### fedesal 

### consent 

### missionrepresent

### reasonable 

## deraf CleanAir

### Act 

## andresolvethe 

## orest Service 

### far 

## theMount 

## Zirkel Wdderness

### Area.

rrY CONTROLCOMMISSioN



### k

## LONG-TERM STRATEGYREVIEW AND 

## .REVISION OF 

## COLORADO'S STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLAN FOR 

## CLASS I VISIBILITY PROTECTION 

## PART I: HAYDEN 

## STATION 

# REQUIREMENTS

COEOUDO DEPARTMENT OF 

### ., PUBLIC HEALTH AND 

### ENVIRONMENT

AUGUST 

### 15,1996



### PREPARED BY: 

### COLORADO AIR POLLUTION 

### CONTROL DIVISION TECHNICAL SERVICES 

### PROGRAM VISIBILITY, 

### RESEARCH, AND 

### QUALITY ASSURANCE 

### UNIT

### TABLE 

## OF CONTENTS 1 

### I. EXECUTIVESUMMARY..


## ................ 

# '-, A. LTS ASSESSED 

### IN SEVEN AREAS


## ...... 1. Progress Achieved in Remedying Existing 

### I a. Mount Zirkel Wilderness


## ........... \. \ 

### (i). Hayden Consent Decree and a 

## Ch (ii). Emission Limitations, Equipment (iii). Reasonable Progress and 

## the 

## H

11. INTRODUCTION..


### ..... 111. NATIONAL REGULATO A. 

### PHASE 

### I REGULATIO 

## B. INTEGRAL VISTA C 

### C. 

### EDFMPCA LAWSUI 

## IV. STATE OF

# COLORADG's STATE

### IMPLEME~ATION PLAN 

### FOR CLASS 

### I 

### VISIBILITY / 

### PROTECTION

..../.


### .................... :..,<. ........................... 

### 10 

### A. 

## EXISTING IMP~RMENT

...............

# ..:

.......................... 

### 10 

## B. NEW S0UR~'~REVlEV;'

.............................................. 

### ...'::I6 

# c. CONSULT~ION 

## w171-r: FEDERAL LAI~I MANAGERS

.................. 

## D. MONIT@G STRATEGY.

............. ~.............................. ~ ., . .,



### E. LONG- ERM STRATEGY

............................................... 

### 12

'\ 

# v. 

# 7f OF COLORADO'S LONG-TERM STRATEGY

....... .':,: .............. 

### 14 

### A, 

### TATE AND 

### EPA REQUIREMENTS

..................... \,;
............ 

### 14 

### I. 

### Progress in Remedying Existing Impairment of 

### Visibility in Any 

### Class ['Area

..... 14 

### STEP-BY-STEP 

### REVIEW

.................................. ':\,.

.......... 

### 14
a. 

### Visibility Impacts in the Mt. Zirkel Wilderness

................. .''.?., ....... 

### 15 

### (i). Activities Prior to Certification

...................................... 15 

### (ii). Activities After Certification

....................................... 

### 17 

### (iii). The Hayden Settlement.

.................................. 

## '?, 21 \ 

### (iv). 

### Reasonable Attribution, BART, and the Hayden Settlement

........... ,,'
/' /"
/ /' ,;c 

# ...

. 

# \ (v)


## . Reasonable Attribution, 

### BART. Reasonable Progress. and the4 yden Settlement. Force Majeure. Thin proval by the Colorad bly


## ............



# . that may be Necessary to 

## Ensure



## .................. 33 

## Other Schedules Set 

## Forth



## ...........33



### VI

. 

### COLORADO'S CLASS 

### I VISIBILITY PROTECTION PROGRAM STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLAN REVISIONS TO THE LONG-TERM STRATEGY. 

## PART I: HAYDEN STATION REQUIREMENTS


### ...................................... 34 A


### . 

### PREAMBLE


### ........................................................ 34 

### B 

### NON-ENFORCEABLE PARTS 

## OF THE SIP REVISION 34 1 

### Existing Impairment and the 

### Mount Zirkel Wilderness 34 

### a Introduction 34 

### b

. 

### Summary of 

### the Decree

........................................... 

### 35 . 

### ......................



## . ......................

. 

### .................................................... 

### (i)

. 

### SO, Emission Limitations

..................................... 

### 35 

### (ii)


## . Particulate Emission 

### Limitations

.............................. 

### (iii)

. 

### Compliancewith 

### Emission Limits

...............................36 

### (iv)

. 

### Hayden's Decision on Coal vs Natural 

### Gas

........................ 

### 36 

### (vi)

. 

### Schedule --Natural 

### Gas as

~~~~~~~~ 

### Fuel

................ 

### (vii)

. 

### Force 

### Majeure

.................................. 

### c
. 

### Regulatory Tools

...................................... 

### d

. 

### Reasonable Progress and the 

### Hayden Requirements

..................... 

### 38 

### (i)

. 

### Cost of 

### Compliance

.......................................... 

### 38 

### (ii)

. 

### Time Necessary for Compliance (jij)

. 

### Energy and 

### Non-Air Quality Environmental Impacts (iv)

. 

### Remaining Usehl Life 

### ofthc 

### Source (v)


### . 

### Visibility Benefits and 

### Level 

### of Emission Reduction (vi)
. 

### Reasonable Progress e. 

### TheSixFactors

............................................... 46 

### (i)

. 

### Ongoing &r 

### Pollution Programs

................................. 46 

## (ii)

. 

### Smoke Management Practices

................................. 46 

### (iii)

. 

### Additional Emission Limitations and 

### Schedules for Compliance

...... 

### 46 

### (iv)

. 

### Source Retirement 

### and Replacement Schedules

................... 

### 46 

### (v). Schedule --Coal as 

### Primary Fuel

................................ 

### 36

................................ 42



### ................42

............................ 44



### .................

### 44



### ........................................ 45



### (v)

. 

### Measures to Mitigate the Impacts of 

### Construction Activities

...........

### 46

11

### (vi). Enforceability ofEmission

### Limitations

. . . 

### . . . 

## . . 

## . . . 

### . . . . . . . 

### . . . . 

### . . 

### . . 

### . 

### 47 C. 

### ENFORCEABLE PARTS 

### OF 

### THE 

## SIP REVISION: HAYDEN STATION 

### REQUIREMENTS

...................................... 

### :............47 

# - -vI. CONSULTATION

## WITH FEDE NOTES 

## AND REFEREN APPENDICES

Map I 

### Map 

### of Colorado Class 

### I

'\ 

# ', 1977 

### CM

BACM ailahlc Control Measure 

### Available Retrofit Twhnolog~ mosphcric rstinction isa measureof the level of light scattcnng nndnhsc)rplion hv \ pariiculatrs arid gscsin the atmosphere 

### '. \ Black Canyon ofthe Gunniwn National Monument 

### U.S.D.I. Bureau 

### ofLand Management Class 

### I Federal areas are congressionally designated large national parks and wildmess crcatcd 

### as 

### ofAuw 

### 7. 1977 \

'\ Colorado Air Quality Control Commission \\ 

# 3 c.+. Colorado RevidStatutes 

# '~ 

# '\
\ 1 ---c

... 111Colorado Air Pollution Control Division Environmental Defense Fund U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Federal Implementation Plan Federal Land Manager (USFS,

### NPS, BLM, USFBrWS) Fine Particle Mass or portion of the mass which is Great Sand Dunes National Monument comprehensive "global xttlement" 

### betw owners 

### of the Hayden Gcncrating Station, the t. 

### OfJustice concerning Sierra Cluh's lawsuit 'S Notice 

### of Violation

,

### and nitrogen oG&) 

### w was sign4 

### by a]] Club, the State of Colorado, 

### and the

ct court on May 22.1996 IMPROVE Interagency Monito national parks. \\ ilde

MOU Memarand MOU Study Smoke

### MOU Mcmorpdum 

# \ of Understanding Zirkcl Keascmahlc Almnbuli Study cf Visibility Impairment. Mcmormdm of 

# '\, Zukel MOU

North Eastern States for Coordinated Air Use
National Parks 

### ad Coiiscn.ation Assrriation 

### Mt. Zirkel Wildcmess Area Nibopen OsiJcs
National Park Scn'ice Particulatcmatter under I0 microns in diamctcr Particulatematter uncic~ 2.5 microns in diamctcr Prevention of Siplificant Dc'ta-ioration Reasonahly A\.ailahlcControl Mcasure Rocky Mountain National Park Snowmass/Mwwn Bclls Wildcrncss State Implementation Plan for Class 

### I Visibility Protection agcment 

# \+/ 

# 1

\ \ SIp 

### and Visibility/ i
Standard Visual 

### Range


### Tons per year. (tpy) 

### U.S.D.A. Forest Service 

### U.S.Fish & Wildlife Service

.S. Geological Survey 

### WESTAR
the While River National Forest



### '\ 

### \

'\

# 3VL 

### COLORADO’SCLASS I VISIBILITY PROTEmONPROGRAM STATE IMPLEMENTATION REVISIONS TO

### THE LONG-TERM STRATEGY, PART I: HAYDEN STATION REQUIREMENTS. 

### A. PREAMBLE.
The State 

### is conducting itsLong-Term Strategy 

### (LTS) review 

### and revision in two phases: 

### the first deals solely 

### \vih visibility impacts 

### in the 

### Mt. Zirkel Wilderness area (MZWA) from emissions 

### fromthe Hayden generating station, and the second deals with all other visibility issues in 

### Class I areas in Colorado including other visibility impacts in the 

### Mt. Zirkel Wilderness. 

### This phased approach will allow for 

### an expedited consideration and adoption 

### of Visibility Protection 

### Program State hplementation 

### Plan 

### (SIP)amendments that afkt the Hayden generating station only. Timely adoption 

### of these 

### SIP amendments and Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) approval will enable the owners of Hayden to begin activities that will lead to significant reductions at 

### the generating station. Delays in the regulatory process may lead to cornspondkg delays in the schedule of activities for Hayden. In addition, reuntly enacted State law exempts specific visibility 

### SIP amendments hat implement 

### and enforce conlrol strategies agrcwd to in a consent dccrw from legislative review pursuant to Colorado RevidStatutes section 25-7-133. The SIP amendments contained herein that affect the Hayden generating station implcmcnt and enforce such a consent decree, and are. therefore. cscmpt from the provisions of section 25-7-133. At this time, no oher potential visibility SIP amendments are cs~mpt from this legislative review. Adopting the visihility SIP ammdment~ for the Hayden generating station sqarately from the remaining visibility 

### SIP amendments will help avoid conbion during the legisiatiw review proccss For thcxreasons, the State believes it is prudent to phase the 

### LTS rcvision prows. 

### The sccond pan ofthc revision will he completed 

### hy the end of 1996. 

### This 

### LTS SIP rcvistgn is 

### Part 1 Haydm Station RcquiremcnLs and rcplaccs the previous c\istinp impairment portion of the LTS as it relates to the MWA. Below is the 

### SIP revision that contains *Aninlroduction (scxtion VIB.I A). *Summary ofthe port~ons OC the Ffaydcn C~nmt Decree that will hc included in the 

### SIP luncndlncnt (krction 

### VI.B. I .b); *Discussion ofreplaton. tcwls (scxtton VIB. I c); *Discussion ofreaxmahk progress 

### and hcHaydm requirements (scxtion VI 

### B. 1 

### A), ,of,@e 6 factors that EPA requires be in a 

### L

uirements including emission limitations bclow arc provided for information, co Scctions a tkr enforccahle pansof the SIP S~~tioii VI C is intend4to hc: Lhc enforceable part of the SII’ revision


### B. NON-ENFORCEABLE PARTS OF TI1E SIP REVISION. 1. Existing Impairment and the hlount Zirkcl ~ilderncsi. 

### The following suhseiionsprovide infimiiation, contest, beck& 

### and explanationof Lhc Slate’spositions regarding existing visibility impairment in the Mt. Zirkcl Wilderness 

### inrelation to the Hayden penmating station.

a. Introduction. 

### In July 1993. heU.S.D.A. Forest Scntice (USFS) axtilied visibility impairment in the 

### MI.Zirkel Wilderness area (MZWA) and named the Craig and Haydrn coal-fired generating stations as possihlc contrihutors to the problem. The State of Colorado has hwn engagd in a cooperative study (Mt.Zirkcl Visibility Study) to provide

# 3

# (J additional information for the State to utilize in determining whether impairment can he reasonably attributed to one 

### or both generating stations. The study was completed onJuly 

### 15, 1996. In December 1995,the State, Sierra Club, and the owners of the Hayden generating station entered into negotiations 10 attempt to resolve Hayden's potential contribution to visibility impairment in the M-ZWA, Hayden's contributions to acid deposition in MWA,

### and a citizen suit brought by the Sierra Club against Hayden 

### for violations of opacity s&&m&. EPAjoined these negotiations in Jm"ary 19% after issuing a Notice 

### of Violation against Hayden alleging violatiom 

### of the Clean 

### Air Act. Atter many hours of negotiations 

### in over 50 separate sessions. Sierra Club. State of Colorado, United States, Public 

### Service Company of Colorado, Salt River Project Agricultural Improvement and Power District, and PacifiCorp reached settlement. and on 

### May 22, 19%. 

### lodged a consent decree with thc 

### U.S.District Court 

### for the District 

### of Colorado. 

### This settlement 

### is ground breaking 

### in 

### many respectsand addressesadditional pollutants on a 

## fa= schedule than the August 1991 visibility settlement ftacheed 

### for the Navajo Generating Station. Notice 

### ofthe Consent 

### Decree has been published 

### in the Federal Register and 

### thepublic 

### has had an opportunity wholly independent 

### of

### this SIP revision to comment on the ternis of the settlement. Among other things. the Consent Decree requires the owners of Hayden station to significantly reduce missions of particulates and SO,. The State helievsit is appropriate and necessary to adopt certain parts of the Consent Decree nquirements as elemen&of the Long-Term Strategy component of the Visibility SIP and chat the imposition of requirements represents rcasanahle progress toward remedying Hayden station's likely contrihuiion to visibility impairment in MZWA. 

# 3 b. Summary ofthe Deem The major provisions of the Hayden Consat Dcrrwthat arc hcing incorporated into Long-Term Strategy are 

### sunun~zd klowfor information purposes. The actual language from the Decree that is king incorporated ES an enlorceable cicnisnt ofthe SIP is contained in section 

### I.F ofthis 

### SIP amendment. (1). Havden station. These reductions w~ll reduce visibility 

### pr

, Vallcy. Acid dcposition in the area \\ill also be r

(LSD) system to mect the cmission limitations or regardless of the fuel usld at 

### I iaydcn. SO, Emission Limitations. The SO, cmission limitations will result in at ]cast an 82% reduction in SO, from irkel Wilderness as well as in the Ymp3 on ownrrs must install a Lime Spray Dryer Ilowing cmission limitations shall apply



### *nomore than .I60 lbs SO? iwr million 

### Btu heat input on a 30 boiler operating day rolling average hsis (85% reduction from thc histonc highcr values of sulfur in the coal); *nomore than .I30 Ibs SO?per million Btu heat input on a 

### 90 boiler operating day rolling avcrags basis (85% reduction fromthe historic average values of sulfur 

### in the coal);
*at least an 82% reduction of SO, on a 30 boiler operating day rolling average hasis (to make sure that substantial reductions occur 

### and that control equipment 

### is run optimally even if bwer sulfur coal 

### is used at Hayden Station); and

LTSRnirw & Rnurcn. AuwfIS. 1996 

### 35

# J *a unit cannot operate for more 

### than 72 consecutive hours without any 

## so, emission reductions; that is, it must shut down if the control equipment is not working at all for 3 days (this is 10 prevent the build-up of SO, emissions that may lead to visibility events). (ii). Particulate Emission Limitations. The Hayden ~wners must install and operate a Fabric 

### Filter Dust Collector mown as an FFDC or baghouse) on each unit unless the owners switch to natural gas. Baghouses are extremely effective devices for removing particles from flue pas and should virtually eliminateparticulate plumes 

### from the plant. 

### The existing particulate controls. Electro-Static Precipitators 

### (ESPs). are older systems &at do not oper-- 3 c?thally during start-up and shutdown 

### of the plant. Performance also tends to degade during periods 

### between mi-smual 

### major maintenance. The result has been frequent excursions over the 20% opacity limit and psrticulate plumes 

### in the Yampa Valley 

### from the power plant. Opacity is a measure ofthe density 

### ofsmoke. The new equipment 

### is intended to eliminate these problems which were largely rewnsihle for the 

### USFS certification of visibility impairment and the Stalc's continuing regulatory process regarding visihility impairment in the Mi. Zirkel Wilderness. Particulate emission limitations for each unit are: 

### 00.03Ibs ofprimary particulate matter per million Btu heat input; and 

# 3 -20.0 

### YO opacity, as averaged over each separate 6-minute pen& within an hour as measured hy continuousopacity monitors. 

### (M). Compliance with Emission limits. All controls required hv the Decree shall he designed to meet cnforu.ahle -on limits. Compliance with the SO,. NOS. and opacity emission limits shall 

### hc. dctcrmined hy continuouscmisqion monitors. Hmyden'r Derision on Ctzab a's Natural Gas. No later than I80 days notifjrthe other pa.rre:1; (Sicma Club, Sratc of Colorado, 

### EPA) regard% wing coal 8s the primary &el B{ B4a;;dm station or switch to natural gas 

### November 17. 1996. (v). Schcduk -Coal w Primary FueL Should heowers of Haydcn elect to continus 10 hurn coal, the schedule for constructing contxol equipment and meeting the emission limitation deadlincs is VL? rapid for a power plant retrofit. meConsent Darecontains forw majcure provisions. If a force majeure event is dcIctmind to wcul under t~.m\s of the Decree, this could afTect the schcdule and compliancedates. Schedulejor Unit

### I: -Commencement ofphysical, on-site conshction of control equipment by 6/30/97 

### -Commence start-up testing of 

### FFDC and SO! control equipment by 12i3 1/98. Schedule for Unit 

### 2:

LTSRmnr & RrvuimAnpr 13~ 1996-Commencement ofphysical, on-site construction of control equipment by 6/30/98. -Commence start-up testing of

### FFDC and SO, control equipment by 1213 1/99. 

### Emission Limilalion ConipliairceDares/or SO,: 

### -For Unit 1. within 180 days Aer flue gas is pd through the SO, control equipment, or by July 1, I 999, whichever date isearlier. 

### -ForUnit 2, 

### wilhin I80 days after fluc gas is pd through the 

### SO, control equipment, 

### or by July 1, 

### 2000, whichever date isearlier.
Emission Limitation 

### Complionce Dalesfor 

### Paniculates: 

### -For Unit 1. 

### within 90 days derflue gas is passed 

### through the 

### FFDC control equipment, or by April 1, 1999, 

### whicheverdate isearlier. 

### -ForUnit 2, 

### within 90days after flue gas is pd through the 

### FFDC control equipment. or by April 1,2000, whichever date is earlier. (vi). Schcduk -Natural Cru as Primary FueL Should the owners of Hayden elect to switch to natural ga, the following scheduleand emission limitation compliancedates apply: 

### Skhedule for Unit

### I & Unit 2: -Initiate permitting activities forconstruction of natural gaspipeline by 10/30196 -Complete construction of pipcline and Haydcn boiler modifications and commence use of natural gas as primary he1 source by 12/3I I38 

# 3

EmissionLimirotion Coniplmttce Datefor 

## so, apad

### 8micdSrPe: -February 

### I. 1999 or 30 days an- the owners of Hayden commence w of natural pas as the primary fuel

s force majcure provisions. A "force majcure cvcnt' is narrowlv delay in meeting construction deadlines or emission 

### 11 

### SIP. the force majeure provisions ofthe Con-wntDLxrW ssion limitation compliance deadlines. A determination that source. (vii). Fom Majcurc. The 

### C dcfmed. 

### and can only be the compliance deadlines 

### in limited to may impact the construction sc revisions that incorporate lhe relevant provisions of the Consmt Dccrer demonstrate reasonable prop- to\~~cj the national visibility goal is not coinpromiscd. however. by the inclusion of the force majcurc provisions into the SIP. Division believes that the parties to die Con.wnt kree do not anticipate nor intend lhal a force majcurc event will hc: used to sipiljcantly delay the construction and compliance deadlincs in the Conscnt Dccree nnd In his 

### SIP. Consent 

### Decree provides that if a force majeure event may delay compliance by the owners of Haydcn wilh the tms 

### ofthe C0-t 

### Decree for more than sis monk. then the Division, 

### EPA or the Sierra Cluh may seek 

### fkha relief 

### from the Coun to fulfill the purposes of the Consrnt Decree. 

### Tohelp ensure hatreasonable progress continues to hc made, the Division 

### and the Commission commit to rropcn the 

### SIP as 

### won as possible ~RCS it is determined that a construction schedule 

### or an emission limitation schedule has been or 

### Will be, delayed 

### by I2 months as a result of o for= majeurt: determination. 

### The SIP will bc recvduatcd at that theto determine whether revisions are necessaq to continue to demonstratereasonable progress, including 

### revisions that adopt new construction or compliance deadlines. In addition, 

# 4

LTSRmor & RMI~ AYRYJI IS. 1996 

### 37the 

### SIP also contains a clarification that the force majeure provisions referred to in the 

### SIP are not to be construed to 

# a

authorize or create any preemption or waiver of the requirements of State or federal.air quality laws, or of the requirements contained 

### in the SIP or the Consent Decree.



### c Regulatory Tools. Federal and state law provide the au qualify regulator with specific tools for addressing 

### an existing stationary facility's emissions in the contest 

### of a specific mification of visihility impairment ofa

### Class I area. 

### The Division may reasonably attribute (RA) visibility impairment to the Hayden andor Craig power stations if there 

### is evidencethat either onecontributes to any visibility impairment in the 

### MI. Zirkel Wilderness. If impairment 

### is attributed to an xis sting stationary facility the Division must analyze 

### for 

### BART and determine what, if 

### any, are appropriate emission

### reductions. Thefacility(s) must then reduce heiremissions accordingly. The Statehas

### worked coilabratively 

### with stakeholders 

### in the 

### Mt. 

### Zirkcl Visibility Study to assemble additional information that could be usedfor replatory decision-making and laid out a time-table for the decisions. Howeva. the Hayden settlement has changed the State's approach (RA/BART approach) toward resolving the 

### USFS certification 8s it affects Haydcn station. The owners of Hayden station have voluntarily aped, through a enforceable Consmt Dccrcy, to reduce emissions to such a degree that, in the Division's tcxhnicaljudgment. any possihle contrihutions to visihility impaimmtin WWA by Hayden will be reduced to hclowhumanly perceptible levels. The State believes this level of improvement reprmb the ovaarching requirement of rcasonahle progress toward the national visihility goal as it relatcs to Hayden 

### and mWA Continuation ofthe regulatory proccss to make a reasonable attrihution dccision and to conduct 

### BART analyses has therefore become moot and would result in an inefficient w of slate. federal. and private rcxourcxs. In 

### &is circumstance, the necd to usc the 

### WNIT approach no longer exists. Howvcvcr. it is appropriate and na-ssq 10 adopt the relevant rcquiremcnts of thc Consnt Dcrcrccinto the 

### LTS portion ofthe Visibility SIP. 

# 3

-- 

### d. Reasonable Progress and the Haylrn Requ 169(A) of the fcvioral Clem Air Act estahlishBa national visibility goal, not an air quality standard or specific emission standud. While the objectivec. OVW time, is to achieve the goal. the mandate is to niakc rcasonahle pro np rcasonahle props. the State CC. 3) the enmg and non-air quality onsider I) the costs of compliance; 

### 2) the time nccrssar2; nvironmental impacts of compliance: and 4) the rrmainr c SOWCC. 

### The State also &licvCs that inherent in the concept of rensonahlc propcss is a dm benefits. Each of the reasonable propcs.. considmations and visihili? benefits from the 

### f laydcn rcquirLmcmts. as embodied in this 

### SIP revision. arc briefly discussed helow 

### (0. Cost of Compliancc 

### By signing the Consent 

### Decree.the Haydm O~TI~~S hawdemonstrated thcir willinpcss to bear the cost to retrofit thc power station or convcxt it to natural gas. 

### The Division concludes that the cost of the cquipmcnt or convmion will increase the cost of production of kilowatts at Hayden generating station and apvusto be within the range 

### of costs compared to retrofits at other facilities. Howev~r, the Division had dificulty finding studies that contained information that \vas completely comparable to the Haydcn situation. It is also impnant to rmopizc that neither the Consent Decree, nor the State through this 

### SIP revision, dictates that the source continue to coal 

### or switch to natural pas. The Haydcn o\nmsretain the discretion to make this choice and prcsumnbly will evaluate cost 

### as one factor in making their choice. Instead ofdictating fuel choice. the Conmt Dmrw and this SIP revision establish emission limits which are expect& to rcmlve Ifayden's likely contribution to visihility impairment in the WWA. For 

# w

38the coal option, lime spray dryer technology was selectedto address SO, emissions because it cdd achieve the emission 

### limits,is compatible with baghouses. and hasreasonable costs. 

### Thus,the State believes that the selection 

### of this specific technology is appropriate to ensure emission limitations will be met 

### if' coal continues to be burned at Hayden station. The Divisionpresents the following additional points and information regarding cost: Hoyden is willing 10 

### pq. 

### Throughvoluntarily 

### signing the Consent 

### Decree,the owners of the Hayden station have demonstrated that they are willing to bear the cost to retrofit the power plant or convert it to natural gas. 

### Therelrofit or conversion is not contingent 

### on Public Utility Commission approval 

### of Hayden being able to pass the MS~into its rate base, therefore, whether 

### or 

### not the owners 

### of Hayden are able to get approvals from the Public Utility Commission to 

### pass the costs 

### along to the owners' customas,the retrofit or conversion will 

### proceed. The operators 

### of Haydcn station (Puhlic Service Company 

### of Colorado) have indicated in a letter to the Division dated June 14. 1996' that the estimated capital cost in 19% dollars of installing baghouses to control particulate and lime spray eers to control SO2 would be approximately

## s 121 million. (This does not include the NOS equipment hecause 

### NOx emissions are not believed to influence visihility in the UWA. 

### N0.u controls are designrd to reduce acid deposition m the area). Total levelized annual cost of a retrofit. in 1996 dollars, would be approsimately 522.8 million (includes the cost of capital. operating, maintenance, PW, personnel, encrgyuse. water, and waste disposal). Capital cost for the LSDs (both units) 

### is estimated at 54

### I .4 million. 

### Thc capital cost of the FFDCs (bothunits) is estimated to 

### he 579.5 million. Division stdT have revicwed thcsc cost cstimatrs and have not found any reason to question their validity. The cost of switching thr plant to natural pas is not houn at prmtand is the subject 

### of study by the o\vmxs of Hayden who must drtmnine, within I80 days of signing the Consent Decree. whether to continue with coal or switch to natural gas. The Division does not currently have information about the cost of a natural gas conversion and opcration of the plant on this fuel. However. in terms of evaluating the agreement's cost, the Division feels comfortahlr using availahle information for a coal retrofit. 

### The rationale is that if nalurnl gas 

### krly that the Haydm 

### o\\ncrswill nvitch fuels. 

### in which casc the 

### use of rctrofit data tr. 

### If natural gas is less es st of the rtquircments. Hayd *Costofo rein# eslimoled by Puhlic Service CompanyofColorado.

eCosr of0 coriversiori 10 riolrirol pas urrknowri 01rliis time 

# -relrojjt COSISwillsente os upper bourtdotyofcost.

*Divisiotr esliniale of COSI 10 tlre average cirstonier of PXoIS less hrt Ilia1 resrr~firrgfi~trr a rcccttfvisihiliry prorection sertlemertt. 

### If Public miceCompany were allowed by the Public Utilities Commission lopass the cost of this investment 

### into ~ts rate b=. Ihr DiLision cstimatts that an mvahnent by Puhllc SC~VICS Cornpiinn)' of Colorado

### in pollution control equipment of SI20 million would result in a rate increase of approsimalrly I .42% or an increase to the average household rlcxtnc hill of 

### SO 5Wmonth'. 

### As a companson. the 

### EPA rstimatrd that thc cost 

### of 

### SO, 

# 'Letter from Steve Dayncy. Public Scrvk Company of Colorado, lo Dan Ely. Colorado Dcpallmenl of Public Hcalth and Environment,Air Pollution Control Division, June 14, 19%. 'Mcmorandum from Sbcic Nutt. Colorado Air Pollution Control Division. Lo Dan Ely. Air Pollution Control Division, June 6. 1996.

# J control for visibility protection purposes at the Nasajo Generating Station 

## (so2 ody ) would increase by $1.72/month the electric bill of the average Salt hver Power customer in 1992 dollars’. Thus, the potential rate-based cost to customers of 

### PSCo for the Hayden station retrofit, which includesboth 

### SO, and pmiculale controls,is expected to be far less per customerthan that of the Navajo Generating Station retrofit. Costofa rerrofitin Sk, $/ton, and$44Wh (niegmott-hour) as esriniafed 

### by Public Service Conipartyof Colo,-odo. Public ServiceCompany CpSCo) 

### has indicated (in a letterpreviously cited) that the retrofit cost in $/year, $/ton, 

### and S/MWh are 

### as follows: 

### Sryr Stton SMWh 

### unit 1 

### FFDC S5,130.022 SlO2 S3.96 Unit2 

### FFDC 56,720,779 $99 S3.76 

### unit 1 

## so1 S10.137.2I6 S2083 S7.82 

### unit2 

## so, S 12.723.188 

### S 1930 37.12 

### PSConotes that the SO, removal costs include hoth the FFDC and the LSD as both are required to obtain 

### SO I control. The Division believes it is valid to look at the baghouse and lime spray dyer together for the purpo~ of an integrated pollution control system that reduces particulate and SO,. However, fully adding in the cost ofthe FFDC to the cost ofthe lime spray dryer toestimate SO2 rcmoval costsapparsLo the Division to douhlecount the cost of the FFDC. The FFDC is necessq to metparticulate and opacity limits ad the Division does not believe its full cost should 

### he included in the cost of SO2control at Hayden hut ackno\vledgcs thac are varying approaches to analyze costs. 

### The Division believes a levclued annual cost of 

### SI 1.255 millioniyrar for 

## So, removal for flayden is reasonable, recognizing that there is no one method for factonnp in the role of the particulateremoval s).st~m as it relates to costs of SO, ranoval. Thl! Division’s estimate includes the levclimcd annual cost ofthe LSDs (f 10.07 million’) plus 10% ofthe cost ofthe FFDC (SI. 185million). The Division helievcsthis 10%reprewnts a reasonable apportionment to SO, reductions from the FFDC. Under this assumption, the cost ~LT ton of 

### so2 removed is approximat tpy) = S799ttoniyear). will be able to recoup 

### h trading program under t A 1991 

### EPA modcling study’ cslimatcd the retrofit costs for SO: control at 200 coal-fired rlwtnc utilittcs (630 hoilas) and specifically evaluated the cost of lime spray drying The 

### 50th pcrcmtilc capital cost wasestimatrd (in 1988 dollars) to 

### hr: 

### $150kW Adjusted for a plant of Hayden’s six. this translates into $67. j million capital cost 

### (S150 

### s 440.000 

### kW) in I988 dollars PSCOhas cstirnatcd thc capital cost 01’ SO,equipment fc,r 

# 3 -Division 

### iestimate ofcostpertori rerrroval of 

### .W, at Havderi.

n 19% dollars 

### (SI I .255 million/(1G.OOO rpy 

### s 88% removal = ISthe portion 

### ofthe control costs that 

### the owners of \vmccssof

### SO:which it will rceeive aspart ofthc a1 -€PA studyof

# m, retrv)~ costs (hotk capital aridSton)arid conipansoru to Hqdert

3’Approval and Promulgation of Implcmcrilation Plans: Rcvision of thc Visibility 

### FIP for Arizona.” October 3. 1991. 56 Fdcral 

### Re 50178. ‘E-mail from SIC= Dqncy, Public Scrvice Company of Colorado. to Dan Ely. Colorado Dcpartmcnt 01’ Public Htaltll and Environment.Air Pollution Conlrot Division. “Hayden SO2 Corn LSD only.” June 24. 1996. 5’Project Summary: Retrofit Costs for SO, and NOs Control Options at 200 Coal-Fired Plants,“ EI’h’600/~7-904’, 1. March 1991.Hayden will be 

### $4 1.4 million in 1996dollars. The EPA study also estimated the $/ton removed of 

### SO,.The 50th percentile cost (in 1988dollars) was approximately b700hon. The estimate included the cost of capital, operating, maintenance, personnel, land, waste disposal. 

### and energy. The Division's estimate for Hayden 

### is $799h UI 

### 19%dollars. Assuming a 3% inflation rate applicd to the EPA number to make it morecomparable to 1996 costs. yields a value of $887/ton 

# - more than the estimate

### forHayden. However, the Division believes the EPA estimate to be high because EPA evidently included all 

### or part ofthe Cost of 

### FFDC units on particular boilers for estimating the cost of SO, control with lime spray dryers if reuse 

### of 

### ESPs was not consid& feasible (168 out of 630boilers). Therefore. 50th percentile costs

### from the EPA 

### study presented above includt: someparticulate deviw control cost as well. 

### EPA's draft

### BART analysis for 

### the Navajo Generating Station', 

### in Table 4 of the analysis. provides estimates 

### of the $/ton removal of 

### SO, from various control options (e.g.. wet scrubbing. lime spray dryer, 

### dry sorbat injection). The S/ton range irom S 1626to 5361 1 hodyear depending on the assumptions, level ofremoval, ad type of control system. This is much higher than the Division's estimates of b799/tpy for Hayden, al&ough similar to PSCo's estimates of SO, removal (approximately s2~/tpy) that include the 

### full cost of the FmC. EPA's analysis does include 

### FFDCs in costing he LSD option for Navajo Grmerating Station hwawthe station would need to build haghouses to utilize a 

### LSD. EPA's cost estimate is hetiwen $24OUtpy ad S361l/tpy for a LSDEFDCcombination. 

### *EPA5 dmJ 

### BART onolysisofrhe costofNmjoGmcroting Sotion's So, control.



### *PXo's estimoreo$cosI per tonrenrovolofponiculore 01 Hoyden srotion. In evaluating the cost clement. it is important to 

### reco- that baghouses. in addition to 

### addressing Haydm station's contrihution ofpmiculates to visibility impairmentin the EWA. also

### \\*illrectify Hayden's difliculv mplyingwith State and Fedcral opacity limits. Jn the Sierra Club's lawsuit against Hayden station foropacity violations. the Sierra Cluh was swking an injunction to require the Hasden owmsto install haeh0u-X. One could argue that if baghouses were already nrxesary to crddrcss QprtCiQ' isSUsS; 

### the c~st of the srrtt1cml-m~ for visibility purposes should only consider the cost ofthe LSDS. Ho~cv~~. the Division believes it is appropriate to consider the cost of hnghouses in the conteht of making reasonable P~O~LSS hccaw of the nem certainty 

# 3

liminating particulate plumes from Hayden station that 

### m each unit, is expectedby PSCo to remove pe cr citdculicr) per ton ofparticulate removed at oies

### oTFFDC COSI ttsrrig

### EPA spreadrliecu. EPA has developed a sct of sprsadshects 

### (COST-AIR) for estimating the cost of ~anous air pollution control options. 

### The Division attained the spreadsheet for fahric filters and estimated the cost ofFFDCs at Hayj'm. 

### TheDivision's cstimatc of capital costs of 529.6million for Unit 1 and 542.9 million 

### for Unit 

### 2 are\vithin about 10%of' PSCo's estimata ahow' The spreadsheet also outputs the cost 

### p~ ton rrmovd 

### Thc Division's estimates for Haydcn Unit I are %32/tpy(cornparcd to PSCO'Sestimate of SIOZ/tpy) and %8l/tpy[or Unit 2 (PSCo's estimate 

### is S99Itpy).

*'Ekit Available Rctrofit (BART) Analysis for the Navajo Gcncrahg Station in Page. Anmna." EPA Contract No. 68-07- 4400.William

### R.Barnard.E.H. Pahanand Associates. Inc., prepsnd for the U.S.EPA, Januar).3 1. 1990. Memorandum from Gary Kcnniston. Colorado Air Pollution Control Division. 10 Dan Ely. Air Pollution Control Division, Cost estimatesfor FFDC and spray dpcrinsbllation at Haydcn 

### SEGS, July 12. 1996. 

# 3The Division's and PSCo's estimated cost of SO, and particulate emission reductions appear to be lower or similar to estimates for 

### other projects or for this project using alternative methods. The State concludes, therefore, that the cost of SO, and particulate emission reductions isreasonable. 

# Q.Time Nmrsary for Compliance. 

### If the owners of Hayden elect to continue using coal as their primary &el, start

### up testing of the FFDC and 

### SO, control equipment would occur by 12I3 

### 1/98 for Unit I and by 1

### u3 1/99 for Unit 

### 2. If the owners elect to bum natural 

### gas as their primary fiiel, they will 

### begin doing 

### so by I213 1/98. Under the terms of the consent 

### Decret, approximately 2%to 3%years would elapse between the filing ofthe Dartsand conversion to aatwal gas 

### or operation of 

### the 

### control equipment, respectively. 

### In comparison, assuming the Division went through a complete RA/BmT proccrs with the Hayden facility, which would take at least an additional 6 months, and fiyther assuming there are no challenges to the decision, BART regulations (AQCC Regulation #3. 

### PM 9.XI.D.2) require that a facility that 

### has received a BART permit from the Division "shall install and operate BART as cspAit 2 &llli installation of control equipment could 

### bc up to 

### 5% years 

## -- longer if there wcre administrative and/or corn appeals of agency decision-making. The State hclie\w that the Hayden settlement offers particulate and SO2rductions on a 

### mom rapid timetable than would likely 

### hs achievable through a possibly controversial 

### MART process. The terms of the Hayden settlement, as emhodid in this SIP revision, will also result in emission rductions much more rapidly than in 

### tkNavajo Generating Station visihilit). settlement and Visibility Protection Propam Federal lmplcmcntation 

### Plan (FIP). The

### FIP,which waspromulgated on Octohc7 3.1991, allowed until November 1997. November 1398. and August I999 for installation of 

### SO, controls on the tluctl Navajo units. 

### in no case later than 5 years after permit issuance." 

### Under this scenario the Division estimates thai

(iu). Energy and Non-Air Qualit? Environmental impacts.

" 

### .' If natural gas is choscn hy the owwsof Hayden as the primary fuel, the OWILTS will have to initiate Vmitting, design, and construction activities for a natural gas pipeline. It is unkno\\n at this time what the xalc (1.c.. number of miles. ncxd for drveloprncnt of new gas fields) of thi iways cause disturhanccs. Thcse d



### Thc Division is aware of con& I wuth\vcstLm Wyoming and pan ste~i Colorado ("S and is uncertain as IO w1wthc.r and how ongoing dcItvL? of natural gas to I Inydcn souid bc allcxtcd hy this controversy. The Division also ha% no dcfinitive information that \\.auld indicate that there are impacts to the nation's 

### or region's mapsupply associated with the lllie of natural gas at Haydrn station. Compared to coal, there are fewer non-air qualip impacts from the burning ofnatural gas as a fuel. For s~mplc. there 1s no ash or other solid waste for dtsposal *Coal. Assuming coal is continud as the pnmqhcl. the impacts include: *Enmay. PSCo estimates th31 the w' of baghouses and lime spray dyers. due lo energy nLdto ~ull 

### thr.~ systems. will decreasc: thc plant output hy I.1%. In the Division's judgment this is a rea.sonahlc rstimatc and 

### similarto those found in EPA's 

### BART analysis for the Navajo Gcvrrating Station (cited exlicr).

# c) -Water. A lime spray dryer system requires water UI order 10 operate. 

### EPA's 

### BART Guidelines' indicate the requirements for a lime spray dryer to be approsimately .8 gallons per minute per megawatt. Assuming the Hayden facility was running at full capacity year-round, 

### an additional 185 million gallondyear would be required. similarly, PSCo estimates that at 80%capacity, the water use would be 544 acre feet to run the lime spray dryer (177 million galloneear). 

### Of that amount, 477 acre feet will 

### come from reusing water in eveporatim 

### ponds. TheDivision understands that the additional water (67 acre feet) will be from existing \vats rights currently owned by Hayden. 

### This additional water 

### use would represent a commitment 

### of water rights from the 

### YampaRiver. *Ash and Sludge. 

### Ln a spraydying system, a fine spray 

### of alkaline solution 

### is injected into the flue gas stream as it passes lhrough a contact chamber, where the reaction with the 

## so, OCCUTS. 

### The heat from the flue gas evaporates the liquid from the absorbent solution. leaving a 

### dry powder. which 

### is 

### then colltcted by the paniculate control device (haghouse). In addition to coal ash in the haghouse. the lime spray 

### dryer will odd spent reagent plus unreacted ahsorhcnt. Typically thr~e have a low soluhility and arc not considered an environmental disposal prohiem'. Two additional studies indicate that the residuals from lime spray dryers considered to 

### be safe and that the tosicity of the residues are well below the Estraction 

### Procedure(Ep) toxicity limits" 'I. 

### EP limits arc estahlished under the currcnt Resource Conservation 

### and Recovcry Act regulations (40 

### CFR 261.24). Finally. Public Service 

### Company (in a previously cited letter 

### ofJune 14. 1996)states, Haydm is a zero discharge unit and thus dwsnot have a riverwater discharge. 

### The

### LSD will dectthe zero discharge and will not have off-site disposal of a new liquid waste. A 

### ESD changes the solid \vastc stream that will he collcctd fromhe FFEC. The SOzin the flue gas reacts with the hydrated lime to form calcium/sulfi~r compounds. 

### Thc calcium/sulfi compounds. unreactrd reagmt, and 

### flyash will tx collected from the FFDC and disposed 

### of in the current landfill 

### locatd near the 

### plant. It 

### is not 

### y major changes to the current solid wastc disposal practices will h! rrquir changes to the disposal method are plannid. the quantities of waste genera! operation approximately I I8,ooO tons pcr year of mild waste IS gcnerated from both units Mathe 

### LSD installation is in opcration, it is estimatd that 160.500 tons of solid waste wlil be generated resulting in a 36% 1ncrea.w in solidsrequinnp disposal.

8*Guidelincs for Dctcnniiring Best Availahlc Retrofit Technology for Coal-Fircd Powcr Plants and Other E+,tiilg Stationary Sourccs.~ United Stata Environmcntal Protation Apcy. 

### ofice Of Air Quality Planning and Standards. Research Triangle Park, NC 2771 1, EPA450/3-80409b. Novcmhcr 1980. 'Report to Congress: Wssta from the Combustion ofCoal by Elccinc UtilityPower Plants. EPAIS30-SW-88-02M. Fcb.. 1988. lo "Evaluation of a 2.5-MW Spray Drycrffabric Filtcr SO2 Rcmoval S)'stm." EPRY65-7449. Project 1870-3. August 1991. p. 9-61. " "PhysicalChcmical CharactcrislicsolUtili5SolidWastes." Tctm Tmh Inc.. EPRI EA-3236, Scpkmbcr 1983.
LTSRmcw& Rmr~cn. Aug~l IS. 1996 43Overall, it is the Division's judgment that either natural gas or coal and associated control systems will produce Some non-air quality environmental impacts yet either choice would result in an overall acceptable level of environmental quality. Also, the USFS believes that hecause the Hayden settlement will lead to reductions 

### of hoth S02.and

### Nox: emissions, positive environmental impactsto the aquatic ecosystems 

### in the MZWA will result". 

### (b). Remaining Useful Life of the Sourcc An official with PSCo stated". "The remaining 

### usefd life of Hayden IS contingent on its continued economic competitiveness 

### in a deregulated mariie!phcz in addition to technical 40 operational considerations. Given that the investments 

### are made 

### in pollution controls 01 :.~ia! g; L- zJion and fie plant remains competitive 

### in the market place, Public Service Company anticipates a usehl life of Hayden station on the order of 20 years." 

### It is the Division's technicaljudgment that given the overall competitive position of Public 

### Service Company in the region', the typical current projected 

### life Of electric generating stations", and past representations of the remaining life of Hayden station made by PSCo", an estimate of at least 20 years remaining useful life of the Hayden station is reasonahle regardless of the fuel chosen. Given the expected remaining uxful life of the station. a retrofit or conversion ofthis magnitude isreasonable. (v). Visibility Benefitr and Level ofEmission Reduction. *Visibility Benefits. Any contributions to visibility impairment in the 

### MI. Zirkel Wilderness cauwd by or contributed to 

### by the Hayden po\vm station would come from 

### 1) primary particulate plumes; andlor 

### 2) a locally generated datehaze. Based on Ihe Division's technical judgment. experience with information €merated regarding the operation ofHaydcn station, 

### and findings of the Mt. Zirkel Visibility Stud$* (e.~.. pages j- j7. j-61, 5-62 and Table

### 5.5.1) there is close corrcspndrncektwm~ occasions when particulate plumL% are clearly visible 6omthe Hayden station and malfunctions with its existing Electro-Static Precipitators. 

### Theconversion ol'thr station to natural gas or use of bagl~ousc.s will virtually eli te particulate plumes coming from Haydcn that ma]; entm the 

### MI.Zirkel Wilderness. With regard to locally generated sulfate hazes. the Division's technical judgment is that removing at least 

### 82% 

### of the 1995 inventory of 16.000tonsiyear 

### of 

### SO,will etl'ctively address 

### visibility prohlcms 

# 3

and will lower the threshold of SO2 emissi Thcrc IS also evidence in the Mt. Zirkel Visihilit ent, as embodied in this SIP revision. nearly

lZ Lertm from Elizabeth Estill. Rcgional Forester. Rocky Mountain Rcgion. U.S.DA. Forest Scrvicc. to Marpc t'crkins. Dimtor. ColoradoAir Pollution Control Division. July 10. 1996 l3 Pcrsonal mmmunicalion hcwccn Stcvc Dayncy. Public Scrvicc Company of Colorado. and Dan Ely. Colorado DcpartmcntofPublic Hcalth and Enviroiiincnt. July 17. 19%. lC Pcnocul communication with Jim Gcicr. ColoradoAir Pollulion Control Division. and Dan Ely. Colorado Air Pollution Control Division.July 18. 1996. l5 Scc PuMic SmioC Company of Colorado. 1991 Annual Rcpur:. regarding thc Havdcn pwcr plant thc Comwny indicstcs (hat Unit 1 has a maininglifc of 70 ycan and Unit2 has a maining life of31 yean l6 Watson, John G.. Blumenthal, Donald 

### L.. et. al.. Aft. ZihlWildernessArea RcasotrnhlcAII~I~II~IOII ,St~ch, 0 

### f Visibility Imparrment, i'olirttre 11: Resrriis o/ Data Analysis atrd Afodelrtig.Final Report. prrparcd for T~blcal Steering Committee, do Colorado Dcpartmcnt of Public Health and Environment, Atr Pollution Control Division, Denver, 

### CO, July 

### I, 19%. 

# L/

### in achange 

### in visibility in theMZWA that would heperceptihle (e.g.. pages 6-74.6-106.6- 147,6-148.6-167.6- 168, 6-

### I7 

### I, 7-4, 7-9, 7-10, 7- 15, 7- 16, 7-17). The Division recopkes that regional haze from outside Colorado and emissions from other sources within Colorado may also be contributing to v1slhilrv impairment at MZWA. . . ..
*Level 

### of Emission Reductions. The Division believes the level of particulate reduction at Hayden is appropriate 

### and bases 

### this conclusion in part on an esamination of levels of conLro1requircd 

### ofthe most recently permitted coalfired utilities in Colorado. For esamplc, unit #3 of the Craig station (Craig. CO) and the Rawhide station (Fort Collins, 

### CO) undenvent PSD permit revicws and BACT determinationsfor particulate. The emission limit for each station 

### is 

### 0.03 Ibs 

### per million Btu hcat input 

# - the same 

### as requud for the Hayden reuofiUconversion. 

### The Division believes the SO2emission limits for unit 

### #3 of Craig 

### and Rawhide also showthat Haydcn's emission limits are what is generally required for new sources. Craig's requhmtis a 

### 70% rduction. while Rawhide's is 8Wh. Hayden's emission limits were estahlished by reducing by 

### 85% the 

### sulfurcontent in its coal. (vi). Remooable Progress. The State hclicvcs that the terms of this SIP revision represent reasonahle propcsstoward the national visibility goal with respect to Haydm station. Therequirementswill produesignificant emission reductions that are 

### expected to cfl'cct1vely eliminate the visibility impairment in the MZWA that could he associatrd with the station. The associated costs. non-air quality environmental impacts. and eneraimpacts appear to 

### he reasonable given the remaining usehl life on the facility. The 

### SIP will produce reductions of visihility impairing poiiutants at Hayden Station at a reasonable cost. years Wore similar reductions would likely mur bough reasonable attribution and 

### BART determinations. The emission limitations for Haydnr for

## So, and particulate. reached through a negotiation process involving a numhc7 of 

### parties. are similar to or mocc slringmt than those imposed on units suhjcxlt to 

### PSD regulations (e.g.. Craig Unit 3 and Rawhide Energy Station). 

### The State hclicves that the Hayden settlement, emmid in 

### this SIP revision, hy remedying Hayden's conhhutionto visihility Impairment in the MWA expeditiously, at a reasonable co~l. md without usidur non-air Lmvirommtal or energ impacts. hhn@ more "sranahlc p~jg~~i~" to thc 

### Mt. Zirkel Wildcmess than could he achie\*edhugh other means. The Division recognizes that regional h3Zt: from outside Colorado, rmissions from sources outside Colorado, and emissions from other Colorado sourcescould a1.w contributing to visibility impairnicnt in the MWA.

The State believes the Hayden ss-csjl and rcsolws the ccrtilicatron of impairment hrau 

### - by the USFS in relation to Hayden station The State isjoined in his concluwm 

### by the USFS 

## -- the manager ofthe 

### Mt. Zirkel Wilderness. The Division on June 24. I996 rtxeived a letter from the USFSRegional Forester. Eli7~hth Estiil. The

### USFS formally certified \4sihility impa1nnent at MZWA in 1993 

### and now concludes. The Consent Decree recently dcvelopdby the State. EPA. Sicma Cluh, and Puhlic Semice conipany (sic) will rcsult in significant cinisions rcductions at the Hayden Station. It is our opinion that the magnitude of the emission rductions for particulates and sulfur dioxide contained in the Consent Decree should cffcctively addrew the concerns of visihility impairment WL' had with this facility. 

### Theemission reductions should eliminate Hayden's contribution to visibility impairment to helow a perceptible threshold".

e. The Sis Factors. 

### EPA regulations 

### (C.F.R. 51.302(~)(2)) require the State to consider, at a minimum, sis factors when developing a 

### LTS. Becausepart 

### I of this 

### LTS 

### SIP revision process is fwused entirely on the Hayden requirements that resulted !?om the negotiated settlement. some of the six factors are not applicahle. Each factor is discussed individually below: 

### (0.Ongoing Air Pollution Programr 

### This factor is

### not applicable in the contest of requtrcwnts 1~- I :--'* 

### :z station. It will 

### be considered 

### in part 11 of the

### LTS review/rcvisionprocess. (ii). 

### Smoke Management Practices. 

### This factor is not applicable in the contest of requirements for Hayden station. 

### It will be considered in part 

### I1 of the 

### LTS reviedrevision process. (ill). Additional Emission Limitations and Schedules for Compliance The Division was on-track to determine muonable attrihution and perhaps 

### BART for the Hayden station. Because a settlenicnt. ernhodied in a Consent Decrw, was reached that established limits that arc expected to eliminate Hayden station's contrihution to visihiliv impairment in MZWA. the need toproceed with a 

### MART approach is ohviatrd. In ordcr to insure that reasonahle progress is demonstrated in the 

### SIP contest. the State has determined it isnemsary and appropriatcto include certain requirements hm 

### the Consent Decree in this 

### SIP. The specificemission limitations and specificcontrols(if Hayden continues to 

### burn coal 

### as its primary fuel) to achieve the limitations are contained in the language included from the 

### Consent Drcrrc: (Consent Decrcc section 

### V.Emission Controls and Limitations). 

### The consmction schedule and schedule for compliance with emission limitations for I-laydem station are also in the esccrpted Conscnt Dcxrcv in sections 

### VII. Construction d Compliance 

### Deadlines. rrspczctivcly. The schedules are suhject to force majeure determinations pursuant to the Consrnt Decree. 

# 3

Retirement and Rcplnrement Schedules. This factor he contest of requirements for ion as the sourcc is neither kingretired nor replaced. (v). Measures to Mitigate the Imparts of Construction Activities. In the tllrhnicaljudgmcm of the Division. it is not believed that construction activities at Haydm station or in the consvuction of a natural pas pipeline will conmhute 10 impainnent to the Mt. Zirkel Wilderness or othcr Class I arcas. Thc distance hctwcem the construction and the CIL,S 1 area is at least 20 miles and it is venunlikely that fugitive emissions from hesite nould influence visihilic The size of particles that exapca COnStruClion site are also usually relatively large (e.p.. fugitive dus!) and \vould raprdly dcposit out. The marginal increase in cmiissions from the= Hayden-specific activities would not he mrasurahlc against the background of current existing area emissions. 

### Thus,no mitipation measures are ncxxssaq in this contest

" Lcncr from EliLsbcth Estill. Regional Forcstcr. Rocky Mountain Region of thc U.S.D.A. Forest Scrvicc. to Margic Pcrkins, Dircctor, Air Pollution Control Division. Colorado Dcpaflmcni ofPublic Hcalth and Eiivirotiincni. Juiic 24. 19%.
L15Rn7rw & RNUIOZ AupuI IS. 1996 46(vi). Enforceability of Emission Limitations. By adopting the emission limitations for Hayden into Colorado’s SIP, such limitations become enforceablehy the State, and when approved by 

### EPA, the limits are also federally enforceable by 

### EPA. The Consent Decree’s emission limitations, during the term of its existence. are enforceable lhrough 

### a petition 

### by any oftheparties to the Consent Decree to the United States District Court for the District of Colorado. A provision 

### of the Consent Decree states that it cannot be terminated until certain requirements including emission limitations have 

### been incorporated into the State’s Title 

### V permit for Hayden station. Once in the Title 

### V permit, the requirements would be enforceableby the State andor 

### EPA. A provision 

### of the 

### Decree also stipulates monetary penalties to he paid hy the owners 

### ofHayden should the station fail to meet emission limits. Enforceability of emission limitations 

### is also related to 

### how one determinescompliance. the reliability and validity of measurements to detminecompliance, and reponing of data. 

### For these reascms, Consent 

### Decree sections 

### VI. Continuous Emission Monitors 

### (for 

### SO, and opacity) and 

### IX. Reporting are 

### includedfkom the Hayden Consent Decree 

### in this 

### SIP amendment. C. ENFORCEABLE PARTS OFTHE 

### SIP REVISION: HAYDEN STATION REQUIREMENTS. The following provisions, which are taken from the Hayden Consent 

### Decree. are heing adopted as pan 

### of this revision to the Long-Term Strategy portion ofthe Colorado Visibility SIP, shall be me1hy the Hayden owners. and are intended to be enforceable. The Consent Decree numhering scheme has heen retained to avoid confusion hetwtxm the Consent 

### Decree and the 

### SIP. hut only thosc sections

### pertinent to visibility. newssary td ensure the enforceahility of the requirements related to visibilit).. and to demonstrate reasonahle progress are being adopted in this 

### SIP revision. Also, Some changes have been made to the Consent Decrce language to conformthe Consent Decree requirements to the 

### SIP regulatory framework. Changes have heen made to language which ref- to the forcc majeure provisions ofthe Consent 

### D&nx to ensure that a demonstration ofrcasonahle progress can be made at this time. Changesarehighlighted in bold, 

# ‘CI) 11. DEFINITIONS prcssly providd herein, t~m used in this 

### SIP component [Defined below. “SIP mmponent” replacer 

### Dccmwherever it appears] that are defined in the Clean 

### Air Act, 42 U.S.C. § 740I 

### g 

## a., or replationsimplementing the Clean Air Act. shall have the meaning set fodl in the Act or regulations. ,*


### 2. Whenever the terms set forth helow are u.4 in this 

### SIP component. the following definitions shall apply: a. ‘Act” shall mean the CI 

### 2 U.S.C. $7401, b. ‘Boiler operating day’ any calendar h coal is comhustd in the hoiler r more than 12 24 hours during a calendar day, unit for more than 12 hours. 

### If CO3 calculation of that day’s SO, emissions for the un~t shall he had solely upon the average ofhourly 

### CEMSdata collected during hours in which coal was comhuqtcd in the unit, and shall not include 

### my time in which coal was not combust&. ‘Boiler operating day” for natural gas shall mean any calendar day in which natural gas was comhusled in a hoilw of a unit for 24 hours. c. “Business day’ shall nitan all work dayof the \re& csccpt Saturday, Sunday and all Colorado and federal holidays. d. ’Calendar day” shall mean any 24 hour 

### podbetween 12:OO midnight and the following midnight in Colorado. ’CEMS’ shall mean continuous emissions monitoring system, which consists of all equipment 

### used to sample, analp, and record on a continuous basis, opacity, SO,, NO,. or any other emissions-related parameters that 

### e. may he required. 

# id
47 LTSRmnr & Rmrm Au~I 15. I956f. "Coal" shall mean all solid fuels classified as anthracite, bituminous, subhituminous, or lignite by the American Society of Testing and Materials,Designation 

### D388-77. g. "Co-fire" shall mean when a unit at the Hayden Station is cornbusting coal and natural gas simultaneously, 

### h. 'Colorado" shall mean the State 

### of Colorado and the Colorado Depanment of Public Health and other than duringperiods of startup. Environment, 

### Air Pollution Control Division; 

### i. 'Day' shall mean a calendar day. In computing any period of time under this 

### SIP component, except in computing compliance 

### with emission limitations. where the last day would fall on a Saturday. Sunday or federal or Colorado

### holiday, 

### the 

### period shall 

### tun until the close 

### of the

### next 

### businessday. 

### j. "SIPamponent" shall mean the language from the Hayden Consent Deerre (Civil Action 

### 93-B-17.19, United Stater District Court for the District of Colorado), umodUid bewin, included in paragraph .ifthe August 8,1996 revision of the Long-Term Strategy portion of Colorado's Class I Visibility Protectio.. -,:am State Impkmentation 

### Plan. 

### k. 'Hayden Owners"[ replace uDefendants" throughout] shall mean Public ServiceCompany ofColorado, Inc., Salt River Project Agricultural Irnprovcmenl and Power District. and PacifiCorp. and successor ownrrs of Hayden Station. 

### 1. "Division" 

### shall mean the Colorado Air Pollution Control Division. 

### m. 

### 'EPA" shallmean the United States Environmental Protection Agency. n. 

### 'Excess opacity rcading" shall mcm each six-minute 

### period 

### of time during which the opacity ot'txnissions from Unit I or Unit 2 at Hayden Station csccrds20.004as determined by the opacity 

### CEMS. 0. 'FFDC' shall mean Fahric Filtcr Dust Collector. p. 'Fossil-fuel' shall mean natural pas. petroleum. coal. and any 

### form of solid. liquid. or gascc'ousfuel dcnvcd
q. 'Heyden Station' shall mcm thc fossil-he1 fired steam generating plant located near the lawn ofHayden, Colorado, consisting 

### oftwo boilers and rclatcd elcclric generators and all ancillary process and air pollution emission control equipment knownBs Unit I and Unit 

### 2: s for the 'mse orcrea ful heat.

r. 

### 'NO,' shall mean nitrogc s. 'Paragraph" shall mean a t. motapplicabk to this SIP component.] u. [Not applicabk to this SIP component] V. 'QNQC' shall mean the quality assurance and quality control measures to ensure the accuracy of CEMS 

### ed by an arabic numeral.

required by 

### this 

### SIP component. w. "Quarter" shall mean a calendar quarter consis!ing of 

### three full months, beginning on the lirst day ofcitlier Januq.April. July or October. 

### s. 'Rolling average basis' shall mean an average over a pod of time consisting of the bl 30 or 90 boiler operating days, with a new daily avtroge generated each successive boiler operating day, based on the sum of the daily averagesfor the last 30 or 

### 90boiler operating days. 

### y. "Section" shall mean a ponion of this SIP component identified by a capital roman numeral. 2. 'Shutdown" shall mean the cessation of operation of Unit 1 or Unit 

### 2 at Hayden Station for any purpox or reason.aa. [Not applicable to this 

### SIP component.] bb. "Startup" shall mean the setting in operation 

### of 

### Unit 1 

### or Unit 

### 2 at Hayden Station for any purpose or reason. 

### cc. "SO," shall mean sulfur dioxide. dd. "Title 

### V"shall mean Title V 

### ofthe Clean 

### Air Act. 42 

### U.S.C.$766

### I ~OU@ $ 7661f. ee. "Unit 1" shall mean the 180megawatt steam generating unit and related electric generating and airpollution emission control equipment for which construction was completed at the Haydcn Station in 1965. including all changes made, and to be made, to such equipment thereafter. 

### 0. "Unit 2" shall mean the 260 megawatt steam generating unit and related elccbk generating and airpollution mission control equipment for which construction was completed at the Hayden Station in 1976. including all changes made, and to be made, to such equipment thereafter. gg. "Consent Decree" or "Hayden Consent Decree" shall mean the Consent Deementered in Sierra Clubv. Public ServiceComrtanv ofColorado. Inc. et aL, CivU Action Ncr. 

### 93-B-1749. V. EMISSION 

### CONTROLS

### AND LIMITATIONS 7. Haydcn Owners shall. at all times, maintain and optimally operale the boilers and all pollution control equipment icstalled at the Hayden Station consistent with good air pollution control practices for minimizing cmissions. Wi~out limitation, hisshall include returning the control equipment to optimum efficiency as soon as practicable during hila startup or following control equipment outage or impairment. and maintaining the control equipment at optimum efficiency 

### as long 

### as possihle while shutting down the boiler. 8. Haiden Owners shall install the following control equipment, and shall achieve the following emission limitations for each Unit at the Hayden Station. in accordance with the deadlines

### wt forth in Scctions VII and 

### VIII: a. Sulfur Diosido CSO,) 

### i. Unlcss Haydcn Ouners elect 10 switch tonatural gas pursuanl lo paragraph 24. Hayden Owners shall instali and operate lime spray dqcrtcchnolog on Unit I and Unit 2 at the Hayden Station. Hayden Owners shalldesign and construct such lime spray dqcr ttxhnolog to meet the emission limilations. including the percentage reduction requirement, set forth helo\\*. 

# 3

n limitations for each unit at the Hayden Station shall hc as 

### Biu heat input on a 30 boiler opcrating day rolling av 

### Btu heat input on a 

### 90hoiler operating day rolling av iii. Compliance wihthe SO, mass emission limitations UIsubparagraphs (a)(ii)(l) and (2) herein shall be detmincd using data from thrt SO: 

### CEMS that Hayden Ouners arerequired to maintain. calihrate and operate pursuant to Section VI. iv. Sulfur dioside controls on cach unit at the Haydcn Station shall achieve at least an 82% reduction of mlfuFdlostde on a 30 hoilcr operating day roiling average basis. v. Compliance with the SO, percentage reduction requirement in suhparapaph (a)(iv) ahove shall he dethed 

### using data from the SO, 

### CEMS that Hayden Owners arerequired to maintain, calibrate and opuatepursuant 10 Section W. Continuous emission monitor data taken from the inlet flue gas stream to the lime spray dryer shall he compared to continuous emission monitor data taken from the outlet flue gas stream at the stack to determine the percentage reduction in 

### sulfur dioside concentrations (based 

### on pounds 

### per million 

### Btu at the inlet continuousemission monitor versus 

### pounds per million Btu at the outlet continuous emission monitor). 

### If the Hayden Owners elect to switch 

# *dto or co-fire with natural gas, an adjustment shall be made in the calculation of this percentage reduction requirement to provide Hayden Owners credit for the decrease in the 

### So, concentrations in the inlet stream resultutg from the introduction of the natural gas component of the fuel, provided that Hayden Owners first submit, and obtain State and 

### EPA approval of, a detailed protocol setting forth the method by which such adjustments will be made. Upon approval by the Stateand 

### EPA, such 

### protocol shallbecome an enforceablepart of this 

### SIP component. vi. The first two hours after the first coal feeder on a unit 

### has started during startup shall be excluded from the calculation of that day's SO, emissions for such Unit. vii. Regardless of Hayden Owners' compliance with (and without relieving Hayden Ownm of the obligation to comply with) the emission limitations and other requirements set forth 

### in this Section. 

### in no e\'er,: 

### stail Hayden Owners operate any 

### boiler formore than 72 consecutivehours at a unit without an 

### SO,control system achieving 

### somereduction of SO2 emissions at that Unit. Following shutdown pursuant to this subparagraph, Hayden 

### Owners shall only restart 

### the boiler on a unit when any malfunctioningcontrol equipment

### hasbeen repaired. viii. During any boiler operating day, as defuted

### in this SIP component. all 

### emissions of SO2

### fromthe stack of any unit shall be included in the determination of Hayden Owners' compliance with the SO, emission limitationsset forth 

### in this paragraph, unless excluded 

### as the 

### first two hours during startup. excluded pursuant to paragraph 29 during the 

### first six months after the compliance date established 

### in Section 

### VIII. or as a result of a 'catastrophic failwe" as defined 

### below. 

### ix. Catastronhic Failure. (1) A "catastrophic failure," for purposesof this paragraph. shall mean a complete failure ofthe 

### SO, emission control equipment at a Hayden Station unit that is directly caused by a force that Hayden Ownmcould nei&m have controlled nor reasonably anticipated, and that could not have 

### been prevented through the exercise of good air pollution control practices for minimizing emissions. 

### (2) Without limitation, a catastrophic failure shall not include SO2emissions that are related to wit stmup or shutdown; load fluctuations; operator failure; upsets; design, cornsthplction. or equipment defects &at Wiyden Owners could have controlled or reasonably anticipated; or the failure of any SO2 emission control equipment components due to ordinary wear and tear. irrespective of Hayden Owners' efforts to maintain andor replace components. (3) For purposes of det SO, emission limitations set catastrophicfailure". (4) For any boiler operating day 

### fw which data is escludcd due to a catastrophic failure, the calculation of that day's average SO, emissionsfor the unit shall be based solely upon howof nonexcluded CEMS data that would otherwise be counted under this 

### SIP component. Days in which all such hours are excluded 

### as a result 

### ofa catastrophic failure pursuant to this paragraph shall not he counted in calculating compliance with the SO, emission 

### limitations. (5) 

### If Hayden Owners wish to invoke the catastrophic failure exception, 

### they first 

### must notif) the Division by phone immediately. but no laterthan two hours afterthe start ofthe next business day followingsuch failwe. Second, within 30 days of such failure,Hayden Owners

### must provide a written report to the Division that contains: (a) all hourly SO, 

### CEMS data Hayden Owners wish to have excluded. (b) evidence of Hayden Owners' notification to the Division, and (c) all evidence that demonstrates the failure is a "catastrophic failure" as defined above. [bnguage deleted]. If Hayden Owners fail to follow the notice andor reporting requirements of this paragraph, the catastrophic failure exception shall not apply aragraph, no more than 24 hours hall be escluded foc. Particulates 

### i. Unless Hayden Owners elect to switch to natural 

### gas pursuant to paragraph 24, Hayden Owners shall 

### install and operate Fabric Filter Dust Collectors (also knownas FFDCs orbaghouses) on Unit 

### 1 and Unit 2 at the Hayden station. Hayden 

### Owners shall design and construct such FFDCs to meet the emission limitations set forth below. ii. Theparticulatematter limitations for each unit at the Hayden Station shall be as follows: (1) 

### 0.03poundsof prim- particulatematter permillion 

### Btu heat input. as averaged over six (6)hows of

### EPAs reference method forparticulatetesting, and (2) opacity of 20.0 percent. as averaged over each separate 6-minute peridwithin an hour, beginning each hour on the hour. Notwithstanding the foregoing, during periods of building a new 

### fire. cleaning 

### of fire 

### box=, startup, Soot blowing, any process modification or adjustment 

### or occasional cleaning Of 

### control equipment, Hayden Owners shall not caw or allow the emission of air pollutants 

### in excess of 

### 30 percent opacity for 

### a period 

### or periods aggregating more 

### than 6minutes in any 60 consecutive minutes. iii. Any opacity reading in excess of the limitations set forth in subparagraph (ii)(2) above may 

### he escuxd 

### if [deletion]Hayden Owners have demonstrated such reading was the result of an unpredictable failure 

### of air pollution control orprowsequipment that was not due to poor maintenance. improper or CareleSSoperations. or othenvisecould not have been prevented through *e escrcix of reasonable care. 

### If Hayden Owners seek to excuse any such exopacity reading, they must noti@ the Division as swn as possible 

### by telephone. but no later than two hours afterthe 

### stm of the next business day. 

### In addition. for purposes of lhisSIP component, any claim of eScuSe must he made in \b+ting in Hayden Owners' nex%quarterly report following such condition. and must 

### describe: (a) the date and time telephone notification was given to the Division. and the person to whom notiftation WBS given, (b) the cause of thc condition, 

### (c) all actions Haydtn Owners took to mrresi the condition. and (d) all actions Hayden Ownerswill take to prcvcnt the condition from recurring. iv. Compliance with the primary particulate cmission limitation in subparagraph (c)(ii)( I) herein shall 

# U
determined aceording to 

### EPA Me&& 5.40 C.F.R. 

### Part 60.AppdixA, or 

### in acsordanw with a compliaitllcsasstwac~ monitoring pian as may be set fofih in Iiaydtm O\tners' Title V operating pennit. Hayden O~nrr~ shall conduct Method 5 test on each unit at the Hayden Slation within 100 days after flue gas is first passed lhrough thc FFDC. and ts to the Division Coloradoor 

### EPA. and submit all results and a complete descript rt following Hayden Owners'receipt ofthe results.



### cc with the opacity emission limitation in subparagraph (c g data from the opacity CEMS that Hayden Owners are r .dl he determined ntain, calibrate and operate pursuant to Section Vl ofthis SIP component, and may be verified on an intamittmtbasis by EPA Method 9, 40 C.F.R. Patt 

### 60, Appendix A. vi. [Not applicable to this 

### SIP component]. 

### V1. CONTINUOUS EhllSSlON MONITORS 9. At all times aRer the Colorado Air Qualit?. Control Cornmush's adoption of lhis 

### SIP component, Hayden ouqers shall maintain. calibrate and operate CEMS for each unit of the Hayden Station to measure accurately 

## so, emissions from each such unit, as wvll 11sflow and carbon dioxide, in full compliance with the requirements found at 40 C.F.R. 

### Part 75. Nothing herein shall preclude Hayden Owners fiom installing. certifying and operating integrated 

### CEMSequipment to measure SO,, NO, or opacity. or any combination thereof.10. At'all times after theColorado Air Quality Control Commission's adoption ofthis 

### SIP component, Hayden 

# 3

Owners shall maintain, calibrate and operate CEMS to measure accurately the opacity Ofemissions from each unit at the Hayden Station in full compliance with the requirements found at 40 C 

### F.R. Part 60.Appendix B, Specification 1, and 5 

### C.C.R.1001-3,1V.A and 

### B. 1 1. [Not applicable to this SIP component] 

### 12. 

### Prior to initial startup of the 

### SO, control equipment at each 

### unit required by this 

### SIP component, Hayden Owners shall, 

### in addition to other CEMS required hy this SIP component: (a) install and thereafter maintain, calibrate 

### and operate an accurate 

### CEMS at the inlet flue gas stream to the lime spray dryer on each unit to measure accuratel~~ 

### 5g2 concentrations 

### in pounds 

### per million Btu heat input. and (b) tie the coal 

### feeders on each unit 

### into the SO, 

### CEMS :,ch that the 

### CEMS nccurateiyreflect the date and time when the first coal 

### fetder on each unit has started during each startup. 

### 13. motapplicabk to 

### this 

### SIP component]. 14. wot applicabk to this 

### SIP component]. 

### 15. votapplkabk to this 

### SIP component). 16. Beginning within 30 hoilm opcrating days from the date flue gas is first 

### pd through the SO2control equipment for each unit, Hayden Ostncrs shall calculate hourly average 

## so, concentrations in pounds per million 

### Btu at the inlet and outlet continuous emission nionitors for each unit, 

### in accordance with the requirements of 40 C.F.R.

### part 

### 7s. a. 

### For each boiler operating day, Haydm Owners shall w the inlet 

### and outlet hourly avcragcs to calcuIate he following at each 

### unit: hourly SO, average peratage removal, daily SO, average percentage r~moval had on the hourly averages, 

### and 30 day rolling SO, avwagepcrccntage removalbased on the daily svnages. 

### b. 

### For eachboiler operating day, Hayden Owners shall use the outlet hourly avnages to calculate tho following at each unit: daily average SO, emissions hascd on he hourly averages. and 30 day and 90 day rolling averages hd onthe daily averages. two hours after the first coal fc.edmhas starred shall

### bc excluded from the calculation of that boiler operating day's SO, emissions for the unit. beginning within 30 days of the Owners shall calculate hourly monitor at each unit. in accord by paragraph 16(b). 

### 17. Hayden Owners shall rcporl to the Division on a quarterlyhasis each 30 day rolling avrrage 

### and each 

### 30 day rolling average during the prior qumlcr that esccxdd or failed to comply with the SO: cmisqion limitations containd in this SIP component. Each quarterly rcpon shall include all times the coal kdms have started during startup reported 

### through the CEMS. This rcpon shall also include a list of the days and hours cdudcdfor any reason from determinationof Hayden Owners'conipliance N ith the SO, limits. c. 

### As provided 

### in graph 8(3)(vi). during startup ofthe unit. d. Notwithstanding thc foregoing, if Hayden Owners elect to switch to natural gas as the pnmiuy fuel CTS commcnce use of natural gas as the primnry fuel murc rations in pounds per million Btu at the outlet continuo .L~LXIIS of 40 

### C.F.R. 

### Part 75, and shall calculate the avcrag



### 18. [Not applicabk to this 

### SIP component] 

### 19. [Not applicabk to this 

### SIP component) 

### 20. For any 

### hour that valid, qualq-asswed mntinuous emission monitor data for a 

### unit is unavailable, 

### So, [dektioal emissions shall be calculated in accordance with the missing data suhstitution procedures contain4 in 

### 40 

### C.F.R. Part 

### 75.

LTS Rrvrnr C Rnurm August 13.1996 

# 3

5221. Hayden Owners shall calculate opacity based on CEMS data for each six-minute period of time any boiler is 22. Hayden Owners shall report to the Division on a quarterly basis all excess opacity readings from each unit. 

### ad shall state the causeof each excess opacity reading and Hayden Owners' efforts to minimize such readings. 23. Hayden Owners shall ensure that the opacity CEMS on 

### Unit 1 and Unit 2 art: properly recording data at least 

### 98.0% of each 

### unit's operating time each quarter, provided, however, that 

### if 

### final federally-enforceahle regulations are promulgated that.impose new CEMS QNQCrequirements that have the effect of increasing the proponion of CEMS 

### QA/QC activity timein relation to unit operatingtime, 

### then Hayden Onners may seek a revision to this SIP component to amend the 98.0% CEMS availability requirement accordingly. operating, 

### in the manner, frequency and interval as prescribed in the applicablereplations

VII. CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE 24. 

### No later than [deletion] November 17, 1996. Hayden Ownm shall notify the Division of Hayden Owners' decision concerning the primary fuel source for the Hayden Station. 

### If Hayden Owners decide to continue using coal as the primary fuel source, thc xhcdule in paragraph 25(a) shall apply. If Hayden Owners decide to switch to natural gas as the primary fuel source. the schcxh.de in paragraph 25@)shall apply. 25. The schedules are as follows. suhjcct to a force majeure determination.pursuant to the Hayden Consent km,hciuding a decisionby the Court to limit form majeure pursuant to paragraph 59 ofthe Hayden Consent Decm However, 

### if any schedule has been extended or will be extended pursuant to such a force majeum determination or determinations by more than 12 months beyond the particular deadline, the Division shaU request that the Commission reopen (with public notice and hearin& the lang-Term Strategy element of Cobmdo's Class I Visibility Protection Program State Implementation Plan to reevaluate the demonstration of mabk progms,md to revise the State lmplemcntrtion Plan as may be necessary to ensure that theemission limitations are met. In no event shall these fummajeure provisions be construed to authorize or create any 

### P Dccmand incorporated into this 

### SIP. .



### r wiivef 6f any State or federal air quality law, or of any requirement contained in the Consent $8

a. Schedule

# - Coal as Primonv Fucl. If Hayden Owners continue to operateHayden Station using coal. Hayden UP testing of 

### the emission control 

### s shall 

### meet the following dcadlincs 

### for [d t required 

### by Section V of this SIPcompon Dcadlinc (i

# - vii) Not nppiicrl~le to this SIP component (viii) 

### FFDC and SO, [deletion] control equipment Complete construction and mmncnce startup testing of the I 213 I/38Activity Deadline 

### (I

# - vii) Not applicable to this 

### SIP component (viii) Complete construction and commence startuptesting of the 1201/99 FFDC and SO, [dektion]control equipment 

### b. Schedule

# - Natural 

### Gas as 

### Primaw Fuel. 

### IfHayden 

### Ouners elect to convert Hayden Station to natwal 

### gas, Hayden Owners shall

### meet the following deadlines for conversion of the Hayden Station to natural gas: Activity Deadline _. (i

# - lii) Not applicable to this 

### SIP component
_. - (iv) Complete consmction of pipeline and boiler modifications. and commenceuse of natural gas as primary fuel source 12/31/98

26. Upon initiation 

### of startup of the Haydm Station using natural pas as thc furl source. Hayden Ownm shall lhereaner monitor on a quarterly basis the quality of the natural gas being butncd Results of such monitoring shall he sent to tbeDivirioa on a quarterly basis. a. ne natural gas burned at the Hayden Station shall be ofthe following quality: no more than 

### 5 Fainsoftotal sulfur per 100cubic feet at 14.73 p.s.i. and 60 degreesF. 

### b. The natural gas quality shall be determined by the followbg method: ASTM 0-5504-94, Standard 

### Tat paphy and f Sulfur Compounds 

### in Natural 

### Gas and Gascous Fu this 

### SLP component]. 

### VIII. 

### EMISSION LIMITATION COMPLlANCE DEADLINES 28. Hayden Owners' obligation to mwlthe SO, Idektionj and particulate emission limitations xi fo~ in Setion V shall commence 

### on the dates listed below, subject to a force majeure [deletion] determination punuant to the Hayden Consent Decm(including a decision by the Court to limit Tommajturc punuant to paragraph 59 of the Hayden Consent 

### Deem). However, if any schcduk bas been extended orwill be extended pursuant to such a force majeum determinationor determinations by more than 12 months beyond the particular deadline, the Division shall =quest that the Commission reopen (with public notice and hearing) the Long-Tern Strategy element of Colorado's Class 1 Visibility Protection Program State Implementation Plan to mvaluate the dcmtmtratioa ofrrruonabk progress, and to revise the State Impkmentation Plan as may be nmssaqto ensum 

# c, that the emusbn limitations aremet. In no event shall these fommajeure provisions be construed to authoeor create any preemption or waiver of any State orfederal air quality law, or of any requirement contained in the Consent Decree and incorporated into this SIP. a. So,: 

# a

i. For Unit 1, within I80 days after flue gas is passed thr~~gh the SO: control equipinent. or hy July 1,
ii. 

### For Unit 

### 2, within 180 days aftcr flue gas is passed 

### through the SO2control equipment, or by July 1, 1999, whichever date is earlier; and 2000,whichever date 

### is earlier. b. [deletion] 

### i. [deletion] ii. [deletion] 

### i. For Unit 1, within 90 days aflcr flue gas is passed 

### through the 

### FFDC control equipment, or by April I, ii. For Unit 

### 2, within 90 days aftcr flue gas is passed thr~~gh the FFDC control equipment, or hy April 1,
29. Dungthc first sis months folloning the data list& in paragaphs 28(a)(i) and (ii) ahow. for purposes of [deletion] detmming compliance with the SO, emission limitations set fOt3h 

### in &lion 

### v, [deletion] pcnods during which the control equipment fails to meet an SO2emission limitation may be excluded if Hayden Owners are ableto demonstratethat such failure was due to a design or construction defect beyond Hayden Owners'control. During he first fourmonths following the dates listedin paragraphs 28(c)(i) and (ii) above, lorp~rposes of [deletion1determining compliance with the particulate 'mission limitations set fodt in Section V, [dektion]periods during which the controt 

### equipment fails to mcct a particulate ciiiission limitation may be excluded if Haydcn Owners arc able to demonstrate that such failure was due to a design or construction dcfcct bondHayden Owr~m' control. Owncm nisiito seek anexclPrsion undeqtk'u paragraph, Haydem Ownem ohdl submit a written report to the Division that [dcletionl identifir the times proposed for esclusion and providcr the rrmm for the failure to meet the limitation, including all evidence that demonstrates the failure W~S caused hy a design or ons takcn and to he laen c. Particulates:
1999.whichever date is earlier;and 2000. whichever date is carlirr.

defect hcyond 1faydm Ouners' contr

ilure, and a schsdulc to complete su ot applicable to this SIPcompone twithstanding the foregoing, if Ilayde talion lo natural gas. Hayden Owners' ohligation to mwt the SO: [deletion] and particulate emission limitations xt forth in Soxion V shall commence on thc earliar ofFehrue I, I999 or 30 days derthe date Hayden Ouners conwicncc USC: ofnatural gas as kprimq fuel sourcc, suhjcct lo a forcemajeurc. [deletion]determination pursuant to the Hayden Consent Decree (including a decision by tlic Court to limit force rnajeurc pursuant to paragraph 59 of the Hayden Consent Decree). However, if any schedule has been extended or will be extended pursuant to such a force majeum determination or determinations by mart than 12 months beyond the particular deadline, the Division shall request that the Commission reopen (with public notice and hearing) the Long-Term Stratev element of Cobrado'# Class I Visibility Protection Program State Impkmtntation Plan to reevaluate the demonstration of mabk pq-ur, and to revise the State Implementation Plan PI may be necessary to ensure that the emission limitations are met. In no event shall these force majeun provisions be construed to authorize or create any 

# a

MI

# a preemption or waiver of any State or federal air quality law, or of any requirement contained in the Consent 

### Decree and incorporated into this STP.



### LX. REPORTING 3 I. Within 30 days after the cnd of each quarter, [deletion]. Hayden Owners shall provide a quarterly report to the Division regarding the immediatcly precedq quarter that contains all of the information this SIP component requires Hayden Owntrsto report on 6 quarterly basis. 

### 32. wot applicabk tothis 

### SIP component]. 

### 33. 

### In specific, each quarterly report shall include: a. A description of construction deadlines achieved. progress made toward meting future deadlines, and my b. 

### All elements 

### ofthe esccss opacity quarterly report; c. 

### Afkr installation of the 

### so: conlrol equipment. the required quarterly reports for 

### so? emissions (including
d. [deletion] e. 

### If Hayden Owners clcct to convert Hayden Station to natural pas, all idbrmation required 10be included actual, expectedorreasonably likely delays;

donationregarding excluded psnods) [deletion}and 

### CEMS qualic assurancereports.



### in the natural gas quartaly

### reports; and, f potappkabkto this SIP component]. 34. [Not applicable to this SIP component]. 

### 35. [Not applicable to this SIP romponcntl.