p. 1



# OAR Box 1778 Prepped by Ollie Stewart



### Document

Number: 

# 84 ) ll-C-2 6
Docket Number: 

# A-90-0 6

Printed 10/28/20089:50:55AM

Sheet 84 of 276P. 2



# * OA

•mC^- II-C-2 6

UNITE D STATE S ENVIRONMENTA L PROTECTIO N AGENC Y REGIO N I X 21 5 Fremon t Stree t Sa n Francisco

. C a 9410 5

Novembe r 6 , 198 7

Rober t T
. Holland & P
. 0
. Box Connery ,

Har t 874 9 Esq
.
Denver , Colorad o 8020 1 Re : Supplementa l PS D Applicabilit yDetemninatio n Cypru s Cas a Grand e Corporatio n Coppe r Minin g an d Processin g Facilitie s Dea r Mr
. Connery : Thi s i s a supplementa l determinatio n regardin g th e applicabilit yo f preventio n o f significan t deterioratio n (PSD ) provision s unde r section s 160-16 9 o f the Clea n Ai r Act , 4 2 U.S. C § § 7470-7479 , an d EPA' s PS D regulations , 4 0 C.F.R
. § 52.2 1 t o th e above-reference d facility , locate d nea r Cas a Grande , Arizona

. Thi s determinationsupplement s th e deter

minatio n se t forthi na Ma y 27 , 198 7 Memorandu m fro m Joh nS
. Seitz , Director , Stationar ySourc e Complianc e Division , EPAand i n m yMay29 , 198 7 lette r t o Roge r M
. Ferland , Streich , Long , Week s an

d Cardon , Phoenix , Arizona , attorne y fo r Noranda Lakeshor e Mines , Inc. , whic hformerl y controlled th

e Cas a Grand e facility

. Fo r th e reason s discussed below , EP A toda y (1 ) reaffirms an

d incorporate s b

y referenc e herei nit s earlie r determinationtha t reactivatio no f th e Roaster/Leach/Aci d (RLA ) plan t at th e Cas a Grand e facilit y

woul d constitut e a majo r ne w sourc e withi nthe meaning o f Par t C o f th e CleanAi r Ac t an d EPA' s regulation s issued thereunder ; an d (2 ) determine s tha t eveni f th e reactivate d RL A plan t woul d no t b e subjec t t o PS D a s a ne w source , th

e start-up woul d als o constitut e a majo r modificationfo r PS D purposes . Accordingly , Cypru s Cas a Grand e Corporation(Cyprus ) mus t obtai na PS D permi t befor e beginnin g constructiono

nan y o f th e rehabilitatio nactivitie s necessar y fo r start-u

p o f th

e RL A plant . I . TE E NEE D FORTHI S SUPPLEMENTA L DETERMINATIO

N Th e earlie r applicabilit y determinationb

y Mr . Seit z an

d mysel f wa s i

nrespons e t o request s b y Noranda tha t focused exclusivel y

o nthe questio nwhethe r start-u p o f the RL

A plan t woul d rende r the facilit y subjec t t o PS D a s a majo r ne w sourc e pursuan t t o EPA' s shutdown/reactivatio npolicy . M y revie w o fP. 3

- 2 -
th e administrativ e recor d o f tha t matte r ha s confirme d tha t Norand a di d no t reques t EP At o consider , an

d EP Adi d no t consider , whethe r the RL

Aplan t woul d be subjec t t o PS D upo n reactivatio n a s a majo r modificatio n unde r the Ac t an d the PS D regulations

. Followin g EPA' s earlie r determination , Norand a transferre d it s interes t in the facilit yin question , including the RLAplant , t o Cyprus
. Cypru s the n sough t revie wo f EPA' s determinatio n i n th e cour t o f appeals
. Cypru s Cas a Grand e Corp
. v . EPA , No
. 87-732 2 (9th Cir.)

. I n a Civi l Appeal s Docketin g Statemen t file d wit h th e Nint h Circui t o n Jul y30 , 1987 , Cypru s identifie d unde r categor yI. , "Issue s t o b e Raise d o n Appeal, " the follow

ing item :

(2 ) Whethe r Petitioner' s existin g RL A plan t ha s beer
. subjec t t o a "majo r modification, " 4 0 C.F.R
. § 52.21(b)(2) , whic h woul d requir e a PS D preconstructionpermit . Thus , i t i s clea r tha t i f thi s matte r i s adjudicate d b y th e cour t o f appeals , i t likel y woul d rais e issue s beyon d th e scope o f th

e consideratio npreviousl y givenb

y EP A an d Noranda . Thi s i nturn raise s th

e distinc t possibilit y tha t litigatio

nbased o

nEPA' s prio r determinationwoul d not finall y resolv

e th e questiono f whethe r PS D applie s t o th e start-u

p o f th

e RL A plant , an

d tha t a subsequen t roun

d o f judicia l revie w woul d b

e necessary . Suc h a scenari o woul d wast e th e resource s o f th

e court , EPA , an

d Cyprus , an

d woul d b

e contrar

y t o Cyprus ' stated interes t i n a quic k resolutiono f environmenta l requirement s fo r th e project . Accordingly , I believe i t i s appropriat e a t thi s tim e fo r EP A t o determin e whethe r th e prospective start-u p o f th

e RL A plan t b

y Cypru s woul d constitut e a majo r modificatio nfo r PS D purposes . Thi s determinatio ncanb e mad e o

nth e basi s o f the recor d create d i

nconjunctionwit hth e earlie r reactivatio n determinatio nb

y Mr . Seit z an

d myself . I

naddition , becaus e tha t earlie r determinatio nwa s directed t o Norand a i nrespons e t o request s b

y tha t company , an

d i nvie w o f th e eviden t controvers y surroundin g tha t determination , it i s als o appropriat e t o reconside r it s applicationto Cyprus , a s th e ne w owne r o f th

e facility . II . RECONSIDERATIO N O F WHETHE RSTART-U P O F TH E RL

A PLAN T I S SUBJEC T T O PS D A S A MAJO RNE W SOURC E UNDEREPA' S REACTIVATIO

N POLICY . Afte r reviewing th e administrative record inthi s matter , I fin d n o reasont o disagre e wit hEPA' s longstanding shutdown / reactivatio npolic y o r it s applicationt o th e se t o f circum stance s presente d b y Noranda . Hence , EP A ha s no basi s t o chang e it s earlie r determinatio ntha t start-u p o f the RL

A plan t woul d be subjec t t o PS D requirement s a s a "reactivation, " excep t insofa r a s the intervening transfe r o f th e facilit y

t o Cypru sP. 4

- \

- 3 -
woul d requir e a differen t result
. Ther e i s on e ke

ypoin t tha t emerge s fro mthe transfe r t o Cyprus : I t represent s a furthe r attenuation , bot h i n the chair , o f ownershi p an

d i n time , betwee n shutdow n o f the RL

Aplan t in 197 7 an d it s prospectiv e reactivation

. Achang e i n ownershi p doe s not , standin g alone , rende r a stationarysourc e subjec t t o PS D provisions

. Se e 4 0 C.F.R
. § 52.21(b)(2)(iii)(g)

. However , th e circumstance s surroundin g a chang e i n ownershi p ma yb e probativ e o f whethe r the shutdow n o f the sourc e shoul d b e deeme d permanent , whic h i s the ke yanalysi s tha t mus t b e mad e unde r EPA' s reactivatio n policy

. In thi s case , th e inferenc e tha t the shutdow n wa s perma nen t i s eve n stronge r afte r th e transfe r t o Cypru s than i t wa s whe n Norand a wa s i n control
. Thi s i s s o becaus e b yth e time Cypru s gaine d control , th e RL Aplan t had alread ybee n shu t down fo r te n years , a s oppose d t o two year s whe n Norand a entere d th e scene . I n addition , b ythe time Cypru s took over , th e RLA plan t wa s n o longe r i n the state' s emissio n inventoryan d di d no t posses s operatin g permits

. Thus , fro mth e inceptio n o f Cyprus ' ownership , ever yindicatio n i s tha t Arizon a considere d th e facilit yt o b e permanentl yclosed
. Th e transfe r t o Cypru s serve s t o strengthe n the reacti

vatio n determinatio n EPAmad e a s t o Noranda
. Accordingly , m y determinatio n i s tha t th e start-up o f the RLAplan t b yCypru s woul d constitut e a reactivatio n subjec t t o PS D requirement s a s a ne wsource . " ; ~ , V T* %
III
. WHETHE R START-U P O F TfiE'^RL APLANT I S SUBJEC T T O PS D REQUIREMENT S A S AMAJO R MODIFICATION
. Eve n i f th

e RL A plan t wer e no t subjec t t o PS D a s a ne w sourc e unde r th

e reactivatio n policy , i t woul d b e subjec t anywa yi f th

e start-u

p wer e deemed t o b e a "majo r modification " withi n th

e meaning o f th

e Ac t an

d 4 0 C.F.R . § 52.21 . Th e centra l thrus t o f th e Clea n Ai r Act' s PS D majo r modi

ficatio n provision s i s tha t significan t actua l emission s increase s

—i.e. , thos e whic hhav e substantia l consequence s fo r ambien t pollutio nconcentration s and , hence , th e states ' nee d to accoun t for suchpollutio n— shoul d b

e brough t unde r PS D review . Se e Alabam a Powe r Co . v . Costle , 63 6 F.2 d 323 , 40 0 (D.C . Cir . 1979) . EP

A followed th

e lea d o f th

e cour t i

nformulatin

g th e majo r modificatio nprovision s o f th e PS D regulation s b y focusin

g th e regulatory

definition s o

nactua l emission s rathe r thana source' s potentia l t o emit . Se e 4 5 Fed . Reg . 52700 , col . 2-3 . EP A als o promulgate d a narro w an d limite d se t o f exclusion s in it s majo r modificatio nregulations , bu t onl y t o allo

w fo r routin e change s inth e norma l cours e o f business , wher e PS DP. 5

i I -

- 4 -
revie wwoul d b e undul ydisruptive

. Se e 4 0 C.F.R
. §52. 21(b)(2 ) (iii)(a ) an

d (f)
. Determinin g whethe r a majo r modificatio n wil l occu r a t a particula r sourc e require s a sequentia l analysi s o f severa l factors
. Thes e factor s ar e discusse d in the preambl e t o th e PS D regulation s a t 4 5 Fed
. Reg
. 52676 , 5269 8 (Augus t 7 , 1980)
. Th e factor s mayb e groupe d unde r two basi c questions : Woul d th e start-up entai l a "physica l chang e i n o r chang e i n th e metho d o f operatio n o f a majo r stationarysource" ? I f so , woul d the chang e "resul t i n a significan t ne t emission s increas e o f an y pollutan t subjec t t o regulatio n unde r the Act" ? Se e 4 0 C.F.R
. § 52.2 1 (b)(2)(i)

. A
. Physica l Chang e o r Chang e in the Metho d o f Operatio n o f th e RL

APlant
. Thi s requiremen t o f a majo r modificatio n i s satisfie d i f eithe r a physica l o r operationa l chang e woul d occur . I n thi s case , th e start-u

p woul d constitut e bot h a physica l an d a n operationa l change .

1
. Physica l Change
. Th e rehabilitatio n wor k necessar

y to make th

e Cypru s RL

A plan t operationa l woul d constitut e a "physica l change " at a majo r stationar ysource . ^J
EP A i s awar e o f thre e i-F^orts addressin g th e rehabilita tio nwork necessar

y to restart -^e~ "RL A plant . B

y lette r date

d Marc h20 , 1987 , Noranda submitted th e mos t recen t evaluationo f th e minimu

m rehabilitatio nwor k necessar

y to star t u

p th e plant . The evaluatio nwa s prepared i nMarc h198 7 b

y E & C Internationa l ("

E & CI" ) fo

r th e Cypru s Mineral s Compan y an d wa s based upona thre e da y inspectio

no f th

e plan t an

d revie w o f equipment , suppor t installationan d existin

g piping , instrument s an d electrica l switchgear . Noranda als o submitte d a Jun e 198 6 repor t prepare d b

y th e Ralp hM . Parson s Company , als o for Cyprus , whic hestimate d "nomina l costs " o f $1,836,00 0 for refurbishing the RL A plant , plu s "wors t cas e add-on " cost s o f $906,000 . However , th e Parson s repor t wa s a n"orde r o f magnitude "

^J A s noted i

nNoranda' s origina l Reques t for Opinio ndated Septembe r 12 , 1986 , sulfur emission s fro m th e plan t ar e 4. 3 ton s pe r day , equivalen t t o approximatel y 150 0 ton s pe r year , an

d thu s greatl y

exceeding bot hth e 10 0 to

npe r yea r threshol d limi t applicabl e t o th e primary

coppe r smelte r category

o r th e 25 0 to

npe r yea r threshol d fo r a n"unlisted " majo r stationary

sourc e unde r 4 0 C.F.R . 52.21(a)(1) .P. 6

- 5 - scoping report , an d base d thes e cos t estimate s upo n th e Company' s experienc e rehabilitatin g simila r processin g facilitie s rather * than upo n a detaile d plan t inspection

. In addition , Noranda' s origina l Septembe r 12 , 198 6 Reques t fo r Opinio n containe d a February198 2 surve yo f rehabilitatio n work estimatin g a tota l cos t o f $347,00 0 an d monthl ymaintenanc e report s fo r April-Jul y 198 2 indicatin g tha t some rehabilitatio n wor k occurre d i n thi s period

. From

amon g thes e thre e estimate s o f necessaryrehabili

tatio n work , th e E & C I evaluatio n ca n mos t reasonabl yb e relie d upon . I t i s th e mos t curren t an d comprehensiv e an d wa s base d upo n a n actua l plan t inspectio n b youtsid e consultants
. Th e E & C I repor t calle d fo r th e following rehabililitation : 1 ) replacin g o f th e thickene r tank s i n th e roaste r plant' s Counte r Curren t Decantatio n (CCD ) circui t an d repairin g the "significantly " dampe d foundatio n fo r th e CC D thickene r foundation ; 2 ) installin g ne

w externa l insulatio n fo r bot h flui d be d roaster s an

d ga s cyclones ; 3 ) "minor " refractor y repair s i n on e roaster ; 4 ) "minor " structura l repair s an d paintin g throughou t th e roaste r plant' s stee l structur e t o addres s "significant " corrosiondamage ; 5 ) replacing a "moderate " amoun t o f pipin g an d valve s i nth e roaste r plant ; 6 ) restoring or replacin g o f stainles s stee l pump s a t th e aci d plant ; 7 ) installing a pressur e san d filter ; 8 ) rebuilding the underflo w pump s i

nth e CC D circuit . The E ft C I repor t concluded tha t th e work necessar

y to prepar e th

e facilit y

for operationcoul d b e don e i

nthre e t o fou r month s a t a cos t o f $905,000 , withou t an y contingenc y calculated . Contingenc y cost s coul d significantl y exceed thi s amount.^ / Eve nwithou t factorin g i ncontingen t costs , $905,00 0 represent s roughl y 10 % o f th

e replacemen t cos t o f a ne w roaster . Se e Attachmen t 2 o f Marc h27 , 198 7 lette r fro m Roge r Ferland .

^J Th e E ft C I repor t recommended addin g o na 15 % contingenc y for craf t labo r an

d material s an

d the Parson s repor t estimate d $900,00 0 fo r "wors t case " add-oncosts . Informationobtaine d durin g a nEP

A sit e visi t confirme d tha t rehabilitatio nwoul d requir e fou

r month s o f doubl e shifts .P. 7

- 6 -
Unde r the PS D definitio n o f "majo r modification" , a physica l chang e doe s no t includ e "routin e maintenance , repai r an d replace

ment. " 4 0 C.F.R
. § 52.21(a)(2)(iii)(a)

. Althoug h th e E & C I repor t note s the goo d conditio n o f the aci d plan t an d characterize s som e o f the neede d wor k a s "minor " o r "moderate, " viewe d a s a whole , th

e minimu

m necessaryrehabilitatio n effor t i s extensive , involvin g replacemen t o f keypiece s o f equipmen t (e.g. , th e CC C thickene r tanks , pumps , externa l insulation) , an d substantia l tim e an d cost
. I n an operatin g plan t some o f the individua l item s o f the planne d rehabilitation , e.g . painting , i f performe d regularl y a s par t o f standar d maintenanc e procedur e whil e th e plan t wa s functionin g o r i n ful l workin g order , coul d be considere d routine

. Here , however , thi s an d othe r numerou s item s o f repair , a s wel l a s replacemen t an

d installatio n o f ne wequipment , ar e neede d i n orde r fo r the RL

Aplan t t o begi n operation

. Th e fac t tha t th e plan t require s four month s o f extensiv e rehabilitatio n wor k despit e the adequat e maintenanc e Noranda claim s t o have undertake n durin g th

e shutdow

nunderscore s th

e non-routine natur e o f the physica l chang e tha t wil l occur at th e plant . Thus , give nth e exten t an

d natur e o f th

e repair , rebuildin g an d replacemen t o f importan t equipmen t necessar y to mak e th

e RL A plan t operational , th e rehabilitationwork simpl y canno t b

e considered th

e "routin e maintenance , repai r an d replacement " whic hi s excluded fro m PS D review . 2 . Chang e inth e Method o f Operation . Th e prospective start-u p o f th

e RL A plan t afte r a ten-yea r shutdow nwoul d als o constitut e a chang e i nth e method o f operatio n withi nth

e meanin

g o f th

e PS D regulations . As discussed above , th e PS D majo r modificationrule s focu s o nchange s i

nactua l emissions . I ngeneral , change s at existing facilitie s tha t significantl y increas e actua l emission s mus t underg o PS D review . Yet , i nadoptin

g th e PS D rule s EP

A als o recognize d tha t Congres s di d no t inten d t o requir e preconstructio n permit s for a routin e chang e i nth e hour s or rat e o f operation . EP A believe d tha t "sucha requiremen t woul d severel y an d undul y hampe r th e abilit y o f an y compan y t o take advantag e o f favorabl e marke t conditions. " 4 5 Fed . Reg . 52704 , col . 2 . Accordingly , th e PS D regulation s exclud e fro m th e definitio no f physica l o r operationa l chang e "a nincreas e i

nth e hour s o f operatio no r i n th e productio nrate. " 4 0 C.F.R . § 52.2 1 (b)(2)(iii)(f) . However , I believe i t i s clea r tha t i nadoptin

g thi s exclusio n EPA di d no t inten

d t o remove PS D coverag e incircumstance s suc h a s thos e presente d b y Cyprus . Rather , EP A limite d thi s exclusio n t o situation s wher e i t woul d no t interfer e wit ha state' s effort s i

nai r qualit y

planning when , i nth e preambl e t o th

e PS D regulations , i t noted :

A t the sam

e time , an

y chang e i

nhour s o r rat e o f operatio ntha t woul d distur baP. 8

- 7 - prio r assessmen t o f a source' s environ

menta l impac t shoul d have t o underg o scrutiny

. 4 5 Fed
. Reg
. 52704 , col
. 2-3
. Thus , EP Adisallowe d th

e exclusio n wher e th e increas e woul d no t b e allowe d unde r a preconstructio n permit

. 4 0 C.F.R
. §52.21(b)(2)(iii)(f)

. I n thi s case , the RL Aplan t wa s no t require d t o obtai n a preconstructio n permi t whe n i t wa s originall yerected , becaus e i t predate d th e PS D program . Thus , the presen t situatio n i s no t squarel yaddresse d b yth e relevan t regulatoryprovision

. Nevertheless , EPA' s origina l intentio n t o disallo wth e exclusio n wher e i t woul d "distur b a prio r assessmen t o f a source' s environ

menta l impact " lead s m e t o conclud e tha t th e exclusio n shoul d no t b e applie d here
. Thi s i s s o becaus e ou r presen t assessmen t a s wel l a s tha t of th e Stat e of Arizona , i s tha t th e RL A plan t i n it s curren t non-operatin g conditio

nha s n

o environmenta l impact

. Thi s i s evidenced i npar t b

y th e remova l o f th

e plan t fro mth e state' s emissioninventor y an d th e surrende r of operating permits . A

nadditiona l factor i s th e simpl e physica l fac t tha t th e RL A plan t ha s ha

d zer o emission s fo r te nyears . I believe tha t thi s resul t i s a reasonabl e interpretationof th e PS D regulations , an

d i n keepin

g withth

e statutor

y purposes . (See inparticula r CleanAi r Ac t sectio n160(3 ) an

d (5)) . 3 . Combination . I nan y event , i t seem

s undeniable , whenon e look s at bot h th e physica l an

d operationa l change s th e compan

y i s proposing t o make , tha t th

e reactivationconstitute s a fundamenta l alteration i n th e characte r o f th e plant , on

e tha t i s neithe r everyda y nor routine

. No r i s th e reactivationdeservin g o f specia l treatmen t becaus e o f a hig

hfrequency

o f change s a t th

e facilit y

or insusceptibilit yt o event-by-even t permitting . B . Ne t Emission s Increase . Whethe r a significan t "ne t emission s increase " woul d occu r i s itsel f a multiste p analysis . The firs t ste p i s t o determin e whethe r the particula r physica l o r operationa l chang e i nquestio nwoul d itsel f resul t i na significan t increas e i n "actua l emissions. " Se e §52.2Kb)(3)(i)(a ) an d (b)(21) . I f so , the secon

d ste p i s t o identif y an d quantif y

an y othe r prio r increase s an

d decrease s i

n"actua l emissions " tha t woul d be "contemporaneous " wit hth e particula r chang e an d otherwis e creditable . Se e S 52.21(b)(3)(i)(b) . The thir d ste p i s t o tota l the increas e fro m th e particula r chang e wit hthe othe r contemporaneou s increase s an d decreases . Se e S 52.21(b)(3)(i)(b) . I f the tota l woul d excee d zero , the na "ne t emission s increase " woul d resul t fro

m th e change . Eacho f thes e factor s i s analyzed belo w i nth e contex t o f th

e prospective start-up o f Cyprus ' RL A plant .P. 9

- 8 -
1
. Increas e in Actua l Emission s Th e st a ":-u

p o f the RL

Aplan t woul d resul t in a n increas e in actua l emission s withi n the meanin g o f th e PS D regulations

. Thi s calculatio n i s mad e b ycomparin g actua l emission s a s o f a "particula r date " — i.e. , immediatel yprio r t o the physica l o r operationa l chang e in questio n - - wit h th e emission s from th e sourc e afte r th e chang e i s made
. Th e regulation s provid e tha t actua l emission s shal l be th e rat e a t whic h th e sourc e actuall yemitte d th e pollutan t durin g the two-yea r perio d immediatel yprecedin g th e particula r dat e (the dat e o f th e change) , unles s EP Adetermine s tha t a differen t two-yea r perio d i s mor e representativ e o f norma l sourc e operation

. 4 0 C.F.R
. § 52.2 1 (b)(21) ; se e als o 4 5 Fed
. Reg
. 52718 , col
. 2
. In thi s case , th e pollutan t in questio n i s sulfu r dioxid e (S02) , an

d emission s durin g th e two-yea r perio d precedin g start-u p o f th e RLAplan t ar e zero . I believ e tha t thi s perio d i s representativ e o f norma l sourc e operations , sinc e emission s hav e bee n zer o durin g eac h o f th e las t te n year s whil e th e plan t ha s bee n shu t down
. Conversely , give n thi s operationa l history , I d o no t believ e tha t emission s durin g th e one yea r i n whic h th e RLAplan t wa s functionin g i s mor e representativ e o f norma l operation s a t th e Cas a Grand e facility

. Afte r start-up , emission s wil l b e approximatel y150 0 ton s pe r year . Thus , th e entir e amoun t o f emission s afte r start-up wil l b e considered a n increas e i n actua l emissions , an d i t i s obviousl ysignificant

. 4 0 C.F.R
. § 52.21(b)(23)(i)

.

2
. Contemporaneou s Increase s an d Decrease s i n Actua l Emissions

. No othe r increase s or decrease s i nactua l emission s tha t woul d b e contemporaneou s wit hth e start-up o f th

e RL A plan t hav e bee n brough t t o EPA' s attention . The regulation s defin e th e contemporaneou s period a s ex tendin g bac k five year s fro m th e physica l or operationa l change , 4 0 C.F.R . $ 52.21(b)(3)(ii) , an d no change s i

nemission s a t the RLAplan t hav e bee nmad e durin g thi s period becaus e i t ha s bee n shu t dow

nduring thi s entir e period . I t shoul d b e pointe d ou t i nthi s regard tha t EP A chos e th

e "fairl y

large " five-yea r contemporaneit y

period ove r a shorte r period inrespons e t o industry

commenter s o

nth e PS D regulations , who had urged tha t n o tim e limi t be place d o ncrediting o f prio r emission s decreases . Th e Agenc y

believe d fiv

e year s t o b

e adequat e t o accommodat e a norma l period fo r corporat e planning . Se e 4 5 Fed . Reg . 52701 , col . 1 . Thus , EP

A specificall y

considere d an

d rejecte d a

n arrangemen t whereb y anemission s decrease , suc ha s tha t represente d b y the ten-yea r shutdow no f the RL

A plant , potentiall y coul d b e credite d upo nstart-up for purpose s o f determinin g whethe r a majo r modificatio nwoul d occur .P.1 0

•e»

- 9 -

3
. Ne t Emission s Increase
. Becaus e th

e actua l emission s increas e fro mstart-u

p o f the RL Aplan t woul d be approximatel y150 0 ton s pe r year , an d ther e ar e n o contemporaneou s emission s increase s o r decreases , the ne t emission s increas e fro mstart-u

p woul d als o b e approximatel y150 0 ton s pe r year . Thi s amoun t i s wel l abov e the 4 0 ton s pe r yea r "significance " leve l fo r S02
. 4 0 C.F.R
. § 52.21(b)(23)(i)

. Hence , the start-u p woul d constitut e a majo r modificatio n withi n the meanin g o f the Clea n Ai r Ac t an d 4 0 C.F.R
. § 52.21 , an d Cypru s mus t obtai n a PS D permi t prio r t o constructio n fo r thi s reaso n alone
. IV
. SUMMARY
. Whethe r the prospectiv e start-u p o f th

e RL Aplan t i s viewe d unde r EPA' s reactivatio n polic yo r unde r it s majo r modificatio n regulations , I conclud e tha t PS D requirement s apply
. Thi s consistenc yo f result s i s no t surprising , becaus e bot h th e polic yan

d th e regulation s addres s the sam e genera l principl e tha t significan t increase s i n actua l emission s o f ai r pollution , no t alread

yaccounte d fo r i n ai r qualit yplannin g o r involvin g significan t capita l investment , b e reviewe d unde r th e PS D provision s o f th e Clea n Ai r Act
. I hop e tha t i n light o f thi s supplementa l determination , Cypru s wil l bette r understand EPA' s insistenc e tha t th e RLAplan t underg o th e norma l PS D revie w procedures
. I a

mals o awar e o f Cyprus ' desir e to rehabilitat e th e RL Aplan t an

d recommenc e operation s a s soo n a s possible

. EPA wil l d o it s bes t t o accommodat e thi s desire , consisten t wit hit s nee d t o avoi d undu e disruptio n o f it s othe r PS D regulator y responsibilities

. Sincerely ,

Davi d P . Howekam

p Directo r Ai r Managemen t Division

cc : Le e Locki e Joh nSeit z