That regulation establishes the parameters under which voluntary replacement or upgrading of pollution control equipment could be accomplished without subjecting the facility to the emission standards for new or modified sources. The Applicant and Staff contend that Part 231 does not apply to this project. The sole issue concerning the applicability of Part 231 is whether or not the project is properly characterized as a modification to an existing major facility. Put more simply, since there is no question about whether the Port Ivory facility is a major facility as defined in Part 231, the issue is whether the project is properly considered to be an existing source. In such a case, only the additional annual actual emissions, i.e. those in excess of annual actual emissions from the prior operations of the Port Ivory facility, would be considered in determining Part 231 applicability.
Most facilities operate on a more limited basis.
On the other hand, if by virtue of the discontinuous operation of the Port Ivory facility the project is properly characterized as a new facility, no consideration would be given to prior emissions and the entire annual actual emissions from the plant would need to be considered in determining Part 231 applicability. In deciding whether the facility is an existing source, the determinant is not whether it physically exists but whether it is entitled to be permitted using the standards applicable to existing sources. The proposed project involves both the reactivation of a previously operating source and the upgrading of that source's pollution control equipment. Unless the conditions in both of these regulations are satisfied, the facility would be subject to the standards for new emission sources. The stack testing that was done shortly after shutdown, but under conditions intended to simulate operating conditions, showed the facility to be out of compliance with permissible emission limits for particulates and lead.