Regional Reports: Region 4

Douglas E. Cloud and Scott E. Hitch
Alston & Bird LLP
Atlanta, Georgia
Dcloud@alston.com; Shitch@alston.com

FY 2001 Combustion Turbine PSD Permit Applications

Last June, we reported on EPA Region 4's PSD permit application activity during FY 2000. At that time, Region 4 had processed more PSD permit applications than any other region. As was expected, Region 4 PSD permit applications kept pace in FY 2001. Just over half of the FY 2001 PSD permit applications were for combustion turbine (CT) projects. Region 4 reported the receipt of 110 PSD permit applications for review during FY 2001. Fifty-eight of these PSD permit applications were for CT projects.

As expected, during FY 2001 Florida led the Region 4 states in total PSD permit applications, with 19 out of 26 total PSD applications being for CTs. Florida was followed by Georgia, with 14 of 16 PSD permit applications submitted for CTs. North Carolina had 4 CT permit applications out of 16 total PSD permit applications. In Kentucky, there were 4 of 14 PSD permit applications for CTs. In Mississippi, 13 PSD permit applications, including 8 CT applications, were submitted. Alabama's CT permit applications accounted for 3 of 11 total PSD permit applications. In South Carolina, 4 of 10 PSD applications were for CT applications. And, in Tennessee, there were 2 of 4 PST permit applications for CTs.

David Dunn
Environmental Resources Management
Kennesaw, Georgia
Ddunn@ermse.com

MACT 112(j) Notification Activities After May 15, 2002

Now that the flurry of 112(j) notification activities have passed, the real Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT) work and decision-making for many companies is just starting. While procedurally important, the recent May 15, 2002, 112(j) "Hammer" notifications are for the most part just place holders until the various MACTs are promulgated and are a prelude to a lot of planning activities for potentially applicable sources. For many sources, this post 112(j) notification planning will need to address several phases of activities including:

1. accurately determining the site's hazardous air pollutant (HAP) emissions and major source status;
2. evaluating the proposed and final MACTs once issued by US EPA; and
3. deciding on the site's strategic management approach to MACT compliance and/or avoidance.

Without conducting these reviews in a timely fashion a source will not be able to accurately determine the best strategic plan for addressing its MACT requirements. For example, is the best long-range approach to avoid the standard(s) by becoming a synthetic minor for HAPs, or to remain subject to the standard(s) and design a compliance strategy that takes maximum advantage of the flexibility provisions within the MACT(s)?

Within each phase of the MACT planning activities a number of general and site specific issues should be considered as follows:

Phase 1: Develop Comprehensive Site-Wide HAP Emission Inventory

• What is the "affected site" for MACT applicability purposes?
• How will potential HAP emissions be determined?
• Are current actual HAP emissions representative of future emissions?
• Will process changes affect future potential and/or actual HAP emissions?
• Are all HAP emission sources (processes, boilers, support, etc.) included in the inventory?

Phase 2: Evaluate Proposed and Promulgated MACT(s)

• Will the site be subject to multiple MACT(s)?
• Will the site be an existing or new source for MACT applicability?
• Will the use of add-on controls be required to ensure compliance?
• Can low HAP content materials be used to achieve compliance?
• Can "reformulation" be a compliance option?
• How can the site take advantage of the MACT flexibility and averaging provisions?

Phase 3: Develop MACT Strategic Compliance Plan

• Could the site use add-on controls to avoid MACT applicability?
• Can synthetic minor conditions be in place prior to the initial compliance date?
• Will future production needs dictate remaining a major source of HAPs?
• Can the site meet the MACT emission limits based on the required averaging period (e.g., monthly)?
• Do any regulatory uncertainties regarding applicability, compliance and permitting need to be resolved?
• Can production be shifted between sites to minimize the number of operations potentially subject to MACT?
• What will the true cost of long-term MACT compliance be, including controls, substitute materials, testing, monitoring equipment, system upgrades, permitting, etc.?

Properly addressing these issues and developing a strategic overall approach to MACT will require extensive near-term planning and data gathering for many sites. For example, if a site is subject to a MACT that would require the use of upgraded add-on controls, a detailed analysis of the current HAP capture and destruction efficiencies will be necessary to assess MACT compliance, costs, and options. Due to the long lead time typically required to efficiently modify and/or add emission control systems, these changes would need to be evaluated and implemented well in advance of the actual MACT initial compliance date. In many situations a site will want/need to operate and test their MACT compliance (or avoidance) controls and systems at least a year or two before the MACT compliance deadline as part of their strategic planning efforts.

In many ways, the May 15, 2002, MACT 112(j) notification was just the start of a long, complex process for a number of sites. To ensure this process is properly managed in terms of costs, production impacts, business flexibility, regulatory requirements, etc., potentially affected sites need to initiate their detailed MACT planning efforts soon. Cost effective solutions could be lost if ample planning or time does not exist, especially when the numerous "what if" analyses that MACT may require are considered. Another important twist in all of this planning, is the additional future potential impact of non-attainment, visibility and other regulatory initiatives on a site's long-term emission limits and MACT decision-making. MACT planning should not occur in a vacuum independent of these potential future concerns.