Opinion ID: 446849
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Dispersion Techniques

Text: 24 Section 123(a) of the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. Sec. 7423(a), provides that EPA cannot approve an implementation plan which relies on dispersion techniques to attain compliance with the NAAQSs. Kamp argues that Arizona's multi-point plan uses dispersion techniques and therefore could not lawfully be approved by EPA. 25 There are two types of dispersion control techniques: (1) tall stacks, which reduce ambient air concentrations by dispersing emissions high into the atmosphere, and (2) intermittent or supplemental control techniques. See Bunker Hill Co. v. EPA, 572 F.2d 1286, 1291 n. 4 (9th Cir.1977); Kennecott Corp. v. EPA, 684 F.2d 1007, 1010 n. 4 (D.C.Cir.1982). Obviously Arizona's multi-point plan does not rely on tall stacks. Therefore, if the multi-point plan uses dispersion techniques as Kamp charges, it must do so by employing intermittent control techniques. 26 The statute defines an intermittent control technique as one which varies emissions with atmospheric conditions. 42 U.S.C. Sec. 7423(b). The cases discussing the term have used the same definition. See, e.g., Bunker Hill, 572 F.2d at 1291 n. 4. The multi-point implementation plan, however, does not set emission levels which vary with atmospheric conditions. So long as the smelters' emissions are within the specified emission profile, the source will be in compliance with the implementation plan regardless of the prevailing atmospheric conditions. It follows that the multi-point plan does not use dispersion techniques. 27 Kamp recognizes that the multi-point implementation plan does not set emissions which expressly vary with atmospheric conditions. He argues, however, that the multi-point plan should nonetheless be treated like an intermittent control system because its effectiveness would be enhanced if combined with intermittent controls. Kamp is correct that if intermittent controls were added to the multi-point plan, greater protection against pollution would result. It would be an improvement from the point of view of air quality if the smelters were prohibited from polluting at the high end of the emission spectrum during periods of bad conditions. That argument, however, proves too much; in all probability any control strategy could be enhanced through the addition of intermittent controls. Indeed, the 1978 federal single-point implementation plan, which Kamp concedes does not use dispersion techniques, would be improved by the addition of intermittent controls that require further reduction of emissions on days of extremely bad atmospheric conditions. We therefore cannot accept Kamp's arguments.