Opinion ID: 446849
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Dispersion Techniques and Emission Limitations

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.
28 Section 110(a)(2)(B) of the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. Sec. 7410(a)(2)(B), requires that implementation plans use emission limitations to the maximum extent feasible in achieving compliance with the NAAQSs. See, e.g., Kennecott Copper Corp. v. Train, 526 F.2d 1149, 1150 (9th Cir.1975), cert. denied, 425 U.S. 935, 96 S.Ct. 1665, 48 L.Ed.2d 176 (1976); National Resources Defense Council v. EPA, 489 F.2d 390, 406 (5th Cir.1974), rev'd on other grounds sub nom. Train v. National Resources Defense Council, 421 U.S. 60, 95 S.Ct. 1470, 43 L.Ed.2d 731 (1975). Kamp argues that the multi-point implementation plan does not use emission limitations; that the use of such limitations is feasible; and that therefore the multi-point plan violates Sec. 110(a)(2)(B). 29 The definition of emission limitation in the Act has two elements: (1) an emission limitation must limit the quantity, rate, or concentration of emissions of air pollutants; and (2) it must operate on a continuous basis. See 42 U.S.C. Sec. 7602(k). The first requirement is clearly met, for by lowering each smelter's emission curve, the multi-point plan reduces the overall quantity of emissions. The controversy centers on the second requirement. Kamp argues that because the multi-point plan allows the acceptable emission level to fluctuate, it does not continuously regulate emissions. 30 EPA has a broader definition of continuous than does Kamp. Under the Agency's definition, an implementation plan operates continuously so long as some limitation on emissions, although not necessarily the same limitation, is always imposed on the SO2 source. Under that definition, the multi-point plan operates continuously, since the SO2 source is always subject to the specified emission profile. 31 We cannot say that EPA's definition of continuous is unreasonable. In the first place, the requirement of regulation on a continuous basis does not necessarily imply that the source always be subject to precisely the same limitation. Equally important, EPA's definition is supported by the legislative history. Congress's primary purpose behind requiring regulation on a continuous basis was to exclude intermittent control techniques from the definition of emission limitations. The House Report states: 32 By defining the term[ ] emission limitation, ... the committee has made clear that constant or continuous means of reducing emissions must be used.... By the same token, intermittent or supplemental controls or other temporary, periodic, or limited systems of control would not be permitted.... 33 H.R.Rep. No. 294, 95th Cong. 1st Sess. 92 (1977), reprinted in 1977 U.S.Code Cong. & Ad.News 1077, 1170. Accord id. at 6, reprinted in 1977 U.S.Cong. & Ad.News at 1084. EPA's definition of continuous accommodates the legislative history by giving continuous an essentially negative definition: any control technique is continuous which does not operate on an intermittent basis. Since EPA has reasonably interpreted the Act, we affirm its conclusion that the multi-point implementation plan uses emission limitations. See Chevron, U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, --- U.S. ----, 104 S.Ct. 2778, 2782-83, 81 L.Ed.2d 694 (1984).