Document x13r2EyNBym3pG9X8Br8Q2nmy

71788 Federal Register / Vol. 44. .%o. 239 / Tuesday, December 11. 1979 / ales and Regulatio same criteria category may have EPA to consider allowing trades different effects on air quality. However, between criteria categories if the results other mmmpntera were of the opinion will be beneficial, e.g.. trading a that without any specific standards for decrease in a pollutant seriously individual pollutants within a criteria violating NAAQS for an increase in a category. ETA cannot prevent trades pollutant with a minor violation. ETA between pollutants in the same cannot consider any trades involving category. EPA recognizes that pollutants pollutants from different criteria in the same category may have different categories because the Clean Air Act impacts, and will tale this into requires SEPs to provide for attainment consideration to the extent legally for every standard. EPA may not possible when reviewing proposed approve a revision that makes a trades. violation worse for one standard, 6. Open dust source trades. The regardless of any offsetting benefits for proposed policy did not allow trading another standard. particulate emissions from open dust 11. Equal emissions. There were sources against particulate emissions from stacks or industrial processes. Many commenters objected to this comments that suggested that it was unduly restrictive to require trades under an alternative approach to be prohibition and the reasoning that EPA equal since in some cases this is more tised to support its decision. EPA has control than is necessary to protect reviewed this issue and has decided to no longer categorically prohibit open dust trades. However, the-Agency still believes it is especially difficult to ambient air quality. One commenter thought that the policy should not prevent VOC sources from increasing emissions because, unlike other ensure equivalent air quality impacts for such trades. Due to the shortcomings of air quality models for open dust sources. . EPA will insist on a thorough justification and explanation of all critical inputs to the emission and air quality calculations for any proposals based on modeling demonstrations. Generally, EPA will not approve any proposed alternative emission strategy based on a modeling demonstration that proposes to substitute controls on open dust emissions for reasonable controls on the more significant sources of process emissions. EPA will accept good modeling demonstrations for trades that pollutants, they do not create a localized nonattainment problem. EPA recognizes that the Clean Air Act permits states to revise their SIPs in ways that allow increases in total emissions from a source, a plant, or an area. Bui there are significant restrictions on this authority; The revised SIP must demonstrate attainment and maintenance of the standards; the requirements for reasonable further progress in reducing emissions and for attainment as expeditiously as practicable must be satisfied and the revision must not interfere with the Prevention of Significant Deterioration program. do not affect the use of basic controls. As an alternative to modeling, sources However, the fact that the Act does not completely prohibit SIP revisions that can propose trades without these increase overall emission does not lead restrictions If they demonstrate the EPA to encourage such revisions as an equivalency of the trades by installing element of this policy statement open dust source controls and In EPA's opinion there are important monitoring the results. policy reasons to discourage SIP 6. Hazardous pollutant trades. Several revisions that increase overall commenters suggested that the policy emissions. A growing number of serious should allow trades between the same air quality problems are now recognized hazardous pollutant We have clarified as covering broad regions of the country; our position on this matter and have ozone violations, elevated sulfates and stated that the emissions of pollutants "add rain." and visibility reduction. SIP that are currently listed under Section revisions that permit significant 112 (but not specifically regulated] may increases in total emissions of the major be increased at one emission point only criteria pollutants can exacerbate some as long as there is a compensating or all of the current wide-scale air decrease in the emission of the same quality problems. Therefore, EPA does pollutant at another point For those not encourage by this policy, or as a pollutants listed under (112 in the more general matter, SIP revisions that future, similar trading restraints will result in overall emission Increases. In apply. However, in all cases, sources particular. EPA will not approve such must comply with applicable Section 112 SIP revisions to the extent consistent - regulations and they cannot use an with its current legal authority. alternative emission control to do this. 12. Multiplant emissions trades. 10. Trades between criteria pollutant Several commenters said that use of an categories. Other commenters urged alternative approach should not be restricted to a single plant They said that this restriction creates an arbitrary boundary for trading emissions since the policy already requires a source to demonstrate that the alternative strategy will not harm air quality. ETA has changed the policy to allow more than one plant in the same area to be included in an alternative emissions abatement strategy. However, EPA will require modeling (except in the case of hydrocarbons and ozone] to show that air quality will be protected. Other Issues 1. Worker exposure. The Agency received a recommendation that it. disapprove any alternative approach that will increase the concentration of pollutants to which any group of workers is exposed. ETA has pedfically forbidden trades involving coke oven particulate emissions. In many instances emissions dose to ground level, where workers are located, may have to be weighed differently than emissions from high stacks. While ETA does not have the atatutory authority to specifically prohibit a trade because of increased worker exposure, we encourage states to examine this issue and avoid dedsions that would increase worker exposure. 2. Energy management There was a suggestion that the alternative emission policy should encourage innovative energy management approaches by providing for greater flexibility in the use of alternative fuels to meet SIP requirements. EPA feels that the alternative approach provides flexibility for fuel switching to balance emission limits, and to the extent that energy is a growing component of the cost of meeting pollution control requirements, sources will seek to minimize energy use. However, ETA does not have the authority to take into account such factors as energy savings or choice of fuel when it reviews alternative strategies. Dated; November 29.1979. Douglas M. Coatle, Administrator. (FR Doc. Tssrtt* Pilot li-10-7*. MS ui| MUJNG coot two-ot-a LAM 010666 DPMC-07050 n P M C 07049.1 LAM 010665 ^ ^ ^ n ^ p fhzz Q2&/ -' 7 T f>nr '