Page 6 PB92228667 - SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION (incomplete as of 9/93) This volume includes data collected subsequent to the completion of the project study, which is integrally related to the study. Two such investigations include 1) additional testing of the blowdown stacks which showed significantly lower emissions; and 2) analysis on the sediment in the stormwater surge basin and a assessment of its effect on fish living in the basin. PB92228691 AIR QUALITY DATA. VOLUME II. APPENDIX B-BENZENE & TOLUENE PB92228709 AIR QUALITY DATA. VOLUME II, APPENDIX B-ETHYLBENZENE & XYLENE The two volumes above contain the ISCST modeling results of BTEX emission monitoring data. PB92228717 AIR QUALITY DATA. VOLUME II. APPENDICES C. D AND E This volume includes the following appendices: Appendix C - Summary of modeling and monitoring comparisons Appendix D - Annual modeling for BTEX Appendix E - Culpability Analyses for BTEX PB92228725 AIR QUALITY DATA. VOLUME II. APPENDIX F This volume includes the annual modeling analyses for SARA Chemicals. AIR QUALITY DATA. VOLUME II. APPENDICES G AND H This volume includes the following appendices: Appendix G - Culpability Analyses for SARA Chemicals R. E. Schmitt 9/93 DRAFT -FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES EFFECTIVE ENVIRONMENTAL STRATEGIES: OPPORTUNITIES FOR INNOVATION AND FLEXIBILITY UNDER FEDERAL ENVIRONMENTAL LAW June, 1993 Prepared By Bradley I. Raffle, Esq., Debra F. Mitchell, Esq., Amoco Corporation Chicago, Illinois The authors also acknowledge the assistance of J.B. Ruhl, Eva Fromm and Charles E. Sullivan, Jr., Fulbright & Jaworski L.L.P. DRAFT - FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES FOREWORD The Yorktown Project (a joint study conducted by the United States Environmental Protection Agency and Amoco Oil Company at Amoco's Yorktown Virginia Refinery) demonstrated that it was possible for industry and government to work together to achieve more cost effective and more environmentally effective results than either group could achieve separately. A key question from the Yorktown study was "why don't we reach these results more consistently and frequently?" The Project Workgroup identified several institutional obstacles. Of concern for this report is the continued use of a "command-and-control," "one-size-fits-all" approach to environmental legislation and regulation. This approach essentially dictates which pollutants and sources to control, to what extent, and which technology to use for a broad spectrum of industrial facilities. Innovation--one of America's greatest strengths--is neither encouraged nor rewarded in a command-and-control framework. Environmental protection is complex and becoming more so. While early efforts to reduce pollution were successful, they did not deal with the unintended consequences of these activities. We now know our current, fragmented administrative approach is not well suited to addressing the fully integrated, multimedia environment in which we live and work. Yesterday's administrative methods are at times poorly equipped for dealing with today's (and tomorrow's) more subtle and complex environmental issues issues that cross national boundaries and physical air-water-land interfaces. As a followup to the Yorktown Project, this report identifies opportunities for new approaches to environmental management under existing federal environmental statutes. The report identifies and discusses 17 such options. Four other options are identified that would also provide innovative approaches to managing complex industrial facilities, but would almost certainly require some new statutory authority. We are encouraged by the range of possibilities suggested by this limited analysis and hope this report will be a starting point for further discussion about opportunities for environmental innovation, new regulatory policy approaches and improved environmental performance. We offer this report as a draft, a starting point for further discussions with the many people and organizations who share our concern about achieving real environmental protection and a healthy economy--state and federal regulatory agencies, Congress, the environmental community, business concerns, policy institutes, the environmental law profession, and many others. We look forward to working together with you. 2.1 2.2 Flexibility vs. Command and Control Under the CAA 2.2.2 Emission Standards vs. Design Specifications Overview of the Purposes and Structure of the Clean Air Act ("CAA") 2.2.1 Definition of "Source" 12 13 13 14 A. 2.3.1 Flexibility Under State Implementation Plans (SIPS) 1. Flexibility for Establishing SIP "Emission Limitations" Trades Between Mobile and Stationary Sources Flexibility Under the RACT Requirement in Nonattainment Areas . . . . Flexibility Under the CAA New Source Review Program 19 20 20 22 23 26 28 29 33 33 36 38 1. 2. 4. State Flexibility in SIP Development 2.3.2 Flexibility Under Section 112 of the Clean Air Act . Emissions Averaging to Achieve MACT Compliance 2.3.3 NSPS Innovative Technology Waivers 38 39 40 44 45 |