Olympic Peninsula Environmental News
Ecology invites comments on changes to rule that requires permits for air pollution sources
An Air Operating Permit is different from an EIS. Ecology doesn’t say what the new industries that will need these permits are.
OLYMPIA – The public can comment on the Washington Department of Ecology’s (Ecology) proposed changes to the state’s rule for permits for sources of air pollution, including greenhouse gases.
Chapter 173-401 of the Washington Administrative Code (WAC) requires air operating permits for large facilities that emit pollutants regulated under the federal Clean Air Act. Examples of these regulated pollutants include particulate matter, sulfur dioxide and nitrogen dioxide. An air operating permit contains all the emitter’s requirements for limiting air pollution emissions.
Ecology’s proposed changes will align the state rule with new requirements issued by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). You can review the proposed changes online.
Right now, EPA requires permits for air pollution sources that emit more than 100 or 250 tons of air pollution per year. (The amount of pollution requiring a permit depends on what type of pollution is emitted.)
Beginning in January 2011, EPA will regulate greenhouse gas emissions for the first time.
Emissions of greenhouse gases from all activities, including industrial facilities, are much higher than emissions of other air pollutants. If the permit thresholds for other air pollutants (100 or 250 tons) were used for greenhouse gases, the number of facilities needing permits would be overwhelming.
Instead, EPA set levels that exempt smaller sources of greenhouse gases. Examples include farms, restaurants and schools. This is called the “tailoring rule,” since it “tailors” permitting programs to limit the number of facilities that must get permits.
Sources must get new permits if they emit, or have the potential to emit, 100,000 tons or more of greenhouse gases each year.
A few emitters that haven’t previously needed permits will have to get an air operating permit because of their greenhouse gas emissions. However, Ecology expects that changing state rules to match the EPA “tailoring rule” will keep most small businesses from needing permits.
Power plants, refineries, wood product industries and other large industrial plants still need permits for emissions of greenhouse gases.
The comment period is open and continues through Nov. 17, 2010. Ecology will hold a public hearing at 6:30 p.m. Wednesday, Nov. 10, at the agency’s headquarters, 300 Desmond Drive SE, Lacey.
Here’s how to submit written comments:
- E-mail to elena.guilfoil@ecy.wa.gov.
- Fax to (360) 407-7534.
- Mail to Elena Guilfoil, Department of Ecology, P.O. Box 47600, Olympia, WA 98504-7600.
Ecology will review and respond to all comments. The agency must adopt the revised rule by January 2011.
Link to Olympic Peninsula Environmental News
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteCall and write ORCAA as often as possible; they are polite in conversation, return phone calls, and "know stuff;" let's make these two ORCAA dudes our new BFFs. I call once in a while and have written more than a few times. I think we should all be doing that, frequently, and ask every question you can think of in connection with what is going on, especially:
ReplyDeleteHas ADAGE delivered the additional information ORCAA requested yet?
If yes, has it been reviewed?
If no, when might it be?
Are they on track for public hearings in October?
November?
Will ADAGE break ground before January 1, 2011?
These are just some, but these dates and compliance with additional requests for documents are ever so important. Monitoring them frequently is critical and tells us much.
Last time I called ORCAA not yet received additional documentation from ADAGE; they were not on track for public hearings; and the date I asked about was December 1, for breaking ground; and at that time, that was "unlikely."
Remember, we like ORCAA, whether we believe they work for corporate or not, they are the guys we have to convince; this whole show stops there; as it should; if we are persuasive and unrelenting, we win.
As to the port, the future of the port needs to change; the direction HUPP and friends want to go is poisonous, down and dirty and IN LINE WITH LEGISLATION THAT TIM AND FRIENDS SET UP TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THIS SITUATION.
The woman at Ecology seems to be forwarding comments sent to her to ORCAA, saying it is their gig; apparently when we write her we should provide more information, and specifically state that we are writing because we have been invited to comment.
Keep it light,
Katherine