Comply or else, EPA tells state air agency

Comply or else, EPA tells state air agency

Ecology Department fears a 'paperwork nightmare'

Thursday, December 20, 2001

By CANDACE HECKMAN
SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER REPORTER

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has given the state of Washington
official word that it has 18 months to fully comply with the Clean Air Act or
face the possibility of losing federal transportation money.

The agency issued a Notice of Deficiency, one of its heaviest mandates, to the
state Department of Ecology last Friday.

The notice concerns a short provision in one chapter of the act, which requires
states to regulate "insignificant emissions."

State officials, however, say they do not need to regulate emissions so small
and innocuous that the federal government has labeled them insignificant.

"We've been around the block with this one several times," said Mary Getchell,
Ecology spokeswoman. "We're really concerned about hazardous
emissions."

EPA regulators are asking the department to collect reports on all emissions
from industrial sources, from smokestack gases to minuscule puffs of air from
machines.

"Almost every other state in the country is doing what we asked Washington to
do," said Bill Dunbar, EPA spokesman in Seattle. "This is not an
unreasonable, out-in-left-field request."

But Getchell said that's exactly what it is. For example, the Boeing Co.
facility in Tukwila has about 3,000 sources of "insignificant emissions."

Reporting on every little bathroom vent "would be a paperwork nightmare,"
Getchell said.

However, Dunbar said because environmental reporting in based on the honor
system, regulation would not require Ecology officers to fan out across the
state to check on bathroom vents and should not involve more paperwork.

Businesses who report dishonestly, if caught, are levied significant fines and
employees could go to jail, he said.

In most cases, a business would include in its report for large emissions the
fact that it's in compliance with the small emissions, too, he said.

State and federal agency officials on both sides said they are befuddled.

EPA regulators do not understand why Washington cannot just tell businesses to
report small emissions.

State regulators cannot understand why they would have to.

Ecology has battled the EPA for years over the issue, including a lawsuit
against the government. The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, in 1996,
ordered the
EPA to approve Washington's permits program.

The EPA finally approved Ecology's program in August.

But the court did not order the approval because it believed Washington should
not have to comply with the standard, said Denise Baker, a specialist in air
quality for the agency.

"The court found EPA was being inconsistent," she said. "But now the
consistency issue no longer exists."

In 1996, when the question emerged, there were eight states regulating
emissions similar to the way Washington was. EPA approved those
states' programs but did not want to approve Washington's.

Since then, Baker said, most of those states have adjusted their programs
or are
in the process of adjusting them to meet the same requirement imposed on
Washington.

Just two, states, Hawaii and Ohio, are not properly regulating insignificant
emissions.

Those states have until April before they are issued a Notice of Deficiency,
Baker said. Dunbar and Baker said they are optimistic that a compromise can
be reached.

The EPA sent a letter yesterday to the Ecology Department stressing the
agency's desire to work it out.

In the letter, the EPA offered to arrange a mediator.