More
| Subscribe
| 14-Day
Archives (Free) | Long-Term
Archives (Paid)
EPA ban puts Owens
Corning operations in limbo
Greenhouse gas The question is whether the new plant qualifies for an
"existing use" exception
CATHERINE
TREVISON
The EPA proposes an
immediate ban on many uses of HCFC-142b, the ozone-depleting greenhouse gas that
Owens Corning intends to use in its new
The proposed rule, however,
carves out an exception for "existing users." The Oregon Department of
Environmental Quality isn't sure how that affects Owens Corning, which uses the
gas to blow foam at other insulation plants but hasn't yet used it here.
"On one hand it appears to
be very clear, but as with most rules, the devil is in the details," said George
Davis, a permit writer for DEQ. "The only problem is that EPA doesn't really
define what an existing user is. So we're trying to hunt down what this thing
really means."
Owens Corning started
building the plant at
Three
DEQ officials have said
there is no basis in federal or state law to deny Owens Corning's permit. They are in the final stages of
considering Owens Corning's application and may issue
a permit before the EPA adopts a final rule.
Groups: Alternatives work
But now the environmental
groups -- including the
"Our interpretation of the
rule is that they can't use it now," said attorney Allison LaPlante of the
EPA ban puts Owens
Corning operations in limbo
Page 2 of
2
The center sent a letter
Thursday to
Although Owens Corning
executives were familiar with the proposed rule, they were not yet able to
comment on it, a company spokesman said Friday.
In the past, Owens Corning
executives have told DEQ that they will find a substitute blowing agent by 2010.
They say that current substitutes yield more fragile foam that has less
insulating power; if the company switched now, it would lose sales to
competitors.
Under the Clean Air Act of
1990, the EPA is trying to cut down on things that damage the ozone layer. In
the mid 1990s, the agency condoned some use of ozone-damaging hydrochlorofluorocarbons, or HCFCs, because they were less harmful to the ozone layer
than the chlorofluorocarbons they replaced. They were considered a "temporary
bridge" until manufacturers could find more environmentally friendly substances.
By 2000, the agency had
explored banning use of certain HCFCs in foam
products. But in 2002, the EPA ruled that existing alternatives weren't yet
technically feasible for many users.
Honeywell sues EPA
After the 2002 rule, the EPA
was sued by Honeywell International, a company that makes one alternative foam
blowing agent. Honeywell argued that the agency had wrongly considered cost in
making its decision. A federal appeals court agreed and earlier this year forced
the EPA to write a new rule.
Last week, the agency
announced that it wants to classify HCFC-142b and a related gas as unacceptable
substitutes for more harmful materials. New information shows that several
less-harmful alternatives -- from hydrocarbons to water -- are widely available
and technically viable, the agency said. The agency's "existing users" exclusion
would allow use to continue as scheduled until 2010.
Owens Corning uses the gas
at two plants in the