Environmentalists say
they'll sue over emissions permit
SUMMARY: Three groups say they need court intervention to ensure their rights in a proposal by Owens Corning for a plant in
The Department of Environmental Quality said last month that it has no legal
reason to deny Owens Corning a permit to emit an ozone-depleting greenhouse
gas in
Now three environmental groups have notified the department they will sue over its handling of Owens Corning's proposal. They allege the agency violated state and federal rules that ensure public scrutiny of such
permits.
The groups sent a 60-day notice to
the DEQ one day before Thursday's final public hearing on the Owens Corning permit.
"We're
at a point where unless we get a court to intervene,
we won't be given the public participation rights we hope to
have," said attorney Melissa Powers, who also represents the
The
coalition hopes it can get a
federal judge to prevent the DEQ
from issuing the permit, she said.
A DEQ spokeswoman
said the agency made -- and apologized for
-- several errors during Owens Corning's
first permit application, which the company withdrew earlier this year. But
after Owens Corning applied for a second permit, "we've done everything that we are required to do in terms of the public notice and the process," spokeswoman
Marcia Danab said.
Owens Corning wants to make rigid foam insulation at the plant it started building last year at
The
manufacturing process includes blowing bubbles into the foam with the
ozone-depleting greenhouse gas HCFC-142b. The federal government, following a treaty to protect the ozone layer, plans to start eliminating HCFC-142b in 2010. The company now says
it will emit about 226 tons a
year, about 5.2 percent of
Owens Corning says its insulation provides a net benefit to
the environment because it conserves energy, preventing more greenhouse gases
from being produced at power plants.
Company executives have promised to
find a more environmentally
friendly substitute before 2010. They
say that current substitutes, while
cheaper than HCFC-142b, produce a
weaker product that couldn't compete in
the
But the
environmental groups say Owens Corning
should use one of those substitutes now. Although
Owens Corning first applied to emit 283 tons of HCFC-142b each
year. At that level, the plant
was considered a major polluter
with strict environmental requirements, including needing a permit before construction and using
the best available technology to
control pollution.
DEQ admits
that it mistakenly told Owens Corning that it could build the plant but not install emissions
equipment before getting its pollution permit. The company built the shell of
the plant but suspended
construction after it was sued in
federal court by the three environmental groups.
DEQ later sent Owens Corning a "notice of noncompliance" and does not plan any
further action.
Last
December, Owens Corning changed its permit request,
saying it would not emit more than 250 tons of HCFC-142b. By voluntarily limiting emissions, the
company could be considered a
"synthetic minor" source of pollution and would not have to show it was using the best
available pollution controls, state regulators said.
In May, Owens Corning withdrew that request and asked for a minor permit,
saying new calculations showed it would emit only 226 tons a year. At that level, the law would
not require a preconstruction
permit, the DEQ said.
The
environmental groups have asked
the DEQ to provide the
information that Owens Corning used to calculate the new amount of emissions. The DEQ permit writer
was allowed to review part of
that information, but Owens Corning did not submit it to the agency, Danab
said.
The DEQ
said it could not require Owens Corning to submit it because it is a
trade secret that the company does not want to reveal to
competitors.
"That
data is not required for us to say that the application is complete," said Danab, adding that the agency got a legal opinion this week to
confirm that Owens Corning could withhold the
information.
But Powers
said the Clean Air Act doesn't allow companies to conceal emissions data even if they are trade secrets.
On
Thursday, Owens Corning spokeswoman Gina Thompson said
the company had decided to
voluntarily submit the information to
the DEQ during the public comment period of the application.
"It's a tough decision to make as a company,"
said Paul Lewandowski, a lawyer for Owens Corning.
"But on the other hand, we are planning on being here a long time . . . and we really want
people to be comfortable."
Powers said
she does not know if that will change the environmental groups' position. The information should have been available for public scrutiny in May, she said.
Catherine Trevison: 503-294-5971; ctrevison@news.oregonian.com