1 / 10

Air Quality Legislations in OR and WA

Pius Ndegwa Animal Waste Nutrients and Air Quality Specialist, Biological Systems Engineering Washington State University. Air Quality Legislations in OR and WA. Background

paiva
Download Presentation

Air Quality Legislations in OR and WA

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Pius Ndegwa Animal Waste Nutrients and Air Quality Specialist, Biological Systems Engineering Washington State University Air Quality Legislations in OR and WA

  2. Background The implementation of the Clean Air Act (CAA) by states is delegated by the US-EPA just like for any other federal statutes. Mechanism: The state is required to submit a State Implementation Plan (SIP) for approval by the EPA. The SIP defines what portion of the CAA the state is implementing and may include elements that go beyond the federal requirements. In order to obtain federal approval, a state’s SIP must at a minimum contain regulatory elements that comply with the CAA. General Overview

  3. Oregon’s Air Quality Program Oregon air quality program began in the 1960s exempted all agricultural operations from regulation except for field burning in the Willamete Valley. Oregon’s SIP thus exempts majority of agricultural sources from title V permitting requirements. Oregon was not the only state that had this exemption, CA too did until mid 2002 following lawsuits against EPA forcing EPA to repeal prior federal approval of CA’s SIP for failing to adequately regulate major agricultural pollution sources. CA today has permitting requirements on certain large agricultural operations in the state.

  4. Oregon’s Air Quality Program Direction Pressure from Environmental Groups In Nov. 2005, borrowing from CA, several environmental groups in Oregon petitioned EPA to revoke its approval of Oregon’s air quality permitting program and SIP because of the state’s exemption of major agricultural sources. Oregon’s Response To avoid EPA action against Oregon’s air quality program, DEQ and interested stakeholders convened a ‘task force’ to formulate a strategy for bringing the State’s program into compliance with the CAA. The end result was a legislative proposal dubbed SB 235. The environmental group rejected this proposal and put forward their own legislative proposal, which sought a law that directed DEQ to set air pollution standards for CAFOs and other large agricultural operations that would allow for regulation of specific pollutants such as ammonia and hydrogen sulfide. This legislation did not pass.

  5. Oregon’s Air Quality Program Direction Elements of SB 235 (Passed in 2007) Directs DEQ and ODA to enter into a memorandum of understanding that transfers agricultural air emissions authority and enforcement to ODA. Creates a task force of 15 members: Legislators, regulators, industry representatives, public interest organizations, and educators or researchers. Charges this task force with the evaluation of emissions from dairy operations and available alternatives for reducing those emissions. The task must report its findings to DEQ and ODA by July 1, 2008, which will in turn present a joint DEQ/ODA report to interim legislative committee that includes ‘proposed legislation to reduce the emission of air contaminants by dairies’ by October 1st, 2008. In effect, the law preserves the State’s agricultural exemption while leaving to the discretion of the DEQ’s Environmental Quality Commission (EQC) the authority to implement any of the task force’s recommendations to comply with CAA.

  6. Oregon’s Air Quality Program Status The task force completed their work and recommended a minimum of $2 million in funding for research and development of BMP’s. It also recommended starting the process of voluntary BMP adoption and cost-sharing when funding is available. Process and Scope: Identification of suitable BMPs, researching more BMPs, and producer education. Implementation of SB 235 begins Jan. 2009 while total compliance is expected by 2015!

  7. Washington’s Air Quality Program The WA-SIP of CAA did not exempt major agricultural sources like in California or Oregon. Implication: Major agricultural sources can be held accountable under all the facets of the CAA. The six “criteria pollutants” potentially harmful to human health currently regulated (by EPA) under the Clean Air Act are: Sulfur Dioxide - SO2 Nitrogen Dioxide - NO2 Ozone (methane, non-methane VOCs, NOx) Particulate matter: PM10; PM2.5 (Ammonia is important here) Carbon Monoxide (CO) Lead

  8. National Ambient Air Quality Standards

  9. Major Pollutants suspected from Livestock Industry: Ammonia – Not directly regulated under CAA Hydrogen sulfide – Not regulated under CAA Particulate matter (PM2.5 & PM10) – Regulated under CAA Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) – Somehow regulated under CAA Nitrogen oxides (NOx) – Somehow regulated under CAA Methanol – Not regulated under CAA (May be hazardous) Odor – Not regulated under CAA Methane – Somehow regulated under CAA Livestock Industry Air Quality Legislations

  10. CERCLA (1980) – Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act. EPCRA (1986) – Emergency Planning and Community Right-To-Know Act. Currently: H2S and NH3 emissions of > 100 lb/day must be reported! Additional EPA Legislations for Air Quality

More Related