Confusing regulations, conflicting methods of application, and unpredictable enforcement of industrial emissions regulations often leave many companies scratching their heads at what they did wrong. This article is part of a series about industrial air permits and their relationship with your dust collection system. See earlier article: Industrial Air Permits – Overcoming the Difficulties

Baghouse.com – September 10th, 2011 –  Governmental environmental regulations are often praised for the role they play in helping to keep our planet clean and protecting us from hazardous by-products of our modern industrialized world. However, as these regulatory bodies increase in size and influence, many claim that they have become inefficient, bogged down due to their overly bureaucratic organization, and even as “corrupt” as the big business polluters they are charged with protecting the public against.

We can see this in a recent article from Ethanol Producers Magazine; the article highlights the plight of a group of ethanol plant operators and their constant struggles to understand and comply with needlessly complex environmental regulations and permit issues by state and federal agencies. The article explains how sometimes permitting agencies require certain standards to be met in the permit proposals that do not have any regulation behind them. These unnecessary requirements are simply confusing are not are not fair, and are the result of over-regulating, states Jessica Karras-Bailey, an associate with RTP Environmental Associates Inc.

While certain states may have stricter emissions standards than others, in general the problem lies with permit issuing agencies and officials going above and beyond what is required by federal and state legislation. In one cited example, an ethanol plant permit proposal would have required trucks with grain shipments to follow a specific pattern within the site (taking a right turn, driving in a counterclockwise direction, and then leaving by taking a left turn). Failure to enact this provision would have left the plant in non-compliance with the permit, leading to heavy fines and possibly forced closures. Provisions such as this obviously left management confused, wondering why such a requirement was mandated by existing regulations, as well as how they could possibly implement such a thing practically.

Instances such as this highlight the almost “Mystic Elements” that these permits can sometimes require of plant operators. Oftentimes companies are simply at a loss, not knowing what action to take, all the while fearing the repercussions that might come from not complying with these regulations.

In the instance cited above, the plant management turned to a consulting firm that specializes in helping facilities come into compliance with pollution control regulations and with negotiating with permitting agencies. They were able to learn why the state’s permitting officials had placed this peculiar requirement in the permit (air dispersion modeling reasons). After that, the firm was able to negotiate with the agency, explaining that from a practical standpoint, it simply was not possible, and find a more flexible solution that was acceptable to both parties. “But it’s not always easy,” stated the consultant, and we tend to agree with that conclusion.