Wash. Rev. Code » Title 82 · Chapter 82.34
Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 82.34.030 (2026)

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
A certificate shall be issued by the department within thirty days after approval of the application by the appropriate control agency. Such approval shall be given when it is determined that the facility is designed and is operated or is intended to be operated primarily for the control, capture and removal of pollutants from the air or for the control and reduction of water pollution and that the facility is suitable, reasonably adequate, and meets the intent and purposes of chapter 70A.15 RCW or chapter 90.48 RCW, as the case may be, and it shall notify the department of its findings within thirty days of the date on which the application was submitted to it for approval. In making such determination, the appropriate control agency shall afford to the applicant an opportunity for a hearing: PROVIDED, That if the local or regional air pollution control agency fails to act or if the applicant feels aggrieved by the action of the local or regional air pollution control agency, such applicant may appeal to the state air pollution control board pursuant to rules and regulations established by that board.
[ 2020 c 20 s 1486; 1967 ex.s. c 139 s 3.]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 3 cases, 1976–1988 · leading case: Weyerhaeuser Co. v. Dep't of Ecology, 545 P.2d 5 (Wash. 1976).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Weyerhaeuser Co. v. Dep't of Ecology, 545 P.2d 5 (Wash. 1976). · cites it 9× “Therefore, the board concluded, respondent was em titled to the certificate for the entire cost of Boiler #10 because, in the words of RCW 82.34.030, it is “designed and is operated or is intended to be operated primarily for the control, capture and removal of pollutants from…”
Appeal of City of Berlin, 553 A.2d 758 (N.H. 1988). “2a (Smith-Hurd 1979); Wash. Rev. Code § 82.34.030 (1987); Me. Rev.”
Kaiser Aluminum & Chem. Corp. v. Dep't of Ecology, 647 P.2d 551 (Wash. Ct. App. 1982). “We believe that Kaiser's reliance on former WAC 173-24-090(3) is misplaced. DOE's arguments before the Board indicate that in denying certification to the calciner it concluded that this regulation merely implemented the statutory requirement that a facility be installed for the…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.