CLEAN AIR SANCTIONS COULD COST ALL MISSOURI

Cape Girardeau and Southeast Missouri soon might have to pay for dirty air in St. Louis.

In January, St. Louis learned that it had failed to meet standards for various pollutants in the 1990 Clean Air Act.

Now, a Nov. 15 deadline looms to submit a plan to reduce emissions in St. Louis by 15 percent. And if the state fails to produce an acceptable plan to meet the clean air guidelines, federal sanctions kick in.

Wayne Muri, chief engineer for the Missouri Highway and Transportation Department, said those sanctions are severe, striking business and economic development in St. Louis.

"Number one, for any new industry to come into St. Louis, the city would first have to close down two existing industries," Muri said.

Those sanctions won't affect only the city of St. Louis but also the counties of St. Louis, St. Charles, Jefferson and Franklin.

John Oliver, vice chairman of the Missouri Highway and Transportation Commission, said the "two-for-one" measure would be "devastating" to the metropolitan St. Louis economy.

Although those measures are drastic, Muri said the worst would be yet to come.

"That, although it would be devastating to the economy in St. Louis, just affects the city," he said. "But after that, there will be no more highway funding for the state from the federal government."

That's because the Clean Air Act makes state highway departments liable for compliance throughout the state.

"The law says that it's the state highway department's obligation to bring non-attainment areas into compliance," Muri said. "But how are you going to explain to people in Southeast Missouri that they're not going to get anything for their highway tax dollars because of what a city supposedly has or hasn't done about it's dirty air?"

Missouri stands to lose up to $500 million annually in federal highway money.

Oliver said that's the intent of the 1990 Clean Air Act.

"This is positively part of a plan by some elements in the Senate to switch federal money from highways to transit, particularly in the Northeast and West Coast where they have well-developed transit systems," he said.

In other words, force a million cars off the streets in New York City, for example, and switch the motor fuel tax money over to transit.

Oliver said it's an understandable plan in the Northeast or Los Angeles, but would be difficult to sell in rural Southeast Missouri.

Even if the DNR's plan is accepted by the EPA, Oliver said questions remain as to how the state will reduce emissions in St. Louis.

He said the 15 percent reduction in pollution must be divided between stationary and mobile sources -- smokestacks and tailpipes.

"DNR has tentatively assigned 29 percent of the reduction to stationary sources," he said. "The balance has to come from mobile sources."

That goal will be met, essentially, three ways, Oliver said.

-- Transportation control measures, which would include such things as expanding transit, getting employers to run buses from suburban parking lots, and levying taxes on the driving public.

"Traffic control measures are generally believed to produce about 1 percent of the necessary reduction and no more than 2 percent," Oliver said.

-- Reformulated gasoline, which is unpopular in some circles, but requires only the governor's signature to take effect.

"That provides a guarantee of 4 percent of the 15 percent, and could provide as much as 7 percent," Oliver said.

The reformulated gas costs more, and can reduce horsepower, but Oliver said it does reduce the ozone pollutants targeted in St. Louis.

-- Stiffer motor vehicle inspections, which Oliver said is, in the eyes of the EPA, another "guaranteed credit" toward meeting the 15 percent reduction in metro St. Louis.

"The truth is, (reformulated gasoline) and enhanced motor vehicle inspection ought to make most of the 15 percent," Oliver said.

But Muri said the new inspections would eliminate about 20 percent of the vehicles in and around the city. Also, such a measure would require legislation.

"There's the problem," said Oliver. "If there's no legislation in the next session, then as soon as July 15, they can pull the federal highway funds for St. Louis."

Despite the potential loss, Muri said few Missourians are aware of the situation.

"People look at this, and they shrug it off," he said. "Everybody's for clean air, but they don't realize what this means.

"What we have seen so far, first of all, people don't believe it. Then they go into shock. Then they go into complete denial.

"But it is the law of the land and is absolute," Muri added. "When the alarm goes off, the two for one on new industry will take effect. Then in six months, we'll lose our federal highway money."

Muri said it's imperative that the Missouri Legislature act soon to avert the withholding of federal highway dollars.

"The emissions inspection time clock is running and expires July 15," he said. "We must pass this legislation in the next session."

That means legislators facing re-election in 1994 will be faced with a vote on an issue that undoubtedly will be unpopular both for motorists in St. Louis and voters in the remainder of the state.

"There's going to be plenty of teeth-gnashing in Jefferson City over this issue," Muri said. "For the first time in my career, this is something for which everyone will feel an immediate cost, individually and directly."