EPA AIR-QUALITY PROPOSAL THREATENS COMMUNITIES' EFFORTS

Promises by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the Clinton administration to use common sense as a guidepost for environmental regulation apparently are not intended to include recent actions take by the EPA to severely tighten air standards for ozone and "fine particular matter" (or dust).

In a regulatory power play that sweeps aside common sense and ignores the deep concerns of numerous community leaders, elected officials, state regulatory agencies and business leaders in Missourian across the country, the EPA recently raised the bar for hundreds of cities and counties, including Kansas City and St. Louis, that have been struggling to implement complicated and expensive programs to comply with the 1990 Clean Air Act. This action was taken by the EPA with virtually no evidence that the change in standards will result in significant health benefits and with no analysis of the costs and benefits.

Most experts agree that this proposal will essentially put Kansas City and St. Louis into "perpetual nonattainment" and likely quadruple the number of counties nationwide that could be thrown into nonattainment status -- that is, unable to meet the new requirements. The EPA proposal will require large numbers of mom-and-pop businesses to undergo the same type of regulatory oversight that large businesses have struggled with for years and cause the state to go back to the drawing board (and back to divergent constituent groups) to once again negotiate very difficult compliance regulations. Such a massive restructuring should be avoided unless dictated by sound science.

Missouri businesses support clean air and good science. Missouri businesses, local communities and environmental groups have worked closely with state officials to develop environmental legislation and regulations designed to carry out the Clean Air Act amendments. Real progress is being made to meet current standards. To move the target now and impose more regulatory burdens would destroy this progress and have an unnecessary deleterious impact on Missouri's economy. As noted by the Missouri Department of Economic Development at a public hearing last fall in St. Louis, countless businesses in the state will be affected by any change in the existing standards. Industry already in Missouri would be discouraged from expanding operations. New businesses would likely relocate elsewhere.

While virtually every business would be hit with new regulatory controls and record keeping, the greatest burden will be suffered not by large industry in Missouri industry (after all, the EPA can squeeze only so much juice from one orange), but by small businesses and by local communities that would be forced to implement mandatory employees car pooling, centralized emission inspections for cars and trucks, more expensive "reformulated" gasoline and other measures.

Nonattainment status would mean that farmers may be forced to increase the use of chemical herbicides. Construction companies would have to reduce the number of vehicles traveling on unpaved roads. Diesel-powered trucks may face strict controls or even bans in some parts of the country. Shopping centers and stadiums might be required to hand out literature on vehicle maintenance to reduce pollution. Families and motorists nationwide would be forced to change their lifestyles dramatically to cope with rules that would restrict driving and limit the use of lawn mowers, leaf blowers, barbecues, pleasure boats and recreational vehicles, and affect countless other everyday activities. In short, if the EPA's proposed standards are adopted, maintaining your current quality of life will be considerably more difficult and expensive.

It is incomprehensible that EPA would give final approval to these proposed standards at the exact time when both the St. Louis and Kansas City metropolitan areas are struggling to meet current federal standards.

The likely response of both communities (and the nation) would be to throw up their hands in despair and vigorously seek a political solution in the halls of Congress. Such acrimonious debate would further delay cleaning the nation's air. Moreover, the already battered credibility of the EPA would be further eroded. Because public credibility is vital to carrying out the mandates of the federal act and its important health standards, this would ultimately cause harm to environmental protection.

The Missouri Chamber of Commerce will be working with the Missouri Department of Natural Resources and others to better understand the public health and other scientific interests that surround the proposed federal standards. We will be working diligently to identify and support and environmental protection plan that promotes clean air in Missouri -- without compromising the state's economic interests.

It is important to note that the Department of Natural Resources, in testimony before the EPA, indicated that it is premature to severely tighten air standard without adequate health data on the need for such standards or sufficient scientific information on the atmospheric transport of ozone. With respect to fine particulate matter, the department noted that the EPA has yet to even determine a "reference method" for collecting and reporting this information.

The EPA's own scientific adviser, the Clean Air Science Advisory Committee, has recommended that the EPA proceed cautiously and improve the existing state knowledge before taking definitive action. While the Science Advisory Committee generally endorses tighter federal standards for these pollutants, it has emphasized the need for knowing more and for making regulatory programs match up with good science -- before taking potentially costly steps to further control ozone and fine particulate emissions.

With respect to fine particulate matter, the committee felt that there were many unanswered questions about the potential health effects of the proposed standards and noted that much more research is needed. This sentiment was echoed by the Senate committee responsible for approving EPA's budget when it allocated $19 million to study a particulate matter. According to Missouri Sen. Kit Bond, who chairs the committee, it is premature for the EPA to order such drastic changes in air regulations without conducting the necessary scientific review.

Although EPA is required to review the national standards every five years and, in fact, is responding to a lawsuit from the American Lung Association on the standards for fine particulate matter, the agency is NOT required to actually change the standards. Instead, we should stay the course and continue the progress already made with the current standards. EPA should not create such angst and anxiety by tightening the current air standards, unless and until it is clear that we must take further action to protect public health.

Roger Walker is the general counsel for the Missouri Chamber of Commerce in Jefferson City.