U.S. Court Upholds Pollution Standards

Whitman Says EPA Will Support New Air Quality Rules

A federal appeals court yesterday upheld the most stringent air pollution control standards in the nation's history, providing a victory for environmentalists and public health advocates and perhaps clearing the way for the five-year-old rules to finally be implemented.

In a 3 to 0 decision, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit ruled that the Environmental Protection Agency did not exceed its authority in issuing new guidelines for ozone levels and particle emissions in a 1997 set of additions to the Clean Air Act. The panel further affirmed that the new standards are neither arbitrary nor unreasonable.

The revised protocols must now be implemented by a Bush administration that has questioned some of the tough environmental standards proposed by the Clinton administration.

EPA Administrator Christine Todd Whitman said her agency will support the new regulations. "This was one that we vigorously defended. The Office of General Counsel was relentless in its pursuit of this. We had sound science behind this rule. This was a vindication of our efforts to protect Americans from health problems from the air," Whitman said in an interview yesterday.

The standards were the cornerstone of the Clinton administration's environmental policy and sought to force states and industry to cut down on emissions that a growing body of medical research has shown to be harmful to health and living standards, particularly for asthmatics and small children.

But under legal challenges from major industries, the policy evolved into a complex Supreme Court case that reviewed everything from the constitutional rights of the EPA to set standards, to the huge cost such measures might impose on states and industries.

The Supreme Court voted 9 to 0 last year to reverse an earlier D.C. Circuit opinion that held that the EPA had overstepped its regulatory authority, and it then remanded the remaining issues back to the D.C. court. The court's decision yesterday emphatically cleared up those questions in favor of the EPA.

"This is a clear validation of the process and the science we used to set the toughest air pollution standards ever," former EPA administrator Carol M. Browner said. "Now it's time for the country, the states, industry and the new administration to meet those standards."

Industry officials said they were disappointed but not surprised by the ruling. They said they hope that the Bush administration will take a less intrusive approach to air regulation and that Congress will ultimately reject the new standards.

"EPA tends to overstate health concerns," said Dan Riedinger, a spokesman for the Edison Electric Institute. "These standards go further than they need to protect public health."

The Clinton administration made the arcane science of particles per million into a stark health issue, citing research showing that the new soot standards would prevent 15,000 premature deaths and 250,000 aggravated asthma cases each year. It also said the tougher ozone rules would protect 50 million Americans from the adverse effects of smog. More recent medical journal studies have seemed to validate those concerns, linking the pollutants to increased risk of asthma in children, higher rates of birth defects and increased hospital admissions among the elderly. The Journal of the American Medical Association reported on March 6 that prolonged exposure to tiny particles in the air significantly raises the risks of lung cancer.

"This is a huge victory for breathers," said Frank O'Donnell, executive director of the nonprofit Clean Air Trust. "Industry has spent tens of millions of dollars delaying these standards for five years. Now the EPA has no excuse not to enforce them."

The next step for the EPA is to designate the places that do not meet the new standards. Then it can start requiring states to submit plans detailing how they will get into compliance. They could, for example, require coal-fired power plants to install scrubbers or force construction companies to use cleaner diesel fuel in bulldozers.

But implementing the changes may be the key. The District, for instance, is not in compliance with many of the EPA's existing standards, much less the new ones. Virginia was one of several states to file court briefs in support of industry's attempts to reject the changes. And Maryland regulated its industrial pollution permits so poorly that the EPA stripped the state of its licensing authority last year.

The new standards require strict monitoring of fine particles, commonly referred to as smog, and ozone levels. Particles 2.5 micrometers in diameter, usually pushed into the air by vehicle engines, power plants and wood fires, must be limited to an annual primary standard of 15 microns per cubic meter.

The EPA has also set the ozone limits at a mere 85 parts per billion, far lower than the levels in many cities, including the District, Houston, Los Angeles and Atlanta.

Preliminary data suggest that the new soot rules will have the toughest bite along the eastern seaboard, as well as in Ohio, Georgia and other areas that burn coal.

Myron Ebell, director of international environmental policy for the anti-regulation Competitive Enterprise Institute, disputed the recent flurry of medical journal reports, predicting that they will be revised as new science emerges.

"This is just phony," Ebell said. "Clearly, there needs to be some improvement in air quality. But this is just way too draconian."

Environmentalists and public health advocates said it is now up to the Bush administration to implement and enforce the strict new standards. The Bush administration has raised questions about Democratic approaches to clean-air regulation, and is reviewing the Clinton administration's efforts to require expensive pollution controls at many coal-fired power plants. A top EPA career official recently resigned in protest, saying the administration has backed away from enforcement actions against clean-air violators.

"Even though we won in court, a lot of us are very skeptical about when or if we'll see new standards implemented," said Glen Besa, director of the Virginia chapter of the Sierra Club.