Industry, environmentalists spar over pollution rules

Friday, 03/14/03
Industry, environmentalists spar over pollution rules

By ANNE PAINE
Staff Writer

Tennessee should immediately adopt a new air-pollution rule that the Bush administration issued last New Year's Eve, a representative of environmentally regulated industries told the state's air quality control board yesterday.

Environmental groups, lined up on the other side of the issue, said that the change would mean dirtier air for Tennessee and that the state should take its time considering it.

Changes to the "new source review" rule would give facilities that make changes to their operations more flexibility in determining whether they need to upgrade air pollution controls. Fourteen states are suing the EPA over the rule change.

"EPA has not done the necessary analysis to show us what the impact of these weakened rules would be to the citizens of Tennessee and the Great Smoky Mountains National Park," said John Walke, attorney and director of the Natural Resources Defense Council's clean-air programs.

"The rules Tennessee has on the books are far more protective and need to be maintained in order to ensure citizens clean, healthy air."

The Tennessee Environmental Council, American Lung Association of Tennessee, Southern Alliance for Clean Energy and National Parks Conservation Association take the same stance.

William R. Miller III, representing the Tennessee Chamber of Commerce and Industry, disagreed. He said the air would be cleaner. The rule as it has existed has grown too complex and burdensome, he said.

The program offers much-needed incentives for companies to reduce pollution, he said. He said he has seen the old rule bog down an industry when he worked previously for Saturn.

"Tennessee needs to incorporate these rules now," said Miller, General Motors manager of regulatory/legislative affairs in Spring Hill. "This is an important step forward."

Others adopting the rule will be more attractive to industry, leaving Tennessee behind economically, he said. The state has three years to decide whether to adopt the EPA's rule, keep its own or create a new one. The latter two options would require EPA approval. The agency would require more stringent rules for anything other than its version, which it says is the minimum to meet the Clean Air Act.

A representative of state and local air pollution control officials urged caution.

"There is absolutely, positively no reason for you to adopt the EPA program in toto," said S. William Becker, executive director of the State and Territorial Air Pollution Program Administrators and the Association of Local Air Pollution Control Officials of Washington, D.C. "You should work as states around the country to take EPA's rule and make it good for Tennessee."

Becker's group is drafting a "model rule" that states could adapt to their own circumstances.

Richard Bolton, vice chairman of the state air quality control board, said he foresees no rush to judgment. "We've got a lot of options," said Bolton, who represents the Tennessee Chamber of Commerce and Industry on the board. "This is just a start."