Roanoke Times
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: TUESDAY, January 10, 1995 TAG: 9501100064
SECTION: VIRGINIA PAGE: C-1 EDITION: METRO
SOURCE: CATHRYN McCUE AND DAVID M. POOLE STAFF WRITERS
DATELINE: RICHMOND LENGTH: Medium
The lawsuit aims at an EPA threat to withhold about $1 billion in highway funds if Virginia does not bring its air pollution program into compliance. It also seeks to break a deadlock over testing vehicle emissions in Northern Virginia.
"This is a further effort on the part of Virginia's government to stand up for the rights and prerogatives of the people of Virginia," Allen said.
Environmentalists called it a big gamble in which Virginia might lose the transportation money, control of its air permitting program - and industrial prospects.
"Businesses want a stable situation where they know what to expect," said Kay Slaughter, a lawyer with the Southern Environmental Law Center in Charlottesville.
"Instead of moving forward to comply with the law, [Allen and Virginia Attorney General Jim Gilmore] are putting all their eggs in one basket of going to court to overturn the law," said Slaughter, who predicted a long battle that might end up in U.S. Supreme Court.
The state is raising a constitutional challenge to the federal government's right to punish states into compliance with federal law.
Under the Clean Air Act amendments of 1990, states must set up a program to give operating permits to existing industries. The purpose is to combine multiple air regulations and permits into one operating permit for each facility, making it easier to monitor pollution.
Last month, the EPA rejected Virginia's proposal - the first and apparently only state program to be rejected, according to David Campbell, environmental engineer with EPA Region III in Philadelphia.
Virginia has brought its air program into compliance, except for allowing more citizens - including property owners, local governments and private companies downwind from pollution sources - "standing," the right to sue the state over air pollution permits.
Virginia's 1993 law limits standing to those who can show a financial, substantial and immediate interest in the permit. Environmental groups have challenged that law, saying it violates the Clean Air Act. "Average citizens aren't allowed to have much say in their own clean air program," Slaughter said.
Monday, Allen said federal rules are so broad that a factory planned for Tidewater could be put on ice by someone living in far Southwest Virginia.
Monday's lawsuit could hamper the state's economic development in two ways.
Sanctions for noncompliance kick in next year and include - in addition to suspension of road funds - a "two-for-one" offset program, which basically restricts growth, Campbell said. New or expanding industries would have to reduce twice as much existing pollution for each pound of new pollution they produce.
But the "real gorilla in the closet," Campbell said, is a November deadline for Virginia to have an approved air program, or else the EPA will step in and set up its own.
An estimated 600 businesses in Virginia would have to deal with federal regulators, travel to Philadelphia, and face higher costs and longer delays, Campbell said. "From a business standpoint, I'd rather deal with the state people that I've been dealing with for 20 years rather than a green EPA guy," he said.
Ted Handel, vice president for ETS Inc., an environmental consulting firm in Roanoke, agrees.
"To have it managed out of Philadelphia is not in our best interest," Handel said. Federal regulators aren't likely to deal with individual businesses "in a caring way."
Handel said most of his clients don't see citizens' involvement as a threat. While some companies may have trouble paying to update old factories, and others may have "skeletons in the closet," Handel said, "If a [company] does a good job, it shouldn't be afraid of the public."
Allen and Gilmore also sued EPA over vehicle emission testing, even though EPA Administrator Carol Browner said she is willing to back away from her insistence that vehicles be tested and repaired at separate service stations.
by CNB