THE VIRGINIAN-PILOT
Copyright (c) 1994, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: SUNDAY, June 26, 1994 TAG: 9406240032
SECTION: COMMENTARY PAGE: J4 EDITION: FINAL
SOURCE: Long
DATELINE: 940626 LENGTH:
Kostmayer has threatened to ``disapprove'' Virginia's program governing operating permits for stationary pollution sources, partly on technical grounds, but mostly, it would seem, out of sheer bureaucratic spite. Acting on a petition from the Environmental Defense Fund, the EPA raises several objections to plans submitted last year by the Wilder administration. Kostmayer took this action without even directly informing Virginia officials; instead, he simply published a notice in the Federal Register.
{REST} On the purely technical matters, Secretary of Natural Resources Becky Norton Dunlop says the Allen administration quickly will submit regulatory revisions. But on two particulars the administration should stand firm.
Kostmayer complains that the Virginia Air Pollution Control Board has set permit fees at levels that only cover direct permit costs, not the indirect costs of the whole enforcement regime. This is a matter of Virginia law and policy. If the government of Virginia wishes to collect a user fee that only the direct costs of Clean Air permits, that is its right.
Another EPA objection is far more pernicious. Under Virginia law, only those parties having an ``immediate, pecuniary and substantial interest'' in a given emissions permit would have legal standing to challenge it in court. In other words, someone living near a chemical plant could bring a case, but the Environmental Defense Fund's legal paratroopers could not.
The EPA demands that anyone who has ``participated in the public-comment process'' for clean-air regulations should have standing to sue. This, of course, would roll out the welcome wagon for green ambulance chasers and bury permits in endless lawsuits.
The Clean Air Act gives states some leeway on the matter of standing. The Wilder administration chose a sensible course in putting reasonable restrictions on who may challenge emissions permits in court. Dunlop says she's sticking to her guns on this one, and she's armed with a legal opinion on the subject from former Democratic Attorney General Mary Sue Terry.
Kostmayer's regional EPA office quite obviously is taking the most aggressive regulatory stance possible on clean-air matters. First, he demanded centralized auto-emissions inspections for some parts of the commonwealth. Now he's after Hampton Roads Virginia's manufacturing base. Contrary to the EPA's view, the Clean Air Act does leave some leeway to the states in how they go about implementing its (ultimately destructive and wholly unnecessary) edicts.
Considering the potential costs in federal lucre, the Allen administration's refusal to knuckle under to Kostmayer's ukases is courageous. But it is absolutely correct. Unlike Kostmayer, Virginians actually have to live with the consequences of clean-air regulations. The governor and Dunlop should just keep tossing Kostmayer's regulatory grenades back at him.
The Environmental Protection Agency's harassment of Virginia for its reasoned approach to Clean Air Act implementation provides an ongoing demonstration of a power-hungry bureaucracy at work. EPA Regional Administrator Peter Kostmayer has lobbed another grenade at Richmond, this time regarding Virginia's proposed regulatory treatment of major stationary pollution sources, such as manufacturing plants.
Kostmayer has threatened to ``disapprove'' Virginia's program governing operating permits for stationary pollution sources, partly on technical grounds, but mostly, it would seem, out of sheer bureaucratic spite. Acting on a petition from the Environmental Defense Fund, the EPA raises several objections to plans submitted last year by the Wilder administration. Kostmayer took this action without even directly informing Virginia officials; instead, he simply published a notice in the Federal Register.
On the purely technical matters, Secretary of Natural Resources Becky Norton Dunlop says the Allen administration quickly will submit regulatory revisions. But on two particulars the administration should stand firm.
Kostmayer complains that the Virginia Air Pollution Control Board has set permit fees at levels that only cover direct permit costs, not the indirect costs of the whole enforcement regime. This is a matter of Virginia law and policy. If the government of Virginia wishes to collect a user fee that covers only the direct costs of Clean Air permits, that is its right.
Another EPA objection is far more pernicious. Under Virginia law, only those parties having an ``immediate, pecuniary and substantial interest'' in a given emissions permit would have legal standing to challenge it in court. In other words, someone living near a chemical plant could bring a case, but the Environmental Defense Fund's legal paratroopers could not.
The EPA demands that anyone who has ``participated in the public-comment process'' for clean-air regulations should have standing to sue. This, of course, would roll out the welcome wagon for green ambulance chasers and bury permits in endless lawsuits.
The Clean Air Act gives states some leeway on the matter of standing. The Wilder administration chose a sensible course in putting reasonable restrictions on who may challenge emissions permits in court. Dunlop says she's sticking to her guns on this one, and she's armed with a legal opinion on the subject from former Democratic Attorney General Mary Sue Terry.
Kostmayer's regional EPA office quite obviously is taking the most aggressive regulatory stance possible on clean-air matters. First, he demanded centralized auto-emissions inspections for some parts of the commonwealth. Now he's after Hampton Roads Virginia's manufacturing base. Contrary to the EPA's view, the Clean Air Act does leave some leeway to the states in how they go about implementing its (ultimately destructive and wholly unnecessary) edicts.
Considering the potential costs in federal lucre, the Allen administration's refusal to knuckle under to Kostmayer's ukases is courageous. But it is absolutely correct. Unlike Kostmayer, Virginians actually have to live with the consequences of clean-air regulations. The governor and Dunlop should just keep tossing Kostmayer's regulatory grenades back at him. by CNB