EPA Chief Defends Relaxation of Smog-Cleanup Deadline

Environmental Protection Agency chief Lee M. Thomas formally unveiled Tuesday his plan to put off air-standard deadlines for up to 25 years in Los Angeles and other smog-plagued cities and defended the proposal against environmentalists’ attacks that it is a surrender in the fight against air pollution.

“I am suggesting that we recognize that in some cities (smog) is a long-term problem. We’ve worked on it for 17 years and it may take that much longer” to make the air healthy, Thomas said at a press conference.

The official announcement of the EPA’s plan is a major step in the battle in Congress over revision of the Clean Air Act, which provides for the air standards, and is the Reagan Administration’s first clear public statement of its position on the issue.

The Administration is seeking to change the law to avoid sanctions against 60 cities, including Los Angeles, that do not meet air-quality standards that are effective at the end of this year, and to provide more time for compliance. The sanctions would also apply to other cities in the South Coast Air Basin that includes Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside and San Bernardino counties.

The EPA plan also hopes to shift more responsibility for air quality from the federal government to state and local governments.

Environmentalists are pushing to maintain tight deadlines to keep the pressure on cities, and want a more active federal role to enforce standards.

The EPA’s action, which would remove the threat of sanctions against all cities for at least five years, would relax the current standards administratively while the foes of the strict standards work for a new law. Environmentalists and some members of Congress have vowed that they will not back off the deadlines without a fight.

“What they’re saying is that old people and children, who are most sensitive to air pollution, will have to wait until the second decade of the next century and hope the air will be breathable then,” said Rep. Henry A. Waxman (D-Los Angeles).

Vermont Sen. Robert T. Stafford, the senior Republican on the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, charged that the EPA’s plan “is not only undesirable, but illegal”--taking greater latitude with air quality requirements than the law allows.

Stafford and Sen. George J. Mitchell (D-Me.), chairman of the committee’s environmental protection subcommittee, have authored a major revision of the Clean Air Act that would toughen smog controls as well as adopt new measures to combat acid rain in the Northeast. The proposal could come to the full Senate early next year.

Waxman has been working on a similar bill in the House. It has been stalled by opposition from major industries, which claim that it would be too costly.

Because Congress so far has been unable to act on revisions in clean-air standards, legislators are likely to extend the current law’s deadlines for at least eight months. Legislation to extend the deadline could be voted on later this week in the House.

But the EPA plan would go much further. It would eliminate the current nationwide deadline and replace it with a rule requiring all parts of the country to make “reasonable efforts” to reduce pollution by an average of 3% each year.

For ozone, that annual 3% reduction would not bring the Los Angeles region’s air into compliance with health standards for 20 to 25 years, Thomas acknowledged Tuesday. In San Diego, where smog levels also are high, EPA officials estimate that about 20 years of steady reductions would be needed to meet health standards.

Environmentalists agree that the Los Angeles region cannot meet the current deadlines for either ozone or carbon monoxide, a second major pollutant covered by the new EPA policy. Waxman’s proposed legislation, for example, would give the Los Angeles area 10 years to meet health standards.

The environmentalists argue that EPA’s plan would allow cities to avoid serious efforts to clean up their air. “A 25-year extension isn’t a guide to policy, it’s a license to forget about the problem,” said Richard Ayres, chairman of the National Clean Air Coalition.

Ayres also took issue with Thomas’ proposal to leave the measures to reduce air pollution largely up to cities and states.

Thomas said that local governments should have the latitude to limit traffic or take other steps to curtail emissions. However, environmentalists are calling for such nationwide action as requiring manufacturers to produce automobiles that have fewer emissions or that burn cleaner alternative fuels.

While the EPA’s policy would largely eliminate the threat of federal sanctions for the near future, 14 regions in the country--six of them in California--that have particularly serious ozone problems will continue to face one sanction, a largely symbolic federal ban on construction of large new factories or other major pollution sources, Thomas said.

Under a recent decision by a federal appeals court in California, the EPA will be required to impose a construction ban in the four-county South Coast Air Quality Management District by the end of the year, Thomas said.

Construction bans are likely to be imposed on other areas, including Ventura, Sacramento, Kern and Fresno counties, next year. But because state clean-air rules already are more restrictive than the federal ban would be, the bans are not expected to have a major impact.

WORST OZONE READINGS

Ozone levels of more than 0.12 parts per million for more than one hour exceed the EPA’s air pollution limits. This survey covers ozone levels over a three-year period, 1984-86. Areas are allowed to throw out three readings--one for each year--that exceed the standard. Thus, the fourth-highest-hour concentration is the benchmark figure.

Rank Area Affected A B 1. Los Angeles 0.35 154 2. San Diego 0.22 11 3. Houston 0.20 19 4. New York 0.20 19 5. Connecticut* 0.18 14 6. Providence, R.I. 0.18 9 7. Sacramento 0.18 9 8. Philadelphia 0.17 7 9. Atlantic City, N.J. 0.17 5 10. Chicago 0.17 5

Column A shows the fourth-highest-hour reading.

Column B shows the average annual number of days when ozone levels exceeded the federal standard.

* Several areas affected.

Source: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency