Clean Air Accord Assailed as Being Weak on Controls

State and local environmental officials on Monday attacked a recent compromise on clean air legislation, charging that the White House-Senate accord is not strong enough to ensure healthy air and in some cases would weaken existing law.

As the Senate opened debate on the landmark agreement between the Bush Administration and a bipartisan Senate coalition, the environmental officials said they would fight for a series of amendments that would tighten controls on tailpipe emissions and industrial sources of pollution.

Spokesmen for organizations representing pollution controllers in more than 250 cities, states and territories said they were joining forces with environmental groups that already had announced plans to battle for changes in the legislation, including much stronger regulation of cars and trucks.

But Sen. Frank R. Lautenberg (D-N.J.), a critic of the compromise, conceded that he and his allies were badly outnumbered and that the chances for making major changes in the new Senate bill now appeared slight.

“I think we can change the equation somewhat,” Lautenberg said at a news conference. “I am hopeful but not optimistic.”

Senate Majority Leader George J. Mitchell (D-Me.), a major architect of the compromise who has vowed to resist all amendments, told reporters that it was “the best bill that can pass the Senate.”

The House is considering similar legislation but its measure has been bottled up in committee for months, awaiting Senate action.

The compromise plan came under heavy fire from James M. Lents, executive officer of the South Coast Air Quality Management District in Los Angeles. Lents also is president of the 220-member Assn. of Local Air Pollution Control Officials.

“This proposed compromise is a bad deal for the American people,” Lents said. “It compromises public health. . . . It even compromises the past by gutting key provisions of the existing Clean Air Act (and) creates loopholes through which states can take a dive on cleanup efforts.”

Lents said that the agreement would eliminate the Environmental Protection Agency’s duty to adopt a comprehensive federal implementation plan if a state failed to adopt sufficiently strong measures to achieve air quality standards.

He also criticized provisions of the compromise that would allow local areas to obtain waivers for compliance with standards if control measures were not considered to be cost-effective.

“These loopholes will encourage procrastination and divide the nation,” he said. “They are designed, whether by purpose or chance, to force local elected officials to make an either-or choice between jobs and public health. . . . States seeking economic development will be openly bidding for industrial growth based upon who does less to clean up the air.”

Bradley Beckham, spokesman for the State and Territorial Air Pollution Program Administrators, said that the compromise is too lenient on motor vehicle pollution, which accounts for 90% of carbon monoxide and half of all nitrogen and carbon dioxide in the air.

“The gains that we made in the past will fall by the wayside,” Beckham said.

A number of senators, including Pete Wilson (R-Calif.) and Alan Cranston (D-Calif.), are planning to offer a series of amendments to the compromise. The Senate will begin considering amendments today.