Proposed Clear Air Rules Draw Criticism : Environment: Federal officials are charged with trying to gut the landmark law. The Administration says the plan gives businesses ‘flexibility.’

The Administration’s first major proposals to implement the new Clean Air Act became embroiled in controversy within hours of their release Wednesday, with environmentalists charging that the White House was trying to gut the landmark legislation passed last year.

“The long knives were out at the White House,” charged David Hawkins of the Washington-based Natural Resources Defense Council. “These proposals would basically gut 20 years of enforcement of clean air legislation and would make the major provisions of the new act virtually unenforceable,” he said. “The environmental community is outraged.”

At issue is a lengthy set of proposed rules issued by the Environmental Protection Agency for the air pollution permit system that is the regulatory centerpiece of the Clean Air Act of 1990.

The rules are meant to help states enforce compliance with the legislation’s complex requirements. They would oblige all “major sources” of air pollution across the country to obtain operating permits from state authorities that specify their obligations under the Clean Air Act and set limits on the amount of pollutants they are allowed to emit.

The rule generally would apply only to heavy industries generating large amounts of pollution. But depending on the location of the industry and pollutant being emitted, smaller enterprises also could be affected. For instance, in most parts of the country a factory emitting chemicals known as volatile organic compounds, referred to by regulators as VOCs, would be considered a “major source” only if the factory released more than 100 tons of VOCs into the air every year. In the Los Angeles area, however, any source emitting more than 10 tons of VOCs a year would be classified as a “major” polluter.

While many states including California already have their own permit systems, the EPA proposal would standardize this regulatory mechanism and theoretically make it easier to enforce by bringing other states into line. It also would oblige polluters to pay for state enforcement programs by levying a fee of $25 for every ton of pollutant they emit up to a maximum of $100,000 annually. EPA officials calculate that the levy will raise about $300 million a year for state pollution programs. Roughly 34,000 sources are affected by the ruling.

Although hailed by EPA as an “innovative” approach to meeting the Clean Air Act’s goal of removing 30 million tons of pollution from the nation’s air, the rules issued Wednesday for 60 days of public comment also contained a loophole that environmentalists and legislators charged will undermine the whole system. Rather than reducing pollution, they said, the rules may actually increase it.

Inserted by the White House over EPA’s initial objections, the controversial provision under certain conditions would allow a polluter to increase his emissions without applying for a new permit, provided state officials fail to veto the increase within seven days of receiving written notice of intent.

Administration officials defended the proposal as necessary to give businesses the “flexibility” to make minor changes in their operations without going through the reams of red tape involved in applying for a permit revision.

However, Rep. Henry A. Waxman (D-Los Angeles)--one of the principle architects of the Clean Air Act revisions last year--charged that the proposal instead would open “a massive loophole that will undermine efforts to implement all programs” under the legislation.

“Under the guise of ‘flexibility,’ pollution sources would be allowed to increase their pollution levels by any amount--double, triple, a hundred fold--once the source initially receives a permit,” Waxman said.