Are State’s EPA Rules Too Costly? : Environment: A cost-benefit study is planned on California regulations, many of which are the bane of business groups.

The California Environmental Protection Agency will fund a cost-benefit study of the state’s web of environmental rules, which in recent years have come under heavy fire from business groups.

The review is one of several to be undertaken by the agency, according to James M. Strock, secretary for environmental protection. Other studies will assess the five-year performance of Proposition 65, which sets toxics standards, as well as the entire state toxics regulatory program.

In January, Strock revealed plans to open regional Cal-EPA offices, where businesses could more easily satisfy virtually all state environmental requirements.

The cost-benefit study is “just a gleam in the eye, but it must be done,” Strock said after a speech to a UC Davis environmental law conference in which he announced the study and other agency goals for 1992. He said he plans to confer with Rand Corp., the Los Angeles think tank, in the “next month or two” and to seek bids for the study soon after.

California business leaders have long complained that the state’s sometimes cutting-edge environmental rules hurt its economic climate.

In his speech, Strock said a cost-benefit study could reveal a positive side to the rules. He cited the Economist, the respected British financial newspaper, and other foreign observers that forecast long-range economic advantage for California because of its high standards and the environmental service firms and technology they are fostering.

“We should consider marketing California’s high standards in a positive way,” he said.

William George, a spokesman for the California Manufacturers Assn., welcomed the idea.

“No one’s saying let’s roll back regulations,” George said Monday. “But let’s at least look at the reality that if you put in a regulation, there’s an impact on individual companies as well as the overall economy.”