U.S. Plan to Clean State’s Air Criticized : Pollution: Wilson Administration calls EPA proposals a threat to economic recovery.

In its first detailed response to the federal government’s clean air plan for California, the Wilson Administration argues that the costly and comprehensive smog abatement strategy would threaten economic recovery, place California at a competitive disadvantage and flout the intent of the 1990 federal Clean Air Act.

Proposed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the sweeping federal plan contains about 100 clean-air measures aimed at virtually every source of pollution. It triggered a storm of protest from a variety of industries and trade groups.

Airline officials, for instance, said that the proposed rules would force a 40% to 60% reduction in flights into the Los Angeles region’s five airports. Representatives of the trucking, railroad and shipping industries predicted similarly dire consequences after the plan was unveiled last February.

Reflecting many of those concerns, the Wilson Administration’s response took issue with the emission control strategies for cars, diesel-powered trucks, off-road vehicles, ships, planes, motorcycles and recreational vehicles as well as pesticides and certain stationary pollution sources.

Issued by James Strock, the state’s secretary of environmental protection, the critique maintains that the proposed federal standard for controlling diesel emissions is well beyond the reach of current technology. It contends that a system of emission-based fees, to be paid by ships docking at local ports, will result not in a conversion to cleaner burning fuels but in the shipping industry’s shifting “away from Southern California to other states and to Mexico.”

Similarly, Strock argues that proposed commercial aviation fees amounting to $10,000 per ton for excess emissions “will result in an economic penalty in California for commercial airport operations.” Aircraft engine exhaust contributes to smog in two ways, through emissions of hydrocarbons and nitrogen oxides. The latest technology, according to Strock’s critique, decreases hydrocarbon production but makes little or no change in the release of nitrogen oxides.

The state argues repeatedly that instead of issuing a plan directed solely at California, the EPA should be promulgating national standards. For example, on the issue of commercial aircraft, the state maintains that “a national engine standard is the only effective way to motivate change and create a sufficient market for low-emissions engines.”

The state also contends that the federal plan sets such unreasonable limits on toxic ingredients in pesticides that many “low-risk” products, for which there are no substitutes, would be banned.

The federal plan was prompted by a lawsuit, brought by several local environmental groups, charging both the state and federal governments with failing to comply with the 1977 Clean Air Act. The state contends that the EPA would have grounds to draw up its own plan only if the state fails to meet a November deadline set by the 1990 Clean Air Act.

Meanwhile, federal officials point out that they have been discussing ways of moderating the plan in meetings with a variety of industry representatives.

Responding to the state’s critique, EPA regional administrator Felicia Marcus said, “That’s exactly what we want. We have invited everybody to help us out, to tell us how we should improve the plan in case we do have to implement it.” That would happen, Marcus said, only if the state’s plan proved inadequate.