LV won’t curtail pollution control efforts

Monday, May 17, 1999 | 11:36 a.m.

A court decision that scraps new air pollution rules won't affect Clark County's efforts -- or its need -- to clean up air in the Las Vegas Valley, local officials say.

But environmental lawyers worry that it could severely limit government attempts to toughen environmental laws.

The new rules were finalized by the Environmental Protection Agency in 1997 after heated debate inside the Clinton administration.

The rules ordered states to:

* Cut back on the amount of ozone, a key ingredient of smog, in the air.

* Enforce stricter limits on airborne particles, or dust.

States were to meet the standards by 2003. An EPA official said the agency will tell the states to continue planning to meet the new limits.

In Friday's ruling the U.S. Court of Appeals in Washington said the EPA had failed to explain why it was allowing any dangerous ozone in the air at all. It ordered the EPA to reassess the rule on ozone.

The court threw out the particle rule entirely, saying parts of it were "arbitrary and capricious."

The EPA says it is likely to appeal the decision.

Clark County Assistant Planner Russell Roberts said Southern Nevada efforts will continue to control carbon monoxide and dust despite the court decision.

"It doesn't change anything for us," Roberts said. "We know those pollutants contribute to regional haze and we will have to deal with both of them."

The Las Vegas Valley was breaking earlier clean air rules for carbon monoxide and particulate matter before the 1997 amendments, Roberts said. Under the rules the court tossed out, Southern Nevada also would violate the ozone standard. Ozone is a chemical that triggers brown summer haze.

Even if Clark County no longer had to meet federal rules, local governments can set stricter standards than those spelled out by the federal government, Health District Air Pollution Control Director Michael Naylor said. The Health District intends to pursue stricter standards, he said.

Congress gave the EPA the power to set pollution rules in the 1970s, ordering the agency to set limits that "protect the public health."

In setting the limits in 1997, the EPA decided to allow a small but risky amount of pollution to remain in the air. Because it allowed any ozone in the air, the court ruled that the agency didn't "protect the public health" as Congress ordered. More important, the court said the EPA didn't explain its reasoning behind the limits it set.

The court also cited Congress as part of the problem. It criticized lawmakers for writing an overly broad law and for giving the EPA too much power over pollution rules, said Tim Malloy, professor of environmental law at the University of California, Los Angeles.

Industry lawyers, including the American Trucking Assoc., were pleased with the ruling, but environmental lawyers were concerned.

The court's ruling, Malloy said, could have far-reaching implications: "If that becomes the standard, it's going to be very difficult for the EPA to do anything, because most (environmental laws) are even more vague" than the section of the Clean Air Act on which the court ruled.

Gail Rudeman Feuer, a senior lawyer at the Natural Resources Defense Council, agreed. "This decision is saying EPA has very limited powers to protect public health," she said.

Ruderman Feuer says the EPA did justify its rules. "EPA went through an enormous amount of analysis in setting up the standards and the court is saying it isn't enough," she says.

USA TODAY reporter Traci Watson contributed to this report.