EPA: Ruling won’t slow pollution rules

Tuesday, Sept. 4, 2001 | 10:39 a.m.

An appeals court decision that upheld a challenge to local air pollution control measures probably won't have a significant impact on those rules, federal Environmental Protection Agency officials say.

Judge Richard A. Paez of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, based in San Francisco, ruled last week that the EPA erred in approving local rules governing the review of new pollution sources. Clark County Air Quality Management Department and EPA staffers said Wednesday that they could not comment on the potential scope of the decision.

Friday, however, they said the decision appeared to be technical and limited in impact. Both the federal and local agencies are skittish about anything that would affect approval of two mandated air pollution plans for the Las Vegas Valley.

Without those approvals, Southern Nevada faces the loss of millions of dollars in federal funding as well as the prospect of federal intervention in local land-use and transportation planning decisions. The region has two plans under EPA review: one to control carbon monoxide, the other for fine dust.

Jeff Wehling, EPA assistant regional counsel, said the court's decision requires the EPA to do a more thorough analysis of Clark County's rules on reviewing new pollution sources. But that shouldn't be difficult, because most of the information his agency needs is included in the two plans it is now reviewing, he said.

"We're just about to act on the bigger county plans. Actually the timing is good to look again at the new source review plan," Wehling said.

The EPA is likely to approve those rules, he said, adding that the timeline of the approval process probably won't be substantially affected by the court-ordered analysis.

"It's not a big deal from a timing perspective," Wehling said.

Local air quality management officials said they were waiting for the EPA's nod before commenting, but the federal agency's perspective agrees with theirs.

"Of course that's good news," Air Quality Director Christine Robinson said. "We believe, as we believed prior to the decision, that our (local pollution control plans) are approvable and ought to be approved."

That includes the rules governing new pollution sources, she said.

One person, however, strongly disagrees with the federal and local analysis: Robert Hall, the man who filed the suit.

"That's just disinformation," Hall said. "It vacated their most important regulations."

He said the rules will have to be completely rewritten, going back to 1987. Hall said an EPA review will find that the rules before 1987 were more stringent than the ones in place now, and the federal agency cannot allow a relaxation of rules when the area is not in attainment of federal Clean Air Act health standards.

"The effect is absolutely devastating," Hall said.

Hall, who has filed numerous lawsuits against federal, state and local governments on air pollution issues, said he is motivated by a search for clean air for him and his family.