States granted control of emissions

• Article
• Comments ()
• Click-2-Listen
• Videos

By Tom Ramstack

A federal appeals court on Tuesday threw out a Bush administration policy that allowed only the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to monitor polluting industries, giving states broader authority over emissions control.

The ruling could affect more than 16,000 industrial polluters such as oil refineries, power plants and factories across the country and was hailed by environmentalists as a victory for those seeking tougher restrictions for soot, smog, mercury and other pollutants.

"Today's decision will give states back the tools they need to hold polluters accountable and help ensure that every one has clean, healthy air to breathe," said Carl Pope, executive director of the Sierra Club, an environmental group.

A three-judge panel of the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia ruled that an EPA regulation that blocked states from monitoring industry pollution "is contrary to the [Clean Air Act] statutory directive that each permit must include adequate monitoring requirements."

The panel's 2-1 decision in the case Sierra Club v. EPA gives states access to more information that could be used to prosecute polluters and marks the federal judiciary's latest rejection of EPA policies.

EPA officials expressed surprise at the ruling, saying they did not know they were violating the Clean Air Act.

"When we issue our rules, we believe they fit within the applicable statutory framework," EPA spokesman Timothy Lyons said.

The 1990 amendments to the Clean Air Act require industries that emit air pollution from stationary sources to obtain "Title V" operating permits from state and local authorities. The permits describe emission limits and require monitoring to "assure compliance with the permit terms and conditions."

Several states tried to monitor the industries' pollution by themselves but always ran afoul of the EPA's authority under the Bush administration rule.

Mr. Lyons said he was uncertain how the EPA would respond to the court decision.