Agencies Divided On New Clean Air Standards White House Documents Show Epa Analysis Questioned
While the Clinton administration was considering a plan to tighten air-pollution controls, agencies complained about costs, questioned whether it would significantly improve health and worried aloud that it could force millions to change their lifestyles.
Internal documents obtained Friday by The Associated Press indicate concern at high levels of the administration that was only slightly less intense than the criticism from industry groups, members of Congress and state officials.
Concerns about various aspects of the EPA proposal were raised by the president’s Council of Economic Advisers, his science adviser, the Commerce, Treasury, Transportation and Agriculture departments and the Small Business Administration. Only the Interior Department gave an unequivocal green light.
Nevertheless, the costly plan, advanced by the Environmental Protection Agency, is expected to become final this summer. Its full impact is not likely to be felt for years.
The EPA argues that current federal health standards for smog-causing ozone and microscopic soot are inadequate to protect public health, especially for the elderly and those with respiratory illnesses, and that the latest science supports a tightening.
But the documents obtained by the AP show there was strong dissent within the administration as the EPA initiative was being developed last year.
The EPA issued a statement playing down the internal discord. “Major proposals such as this typically involve lively discussion … and diverse opinions,” said Loretta Ucelli, the EPA’s associate administrator for public affairs. “The diverse views were considered … and the decision was made to move forward.”
Much of the disagreement focused on the EPA’s aggressive timetable, its cost estimates and what some officials considered overly optimistic expectations on health benefits. White House Science Adviser John Gibbons, suggested the EPA could be moving too fast and that more time should be taken to shore up scientific support.
“I find it hard to believe that we would suffer more than we would gain by taking more time … for further interagency review, consensus building and additional analysis,” Gibbons wrote a week before the EPA announced its proposal last fall.
Frank Kruesi, an assistant secretary at the Transportation Department, said in a memo he considered it “incomprehensible” that the EPA would pursue the tougher soot standards “without much greater understanding of the problem and its solutions.”
He raised concern over the economic impact and about states being stripped of highway funds if they can’t comply and feared that new pollution curbs may “require lifestyle changes by a significant part of the population.”
Various industry groups had raised the “lifestyle changes” point earlier - saying the tougher standards could lead to banning barbecues, fireworks and power mowers. EPA Administrator Carol Browner had dismissed such fears as “nothing more than scare tactics.”
A senior White House economic adviser accused the EPA of understating expected costs because it assumes many cities would not be able to comply fully. This “understates the true costs of stricter standards by orders of magnitude,” wrote Alicia Munnell, a member of the president’s Council of Economic Advisers, in a memo in mid-December.
She also challenged the EPA’s health risk analysis, maintaining that benefits even to “sensitive populations are small” compared to costs her office estimated as possibly as high as $60 billion if all cities were to meet the new standards.