Blackwell backs proposals to ease environment rules

Columbus - Ohio's top environmental regulator warns that business-friendly legislation supported by gubernatorial candidate Ken Blackwell would endanger the environment and public health, including by subjecting the state's water systems to threats of terrorism.

Ohio Environmental Protection Agency Director Joe Koncelik raised those concerns in a letter he sent to the sponsors of companion bills in the House and Senate. The bills would require that state environmental laws be no more stringent than their federal counterparts.

Blackwell has endorsed the legislation and made it a pillar of his plan to revive Ohio's stagnant economy. In campaign speeches, he has said he wants to "stop putting risk-taking at risk" and to establish "regulatory predictability" - uniform state and federal environmental rules and cost-effectiveness standards ensuring that the cost of complying with a regulation doesn't exceed its benefit.

In an interview, Koncelik noted that Ohio has the nation's seventh-largest state population, has 11 million registered vehicles and has a manufacturing-based economy that ranks third in manufacturing output.

"Those factors all combine to create levels of air pollution and water-quality challenges that translate into the complexities that we see in our environmental regulations," he said. "I don't believe that we have an unfavorable climate toward business development as it relates to environmental regulations. Do we have a complex set of regulations? We do, but I think that's directly attributable to the nature of the state that we have."

Pollution indexes show that 10 Ohio counties rank among the top 100 in the nation for toxic chemical releases. Five counties rank among the top 25 in long-term particle pollution, and three of the state's metropolitan areas rank among the top 25 in ozone pollution.

Those statistics, spokesmen for environmental groups say, demonstrate why Ohio needs to have the ability to exceed federal regulations.

At the other end of the business-vs.-the environment debate are studies that Blackwell says prove Ohio's environmental policies are anti-business and anti-job creation.

One study, by the Beacon Hill Institute at Suffolk University, says Ohio's regulatory policies are more restrictive than those of all but three other states. Another, by the Pacific Research Institute, ranks Ohio's policies as fifth on the job-killing meter.

Blackwell dismissed Koncelik's concerns, calling the director's letter "an in-your-face from an angry bureaucrat."

"At a certain point in this whole process, we have to cut out the foolishness and understand that none of us want poor-quality water or poor-quality air," Blackwell said. "We're all concerned about the health of our people, particularly our children. But at the same time we're not going to create fiefdoms for runaway bureaucrats either."

Koncelik's letter cites example after example in which the state regulates in the absence of federal rules or in which federal rules simply don't address an environmental concern. He cites other examples in which he argues that Ohio's regulation needs to exceed the federal regulation.

For example, he noted, the U.S. EPA doesn't require public water systems to maintain contingency plans, but the Ohio EPA does, in part because water systems "are considered a possible target for terrorist activity."

He also cited the Ohio EPA's use of its own nuisance rule last year to force Lanxess Corp. to reduce emissions of cancer-causing compounds at its plastic resins facility near Cincinnati. Concerns about long-term health effects led to the closing in December of Meredith Hitchens Elementary School in Addyston and the relocation of 369 students.

While the federal Clean Air Act identifies 187 air pollutants that merit regulation, Koncelik wrote, the list "does not represent an exhaustive list of harmful compounds." As a result, he said, Ohio regulates more than 300 additional toxic air compounds.

Jack Shaner, spokesman for the Ohio Environmental Council, said it's extraordinary for the EPA director of a Republican governor to write such a letter.

"For the EPA director from such a business-friendly administration to take such a strong stance speaks volumes about what a radical bill this is," he said.

Blackwell said he believes that any state EPA rule, whether it is addressed by a federal rule or not, should have to undergo a cost-benefit analysis to determine "whether it really does benefit the quality of our air or the quality of our water" or whether it's simply "a make-work standard for bureaucrats."

He said the cost of regulatory compliance has driven businesses out of Ohio and discouraged others from entering, citing Honda's decision in June to spurn Ohio's offer and choose Indiana for a $550 million auto assembly plant.

Blackwell's opponent, U.S. Rep. Ted Strickland, said he would like to see "greater responsiveness on the part of decision-makers and the agencies" to the regulatory burden they place on businesses. But he said insisting that Ohio's standards never exceed federal standards "would not be acceptable to me and would be unwise."

In an interview, Koncelik said he has no quarrel with the candidates' assertion that Ohio must be accommodating to business, but he echoed the contention of environmentalists that being business-friendly and having a clean environment are not mutually exclusive goals.

He also said he agrees with criticisms leveled by both Blackwell and Strickland that the EPA has taken too long to issue permits, particularly for ethanol plants.

"I think there's a legitimate concern that we have a complex environmental regulatory scheme and that if we could streamline our regulations . . . and reduce the burden on businesses without harming the environment, that we should do that," Koncelik said. "And we are doing that."

Perhaps so, but not enough, said Ty Pine, state director of the National Federation of Independent Business.

"Here's the reality in today's business world: A majority of businesses can exist anywhere in the nation and sell their products," he said. "Knowing that that is a fact of life, Ohio has to remain competitive in all aspects.

"The federal government, I would argue, is not out to destroy the Earth. To the extent that they're regulating, Ohio should match that."

Such a standard is preposterous, said John Paul, supervisor of the Regional Air Pollution Control Agency in Dayton.

"It's extremely discouraging to hear a candidate for the office of governor say that the federal rule will be it," he said. "For those who say that we don't need state or local regulations more stringent than federal regulations, I ask them why then do we need any part of state government?

"Why do we need a governor?"