Just when businesses were getting used to the 1990 update of the Clean Air Act, the Environmental Protection Agency proposes even tougher levels for certain types of pollutants. The debate in Washington over these rules could nudge lawmakers out on a hazardous branch of statistics, where lives saved or improved are balanced against costs to industry.

The new rules would reduce the allowable size and concentrations of particulate matter, which contributes to breathing problems and aggravates bronchitis and asthma. The smaller particles, according to the EPA, are more insidious than larger ones because they are able to lodge deeper in a person’s lungs. The allowable levels of ozone, the main component of smog, also would be reduced under the proposal, but the levels would be measured over an eight-hour average rather than over one hour, and industries would be allowed to remain in compliance even after several pollution emissions a year that exceed the limit.

The EPA is not charged with factoring cost into its proposals, but, as a practical matter, it does so every time it issues a standard that allows for some harmful level of pollution, which may lead to illness or premature death. This time, the agency went further. Along with the estimated cost of compliance for industries of between $6.6 billion and $8.5 billion a year, it estimated annual savings of having cleaner air at between $51 billion and $112 billion. The savings comes from reduced medical costs, lower work absenteeism and by as many as 20,000 fewer premature deaths.

These numbers will be scrutinized when Congress debates the standards, but no lawmaker will be eager to overtly assign a monetary value to each early death avoided. Instead, political opponents will talk around the issue, question the well-reviewed science that went into the EPA estimates or try to frame it as an anti-employment measure. Given the value politicians might place on a human life were they forced to, this might be for the best. However, it pushes the debate into often meaningless corners.

The federal government is obligated to strenghten its pollution restrictions as scientists learn more about the hazards of dirty air. Though the debate in Congress over the proposed rules will be contentious, the EPA’s decades-long track record of demanding cleaner air that has allowed countless Americans to breathe easier should be a persuasive factor in the debates.

… and breathing in Maine

Maine’s generally cleaner-than-average air would meet the tougher Clean Air requirements in most of the state, although two additional counties could fall from attainment. More important than temporary noncompliance issues, however, is the way the EPA will be monitoring some pollution sources.

York, Cumberland and Sagadahoc counties, according to DEP Commissioner Ned Sullivan, currently are out of compliance with EPA standards, and Lincoln and Knox counties might not meet the tougher levels. Throughout Maine, however, the air has been getting cleaner, with fewer instances of the state exceeding allowable levels and lower average concentrations of pollutants. The trend suggests that, given time, all Maine counties could come into compliance.

The new rules could help Maine meet the tough standards more quickly. Currently, pollution levels measured in a county could require that county to adopt anti-pollution measures, such as the much-vilified auto-emissions test. But the new rules would trace the pollution to its source and apply remedies there. This is both a fairer and more effective way to administer the program.

It is especially important in Maine, which receives most of its air pollution from out of state. Southern Mainers have been getting hit with the double burden of breathing dirty air they did not produce and then paying for it through pollution controls. The controls could help some, of course, but did nothing to slow the breeze from states immediately to the west.

The EPA rules also could help Maine’s utility industry, which faces deregulation and competition from cheap, coal-fired energy plants out of state. The industry would be helped by legislation that complements the Clean Air Act and would close a loophole that currently allows coal plants to avoid new regulations under the current Clean Air Act. The legislation, introduced by Gov. Angus King, was endorsed last week by the Coaltion of Northeastern Governors, and will direct state environemntal commissioners to draw up proposed congressional legislation. Forcing these plants to follow rules similar to those that affect cleaner-burning facilities should remove some of the price disparities in addition to reducing pollution.

The final decision on the EPA proposals are not expected until 1999. Between now and then, they will be shuttled between the agency and Congress for many revisions. Maine’s congressional delegation should ensure that rules beneficial to the state are not lost in the revisions.