EPA Sues 8 Firms Over Disputed Smog Rule

Eight Los Angeles-area firms were sued by the federal government Monday for allegedly violating a South Coast Air Quality Management District regulation that the local smog agency already had eased on grounds that it was unreasonably strict.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the Department of Justice said they were taking the action in Los Angeles federal court because the AQMD--having weakened the rule--cannot legally enforce the more stringent, original version.

An AQMD official termed the EPA move “almost silly.”

At issue is Rule 1107, which governs the coating of metal parts and products, a process that produces vapors that contribute to air pollution.

Compliance Difficulties

The Southland air management agency has contended that easing the rule was necessary because most firms found it nearly impossible to comply with the original version. Air district officials argue that the EPA might actually worsen the situation in the long run by forcing companies to use less-durable coatings and thus prompt more frequent repaintings.

The EPA, however, has issued numerous violation notices to Los Angeles-area businesses for non-compliance with the original metal parts coating rule, which affects about 900 companies making everything from safety pins to office furniture.

The agency insisted that the limits of the original rule can be met and pointed out that it has jurisdiction to take enforcement action because it endorsed the more stringent provisions as part of the federally approved State Implementation Plan.

Persuasive Action

Regional EPA Administrator Judith E. Ayres said many firms already have reached or neared full compliance with Rule 1107. She added, “It is our intention to make the metal parts coaters in the Los Angeles area aware that EPA will continue to enforce the South Coast district’s original limits and will seek substantial penalties from any source found to be in violation.”

Ayres added that she hoped “that our success in bringing these sources into compliance will encourage the SCAQMD to readopt the original, more stringent limits in Rule 1107, resume its rightful place as the primary enforcement authority in the South Coast air basin and thereby assure that it is protecting the public health.”

But Jim Birakos, deputy executive director of the AQMD, called the EPA move “almost a silly action,” arguing that the original, stricter provisions were softened after public hearings and a look at the technology convinced district officials that full compliance “was just not doable at this time.”

Birakos said, “At first, we wanted to force them (the companies) to do it, but it just didn’t work out that way. We have to be more realistic.” He insisted that such actions by the EPA are harmful to the control effort because they will make district agencies afraid to adopt strict rules to begin with.

The eight firms sued on Monday are Lightolier Inc. of Compton; Paul B. Morris Co., Los Angeles; Superior Industries International Inc., Van Nuys; Utility Trailer Manufacturing Co., City of Industry; Virco Manufacturing Corp., Los Angeles; Weslock Inc., Los Angeles; Corry Jamestown Corp. of Van Nuys, and L&S; Lighting Fixtures Co., Los Angeles.

The EPA said it has obtained “expeditious compliance schedules” from all but Jamestown and L&S; Lighting Fixtures.