A bill supported by Republicans and business groups that would do away with state regulation of hazardous air pollutants has an unusual critic — a Department of Natural Resources expert who says the measure would weaken health protections in Wisconsin.

“Is that what you want — more emissions of hazardous air pollutants being emitted?” Jeff Myers, an environmental toxicologist for the DNR, asked lawmakers last month.

It is rare for DNR employees to speak out on legislative issues. Myers, who has worked at the agency for 28 years and is an expert in air pollution toxicology, told the Assembly Committee on Federalism and Interstate Relations in Madison on Nov. 21 that he was speaking as a private citizen.

“If this bill is passed, emissions of hazardous air pollutants will go up,” Myers said. “If emissions go up, exposure will increase and therefore, Wisconsin residents will be at greater risk of adverse health effects.”

Wisconsin regulations set standards for about 550 hazardous air pollutants, according to the DNR.

Assembly Bill 587 and its companion bill, Senate Bill 459, would eliminate hazardous air pollutants regulated by the state but still keep in place 187 pollutants that are regulated by the federal government.

Supporters say the bill would ease the regulatory burden on companies and align state authority for the air pollutants with that of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

A second hearing took place on Thursday at the Wade House in Greenbush in Sheboygan County, with three other bills that focus on state oversight of air pollutants.

Myers’ comments are noteworthy because DNR employees have testified infrequently before legislative panels since 2011 when Republicans swept control of the Legislature and Gov. Scott Walker took office.

RELATED Wisconsin, under Scott Walker, no longer leads in conservation

When they do appear, staff say they are invariably testifying, “for information purposes only,” and refrain from expressing opinions.

In this case, Myers made it clear he worked for the DNR, telling lawmakers, "I speak as a professional scientist and as an expert in the field of hazardous air pollutants."

His comments were part of other prepared testimony that is posted on a legislative website. Myers' comments and those of others who testified can also be viewed on WisconsinEye, which provides video coverage of Capitol events.

During the November hearing, supporters of the legislation expressed concerns that the current law on hazardous air pollutants was outdated. One bill sponsor, Sen. Duey Stroebel (R-Saukville), cited a 2004 state audit showing only 94 pollutants regulated by the state were actually emitted in 2002.

Supporters also said new state laws require lawmakers to exert more oversight of regulations to make sure agencies don’t exceed their powers or place unnecessary costs on taxpayers.

“This is a simple review of rules, similar to the REINS Act – a public accountability and transparency measure,” Rep. Jesse Kremer (R-Kewaskum), another sponsor of the bill, told the committee.

The REINS Act, or Regulations from the Executive in Need of Scrutiny, was signed into law this year and requires legislative approval of regulations costing taxpayers or business more than $10 million.

Kremer and others said if the DNR determines some pollutants should be regulated, the agency can add them back.

But environmental and health groups say the process takes two to three years for regulations to become law, leaving a lengthy gap in protections if the pollutants are no longer regulated.

“All of these chemicals are hazardous to human health and some are probable carcinogens,” Tyson Cook, who tracks air issues for Clean Wisconsin, said in an interview.

Among the group’s concerns: Federal rules miss many pollutants emitted in the state. Also, in some cases smaller companies not large enough to come under federal regulations don't have the technology to keep emissions from drifting into nearby residential neighborhoods.

The DNR last revised state hazardous air rules in 2004 after four years of discussions with stakeholder groups, including business and environmental organizations.

At the time, industry groups complained the regulations exceeded federal limits and made Wisconsin a “regulatory island,” according to documents. Wisconsin Manufacturers & Commerce, the Wisconsin Paper Council and other groups cited analysis from their consultant showing the law would cost business $100 million, according to DNR documents.

The Department of Commerce, then under Democrat Jim Doyle, conducted its own analysis of 11 companies and estimated one-time costs of less than $2.5 million, documents show. At least 16 other states had stricter pollution standards for hazardous chemicals than the federal government, the DNR found.

The agency also said at the time that the rules filled “important gaps in federal hazardous air pollutant regulations,” and the objective was “preventing public health problems from occurring, rather than correcting them after they have occurred.”

Two pollutants regulated by the state — and not by the federal government — are ammonia and mineral spirits. In 2004, the two pollutants exceed 1 million pounds each annually, DNR officials said in justifying the regulations.

In his testimony, Myers said if the bill became law, he expected an increase in emissions of benzene, formaldehyde, dioxins and diesel exhaust — all hazardous air pollutants now regulated by the state.

"There is so much history in the basis for the existing air pollution regulations that it is not reasonable or rational to just repeal something without knowing the basis and history for why it was there to begin with," he said.

Myers declined several attempts to be interviewed for this story.

When asked about his appearance at the hearing, DNR spokesman Jim Dick said in an email:

“The DNR was not invited by either the committee chair or the bill’s author to make an appearance before the committee on the bill in question. Therefore, as is our usual practice, DNR was not officially represented at the hearing. Anyone from DNR who may have appeared was there on their own time and expressing personal views. They were not representing the department.”

Jim Rickun of Madison is a former DNR employee who helped write the first set of hazardous air rules in 1988. Those rules were challenged unsuccessfully in circuit and state appeals court by WMC and other business groups after years of negotiations with the state.

Rickun left the DNR in 1988 after 10 years with the agency and now works as a consultant to companies on emissions requirements.

He described Myers as “the toxicological touchstone, if you will, with respect to these regulations” at the DNR.

His reaction to Myers’ testimony?

“Much credit to him, very gutsy,” Rickun said.

“I’m not there anymore. I still know guys who are and guys who recently left. The operative word at the DNR is you sit in your cube and keep your head down.”