A comparison of Allegheny County and state air pollution control programs shows that this year the county has issued its permits more quickly than the state Department of Environmental Protection.

And the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, which provides half the funding for the county Air Quality Program, said its permit issuance actions compare favorably with the other eight permitting authorities in its Region III, which includes five states and the District of Columbia.

The state statistics and federal program assessment run contrary to industry and development agency complaints that it takes too long to get an industrial installation permit in the county. Those complaints have prompted county Chief Executive Dan Onorato to explore ending the 50-year-old county program and turning its permitting, monitoring and enforcement duties over to the state.

The DEP's statistics show that so far this year statewide it has issued 152 major source permits with an average approval time of 117 days and a range of from 36 to 232 days. In its southwest district, the average issuance time on eight permits was 120 days.

According to the Allegheny County Health Department, its Air Quality Program in 2007 has issued 20 major source installation permits -- the document industries need to begin construction and the counterpart to the state permit -- with an average time from application to approval of 106 days.

"There is not any meaningful contrast in issuing permits between the county and the DEP, either in terms of timeliness or quality," said David Campbell, chief of permits and technical assessment at EPA's regional office in Philadelphia.

Mr. Campbell said some installation permits take longer than others to process because of their complexity and the proximity of other major industrial emissions sources.

"Allegheny County does have a more complex set of sources, with coke, steel and chemical plants. It would naturally take longer to issue air permits there than in other areas," he said. "And it's not unusual for industry to complain. Everyone complains. But I've received no formal complaints about the timeliness of permitting there."

Last year the county average was up, at 187 days, but the state averages were also up slightly, to 124 days across the state and 125 in southwestern Pennsylvania. DEP averages for both this year and 2006 do not include permit applications that were returned to the applicants with regulatory questions, delaying their processing, sometimes beyond the state's "180 day guarantee." If those were included, the state averages would be higher, but by how much cannot be determined.

"We've always maintained that our permitting times are compatible with other agencies, including the DEP," said Dr. Bruce Dixon, executive director of the county Health Department. "We continue to try to do what we need to do in the most expeditious fashion, but some of our industries are very large and their permits are very complicated.

"We're trying to be efficient, but also do permitting that will withstand the scrutiny by the EPA, which has a degree of oversight."

The county's historic Air Quality Program has written and enforced some of the toughest air pollution controls in the nation. Some of those regulations -- for coke oven emissions, airborne asbestos, lead, diesel engine idling and abrasive blasting -- have no counterparts at the state level. They are part of the regulatory landscape in the county because of health concerns raised by large industrial facilities operating near densely settled communities in river valleys that trap pollution emissions.

But Kathryn Klaber, executive vice president of the Allegheny Conference, who has written that county permits take too long and discussed the issue with Mr. Onorato, said tougher pollution standards don't necessarily cause cleaner air and the permit issuance averages don't tell the full story.

"Responsiveness on permit applications will determine if Allegheny County manufacturers will be nimble in the global economy," said Ms. Klaber. "What we care about is that economic development and industries where there are exciting, new, clean projects are held up for no good reason, but because of red tape."

Ms. Klaber said that air pollutants are disbursed regionally and monitored regionally and it makes more sense to regulate them regionally.

Mr. Onorato said he's skeptical of the average permit numbers released by the county and the state, and will direct his own independent review.

"My goal is not to get rid of the local program. It has a rich history," he said. "But we have to figure out how to keep the environment clean and the economy humming at the same time."

Mr. Onorato said there's no hidden agenda behind his review of the county air program, but environmental groups that favor keeping air pollution regulation local say its their turn to be skeptical.

"With this new set of information about the permitting times the main reasons given for dismantling the county program have evaporated," said Rachel Filippini, executive director of the Group Against Smog and Pollution. "Maybe now the county executive will realize that ending the local air program will give no advantage to industry or the health of its residents."

Ms. Filippini said complaints about permitting delays may be a mask for industry unhappiness with the county's tougher and more extensive air regulations. The financially challenged county may be trying to get its hands on the more than $7 million in the air program's Clean Air Fund, she said.

Or tougher enforcement of the county air regulations may be turning the heat up on local industries that are in turn complaining to county officials.

Since hiring a county enforcement officer in 2003 at the suggestion of a federal audit that found local enforcement lacking, the number of air program enforcement actions have doubled and fines have increased from an average of $268,556 a year to $526,588.

"It's very possible that decent enforcement plays into it," said Myron Arnowitt, Clean Water Action's state director, who analyzed the county enforcement statistics. "When enforcement was lax, there was not a lot of push to get rid of the local program."