NEWS OF THE WEEK
CLEAN AIR STANDARDS: Extension of deadlines draws fire Last week the Environmental Protection Agency announced an extension of deadlines for meeting clean air standards. EPA's new policy immediately drew brickbats from Congressmen, state officials, and environmentalists. All said that the proposals were illegal and were certain to be challenged. EPA Administrator Lee M. Thomas called them "tough but reasonable." In its ruling, EPA said it would delay economic sanctions against some 60 metropolitan areas unable to comply with the Dec. 31 deadline for meeting ozone and carbon monoxide standards. These are two of the most difficult pollutants for cities to control. Los Angeles, for example, is not expected to achieve the current ozone standard for another 25 years. EPA's policy, made in the absence of Congressional action to revise the Clean Air Act, would go into effect next spring. It would require affected states to prepare new plans to meet the ozone and carbon monoxide standards. These plans would have to include strategies for reducing these pollutants a minimum of 3% per year beyond reductions resulting from national control programs. By such an effort, most areas would delay for at least three years the imposition of bans on constructing major new polluting facilities. They also would avoid other economic sanctions EPA could impose. These include loss of highway funds and sewage-treatment grants. There are a few exceptions, however. EPA knows of 14 areas of the nation, including the Los Angeles area and Chicago, which either have no plans or ineffectual ones for meeting the standards. These areas would be slapped with construction bans almost immediately. 6
November 23, 1987 C&EN
Thomas: proposals are reasonable Critics are saying that by taking administrative action to delay deadlines EPA has usurped Congress' prerogative. Also, the agency shifts more responsibility for control of air quality from the federal government to state and local governments. Thomas C. Jorling, commissioner of New York State's Department of Environmental Conservation, believes that before easing deadlines, EPA could have done more to control motor vehicle emissions. (At ground level, ozone is formed when volatile organic compounds, including those in gasoline, react with nitrogen oxide in sunlight.) An attorney with the Environmental Defense Fund, Joseph Goffman, faults the new policy for shifting the responsibility to state and local governments with little guidance on how they are to reduce pollution. Sen. John H. Chafee (R.-R.L), one
of six northeastern Congressmen to criticize EPA's action, says the policy "invites lawsuits on the sound basis that Congress did not authorize it [and] it takes the heat off us." Richard Ayres, chairman of the National Clean Air Coalition, agrees. "It's a license to forget about the problem," he says. Vermont Senator Robert T. Stafford, ranking Republican on the Environment & Public Works Committee, says EPA's policy is undesirable and illegal. His coauthor of the Senate bill to revise the Clean Air Act, Sen. George T. Mitchell (D.-Me.) also charges that "EPA steps outside the law." Rep. Henry A. Waxman (D.-Calif.), who is drafting a House version of clean air amendments, argues that EPA doesn't "have the legal ability to rewrite the clean air law." Because Congressional efforts to revise the air law have not been successful, legislators are likely to authorize an eight-month extension of the Dec. 31 deadline. Lois Ember, Washington
Explosion kills three at Hoechst Celanese plant Three people were killed when two explosions and a fire caused extensive damage to the Hoechst Celanese acetic acid and acetic anhydride plant located near Pampa, Tex. A specialty resins plant on the Pampa site operated by Interez, a unit of RTZ Corp. also was knocked out, says Interez president Frank O'Neill. Alhough it sustained no damage, the Interez unit, formerly a Celanese specialty chemicals plant, could not operate because it depends on power supplied from the main Hoechst Celanese operation.
