REGULATORY ALERT
Acid rain: legal and political fallout
Michael R. Deland Ε R T , Concord, M A
Scientists, despite many years of de bate about the causes and effects of acid precipitation or "rain," have yet to reach a consensus. Recently, the discussion has become more popular ized as witnessed by feature articles in National Geographic and Sports Il lustrated. With heightened public awareness have come calls for some kind of action. By not recognizing state or inter national boundaries, acid rain has by passed many traditional mechanisms for environmental regulation and prompted an examination of new pro cedures. In the U.S., it has pitted state against state and region against region. In Canada it has provoked the Minis ter of the Environment to lecture an American audience: "Acid rain is the most serious air pollution problem facing our two countries today . . . . The situation is already intoler able " Administrative/legal action Acting on the assumption that "adverse impacts" result from "the transport and transformation of sulfur dioxide and particulate matter from major sources in adjacent upwind states," the northeastern states have filed petitions with EPA seeking re dress under the "Interstate Pollution Abatement" section of the Clean Air Act. Although the majority of the petitions were filed in 1980 and the act requires a decision within 60 days, the process is far from resolved. Final arguments have been delayed until this
month; EPA's decision is not expected before late spring. While the E P A administrative process continues, suits predicated on similar grounds have been filed in several different U.S. Circuit Courts of Appeals. Among the more impor tant is a sixth circuit case involving litigation between Cleveland Electric Illuminating Company and eastern states. Briefs have been filed and oral argument will be conducted shortly. Meanwhile, U.S. and Canadian of ficials have been meeting on the transboundary problems. In August 1980, a memorandum of intent was signed as a preliminary step toward a final agreement. Formal negotiations commenced in Washington in June 1981, a second meeting was held in Ottawa in November, and a third has been scheduled for February 1982. Currently, Canada is calling for the immediate initiation of interim con trols, while the U.S., arguing that the substantial expense of controls cannot be justified given continuing "scientific uncertainty," advocates an accelerated research program. Legislative initiatives Several different bills have been introduced in Congress that either directly or indirectly address acid rain. Senator Mitchell (D.-Me.) has pro posed the most comprehensive legis lation (S. 1706). It would place a " c a p " on existing sulfur oxide and ni trogen oxide emissions, limiting them to the Jan. 1, 1981 levels. Secondly, he calls for a 10 million ton reduction in SO2 emissions over a 10-year period in the "31-state acid rain impact region." Senator Moynihan (D.-N.Y.) also has introduced legislation (S. 1709) and several comparable bills have been submitted in the House. Senator Dodd (D.-Conn.) filed legislation (S. 1718) that indirectly addresses acid rain by seeking to broaden and strengthen the interstate pollution provisions of the Clean Air Act. Under his bill "the total emissions of the relevant pollutant from sources
0013-936X/82/0916-027A$01.25/0 © 1981 American Chemical Society
in each state would be considered, thereby invalidating the current EPA interpretation which requires an im pacted state to pinpoint an individual source. In addition, enforcement remedies would be made available to the affected states if E P A fails to act in a timely fashion. Deliberations by the Senate and House committees currently are scheduled to be com pleted by February or March. Meanwhile, the attorneys general of eight northeastern states, joined by those of Wisconsin and Minnesota, have formally endorsed the Mitchell, Moynihan, and Dodd bills and have substituted their own suggested legis lative language. In addition, the Na tional Association of Attorneys Gen eral has submitted a report calling for SO2 emission limits on existing pow er plants to control acid rain. The Na tional Governor's Association also has called for a net reduction of 5 million tons of SO2 emissions from a 23-state corridor in the east by 1990. In the face of this activity, thé U.S. State Department, "upwind" states, and representatives of industry all argue that scientific evidence suggests a strategy of SO2 emission reductions could not be expected to appreciably affect acidity levels. For example, utility representatives cite that while between 1973-1980 there was a 3-5 million ton reduction in SO2 emissions in the 31-state region, measurements of acidity remained essentially constant. They therefore question whether even the additional 10 million ton reduction advocated by Sen. Mitchell, which would require the installation of costly scrubbers, is an effective way to address the problem. In the coming months administrators, jurists, and legislators all must respond to the controversy over acid rain. The answers of these lay decision makers cannot be predicated upon scientific certainty or even consensus—an increasingly common occurrence as the environmental problems confronting us become more complex. Environ. Sci. Technol., Vol. 16, No. 1, 1982
27A
