i
Chemical world This l AIR POLLUTION:
Watered-down enforcement Proponents of state rather than federal control over air pollution enforcement have won the latest round in the national drive for cleaner air by 1975. But the result may well be watered-down enforcement of the 1970 amendments to the Clean Air Act and a far more lenient attitude toward industrial polluters, environmental critics charge. Guidelines for the states to follow in coming up with plans by Jan. 31, 1972, to control air pollution under the federal law have been published by the Environmental Protection Agency with significant changes from the rules proposed in April. White House pressure on industry's behalf and the efforts of Commerce Secretary Maurice H. Stans forced EPA to make a number of the changes, contend James Miller of the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) and Karin Sheldon of Ralph Nader's Public Interest Research Group (PIRG). EPA officials won't admit to bowing to White House pressure, but concede that the rules give the states greater flexibility and discretion. In one major change, EPA has dropped a requirement that states set up and operate permit systems to approve construction, modification, or operation of sources of pollution. Without a permit system, there is no way to assure preconstruction review for compliance, says a staff member of the Senate Subcommittee on Air and Water Pollution. Also, industry is not compelled to prove to a state agency that its plants comply with air quality rules, Mr. Miller argues. The new rules also add "too much of a flavor of considering the economics of achieving a national air quality standard," the subcommittee aide points out. A provision for state air quality rules "so as to promote the public health and welfare"—with the phrase "and productive capacity" added—gives states the opportunity to interpret the rules to keep plants open and save jobs. Several rule changes may lead to better air quality. States may include emission charges or taxes as part of a control strategy, and they may not grant variances that would prevent attainment or maintenance of national standards within allowed time periods. Critics of the rules are weighing 10
C&EN AUG. 23, 1971
how they will react. NRDC is considering a court suit, whereas Mrs. Sheldon suggests that PIRG will urge going around the White House by following the original EPA guidelines. Meanwhile, the subcommittee is contemplating holding hearings on the rules. CANADA:
Minister of science One member of the Canadian parliament can't get out of Ottawa for summer recess. Newly appointed Minister of Science and Technology Alastair W. Gillespie is in town organizing his ministry, formed in June (C&EN, June 28, page 19). "I think I've got a fair job to do— explaining the ministry to people," he tells C&EN's Stephen Stinson. "Our job is going to be to advise the cabinet and government on expenditure of public funds and on priorities. Our work is going to be more internal than external. We have no operating responsibilities, only policy formulation." The Canadian scientific community hangs on Mr. Gillespie's every word, wondering what effect the crystallizing of science policy in one minister will have. The lack of program operating responsibility outrages those who think that a science minister should control government's role in research, not merely give advice. Yet the report of the Canadian senate's special committee on science policy, chaired by Sen. Maurice LaMontagne, criticized loss of objectivity in matters of science policy by the National Research Council after
Canada's Gillespie:
fair job to do
that body acquired laboratories and programs. The science secretariat, present advisory body to the cabinet, will be the core of the new ministry, but status of other government science centers is moot. Mr. Gillespie says that secretariat personnel will be augmented by new appointments from industry, government, and universities. If the ministry will be largely invisible to the public, the Science Council of Canada has been highly visible, issuing series of authoritative reports on matters of science and technological development. The Science Council, formerly responsible to the Prime Minister, now will direct its reports to Mr. Gillespie. The National Research Council, source of most funding for academic research in Canada, was originally set up to assist innovation in industry. NRC reports to a committee of the Privy Council—an elite group of the cabinet—and no one can say whether or not this organization will be transferred to Mr. Gillespie's ministry. Emphasis on the ministry's advisory character might indicate that for some time to come NRC will stay where it is. Scientists and engineers may be affected by the ministry, and concern mounts as to how public the minister's advice will be and what lines of communication may be open from scientists and engineers to the minister. The only organization approaching representation of Canadian scientists and engineers is the Association of the Science, Engineering, and Technical Community of Canada (SCITEC), a society of societies, often called the "Parliament of Science." SCITEC has had financial difficulties due to failure of officers to beat the bushes among member societies to collect dues, says Dr. John Armstrong, secretary of the Canadian Heart Association, Ottawa, Ont. Now that the parliament of Science has someone to talk to, dues may be coming in more regularly, and $10 individual memberships may multiply. Minister Gillespie may need SCITEC as well. As his advice begins to flow, some unpleasant positions may have to be taken. Use of SCITEC as sounding board, or conferences with that body on sensitive matters might be advantageous to the ministry.
