EDITORIAL
Editor: Russell F. Christman WASHINGTON EDITORIAL STAFF Managing Editor: Stanton S. Miller Assistant Editor: Julian Josephson Assistant Editor: Lois R. Ember MANUSCRIPT REVIEWING Manager: Katherine I. Biggs Assistant Editor: David Hanson MANUSCRIPT EDITING Associate Production Manager: Charlotte C. Sayre Assistant Editor: Gloria L. Dinote GRAPHICS AND PRODUCTION Production Manager: Leroy L. Corcoran Art Director: Norman Favin Artist: Gerald M. Quinn
Advisory Board: P. L. Brezonik, Joseph J. Bufalini, Arthur A. Levin, J a m e s J . Morgan, Charles R. O'Melia, Sidney R. O r e m , Frank P. Sebastian, John H. Seinfeld, C. Joseph Touhill, Charles S. Tuesday
Published by the AMERICAN CHEMICAL SOCIETY 1155 16th Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20036 Executive Director: Robert W. Cairns BOOKS A N D JOURNALS D I V I S I O N John Κ C r u m , Director Virginia E. Stewart, Assistant to the Director Charles R. Bertsch, Head, Editorial Processing Department D. Η. Michael Bowen, Head, Journals Department Bacil Guiley, Head, Graphics and Production Department Seldon W. Terrant, Head, Research and Development Department ADVERTISING MANAGEMENT Centcom, Ltd. For offices and advertisers, see page 602 Please send research manuscripts to Manuscript Reviewing, feature manuscripts to Managing Editor.
A time for renewal The Clean Air Act of 1970 was landmark legislation. It got the nation's air cleanup program off dead center—from the days of administrative flexibility under the Air Quality Act of 1967 to the mandated deadlines in P.L. 91-604. Much has been achieved; however, much remains to be done. At the end of this month, it is time for achievement of the national air quality standards (naqs). At least 108 air quality control regions will not meet the naqs by then. In this renewal, it is important to remember that the principal impetus for the clean air legislation was the protection of public health and welfare. When naqs were established, they provided for a margin of safety to public health. The standards were aimed at protecting various groups including the young, the old, and those with respiratory disorders. These groups turn out to consist of one of every five persons, or 20% of the total population. Also it is important to remember that the act did not mandate technology nor will it ever likely do so. But of the fact that the act has been technology forcing, there can be no question. It prodded automakers to use catalytic converters and is prodding electric utilities to use scrubbers. Surely, there must be a number of ways to achieve healthrelated standards. Scrubbers are one, but tall stacks and intermittent control systems may be others. A lot remains to be done; other scientific problems arise as we proceed down the clean air road. These include controls for fine particulate matter, synergistic effects—if any—of pollutants, and the sulfates issue. The public has not backed away from its early romance with clean air. In the Harris Poll of March 3, environmental cleanup was third on a priority list that was headed by inflation and unemployment. The public wants clean air but complains of an increase in its electricity bill. Perhaps, not until the public pays will it be convinced that clean air costs are necessary but affordable. Let us spend our way out of the "recession" in an environmentally acceptable way. But let us not have any unnecessary tampering with the Act.
For author s guide and editorial policy, see this issue, page 547, or write Katherine I. Biggs. Manuscript Reviewing Office. ES&T
V o l u m e 9, N u m b e r 6, J u n e 1 9 7 5
499
