National Clean Air Coalition. The catalyst that is crystalizing these arguments, as well as the congressional deliberations, is the Report of the National Commission on Air Quality (NCAQ).
a seemingly endless saga, Con-
er, there is broad consensus that sent statute is too complex and some. The disagreement cen-
t groups organized
the intervening years to coorditheir views and obtain detailed
rganized under the umbrella of the
The commission’s report Recognizing that its 1977 amendments were not the ultimate answer, Congress established NCAQ to make an independent analysis ofair pollution control and to examine alternative strategies. After two and one-half years of study, at a cost of $8.9 million, the commission presented its 660-page report to Congress in March. The commission’srecommendations are, in most cases, predictable and generally stake out a middle ground between positions espoused hy industry and environmentalists. Among the major, more controversial, issues examined are: Preuention of significant deterioration (PSD). The commission recommends that PSI) increments be retained to protect visibility values for Class I areas; be kept for Class I1 areas only to protect national parks, wilderness areas, and the like; and be eliminated for Class 111. This contrasts with the study by the National Academy of Sciences, which found PSD to be a basically sound structure. National ambienr air quality standards. The NCAQ report endorsed the current standard-setting mechanism, disagreeing with industry’s position that standards derived without a cost-benefit analysis and which have an “adequate margin of safety” built in, are by definition unduly conservative. Attainment deadlines. In its most surprising finding, the commission recommended that the 1982 and 1987 dates for national attainment of standards be replaced with an area-by-area approach on the ground that the deadlines had been honored more in
the breach than in achievement, leading to a general erosion of confidence in the law. Industry understandably endorses this position; however, it prompts furor from environmentalists who feel that without the fixed targets of deadlines, status quo controls can be iustified, thereby halting further progress. Test for the administration The manner and speed with which Congress is able to formulate amendments will serve as a major benchmark for the new Congress and administration. The present act epitomizes much that is understandably an anathema to the Reagan administration. In the 1977 amendments, Congress legislated to a level of detail that guaranteed legal and scientific controversy and ensured that most major portions would be tied up in protracted litigation. The present statute imposes enormous constraints and uncertainty on industry and even the act’s ardent proponents have difficulty arguing that it has permitted smooth progress toward achievement of its underlying goals. And yet major changes will prove difficult. Well-entrenched interests on both sides have had years to hone their arguments, to develop powerful pockets of support within Congress. The new chairman of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, Senator Stafford, has set a goal of this fall to produce a new “streamlined” act. Unfortunately, given past performance, that timetable appears as overly optimistic as some of the deadlines within the statute itself. An administration committed to reducing the demands of government would achieve a major breakthrough if the act that finally emerges is one which enables industry to plan with some sense of certainty and at the same time
