ES&T GUEST EDITORIAL
The Clean Air Act review: Good show! Missed opportunity? It's the longest running play in the nation's capital, and in many ways the best. Although it clearly has its slow moments. The plodding congressional reauthorization of the Clean Air Act, which dates at least from March 1981, has "progressed" to the point that no close observer can with confidence anticipate a final curtain. Progress is still measured in terms of bills introduced, hearings scheduled, committee markups not canceled. The light at the end of this long tunnel appears dim indeed . . . and may be receding. The irony of it is that even the most steadfast adversaries on Clean Air Act issues acknowledge that the act can benefit from amendment. They agree too that the prolonged uncertainty resulting from the legislative review serves no one well, least of all those wanting to proceed with the cleanup job all parties agree is essential. The rub, of course, is that while adversaries agree that some amendments might help, they disagree vehemently on whose amendments would in fact be "improvements." It's a game with no winners and no losers—as often happens in the legislative process, one generally must give somewhere in order to gain elsewhere. The question, only somewhat simplistically, comes down to which side gains more or loses more given a particular range of amendment possibilities. Importantly, it comes down also to which side gains more from maintaining the status quo. The problem is that the status quo outcome in the end may serve least well certain recognized air quality concerns and the broadest public interest generally. For the environmental community, amending the act clearly would be desirable if it means better controls on long-range transport of air pollution and precipitation, and if it means additional controls on hazardous air pollutants under Section 112. They
0013-936X/82/0916-0207A$01.25/0
agree too that some attainment deadlines simply must be extended. For the regulated community, amendments hold out promise of simplified and faster permitting procedures, of less "unnecessary" technology and a better benefit-cost ratio. Amendments could mean a less complex prevention of significant deterioration program in areas meeting clean air standards, more realistic technology in areas not meeting those standards, and relaxed auto emission standards. The standoff comes in that one interest's gain is another's loss. For the rest of us, the impasse leaves us with a federal air quality program that may not adequately address long-range transport and may, by its own terms, make control of hazardous air pollutants nearly impossible. We are left too with an act that may, in its vast alphabet soup of technological terms, force controls and technologies simply not worth their price in terms of resulting air quality benefits. And we are left also with an act that by anyone's standards is unnecessarily complex—sometimes to the detriment of improved air quality. Sounds like a missed opportunity in the making. But, for all that, clearly a good show nonetheless. ;
/-O^^
O .
Morris A. Ward, former assistant director of the National Commission on Air Quality, writes on environmental protection, natural resources, and related energy issues. He is editor of The Environmental Forum, a new monthly magazine published by the Environmental Law Institute in Washington, D.C.
© 1982 American Chemical Society
Environ. Sci. Technol , Vol. 16. No. 4, 1982
207A
