The world is not longer the clean place it once used to be. Evolution and industrialization of our world, have directly affected the environment in terms of pollution. There are different types of pollutions; one of the most dangerous is air pollution. Air pollution is the introduction of chemical, matter, or other materials into the atmosphere that can bring harm or discomfort to human or other living organisms and cause damage to the environment. Pollution has been killing our planet for decades and to save it, we must act now!
During the mid 1900s, there was an American public concern about the environment. A call for action to address what they saw as an environmental state of emergency. By the 1960s and 1970s, air pollution in the United States from automobile traffic and industry had become severe, and was contributing to tens of thousands of deaths every year (Withgott & Laposata, 2014). A national strategy to control pollution was desperate in need. The Air Pollution Control Act of 1955 was the first federal legislation involving air pollution (EPA, 1970). The enactment of the Clean Air Act of 1970 resulted in a major shift in the federal government’s role in air pollution control (EPA, 1970). This legislation authorized the development of comprehensive federal and state regulations to limit emissions from both stationary (industrial) sources and mobile sources (EPA, 1970). The 1970 Clean Air Act sought to control the harm to human health caused by hazardous air pollutants (HAPs), which can cause immediate or chronic harm from localized exposure.
Now with new information about the harms to human health, a focus on environmental justice, and a track record of the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) ability or inability to implement amendments, we are at the point where environmental academics must come forth with new possibilities for change. The truth is that there are still a lot of flaws that need to be address within states and federal laws to achieve risk assessments and measurements standardization.
EPA is to establish Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT) for all new and existing major sources, defined as the technology that provides the “maximum degree of reduction in emissions of the hazardous air pollutants (Flatt, 2007).” The federal HAP residual risk scheme is replete with these problems of uncertain standards, deadlines, and penalties for failure to act. Based on the article, there are still lots of uncertain areas as to when modification of an existing source results in transforming that source into a new source for the purposes of determining the MACT standard. In other words, the standards are not clearly defined and EPA still far behind issuing standards for area sources. Also, there is a lengthy process just to review the effectiveness of protecting human health and whether the remaining health risks warranted more stringent controls. A report to Congress about residual risk after the application of MACT standards was required which would enable Congress to enact legislation to remedy the residual risk.
States has regulated health risks, but standards vary wildly among them. In the article “Gasping for Air,” a residual risk regulations exam was done in twelve states, comparing eight particularly common and dangerous HAPs. The states examined in the article, all regulate residual risk after application of technology standards, most through permitted levels of toxics in the ambient air (Flatt, 2007). Even though the states all claim to be addressing the same problem (harm to human health from air toxics), the execution of this narrative standard varies wildly because the states have different ways of measurement and different sets of assumptions (Flatt, 2007). The states also vary in terms of how the standards are enforced and monitored, and who has the burden of these tasks (Flatt, 2007). They can play a positive role by abiding and enforcing federal regulations. States can also implement laws within themselves, which can become policy or federal laws subsequently. They also could embrace other states successful regulations. Commonalities between the most successful states programs reveal potential solutions for improving regulation of hazardous air pollutants at the federal level (Flatt, 2007).
An effective response to residual risk from air toxics will require a change in the federal implementing statute (Flatt, 2007). This change should focus on standard setting and enforcement techniques, and should require accurate self-reporting of residual risk analysis accompanied by requisite corrections if the standards are exceeded (Flatt, 2007). Clearly there are still too many uncertain areas that are not being address about possible health hazards due to too much political pressure. If Congress reformed the federal administrative system for the regulation of residual risks so that it looks like California’s or Connecticut’s, no person in this country would be exposed to levels of air toxics higher than considered safe and acceptable (Flatt, 2007). This is a stated goal of the Clean Air Act’s HAP program, and should be made a reality as well (Flatt, 2007).