[Sustain] EPA easing rules on power plants near national parks

[Eric Brooks]

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/05/16/MNLA10NFLS.DTL&type=printable


  EPA easing rules on power plants near national parks


    Rank-and-file staff, managers who oppose Bush administration plan
    spread the word

Juliet Eilperin, Washington Post

Friday, May 16, 2008

*(05-16) 04:00 PDT Washington -* --

The Bush administration is on the verge of implementing new air quality 
rules that will make it easier to build power plants near national parks 
and wilderness areas, according to rank-and-file agency scientists and 
park managers who oppose the plan.

The new regulations, which are likely to be finalized this summer, 
rewrite a provision of the Clean Air Act that applies to "Class 1 
areas," federal lands that currently have the highest level of 
protection under the law. Opponents predict the changes will worsen 
visibility at many of the United States' most prized tourist destinations.

Nearly a year ago, with little fanfare, the Environmental Protection 
Agency proposed changing the way the government measures air pollution 
near Class 1 areas on the grounds that the nation needed a more uniform 
way of regulating emissions near protected areas. The agency closed the 
comment period in April and has indicated it is not making significant 
changes to the draft rule, despite objections by EPA staff members.

Jeffrey Holmstead, who now heads the environmental strategies group at 
the law firm of Bracewell & Giuliani, helped initiate the rule change 
while heading EPA's air and radiation office. He said agency officials 
became concerned that EPA's scientific staff was taking the most 
conservative approach in predicting how much pollution new power plants 
would produce.

The move is the latest in a series of administration efforts going back 
to 2003 to weaken air quality protections at national parks, including 
failed moves to prohibit federal land managers from commenting on 
permits for new pollution sources more than 31 miles away from their 
areas and to only protect air resources for parks that are big and 
diverse enough to represent complete ecosystems.

For 30 years, regulators have measured pollution levels in the parks, 
over both three-hour and 24-hour increments, to capture the spikes in 
emissions that occur during periods of peak energy demand. The new rule 
would average the levels over a year so that spikes in pollution levels 
would not violate the law.

Many National Park Service and EPA officials have challenged the rule 
change, arguing that it will worsen visibility in already-impaired 
areas, according to internal documents obtained by the House Committee 
on Oversight and Government Reform.

In one set of comments, EPA's regional computer modeling staff wrote 
that the proposal would allow for significant degradation of the parks' 
air quality. An e-mail from National Park Service staff called aspects 
of the plan bad public policy that would make it much easier to build 
power plants near Class 1 areas, which include some Fish and Wildlife 
Service-protected land.

When committee Chairman Henry Waxman, D-Los Angeles, asked the EPA 
whether the rule would lead to construction of more power plants near 
protected areas, Robert Meyers, principal deputy assistant administrator 
for EPA's Office of Air and Radiation, replied in an April 24 letter 
that this was not the intention of the rule, but he could not rule it out.

"We developed this proposal based on the need to clarify how increment 
consumption must be addressed, and not whether or not it would be easier 
to build power plants," Meyers wrote. "In the absence of any data or 
evidence provided by the National Parks Service, we are unable to 
conclusively confirm or deny their suggestion."

On Thursday, the National Parks Conservation Association, a lobbying 
group, issued a report estimating that the rule would ease the way for 
the construction of 28 new coal-fired power plants within 186 miles of 
10 national parks.

In each of the next 50 years, the report concludes, the new plants would 
emit 122 million tons of carbon dioxide, 79,000 tons of sulfur dioxide, 
52,000 tons of nitrogen oxides, and 4,000 pounds of toxic mercury into 
the air over and around the Great Smoky Mountains, Zion and eight other 
national parks.

"It's like if you're pulled over by a cop for going 75 miles per hour in 
a 55 miles-per-hour zone, and you say, 'If you look at how I've driven 
all year, I've averaged fifty-five miles per hour,' " said Mark Wenzler, 
director of the National Parks Conservation Association's clean air 
programs. "It allows you to vastly underestimate the impact of these 
emissions."

Don Shepherd, an environmental engineer at the National Park Service's 
air resources division in Denver, said of the new rule: "I don't know of 
anyone at our level, who deals with this day to day, that likes it or 
thinks it's going to make sense.

"We really want to have clean air at national parks all the time, and 
not just at average times," Shepherd said. "All of our national parks 
have impaired visibility. ... It would really be a setback in trying to 
make progress."

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/05/16/MNLA10NFLS.DTL

This article appeared on page *A - 3* of the San Francisco Chronicle


-- 
"I am not a liberator. Liberators do not exist. The people liberate themselves." -- Che Guevara

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://list.sfgreens.org/pipermail/sustainability/attachments/20080516/cd78a176/attachment.htm