WSP03101 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

The Council also found that improving visibility can have beneficial side-effects. Many pollutants that cause haze also contribute to acid rain or human respiratory problems. Thus, reducing haze in parks and wilderness areas will also improve air quality and reduce health risks elsewhere. At the same time, other air pollution control programs may improve visibility as well. Only targeting individual sources for curing regional hazes is a process doomed to failure, the Council noted. While individual sources' are important in some situations, the program as a whole should focus on regions, considering many pollution sources simultaneously. The Visibility Report has great imponance for the Commission. It clearly sets high expectations for the Commission as a regional approach to this regional problem. While the Commission defines how to best use the Report's information and recommendations, the Council's overall message is clear. Our understanding of visibility impairment is good enough to justify action, and the time is right for a renewed comn.itment to visibility management. Public Ad'.I80ry Committee Holda Ita First Meeting The Public Advisoly Committee held its first meeting as part of the Commission's San Diego meetings in Janull/)', The CuIT.mittee was welcomed as a participant in the Commissio~'s work, and attended the National Research Council and EPA briefings. The Public Advisory Committee is made up of individuals appointed by the Commissioners themselves to represent a wide range of viewpoints, including govemment, industry, science. and environmental groups. Because of its unique advisory role, the Committee adopted a charter tnat explicitly provides for diverse -"pinions when making its recommendations to the Commission. In addition to organizational tasks. the Committee received its first request from the Commission. The Committee will consider how the Commission can use data provided by various special interest groups, while still maintaining its impartiality and credibility (see the article in this issue). The Commissioners have stressed that the work of the Commisslon must be open and accessible, so that its recommendations reflect a comprehensive consideration of visibility management. , ..... ~ 'J'''' '. ,,~ - --: tJ~ / .I.~. . ....... ,- . \ . .. ~ I' \ ,:,; i ... - It-.- - '. ....:.....;.'" Members from government, industry, and environmental gro'lp$ work together In the Commission's committees. Photo coUrtesy: CIty 01 Loll AngeIea Oep.nment 01 w.t... MtI POWfU .. - 1990 Cle.n Air Act Amendment8 Imp.ct8 on Air Qu.11ly In the Golden Circle To know where we are going, we mus: know from where we are starting, With this in mind, the committees 01 the Commission received a presentation by the Environmental Protection Agency, EPA is preparing a report for Congress identifying the impacts of the 1990 amendments of the Clean Air Act on air quality throughout the United States., EPA has provided a special summary of their prei.minary findings on visibility in the Southwest to the Commission. The preliminll/)' findings show that emission controlS called for in the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments will largely offset growth between now and 2005. However. various assumptions were made for this modelling exercise. For example, the prOjections assume all areas in the Southwest (including maJor metropolitan areas like Phoenix and Los Angeles) will meet air quality standards set in the Clean Air Act by 2005. Commission workers responded to these findings in a variety of ways. Some saw the 12 years between now and 2005 as 'breathing room', in which additional measures to improve visibility could take effect. Others worried about the years alter 2005; would visibility begin declining in response to growth? How will visibility be protected alter that date?