WSP04279 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Court Uphola EPA'. Raguletlon for Controlling Emlaslone at the NsvaJo Generetlng Stetlon On March 25, 1993, the Federal Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the Environmental Protection Agency's rule requiring a 90% reduction in sulfur dioxide emissions from the. Navajo Generating Station In Page, AZ. EPA's rule was based ona recommendation by plant operators and environmental groups, designed to help restore visibility in Grand Canyon National Park. The rule is the first time EPA has regulated a pollution source using the visibility protection provisions of the Clean Air Act. The provisions require reasonable progress to prevent future, and reduce current human-caused haze in national parks and wilderness areas. The court's opinion holds special significance for the Grand Canyon VISibility Transport Commission. EPA's rule concerns one pollution source, the NlI\!!Iio Generating Station, and its impact on one CI. I area, Grand Canyon National Park. In conlrast, the Grand Canyon Visibility Transport Commission will be making recommendations concerning the regional haze produced by many pollution sources, and impacting 16 Class I areas in the Golden Circle. Yet, there are important parallels between the two. The court recalled Congress's intention that the Grand Canyon Visibility Transport Commission's work on regional haze should complement EPA's current efforts to reduce haze caused by single sources. The court noted 'VIrtually unprecedented. cooperation' between the EP A, plant operators, and environmental groups In devising an effective and economical plan for controlling emissions from the Navajo Generating Station to reduce Grand Canyon haze. Indeed, the Salt River Project (the plant's operator) joined with the Grand Canyon Trust and the Wilderness Society as intervenors on behalf of the EPA in the case. The Grand Canyon Visibility Transport Commission is applying the same spirit of cooperation to the broader problem of regional haze throughout the Golden Circle. The court rejected the argument that EPA can only regulate haze caused by a visible plume traced directly to a particular pollution source. Instead, EPA can regulate any source that it can reasonably show contributing to haze. Since EPA and the states often work at the 'frontiers of science' to manage visibility, the court found that they have broad discretion in interpreting data and implementing regulations to reduce haze. I , In its opinion, the court reaffirmed the importance of making reasonable progress toward the national visibility goal of no human-caused visibility impairment in Class I national parks and wilderness areas. The Clean Air Act suggests various strategies for making reasonable progress, but EP A is not limited to these suggestions. Innovative approaches, like those applied in the Navajo Generating Station rule, are well within EPA's authority to use. Thus, the 1995 recommendations of the Grand Canyon Visibility Transpon Commission need not be limited to the specific processes listed in the Clean Air Act, or to those previously sanctioned by the courts. The Commission can recommend new, innovative solutions to visibility Impairment to the EP A. The Clean Air Act calls for reasonable progress toward the national visibility goal and not for specific methodologies. The cooperation of government, industry, and environmental groups in flndlng a common, innovative solution to the Navajo Generating Station/Grand Canyon visibility issue is a model the Grand Canyon Visibility Transport Commission is well suited to follow. I Public Advisory Committee Act. The Public Advisory Committee (PAC.) has elected its . officers. The Committee's officers reflect the variety of interests sought by the Commissioners of the Grand Canyon Visibility Transport Commission when they made their appointments to the PAC. Dr. William Auberte (Northem Arizona University) will serve as the P.A. C. chair, Joel Kohn (private attorney) as vice-chair, and Shawn Kendall (Phelps- Dodge Corp.) as secretary. The Committee is now drafting a work plan to mesh its actions with the needs of the Commission. The PAC. has written a strong letter encouraging Congress to fund the work of the Commission, and