WSP08132 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Grand Canyon Palette Fading "VisibWry at 1M Grand Canyon betwten Novembu and March of each ~ar is ~rceptibly thgraded by mannu:Jl:k pollution at least 15% of lhe timL (2 J days) and perhaps as much w30% oftM timt(42 days)... TheNo'Wljo gUluaring station is tht: single largest COfllribUlor 10 visibility impair. mLflf at 1M Grand Canyon on 90% of lhe tpisO<k days dwinglhe ""inlu..... .. Conclusions made by a National Park Service draft report on wintertime visibility at Grand Canyon Nati~ Parle.. Visitors coming to the Grand Canyon wilh great eXpectations of pristine, scenic views from the canyon rim often rmd the panorama obscured by air pollution from a Colorado Plateau power plant. Late next month. the EPA. un. der a counorder. is expected to decide whether the NavajoGen. erating Station ..operated and owned by government and pri. vate power companies ..should ...:- be forced to clean its emissions and restore the air qualilY in Grand Canyon National Park. The issue ofairquality and visibilily impainnenl in the entire Colorado Plaleau has been the subject of a long. standing controversy originating with the proposed con. struction of the Navajo Generating Station in 1972. The most recent analysis of the air pollulion in the Grand Canyon. however. offers clear and convincing evidence that action must be taken now. The Navajo Generating Slation is a coal.flred power plant owned joimly by Ihe Bureau of Reclamation. the Sah River Project. Los Angeles DepartmemofWat.er and Power, and several other western power companies. lbe plant began producing electricilY in 1974. before technology for controlling SOJ emissions had been tested on large power planlS. The owners issued a stalemenl that was distributed al If the EPA reaches the oonclusioo that pollutioo at Grand Canyon is "reasonably attribul. able" to emissions from Navajo. then it mUSI decide whether lO ft4uire the Navajo Gene"ating Station lO reduce sulphur diox. ide emissions. This decision would then be followed u in February 1990 .. by EPA pro- posed Iimiwions on sulphur dioxide emissions from the plant which, if enforced. would restore the air qualiry in the Canyon. - - - - ~.~ I'on! 1M Sowlt Rim ofG,and C~)I<:HINal~ Pa,t O</l. a Cka, d4y .. visibiljry is app,cuimalely 100 fPliles. The price tag for this clean up effort will be high. . estimateS pUI thecoS(of' 'scrubber" installation alas much as S400 million. "Ple Grand Canyon Trust anticipaleS thai the BureauofReclarTlation.asapanownerofthe planl. will object lO footing the bill and will probably exercise ilS con. siderable political clout in delaying. preventing or resisting an order to reduce sulphur dioxide emissions. The Grand Canyon Trust and other major environ. mental organizations are work.ing lO hold the EPA lO the Augusl31. 1989 deadline. And. once that deadline has been met. lO see thai the process is followed through until the Navajo Generating Station installs emission cleansing equip- ment on its smok.estaCks. public meetings in 1972 committing thai the "plant will be designed so that addirional control equipment, including devices for removal of oxides of sulphur. can be added when developed by advancing technology." Despite these assur. ances. the plant still has no sulphurconU'olling devices while technology available today could reduce SOJ emissions by as much as 90 percenL In 1982. the Environmental Defense Fund filed a lawsuit against TIle Environmental Protection Agency, reo quiring the EP A lO develop regulations and sund3.rds for air quality in National Parks in the Plateau as required by the Clean Air Act of 1977. In 19&4. EPA agreed lOa seltlement ft4uiring them 10 implement a two-phase program of poilu. tion monitoring and emission reduction al pollution sources. TIle National Park Service undenook: an extensive study in January and February 1987 to assess the conltibu. ....