The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is attempting to weaken the laws that protect air quality in some of America's most treasured national parks and wilderness areas. A new EPA rule would allow industries seeking to locate near national parks and wilderness areas to circumvent pollution limits established by Congress to protect these areas. As a result, there could be more power plants and factories emitting more air pollution into "areas of special natural, recreational, scenic or historic value" that Congress sought to preserve and protect for future generations.

The Clean Air Act protects air quality in national parks and wilderness areas

In 1977 Congress amended the Clean Air Act and designated certain federal lands as Class I areas, giving them the greatest level of protection under the Act. There are 158 Class I areas, including 48 National Parks, 21 Fish & Wildlife refuges, and 88 Forest Service wilderness areas.

To protect the air in Class I areas, Congress created the prevention of significant deterioration or PSD program. PSD seeks to "preserve, protect, and enhance the air quality in national parks, national wilderness areas, national monuments, national seashores, and other areas of special...natural, recreational, scenic or historic value." Clean Air Act Sec. 160.

Under PSD, Congress established limits (known as increments) on additional amounts of pollution in class I areas over baseline conditions that existed in 1977 when PSD was enacted. Increments are in place for emissions of sulfur dioxide, particulate matter, and nitrogen oxides. Because Congress sought to protect air quality not just from long-term pollution increases, but also from fluctuations and "spikes" that occur at certain times of year (e.g., peak summer energy demand), it created both annual and short-term (3 and 24 hours) increments for these pollutants.

Since Congress wants class I areas to have the cleanest air in the country, these parks and wilderness areas have the smallest increments, or allowable amounts of new pollution. Most other areas of the country are class II areas, and their new pollution increments are about 4-20 times higher. By creating more "room" for new pollution in class II areas, the law seeks to steer new pollution sources away from class I areas.

A major new pollution source like a power plant may not locate near a class I area if it would increase pollution over the class I increments. The plant must do a study (known as an increment analysis) to show how much pollution is already in the class I area and how much additional pollution it will add.

In very limited circumstances, a new pollution source may be granted a variance allowing it to exceed class I increments if its emissions will not adversely impact air quality in the class I area. The source must, however, comply with alternative, higher increments similar to the class II increments.

EPA's rule will allow more air pollution in national parks and wilderness areas

EPA is seeking to change the way increment analyses are conducted for class I areas. Four changes in particular will allow facilities seeking to locate near class I areas to manipulate the data to make it appear as if the air is cleaner than it actually is. These changes will open the door to new pollution in national parks and wilderness areas.

(1) Hiding pollution spikes from regulators

Pollution levels in class I areas can vary significantly over the course of a day, week, month and year. For instance higher pollution can occur during daytime when more commercial activities take place, and during summer months, when power plants increase operations to meet air conditioning energy demand.  Congress created short-term pollution increments to protect class I areas from these periods of higher emissions.

EPA's proposed rule would undermine short-term increments by turning them into annual average pollution limits. A facility looking to locate near a class I area could average the hourly and daily emissions of all area pollution sources over the course of a year, thus hiding pollution spikes that can cause real harm in class I areas or even exceed the short-term increment limits. Having created a false picture of actual pollution levels in the class I area, the new facility could then claim the right to emit far more pollution than otherwise would be allowed.

(2) Ignoring major polluters in class I areas

Under current rules, a pollution source that has received a variance to exceed a class I increment will nonetheless still have its emissions counted when new sources are seeking to add pollution in the class I area. This makes sense because a variance source, by definition, is known to be a major contributor of pollution in the class I area.

Under EPA's proposed rule, the emissions from any pollution source operating under a variance would not be included in an increment analysis. When calculating pollution levels in a class I area, a new facility could simply pretend that those sources don’t exist. By ignoring these emissions, a new facility can claim there is more "room" for new pollution, thus degrading class I air quality to an even greater extent.

(3) Allowing phony pollution accounting methods
Under current rules, emissions from existing facilities that impact a class I area are established by looking at the most recent two years of operating data. The proposed rule allows actual emissions to be computed based on any time period that is claimed to be "more representative" of normal source operations.  The alternative time period could even be two non-consecutive 12-month periods picked from anytime in the past. This opens the door to phony pollution accounting by new facilities that have a vested interest in producing the lowest possible pollution estimates for class I areas they are seeking to locate near.

(4) Opening the door to 50 different standards

Air pollution does not respect state boundaries, and class I areas may be polluted by sources in many different states. It's therefore important that the methods for estimating class I pollution levels are the most accurate and are consistent from state to state.

EPA's proposal opens the door to 50 different standards for estimating class I pollution levels: Emissions "...shall be calculated based on information that, in the judgment of the reviewing authority, provides the most reliable, consistent and representative indication of the emissions from a unit or group of units in an increment consumption analysis...." Some states are likely to use methods that make the air in class I areas appear cleaner than it actually is, but EPA's rule provides no check against such practices.

EPA's Regional Offices and the National Park Service object strongly to these changes. However their concerns have been largely ignored by political appointees at EPA and the White House Office of Management and Budget.

For more information, contact Mark Wenzler, NPCA Clean Air Program Director at 202.454.3335, or mwenzler@npca.org