OCR Text |
Show Garn from ( m y Washington . . . MJ By Jake Gam The Interior Department, on June 14, announced its intention inten-tion to study the air over Capitol Reef National Park and Canyonlands National Park, to ascertain its suitability for Class I status under existing EPA regulations. I have been approached by a number of individuals asking my reaction to the Interior announcement. Apparently, it is widely thought that I should oppose such a study, and the eventual Class I designation which might result from it. As I stated many times on the floor of the Senate, I do not oppose the concept of pristine air. While I remain convinced that our present rush to a national policy of non-deterioration was inspired by the Federal courts, and not the result 'of mature consideration by the Congress, I am sufficiently convinced of the need for clean air over certain areas of the country that I will no longer try to fight the policy. Specifically, the areas of the country which have been set aside as National Parks ought to have the best possible air. That includes Capitol Reef National Park. How does that belief square with my support for the Intermountain Power Project? The fact is, that the Intermountain Inter-mountain Power Project will not jeopardize air quality over Capitol Reef. Computer projections pro-jections indicate that on perhaps 13 days a year, the plume from the Intermountain Power Project might be blown over Capitol Reef, though even that is far from certain. But even if it did, the plume would impact on only one or two of the highest peaks, in the remotest section of the Park, and during the months when the Park is least frequented. There would be no lasting impacts, and when tourist season came again, all would be as it was before. We have seen power plans built in Utah to that degree of cleanliness, so we know it can be done. Therefore,-a Class I designation desig-nation is not inconsistent with the construction of IPP, provided sufficient flexibility is retained to permit local officials to exercise their common sense and good judgment. The Breaux Amendment adopted by the House of Representatives provides pro-vides exactly that sort of flexibility; my Amendment would have done so in the Senate, but it was, unfortunately, unfortun-ately, defeated. The air over both Canyonlands and Capitol Reef deserves immediate designation des-ignation as Class I and I see no need for further study. Since I am convinced that in the end the common sense of our citizens will prevail, Class I designation should pose no impediment to a reasonable solution to power generation problems for Utah and Southern South-ern California. Much has been made of letters written by Secretary of Interior Andrus to Senators Muskie (D-Mc) and Cranston, (D-Cal) containing an implied threat to use the power of the Department of Interior to control the siting of the Intermountain Power Project. The threat is contemptible and should be roundly rejected by the Congress. The fact is that Congress should make the determination as to what values are to be protected, and to what degree. It is a department head's obligation to assist his President in carrying out the mandate of Congress. Should Congress decree that a 5 variance from Class I standards will not irreparably damage air quality over national parks, it is not the Secretary of Interior's prerogative to overrule it. However, since we are faced in IPP with a go-no go situation, I sincerely do not feel that we are trying to provide for construction of a plant that will darken the skies over one of our beautiful parks. The plant will use the best available control technology, technol-ogy, will be equipped with pollution control technology, will burn low sulfur coal, and in general, will be as non-polluting non-polluting as it can be made. During debate on the issue, Senator Cranston (D-Cal) expressed ex-pressed his concern over the need for the power IPP would generate, and his belief that the plant could be built, perhaps at a site father east. In reality, the Salt Wash (primary) (pri-mary) site was chosen specifically specifi-cally because it is the least damaging ecologically, and recent investigations, coupled with Class I designations proposed by the State and being pursued by the Federal government, virtually rule out any of the other sites. It is my firm belief that the 5 variance in clean air standards, as passed by the House of Representatives, provides the only avenue for construction of the Intermountain Intermoun-tain Power Project specifically, and for the best management of our nation's energy resources resour-ces generally. I v il continue to urge my Senate colleagues to yield to the House on this point when the Clean Air Bill goes to the Senate-House Conference Committee where differences in the legislation will be worked out. Dear Editor: Do we really have an energy en-ergy shortage in this country or are we simply being denied an abundance of energy by our inequitable income tax laws? There are aj, least six proven practical methods of producing enormous amounts of usable energy from inexhaustible inex-haustible energy sources. Why haven't we taken advantage advan-tage of thexe inexhaustible energy sources on a large |