OCR Text |
Show Utah's air quality zone designation plan is being criticized by sources outside the state this week as hearings on the plan are being carried out in the state. ' The last public hearing scheduled will be in Moab on Jan. 13. It will begin at 10 a.m. in Star Hall, with staff and members of the state Air Conservation Committee present. Colorado is criticizing the plan because much of the Eastern Utah would be designated as Class 3, allowing maximum legal degradation of existing air quality. Conversely, Colorado wants to propose most of its western region abutting Utah as Class I, which permits virtually no contamination of existing air quality. Colorado also contends that winds are mainly westerly, inferring there would be contamination of Colorado air from Utah. The objections lodged by the Environmental Envir-onmental Protection Agency are technical tech-nical in nature, contending that the Utah Air Conservation committee has not followed guidelines closely enough. Roger Rog-er L. Williams, deputy regional administrator admin-istrator of the EPA, Denver, outlined concerns in a letter addressed to Lynn M. Thatcher, Utah deputy health director. direct-or. He emphasized that his comments "are designed to eliminate future obstacles ob-stacles to the timely conclusion of...the reclassification process." Among objections objec-tions was the use of flat -terrain model in considering development requests. This, he said, "would not adequately protect elevated terrain" and would prevent EPA from granting Utah review authority on such proposed developments. develop-ments. The Utah air committee, however, feels that adequate protection would be afforded since each proposal for development develop-ment would be considered individually before approval was granted. In fact, the Utah committee views this requirement for individual consideration as one of the strong points of Utah's plan, affording maximum flexibility coupled with maximum max-imum control over development. Williams said reclassification guidelines guide-lines "emphasize the need to inform and consult affected local governnments, among others, as soon as the state considers reclassifying and during the preparation of the analysis document." "The material submitted to EPA does not indicate that the local governments govern-ments were informed and consulted as required by the regulations," he said, adding that EPA would require demonstration demon-stration of compliance with these provisions prov-isions prior to granting ' approval to redesignations. He said a Utah analysis document similar to an environmental impact statement, must be prepared and made available to the public at least 30 days before public hearings. Williams feels that the plan proposed by the Utah Air Conservation committee does not meet these qualifications, does not analyze impacts in sufficient detail, and does not comply with requirements. Local citizens are urged to study the proposed redesignation plan, which is available from Dave Johnson, sanitarian, at the Grand County Courthouse, and state their views at the upcoming hearing. In brief, the proposed plan calls for designating 42 per cent of the state as Class 3 air. These areas include high energy source potential lands, with an estimated 5 per cent or less of the state's populations currently residing thereon. Areas of high esthetic qualities including national parks and monuments, monu-ments, primitive areas, national recreation recrea-tion areas, etc., are proposed for Class 1 air designation. These include about 9 per cent of the state which is currently housing less than 1 per cent of the population. The remainder of the state, some 44 per cent, is slated under the plan to remain Class 2 air, permitting such deterioration of air quality as would normally accompany moderate, well-controlled growth, and as such, would be considered insignificant. When EPA's air quality regulations were adopted the Class 2 designation was given to all areas, with the exception of already-impacted metropolitan metropol-itan areas, until states could develop their own air quality designations. Utah is significantly ahead of surrounding sur-rounding states in this process, being the first of the intermountain states to bring their plan to public hearings. |