Update item information
Title Let's Clear the Air
Subject Air--Pollution
Description The Thirty-Sixth Annual Frederick William Reynolds Lecture.
Creator De Nevers, Noel, 1932-
Publisher The Frederick William Reynolds Association
Date 1973-02-20
Date Digital 2008-05-29
Type Text
Format image/jpeg
Digitization Specifications Original scanned on Epson Expression 10000XL flatbed scanner and saved as 400 ppi uncompressed tiff. Display images generated in PhotoshopCS and uploaded into CONTENTdm Aquisition Station.
Resource Identifier,1266
Source TD883 .D45 1973
Language eng
Relation Digital reproduction of "Let's clear the air," J. Willard Marriott Library Special Collections
Rights Digital Image Copyright University of Utah
Metadata Cataloger Seungkeol Choe; Ken Rockwell
ARK ark:/87278/s6ht2m87
Setname uu_fwrl
Date Created 2008-07-29
Date Modified 2008-07-29
ID 320531
Reference URL

Page Metadata

Title Page23
Description "LET'S CLEAR THE AIR" 23 something better. But for cities with really difficult air pollution problems, of which Los Angeles and New York probably have the most difficult, the simple model would have required emission reductions which would probably be impossible to achieve. So the more complex model was run and the control regulations based upon its predictions. This caused a furor within EPA because some individuals within the organization were strongly opposed to modelling at all and were particularly suspicious of the results of any model which cannot be described in less than 10 pages of fine print. That controversy was not settled in any satisfactory way, because the alternatives were "use the models or what?" No satisfactory "or what" was proposed by the critics of the models. However, when the models predicted concentrations which were in excess of standards and, as a result of these predictions, regulations were promulgated for states requiring some industries to make large pollution control expenditures, the result was legal action. At the Salt Lake City hearing concerning these regulations, the official representative of a large mining and smelting company made clear his company's intention to contest, in court, the modelling effort which resulted in the regulations applicable to his company's smelter. The basic argument is, "Can EPA force a company to make large expenditures based on calculations of what the effect of them will be?" The companies say no. If the courts uphold them, then Congress will have to provide EPA with some entirely new basis for assuring compliance with the standards mandated by the Clean Air Act of 1970 The Huntington Canyon Example Many of these dilemmas are illustrated in the problem of pollution regulations for the coal-fired power plant which is currently under construction near Huntington, in Emery County, Utah. The plant is under construction in a deep canyon with walls which rise steeply to elevations much higher than the elevation of the exhaust stack of the plant. The coal to be burned there is a very low-sulfur coal, typical of the low-sulfur coals of the Rocky Mountain States. If the plant were located in a flat area like the Midwest, burning the coal it will use, it would meet all the regulations now on the books or foreseen for the near future. But, in a deep canyon the pollutants from the stack can be trapped, and can under some circumstances presumably lead to high local concentrations. Although the coal is a low-sulfur coal, the plant is large, so that a large amount of sulfur dioxide will be emitted. To date we do not have sure knowledge of what the ground-level concentrations of pollutants from that plant will be. No other plant is known which is in a sufficiently similar situation so that we can use observations near it to
Format image/jpeg
Identifier 025-RNLT-DeNeversN_Page23.jpg
Source Original Manuscript: Let's Clear the Air by Noel de Nevers.
Setname uu_fwrl
Date Created 2008-07-29
Date Modified 2008-07-29
ID 320525
Reference URL