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 Page24
Description 24 THE THIRTY-SIXTH ANNUAL REYNOLDS LECTURE say for sure what the ground level effects will be. The models I discussed previously are not applicable to this deep canyon situation. In the absence of sure knowledge, EPA consulted with the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (formerly called the National Weather Service) and obtained from them a prediction of the future ground-level sulfur dioxide concentrations. These were calculated using the observed topography, known weather data for the location and special predictive models of the behavior of the pollutants. Based on these models they concluded that several times a year there would be conditions leading to high concentrations at ground levels on the canyon walls near the plant. The predicted pollutant concentrations were significantly higher than the standards, which the Clear Air Act requires the state and federal air pollution agencies to maintain. Thus, the prediction was that the Clear Air Act would be violated. Based on these computations, EPA issued a set of regulations for the state of Utah which require the Huntington plant to have the best available sulfur-dioxide removal technology installed in it. Predictably this has met with strong opposition from the company building the plant. First, the company argues that the computational model used to predict the high concentrations is only one of several which could have been used, and that many highly competent air pollution meteorologists think that other computational models which predict lower concentrations are more reliable. Second, the company supports the electric industry's suit which claims that EPA is mistaken in stating that there is adequately demonstrated technology for the sulfur-dioxide removal. Thirdly, the company believes that since the prediction shows that there would be only occasional weather conditions in which the ground level concentrations would exceed the standards that they should be allowed the option of simply shutting down that plant when those conditions exist, and purchasing the needed power on those days, or balancing supply and demand in some other way. Finally, the company points out that the places where the high concentrations are predicted to occur are not in places easily accessible to people, but rather on the steep canyon walls where people seldom or ever go. Most likely the company will take legal action in an effort to have this regulation set aside. There is obviously a non-degradation aspect to this problem because the area into which the plant's fumes will go is now one of very high quality air. What should we do in this case? In terms of the kind of minimiza-tion-of-damage-plus-control-costs approach I described earlier I think we might conclude that installing the sulfur dioxide removal equipment at this plant, at a cost of 10 to 20 million dollars (plus its annual operating
Format image/jpeg
Identifier 026-RNLT-DeNeversN_Page24.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 320526
Reference URL