Air Pollution
Air Quality, Visibility, and the Potential Impacts of Coal-Fired Power Plants on Great Basin National Park, Nevada Gao ID: GAO-09-788R July 27, 2009Great Basin National Park encompasses over 77,000 acres of White Pine County in east-central Nevada and is home to diverse geologic, topographic, and wildlife resources--including ancient bristlecone pines, the world's longest living tree species. The park was created to preserve a representative segment of the Great Basin Region and receives about 80,000 visitors annually. The park features numerous scenic areas with views of the surrounding landscape, which includes both deserts and mountains. The National Park Service (NPS), within the Department of the Interior, is responsible for managing the park, and the park's management plan lists both air quality and visibility as outstanding resources. This plan identifies threats to air quality and visibility--including air pollution from the possible development of coal-fired power plants in the region--and states that even slight increases in air pollution could cause major decreases in visibility. In 2004 and 2006, two companies each initiated the process to build new coal-fired power plants about 55 miles northwest of Great Basin National Park, near the city of Ely, Nevada. While the development of these new power plants would provide jobs, needed electric power, and other benefits, they have also drawn attention to the possibility of adversely affecting air quality and visibility in and around the park. However, in early 2009, both companies publicly stated they have indefinitely postponed development of their plants due to environmental, regulatory, and economic uncertainties. Under the Clean Air Act, to protect human health and welfare, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) establishes national air quality standards for six pollutants that specify the allowable level of each pollutant in the ambient air. The six pollutants, also known as criteria pollutants, are carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxides, sulfur dioxide, particulate matter, lead, and ozone. Coal-fired power plants are major sources of several of these criteria pollutants (i.e., nitrogen oxides, sulfur dioxide, and particulate matter). In addition, nitrogen oxides combine with other chemicals in the air and sunlight to form ozone. EPA increased the stringency oprimary standard for ozone in 2008, changing it from 84 parts per billion to 75 paper billio In addition to the Clean Air Act, the two proposed coal-fired power plants are also subject to requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) because the companies proposed to build their plants on federal land administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). BLM is authorized to issue rights-of-way on federal land for the construction of the plants and, subsequently, to arrange for the sale of the land to the companies. NEPA requires BLM to evaluate the likely effects of the issuance of the rights-of-way using an environmental assessment or, if the environmental effects are likely to be significant, using a more detailed environmental impact statement (EIS). This report responds to a congressional directive in the Joint Explanatory Statement accompanying the Consolidated Appropriations Act for fiscal year 2008. The report describes (1) current air quality and visibility in and around Great Basin National Park and (2) stakeholders' views about the potential impacts of the proposed coal-fired power plants on air quality and visibility in and around the park.
According to data collected from federal agencies, Great Basin National Park and the surrounding area currently have some of the best air quality and visibility in the United States. The park has an extensive monitoring network that is used to track air pollutants and weather information. Current data show the park and surrounding areas meet national air quality standards for all six criteria pollutants. Nonetheless, ozone levels at the park have remained relatively constant over the past 15 years and have exceeded the new air quality standard once, despite data that show recent notable declines in ozone for most of the United States. Visibility at the park, however, has improved over the last 10 years. Monitoring data for 2007 show average visibility of over 130 miles--the best visibility in the continental United States and well above visibility in other national parks. For context, visibility averages about 98 miles at Yosemite National Park in California and about 35 miles at the Great Smoky Mountains National Park in Tennessee and North Carolina. Additionally, both high visibility and the remote location of the park contribute to some of the best nighttime views of the Milky Way in the country. Stakeholders' views differ on the potential impacts on air quality and visibility of building two coal-fired power plants near Great Basin National Park. Several groups thought the likely benefits from the plants would outweigh any negative impacts on the park. The companies that proposed the two power plants have each conducted modeling of the potential air quality and visibility impacts of the proposed plants on the park. According to company officials, the potential air quality impacts are within federal limits--the companies examined the potential impacts and reported no adverse impacts on Great Basin National Park. In addition, BLM's final EIS for one of the plants found that they would cause no adverse impacts on the park. This EIS is now the subject of administrative appeal, and BLM has not issued a final EIS for the other plant. Further, some local government leaders and residents consider the proposed plants necessary for economic development and told us that federal and state air quality and visibility standards are sufficient to protect the park and the surrounding area. Moreover, these stakeholders, as well as officials at the Public Utilities Commission of Nevada, said that the plants would help meet electricity demands in Nevada and the West. Other stakeholders have concerns about the potential impacts of the proposed plants. For example, the NPS--which conducted its own modeling analysis--reported potentially severe impacts from even one proposed plant on air quality, visibility, and dark night skies. NPS officials also disagree with BLM's EIS analysis. In addition, some residents living close to the park, three regional Indian tribes, various local and national environmental groups, and other stakeholders are concerned that the proposed plants could, among other things, adversely impact air quality, visibility, human health, and the Great Basin ecosystem.
GAO-09-788R, Air Pollution: Air Quality, Visibility, and the Potential Impacts of Coal-Fired Power Plants on Great Basin National Park, Nevada
This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-09-788R
entitled 'Air Pollution: Air Quality, Visibility, and the Potential
Impacts of Coal-Fired Power Plants on Great Basin National Park,
Nevada' which was released on July 27, 2009.
This text file was formatted by the U.S. Government Accountability
Office (GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as part
of a longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility. Every
attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data integrity of
the original printed product. Accessibility features, such as text
descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes placed at the
end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, are provided
but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format of the printed
version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an exact electronic
replica of the printed version. We welcome your feedback. Please E-mail
your comments regarding the contents or accessibility features of this
document to Webmaster@gao.gov.
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed
in its entirety without further permission from GAO. Because this work
may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this
material separately.
GAO-09-788R:
United States Government Accountability Office:
Washington, DC 20548:
July 27, 2009:
Congressional Addressees:
Subject: Air Pollution: Air Quality, Visibility, and the Potential
Impacts of Coal-Fired Power Plants on Great Basin National Park,
Nevada:
Great Basin National Park encompasses over 77,000 acres of White Pine
County in east-central Nevada and is home to diverse geologic,
topographic, and wildlife resources--including ancient bristlecone
pines, the world's longest living tree species. The park was created to
preserve a representative segment of the Great Basin Region and
receives about 80,000 visitors annually. The park features numerous
scenic areas with views of the surrounding landscape, which includes
both deserts and mountains. The National Park Service (NPS), within the
Department of the Interior, is responsible for managing the park, and
the park's management plan lists both air quality and visibility as
outstanding resources. This plan identifies threats to air quality and
visibility--including air pollution from the possible development of
coal-fired power plants in the region--and states that even slight
increases in air pollution could cause major decreases in visibility.
In 2004 and 2006, two companies each initiated the process to build new
coal-fired power plants about 55 miles northwest of Great Basin
National Park, near the city of Ely, Nevada.[Footnote 1] While the
development of these new power plants would provide jobs, needed
electric power, and other benefits, they have also drawn attention to
the possibility of adversely affecting air quality and visibility in
and around the park. However, in early 2009, both companies publicly
stated they have indefinitely postponed development of their plants due
to environmental, regulatory, and economic uncertainties.
Under the Clean Air Act, to protect human health and welfare, the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) establishes national air quality
standards for six pollutants that specify the allowable level of each
pollutant in the ambient air. The six pollutants, also known as
criteria pollutants, are carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxides, sulfur
dioxide, particulate matter, lead, and ozone.[Footnote 2] Coal-fired
power plants are major sources of several of these criteria pollutants
(i.e., nitrogen oxides, sulfur dioxide, and particulate matter). In
addition, nitrogen oxides combine with other chemicals in the air and
sunlight to form ozone.[Footnote 3] EPA increased the stringency of its
primary standard for ozone in 2008, changing it from 84 parts per
billion to 75 parts per billion.
In addition to the Clean Air Act, the two proposed coal-fired power
plants are also subject to requirements of the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) because the companies proposed to build their
plants on federal land administered by the Bureau of Land Management
(BLM). BLM is authorized to issue rights-of-way on federal land for the
construction of the plants and, subsequently, to arrange for the sale
of the land to the companies.[Footnote 4] NEPA requires BLM to evaluate
the likely effects of the issuance of the rights-of-way using an
environmental assessment or, if the environmental effects are likely to
be significant, using a more detailed environmental impact statement
(EIS).[Footnote 5]
This report responds to a congressional directive in the Joint
Explanatory Statement accompanying the Consolidated Appropriations Act
for fiscal year 2008. The report describes (1) current air quality and
visibility in and around Great Basin National Park and (2)
stakeholders' views about the potential impacts of the proposed coal-
fired power plants on air quality and visibility in and around the
park.
To respond to these objectives, we reviewed relevant rules and policies
to provide background information on federal air quality requirements
overall and as they relate to national parks. We also obtained and
analyzed data from air quality and visibility monitoring networks. We
determined that the data were sufficiently reliable for the purposes of
this report. Additionally, we interviewed relevant agency officials,
stakeholders, and organizations about the potential individual and
cumulative impacts of proposed new coal-fired power plants on the park.
Because BLM's Record of Decision on the EIS for one of the proposed
plants that fell under our review is the subject of an administrative
appeal, we did not assess the permit applications, the quality of the
modeling conducted by the applicant, or the quality of the data used to
conduct the modeling analysis. Finally, we visited Great Basin National
Park, where we observed air quality monitoring equipment and air
quality and visibility in and around the park. We conducted our work
from September 2008 to July 2009 in accordance with all sections of
GAO's Quality Assurance Framework that are relevant to our objectives.
The framework requires that we plan and perform the engagement to
obtain sufficient and appropriate evidence to meet our stated
objectives and to discuss any limitations in our work. We believe that
the information and data obtained, and the analysis conducted, provide
a reasonable basis for any findings and conclusions in this product.
(See enclosure I for a more detailed description of our scope and
methodology.)
Summary:
According to data collected from federal agencies, Great Basin National
Park and the surrounding area currently have some of the best air
quality and visibility in the United States. The park has an extensive
monitoring network that is used to track air pollutants and weather
information. Current data show the park and surrounding areas meet
national air quality standards for all six criteria pollutants.
Nonetheless, ozone levels at the park have remained relatively constant
over the past 15 years and have exceeded the new air quality standard
once, despite data that show recent notable declines in ozone for most
of the United States. Visibility at the park, however, has improved
over the last 10 years. Monitoring data for 2007 show average
visibility of over 130 miles--the best visibility in the continental
United States and well above visibility in other national parks. For
context, visibility averages about 98 miles at Yosemite National Park
in California and about 35 miles at the Great Smoky Mountains National
Park in Tennessee and North Carolina. Additionally, both high
visibility and the remote location of the park contribute to some of
the best nighttime views of the Milky Way in the country.
Stakeholders' views differ on the potential impacts on air quality and
visibility of building two coal-fired power plants near Great Basin
National Park. Several groups thought the likely benefits from the
plants would outweigh any negative impacts on the park. The companies
that proposed the two power plants have each conducted modeling of the
potential air quality and visibility impacts of the proposed plants on
the park. According to company officials, the potential air quality
impacts are within federal limits--the companies examined the potential
impacts and reported no adverse impacts on Great Basin National Park.
In addition, BLM's final EIS for one of the plants found that they
would cause no adverse impacts on the park. This EIS is now the subject
of administrative appeal, and BLM has not issued a final EIS for the
other plant. Further, some local government leaders and residents
consider the proposed plants necessary for economic development and
told us that federal and state air quality and visibility standards are
sufficient to protect the park and the surrounding area. Moreover,
these stakeholders, as well as officials at the Public Utilities
Commission of Nevada, said that the plants would help meet electricity
demands in Nevada and the West. Other stakeholders have concerns about
the potential impacts of the proposed plants. For example, the NPS--
which conducted its own modeling analysis--reported potentially severe
impacts from even one proposed plant on air quality, visibility, and
dark night skies. NPS officials also disagree with BLM's EIS analysis.
In addition, some residents living close to the park, three regional
Indian tribes, various local and national environmental groups, and
other stakeholders are concerned that the proposed plants could, among
other things, adversely impact air quality, visibility, human health,
and the Great Basin ecosystem.
Background:
Under the Clean Air Act, Great Basin National Park, which was created
in 1986, is designated a Class II area, as are most other areas in the
country. Parks that encompass more than 6,000 acres and were in
existence when the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1977 were enacted, such
as the Grand Canyon and Great Smoky Mountains National Park, are
designated as Class I areas.[Footnote 6] These areas have the most
restrictive limits on maximum allowable increases in nitrogen oxides,
sulfur dioxide, and particulate matter, which affect both air quality
and visibility.[Footnote 7] Class I areas are areas of environmental
concern in which little or no growth could occur, while Class II areas
were designed to allow for orderly, well-controlled growth.
Additionally, Class II areas are areas that have less restrictive
limits on allowable increases in nitrogen oxides, sulfur dioxide, and
particulate matter (as shown in enclosure II, table 1), and states are
not required to develop and implement control strategies to protect
visibility in Class II areas.
The Clean Air Act also established the New Source Review Program to
address the construction of new sources of air pollution. EPA has
delegated authority to the Nevada Division of Environmental Protection
(NDEP) to implement this program, thereby allowing NDEP to review
applications for permits to build and operate proposed power plants,
establish emissions limits for the plants, and ensure that the plants
use appropriate air pollution control technologies. In areas that meet
federal air quality standards, the Clean Air Act permitting process
includes a Prevention of Significant Deterioration review to ensure
that the emissions from a new plant will not exceed maximum allowable
increases for three of the criteria pollutants--nitrogen oxides, sulfur
dioxide, and particulate matter. Additionally, under New Source Review,
applicants estimate through modeling the maximum potential impacts of
new sources of air pollution for all six of the criteria pollutants.
The models used to estimate future air quality impacts of power plants
are highly dependent on the relationships they model, the assumptions
and data used, and how the results are interpreted.
In the electricity industry, utility companies and regulators make
judgments about demand for electric power well into the future because
new power plants can cost hundreds of millions of dollars and
projections of future electricity demand can affect the financial
viability of a new plant. The Department of Energy predicts that demand
for electricity will increase nationally by 26 percent between 2007 and
2030. In 2008, Nevada's public utilities projected their peak summer
electricity demand would increase 49 percent over the next 20 years.
However, long-range projections of electricity demand are inherently
uncertain and their accuracy depends on, among other things,
unforeseeable changes in economic conditions and related fluctuations
in demand for electricity. For example, the recent economic downturn
prompted the Department of Energy and the Nevada Public Utilities
Commission to revise their energy projections.
Great Basin National Park and Surrounding Areas Currently Meet Federal
Air Quality Standards and Have Excellent Visibility:
According to data collected from federal agencies, Great Basin National
Park and the area around it have some of the cleanest air and best
visibility in the country. The park is part of the Department of the
Interior's NPS network of air quality and weather monitoring systems.
Through agreements with other federal agencies, such as EPA, BLM, and
the Department of Commerce's National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, the NPS uses these systems to collect air quality data
to establish baseline concentrations of air pollution, assess trends in
air quality, and determine compliance with national ambient air quality
standards.[Footnote 8] Figure 1 shows a map of the area.
Figure 1: Map of Nevada and White Pine County:
[Refer to PDF for image: map of Nevada and White Pine County]
Noted on the map of White Pine County are locations of the following:
Proposed White Pine Energy Station;
Proposed Ely Energy Center;
Great Basin National Park.
Sources: Map Info and Map Resources (maps).
[End of figure]
According to EPA, the park and surrounding areas currently meet the
standards for the six criteria pollutants--carbon monoxide, nitrogen
oxides, sulfur dioxide, particulate matter, lead, and ozone. Although
the park meets the standards for the criteria pollutants, ozone levels
are close to reaching the newly revised EPA standard. Ozone is a gas
that is usually not emitted directly into the air, but rather is
created by a reaction between nitrogen oxides and volatile organic
compounds in the presence of sunlight. According to EPA, when ozone is
located close to the earth (ground-level ozone) at concentrations above
the EPA standard, it can trigger a variety of human health problems,
including chest pain, congestion, and coughing. Breathing ozone can
also worsen bronchitis and asthma and has been shown to reduce lung
function and inflame the lining of the lungs. Motor vehicle exhaust and
industrial emissions, including emissions from power plants, contain
chemicals that can contribute to the formation of ozone, which is the
primary component of smog. Many urban areas tend to have high levels of
ground-level ozone, but even remote areas such as Great Basin National
Park are subject to increased ozone levels because wind can carry ozone
and the pollutants involved in its formation miles from their original
sources. Coal-fired power plants also emit particulate matter, one of
the criteria pollutants regulated by EPA. According to EPA, numerous
scientific studies have linked particulate pollution exposure to a
variety of health problems including increases in respiratory symptoms
such as irritation of the airways or difficulty breathing, aggravated
asthma, irregular heartbeat, heart attacks, and premature death.
Nationally, average ozone levels declined in the 1980s, leveled off in
the 1990s, and declined steeply after 2002. Nonetheless, over the past
15 years, ozone levels at Great Basin National Park have remained
relatively constant. Specifically, over the past few years, ozone
concentrations at the park have been consistently high and are close to
reaching the revised air quality standard. For example, according to
data collected by NPS, on one day in 2008, the highest 8-hour average
ozone level at the park was 76 parts per billion, which exceeds the new
8-hour ozone standard set by EPA of 75 parts per billion.[Footnote 9]
NPS officials told us the ozone levels at the park are surprising,
considering the remoteness of the park. Compared with other national
parks, Great Basin National Park is one of the best for visibility, yet
near the middle for ozone concentrations. Figure 2 shows the annual
fourth-highest daily maximum 8-hour ozone concentrations at Great Basin
National Park over the last 15 years.
Figure 2: Annual Fourth-Highest 8-Hour Ground-Level Ozone
Concentrations at Great Basin National Park, 1994 to 2008:
[Refer to PDF for image: line graph]
Year: 1994;
Ozone concentration (parts per billion): 69.
Year: 1995;
Ozone concentration (parts per billion): 67.
Year: 1996;
Ozone concentration (parts per billion): 74.
Year: 1997;
Ozone concentration (parts per billion): 74.
Year: 1998;
Ozone concentration (parts per billion): 70.
Year: 1999;
Ozone concentration (parts per billion): 72.
Year: 2000;
Ozone concentration (parts per billion): 77.
Year: 2001;
Ozone concentration (parts per billion): 67.
Year: 2002;
Ozone concentration (parts per billion): 74.
Year: 2003;
Ozone concentration (parts per billion): 71.
Year: 2004;
Ozone concentration (parts per billion): 72.
Year: 2005;
Ozone concentration (parts per billion): 73.
Year: 2006;
Ozone concentration (parts per billion): 72.
Year: 2007;
Ozone concentration (parts per billion): 75.
Year: 2008;
Ozone concentration (parts per billion): 71.
Source: GAO analysis of NPS data.
[End of figure]
Despite the relatively high ozone levels at the park, visibility at the
park is excellent and has improved over the last 10 years. According to
visibility monitoring data for 2007, the best visibility in the
continental United States exists in an area centered around Great Basin
National Park--where visibility averages range seasonally between about
60 and 200 miles, with summer having the haziest conditions. Figure 3
shows photographs of a high-visibility day at the park and a reduced-
visibility day--a day with low visibility due to haze.
Figure 3: Observed High-and Reduced-Visibility Days at Great Basin
National Park:
[Refer to PDF for image: two photographs]
Great Basin National Park, day with high visibility;
Great Basin National Park, day with reduced visibility.
Note: These pictures represent a spectrum series of regional haze
visibility conditions observed at Great Basin National Park for the
selected monitoring time period, 1986 to 1995.
Source: NPS.
[End of figure]
On several of the clearest days in 2007, views of up to 180 miles were
possible at Great Basin National Park--and on a day in October 2007,
visibility was about 214 miles. In contrast, on several of the haziest
days in 2007, views of only about 60 miles were possible. See figure 4
for annual visibility trends at the park for the past 10 years.
Figure 4: Annual Visibility Trends at Great Basin National Park, 1998
to 2007:
[Refer to PDF for image: multiple line graph]
Year: 1998;
Mean of the cleanest one-fifth of sample days: 155 miles;
Mean of the haziest one-fifth of sample days: 85 miles;
Mean of all sample days: 116 miles.
Year: 1999;
Mean of the cleanest one-fifth of sample days: 157 miles;
Mean of the haziest one-fifth of sample days: 80 miles;
Mean of all sample days: 116 miles.
Year: 2000;
Mean of the cleanest one-fifth of sample days: 157 miles;
Mean of the haziest one-fifth of sample days: 80 miles;
Mean of all sample days: 119 miles.
Year: 2001;
Mean of the cleanest one-fifth of sample days: 167 miles;
Mean of the haziest one-fifth of sample days: 86 miles;
Mean of all sample days: 125 miles.
Year: 2002;
Mean of the cleanest one-fifth of sample days: 175 miles;
Mean of the haziest one-fifth of sample days: 73 miles;
Mean of all sample days: 122 miles.
Year: 2003;
Mean of the cleanest one-fifth of sample days: 171 miles;
Mean of the haziest one-fifth of sample days: 87 miles;
Mean of all sample days: 129 miles.
Year: 2004;
Mean of the cleanest one-fifth of sample days: 182 miles;
Mean of the haziest one-fifth of sample days: 96 miles;
Mean of all sample days: 135 miles.
Year: 2005;
Mean of the cleanest one-fifth of sample days: 185 miles;
Mean of the haziest one-fifth of sample days: 74 miles;
Mean of all sample days: 129 miles.
Year: 2006;
Mean of the cleanest one-fifth of sample days: 177 miles;
Mean of the haziest one-fifth of sample days: 86 miles;
Mean of all sample days: 132 miles.
Year: 2007;
Mean of the cleanest one-fifth of sample days: 180 miles;
Mean of the haziest one-fifth of sample days: 85 miles;
Mean of all sample days: 133 miles.
Source: GAO analysis of NPS data.
[End of figure]
For context, average visibility (the mean of all sample days) at Great
Basin National Park in 2007 was 133 miles, compared to 98 miles on
average in Yosemite National Park in California and 35 miles on average
at the Great Smoky Mountains National Park in Tennessee and North
Carolina. For a multiyear comparison of mean visibility trends at Great
Basin National Park and other national parks, see figure 5.[Footnote
10]
Figure 5: Mean Annual Visibility Trends at Selected National Parks,
1998 to 2007:
[Refer to PDF for image: multiple line graph]
Year: 1998;
Great Smoky Mountains National Park, Tennessee and North Carolina: 31
miles;
Yosemite National Park, California: 98 miles;
Bryce Canyon National Park, Utah: 119 miles;
Great Basin National Park, Nevada: 116 miles;
Denali National Park and Preserve, Alaska: 151 miles.
Year: 1999;
Great Smoky Mountains National Park, Tennessee and North Carolina: 30
miles;
Yosemite National Park, California: 82 miles;
Bryce Canyon National Park, Utah: 115 miles;
Great Basin National Park, Nevada: 116 miles;
Denali National Park and Preserve, Alaska: 142 miles.
Year: 2000;
Great Smoky Mountains National Park, Tennessee and North Carolina: 30
miles;
Yosemite National Park, California: 94 miles;
Bryce Canyon National Park, Utah: 121 miles;
Great Basin National Park, Nevada: 119 miles;
Denali National Park and Preserve, Alaska: 158 miles.
Year: 2001;
Great Smoky Mountains National Park, Tennessee and North Carolina: 35
miles;
Yosemite National Park, California: 103 miles;
Bryce Canyon National Park, Utah: 119 miles;
Great Basin National Park, Nevada: 125 miles;
Denali National Park and Preserve, Alaska: 159 miles.
Year: 2002;
Great Smoky Mountains National Park, Tennessee and North Carolina: 34
miles;
Yosemite National Park, California: 92 miles;
Bryce Canyon National Park, Utah: 119 miles;
Great Basin National Park, Nevada: 122 miles;
Denali National Park and Preserve, Alaska: 158 miles.
Year: 2003;
Great Smoky Mountains National Park, Tennessee and North Carolina: 39
miles;
Yosemite National Park, California: 98 miles;
Bryce Canyon National Park, Utah: 128 miles;
Great Basin National Park, Nevada: 129 miles;
Denali National Park and Preserve, Alaska: 156 miles.
Year: 2004;
Great Smoky Mountains National Park, Tennessee and North Carolina: 34
miles;
Yosemite National Park, California: 103 miles;
Bryce Canyon National Park, Utah: 120 miles;
Great Basin National Park, Nevada: 135 miles;
Denali National Park and Preserve, Alaska: 160 miles.
Year: 2005;
Great Smoky Mountains National Park, Tennessee and North Carolina: 32
miles;
Yosemite National Park, California: 103 miles;
Bryce Canyon National Park, Utah: 127 miles;
Great Basin National Park, Nevada: 129 miles;
Denali National Park and Preserve, Alaska: 162 miles.
Year: 2006;
Great Smoky Mountains National Park, Tennessee and North Carolina: 35
miles;
Yosemite National Park, California: 101 miles;
Bryce Canyon National Park, Utah: 127 miles;
Great Basin National Park, Nevada: 132 miles;
Denali National Park and Preserve, Alaska: 152 miles.
Year: 2007;
Great Smoky Mountains National Park, Tennessee and North Carolina: 35
miles;
Yosemite National Park, California: 98 miles;
Bryce Canyon National Park, Utah: 120 miles;
Great Basin National Park, Nevada: 133 miles;
Denali National Park and Preserve, Alaska: 157 miles.
Source: GAO analysis of NPS data.
[End of figure]
The high visibility at Great Basin National Park, as well as its remote
location--away from large sources of artificial nighttime lighting--
contributes to clear views of the night sky. However, light pollution
has increased in many national parks. According to the NPS Night Sky
Team,[Footnote 11] light pollution--defined as the illumination of the
night sky caused by artificial light--has been growing over the years
because of the increased use of artificial lighting to, for example,
light facilities, roads, and homes. Light pollution affects not only
humans, but also nocturnal animals, which depend on the darkness to
hunt, conceal their location, and reproduce. The Night Sky Team visited
the park from 2004 to 2006 and collected baseline data to determine the
darkness of the night skies. The team found that the park's night skies
are among the nation's darkest--these near-pristine nighttime
conditions provide one of the best nighttime views of the Milky Way in
the country.
Stakeholders' Views Differ on the Extent to Which Two Proposed Coal-
Fired Power Plants Could Affect Air Quality and Visibility in and
around the Park:
Stakeholders' views differ on the potential impacts of proposed coal-
fired power plants on Great Basin National Park. In particular, several
stakeholder groups told us that the likely benefits from the proposed
plants would outweigh any negative impacts on the park. The two
companies that proposed building power plants near the park each
conducted modeling to determine potential air quality and visibility
impacts of the plants, as required by NDEP.[Footnote 12] According to
company officials, their modeling showed the plants' air quality
impacts would be within allowable federal limits. Additionally, NDEP
completed its independent technical evaluation for each proposed plant
and determined that all potential air quality and visibility impacts
would be within allowable state and federal limits. NDEP made available
for public review and comment draft permits and supporting technical
review documents that provided the basis for its determination that the
proposed plants would comply with all applicable state and federal air
quality requirements. Although states are not required to develop and
implement control strategies to protect visibility in Class II areas
such as Great Basin National Park, according to the modeling conducted
by these companies, visibility at the park would not be adversely
impacted by the addition of two new power plants.
The companies proposing the two power plants postponed their projects
in early 2009 due to environmental, regulatory, and economic
uncertainties.[Footnote 13] In response to the companies'
announcements, NDEP suspended its review of each project. NDEP
officials said if the companies decide to resume plans to develop their
proposals, NDEP would require significant revisions to each permit
application--such as updating models with more recent data, changing
analyses to reflect any regulatory changes that have occurred in the
intervening time period, or revising the proposals to reflect updated
technologies incorporated into the design of each plant.
To satisfy NEPA requirements, BLM completed an EIS for one of the power
plants and issued its Record of Decision in late 2008 authorizing the
issuance of the right-of-way and eventual sale of land to the company.
However, BLM's decision is the subject of an administrative appeal by a
coalition of environmental advocacy and other groups. BLM was in the
process of developing an EIS for the second plant when, in early 2009,
both companies publicly stated they have indefinitely postponed
development of these plants.
In the final EIS for one of the proposed plants, BLM summarized the
findings of the modeling conducted by the company and contributed its
own analysis. BLM assessed the potential impacts of one of the proposed
plants on air quality and visibility in and around the park. BLM's
analysis also involved a cumulative analysis that included the second
plant, because at that point, BLM described the second plant as a
reasonably foreseeable future action. According to the final EIS,
results show that predicted impacts are less than national air quality
standards and, therefore, are not expected to result in adverse impacts
to human health or the environment. The final EIS' cumulative analysis
also stated that the area is not expected to experience significant
deterioration in air quality and the impacts from the cumulative
emissions are less than the limits established to protect against
decreased visibility. Nevertheless, BLM's Record of Decision required
the company to incorporate best practices into the design and operation
of the plant to mitigate the plant's potential visibility impacts, as
well as lighting requirements to limit impacts to dark night skies, and
to provide for future sequestration of carbon emissions.
In January 2009, a coalition of environmental advocacy and other groups
appealed this Record of Decision on several grounds, including that
BLM's air quality analysis did not satisfy the requirements of NEPA, in
part because BLM did not independently analyze potential air quality
impacts. Additionally, the appeal states that visibility impacts are
likely to be greater than BLM's analysis showed. For the second plant,
BLM was in the process of developing an EIS; however, the company
postponed plans to develop its plant, and BLM has since stopped working
on the EIS. If the company decides to continue pursuing the plant as
proposed, BLM would then resume work on an EIS--and could require the
company to reinitiate the entire EIS process. A timeline of the
development process for each plant is shown in figure 6.
Figure 6: Timeline for Proposed Coal-Fired Power Plants near Ely,
Nevada:
[Refer to PDF for image: time line]
White Pine Energy Station:
* August, 2004: BLM begins work on EIS;
* December, 2007: Company submits permit application to NDEP;
* October, 2008: BLM completes EIM;
* December, 2008: BLM issues Record of Decision;
* January, 2009: Groups appeal BLM decision;
* March, 2009: Company postpones project.
Ely Energy Center:
* January, 2007: BLM begins work on EIS;
* October, 2007: Company submits permit application to NDEP;
* February, 2009: Company postpones project.
Source: GAO.
[End of figure]
Further, some local government leaders, as well as residents, told us
and as reflected in public comments that the proposed plants are
necessary for economic development and that the Great Basin Region is
sufficiently protected by federal and state air quality and visibility
standards. Local government leaders and one local Indian tribe support
building the power plants as a way to provide jobs to area residents,
increase the local tax base, and diversify the local economy. For
example, according to a local government official, area job
opportunities are generally limited to the mining industry, a maximum
security prison, and other public sector jobs, and the local tax base
is weak. According to officials of both companies, the plants would
provide both temporary and permanent job opportunities. Each company
projected to offer over 1,000 temporary positions during the roughly 5-
year construction period and estimated approximately 150 permanent jobs
once the plants are completed. City officials told us they are
especially interested in the permanent positions associated with the
projects, and other local government leaders view the industry as a way
to keep young residents within the community. Additionally, in the
final EIS, BLM analyzed possible socioeconomic benefits--projecting the
proposed plant would generate over $129 million in tax revenue during
its 5-year construction period and an average of more than $16.5
million in tax revenue during each of its first 5 years of operation--
all of which would be a major fiscal benefit to the state and local
government agencies, particularly those in White Pine County.[Footnote
14]
In addition, these stakeholders and officials from the Public Utilities
Commission of Nevada said the plants are needed to help meet the
expected growth in electricity demand in Nevada and the West in
general. According to the companies, the combined electric generation
capacity of the two proposed plants would be about 3,000 megawatts
[Footnote 15]. Such additional capacity could increase Nevada's
electricity generation capability by about 31 percent from its 2007
level, contributing significantly to the state utilities' expected
demand growth of 49 percent from 2008 to 2028. However, long-range
projections of electricity demand are inherently uncertain and their
accuracy depends on, among other things, unforeseeable changes in
economic conditions and related fluctuations in demand for electricity.
For example, the recent economic downturn prompted the Department of
Energy and the Nevada Public Utilities Commission to revise their
projections.
Other stakeholders, including the NPS, some residents living near the
park, local and national environmental groups, and three regional
Indian tribes, have concerns about the impacts of the proposed plants
on air quality and visibility. For example, the officials of the NPS
are concerned about the potential air quality impacts of ozone, as well
as emissions of nitrogen oxides, sulfur dioxide, and mercury on the
park and surrounding areas. In enclosure II, tables 2 and 3 list top
major sources of nitrogen oxides and sulfur dioxide emissions within
approximately 200 miles of Great Basin National Park, including the
potential emissions of the two proposed power plants. According to the
NPS's modeling, emissions from even one of the new plants could have
significant negative impacts on air quality in the park and the
surrounding area, and both plants would have a more severe impact.
Regarding visibility, stakeholders differ on their interpretation of
modeling results. While EPA's Regional Haze Rule requires states to
develop plans to prevent future or remedy existing visibility
impairment in mandatory Class I federal areas, neither states nor EPA
are required to develop and implement control strategies to protect
visibility in Class II areas such as Great Basin National Park.
However, NPS officials identified the park as a sensitive area and
requested the companies and BLM to analyze potential visibility impacts
of the proposed coal-fired power plants on the park in the same way
that they would analyze visibility impacts on Class I areas. The NPS
also conducted its own visibility analysis based on Federal Land
Managers' guidelines, which includes modeling and analyses to assess
whether a major new source of air pollution would have an adverse
impact on air quality and visibility of Class I areas.[Footnote 16]
According to these guidelines, the federal land manager determines
adverse impact findings on a project-specific basis, based on reviews
of the frequency, magnitude, duration, and location of projected
impacts.[Footnote 17]
The NPS's analysis showed that operating the two plants would cause
visibility to deteriorate to the extent that if the park were a Class I
area, NPS officials would have encouraged a finding of adverse impact
on air quality and visibility. However, since Great Basin National Park
is a Class II area, they could not make this adverse impact finding.
Specifically, its analysis showed that annually, one of the plants
would cause noticeable changes in visibility at the park for about 20
percent of days and the two plants combined would cause noticeable
visibility changes for about 32 percent of days. This screening
analysis was based on the federal land managers' guidance for mandatory
Class I federal areas, assuming "natural" background and visibility
conditions and seasonal average relative humidity values.[Footnote 18]
NPS officials also said the plants--individually or combined--would
severely impact dark night skies because air pollution particles from
the plants would increase the scattering of new and existing light in
the atmosphere and decrease nighttime visibility.
NPS officials said their analysis and the analysis conducted by one of
the companies both indicate that visibility impacts from the proposed
coal-fired power plants would be the most severe NPS officials have
ever encountered from a proposed new source of air pollution on a
protected area. In addition, NPS officials disagree with both BLM's
interpretation of the companies' analysis and BLM's own analysis--that
is, NPS considers BLM to have understated the severity and magnitude of
potential impacts on Great Basin National Park. NPS officials told us
they disagreed with how BLM conducted its analysis and the conclusions
BLM officials reached about visibility impacts of one of the proposed
power plants. For example, while BLM's analysis described moderate
visibility changes at Great Basin National Park, NPS officials say the
impacts on the park would be unacceptable. According to BLM, this lack
of consensus between NPS and BLM results, in part, from the choice of
analysis methods and assumptions used by each agency. For example, in
interpreting modeling guidance for federal land managers, BLM and NPS
relied on meteorological data from different years and differed in
their interpretations of the degree to which projected visibility
impairments would result from weather conditions versus pollution from
the plants.
Finally, some people living near the park, three regional Indian
tribes, several local and national environmental groups, and other
stakeholders have concerns that the emissions of the proposed plants
could, among other things, adversely affect air quality, visibility,
human health, and the Great Basin ecosystem. For example, in public
comments on the proposed plants, environmental advocacy groups said
that criteria pollutants and mercury emissions from the plants could
lead to adverse health effects in people and animals. Three regional
Indian tribes echoed these concerns, stating that air pollution from
the plants would worsen high asthma rates and harm native wildlife and
traditional foods throughout the region.
These and other stakeholders are concerned that air pollution from the
plants could harm sensitive aquatic ecosystems in and around the park
and could jeopardize populations of cutthroat trout, which has been
identified as a federally threatened species. In addition, local
stakeholders told us that tourists come to the area to visit the park,
fish in local lakes, watch birds, and hunt. According to NPS, in 2007
the park generated $5.4 million in direct and secondary economic
benefits to White Pine County. Additionally, a local Indian tribe and a
national environmental group told us that Nevada has a high potential
for developing renewable energy sources, and the state should explore
these options.
We provided a summary of the findings of this report to representatives
from the Environmental Protection Agency, the Bureau of Land
Management, the National Park Service, the Nevada Division of
Environmental Protection, and to representatives from the proposed
plants, and incorporated their technical comments, as appropriate. We
are sending copies of this report to appropriate congressional
committees and other interested parties. In addition, this report will
be available at no charge on the GAO Web site at [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov].
If you or your staffs have any questions about this report, please
contact me at (202) 512-3841 or stephensonj@gao.gov. Contact points for
our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found
on the last page of this report. Key contributors to this report
include Michael Hix (Assistant Director), Summer Lingard, Heather
Chartier, Nancy Crothers, Philip Farah, Cindy Gilbert, Jeanette Soares,
Karen Keegan, Kirk Menard, and Kristin Hughes.
Signed by:
John B. Stephenson:
Director, Natural Resources and Environment:
List of Congressional Addressees:
The Honorable Dianne Feinstein:
Chairman:
The Honorable Lamar Alexander:
Ranking Member:
Subcommittee on Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies:
Committee on Appropriations:
United States Senate:
The Honorable Norman D. Dicks:
Chairman:
The Honorable Michael K. Simpson:
Ranking Member:
Subcommittee on Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies:
Committee on Appropriations:
House of Representatives:
The Honorable Harry Reid:
United States Senate:
[End of section]
Enclosure I: Scope and Methodology:
To answer the first objective, we reviewed relevant rules and policies
on federal air quality requirements overall and as they relate to
national parks. We obtained and analyzed data from air quality and
visibility monitoring networks. To assess the data reliability of the
National Park Service's Interagency Monitoring of Protected Visual
Environments (IMPROVE) data, we (1) performed electronic testing of
required data elements, (2) reviewed existing information about the
data and the system that produces them, and (3) interviewed agency
officials knowledgeable about the data. We determined that the data
were sufficiently reliable for the purposes of this report.
Additionally, we interviewed relevant agency officials at the
Environmental Protection Agency, the National Park Service, the Bureau
of Land Management, and the Nevada Division of Environmental Protection
regarding current air quality and visibility in the park.
To answer the second objective and describe stakeholders' views about
the potential impacts of two proposed coal-fired power plants on air
quality and visibility in and around the park, we interviewed relevant
agency officials, stakeholders, and organizations about individual and
cumulative impacts of two proposed coal-fired power plants on the park.
We also reviewed public comments and resolutions and reported
stakeholder analysis. We did not independently review the analysis done
by stakeholders.
Some stakeholders we interviewed are members of different
organizations, including local and national environmental groups, local
and regional Indian tribes, members of the community surrounding the
park, representatives of city and county government, and members of the
Chamber of Commerce. Some of these individuals are members of multiple
organizations and submitted comments or spoke with GAO on behalf of
other groups. Additionally, we interviewed all stakeholders when both
companies were actively pursuing construction and operating permits
from the Nevada Division of Environmental Protection and rights-of-way
on the Bureau of Land Management's land.
Our policy is to avoid taking a position on or addressing matters that
are pending in litigation. Due to the pending administrative appeal of
the Bureau of Land Management's Record of Decision on the Environmental
Impact Statement, GAO did not independently quantify or assess how the
new plants, if built, could contribute to air quality changes; but
rather, we reviewed and reported on available information on such
impacts from the proposed coal-fired power plant permits, and analysis
conducted by other stakeholders. We did not assess the permit
applications, the quality of the modeling conducted by the applicant,
or the quality of the data used to conduct the modeling analysis due to
the pending appeal. Additionally, we did not solicit the views of
stakeholders on the appeal or offer opinions on the reliability of any
air quality modeling performed.
To gain a better understanding of how coal-fired power plants work, we
visited a power plant in Maryland and discussed with company officials
how their coal plant operated. Finally, we visited Great Basin National
Park, where we observed air quality monitoring equipment and air
quality and visibility in and around the park, and met with local
stakeholders. We conducted our work from September 2008 to July 2009 in
accordance with all sections of GAO's Quality Assurance Framework that
are relevant to our objectives. The framework requires that we plan and
perform the engagement to obtain sufficient and appropriate evidence to
meet our stated objectives and to discuss any limitations in our work.
We believe that the information and data obtained, and the analysis
conducted, provide a reasonable basis for any findings and conclusions
in this product.
[End of section]
Enclosure II: Additional Tables:
As shown in table 1, Class II areas have less restrictive limits on
allowable increases in nitrogen dioxide, sulfur dioxide, and
particulate matter.
Table 1: Prevention of Significant Deterioration Increments for Class I
and Class II Areas:
Pollutant: Particulate matter (PM10);
Measurement[A]: Annual arithmetic mean;
Class I[B]: 4;
Class II[B]: 17.
Pollutant: Particulate matter (PM10);
Measurement[A]: 24-hour maximum;
Class I[B]: 8;
Class II[B]: 30.
Pollutant: Sulfur dioxide (SO2);
Measurement[A]: Annual arithmetic mean;
Class I[B]: 2;
Class II[B]: 20.
Pollutant: Sulfur dioxide (SO2);
Measurement[A]: 24-hour maximum;
Class I[B]: 5;
Class II[B]: 91.
Pollutant: Sulfur dioxide (SO2);
Measurement[A]: 3-hour maximum;
Class I[B]: 25;
Class II[B]: 512.
Pollutant: Nitrogen dioxide (NO2)[C];
Measurement[A]: Annual arithmetic mean;
Class I[B]: 2.5;
Class II[B]: 25.
Source: Clean Air Act.
[A] For any period other than an annual period, the applicable maximum
allowable increase may be exceeded during one such period per year at
any one location.
[B] Maximum allowable increase (micrograms per cubic meter--µg/m3).
[C] Nitrogen dioxide is one of a group of highly reactive gasses known
as "oxides of nitrogen," or "nitrogen oxides." While EPA's National
Ambient Air Quality Standard covers the entire group of nitrogen
oxides, nitrogen dioxide is the component of greatest interest and the
indicator for the larger group of nitrogen oxides.
[End of table]
Top major sources of nitrogen oxides and sulfur dioxide emissions
within approximately 200 miles of Great Basin National Park, including
the potential emissions of the two proposed power plants, are shown in
tables 2 and 3.
Table 2: Top 15 Major Sources of Nitrogen Oxides Emissions within
Approximately 200 Miles of Great Basin National Park:
Source: Navajo Generating Station;
Location: Page, Arizona;
Distance (miles): 210;
Tons of nitrogen oxides emitted per year: 33,221.
Source: Intermountain Power;
Location: Delta, Utah;
Distance (miles): 97;
Tons of nitrogen oxides emitted per year: 25,098.
Source: Hunter Power Plant;
Location: Castledale, Utah;
Distance (miles): 173;
Tons of nitrogen oxides emitted per year: 18,247.
Source: Huntington Power Plant;
Location: Huntington, Utah;
Distance (miles): 172;
Tons of nitrogen oxides emitted per year: 10,180.
Source: Sierra Pacific Power;
Location: Valmy, Nevada;
Distance (miles): 204;
Tons of nitrogen oxides emitted per year: 9,380.
Source: Nevada Power Company;
Location: Moapa, Nevada;
Distance (miles): 159;
Tons of nitrogen oxides emitted per year: 9,015.
Source: Nevada Power Company;
Location: Las Vegas, Nevada;
Distance (miles): 202;
Tons of nitrogen oxides emitted per year: 5,735.
Source: As Proposed: Ely Energy Center[A];
Location: Ely, Nevada;
Distance (miles): 48;
Tons of nitrogen oxides emitted per year: 4,853.
Source: As Proposed: White Pine Energy Station[A];
Location: Ely, Nevada;
Distance (miles): 61;
Tons of nitrogen oxides emitted per year: 4,812.
Source: Bingham Canyon Mine;
Location: Bingham Canyon, Utah;
Distance (miles): 156;
Tons of nitrogen oxides emitted per year: 3,750.
Source: Carbon Power Plant;
Location: Helper, Utah;
Distance (miles): 189;
Tons of nitrogen oxides emitted per year: 3,409.
Source: Power Plant and Lab;
Location: Magna, Utah;
Distance (miles): 166;
Tons of nitrogen oxides emitted per year: 2,067.
Source: Graymont Western U.S.;
Location: Shafter, Nevada;
Distance (miles): 130;
Tons of nitrogen oxides emitted per year: 1,730.
Source: Sierra Pacific Power;
Location: Sparks, Nevada;
Distance (miles): 204;
Tons of nitrogen oxides emitted per year: 1,578.
Source: Chemical Lime Company;
Location: Las Vegas, Nevada;
Distance (miles): 182;
Tons of nitrogen oxides emitted per year: 1,566.
Source: McCarran International Airport;
Location: Las Vegas, Nevada;
Distance (miles): 204;
Tons of nitrogen oxides emitted per year: 1,474.
Source: Holcim Devil's Slide Plant;
Location: Morgan, Utah;
Distance (miles): 205;
Tons of nitrogen oxides emitted per year: 1,353.
Source: GAO analysis of EPA 2005 National Emissions Inventory Data.
[A] These figures represent the potential emissions modeled by the
companies in their permit applications.
[End of table]
Table 3: Top 15 Major Sources of Sulfur Dioxide Emissions within
Approximately 200 Miles of Great Basin National Park:
Source: Huntington Power Plant;
Location: Huntington, Utah;
Distance (miles): 172;
Tons of sulfur dioxide emitted per year: 17,364.
Source: Sierra Pacific Power;
Location: Valmy, Nevada;
Distance (miles): 204;
Tons of sulfur dioxide emitted per year: 9,607.
Source: Hunter Power Plant;
Location: Castledale, Utah;
Distance (miles): 173;
Tons of sulfur dioxide emitted per year: 6,278.
Source: As Proposed: White Pine Energy Station[A];
Location: Ely, Nevada;
Distance (miles): 61;
Tons of sulfur dioxide emitted per year: 6,071.
Source: Carbon Power Plant;
Location: Helper, Utah;
Distance (miles): 189;
Tons of sulfur dioxide emitted per year: 5,411.
Source: As Proposed: Ely Energy Center[A];
Location: Ely, Nevada;
Distance (miles): 48;
Tons of sulfur dioxide emitted per year: 4,628.
Source: Navajo Generating Station;
Location: Page, Arizona;
Distance (miles): 210;
Tons of sulfur dioxide emitted per year: 3,944.
Source: Intermountain Power;
Location: Delta, Utah;
Distance (miles): 97;
Tons of sulfur dioxide emitted per year: 3,597.
Source: Power Plant and Lab;
Location: Magna, Utah;
Distance (miles): 166;
Tons of sulfur dioxide emitted per year: 3,009.
Source: Chevron USA Products;
Location: Salt Lake City, Utah;
Distance (miles): 179;
Tons of sulfur dioxide emitted per year: 2,201.
Source: Nevada Power Company;
Location: Moapa, Nevada;
Distance (miles): 159;
Tons of sulfur dioxide emitted per year: 2,094.
Source: Sunnyside Cogeneration Facility;
Location: Sunnyside, Utah;
Distance (miles): 210;
Tons of sulfur dioxide emitted per year: 933.
Source: BP Amoco Refinery;
Location: Salt Lake City, Utah;
Distance (miles): 178;
Tons of sulfur dioxide emitted per year: 880.
Source: Smelter & Refinery;
Location: Magna, Utah;
Distance (miles): 164;
Tons of sulfur dioxide emitted per year: 777.
Source: Holly Corporation Refinery;
Location: Woods Cross, Utah;
Distance (miles): 183;
Tons of sulfur dioxide emitted per year: 574.
Source: Big West Oil Company Flying J Refinery;
Location: North Salt Lake, Utah;
Distance (miles): 182;
Tons of sulfur dioxide emitted per year: 361.
Source: Graymont Western U.S.;
Location: Shafter, Nevada;
Distance (miles): 130;
Tons of sulfur dioxide emitted per year: 251.
Source: GAO analysis of EPA 2005 National Emissions Inventory Data.
[A] These figures represent the potential emissions modeled by the
companies in their permit applications.
[End of table]
[End of section]
Footnotes:
[1] Both companies proposed to build one coal-fired power plant with
multiple coal-fired electricity-generating units. A coal-fired power
plant includes one or more electricity-generating units, in addition to
land and auxiliary equipment--such as boilers, turbines, heat
exchangers, condensers, fabric filters, and other equipment.
[2] Ozone is a gas that occurs both in the earth's upper atmosphere and
at ground level. In the upper atmosphere, ozone occurs naturally and
protects life on earth from the sun's harmful rays. In the lower
atmosphere, ground-level ozone is caused by, among other things, motor
vehicle exhaust, industrial emissions, gasoline vapors, as well as
natural sources that emit nitrogen oxides and volatile organic
compounds.
[3] Nitrogen oxides, sulfur dioxide, particulate matter, and ozone can
travel for many miles and may create compounds which decrease the
distance we can see, as well as degrade the color, clarity, and
contrast of scenic vistas.
[4] A right-of-way is an easement, lease, permit, or license to occupy,
use or traverse public lands for a specified purpose.
[5] An environmental assessment generally includes a brief discussion
of the need for the proposal, alternatives to the proposal, the
environmental impacts of the proposed action and alternatives, and a
listing of agencies and persons consulted. A more detailed EIS should
include a discussion of the purpose of and the need for the proposed
action, alternatives to the proposed action, the affected environment,
and the environmental consequences of the proposed action, among other
things.
[6] These parks are known as mandatory Class I federal areas.
[7] As they deem appropriate, states may submit proposals to the EPA
Administrator to have any area, including a national park, redesignated
as Class I. Before submitting a proposal, states must (1) consult with
the elected local government officials in the area proposed to be
redesignated; (2) prepare a publicly available description and analysis
of the health, environmental, social, and energy effects of
redesignation; (3) hold at least one public hearing on the proposed
redesignation; (4) notify other states and Indian tribes whose lands
may be affected by the redesignation at least 30 days before the public
hearing; and (5) provide the appropriate federal land manager, if
applicable, with written notice and allow the federal land manager
adequate opportunity, but not more than 60 days, to respond to the
proposal with comments or recommendations. If the federal land manager
responds, the state must publish a list of any inconsistencies between
the redesignation and the federal land manager's response, together
with the reasons for making the redesignation against the
recommendation of the federal land manager. The EPA Administrator may
disapprove a state's proposed redesignation only if the state fails to
follow these procedural requirements or has proposed redesignating
certain areas as Class III.
[8] The monitoring systems at Great Basin National Park are the
National Atmospheric Deposition Program/National Trend Network, Clean
Air Status and Trends Network, and Interagency Monitoring of Protected
Visual Environments. The weather data networks at Great Basin National
Park are the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's National
Weather Service and Climate Reference Network, the U.S. Geological
Survey's High Elevation Precipitation Network, two Remote Automatic
Weather Stations managed by BLM for the National Interagency Fire
Center, and the Natural Resources Conservation Service's Snow Course
Program.
[9] The national 8-hour air quality standard for ozone is 0.075 parts
per million, daily maximum 8-hour average. The standard is met at a
monitoring site when the 3-year average of the annual fourth-highest
daily maximum 8-hour average ozone concentration is less than or equal
to 0.075 parts per million (0.075 parts per million is the same as 75
parts per billion).
[10] Visibility conditions in the eastern and western United States are
inherently different because of factors such as climate conditions and
concentrations of air pollution.
[11] The NPS Night Sky Team works in parks across the country to
document the effects of light pollution. Great Basin National Park is
one of 67 NPS units where baseline data have been collected or data
collection is under-way.
[12] White Pine Energy Associates, LLC (an affiliate of LS Power
Development, LLC) proposed the White Pine Energy Station, and Sierra
Pacific Resources (now NV Energy, or NVE) proposed the Ely Energy
Center.
[13] Since announcing the indefinite postponement of their power
plants, each company has moved forward with plans to develop a north-
south electricity transmission line in Eastern Nevada. Both
transmission lines would provide a first-time connection between the
northern and southern Nevada service areas and deliver renewable energy
to market. Additionally, one of the companies would have upgraded the
existing Nevada Northern Railway to accommodate coal trains into the
area and restored access for future freight traffic in White Pine and
surrounding counties.
[14] BLM's socioeconomic analysis in the EIS cited figures in 2006
dollars.
[15] A watt is the basic unit used to measure electric power. A
kilowatt (kW) equals 1,000 watts, and a megawatt (MW) equals 1,000 kW
or 1 million watts. Electricity production and consumption are measured
in kilowatt-hours, while generating capacity is measured in kilowatts
or megawatts. An average U.S. household consumes roughly 10,000 kWh a
year.
[16] These Federal Land Managers' Air Quality Related Values Workgroup
(FLAG) guidelines are only guidance and not regulations and do not
provide a universal formula for evaluating impacts. Federal land
managers that use FLAG guidelines include the NPS and the Fish and
Wildlife Service in the Department of the Interior and the Forest
Service in the Department of Agriculture. BLM does not participate in
FLAG, but rather addresses Prevention of Significant Deterioration
permit applications on a case-by-case basis.
[17] The federal land manager for lands administered by the Department
of the Interior, which NPS is a part of, is the Department's Assistant
Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks.
[18] If a single emission source is predicted to exceed a 5 percent
change in conditions, or a group of two or more sources are predicted
to exceed a 10 percent change in conditions, FLAG guidance states:
"then the federal land manager will consider the magnitude, frequency,
duration, and other factors to assess the impact, but is likely to
object to the issuance of the permit." The BLM analysis identified that
up to 66 days per year (18 percent of the days from all sources
combined) could have a "just noticeable change" in visibility at Great
Basin National Park. However, the Final EIS stated: "Because of the
highly conservative nature of the assumptions used for this assessment,
the actual number of days when perceptible cumulative visibility
impacts would occur would be considerably lower than these figures."
[End of section]
GAO's Mission:
The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation and
investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting
its constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance
and accountability of the federal government for the American people.
GAO examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and
policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance
to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding
decisions. GAO's commitment to good government is reflected in its core
values of accountability, integrity, and reliability.
Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony:
The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no
cost is through GAO's Web site [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. Each
weekday, GAO posts newly released reports, testimony, and
correspondence on its Web site. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly
posted products every afternoon, go to [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]
and select "E-mail Updates."
Order by Phone:
The price of each GAO publication reflects GAO‘s actual cost of
production and distribution and depends on the number of pages in the
publication and whether the publication is printed in color or black and
white. Pricing and ordering information is posted on GAO‘s Web site,
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/ordering.htm].
Place orders by calling (202) 512-6000, toll free (866) 801-7077, or
TDD (202) 512-2537.
Orders may be paid for using American Express, Discover Card,
MasterCard, Visa, check, or money order. Call for additional
information.
To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs:
Contact:
Web site: [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm]:
E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov:
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470:
Congressional Relations:
Ralph Dawn, Managing Director, dawnr@gao.gov:
(202) 512-4400:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street NW, Room 7125:
Washington, D.C. 20548:
Public Affairs:
Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov:
(202) 512-4800:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street NW, Room 7149:
Washington, D.C. 20548:
