13 



that some permit applications for proposed new facilities were 

 not being forwarded to the federal land managers having 

 jurisdiction over class I areas. According to Park Service 

 officials, the process has improved, with EPA and state agencies 

 more consistently forwarding new permit applications. Further, 

 EPA guidelines provide that generally the federal land managers 

 need to be notified of permit applications when a proposed 

 facility will be located within 100 kilometers of a class I area. 

 However, Fark Service officials would also like an opportunity to 

 review some applications for facilities beyond this range. 



With its increased opportunity for reviewing applications, 

 the Park Service appears to be having some success in helping 

 control the rate of increase in emissions that contribute to 

 visibility impairment. For example, following the Park Service's 

 review of 13 permit applications for proposed facilities near the 

 Shenandoah National Park, emission levels actually permitted were 

 about 40 percent or almost 24,000 tons less than the proposed 

 emission levels in the original permit applications. In 

 aggregate, however, the new facilities will contribute an 

 additional 31,000 tons per year of sulfur dioxide and nitrogen 

 oxides . 



Another example of the Park Service negotiating reduced 

 emission levels recently occurred in Alaska. Alaska's Department 

 of Environmental Conservation issued a PSD permit for the 

 construction of a new 50 -megawatt clean coal demonstration power 

 plant to be built less than 4 miles from the border of the Denali 

 National Park, even though the Park Service recommended that the 

 state deny the permit. Subsequent to the permit's approval, 

 however, Park Service officials were instrumental in negotiating 

 reduced emissions from a nearby power plant to help offset most 

 of the increased emissions from the new facility. 



