ARCHIVED ALERT
Protection of Class I
areas
NC Governor Jim Hunt agreed to sign the MOU
(memorandum of understanding) in December but
with conditions. The comments below outline
our position. The issue will come before
the NC Environmental Management Commission in
February. Letters to the Governor
with copies to Bill Holman needed NOW.
BLUE RIDGE ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENSE LEAGUE
PO Box 88 ~ Glendale Springs, North
Carolina 28629
Phone 336-982-2691 ~ Fax 336-982-2954 ~ Email bredl@skybest.com
October 30, 1998
William Holman, Assistant Secretary
Department of Environment and Natural Resources
PO Box 27687
Raleigh, NC 27611-7657
Dear Bill:
On behalf of the Blue Ridge Environmental Defense
League Board of Directors, I write in favor of
North Carolinas entering into an agreement
on permitting procedures with federal land
managers for the protection of Class I
areas. We urge the governor to approve the
pending agreement between the NC Department of
Environment and Natural Resources and the US
Departments of Interior and Agriculture-Forest
Service. This letter will amplify our oral
comments made during public hearings in Asheville
and Raleigh.
We at BREDL oppose the inclusion of any changes
or addenda to the Tennessee Memorandum Of
Understanding (MOU). Our attorneys advise
that such addenda could jeopardize the legal
standing of the agreement. These addenda
all address matters of procedure; all process and
timing issues can be worked out by the staff at
NC DENRs Division of Air Quality and
federal land managers.
We strongly oppose Addendum One which would alter
the preamble of the MOU by giving the signatory
permitting authority absolute control over how
the agreements procedures are followed or
whether they are followed at all. It
states, The signatory authority will, in
its sole discretion, determine the extent of the
efforts, if any, to be undertaken pursuant to
that role (emphasis added).
This statement undermines the fundamental purpose
of the agreement and would make the MOU a
meaningless exercise in public relations.
Changes at the Division of Air Quality have
diluted the Clean Air Acts charge of
affirmative responsibility for AQRVs by
federal land managers. According to experts
in the matter, the procedures contained in the
MOU were standard practice until a few years
ago. Industry opposition to the MOU is
spelled out by the NC Citizens for Business and
Industry and the NC Manufacturers and Chemical
Industry Council in a letter to Secretary Wayne
McDevitt dated January 7, 1998 which states,
We believe that certain provisions of the
MOU represent a significant departure from
current PSD regulatory procedures under the Clean
Air Act and NC regulations. It is our
belief that current procedures represent a
departure from previous unwritten practice by
DENR and federal land managers. Signing the
MOU without addenda would return us the status
quo ante, before the revolving door allowed
industry representatives to gain powerful
positions within the Division of Air Quality.
For more than a decade, BREDL staff, chapter
representatives, and members from western
counties have struggled against the abuses of the
Western North Carolina Regional Air Pollution
Control Agency. These abuses have included
violations of NC Open Records Law and the Open
Meetings Law. Large polluters, especially
Champion Paper and CP&L, have inordinate
power over decision-making at the Local
Program. We have no confidence in the
ability of this Local Program, as the permitting
authority in two western North Carolina counties,
to abide by the provisions of the agreement and
protect Air Quality Related Values in the Great
Smoky Mountain National Park.
The Tennessee MOU came about as a result of a
controversy over a major new air pollution source
near the Smokies. Following a legal appeal
made by the Department of the Interior and the
National Parks and Conservation Association, a
settlement was reached which included an
agreement on permitting processes for new
sources. Shortly thereafter the State of
Tennessee, under pressure from the Tennessee
Association of Business, rescinded the agreement.
Overwhelming public outcry finally resulted in a
new negotiated agreement between the Department
of the Interior and the State of Tennessee.
Similar arguments against the MOU have been posed
by both Tennessee and North Carolina industry
groups. They did not prevail in the
Volunteer State. They should not succeed in
the Tar Heel State.
North Carolina should sign this agreement as
adopted by Tennessee because it is protective of
the air quality in the Great Smoky Mountains
National Park and other important
areas. Right now, air pollution in
the Southern Appalachians is having a devastating
impact on our forests and streams. For example:
Some high elevation park streams have the highest
nitrate concentrations of any measured systems in
the United States. According to the Integrated
Forest Study, nitrogen deposition is higher in
the Smokies than at any other monitored location
in North America. The acidity (pH) of rainfall at
the Smokies is often 5-10 time more acidic than
natural rainfall. Some higher elevation soils in
the Smokies are experiencing advance stages of
nitrogen saturation which lead to the leaching of
toxic aluminum. Ground-level ozone pollution
injury has also be documented to 30 species of
plants in park. Field surveys reveal 90 species
with ozone-like injury. Ground-level ozone
threatens not only forests but human
health. This summer, an unprecedented 42
unhealthy air quality days were recorded in the
park doubling last years record of 19 days.
The park also recorded the highest every one-hour
reading for ozone pollution at 135 parts per
billion, three to six times the normal levels.
Bill, in your statement issued September 3rd you
said, North Carolina is committed to
protecting air quality and visibility in the most
pristine areas of the mountains and the
coast. Governor Hunt should sign the
Memorandum Of Understanding (MOU); he should sign
it without changes before it expires on December
31, 1998.
Respectfully,
Louis Zeller
MOUclass1Comments30oct98
enclosure:
NCCBI letter to Wayne McDevitt, 1/7/98
|