‘ ‘ ‘ A recent decision by the Environmental Protection Agency will do little to protect the… ‘ ‘ ‘ A recent decision by the Environmental Protection Agency will do little to protect the environment. ‘ ‘ ‘ The Bush administration is finalizing an EPA rule change that would make it easier to build major polluters like coal-fired power plants and oil refineries near national parks. ‘ ‘ ‘ The agency proposal would also alter the way pollution levels are measured. As it stands, pollution is measured over three-hour and 24-hour increments, a system that allows officials to catch possible spikes in pollution emission. The proposed change would look only at the yearly average pollution levels, which means pollution spikes would no longer be illegal, The Washington Post reported. ‘ ‘ ‘ But regional EPA administrators have responded to the plan with forceful opposition. EPA Region 4 Administrator J. I. Palmer Jr. told the Post that the proposal ‘would reduce consistency, accuracy and public review’ and ‘could allow greater deterioration of air quality in clean areas rather than preventing significant deterioration.’ Though half of the 10 EPA regional administrators have stated their formal opposition and many have urged against the change in written submissions, the EPA is going along with the plan. ‘ ‘ ‘ The reasoning behind the EPA’s decision is not entirely clear. EPA spokesman Jonathan Shradar told the Post that he was unable to offer detailed comments on the plan. ‘ ‘ ‘ Chief of EPA’s air and radiation office Jeffrey R. Holmstead said, according to the Post, that the plan would not greatly affect the parks, because ‘air quality in national parks … has very little to do with an individual source.’ ‘ ‘ ‘ The move is disturbing, counterintuitive and goes against the EPA’s goal to protect the environment. The fact that the plan affects national parks makes it all the more disturbing. It is upsetting to see that our government is willing to pollute even the most untainted areas. ‘ ‘ ‘ National parks are valuable not only because of their aesthetic appeal, but also because of their historical and ecological significance ‘mdash; the reason for which they are named national parks. The EPA decision is a harrowing gesture that basically tells Americans that nothing is sacred. ‘ ‘ ‘ Currently, national parks are fraught with poor visibility and acid rain. Dangerous pollutants like sulfur dioxide, carbon dioxide and mercury affect parks. Such a proposal would make this already troubling situation even worse. We worry what measures the EPA will take next, what other pollution regulation rules it will change for the worse. ‘ ‘ ‘ Regional EPA officials have done a commendable job in opposing the plan so far, but their efforts have proven to be insufficient. The proposal is due to be finalized soon, and officials should do everything in their power to prevent it. Otherwise, the National Parks Conservation Association predicts that it could pave the way for the development of at least two dozen coal-powered utilities near 10 national parks.