45 



The second positive result of the PSD program has been that 

 the NPS has been able to obtain offsets on certain permits. 

 However, as discussed above, EPA and the NPS need to establish 

 rules that will ensure that the offsets are in fact offsetting 

 the new emissions permitted. It is our belief that the 

 difficulties in obtaining permits for new sources has made 

 industry and the states more receptive to efforts to address the 

 existing source problem, which is our biggest challenge. 



Another major flaw in the PSD program is that it does not 

 take into account the cumulative impact of all the new pollution 

 generated since passage of the Clean Air Act. For example, 

 permits for 26 power generating facilities have been issued in 

 Virginia since 1986. The cumulative impact of all of these 

 facilities on the Shenandoah National Park has never been 

 evaluated by EPA or the state of Virginia. Furthermore, as the 

 GAO reports have shown, many of the new sources of air pollution 

 do not come within the PSD program. Furthermore, the PSD process 

 in Virginia has not considered the impacts of these sources on 

 the Chesapeake Bay nitrification problem. We believe that EPA 

 should undertake a cumulative impact study so that all concerned 

 can understand the total impacts of the new pollution permitted 

 in recent years. 



I would add that under the previous administration, Virginia 

 made good progress on pollution control requirements. The state 

 also accepted the finding that adverse impacts to visibility, 

 vegetation, and aquatic resources were occurring. Its main 

 resistance to the federal land managers was that it wanted to see 

 the regional existing source problem addressed rather than having 

 permits for cleaner new sources bear the focus of the Class I 

 issue. We are concerned that the new administration may 

 undermine the progress made in the PSD program. 



(3) What difference does it make that a state's PSD program 

 is a result of a Federal and not a state implementation plan ? 



In Virginia, the state operates a PSD program delegated to 

 the state from EPA Region III, because Virginia's PSD program has 

 not yet been approved. As a result, persons who comment on the 

 PSD permit application including the federal land manager have 

 the opportunity to petition to EPA for review of a state permit 

 decision. In states where the PSD program has been approved, 

 such as in Tennessee, there is no avenue to seek review by EPA 

 headquarters. In that case, the only way to challenge a state 

 permitting decision is to proceed to state court under the 

 state's administrative law. Based on our understanding of the 

 law in Tennessee and most states, this avenue of review is not 

 satisfactory. As a result, the Tennessee Eastman permit, which 

 NPS found would add to adverse impacts at the Smokies, was not 

 challenged. 



