61 



These regulatory remedies would take some tine to develop. 

 It sight also prove difficult, scientifically and practically, to 

 determine an appropriate uniform standard or increment-surrogate 

 that would protect all AQRvs in Class I areas from the adverse 

 effects of air pollution. For these reasons, I have advocated 

 through EPA's New Sourae Review Subcommittee two revisions to 

 existing regulations which require revisions to state 

 implementation plans if certain events havs occurred. 



Current EPA regulations (40 c.F.R. 51.166(a)(3)) require that 

 SIPs be revised if there ie an increment exceedanca. EPA ie not 

 enforcing this requirement effectively. For example, sulfur 

 dioxide increment exeeedances at Shenandoah National Park have been 

 documented, but new sources continus to be permitted because they 

 do not "significantly contributs" to ths exeeedances. EPA must 

 rsvise this regulation to indicate that if SIP revisions are not 

 submitted in a timely manner (e.g., 18 months), the SIP will be 

 deemed inadequate under section 110 (k) (5) of the Act. A federal 

 implementation plan would need to be imposed, and until an approved 

 plan is in place, no permits could be issued to new sources.. 



The second approach I havs advocatsd also is linked to the 

 SIP revision requirement and could be implemented immediately, 

 i.e., a requirement that SIPs be revised if adverse impacts are 

 occurring on AQRVs in Class I areas. EPA must recognise that 

 preventing adverse impaots on AQRVs is one of the primary purpose 

 of the PSD program. If this purpose is not being fulfilled, then 

 a SIP revision must be required. This requirement would be 

 triggered if the flm or another party were able. to document that 

 adverss impacts wsra occurring. Again, this approach would give 

 states the flexibility to develop the most cost-effective pollution 

 abatement strategies, including requirements for emission 

 reductions at existing sourcss. The SIP submittal could be deemed 

 adequate if it requires reasonabls steps within a reasonable time 

 to make progress toward eliminating the adverss impacts. Failure 

 to reviee SIPs in a timely manner would result in the same 

 consequences discussed above. 



All of the approaches discussed above are consistent with, 

 if not mandated by, existing statutory authorities. EPA should be 

 required to include the recommended changes to 40 C.F.R. 

 51.166(a)(3) in the proposed regulations currently under 

 development and scheduled for publication in January 1995. EPA 

 should also be directed to pursus ths adoption of protective 

 secondary national ambient air quality standards and additional 

 PSD measures under section 166. 



THE PSD NEW SOURCE REVIEW PROGRAM MUST BE SUPPLEMENTED TO 

 PROVIDE EFFECTIVE PROTECTION FOR AIR QUALITY RELATED VALUES 



The Subcommittee on New Source Review established by EPA to 

 streamline the permitting process has been reasonably effective in 



