105 



Mr. Synar. Thank you, Professor Michaels. Let's begin with you, 

 Ms. Shaver, if we could. I am interested in a proposal you made 

 to EPA and the Park Service on ways to improve their regulatory 

 programs. Let's begin with your March 1994 "Outline of Existing 

 Source Issues" which you prepared for the EPA's new source review 

 committee. 



Your first option, as I understand it, endorses more voluntary re- 

 gional haze initiatives similar to those in the Grand Canyon and 

 southern Appalachians. You mention the California Sierras, New 

 England, and Rocky Mountains as possible candidates. 



It seems from that reading that you are setting up a multiple 

 commission group, which is exactly what we intended in section 

 169(b) of the 1990 Clean Air amendments. Is that your understand- 

 ing? 



Ms. Shaver. Yes, and I should clarify that paper was a full 

 range of options, and there were a lot of concerns expressed about 

 that regional-type approach. 



Mr. Synar. One of the things the environmental groups have 

 complained about when these commissions are set up like the one 

 Mr. Leary is in, is that they can't afford to attend the numerous 

 meetings, the background studies, et cetera, and there is really lop- 

 sided participation from voluntary groups. 



Do you find a need to correct that by some funding mechanism? 



Ms. Shaver. Not only through a funding mechanism, but 

 through a people mechanism. There aren't too many people in the 

 environmental community, so even if they had funding, they could 

 not spread themselves among 10 commissions around the country. 



Mr. Synar. How many people are we talking about; about how 

 much money? 



Ms. Shaver. Within the environmental community there are 

 probably three, four, maybe five people that could do the work in 

 various areas of the country. I think what is needed more is strong 

 leadership from the Federal and State governments. The 

 goverment agencies should not be taking a back seat and letting 

 the environmental community and the industrial people try to re- 

 solve their differences while they sit back and wait. 



Mr. Synar. Let's look at a specific example. Do you believe that 

 all the parties involved in the Grand Canyon commission have the 

 same incentive to work out a workable solution? 



Ms. Shaver. No, I don't believe that they do. 



Mr. Synar. The next option you discussed was the national re- 

 gional haze initiative. Your version contains monitoring, regional 

 emission inventories, models to estimate future emissions, periodic 

 reassessments of the effects of clean air programs — a program very 

 similar to what Professor White outlined. I presume you agree with 

 Professor White's conclusions? 



Ms. Shaver. Yes, I do. 



Mr. Synar. You have also listed two short-term mechanisms for 

 addressing the adverse impacts in class I areas. My understanding 

 is the first is to enforce existing regulations requiring revisions to 

 State implementation plans where PSD increment violations have 

 been documented. These increments are like a margin of safety to 

 ensure against future degradation from new sources. 



Why aren't those being enforced now, I guess is the question? 



