108 



erybody wants to change. And those that want to delay and have 

 a benefit from delaying suffer no consequences by stalling. 



Mr. Synar. You know, my understanding is that your primary 

 purpose is to reexamine the best available control technology. And 

 we have heard from GAO, who testified just before you, that their 

 study of the permit applications in Shenandoah, for example, has 

 showed that when that BACT program was applied that they re- 

 duced emissions by 40 percent. That demonstrates, I think, the suc- 

 cess of Federal land managers negotiating a strict top down control 

 strategy. 



What concerns the subcommittee, Ms. Shaver, is the fact that it 

 is just these tough top down standards that the new source review 

 committee may be designed to undermine. How can we keep the re- 

 view committee from giving away the store? 



Ms. Shaver. I think that is very difficult to do if people are not 

 reaching for a common objective. The top down approach to BACT 

 has been the major benefit of the PSD program. It still only serves 

 to limit pollution increases. It doesn't reduce existing pollution lev- 

 els. But maintaining the requirement for the very best control tech- 

 nology is something that EPA must be directed to do and not let 

 that erode at all. It is really all we have that is firm. 



Mr. Synar. Mr. Carr, let me direct some questions at you. You 

 have represented a variety of environmental groups in a series of 

 cases dealing with the class I program over the last several years. 

 At least three times you appealed decisions by the State of Virginia 

 to issue permits over the objections of Federal land managers and 

 the Departments of Interior and Agriculture. 



My understanding is you were also involved in a PSD case in 

 Tennessee. Tennessee's class I program is part of their State imple- 

 mentation plan, while Virginia's program is delegated to them by 

 EPA under the Federal implementation plan. What is the signifi- 

 cance of that difference? 



Mr. Carr. Where you have a delegated program as in Virginia, 

 anyone who comments on the PSD application can appeal that per- 

 mit to EPA headquarters and get review at that level. Where you 

 have an approved program such as in Tennessee, the only avenue 

 of review is to go to State court under a State's administrative law, 

 and generally that is not a very productive effort. 



So for that reason at least, the Tennessee permit was not ap- 

 pealed. I would also add the Park Service was not even allowed at 

 that time to file its additional technical comments on the Ten- 

 nessee Eastman permit, and really fell out of the process. 



Mr. Synar. In the Hadson Buena Vista case, didn't EPA's envi- 

 ronmental court of appeals judges agree with your arguments 

 about the potential harm from the plant and the errors made by 

 the State of Virginia and remand it back to the State of Virginia? 

 What happened in that case? 



Mr. Carr. Yes, we appealed it on several grounds. On the issue 

 of whether Virginia's policy of not looking at sources beyond 100 

 kilometers was valid, the appeals board did not agree with us and 

 allowed Virginia's policy to stand. That is something that I men- 

 tioned EPA needs to aadress is to require that sources within 200 

 kilometers and even large sources beyond that be considered. 



