149 



You have heard today two of the reasons why the PSD program 

 has not perhaps been as effective as it might. One reason is that 

 while the Federal land manager has an affirmative responsibility 

 to be aggressive, ultimately, we are not the regulators. 



I think since your 1990 hearings, the Park Service and the Fish 

 and Wildlife Service have been more aggressive, made 10 adverse 

 impact determinations, 9 in the east and 1 the Healy Power Plant 

 outside Denali. But in every case, the States issued or sought to 

 issue a permit nonetheless, rejecting or not agreeing with the land 

 manager's adverse impact determination. So we really need to fig- 

 ure out a way to build partnerships with the regulators, and we 

 need to figure out how to make that role stronger. 



I am very heartened by the statements that were made here 

 today by Mary Nichols about her expectations for the new source 

 review reform group, because we are participating in that, and we 

 look forward to that producing some very useful suggestions for 

 EPA. 



The second problem with the PSD program, obviously, is that it 

 only deals with a very, very few sources. And I think that the NRC/ 

 national academy study, as I read it, basically says what the Na- 

 tional Park Service has been saying for years: No. 1, this is a prob- 

 lem that has to be dealt with by looking at a large variety of 

 sources, accumulation of impacts from a variety of sources on a re- 

 gional basis. And second, that the science is sufficient and the con- 

 trol technologies are sufficient to get on with regional regulation. 

 That is the way I read the report basically. 



And while the Grand Canyon Visibility Transport Commission is 

 trying to address these issues on that basis and we support it and 

 we are working with it to the extent we can — although the Park 

 Service does not have a voting membership — we are, quite frankly, 

 concerned about the fact that the commission's program is very am- 

 bitious and very expensive, and we are concerned about the No- 

 vember 1995 deadline being met. And in the spirit of streamlining 

 and reinventing government, we have urged the commission to try 

 insofar as possible to use the results of the national academy study 

 to streamline its efforts to try to make sure that that deadline is 

 really met because that is key. 



If the deadline isn't met, and then EPA takes another 18 months 

 to look at these issues just for that one region, we will push the 

 development of regional haze regulations and rulemaking back an- 

 other 5 to 7 years. And we would not like to see that. So we are 

 very heartened with the commitment that has been made this 

 morning by EPA to try to begin to address the things that have to 

 be done to do regional haze regulations. We want to cooperate, we 

 want to assist, we want to be good partners in that, and we will 

 do that to the best of our abilities. 



One final note, Mr. Chairman, that hasn't been brought up this 

 morning, we also need to work with our partners across the borders 

 on these issues because increasingly even if we are able to make 

 progress, some of that progress in this country could be offset by 

 emissions from Mexico and Canada. And some of these recent 

 graphic presentations that I have shown — likely emission sources 

 affecting a number of parks and wilderness areas — Acadia National 

 Park, Glacier National Park, Chiricahua National Monument — and 



