15 developed and justified, there is a record of compliance. The minimal extra time required by the adoption of this recommendation would be balanced by accelerated implementation. EPA has reported in its budget hearings that it is short of both funds and personnel for the implementation of this important regulatory program. However, unless the procedures to formulate regulations are adequately set forth, all the money and personnel will be wasted in the resulting confusion and delay. Formal hearings will enable EPA to learn beforehand the objections of industry and, in turn, will permit industry to question EPA officials as to the methods used in arriving at proposed rules. If the proposed requirements are sound, they can be easily justified. The determination of deficiencies in the rulemaking at an early point in the regulatory process would save time and manpower necessary to correct inadequacies at a later date. b) In a similar vein, a regulation should not remain immune to challenge beyond the 30-day period as presently permitted by the Act. Most companies, especially small firms which comprise the bulk of our membership, do not have adequate research capabilities to develop sufficient data to challenge rules within such a short period. When EPA can spend months developing a justification, it is patently unfair to limit a small company to Congress should also provide more adequate time in which a company's defense of an enforcement proceeding must be filed in keeping with the recent recommendation of the Administrative Conference of the United States. c) One of the major reasons the Clean Air Act is not appreciated by many small businessmen is because it requires them to meet a moving target. Once a small plant operator has installed equipment that EPA says is necessary to meet the required emission limitations, he should not have to face a changes requirement, necessitating increased expenditures, within a short period of time. However, this has been an all-too-common occurrence. CEQ has noted the requirement of add-on equipment which has closed plants, causing the unemployment of 17,000 people. Since the government has estimated that it costs $40,000 to produce one job in manufacturing, this represents a minimum total economic impact of about $680 million. This again reinforces the need for determining the validity of these standards. This is an example of double jeopardy, which is an athema to our way of life. We urge the Subcommittee to provide language in its new legislation to bring relief to these small businessmen. Small businessmen should not face additional emission requirements until they have at least been able to amortize their initial investment. d) Flexibility is also needed to permit intermittent controls where ambient standards are not being violated. Emission requirements equalling the "best available control technology" should not be applied to sources, in terms of requiring continuous full operation of pollution control technology. The demands of EPA for duplicate abatement controls to meet the continuous operational requirements are not based on an analysis of the expected adverse effect if the control is operated at less than 100% effective operation. Rather, such controls are required solely for treatment's sake. Meanwhile, the arbitrary requirements for these duplicate or "fail-safe" controls extend the cost far beyond commensurate health benefits. In many instances this cost would be sufficient to force the operation to close. It should also be noted that when duplicate controls are required for a large facility, such as a smelter, it can result in not only the closure of the smelter, but the satellite industries as well. This can cause the bankruptcy of the local economy. Additionally, power plants in areas where the NAAQS are already being met should be permitted to use intermittent controls which have been adequately demonstrated, here or abroad, as sufficient to ensure the maintenance of the standards. Dr. Ferris 17 of the Harvard School of Public Health has conducted studies at a TVA power plant in Tennessee, using the alternative control method of "tall stacks." He found that by replacing a 350' smokestack with a 1000' one, the health effects on the surrounding communities were greatly reduced. What is the purpose of the Act, to protect public health or simply to reduce emissions? e) Finally, we strongly oppose Section 36 of S. 252. We see no basis for automatically providing court costs and attorneys fees for parties prevailing in litigation pursuant to the Act. If such parties represent a widespread public interest, they should be able to finance themselves. In addition, those objecting to a project should be subject to the increased costs resulting from the delays of the project if their arguments are found without merit. CONCLUSION The new Administration has already shown an understanding that concern for our environment requires more than air and water pollution control standards if we are to provide for an enhanced "quality of life." The Congress has shown a similar recognition. Now is the time for the Subcommittee to put pollution control in proper balance with employment, energy, and inflation. 84-239 O 77-31 GUMMINS ENGINE COMPANY, INC. COLUMBUS, INDIANA February 15, 1977 The Honorable Edmund S. Muskie Subcommittee on Environmental United States Senate Washington, D.C. 20510 Dear Senator Muskie: Cummins Engine Company has prepared a document explaining its views on regulating emissions from heavy-duty vehicles. We are herewith submitting three copies of it in connection with the Subcommittee's hearings on amendments to the Clean Air Act. We respectfully request that this document be included in the public record of the hearings which took place February 9-11, 1977. G.L.01son/sr Attachments Sincerely, Gerald & Obon Executive Director Government and Community Relations |