-36 Conference Report The Conference Report adopts the structure of the House version, but makes some significant changes. It reduces the lead-time to four years. And it sets percentage reduction targets for an earlier date. The NOX target is more stringent and less attainable -. than the House version. These changes represent, in our view, a significant shift from the logic of the program which we think will work most effectively. Even more significantly the Conference Report provides for administrative authority to impose penalties, but does not mandate them. While such an approach is acceptable, this congressional decision to leave open the penalty issue weakens the overall program. In addition, should the EPA decide not to use the penalty approach to enforcement, the Conference Report contains no clear mandate for enforcement production conformity standards. In summary, we would not oppose adoption of the Conference Report; but we do see it as a less effective regulatory program than we recommend. Enclosed are several copies of a statement presenting Deere & Company's concerns about the particulate emissions limits in the proposed nonsignificant deterioration provisions of the Clean Air Act amendments. The statement also makes two suggestions for modifying the proposed legislation to make the particulate and other limits more reasonable. We would like to request that you printed hearings on this subject. our request. include the statement as part of your Thank you for your consideration of Very truly yours, When Charle Wade P. Clarke WPC/fam Enclosures 7 February 1977 DEERE & COMPANY COMMENTS AND SUGGESTIONS CONCERNING THE NON-SIGNIFICANT DETERIORATION PROVISIONS OF THE CLEAN AIR ACT AMENDMENTS SUMMARY Deere & Company is greatly concerned that the emission limits--particularly the particulate emission limits--imposed by the proposed non-significant deterioration provisions of the Clean Air Act amendments will place an excessive economic burden on many U.S. companies. The limits proposed in last year's legislation were much more stringent than those proposed by the EPA itself. They would have required Deere and many other companies to significantly reduce the size of proposed new facilities. For example, we estimate that we will have a requirement to expand our grey iron foundry capacity by 160,000 tons of castings a year in the relatively near future. We already have a facility capable of producing this quantity of castings, and a number of foundries the same size or larger are currently in operation in the U.S. The U.S. EPA has confirmed our findings that if we were to build a facility capable of producing this amount of castings and incorporating the best available control technology, it would emit one-third more particulates than would have been allowed under last year's compromise legislation and over three times more than would have been allowed by last year's Senate bill. To comply with last year's compromise legislation, only a facility onefourth smaller could be built. To comply with last year's Senate bill only a facility three-tenths the size could be built. Extremely serious economic penalties would result from such size regulations. When over eighty-five percent of the particulate emissions in the U.S. continue to come from open burning, street and road dust and other sources which remain completely uncontrolled, the imposition of such severe economic penalties on U.S. industries appears highly inappropriate. We recommend that the non-significant deterioration provisions be modified to provide that: Page two 1. 2. the maximum allowable emission increments established by the bill are those which have been proposed by the EPA and are contained in current EPA regulations. a proposed facility will meet the maximum emission limits imposed by the legislation if it can be demonstrated that the facility will meet the limits under the normal atmospheric conditions which exist on 95 percent of the days of the year. Last year's compromise bill required the limits to be met under atmospheric conditions existing on all but the very worst day of the year. DISCUSSION The following discussion outlines the reasons for our recommendations. Because we are particularly concerned about the maximum particulate emissions limits in the proposed legislation, the discussion focuses on these limits to illustrate our concerns. 1. Current federal efforts to control particulate emissions focus almost entirely on major industry sources. By doing so, they deal with only a small part of the overall problem. Over 85% of nationwide particulate emissions are from sources amendments will not change this. The EPA has yet to implement a national program designed to Zero emissions from all post 1975 controlled industrial sources Use of the best available emissions control technology on all concentrations only 1.5% by 1985. (1) Windblown dust can comprise as much as 90% of total ambient particulate concentrations. (1) McCutchen, Regulatory Aspects of Fugitive Emissions, reported in EPA document 600/2-76-246, Symposium on Fugitive Emissions Measurement and Control, May 1976, Hartford, Ct. (Sept. 1976) pp 17-30. Page three 2. The proposed legislation would impose overly restrictive limits on The proposed maximum allowable emission limits are far more to protect public health and welfare. They are also far more 3. Last year's compromise bill required that the maximum emission The proposed legislation requires inclusion of industrial The maximum emissions limits in the proposed legislation can |