[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 124 (Wednesday, September 11, 1996)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E1564]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                          THE EPA CLUSTER RULE

                                 ______
                                 

                         HON. ALAN B. MOLLOHAN

                            of west virginia

                    in the house of representatives

                     Wednesday, September 11, 1996

  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Speaker, I want to join my colleagues in support of 
the direction taken by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency on the 
Cluster Rule for the pulp and paper industry. On behalf of my 
constituents who are employed by the paper and forest products 
industry--one of West Virginia's five major economic sectors--I urge 
the EPA to promptly finalize a Cluster Rule.
  I am very pleased that on July 15, 1996, the EPA published in the 
Federal Register information on two technology options for final 
guidelines for bleached papergrade kraft and soda mills based on best 
available technology under the Cluster Rule. In this notice, the EPA 
stated that complete substitution of chlorine dioxide, identified as 
Option A in the proposal, should be given the same consideration as 
oxygen delignification coupled with complete substitution of chlorine 
dioxide, identified as Option B. In fact, the EPA stated in this 
proposal that ``both options appear to reduce dioxins and furans in 
wastewaters to concentrations at or below the current analytical 
minimum levels.''
  In the first district of West Virginia, about 900 people are employed 
at the Luke Pulp and Paper Mill. Luke, which meets the requirements of 
Option A, is one of the Nation's largest paper mills. I understand that 
Option B would cost this mill, which in the past 5 years has spent over 
$45 million on environmental protection improvements, an additional 
$100 million.
  I compliment and thank the Agency for the direction they have taken 
to provide for the fullest possible protection of the environment while 
at the same time ensuring that the final rule will not place on 
unreasonable cost burden on the pulp and paper industry. This approach 
demonstrates regulatory flexibility at its best.
  I rise to join my colleagues in an endorsement of Option A.

                          ____________________