[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 124 (Wednesday, September 11, 1996)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E1584]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




            THE CLUSTER RULE FOR THE PULP AND PAPER INDUSTRY

                                 ______
                                 

                          HON. JAMES A. HAYES

                              of louisiana

                    in the house of representatives

                     Wednesday, September 11, 1996

  Mr. HAYES. Mr. Speaker, since it was first proposed in 1993, I have 
been one of the most outspoken critics of the Environmental Protection 
Agency [EPA] effort to institute comprehensive regulations of air 
emission and water effluent limitations for the pulp and paper 
industry.
  The Clean Air Act of 1990 mandates the EPA set standards based upon 
maximum achievable control technology [MACT] for new and existing 
standards for 189 hazardous pollutants listed in the act. Similarly, 
the Clean Water Act authorizes the EPA to regularly amend effluent 
requirements that establish restrictions on the types and volume of 
pollutants that industrial facilities may discharge. Subsequently, in 
October 1993, EPA promulgated rules specifically designed to combine or 
cluster these requirements with respect to regulating the pulp and 
paper industry. This so-called cluster rule has become a prime example 
of how Federal regulators lose sight of the big picture and waste 
taxpayers dollars by working against the regulated community instead of 
with it to protect the environment.
  Since agreeing to analyze industry collected data, the process has 
accelerated and run much more smoothly and unobtrusively. Yet, EPA is 
at it again by offering two possible best available technology [BAT] 
alternatives that their own data indicates are almost $1 billion apart 
for virtually identical environmental benefit. Substantial further 
investments in capital improvements without accounting for industry 
input will further jeopardize workers and their families for negligible 
environmental gain.
  The substitution of chlorine dioxide for chlorine or Option A is 
already voluntarily being implemented across the country to enhance 
environmental effectiveness and is supported by both employers and 
employees throughout the pulp and paper industry. Although never a 
consequential source of dioxins, since 1985, the industry has decreased 
the amount of dioxins generated by almost 90 percent. The more costly 
options B could end up costing pulp, paper, and forestry operations in 
Louisiana alone an estimated $133 million more than option A.
  The pulp, paper, and forestry industry is the second largest 
manufacturing sector in Louisiana. The industry employs nearly 27,000 
workers earning almost $900 million.
  Common sense, therefore, dictates that an industry that is this 
important to the past, present, and certainly the future economic good 
fortune of our State and its citizens merits praise, not punishment. 
The industry has been progressive in its commitment to the stewardship 
of our natural resources in Louisiana. Option A along with the 
appropriate voluntary incentive program will afford the pulp, paper, 
and forestry industry, employers and workers alike, the opportunity to 
better contribute to Louisiana's economy, provide for their families, 
and protect our environment. After all, in Louisiana, our marshes, our 
rivers, and our bayous as well as our great wilderness and the wildlife 
that resides there are not only a recreational delight but an economic 
necessity.
  With all this in mind, I urge EPA to break from its inherent 
institutional culture and institute option A.

                          ____________________