[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 137 (Saturday, September 28, 1996)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E1771]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                           EPA'S CLUSTER RULE

                                 ______
                                 

                      HON. SANFORD D. BISHOP, JR.

                               of georgia

                    in the house of representatives

                       Friday, September 27, 1996

  Mr. BISHOP. Mr. Speaker, the EPA's proposed cluster rule for the pulp 
and paper industry is something we in Congress need to take a look at. 
First proposed in 1993, it was the first time the EPA had ever 
attempted to cluster an air and a water rule for the same industry. The 
theory was that regulatory synergies could be achieved and a 
duplication cold be avoided if the regulatory decisions were made 
together. It was a good idea, and even the industry supports the 
concept.
  Unfortunately, however, as is too often the case, theory and practice 
did not coincide. Instead of providing regulatory synergy, the cluster 
rule simply burdened industry and its workers with separate rules with 
nearly identical compliance deadlines. Some requirements of one rule 
would have created compliance problems with the other rule. And the 
rule would have had a devastating impact on the industry. Over 100,000 
jobs would have been affected by the rule, and the compliance costs 
would have exceeded $11 billion.
  The pulp and paper industry is very important to my district and my 
State of Georgia. According to the information compiled by the American 
Forest & Paper Association, the pulp and paper industry employ 33,000 
people in Georgia, with another 38,000 workers in the forestry, lumber, 
and wood products sectors. Total payroll for this combined industry in 
Georgia is over $2 billion. Over 200 facilities in Georgia manufacture 
7 million tons of paper and paperboard annually, with a value of $7\1/
2\ billion.
  I am pleased to report that since 1993, the industry and EPA have 
worked closely together to gather new information to fill data gaps in 
the Agency's information profile for the industry. The industry 
proposed an alternative compliance scheme which has comparable 
environmental benefits as the one proposed by EPA but at far less cost. 
EPA also worked closely with other stakeholders in the rulemaking 
process and in July of this year, published in the Federal Register a 
new notice for the cluster rule. In this notice, EPA acknowledges its 
receipt of the industry's alternative and outlines the choices it is 
facing. In August, I joined my colleagues in Georgia in encouraging EPA 
to adopt option A in the July notice. We also encouraged EPA to allow 
more flexibility in the best management practices [EMP's] provision and 
to modify the incentives program to make it truly meaningful. I remain 
cautiously optimistic that EPA will do the right thing.
  I thank the EPA for its willingness to work with the industry, their 
workers, and other stakeholders, in making changes to the rulemaking 
procedure. If successful, the outcome of the cluster rule could serve 
as a model for future regulatory reform efforts.

                          ____________________