[Congressional Record Volume 145, Number 129 (Wednesday, September 29, 1999)]
[House]
[Pages H9007-H9010]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                        OZONE POLLUTION IN MAINE

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaTourette). Under the Speaker's 
announced policy of January 6, 1999, the gentleman from Maine (Mr. 
Baldacci) is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority 
leader.
  Mr. BALDACCI. Mr. Speaker, the issue that I and other Members in the 
chamber are going to be talking about tonight is ozone pollution. 
Primarily it is pollution coming in from the Midwest from utilities and 
smoke-stack emissions that is, through the weather patterns, ending up 
turning Maine into the tailpipe, so to speak, for the Nation, and where 
you are sitting there at Acadia National Park, one of the most 
beautiful national monuments, and watching the lighthouses and lobster 
boats and recognizing that this past summer we had 12 days where there 
was an ozone problem and we have no industries, no industrial 
manufacturing of any kind, but it is coming in because of this ozone 
transport from utilities that are burning coal to generate power and 
going along in a weather pattern and pollution created all throughout 
that region.
  Now, this issue had been addressed in the Clean Air amendments that 
were passed in 1992 and these utilities were given exemptions because 
they were told at that particular time that they would be no longer in 
business. But because of improvements that they have been able to make 
in terms of their longevity, they are still going on and they are still 
polluting the air.
  Not only is this something that further undermines the competition 
for the region, because in the Northeast and in our State of Maine we 
have made the improvements to the industrial manufacturing sector and 
they have reduced the amount of pollution that the industries within 
our State and within our region make, but at the same time, because we 
have had to expend that money to clean up our air and our water and the 
region in the Midwest has not had to go through that where they have an 
economic competitive advantage.
  On top of that, the pollution that is created from this ozone 
transport is damaging the young people and their lungs, older people 
with asthmatic conditions. It is damaging our agricultural crops.
  The other ways that these emissions can harm our environment is that 
the nitrogen deposit into watershed contributes to the over 
fertilization of coastal and estuary water systems. Too much nitrogen 
in these water bodies result in increased algae growth, which limits 
the oxygen available to sustain fish and other aquatic life.
  Although contributions from the years vary from place to place, 
according to the EPA's Great Waters Report, an estimated 27 percent of 
nitrogen entering into the Chesapeake Bay can be attributed to air 
emissions. These nitrogen deposits over-fertilize the land; and when 
this happens, nitrogen can no

[[Page H9008]]

longer be stored in the soil and used by plants.

                              {time}  1430

  Instead, it leaches into the ground and surface waters, potentially 
contributing to elevated nitrogen levels in drinking waters. So we are 
seeing where it not only affects the health of young children, where it 
affects the health of people suffering from respiratory and asthmatic 
conditions, but it is also impacting upon our watersheds and 
environmentally impacting on our agricultural lands and action must be 
taken.
  EPA has the authority, it has been challenged in court in terms of 
their abilities, but still the underlying law has not been challenged 
and they have the ability under the 1-hour transport rule to be able to 
enforce these States, these industries that are not cleaning up their 
act and that are polluting our waterways and polluting our airways and 
further hampering the abilities of not just Maine but the Northeast, 
their business opportunities from being able to compete on a level 
playing field with industries wherever those industries may happen to 
be. This is the impact.
  So EPA has the authority under the existing laws and we are asking 
them through a Dear Colleague signed by Members of this body to the EPA 
to do their job. They have done a good job, we want to pat them on the 
back, but at the same time we want to make sure that they continue to 
do their job because people's lives and health depend on them enforcing 
this law. This is not something that we can wait until next year or the 
year after or until another Congress or until another executive is in 
office. It is something that needs to be done now. The people of Maine 
are suffering because of nothing that they have done, it is just that 
the weather patterns move from west to east, and the ozone that travels 
through those tall smokestacks have emitted into the Northeast and have 
created ozone conditions where, as I referred to, Acadia National Park 
in Maine has had pollution levels this year on par with Philadelphia. 
The Jersey shore and industrial Newark have had the same number of bad 
air days so far this year. Cape Cod's national seashore has had higher 
pollution levels and more bad air days than Boston and Indiana Dunes 
National Lakeshore, the remote Door County in Wisconsin and the Great 
Smokey Mountains National Park. This is a problem that has to be 
confronted.
  There was a negotiation that was going on between governors in the 
Northeast, and that has fallen apart, because the compromises that were 
being put forward were too compromising and pollution was not going to 
be able to be greatly impacted. So now what we are confronted with is 
basically having EPA do its job, enforce its laws and the regulations 
that it already has on the books.
  I recognize a colleague of mine, my good friend the gentleman from 
Maine (Mr. Allen) who has addressed many national issues in his terms 
in Congress and been a very effective Member of this body, has also 
sponsored legislation to get at this particular issue and other issues 
to make sure that our environment, our air and our water are cleaner, 
because the real determination and the real judgement that is placed on 
each of us as stewards is to make sure that the Earth and the resources 
that we have are in better condition for the next generation than they 
were for us, and I would ask him to make comments in regards to this 
legislation.
  I was reading a book that was provided by Richard Wilson and a few 
other editors, it is called ``Particles in the Air.'' In it, it talked 
about our first environmental stewardship that had taken place. It 
actually had taken place, it is not anything new and it is not anything 
radical, but it actually had taken place in 1272 when Edward I, who was 
an early environmentalist, banned the use of carbon from London because 
of the problem that the carbon pollution was having on the community in 
London. And then Edward II and the early history of the sea coals that 
were being burned to generate a fuel which was causing pollution.
  And so pollution control and cleanup is not something new, it has 
been something that has been going on for well over 400 or 500 years. 
There have always been these attempts to make sure that the air and 
water are cleaner because of the health impact, because of the impact 
on our natural resources, and to make sure as far as equity, making 
sure that we are not being treated any worse than any other region and 
our industrial manufacturers have an opportunity to compete, and they 
are being asked to clean up and they have cleaned up. They are asking 
to compete, and they have had to install environmental equipment, 
pollution equipment and other industries in other parts, the Midwest in 
particular, have not had to do this. It has put us at an economic 
disadvantage.
  I yield to my colleague who is here from Maine, a very effective 
Member of this body.
  Mr. ALLEN. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I really appreciate 
the gentleman from Maine calling this special order and giving us a 
chance to talk about what is an extraordinarily difficult and 
complicated problem for not just those of us in Maine but the entire 
Northeast.
  Basically to go over a little history which he may already have 
touched on, but in November of 1997, the Environmental Protection 
Agency proposed a rule to control the interstate transport of nitrogen 
oxides, which are a precursor to ozone smog. This call for State 
implementation plans, usually referred to as the NOX SIP 
call, was based upon the recommendations of the Ozone Transport 
Assessment Group which consisted of the 37 easternmost States and the 
District of Columbia. So that this proposal is not just New England or 
the Northeast but the 37 easternmost States and the District. The SIP 
call required the 22 downwind States to submit State implementation 
plans to reduce nitrogen oxide emissions. Maine was not one of the 
States that was covered, but our governor pledged to achieve the same 
reduction of nitrogen oxides as required in the SIP call States.
  In May of 1999, the D.C. Circuit Court struck down the NOX 
SIP call, if we can continue to speak in some jargon, by ruling that 
the Environmental Protection Agency did not have the authority to issue 
the regulations. But the Court cited a doctrine, described as the 
nondelegation doctrine, which had been dormant for almost 60 years. 
That is why I think there is good ground to believe that this decision 
could be overturned on appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.
  Negotiations between the Northeast States and the Midwest States to 
find a compromise in lieu of the NOX SIP call have broken 
down without an agreement.
  Now, in Maine we know that smog is not just an urban problem. We know 
that in the State of Maine, we are a rural State, we are not heavily 
developed, we only have 1.2 million people. We are as large as the rest 
of New England combined. Millions of tourists visit Maine every year, 
and we welcome them, and most of them come to enjoy our pristine 
natural resources. They come to hike, fish, boat and simply take in the 
majestic views of the Appalachian Trail or Acadia National Park. 
Imagine their surprise when on occasion they go to Acadia National Park 
and find the air is dirtier than what they left behind in the city.
  During the summer ozone season, southern Maine often exceeds EPA's 
health standard for ozone smog. In fact, this past summer, the 3 
million visitors to Acadia National Park would occasionally find that 
pollution levels there were on a par with those in the city of 
Philadelphia. And further down the Gulf of Maine, the Cape Cod National 
Seashore had twice the number of days where the ozone level exceeded 
standards as did the city of Boston.

  So what we have got here is an environmental issue but also an 
economic issue and a public health issue, because smog increases the 
instances of asthma in children and severely affects all people with 
respiratory problems. Even highly conditioned athletes experience a 25 
percent reduction in lung function on days that do not meet EPA's 
health standards for ozone. Some studies have shown that emergency room 
visits for respiratory problems double on bad ozone days, creating a 
greatly increased burden on our health care system.
  Now, the wind blows west to east. It always has, it always will. That 
is really why the pollution technology that is

[[Page H9009]]

adopted in the Midwest and the South affects those of us in the 
Northeast. As long as the wind blows west to east, New England will 
have an enormous stake in the smog that is created in the South and in 
the Midwest. If there is any area where we know that State action is 
not enough, it has to do with air pollution. We have no way of 
controlling the air that comes across our borders. Maine is doing 
everything it can to clean up its own air and water and make sure that 
on mercury, for example, where the State has taken action, but there is 
only so much we can do. This is a national problem. It calls for a 
nationwide approach to controlling air pollution.
  Mr. BALDACCI. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman is so accurate in terms of 
information and why this is a national issue, and to further reinforce 
that issue, when we talk about the prevailing winds and the emissions 
from unregulated power plants in the Midwest and South, it is estimated 
that they are responsible for approximately 30 to 40 percent of New 
England's background pollution. So we end up having to clean up our own 
industries, spending our own taxpayers' resources to make sure that we 
are in compliance, and then we end up having to shoulder the load that 
we are not even responsible for. So we end up getting punished more 
than twice in terms of health, the natural resource impact and the 
impact on the competitiveness of our industries because of this issue 
and because of its national nature.
  We are also putting forward a Dear Colleague to have the EPA do its 
work. The gentleman has legislation because this is a national issue. 
Maybe he wants to explain that legislation.
  Mr. ALLEN. I would be glad to do that. Again, I believe the gentleman 
is right. We have to encourage the EPA to take action. We have to 
encourage the Northeastern States and the Midwest States to continue to 
try to come together. But we also need a change in law.
  I have become convinced that it is irresponsible of this Congress to 
leave this critical environmental, economic and public health issue to 
be decided by these long dormant legal doctrines, long battles in 
court, battles in the EPA over the extent of its authority. Congress 
can and should deal with this issue now.
  Tomorrow, I am going to introduce legislation that I believe will 
take a major step forward. It is called the Clean Power Plant Act of 
1999. It deals directly with the largest source of industrial air 
pollution in the country, fossil fuel-fired power plants. In the 
Northeast, States have taken steps to reduce pollution from electric 
utilities, but nationwide the problem of utility pollution is 
overwhelming.
  Nearly three out of every four power plants in the U.S. are 
grandfathered from having to comply with the full standards of the 
Clean Air Act. These plants legally pollute at four to 10 times the 
rates that are required for new plants. When Congress passed the Clean 
Air Act 30 years ago, and then the Clear Air Act Amendments 10 years 
ago, it assumed that these grandfathered plants would be replaced, that 
they would become obsolete and new plants would be constructed that 
would be covered by clean air regulations. Well, it has not happened. 
What has happened is this: Because those plants do not have to meet new 
source performance standards, because they can pollute more than other 
plants, they have an economic incentive to stay in business, to keep 
running.
  Dirty power is often cheap power, and the economic advantage gained 
by these grandfathered plants has allowed them to survive much longer 
than Congress ever expected. Most of the power plants in the U.S. began 
operation in the 1960s or before, which is hardly surprising when we 
consider that their operating costs are often half as much as the cost 
of running a new, clean plant.
  If we are going to control air pollution, whether it is smog, mercury 
emissions, acid rain or greenhouse gases, we must close the grandfather 
loophole that allows these ancient plants to continue polluting.
  Tomorrow, I will introduce the Clean Power Plant Act of 1999, a bill 
that will set uniform standards for all utilities no matter when they 
began operation. It aims to replace or upgrade the oldest and dirtiest 
plants in the country and level the economic playing field so that new, 
clean generation can compete in a deregulated electricity market.
  My bill sets the same emission standards for nitrogen oxides that EPA 
included in its SIP call.

                              {time}  1445

  It covers four pollutants:
  Nitrogen oxides, sulfur dioxides, carbon dioxide, which is a major 
greenhouse gas and which we need to contain over time, and it is 
setting no higher standard there than was accepted by the Bush 
administration in the Rio negotiation; and finally, it covers mercury. 
Mercury is a pollutant, a heavy metal which is emitted into the air. It 
comes down hundreds of miles away from the source and has very serious 
effects on our fish, fresh water fish, and wildlife that consume fish; 
and so there are now 40 States in this country which have mercury 
advisories primarily advising pregnant women and children not to eat 
fresh water fish.
  Mr. Speaker, it is a looming crisis. We need to do something about 
it, and the legislation I am introducing tomorrow will be a major step 
forward. I want to thank my friend and colleague, the gentleman from 
Maine (Mr. Baldacci), for being a cosponsor of that legislation and for 
all that he is doing to try to make sure that we have a sensible 
national clean air policy that adapts to the situation we find 
ourselves in today, which is that these old grandfathered plans have 
stayed in practice, stayed in operation, much longer than we ever 
expected and are now contributing enormously to pollution in local 
areas around the country, but particularly in the Northeast where, as I 
say, Mr. Speaker, the wind blows all those emissions to.
  Mr. BALDACCI. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman for offering 
the legislation, comprehensive legislation that is being offered and 
that will be made available tomorrow and encourage all our Members of 
this body to sign on to that legislation and at the same time 
encouraging the courts and the EPA to continue on in the Dear Colleague 
letters that have been going through the Senate and the House.
  This is going to require sort of an effort in all quarters, and I 
think that we will be able to recognize that what we are talking about 
is we are talking about smoke stacks, utilities that are burning in an 
inefficient way coal; that because of the tall smoke stacks and because 
of the way weather travels, especially what is happening now with the 
heat in the summertime and creating an ozone condition, and that is 
primarily the prime ingredient of pollution and smog in our cities and 
towns; and what we need to work on to reduce its impact on children, 
respiratory conditions, asthmatic conditions of many people in talking 
about what is happening to our watersheds and to our agricultural 
lands.
  I was just looking at a report that was put forward by the New 
England Council, and in the New England Council's report they recognize 
that today, to illustrate the point, that all power plants in the 
Northeast are approximately 2.6 pounds per megawatt hour in terms of 
their emission while the emission rate from power plants in the Midwest 
is approximately 6.6 pounds per megawatt hour, nearly three times as 
much.
  You recognize that from the New England Council, business industry 
group recognizing that its industries in its areas that have made the 
improvements are being hampered in an unfair competition with 
industries that have not had to make the changes to clean up the 
environment. So it is good for business, it is good for the 
environment, and I believe it is good for the country to recognize that 
we have got to have comprehensive legislation. We have got to have 
Members signing on to the dear colleague letter, and we have got to say 
to the EPA: you have been doing a good job, but we need you to keep 
doing that job and recognizing that this is an important area issue for 
a lot more than just Maine, a lot more than the Northeast, but for the 
entire country. It is in the entire country's interest.
  As we talked about it before, in terms of the parks that have been 
impacted, the health effects that have gone on and to citing in Maine 
with a population of 1.2 million, one of the most sparsely populated 
States in the East, and Acadia with the pollution on

[[Page H9010]]

par with Philadelphia and in Rhode Island, coastal town of 
Narragansett, there are 8 dirty days, three times as many as there were 
in Providence, and even upstate Vermont have not escaped the dirty air 
this year.
  And it is showing impact into areas and communities and into the 
lives of children and families in that we need to make sure that the 
legislation that my colleague is offering, is co-sponsored by other 
Members and that Members are signing this Dear Colleague, that it is 
going to the EPA and to the administration to do their job and to 
recognize that they still have the authority in regards to this action 
as it pertains to the 1-hour rule that was not overruled by the court 
and to continue to require that these States be brought into 
conformance and that Maine not end up being the tail pipe for these 
kinds of inefficient, harmful pollutional industries that have been 
going on throughout the Midwest in particularly.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield to my colleague, the gentleman from Maine (Mr. 
Allen).
  Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Speaker, we have been talking so much about the 
Northeast because, after all, as my colleagues know, the wind, as I 
say, does blow west to east, so the Northeast is impacted. But it is 
worth pointing out, I think, that in many local areas where these 
grandfathered plants are in existence the local smog, the ozone, is a 
real health concern, and that can be true in the Midwest, in the South 
and in the West itself.
  Mr. Speaker, the reason for that is that many of these plants have 
been allowed to engage in what is called the ``cap-and-trade 
approach''; that is, they can effectively buy clean air credits without 
cleaning up their own plant, and they still get by and meet the 
existing standards. What I am trying to say in this legislation is that 
with respect to nitrogen oxides and sulfur dioxides, which produce 
ozone, smog and acid rain, there would not be any provision for capping 
and trading; so the result will be that many of the dirtiest plants 
scattered in the Midwest, in the South and the West itself, will have 
to be cleaned up. That will be an enormous advantage to people who live 
in those local areas.
  And so this is not just a Northeastern bill; this is a national bill. 
And I trust that many Members from around the country will be willing 
to support it, and I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. BALDACCI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for pointing that 
out because pollution is a national issue, requires a national 
solution, and its impact and benefits will be on a national basis. And 
to be able to make that point, I was just reading where the national 
parks, the millions of people that visit these particular parks that 
have been impacted by the ozone transport and increased smog and 
pollution and health risk, not just Acadia National Park in Maine, but 
Cape Cod, the Great Smoky National Park, Shenandoah National Park, 
Indiana's National Lakeshore Recreation Area, many other of these 
national parks and outdoor places where 2.7 million, 4.9 million, 9.3 
million, a million and a half people, each one has been able to go to 
those facilities to enjoy the outdoors and that quality of life.
  And Tennessee, the cradle of blues, rock and roll, and country music 
makes tourists in the Smoky Mountains sing a sad song about the smog 
they thought they left behind; in historic Virginia, George 
Washington's Mt. Vernon home as well as Colonial Williamsburg are 
suffering with pollution levels as great as our Nation's capital. Other 
Southern tourist destinations did not fare much better, Shenandoah's 
National Park and even remote Mt. Mitchell, and no relation I do not 
assume, but Mt. Mitchell in North Carolina have had unhealthy levels of 
ozone.
  So those are within the Southeast, within the West. They are talking 
about Salt Lake City, surrounded by mountains, has been trapped in 
pollution for 3 days this year. Houston, second only to L.A. in 
population in the West, also home to chemical and refining industries. 
It is not geared just to the Northeast, it is the Southeast, it is the 
West, it is the Midwest, the Midwest home to small town U.S.A., but in 
addition to agriculture areas is dotted with major industrial cities. 
Many folks in the upper Midwest spend their spare time recreating in 
these areas.
  So it is reinforcing my colleague's point about the national impact 
of this legislation, and I yield back to my colleague from Maine.
  Mr. ALLEN. As we are having this conversation, I was looking at a 
recent report, and there is something here that is directly on point. I 
thought I would mention it.
  Within the Ohio River Valley, this report says, there is a large and 
persistent area of high ozone during the summer months compared to air 
in other parts of the country, and in this region winds intermingle 
ozone pollution from different power plant fumes, as well as from other 
sources. Somewhat surprisingly, people living in the Ohio River Valley 
are exposed to higher average smog levels over a more prolonged period 
of time than people living in Chicago or Boston, and that goes back to 
what we have been talking about, that this is not just about the 
Northeast. If the smog in the Ohio River Valley, where a number of 
these plants are located is higher on average than the smog in Boston 
and Chicago, it is pretty clear we have got a national problem and it 
needs a national solution.
  Mr. BALDACCI. Mr. Speaker, if I can, just to reinforce the impacts of 
what we are talking about, children are most at risk. Children breathe 
even more air per pound of body weight than adults because children's 
respiratory systems are still developing; they are more susceptible 
than adults to environmental threats. Ground ozone is a summertime 
problem because of the heat and the combination of the pollution 
creating this, and children are outside playing and exercising during 
the summer months. Asthma is a growing threat to children. Children 
make up 25 percent of the population, and 40 percent of the cases of 
asthma are here. We are talking about 14 Americans dying every day from 
asthma, a rate three times greater than just 20 years ago.
  So we are talking about the pollution impacts, the impacts to 
individuals and communities. And I want to thank my colleague from 
Maine for introducing his comprehensive legislation and encouraging 
Members to sign onto it, and signing onto the Dear Colleague and making 
sure that the administration does its work, the courts do their work 
and that we do our work.

                          ____________________