[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 145 (1999), Part 15]
[House]
[Page 22274]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



  EPA MUST ENSURE THAT ALL STATES LIVE BY THE SAME EMISSION STANDARDS

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the 
gentleman from Maine (Mr. Baldacci) is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. BALDACCI. Mr. Speaker, I rise to talk about clean air, 
grandfathered smokestacks in the Midwest, air transport of emissions, 
and smog in the Northeast.
  It is an especially good day to raise this issue. The summer has come 
to an end and the ozone levels in Maine exceeded Federal standards a 
dozen days this summer. This did not happen at measuring stations and 
traffic clogged cities.
  I am talking about Port Clyde. It is a fishing village at the tip of 
a peninsula that juts out from the Gulf of Maine and a good 2 hours 
from the interstate.
  I am talking about the top of Cadillac Mountain. It is the crest of 
Acadia National Park, and there is not a smokestack in sight. Acadia 
National Park has had a pollution level this year on par with 
Philadelphia.
  This is all being created by ozone. Ozone is created in a complex 
chemical reaction due to smokestacks emissions in the Midwest of 
exempted and grandfathered coal-fired generating plants. And as it 
travels through the weather patterns into the Northeast, along with the 
sun and the heat, the combination creates ozone. So as my colleagues 
may know, Maine is in the downwind of every State, and therein lies the 
problem. States upwind of the Northeast, which may be in attainment, 
contribute to the ozone pollution in our region.
  With the clean air amendments that were passed in 1990, Congress 
acknowledged the phenomenon of pollution transport and the political 
and scientific difficulty of the problem. A mechanism to find a 
workable solution was created. These tools permitted the EPA to 
establish the ozone transport assessment group to recommend ways to 
reduce ozone transport in the Northeast.
  From these recommendations, EPA may issue rules requiring States to 
tighten ozone control to prevent the transport of ozone. These are 
known as the State implementation plans, or SIP. In addition, 
individual States may petition the EPA to force States suspected of 
contributing to their problem to reduce the offending emissions.
  I am proud to represent a State that has been a leader in the attempt 
to reduce ozone pollution, which may be more commonly known as smog. It 
rises when emissions from power plants and cars combine with heat and 
sunshine. In the Northeast, we have been reducing our emissions on an 
average between 2.5 and 2.6 pounds of emissions per megawatt hour, 
whereas in the Midwest it is still in excess of 6.6 pounds.
  In the Northeast, we have complied with the regulations; we have made 
the investments. The industries have gone ahead and done what they were 
supposed to have done, and have been at a competitive disadvantage, but 
have followed the letter of the law. All we are asking for today, and 
tomorrow with a dear colleague to Members here in this body, and 
Members in the Senate that have completed a dear colleague, and 
signatures to the EPA, is to enforce the regulations which they already 
have on the books. We are not asking for any new laws. We are not 
asking for any new approaches. We are simply saying to adhere to the 
law that is there.
  EPA deserves a pat on the back for the work that they have done in 
bringing this issue to the forefront. They have the administrative 
capabilities to implement and to finish the action which they started. 
As a matter of fact, today in a conversation in our office with the 
EPA, I was told that they have promulgated regulations, which I will 
submit for the record, which will take effect on November 30, 1999 and 
will allow for a 2- or 3-month window beyond that time period before 
they will require the States to have a plan to reduce their emissions 
so that we can reduce our ozone pollution, so that we can reduce the 
threat to respiratory asthmatics and others with health conditions not 
to mention the environmental conditions of our land and our watersheds 
and the infecting of our crops where we see that the continued 
pollution is causing tremendous economic and social and health costs to 
all of our citizens.
  This is not just within Maine or within New England. We are looking 
at the New Jersey shore, an industrial park in Newark; we are looking 
at the Indiana Dunes National Lakeshore, a popular vacation spot on 
Lake Michigan; we are looking at the remote Door County in Wisconsin, a 
popular vacation get-away in the Midwest, which has been plagued with 
twice as many dirty days as Milwaukee; and the Great Smoky National 
Park South by Atlanta.
  So this is a problem that is national in scope. The EPA has the tools 
to do the work. My colleague, the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Allen), has 
initiated legislation, and in working towards that effort, we are going 
to continue to put the full focus and force on EPA to do their work.
  Mr. Speaker, I am providing for the Record the information regarding 
EPA's promulgation of a rule.
       The EPA expects to promulgate a final rule based on this 
     proposal on or before November 30, 1999, when the interim 
     stay expires. To address the possibility of any delay of this 
     final rulemaking, however, EPA is also taking comment on an 
     extension of the interim final stay of the April 30 NFR in 
     the event that EPA needs more time to complete the final 
     rule. The EPA does not expect to need to promulgate such an 
     extension, but if it were necessary, EPA anticipates that a 
     two- or three-month extension should suffice. Providing for a 
     possible extension, if necessary, ensures that the automatic 
     trigger deadlines now in place will not become effective 
     through a lapse in the stay before EPA completes this 
     rulemaking. Under this schedule, the 3-year compliance 
     schedule for source subject to an affirmative finding would 
     still be triggered in time to ensure that the intended 
     emissions reductions are achieved by the start of the 2003 
     ozone season, as described in the April 30 NFR.

     

                          ____________________