[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 145 (1999), Part 16]
[House]
[Pages 23141-23144]
[From the U.S. 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 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
[[Page 23142]]
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 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
[[Page 23143]]
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 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,
[[Page 23144]]
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.
____________________