Date: 2007-06-26
Speaker: EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: Texas

Mr. Chairman. before I begin. I would like to commend the gentleman from Washington and Chairman DICKS and the gentleman from Kansas for their good work on this underlying bill. The amendment I offered today stems directly from concerns I have over a recently proposed rule by the Environmental Protection Agency that could radically alter the current interpretation of the Clean Air Act and adversely impact public health. On December 21 last year. 4 days before Christmas. EPA introduced a cleverly timed proposal that would essentially weaken hazardous air pollutant emission standards for major sources of pollution as defined by section 112 of the Clean Air Act. My amendment would prohibit the use of fiscal year 2008 funds by EPA to promulgate this illadvised and environmentally dangerous proposal. Currently. major sources. major source polluters. facilities thAt emit 10 tons per year of a single air toxin or 25 tons per year of any combination of toxic pollutants are required to comply with the Maximum Achievable Control Technology standards. called MACT. permanently. a policy adopted in 1995 known as Once In. Always In." MACT standards are technologybased area emission standards established under title 3 of the 1990 Clean Air Act amendment. Compliance with MACT standards can require facility owners and operators to meet emission limits. install emission control technologies. monitor emissions and/or operating parameters and use specified work practices. These public safeguard standards have proven most effective in reducing toxic. harmful. cancercausing eye pollutants such as mercury. chlorine. benzene. methanol and asbestos. If EPAs proposed rule were to take effect. industrial facilities could emit hazardous air pollutants at levels just below 10/25 major sourc.e thresholds and not be subject to the MACT standards. This move has been criticized by the State clean air agencies. our regional officers. our major metropolitan leaders. as well as the county leaders and environmental groups. A majority of EPAs own regional offices initially excluded from viewing and providing input on the proposed policy have been highly critical of the proposed rule citing health and emission concerns. EPA has done very little to justify such a dramatic shift in congressional intent or the agencys own longstanding interpretation. Moreover. the Agency has performed very little. if any. substantive emissions analysis. and they have performed"no public health analysis for any industrial sector. In my view the Agencys proposed rule represents another installment of regulatory attacks designed to gut the Clean Air Act. The public health of this Nation should not be forced to take the back seat to the interest of big polluters. The congressional authorities captured in section 112 of Clean Air Act are intended to ensure that major source emitters of hazardous air pollutants are required to comply with MACT standards permanently to ensure that the elimination of air toxics are achieved and maintained in the interest of public health. In 1995. upon adoption of the "once in. always in" policy. EPA stated the following: "EPA believes that this once in. always -in policy follows most naturally from the language and structure of the [Clean Air Act] statute. In many cases. application of MACT will reduce a major emitters emissions to levels substantially below the major thresholds. "Without a once in. always in policy. these facilities could "backslide from MACT control. levels by obtaining potentialtoemit limits. escaping applicability of the MACT standard. and increasing emissions to the major source threshold. "Thus. the maximum achievable emission reductions that Congress mandated from major sources would not be achieved. "A once in. always in policy ensures that MACT emission reductions are permanent. and that the health and environment protection provided by MACT standards is not undermined." In the Federal Register. the Agency raged on and on about how great the proposed rule is for major source polluters. because it will create incentives for indiistry to reduce emissions.