Volume 152, No. 129 covering the 2nd Session of the 109th Congress (2005 - 2006) was published by the Congressional Record.
The Congressional Record is a unique source of public documentation. It started in 1873, documenting nearly all the major and minor policies being discussed and debated.
“HOLD EXPLANATION” mentioning the Environmental Protection Agency was published in the Senate section on pages S10961-S10962 on Nov. 15, 2006.
The publication is reproduced in full below:
HOLD EXPLANATION
Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I have placed a hold on the nomination of Roger A. Martella, Jr., to be general counsel of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Consistent with my policy of publicly announcing whenever I place a hold on a nomination, I want to notify my colleagues of my objection to allowing Mr. Martella's nomination to be considered under a unanimous consent agreement and to take a few minutes to explain to my colleagues why I am doing so.
After many years of delay, the EPA has finally proposed regulations under the Clean Air Act to protect Americans from toxic air pollutants from cars and trucks and other mobile sources. But instead of proposing a rule that would protect all Americans from these toxic emissions, EPA's proposal would essentially turn the Pacific Northwest into an environmental sacrifice zone.
EPA's analysis shows that the biggest risk from these pollutants comes from benzene which is naturally found in petroleum products and ends up in the gas tanks of our cars and in the gas cans in our garages. Some of the highest levels of benzene in gasoline are found in the Northwest. In fact, our region of the country has the highest average levels of benzene in gasoline in the United States, more than three times higher than gasoline here on the east coast.
Benzene is a known carcinogen. Exposure to benzene has been shown to cause leukemia and poses other health risks, such as genetic changes. Although the EPA has never set a health standard for benzene in the environment, the Department of Environmental Quality for the State of Oregon has, and we have levels of benzene in Downtown Portland that are 20 times higher than the State's standard. The majority of this benzene comes from gasoline. So it should be good news that EPA is finally acting to regulate the amount of benzene in gasoline.
Unfortunately, EPA has proposed a regulatory scheme that will simply not ensure that these levels are reduced as much as they need to be, and let me explain why.
First, EPA rejected the idea that there should be a maximum level of benzene in gasoline. The current Federal requirements for reformulated gasoline contain a maximum threshold for benzene. The State of California's fuel standards include a provision limiting the percentage of benzene in gasoline sold in California. Canada has a benzene limit. Korea has a benzene limit. Japan has a benzene limit. The European Union has a benzene limit. And according to a recent article in the industry trade press, Vietnam is going to establish a benzene limit. But not EPA.
Instead, what EPA has proposed is the establishment of a national average for benzene in gasoline. Every refinery or gasoline importer is theoretically supposed to sell gasoline that meets this average standard, but there is no maximum level and EPA has coupled this requirement to a credit-trading system. Under EPA's scheme, refineries that make gasoline below the standard will get credits that they can give away, trade, or sell to refineries which make gasoline above the standard. Many refineries that make gasoline with high benzene levels would never have to meet the EPA standard. And again, because under the EPA proposal there would be no maximum level of benzene in gasoline, many refineries are expected to make little, if any, reduction in the amount of benzene in their gasoline and rely instead on credits to meet the standard. According to EPA, five refineries producing gasoline over the EPA standard would take no action whatsoever to reduce their benzene levels.
The reason this is all so important is that Americans don't get their gasoline from a gasoline terminal filled with ``average'' gasoline. They get their gas from regional refineries and distributors. In Oregon, we get almost all of our gasoline from refineries on Puget Sound in the State of Washington--refineries which, for the most part, produce gasoline with high benzene levels. Even if everything worked as EPA intended, benzene levels in gasoline in the Northwest would be 40 percent above the national standard. However, the plain fact is that there is no assurance that gasoline in our region will be cleaner because EPA leaves the decision of whether the refineries in Puget Sound reduce their benzene levels up to the companies that own those refineries. If oil companies decide that it is in their economic interest to simply buy their way to compliance by using credits instead of investing in equipment that will actually reduce the amount of benzene in our gas, EPA says they can. The only thing that EPA will care about is that those companies have begged, borrowed, or bought enough credits to meet the national average. And we will continue to have the same high levels of benzene we have now. In fact, without any sort of overall cap on the amount of benzene that can be in gasoline, benzene levels in our gasoline in the Northwest could even go up.
I have focused my remarks on the impact that this proposal has on the Northwest, but it is not just a problem for the Northwest. Other parts of the country will also have gasoline with benzene levels over the national standard, and without any maximum level of benzene no American can be sure of how much benzene might be in their gasoline and in the air they breathe.
I also want to emphasize again that under the EPA approach, it will be the oil companies that decide whether they reduce their benzene levels at any given refinery, not EPA. If EPA's analysis is correct, a single major oil company, which EPA identifies only as ``Company No. 2,'' would be responsible for producing more than a third of all of the gasoline exceeding the proposed national benzene standard. Rather than make the investment in benzene control and removal technology, EPA, from the beginning, simply expects this company to use credits to meet the standard for all of this high benzene gasoline. Who is Company No. 2 and why is EPA proposing to give them this license to pollute?
This would all be bad enough if EPA hadn't actually thought about these problems. They acknowledged in their rulemaking process that there would be regional inequities. They examined alternatives for setting maximum levels of benzene that should be in gasoline. In one case, they looked at the additional cost to Americans of imposing an average maximum level of benzene of 1.3 percent as part of the standard in order to address these problems. EPA's own analysis concluded that this would cost consumers in my region of the country less than one-
half of 1 cent a gallon and Americans, nationwide, an additional 5/
1000ths of a cent per gallon of gasoline. That is not five cents. That is .005 cents. The bottom line is that EPA is proposing to allow my constituents to breathe more toxic emissions and face greater risk of cancer so that oil companies can save a fraction of a cent per gallon of gas.
I am not going to sit back and let EPA just go ahead with this rulemaking without complaint. The Office of General Counsel is the chief legal advisor to EPA. Mr. Martella was the principal deputy general counsel when this rule was proposed. He is now the acting general counsel. I am placing a hold on his nomination to send as strong a signal to EPA as I can at this time that they need to take another look at their own figures. They need to take another look at their own regulatory analysis. The regional problems that they identified would occur in setting up a national cap-and-trade program are real problems and must not be ignored. They need to come up with a real solution. Until they do, I will object to any unanimous consent agreement to allow Mr. Martella's nomination to come to a vote in the Senate.
____________________
Alerts Sign-up